[DOCID: f:hr532.105]
From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
<DOC>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
105th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES               105-532
_______________________________________________________________________
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
                               __________
                              R E P O R T
                                 OF THE
                     COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                   ON
                               H.R. 3616
                             together with
                      ADDITIONAL, DISSENTING, AND
                           SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
  May 12, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                            -----------
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-245                     WASHINGTON : 1998
                  HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                       One Hundred Fifth Congress
               FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman
BOB STUMP, Arizona                   IKE SKELTON, Missouri
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio                 JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia             Carolina
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                LANE EVANS, Illinois
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
STEVE BUYER, Indiana                 NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida            MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JAMES TALENT, Missouri               JANE HARMAN, California
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama               PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California   ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky                  SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma            TOM ALLEN, Maine
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          JIM TURNER, Texas
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia             F. ALLEN BOYD, Jr., Florida
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North          JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
    Carolina                         MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
JIM RYUN, Kansas                     CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey           (VACANCY)
BOB RILEY, Alabama
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
BILL REDMOND, New Mexico
KAY GRANGER, Texas
                    Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S
                              ----------
                                                                   Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     1
Purpose..........................................................     2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill.............................     2
  Summary Table of Authorizations................................     3
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................     9
  The Strains of Shaping.........................................    10
  Preparing for an Uncertain Future..............................    11
  Responding to a Crisis.........................................    13
  Managing Risk..................................................    15
Hearings.........................................................    17
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION..................    19
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    19
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    19
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    22
      Overview...................................................    22
      Items of Special Interest..................................    25
        Airborne avionics........................................    25
        Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)........................    25
        Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)...................    25
        Army airborne command and control system (A2C2S).........    26
        Army helicopter modernization plan.......................    26
        C-12 modifications.......................................    27
        CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications.....................    27
        Endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)..................    27
        Kiowa warrior modifications..............................    28
        UH-60L blackhawk.........................................    28
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    28
      Overview...................................................    28
      Items of Special Interest..................................    31
        Enhanced fiber optic guided missile (EFOGM)..............    31
        Javelin..................................................    31
        Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems....    31
    Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................    31
      Overview...................................................    31
      Items of Special Interest..................................    34
        Bradley base sustainment.................................    34
        Bradley base sustainment/command and control vehicle
          (C2V)..................................................    34
        M1 abrams tank modification..............................    34
        M-240 series machine gun.................................    35
        M4 carbine...............................................    35
    Ammunition Procurement, Army.................................    35
      Overview...................................................    35
      Items of Special Interest..................................    39
        Ammunition...............................................    39
        Arsenals.................................................    39
        Non-toxic frangible ammunition...........................    39
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    40
      Overview...................................................    40
      Items of Special Interest..................................    48
        Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)...............    48
        Close combat tactical trainer (CCTT).....................    48
        Co-site interference mitigation technology...............    48
        Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)................    48
        Forward entry device (FED)...............................    49
        Ground based common sensor (GBCS)........................    49
        High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)/HMMWV
          extended service plan (ESP)............................    49
        Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint
          STARS) common ground station (CGS).....................    50
        Joint tactical terminal..................................    50
        Land warrior.............................................    50
        Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)..................    51
        Night vision devices.....................................    51
        Nonsystem training devices...............................    51
        Shortstop................................................    52
        Small pusher tug.........................................    52
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army..............    52
      Overview...................................................    52
      Item of Special Interest...................................    54
        Chemical agents and munitions destruction................    54
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    54
      Overview...................................................    54
      Items of Special Interest..................................    58
        AV-8B....................................................    58
        AH-1W night targeting system (NTS).......................    58
        EA-6B modifications......................................    58
        EP-3E flat panel display.................................    59
        ES-3 modifications.......................................    59
        F-14 modifications.......................................    59
        F/A-18E/F................................................    59
        Joint primary air training system (JPATS)................    60
        Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly
          (LESPA)................................................    60
        T-45TS...................................................    61
        V-22.....................................................    61
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    61
      Overview...................................................    61
      Items of Special Interest..................................    66
        Close-in weapon system (CIWS) surface mode upgrade.......    66
        Standard missile.........................................    66
    Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps....................    66
      Overview...................................................    66
      Item of Special Interest...................................    69
        Marine corps ammunition..................................    69
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    69
      Overview...................................................    69
      Items of Special Interest..................................    72
        Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension
          program (SLEP).........................................    72
        LPD-17...................................................    72
        National defense features................................    72
        New attack submarine (NSSN)..............................    73
        Strategic sealift........................................    73
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    73
      Overview...................................................    73
      Items of Special Interest..................................    82
        AN/BPS-15(H) submarine navigation radar upgrade..........    82
        AN/SQQ-89 surface anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combat
          system.................................................    82
        AN/USC-42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA)
          ultra-high frequency (UHF) satellite communications
          (SATCOM) terminals.....................................    82
        Beamhit laser marksmanship training system (LMTS)........    83
        Cooperative engagement capability (CEC)..................    83
        Weapons range support....................................    83
        WSN-7 ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN-2 doppler sonar
          velocity log (DSVL)....................................    84
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    85
      Overview...................................................    85
      Items of Special Interest..................................    89
        Marine corps electronic warfare support system...........    89
        Marine corps tactical intelligence equipment.............    89
        Medium tactical vehicle replacement (MTVR)...............    89
        Unit cost growth.........................................    90
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................    90
      Overview...................................................    90
      Items of Special Interest..................................    95
        Bomber modernization.....................................    95
        C-130J...................................................    95
        CV-22....................................................    95
        E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system
          (STARS)................................................    96
        F-15 modifications.......................................    96
        F-16.....................................................    97
        F-16 modifications.......................................    97
        Global hawk..............................................    97
        Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)...........    98
        Miscellaneous production charges.........................    98
        Navigational safety upgrades.............................    98
        Pacer coin...............................................    99
    Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................    99
      Overview...................................................    99
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   102
      Overview...................................................   102
      Items of Special Interest..................................   105
        AGM-165 maverick modifications...........................   105
        Global positioning system................................   105
        Inertial upper stage.....................................   105
        Medium launch vehicle....................................   105
        Minuteman gyro stabilized platform.......................   105
        Minuteman III modifications..............................   106
        Titan space boosters.....................................   106
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   106
      Overview...................................................   106
      Items of Special Interest..................................   113
        Base information infrastructure..........................   113
        Rangeless air combat training system (RACTS).............   113
        Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment.......   113
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   114
      Overview...................................................   114
      Items of Special Interest..................................   119
        Automated document conversion system (ADCS)..............   119
        Chemical-biological defense equipment for rapid
          assessment and initial detection teams.................   119
        Defense support program office training and exercise.....   119
        Flat panel night vision heads-up display system..........   120
        Mentor protege...........................................   120
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........................   120
      Overview...................................................   120
      Items of Special Interest..................................   123
        Air reserve forces.......................................   123
        Senior scout.............................................   123
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense...........   124
      Overview...................................................   124
    Defense Export Loan Guarantees...............................   126
      Overview...................................................   126
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   128
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   128
      Sections 101-109--Authorization of Appropriations..........   128
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................
      Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Longbow
        Hellfire Missile Program.................................   128
      Section 112--M1A2 System Enhancement Program Step 1 Program   128
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................   128
      Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for the
        Department of the Navy...................................   128
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   128
      Section 141--Funding, Transfer and Management of the
          Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program..........   128
        Dialogue on assembled chemical weapons assessment........   129
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............   130
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   130
    Department of Defense Basic Research/Science and Technology
      Program....................................................   131
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency....................   131
    Information Systems Technology, Superiority and Security.....   132
    Army RDT&E...................................................   134
      Overview...................................................   134
      Items Of Special Interest..................................   142
        Aerostat.................................................   142
        All source analysis system...............................   142
        Army after next combat vehicle initiative................   142
        Advanced combat vehicle and automotive technology........   142
        Digital fire control system..............................   143
        Hardened materials.......................................   143
        Industry and academia alternative vehicle propulsion
          initiative.............................................   143
        Innovative engine technology.............................   144
        Crusader self-propelled howitzer.........................   144
        Aviation advanced technology development.................   144
        Comanche.................................................   145
        Command, control, communications technology..............   145
        Defense healthcare information assurance program.........   146
        Defense information technology test bed..................   146
        Environmental development and management programs........   146
        Environmental quality technology.........................   146
        Future direct support weapon system......................   147
        Future missile technology integration program............   147
        Helmet-mounted retinal display technology................   147
        High mobility artillery rocket system....................   147
        Improved fuel pumps and fuel controls....................   147
        Joint service small arms program.........................   148
        Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint
          STARS).................................................   148
        Lighter more lethal weapons..............................   148
        MedTeams.................................................   149
        Missile and rocket advanced technology...................   149
        Missile defense battle integration center/battle lab.....   149
        Plasma energy pyrolysis system...........................   150
        Precision guided mortar munitions........................   150
        Starstreak...............................................   150
        Stinger missile block two upgrades.......................   150
        Stinger universal launcher...............................   151
        Strategic environmental research and development program.   151
        Tactical high energy laser...............................   151
        Tactical exploitation of national capabilities...........   151
        Trajectory correctable munitions development.............   152
        Ultra lightweight camouflage net system..................   152
    Navy RDT&E...................................................   152
      Overview...................................................   152
      Items Of Special Interest..................................   160
        ADC(X) auxiliary cargo ship development..................   160
        Advanced amphibious assault vehicle......................   160
        Advanced anti-radiation guided missile...................   160
        Arctic oceanographic observation program.................   161
        Automatic target tracker.................................   161
        Autonomous underwater robotics technology................   161
        Autonomous underwater vehicle and sonar development......   162
        Aviation depot maintenance technology....................   162
        Carbon-carbon materials for reentry bodies...............   162
        Common support aircraft..................................   162
        Cooperative engagement capability........................   163
        Cooperative engagement capability frequency spectrum
          requirements...........................................   163
        Cryogenic electronics technology.........................   164
        Distributed surveillance system..........................   164
        DD-21 land attack destroyer..............................   164
        DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof of concept
          demonstration..........................................   165
        Environmentally safe energetic materials.................   165
        Escape system dynamic flow test facility.................   166
        Hybrid electronically scanned antenna....................   166
        Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system
          technology.............................................   166
        Inter-cooled recuperated gas turbine engine..............   167
        Link 16 improvement program..............................   167
        LPD-17 amphibious assault ship self-defense..............   168
        Man overboard indicator technology.......................   168
        Marine Corps ground combat/support system................   169
        Marine mammal research...................................   169
        Molecular design materials science.......................   169
        Multi-function self aligned gate technology..............   169
        Multipurpose processor...................................   170
        Navy land attack missile program.........................   170
        Navy theater missile defense.............................   171
        NSSN advanced technology insertion.......................   172
        Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer..........   172
        Parametric airborne dipping sonar........................   172
        Power electronic building blocks and power node control
          centers................................................   173
        Project M................................................   173
        Reduction to fiscal year 1999 budget request programs....   174
        Remote minehunting system................................   174
        Shallow water influence minesweeping system..............   174
        Shipboard system component development...................   174
        Shortstop electronic protection system...................   175
        Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates.................   175
        Standoff land attack missile--expanded response (SLAM-ER)   175
        Submarine sonar domes....................................   176
        Tactical combat training systems development.............   176
        Tactical Tomahawk........................................   177
        Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers...................   178
        Undersea warfare advanced technology.....................   178
        Vacuum electronics.......................................   178
        Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter
          technology demonstration...............................   179
        Vectoring ESTOL control tailless operation research......   179
        Vertical gun for advanced ships..........................   180
    Air Force RDT&E..............................................   180
      Overview...................................................   180
      Items Of Special Interest..................................   189
        Advanced low observable coatings.........................   189
        Advanced military satellite communications...............   189
        Aircrew laser eye protection.............................   189
        ALR-69 radar warning receiver............................   189
        Ballistic missile technology.............................   190
        Distributed agent information warfare....................   190
        Ejection seats...........................................   190
        F-16 squadrons...........................................   191
        Flight test safely enhancements..........................   191
        Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology......   191
        Integrated powerhead demonstration.......................   192
        Longshot.................................................   192
        Low cost launch technology...............................   192
        Microsatellite technology................................   192
        Military spaceplane......................................   193
        More electric aircraft program...........................   193
        Panoramic night vision goggle............................   193
        Protein-based memory development.........................   193
        Rocket system launch program.............................   194
    Defense Agencies RDT&E.......................................   194
      Overview...................................................   194
      Items Of Special Interest..................................   202
        Advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD).........   202
        Advanced synthetic aperture radar system improvement
          program................................................   202
        Ballistic missile defense................................   202
          Advanced technology development........................   203
          Atmospheric interceptor technology.....................   203
          BMD research and development...........................   203
          Ballistic missile defense testing......................   204
          Cooperative ballistic missile defense..................   205
          Joint theater missile defense..........................   205
          National missile defense...............................   205
          Navy theater wide......................................   206
          Patriot advanced capability............................   206
          Space based laser......................................   207
          Support technology--applied research...................   207
          Technical operations...................................   208
          Theater high altitude area defense (THAAD).............   208
        Chemical-biological defense program......................   209
        Counterproliferation support.............................   209
        Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency................   209
          DARPA marine technology program........................   210
        Defense airborne reconnaissance program management.......   210
        Defense manufacturing, technology program (MANTECH)......   211
        Demilitarization of non-nuclear military explosives......   212
        Electro-optic framing technologies.......................   212
        Endurance unmanned aerial vehicle........................   212
        Facial recognition technology............................   213
        Flat panel displays......................................   213
        Global positioning system guidance package...............   214
        Humanitarian demining....................................   214
        International medical programs global satellite system...   214
        Joint signals intelligence avionics family...............   215
        Live fire testing of vulnerability to asymmetric threats.   215
        Medical free electron laser..............................   216
        National Technology Alliance.............................   216
        Next Generation Internet revolutionary applications......   216
        Polymer-cased ammunition.................................   217
        Operational field assessment program.....................   217
        Optical correlation technology for automatic target
          recognition............................................   218
        Seismic sensor technology................................   218
        Specialty aerospace metals initiative....................   219
        Special operations intelligence systems..................   219
        Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles funding................   219
        Thermionics..............................................   220
        University research initiatives..........................   220
        Unmanned aerial vehicle systems integration laboratory...   220
        Verification technology demonstration....................   221
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   221
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   221
      Section 201--Authorization Of Appropriations...............   221
      Section 202--Amount For Basic And Applied Research.........   221
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
      Limitations................................................   221
      Section 211--Management Responsibility for Navy Mine
        Countermeasures Programs.................................   221
      Section 212--Future Aircraft Carrier Transition
        Technologies.............................................   222
      Section 213--Manufacturing Technology Program..............   222
    Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................   223
      Section 231--National Missile Defense Policy...............   223
      Section 232--Limitation on Funding for the Medium Extended
        Air Defense System.......................................   223
      Section 233--Limitation on Funding for Cooperative
        Ballistic Missile Defense Programs.......................   223
      Section 234--Limitation on funding for Counterproliferation
        Support..................................................   224
      Section 235--Ballistic Missile Defense Program Elements....   224
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................   225
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   225
      Funding Realities..........................................   225
      Readiness Realities........................................   225
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   254
    Budget Request Increases.....................................   254
      Critical Readiness Accounts Increases......................   254
      Mobility Enhancement Funding...............................   254
      Training Accounts..........................................   254
      United States Marine Corps Cold Weather Clothing...........   255
    Budget Request Reductions....................................   255
      Administration and Support Accounts........................   255
      Advisory and Assistance Services...........................   256
      Bulk Fuel Reductions.......................................   256
      Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions................   257
      Foreign Currency Reductions................................   257
    Environmental Issues.........................................   257
      Air Force Plant #3, Tulsa, Oklahoma........................   257
      Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation..................   258
      Navy Environmental Leadership Program......................   258
      Pollution Prevention Program...............................   258
      Scrapping of Naval Vessels.................................   258
    Information Technology Issues................................   259
      Overview...................................................   259
      Automatic Identification Technology........................   259
      Computer Crimes and Information Technology Security........   259
      Information Technology Management..........................   260
      Information Technology Priorities..........................   260
      Joint Information Technology Systems.......................   261
      Redundant Information Technology Programs..................   262
      Utilizing Commercial Information Technology................   262
    Intelligence Matters.........................................   263
      Integrated Architecture Plan...............................   263
      Joint Reserve Intelligence Program.........................   263
      Intelligence Congressional Justification Books.............   263
    Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues.......................   264
      Defense Commissary Agency Information Technology
        Acquisition..............................................   264
      Libraries..................................................   264
      Performance Based Agreements...............................   265
      Public-Private Ventures....................................   265
      Uniform Health Benefit for Nonappropriated Fund Employees..   265
    Other Issues.................................................   266
      Appropriated Funds Used to Pay for Defense Information
        System Agency Costs......................................   266
      Army Civilian Personnel Management.........................   267
      Automatic Document Conversion Technology...................   268
      Budget Justification Materials.............................   268
      Classified Materials Containers............................   269
      Corrosion Control Programs.................................   269
      Defense Automated Printing Service.........................   269
      Depleted Uranium Penetrators...............................   270
      Infrastructure Reduction Initiatives.......................   270
      Military Affiliate Radio System............................   271
      Prime Vendor Contracts.....................................   272
      Ship Repair Industrial Base................................   272
      Tagging System for Hydrocarbon Fuels.......................   272
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   273
    Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations..................   273
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   273
      Section 302--Working Capital Funds.........................   273
      Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................   273
      Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile
        Transaction Fund.........................................   273
      Section 305--Refurbishment of M1-A1 Tanks..................   273
      Section 306--Operation of Prepositioned Fleet, National
        Training Center, Fort Irwin, California..................   273
      Section 307--Relocation of USS Wisconsin...................   274
      Section 308--Fisher House Trust Funds......................   274
    Subtitle B--Information Technology Issues....................   274
      Section 311--Additional Information Technology
        Responsibilities of Chief Information Officers...........   274
      Section 312--Defense-Wide Electronic Mall System for Supply
        Purchases................................................   274
      Section 313--Protection of Funding Provided for Certain
        Information Technology and National Security Programs....   274
      Section 314--Priority Funding to Ensure Year 2000
        Compliance of Mission Critical Information Technology and
        National Security Systems................................   274
      Section 315--Evaluation of Year 2000 Compliance as Part of
        Training Exercises Programs..............................   274
    Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions.........................   275
      Section 321--Authorization to Pay Negotiated Settlement for
        Environmental Cleanup at Former Department of Defense
        Sites in Canada..........................................   275
      Section 322--Removal of Underground Storage Tanks..........   275
    Subtitle D--Defense Infrastructure Support Improvement.......   275
      Section 331--Reporting and Study Requirements Before Change
        of Commercial and Industrial Type Functions to Contractor
        Performance..............................................   275
      Section 332--Clarification of Requirement to Maintain
        Government-Owned and Government-Operated Core Logistics
        Capability...............................................   276
      Section 333--Oversight of Development and Implementation of
        Automated Identification Technology......................   276
      Section 334--Conditions on Expansion of Functions Performed
        Under Prime Vendor Contracts.............................   276
      Section 335--Clarification of Definition of Depot-Level
        Maintenance and Repair...................................   276
      Section 336--Clarification of Commercial Item Exception to
        Requirements Regarding Core Logistics Capabilities.......   276
      Section 337--Development of Plan for Establishment of Core
        Logistics Capabilities for Maintenance and Repair of C-17
        Aircraft.................................................   276
      Section 338--Contractor-Operated Civil Engineering Supply
        Stores Program...........................................   277
      Section 339--Report on Savings and Effect of Personnel
        Reductions in Army Materiel Command......................   277
    Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
      Instrumentalities..........................................   277
      Section 341--Continuation of Management and Funding of
        Defense Commissary Agency through the Office of the
        Secretary of Defense.....................................   277
      Section 342--Expansion of Current Eligibility of Reserves
        for Commissary Benefits..................................   277
      Section 343--Repeal of Requirement for Air Force to Sell
        Tobacco Products to Enlisted Personnel...................   278
      Section 344--Restrictions on Patron Access to, and
        Purchases in, Overseas Commissaries and Exchange Stores..   278
      Section 345--Extension of Demonstration Project for Uniform
        Funding of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities....   278
      Section 346--Prohibition on Consolidation or Other
        Organizational Changes of Department of Defense Retail
        Systems..................................................   278
      Section 347--Authorized Use of Appropriated Funds for
        Relocation of Navy Exchange Service Command..............   279
      Section 348--Evaluation of Merit of Selling Malt Beverages
        and Wine in Commissary Stores as Exchange System
        Merchandise..............................................   279
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   279
      Section 361--Eligibility Requirements for Attendance at
        Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and
        Secondary Schools........................................   279
      Section 362--Specific Emphasis of Program to Investigate
        Fraud, Waste, and Abuse within Department of Defense.....   280
      Section 363--Revision of Inspection Requirements Relating
        to Armed Forces Retirement Home..........................   280
      Section 364--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that
        Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
        Department of Defense Civilian Employees.................   280
      Section 365--Strategic Plan for Expansion of Distance
        Learning Initiatives.....................................   281
      Section 366--Public Availability of Operating Agreements
        Between Military Installations and Financial Institutions   281
      Section 367--Department of Defense Readiness Reporting
        System...................................................   281
      Section 368--Travel by Reservists on Carriers under
        Contract with General Services Administration............   285
    Subtitle G--Demonstration of Commercial-Type Practices to
        Improve Quality of Personal Property Shipments...........   285
      Section 381--Demonstration Program Required................   285
      Section 382--Goals of Demonstration Program................   286
      Section 383--Program Participants..........................   286
      Section 384--Test Plan.....................................   286
      Section 385--Other Methods of Personal Property Shipping...   286
      Section 386--Duration of Demonstration Program.............   286
      Section 387--Evaluation of Demonstration Program...........   286
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   287
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   287
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   287
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   287
      Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Levels.....   287
      Section 403--Date for Submission of Annual Manpower
        Requirements Report......................................   288
      Section 404--Extension of Authority for Chairman of the
        Joint Chiefs of Staff to Designate Up to 12 General and
        Flag Officer Positions to Be Excluded from General and
        Flag Officer Grade Limitations...........................   288
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   288
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   288
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
        Support of the Reserves..................................   289
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
        Status)..................................................   289
      Section 414--Increase in Number of Members in Certain
        Grades Authorized to Serve on Active Duty in Support of
        the Reserves.............................................   290
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   290
      Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military
        Personnel................................................   290
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   292
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   292
    National Guard Youth Challenge...............................   292
    Recruiting...................................................   292
    Reserve Component Full-time Support Force....................   293
    Reserve Component Joint Professional Military Education......   294
    Sustaining Education and Teaching Excellence at the National
      Defense University.........................................   295
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   296
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   296
      Section 501--Codification of Eligibility of Retired
        Officers and Former Officers for Consideration by Special
        Selection Boards.........................................   296
      Section 502--Communication to Promotion Boards by Officers
        under Consideration......................................   296
      Section 503--Procedures for Separation of Regular Officers
        for Substandard Performance of Duty or Certain Other
        Reasons..................................................   296
      Section 504--Posthumous Commissions and Warrants...........   296
      Section 505--Tenure of Chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps..   296
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters........................   297
      Section 511--Composition of Selective Early Retirement
        Boards of Reserve General and Flag Officers of the Navy
        and Marine Corps.........................................   297
      Section 512--Active Status Service Requirement for
        Promotion Consideration for Army and Air Force Reserve
        Component Brigadier Generals.............................   297
      Section 513--Revision to Educational Requirement for
        Promotion of Reserve Officers............................   297
    Subtitle C--Military Education and Training..................   297
      Section 521--Requirements Relating to Recruit Basic
        Training.................................................   297
      Section 522--After-Hours Privacy for Recruits During Basic
        Training.................................................   298
      Section 523--Extension of Reporting Dates for Commission on
        Military Training and Gender-Related Issues..............   298
      Section 524--Improved Oversight of Innovative Readiness
        Training.................................................   298
    Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards and Commendations............   299
      Section 531--Study of New Decorations for Injury or Death
        in Line of Duty..........................................   299
      Section 532--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of
        Certain Decorations to Specified Persons.................   299
      Section 533--Commendation of the Navy and Marine Corps
        Personnel who Served in the United States Navy Asiatic
        Fleet from 1910-1942.....................................   299
      Section 534--Appreciation for Service during World War I
        and World War II by Members of the Navy Assigned on Board
        Merchant Ships as the Naval Armed Guard Service..........   299
      Section 535--Sense of Congress Regarding the Heroism,
        Sacrifice, and Service of the Military Forces of South
        Vietnam and Other Nations in Connection with the United
        States Armed Forces during the Vietnam Conflict..........   299
      Section 536--Sense of Congress Regarding the Heroism,
        Sacrifice, and Service of Former South Vietnamese
        Commandos in Connection with United States Armed Forces
        during the Vietnam Conflict..............................   300
    Subtitle E--Administration of Agencies Responsible for Review
        and Correction of Military Records.......................   300
      Sections 541-544--Corrections of Military Records..........   300
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   301
      Section 551--One-Year Extension of Certain Force Drawdown
        Transition Authorities Relating to Personnel Management
        and Benefits.............................................   301
      Section 552--Leave Without Pay for Academy Cadets and
        Midshipmen...............................................   301
      Section 553--Provision for Recovery, Care, and Disposition
        of the Remains of All Medically Retired Members..........   302
      Section 554--Continued Eligibility under Voluntary
        Separation Incentive Program for Members who
        Involuntarily Lose Membership in a Reserve Component.....   302
      Section 555--Definition of Financial Institution for Direct
        Deposit of Pay...........................................   302
      Section 556--Increase in Maximum Amount for College Fund
        Program..................................................   302
      Section 557--Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii.....   302
      Section 558--Honor Guard Details at Funerals of Veterans...   303
      Section 559--Applicability to All Persons in Chain of
        Command of Policy Requiring Exemplary Conduct by
        Commanding Officers and Others in Authority in the Armed
        Forces...................................................   303
      Section 560--Report on Prisoners Transferred from United
        States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,
        to Federal Bureau of Prisons.............................   303
      Section 561--Report on Process for Selection of Members for
        Service on Courts-Martial................................   304
      Section 562--Study of Revising the Term of Service of
        Members of the United States Court of Appeals for the
        Armed Forces.............................................   304
      Section 563--Status of Cadets at the Merchant Marine
        Academy..................................................   304
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   305
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   305
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   305
    Military Retirement..........................................   305
    Survivor Benefit Plan........................................   306
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   306
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   306
      Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 1999....   306
      Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing Outside the United
        States...................................................   306
      Section 603--Basic Allowance for Subsistence for Reserves..   306
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   307
      Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and
        Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces...............   307
      Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and
        Special Pay Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates,
        Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists................   307
      Section 613--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
        Payment of Other Bonuses and Special Pays................   307
      Section 614--Aviation Career Incentive Pay and Aviation
        Officer Retention Bonus..................................   307
      Section 615--Special Pay for Diving Duty...................   307
      Section 616--Selective Reenlistment Bonus Eligibility for
        Reserve Members Performing Active Guard and Reserve Duty.   308
      Section 617--Removal of Ten Percent Restriction on
        Selective Reenlistment Bonuses...........................   308
      Section 618--Increase in Maximum Amount of Army Enlistment
        Bonus....................................................   308
      Section 619--Equitable Treatment of Reserves Eligible for
        Special Pay for Duty Subject to Hostile Fire or Imminent
        Danger...................................................   308
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   308
      Section 631--Exception to Maximum Weight Allowance for
        Baggage and Household Effects............................   308
      Section 632--Travel and Transportation Allowances for
        Travel Performed by Members in Connection with Rest and
        Recuperative Leave from Overseas Stations................   308
      Section 633--Storage of Baggage of Certain Dependents......   308
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related
      Matters....................................................   309
      Section 641--Effective Date of Former Spouse Survivor
        Benefit Coverage.........................................   309
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   309
      Section 651--Deletion of Canal Zone from Definition of
        United States Possessions for Purposes of Pay and
        Allowances...............................................   309
      Section 652--Accounting of Advance Payments................   309
      Section 653--Reimbursement of Rental Vehicle Costs when
        Motor Vehicle Transported at Government Expense Is Late..   309
      Section 654--Education Loan Repayment Program for Certain
        Health Profession Officers Serving in Selected Reserve...   309
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   311
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   311
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   312
    Depleted Uranium Training and Health Surveillance............   312
    Graduate Medical Education Programs..........................   313
    Medical Readiness Learning Initiative........................   314
    TRICARE Contract Performance.................................   314
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   315
    Subtitle A--Health Care Services.............................   315
      Section 701--Expansion of Dependent Eligibility Under
        Retiree Dental Program...................................   315
      Section 702--Plan for Provision of Health Care for Military
        Retirees and Their Dependents Comparable to Health Care
        Provided Under TRICARE Prime.............................   315
      Section 703--Plan for Redesign of Military Pharmacy System.   316
      Section 704--Transitional Authority to Provide Continued
        Health Care Coverage for Certain Persons Unaware of Loss
        of CHAMPUS Eligibility...................................   317
    Subtitle B--TRICARE Program..................................   318
      Section 711--Payment of Claims for Provision of Health Care
        Under the TRICARE Program for which a Third Party May be
        Liable...................................................   318
      Section 712--Procedures Regarding Enrollment in TRICARE
        Prime....................................................   319
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   319
      Section 721--Inflation Adjustment of Premium Amounts for
        Dependents Dental Program................................   319
      Section 722--System for Tracking Data and Measuring
        Performance in Meeting TRICARE Access Standards..........   319
      Section 723--Air Force Research, Development, Training and
        Education on Exposure to Chemical, Biological, and
        Radiological Hazards.....................................   320
      Section 724--Authorization to Establish a Level 1 Trauma
        Training Center..........................................   320
      Section 725--Report on Implementation of Enrollment-based
        Capitation for Funding for Military Medical Treatment
        Facilities...............................................   320
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGMENT, AND
    RELATED MATTERS..............................................   322
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   322
    Payments to Subtier Contractors..............................   322
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   322
      Section 801--Limitation on Procurement of Ammunition and
        Components...............................................   322
      Section 802--Acquisition Corps Eligibility.................   322
      Section 803--Amendments Relating to Procurement from Firms
        in Industrial Base for Production of Small Arms..........   322
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   323
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   323
      Section 901--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition
        Workforce................................................   323
      Section 902--Limitation on Operation and Support Funds for
        the Office of the Secretary of Defense...................   323
      Section 903--Revision to Defense Directive Relating to
        Management Headquarters and Headquarters Support
        Activities...............................................   324
      Section 904--Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to Have
        Responsibility with Respect to Export Control Activities
        of the Department of Defense.............................   324
      Section 905--Independent Task Force on Transformation and
        Department of Defense Organization.......................   326
      Section 906--Improved Accounting for Defense Contract
        Services.................................................   326
      Section 907--Repeal of Requirement Relating to Assignment
        of Tactical Airlift Mission to Reserve Components........   327
      Section 908--Repeal of Certain Requirements Relating to
        Inspector General Investigations of Reprisal Complaints..   328
      Section 909--Consultation with Commandant of the Marine
        Corps Regarding Marine Corps Aviation....................   328
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   329
  Counter-Drug Activities........................................   329
    Overview.....................................................   329
    Items of Special Interest....................................   330
      Gulf states counter-drug initiative command, control,
        communications and computer network......................   330
      Gulf states counter-drug initiative regional counter-drug
        training academy.........................................   330
      Joint interagency task force south.........................   331
      Joint military intelligence program........................   331
      Multi-jurisdictional task force............................   331
      National guard state plans.................................   331
      Southern air forces counter-drug support...................   332
      Southwest border fence project.............................   332
      Support for counter-drug activities of Peru and Colombia...   332
    Other Matters................................................   333
      Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass
        Destruction..............................................   333
      Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)................................   335
      Intelligence Community Access to Export Control Information   335
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   336
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   336
      Section 1001--Transfer Authority...........................   336
      Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............   337
      Section 1003--Outlay Limitations...........................   337
    Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   337
      Section 1011--Revision to Requirement for Continued Listing
        of Two Iowa-Class Battleships on the Naval Register......   337
      Section 1012--Transfer of the USS New Jersey...............   337
      Section 1013--Long-Term Charter of Three Vessels in Support
        of Submarine Rescue, Escort, and Towing..................   337
      Section 1014--Transfer of Obsolete Army Tugboat............   337
      Section 1015--Long-Term Charter Contracts for Acquisition
        of Auxiliary Vessels for the Department of Defense.......   337
    Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities......   338
      Section 1021--Department of Defense Support for Counter-
        Drug Activities..........................................   338
      Section 1022--Support for Counter-Drug Operation Caper
        Focus....................................................   338
    Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals....   340
      Section 1031--Annual Report on Resources Allocated to
        Support and Mission Activities...........................   340
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   340
      Section 1041--Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority,
        Armed Forces Retirement Home, District of Columbia.......   340
      Section 1042--Content of Notice Required to be Provided
        Garnishees Before Garnishment of Pay or Benefits.........   340
      Section 1043--Training of Special Operations Forces with
        Friendly Foreign Forces..................................   341
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL...............   342
    LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.......................................   342
      Section 1101--Authority for Release to Coast Guard of Drug
        Test Results of Civil Service Mariners of the Military
        Sealift Command..........................................   342
      Section 1102--Limitations on Back Pay Awards...............   342
      Section 1103--Restoration of Annual Leave Accumulated by
        Civilian Employees at Installations in the Republic of
        Panama to be Closed Pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty
        of 1977..................................................   342
      Section 1104--Repeal of Program Providing Preference for
        Employment of Military Spouses in Military Child Care
        Facilities...............................................   343
      Section 1105--Elimination of Retained Pay as a Basis for
        Determining Locality Based Adjustments...................   343
      Section 1106--Observance of Certain Holidays at Duty Posts
        Outside the United States................................   343
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS.....................   344
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   344
    Arms Control Implementation..................................   344
    Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the
      United States..............................................   345
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   345
      Section 1201--Limitation on Funds for Peacekeeping in the
        Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina.......................   345
      Section 1202--Reports on the Mission of United States
        Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina.........   346
      Section 1203--Report on Military Capabilities of an
        Expanded NATO Alliance...................................   347
      Section 1204--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation
        Authorities for Support of United Nations Special
        Commission on Iraq.......................................   347
      Section 1205--Repeal of Landmine Moratorium................   348
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER
    SOVIET UNION.................................................   349
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   349
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   349
      Arms Elimination Projects in Russia........................   349
      Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine.......................   350
      Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia......   350
      Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia.....................   352
      Fissile Material Storage Facility..........................   353
      Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion............................   354
      Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia.........   354
      Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia.................   354
      Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security....................   355
      Other Support Programs.....................................   355
      Program Overhead...........................................   355
      Prohibition of Specified Activities........................   356
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   357
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
        Programs and Funds.......................................   357
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   357
      Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified
        Purposes.................................................   357
      Section 1304--Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical
        Weapons Destruction Facility.............................   357
      Section 1305--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for a
        Specified Period.........................................   357
      Section 1306--Requirement to Submit Breakdown of Amounts
        Requested by Project Category............................   357
      Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Completion
        of Fiscal Year 1998 Requirements.........................   357
      Section 1308--Report on Biological Weapons Programs in
        Russia...................................................   357
      Section 1309--Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological
        Weapons Proliferation Prevention Activities in Russia....   358
      Section 1310--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds for
        Strategic Arms Elimination in Russia or Ukraine..........   358
      Section 1311--Availability of Funds........................   358
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   359
  PURPOSE........................................................   359
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW.................................   359
TITLE XXI--ARMY..................................................   378
  SUMMARY........................................................   378
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   378
      Improvements of Military Family Housing....................   378
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   378
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   378
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   378
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   378
      Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   378
      Section 2105--Increase in Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization
        for Military Construction Project at Fort Drum, New York,
        and Fort Sill, Oklahoma..................................   379
TITLE XXII--NAVY.................................................   380
  SUMMARY........................................................   380
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   380
      Condition of Laboratory Facilities, Naval Air Warfare
        Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey.........   380
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   380
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   380
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   380
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   381
      Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   381
      Section 2205--Authorization to Accept Road Construction
        Project, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.   381
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE...........................................   382
  SUMMARY........................................................   382
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   382
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   382
      Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   382
      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   382
      Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   382
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES.....................................   383
  SUMMARY........................................................   383
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   383
      Department of Defense Education Activity, Guam.............   383
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   383
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   383
      Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   384
      Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects.................   384
      Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
        Agencies.................................................   384
      Section 2405--Increase in Fiscal Year 1995 Authorization
        for Military Construction Projects at Pine Bluff Arsenal,
        Arkansas, and Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon................   384
      Section 2406--Increase in Fiscal Year 1990 Authorization
        for Military Construction Project at Portsmouth Naval
        Hospital, Virginia.......................................   384
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE.....   385
  SUMMARY........................................................   385
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   385
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   385
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   385
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   386
  SUMMARY........................................................   386
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   386
      Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   386
      Section 2602--Army Reserve Construction Project, Salt Lake
        City, Utah...............................................   386
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS..........   387
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   387
      Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
        Required to be Specified by Law..........................   387
      Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain
        Fiscal Year 1996 Projects................................   387
      Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
        Year 1995 Projects.......................................   387
      Section 2704--Effective Date...............................   387
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS.................................   388
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   388
      Incorporation of Energy Conservation Criteria in the
        Planning and Design of Facilities........................   388
      Military Family Housing Referral and Set-Aside Programs....   388
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   389
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
        Housing Changes..........................................   389
      Section 2801--Definition of Ancillary Supporting Facilities
        under the Alternative Authority for Acquisition and
        Improvement of Military Housing..........................   389
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   389
      Section 2811--Restoration of Department of Defense Lands
        Used by Another Federal Agency...........................   389
      Section 2812--Outdoor Recreation Development on Military
        Installations for Disabled Veterans, Military Dependents
        with Disabilities, and Other Persons with Disabilities...   389
      Section 2813--Report on Use of Utility System Conveyance
        Authority................................................   389
    Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment.............   390
      Section 2821--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed
        under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
        Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 in Connection with
        McClellan Air Force Base, California.....................   390
      Section 2822--Elimination of Waiver Authority Regarding
        Prohibition Against Certain Conveyances of Property at
        Naval Station, Long Beach, California....................   390
    Subtitle D--Land Conveyances.................................   390
      Part I--Army Conveyances...................................   390
      Section 2831--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
        Massena, New York........................................   390
      Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
        Ogdensberg, New York.....................................   390
      Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
        Jamestown, Ohio..........................................   391
      Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Stewart Army Sub-Post, New
        Windsor, New York........................................   391
      Section 2835--Land Conveyance, Indiana Army Ammunition
        Plant, Charlestown, Indiana..............................   391
      Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Volunteer Army Ammunition
        Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee............................   391
      Section 2837--Release of Reversionary Interest of United
        States in Former Redstone Army Arsenal Property Conveyed
        to Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission..............   392
      Part II--Navy Conveyances..................................   392
      Section 2841--Easement, Camp Pendleton, Marine Corps Base,
        California...............................................   392
      Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Readiness
        Center, Portland, Maine..................................   392
      Part III--Air Force Conveyances............................   392
      Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Lake Charles Air Force
        Station, Louisiana.......................................   392
      Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Air Force Housing Facility,
        La Junta, Colorado.......................................   393
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   393
      Section 2861--Repeal of Prohibition on Joint Use of Gray
        Army Airfield, Fort Hood, Texas, with Civil Aviation.....   393
      Section 2862--Designation of Building Containing Navy and
        Marine Corps Reserve Center, Augusta, Georgia............   393
      Section 2863--Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery.....   393
      Section 2864--Reporting Requirements Under Demonstration
        Project for Purchase of Fire, Security, Police, Public
        Works, and Utility Services from Local Government
        Agencies.................................................   393
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION
    AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.....................................   395
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   395
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   395
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   407
      Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative.................   407
      Advanced Manufacturing, Design and Production Technologies.   407
      Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Safeguards...................   408
      Core Stockpile Management Weapons Program..................   408
      Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
        Science and Technology...................................   408
      Defense Programs Construction Projects.....................   409
      Emergency Management.......................................   409
      Hanford Tank Safety and Remediation Projects...............   409
      Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Privatization Phase I   410
      Hazardous Material Management and Emergency Response
        (HAMMER) Program.........................................   410
      Heavy Water Processing.....................................   410
      Inertial Confinement Fusion................................   411
      In-Tank Precipitation Process..............................   411
      International Nuclear Safety...............................   411
      Laboratory Collaboration With the Ballistic Missile Defense
        Organization.............................................   411
      Naval Reactors.............................................   412
      Office of Environment, Safety, and Health..................   412
      Program Direction..........................................   413
      Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning................   413
      Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project..   413
      Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment..............   413
      Stockpile Management at Y-12 Plant.........................   413
      Technology Partnerships....................................   414
      Tritium production.........................................   414
      Uncosted Obligations and Unobligated Balances..............   414
      Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Waste Transportation....   415
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   415
    Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorization..........   415
      Section 3101--Weapons Activities...........................   415
      Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
        Management...............................................   416
      Section 3103--Other Defense Activities.....................   416
      Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal...............   416
    Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions.....................   416
      Section 3121--Reprogramming................................   416
      Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects.............   416
      Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects..............   416
      Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority......................   417
      Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
        Design...................................................   417
      Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and
        Construction Activities..................................   417
      Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security
        Programs of the Department of Energy.....................   417
      Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................   417
      Section 3129--Transfers of Defense Environmental Management
        Funds....................................................   417
    Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
      Limitations................................................   418
      Section 3131--Prohibition on Federal Loan Guarantees for
        Defense Environmental Management Privatization Projects..   418
      Section 3132--Extension of Funding Prohibition Relating to
        International Cooperative Stockpile Stewardship..........   418
      Section 3133--Use of Certain Funds for Missile Defense
        Technology Development...................................   418
      Section 3134--Selection of Technology for Tritium
        Production...............................................   418
      Section 3135--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds at Hanford
        Site.....................................................   419
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   419
      Section 3151--Termination of Worker and Community
        Transition Assistance....................................   419
      Section 3152--Requirement for Plan to Modify Employment
        System Used by Department of Energy in Defense
        Environmental Management Programs........................   419
      Section 3153--Report on Stockpile Stewardship Criteria.....   420
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   421
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISION..........................................   421
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   421
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.........................   422
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   422
      Materials Research.........................................   422
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   422
      Section 3301--Definitions..................................   422
      Section 3302--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds...........   422
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLUEM RESERVES............................   423
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   423
      Section 3401--Definitions..................................   423
      Section 3402--Authorization of Appropriations..............   423
      Section 3403--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain
        Petroleum During Fiscal Year 1999........................   423
      Section 3404--Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered
        2........................................................   423
      Section 3405--Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered
        3........................................................   423
      Section 3406--Disposal of Naval Oil Shale Reserve Numbered
        2........................................................   423
      Section 3407--Administration...............................   423
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION..............................   424
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   424
      Section 3501--Short Title; References to Panama Canal Act
        of 1979..................................................   424
      Section 3502--Authorization of Expenditures................   424
      Section 3503--Purchase of Vehicles.........................   424
      Section 3504--Expenditures Only in Accordance with Treaties   424
      Section 3505--Donations to the Commission..................   424
      Section 3506--Sunset of United States Overseas Benefits
        Just Before Transfer.....................................   424
      Section 3507--Central Examining Office.....................   425
      Section 3508--Liability for Vessel Accidents...............   425
      Section 3509--Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals.......   425
      Section 3510--Technical Amendments.........................   425
TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................   426
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   426
      Merchant Marine Academy....................................   426
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   426
      Section 3601--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal
        Year 1999................................................   426
      Section 3602--Conveyance of NDRF Vessel M/V Bayamon........   426
      Section 3603--Conveyance of NDRF Vessels Benjamin Isherwood
        and Henry Eckford........................................   426
      Section 3604--Clearinghouse for Maritime Information.......   426
      Section 3605--Conveyance of NDRF Vessel Ex-USS Lorain
        County...................................................   427
Departmental Data................................................   428
  Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   428
  Military Construction Authorization Request....................   429
Committee Position...............................................   429
Communications From Other Committees.............................   429
Fiscal Data......................................................   439
  Congressional Budget Office Estimate...........................   439
  Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................   439
    Authorization of Appropriations..............................   440
  Committee Cost Estimate........................................   449
  Inflation-Impact Statement.....................................   450
Oversight Findings...............................................   450
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................   450
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   450
Roll Call Votes..................................................   450
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   459
Additional, Dissenting, and Supplemental Views:
          .......................................................
  Additional views of Lane Evans, Martin T. Meehan, Robert A.
    Underwood, Jane Harman, Thomas H. Allen, Loretta Sanchez and
    Cynthia McKinney.............................................   559
  Additional views of Robert A. Underwood........................   561
  Supplemental views of Tillie Fowler, Jane Harman, Martin T.
    Meehan, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie, Loretta Sanchez, Ciro
    D. Rodriguez, Patrick J. Kennedy, James H. Maloney and
    Cynthia A. McKinney..........................................   562
  Additional views of Jane Harman, Patrick Kennedy, Martin
    Meehan, Lane Evans, Loretta Sanchez, Ciro Rodriguez, James
    Maloney, Cynthia McKinney and Tillie Fowler..................   565
  Additional views of James M. Talent............................   567
  Additional views of Patrick Kennedy............................   569
  Additional views of Roscoe G. Bartlett.........................   571
  Additional views of Tom Allen, Paul McHale, Mike Pappas, Jim
    Saxton and Gene Taylor.......................................   573
  Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Lane Evans, Vic Snyder,
    Jane Harman, Adam Smith and Cynthia McKinney.................   576
  Additional views of Mr. Ryun, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hefley, Mr.
    Saxton, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Watts, Mr. Hostettler,
    Mr. Hilleary and Mr. Pappas..................................   577
  Dissenting views of Cynthia McKinney...........................   579
105th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES               105-532
_______________________________________________________________________
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
                                _______
  May 12, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                                _______
  Mr. Spence, from the Committee on National Security, submitted the
                               following
                              R E P O R T
                             together with
             ADDITIONAL, DISSENTING, AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
                        [To accompany H.R. 3616]
      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
    The Committee on National Security, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1999 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
    The amendments are as follows:
    The amendment to the text of the bill is a complete
substitute therefor and appears in italic type in the reported
bill.
    The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
                EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
    The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 3616. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
                                PURPOSE
    The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1999 for procurement and for research, development, test
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1999 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 1999: (a) the
personnel strength for each active duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4)
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1999 for the Department of Energy national security
programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999
for the operation of the Panama Canal Commission; and (9)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for the Maritime
Administration.
            RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
    The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The
bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts
provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following
categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement;
research, development, test and evaluation; operation and
maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and
military construction and family housing. The bill also
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and
the Maritime Administration.
    Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.
                  SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
    The President requested budget authority of $270.9 billion
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 1999.
Of this amount, the President requested $257.5 billion for the
Department of Defense (including $7.8 billion for military
construction and family housing) and $12.3 billion for
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
    The committee recommends an overall level of $270.4 billion
in budget authority. This amount is consistent with the
discretionary defense spending limitations imposed by the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and it represents an increase of
approximately $2.2 billion from the amount authorized for
appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). Overall, the committee's
recommendation is largely consistent with the amounts the
committee expects to be established in the budget resolution
for fiscal year 1999 for the national security budget function.
                    SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
    The following table provides a summary of the amounts
requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the
bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of
Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how
the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for
the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the
budget authority implications of committee action, the table
reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for
proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
    The President's fiscal year 1999 defense budget request
fully reflects last year's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
The QDR was mandated by Congress as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201), as a result of growing dissatisfaction with the Clinton
Administration's 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR). In addition to
being dramatically underfunded, the BUR also reflected far too
narrow a view of America's strategic interests and military
requirements in the post-Cold War world. In particular, the BUR
failed to account for the increasing number and duration of
peacekeeping, peacemaking and contingency ``operations other
than war,'' as well as for the possibility of conflicts between
powerful states in the future.
    The QDR's declared strategy, in the committee's judgment,
more accurately reflects the true scope of America's post-Cold-
War defense strategy. The QDR's central strategic vision of
shaping the international environment in ways that will protect
and advance U.S. national security interests, preparing U.S.
military forces for future challenges to those interests, and
responding to current threats--is broadly shared by the
committee. Although the QDR fails to prioritize among the three
elements of the ``shape-prepare-respond'' approach, its
acknowledgment of today's strategic realities represents a step
forward from the BUR.
    Ironically, the increased clarity of the QDR's strategic
vision only serves to highlight the disparities between
requirements, forces and resources. The mismatches and
shortfalls inherent in the BUR are more severe when measured by
the QDR's standards. While the QDR retains the requirement to
fight and win two nearly simultaneous regional theater wars,
persuasively arguing that such a capability ``is the sine qua
non of a superpower and is essential to the credibility of our
overall national security strategy,'' it also requires that
U.S. armed forces ``be prepared to conduct successfully
multiple, concurrent [smaller-scale contingency] operations
worldwide, in any environment, including one in which an
adversary uses asymmetric means, such [nuclear, biological, or
chemical] weapons.'' In addition, the QDR demands that the
Department of Defense prepare now for an uncertain future that
may include ``significant'' future threats from a rising China
or a reinvigorated and aggressive Russia, and where military
technologies, doctrine and organizations will have changed
radically. The QDR's strategic vision for the post-Cold War
world places much greater demands on the Department of Defense
than did the BUR.
    Despite the QDR's expansive strategy, the Administration
continues to recommend real decline in defense spending. The
President's fiscal year 1999 defense budget request of $270.6
billion in budget authority represents a real decline of 1.1
percent from current defense spending levels, is more than
$54.0 billion short of keeping pace even with today's record
low inflation over the next five years, and continues a 14-year
trend of real decline in defense spending. Overall, the request
represents a 39 percent reduction from defense spending levels
of the mid-1980s. Indeed, the fiscal year 1999 defense budget
request represents the lowest real level of U.S. defense
spending since before the Korean War. Today, the unofficial
motto of the U.S. military is ``doing more with less'' for good
reason: missions increase as forces and resources decline.
    In the committee's judgment, there is a dangerously
widening gap between strategic requirements of the post-Cold
War world and the levels of resources this nation is committing
to its national security. As senior committee members of both
parties recently wrote to thePresident and leaders of Congress,
``[I]t is our collective judgment that, short of an unwise retrenchment
and overhaul of U.S. national security strategy, fixing the nation's
long-term defense program will require increased defense spending.''
Measured by any of the QDR's benchmarks--shaping, preparing, or
responding--the current defense program is seriously underresourced.
                         The Strains of Shaping
    The QDR asserts that the Department of Defense ``has an
essential role to play'' in shaping the international
environment in ways beneficial to American national interests.
Yet the review's treatment of the military capabilities
essential to this shaping effort serves to understate the
magnitude of the task. The current moment in history, one which
finds the United States as the world's sole superpower, imposes
unique responsibilities upon our armed forces. However, as
recent trends indicate, the constant employment of military
power quickly strains the reduced forces of today. The
Administration's propensity to use U.S. military forces in a
multitude of nontraditional roles around the world has merely
added to and accelerated the strains of downsizing.
    To fully understand the challenge implicit in trying to
shape the international environment, it is necessary to
consider recent events in broad perspective. The collapse of
the Soviet Union, almost a decade ago, has been one of this
century's and perhaps history's great turning points. Even
should a revitalized and revanchist Russia reassert itself in
the future, the retreat of the Red Army has left in its wake a
security vacuum stretching from Europe to Africa to Asia.
Dozens of nations, many of them tied to U.S. national interests
in one way or the other, now live in a state of uncertainty--
freed from Soviet tyranny but unable to guarantee their own
independence and security.
    The result for the United States is both new opportunity
and new challenge. In their desire for both freedom and
security, many of these fledgling states turn to the United
States as their best hope. Nowhere is this more in evidence
than the desire of the newly independent nations of Central and
Eastern Europe to join the NATO alliance.
    While the committee strongly supports the NATO alliance,
concerns remain about the Administration's inability or
unwillingness to explain what a fully expanded NATO alliance
will mean in terms of function, structure, and membership. The
United States is on the verge of assuming substantial new
commitments to protect and shape the future security of Europe
without a firm understanding of the political purpose or
financial cost, let alone the military requirements or how to
meet the requirements
    Yet for all the uncertainties and concerns raised by the
incorporation of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and
perhaps, in time, additional Central and Eastern European
nations into the Atlantic alliance, NATO expansion is well
understood in comparison to challenges of shaping the
international environment elsewhere around the globe. As
indicated above, the demise of the Soviet Union has brought
turmoil and uncertainty hand in hand with independence. The
United States' interests in protecting the world's energy
supplies and distribution network, the basis for the quasi-
permanent American military presence in the Persian Gulf, will
be complicated as new supplies and routes are developed to
deliver Caspian Sea and Central Asian gas and oil to market.
Likewise, the loss of the common security goal of containment
of the Soviet Union will continue to complicate American
relations with China. Although China did not repeat its 1996
missile blockade of Taiwan, in 1997 it reacquired Hong Kong and
continued its aggressive policy of acquiring advanced military
technologies. Moreover, the financial crisis in East Asia,
threatening even the stability of Japan, may have unpredictable
political consequences and could further complicate shaping of
the international environment.
    The committee is concerned that while the QDR's requirement
to ``shape the international environment'' is essential to the
protection of American security interests, its full
implications are not yet well understood. Trying to achieve the
QDR's goal of ``promoting regional stability'' will require
continued global military presence. From protecting against
threats to the American homeland; to projecting power to
Europe, the Gulf and the expanding region responsible for the
world's energy supplies, and the Pacific Rim; to defending the
international system from a wide variety of transnational
threats from proliferation to information warfare, shaping the
complex and increasingly dangerous post-Cold War international
environment is one of the central reasons American soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines are ``doing more with less.''
                   Preparing for an Uncertain Future
    Beyond shaping today's security environment, the QDR
rightly recognizes that the security environment of the future
will pose entirely new problems. The geopolitical uncertainties
alone are daunting. The United States' status as the world's
only superpower is an anomaly of history. No single nation has
ever enjoyed such unchallenged global influence, but it would
be folly to assume that American preeminence will last
indefinitely.
    Much of the basis of U.S. military superiority rests upon
the technological edge enjoyed by American soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines, and the organizational and doctrinal
advantages that this technological edge allows. The significant
investment made in the nation's armed forces in the 1980s
brought to the battlefield a generation of weapons systems
without rival, as revealed so strikingly in Operation Desert
Storm. Yet the ``procurement holiday,'' beginning in the early
1990s and continuing still, is eroding this U.S. technological
edge. In some areas, lack of investment has allowed
vulnerabilities to remain unaddressed. For example, Scud
missiles of the kind that caused significant American
casualties in the Gulf War have become even more of a threat to
U.S. forces and American allies today than they were in 1991.
Despite Congressional increases in funding for theater missile
defense programs over the past three years, this vulnerability
remains. And it is a vulnerability that is well understood by
our potential enemies.
    Moreover, weapons platforms and systems procured during the
1980s, based on 1970s technology, are prematurely aging due to
the high operational tempo associated with repeated extended
contingency operations. The same M1A1 tanks and Apache
helicopters, sophisticated F-15E strike fighters and carrier
battle groups that defeated the Iraqi military are too often
found today at checkpoints in Bosnia, flying lazy figure-8s
enforcing no-fly zones, or steaming from ocean to ocean to
react to the crisis of the day. Military equipment is simply
getting older and wearing out faster than planned.
    Finally, the battlefield advantages conferred by the
application of information technologies and similar innovations
to military systems promise to transform warfare in the near
future. The United States has heretofore set the pace in the
practical application of the so-called ``Revolution in Military
Affairs,'' during the innovation in ``smart'' and ``brilliant''
munitions; battlefield surveillance, reconnaissance, and
intelligence; and the rapid dissemination ofinformation in ways
that we now take for granted. But the U.S. military's ``innovation
edge'' is eroding as well. Increasingly inexpensive and accessible
technologies of computing power, communications, surveillance from
space--indeed, the overall advance and proliferation of high
technology, much of it commercially available--will certainly enhance
the military capabilities of future enemies of the United States. The
task for the United States is to retain its edge across the broad
spectrum of military technology, through modernization and innovation.
    Faced with these realities, the QDR calls for the
Department of Defense to pursue a ``focused modernization
effort'' and to ``increase procurement spending now so that we
can ensure tomorrow's forces are every bit as capable as
today's.'' Once again, the committee generally agrees with the
QDR's declared objectives. However, as with the costs and risks
associated with shaping the international environment, the
committee is concerned with the lack of adequate attention
being paid to preparing for a strategically and technologically
uncertain future. The gap between resources being committed to
research, development and procurement is as great as or greater
than the shortfalls in requirements for the shaping missions
described above. This has been apparent from the outset of the
QDR process. In the legislation creating the QDR, the Congress
also created the independent National Defense Panel (NDP). The
NDP's assessment of the QDR highlighted the ``risk in defense
resources,'' stating that ``the Panel considers the [QDR]
modernization plan to have more budget risk than is
acknowledged by the QDR. The funding necessary to attain the
procurement goal * * * rests on several key assumptions * * *
The Panel considers each of these assumptions to be somewhat
tenuous. Collectively, they represent a budget risk which could
potentially undermine the entire Defense Strategy.''
    In recent years, the committee consistently has expressed
its concerns about the continued decline in modernization
funding. Defense procurement spending has declined by two-
thirds since fiscal year 1985, even taking into account
Congress' significant increases of the past three years. In
1996, the Joint Chiefs of Staff established that $60.0 billion
in constant-dollar procurement funding was the minimum amount
required to modernize the force, and set a goal to achieve that
level of funding by fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, for the
fourth consecutive year, the President's defense budget request
again postpones attainment of this modernization funding goal.
At $48.7 billion, the procurement request is $2.0 billion less
than was projected for fiscal year 1999 just last year, and is
approximately $5.0 billion less than was projected for the two-
year period from fiscal years 1999 through fiscal year 2000.
The shortfall is actually worse when the fact that the
Administration's fiscal year 1999 procurement request for the
first time includes programs not traditionally funded in
procurement accounts, such as strategic sealift, is considered.
    Whether in modernizing today's military or in preparing for
tomorrow's force, the committee believes the current level of
investment is inadequate. Sustaining the technological
advantages that give U.S. military forces an unquestioned edge
wherever they operate is a keystone in national security
strategy. Indeed, it is a central foundation upon which that
strategy is built.
     The committee is concerned that the Administration is
building a strategy for an uncertain future upon an eroding
foundation. For what is uncertain about the future is not
whether there will be threats to U.S. national security
interests, but what form these threats will take. Threats may
come from regional rogue states like Iraq or Iran, newly armed
with more accurate ballistic missiles, weapons of mass
destruction and advanced conventional weapons; they may come
from other large and powerful nations like a retrenched Russia
or an ascendant China; they may come from terrorist groups,
drug traffickers or other ruthless and well-resourced
international organizations; they may come from ethnic
nationalists for whom war is itself an end as a means. Yet
wherever these future threats originate, the committee has no
doubt that a failure to prepare to meet them can only encourage
America's enemies.
                         Responding to a Crisis
    In ``shaping the international environment,'' U.S. military
forces are linked to American diplomacy, business, and culture.
In ``preparing for an uncertain future,'' the Department of
Defense is mortgaging its technological future by robbing long-
term investment accounts to pay short-term operational bills
and may, even under the best of circumstances, be hard-pressed
to keep pace with commercial enterprise. Yet some tasks are,
will, and must remain unique to the military. The military's
unique capability, indeed its raison d'etre, is its role in
response to international crisis or the outbreak of war. The
collapse of the Soviet Union has not changed this fundamental
reality.
     As the QDR acknowledges, today's armed forces must be
ready to respond to the full spectrum of crises, from
deterrence, to coercion, to the conduct of an increasing number
of ``smaller-scale contingencies'' or ``military operations
other than war,'' and to fighting and winning the major theater
wars that would pose the greatest threat to U.S. national
security interests. The committee considers the crisis response
requirement to be the essential element of the QDR's strategy,
indeed of any proper U.S. national military strategy. As
important as the requirements are to ``shape the international
environment'' and to ``prepare for an uncertain future,'' the
primary responsibility of U.S. armed forces is to defend
America and its global interests against today's and tomorrow's
threats.
     As the post-Soviet period has evolved, the number and
duration of what the QDR recognized as smaller-scale
contingencies has increased. Yet the core of U.S. national
military strategy remains--and in the committee's view, must
remain--the requirement to maintain the capability to fight and
to win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. This
benchmark has served the United States military well during the
post-Cold War era. Absent a well understood and precisely
defined threat such as the Soviet military, the two-war
standard has been the only means for preserving the kind of
flexible and global military capability required for the vast
array of security responsibilities that the United States
maintains. According to the QDR, ``If the United States were to
forego its ability to defeat aggression in more than one
theater at a time, our standing as a global power, as the
security partner of choice and the leader of the international
community, would be called into question.''
    The committee continues to believe that this two-war
benchmark is an appropriate peacetime force-sizing mechanism
that follows clearly from an appreciation of the kinds of
potential conventional commitments and conflicts that confront
the United States today. Our adversaries are at all times
acutely aware of the proximity and presence of U.S. forces.
General Anthony Zinni, commander-in-chief of U.S. Central
Command, recently testified before the committee that Iraqi
leader Saddam Hussein clearly times his provocative actions to
those occasions when U.S. military force presence in the Gulf
is lower. Likewise, the continuing economic and humanitarian
crisis in North Korea, combined with that regime's continuing
investment in its military capability, could easily provide the
spark to renewed conflict. In theseand other vital regions, the
presence of strong U.S. forces, credited with overwhelming conventional
combat capability, provide a convincing deterrent force, and a lethal
fighting force.
    Unfortunately, the de facto motto of the U.S. military--
``doing more with less''--has become today's reality. American
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are in fact doing much
more than protecting the nation's interests and preparing to
fight the nation's wars. Indeed, the burdens of peacekeeping,
peacemaking and the variety of other operations other than war
that increasingly occupy our military's time are preventing
them from properly and adequately training.
    This is the unspoken reality underlying the QDR's
recognition of smaller-scale contingencies; ``the demand for
[smaller-scale contingency] operations is expected to remain
high over the next 15 to 20 years.'' Yet even while
acknowledging the burdens imposed by multiple, concurrent
peacekeeping operations, the QDR underestimates the high
political profile, import and even permanence they assume over
time. The QDR's assertion that ``U.S. forces must also be able
to withdraw from [such] operations, reconstitute, and then
deploy to a major theater war in accordance with required
timelines'' is, in the committee's judgment, an unrealistic,
even naive, expectation.
    A textbook example of the complexities of meeting both
warfighting requirements and peacekeeping missions was clearly
illustrated several weeks ago. When the Army announced that the
1st Cavalry Division would be deployed from Fort Hood, Texas,
to Bosnia as the U.S. follow-on force, the conflict between
peacekeeping and warfighting was revealed starkly. The 1st
Cavalry Division is the most modern, best equipped and best
trained heavy division in the entire Army, and would be among
the first two divisions to deploy in the event of a major
theater war. Yet the debilitating demand of constant rotation
of forces to Bosnia-resulting from the President's commitment
to an increasingly open-ended mission in the Balkans--has
compelled the Army to start beating its sharpest sword into a
plowshare. The Army has yet to explain how it will meet its
requirement to rapidly deploy heavy forces in the event of a
major theater war while the 1st Cavalry Division is in Bosnia.
What is true of the Army applies equally to the other services:
to Air Force fighter squadrons employed in no-fly zones; to
Navy aircraft carriers transferred from the Pacific, where they
would support a Korea contingency, to the Persian Gulf; to the
Marine Corps which, in the recent testimony of Commandant Gen.
Charles Krulak is ``not a two [major theater war] force.''
    In sum, the pervasive mismatch between strategic objectives
and defense resources that undermines the QDR's vision of
shaping the international environment and preparing for an
uncertain future most seriously affects the ability of the U.S.
military to respond to current crises. This is a potentially
catastrophic mismatch, and one with very real consequences, as
foretold in the QDR: shortfalls in warfighting capacity ``risk
undermining both deterrence and the credibility of U.S.
security commitments in key regions of the world. This, in
turn, could cause allies and friends to adopt more divergent
defense policies and postures, thereby weakening the web of
alliances and coalitions on which we rely to protect our
interests abroad.'' The committee agrees with this assessment.
Indeed, in Europe, in the Gulf and in East Asia, the ability of
America to defend its interests by responding to multiple
crises remains an open question.
                             Managing Risk
    Caught between an international geopolitical environment
that requires an expansive U.S. national security strategy and
a domestic political environment bounded by the declining
defense budgets locked in place by the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, the committee is left to try and figure out how best to
manage risks. No one should have any illusions about the
growing risk: the committee finds itself in accord with the
Joint Chiefs of Staff who, in their monthly reviews of the
ability of U.S. forces to execute the National Military
Strategy, have recently concluded that the level of risk is
``moderate to high.'
    Thus the committee's actions with regard to the fiscal year
1999 defense authorization bill are intended to protect those
programs that will help to lower the risks to U.S. national
security interests by protecting core readiness, enhancing
quality of life and increasing the pace at which rapidly aging
equipment is modernized or replaced.
    Central to these efforts are the committee's initiatives
related to force readiness. Over recent months, the committee
conducted a series of field hearings at military installations
in addition to its traditional budget oversight hearings. These
hearings confirmed the pattern, revealed in past committee
readiness reports and reviews, of shortages of spare parts, a
high operations tempo and continued deterioration of military
infrastructure and facilities. For example, in response to a
request from the committee, the service chiefs of staff
identified approximately $10.0 billion in unfunded requirements
in fiscal year 1999 requests alone. Tellingly, the largest
portion of these unfunded requirements pertained to core
readiness needs--training, spare parts and other basics.
Indeed, almost the entire Air Force unfunded requirements list
reflected readiness shortfalls. Therefore, the committee has
closely scrutinized the operation and maintenance accounts in
the President's budget request. The request includes programs
that previously were contained in other accounts and a variety
of programs that have little if anything to do with core force
readiness requirements. In general, the committee's actions
have aimed to increase spending in core readiness accounts at
the expense of lower priority spending on administrative and
support functions.
    Likewise, the committee believes that in addition to
forming an essential element in the basic compact between the
nation and those who defend it, the quality of military life is
inextricably tied to force readiness. This is particularly true
in today's force projection environment characterized by its
high pace of operations and the stress it places on both
individuals and families. Thus, the committee continues a five-
part approach to maintaining a decent quality of life for
service members and their families: providing fair
compensation; improving the military health care system;
maintaining the value of retirement benefits; supporting key
morale, welfare and recreation programs; and ensuring that
military personnel and their families live and work in the best
possible facilities.
    Finally, the committee has had to manage risk within the
modernization accounts. Although the President's fiscal year
1999 procurement budget request of $48.7 billion grows modestly
in real terms for the first time in 13 years, it is still well
short of the required level. The research and development
request--the key not only to robust modernization but to
innovation in the next century--falls even shorter of the
requirement to prepare for an uncertain future. Over the next
five years, defense spending for research and development
accounts is projected to fall by at least 14 percent. The
committee believes these levels of investment to be wholly
inadequate.
    Thus, in comparison with the substantial addition of funds
for modernization over the past three years, this year's bill
reflects an effort to protect what the committee considers to
becritical modernization projects, as it protected core
readiness accounts. Although budget constraints have prevented the
committee from providing the large funding increases needed in the
modernization accounts, the committee bill does contain additional
procurement funding above the President's request, and protects the
$36.1 billion requested for research and development. Selected programs
have received increases. For example, the committee has added $72.0
million for advanced procurement of an additional two Joint STARS
aircraft. These reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft are among the
most sought-after assets by regional commanders-in-chief for a range of
operations, from peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia to the regular crises
with Iraq. Though considered ``low-density, high-demand'' assets and
thus tightly managed by the Department of Defense, the Administration
through the QDR chose to terminate the program at 13 aircraft, six
short of the 19 required. The committee has concluded that the Joint
STARS aircraft is precisely the sort of ``focused modernization''
effort essential to today's and tomorrow's forces.
    The committee has tried to prudently manage risks for
tomorrow as well. In particular, the committee continues to
believe that robust theater and national missile defenses are a
key to future U.S. national security. Whether for the
protection of U.S. forces deployed abroad or the ultimate
safety of Americans at home, effective missile defenses will
become an even more important requirement in the future. Thus,
the committee has added $132.8 million to the President's
request for missile defense spending.
    Yet despite its best efforts to manage risk, the committee
remains concerned that its actions can only compel improvements
at the margin. The magnitude of the shortfalls, as outlined
above, is so great that it cannot be eliminated by a wiser
allocation of resources alone. Nor can any foreseeable defense
reform, including new rounds of base closures proposed by the
Administration, provide sufficient savings to reapply towards
critical shortfalls in a timely manner. In short, the committee
has attempted to ensure, within the severe constraints of a
declining defense budget, the most effective U.S. military
force possible. By reprioritizing the Administration's budget
request, the committee has provided the Department of Defense
with some of the additional tools and resources required to
recruit and retain the best people, train them to the highest
standard, equip them with the most advanced military technology
and provide them with a standard of life more commensurate with
that of the American citizens they are sworn to protect. Having
done so, the committee nonetheless finds itself deeply troubled
that the world's ``sole superpower'' is running a ``moderate to
high'' risk when it comes to its ability to promote and protect
vital national security interests.
                                HEARINGS
    Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 results from extensive
hearings that began on January 29, 1998 and that were completed
on April 1, 1998. The full committee conducted 9 sessions. In
addition, a total of 36 sessions were conducted by five
different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on
various titles of the bill.
            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
                                OVERVIEW
    The fiscal year 1999 procurement budget request continues
the Department's pattern of neglecting long-term modernization
of aging equipment to pay for near-term readiness- and
personnel-related shortfalls. Although the $48.7 billion
request finally grows modestly in real terms for the first time
in 13 years, it is nevertheless $2.0 billion less than was
projected to be just a year ago, and the forecast for fiscal
year 2000 is an additional $2.9 billion below last year's
forecast. Additionally, the request has been artificially
inflated by the inclusion of items not traditionally funded in
procurement accounts, such as strategic sealift.
    However, the committee is pleased the Department has
finally ``turned the corner'' on procurement spending after
having established a pattern of promising year-after-year to do
so, only to backtrack from its commitment each succeeding year.
The committee has added $15.0 billion to the procurement
accounts over the past three fiscal years and, despite the
severe fiscal limitations, for a fourth consecutive year, it
was able to continue its own established pattern of increasing
these accounts. The following increases are of note:
                        [In millions of dollars]
Army:
    UH-60 blackhawk-.............................................. $66.4
    ARL-..........................................................  35.0
    Kiowa warrior safety mods-....................................  16.0
    Javelin-......................................................  20.0
    MLRS launchers-...............................................  50.0
    Bradley base sustainment-.....................................  75.0
    Ammunition-...................................................  44.6
    HMMWV-........................................................  10.0
    Shortstop-....................................................  15.0
Navy/Marine Corps:
    V-22-.........................................................  78.0
    JPATS-........................................................  12.2
    KC-130J-...................................................... 112.4
    EA-6B modifications-..........................................  39.0
    Ammunition-...................................................  25.0
    LCAC SLEP-....................................................  16.0
    CEC-..........................................................  35.0
Air Force:
    F-16-.........................................................  60.0
    Joint stars advance procurement-..............................  72.0
    Global hawk unmanned aerial vehicle-..........................  32.5
    F-15 modifications-...........................................  45.0
    TCAS/EGPWS navigation safety modifications-...................  50.0
    B-2 post production support-..................................  86.0
    Minuteman III modifications-..................................  23.0
    Theater deployable communications-............................  20.0
National Guard and Reserve:
    Various equipment items-...................................... 300.0
    WC-130J-......................................................  59.7
    EC-130J-......................................................  51.5
    C-130J-....................................................... 174.0
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Aircraft Procurement, Army
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $1,325.9 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,420.8 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Airborne avionics
    The budget request contained $56.3 million for the
procurement of various airborne avionics upgrades to Army
aircraft, of which $20.1 million was for engineering change
orders (ECO) for 51 improved data modems (IDM).
    The IDM is a digital data link modem, which exchanges
targeting data between an aircraft and various ground-based
weapons systems in support of tactical combat and forward air
control missions. The committee notes that there is an 84
percent increase in the amount requested for ECOs in fiscal
year 1999 over the amount appropriated for the same number of
IDMs in fiscal year 1998 and a 93 percent increase over the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997 for 94 IDMs. Although
the committee understands the importance of this system to the
Army's digital battlefield effort, the committee believes this
large increase for ECOs is unjustified and recommends $46.3
million, a decrease of $10.0 million.
Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)
    The budget request contained $13.1 million for fielding two
ARL-Multifunction (M) aircraft, Commanders Tactical Terminal
(CTT) installations and upgrades of imagery intelligence
(IMINT) payloads with second generation forward looking
infrared radars into three ARL-M aircraft. However, no funds
were requested for the procurement of additional aircraft or
for wide-area search moving target indicators (MTI) and
synthetic aperture radars (SAR).
    The ARL supports intelligence collection requirements for
forward deployed force projection, operations other than war,
and mid-intensity conflicts. The committee notes that the final
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)-validated ARL-M
aircraft remains unfunded and that this aircraft would be U.S.-
based to support theater-level worldwide contingency
operations.
    The ARL-M possesses an integrated IMINT, communications
intelligence (COMINT), and MTI/SAR and offers a broader
intelligence collection capability than the previously fielded
specific mission type aircraft, such as the ARL-C (COMINT) and
ARL-I (IMINT) platforms. The committee understands that the
MTI/SAR vastly improves the capability of the aircraft to
detect, classify and track moving targets on the ground and is
critical to daily support of Joint Chiefs of Staff sensitive
reconnaissance operations, United States Forces Korea
indications and warning requirements, and various non-
Department of Defense government agencies, including the Drug
Enforcement Administration and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Therefore, the committee recommends $48.1 million, an
increase of $30.0 million for an additional aircraft to fulfill
the JROC requirement and $5.0 million for an additional MTI/SAR
to upgrade a previously fielded ARL-C aircraft.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)
    The budget request contained $5.1 million for nonrecurring
engineering and engineering change orders for the Suite of
Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures, but no funds were
included for upgrades to the Aircraft Survivability Equipment
Trainer IV (ASET IV).
    ASET IV is a ground-based, mobile aviation threat emitter
simulation and training system, which enables aircrews to
recognize surface-to-air-missile (SAM) and anti-aircraft
artillery threats in order to employ the correct aircraft
threat avoidance tactics. ASET IV systems are currently fielded
at major training centers throughout the United States and
Germany and require that an aircraft have a fully operational
ASE suite of sensors on board for training.
    Congress authorized and appropriated an increase of $7.4
million for ASET IV upgrades in fiscal year 1998. Nevertheless,
additional validated requirements exist and several systems in
their present configuration still lack the capability to
locate, identify, or track aircraft at night and cannot
simulate the most current infrared (IR) SAM threats, thereby
limiting aircrews to daylight training against older IR SAM
threats--a situation which is not representative of the Army's
``train as you fight concept.''
    The committee believes that the Army should continue to
upgrade the ASET IV system in order for aircrews to have access
to realistic training through the incorporation of additional
night vision cameras and up-to-date IR SAM threat emitter
simulation capabilities at several additional training centers.
Consistent with committee actions taken in fiscal year 1998 and
based on the Army's requirement for forces to train in
realistic threat environments, the committee recommends an
increase of $7.4 million for upgrading ASET IV systems with IR
SAM threat simulators and night vision cameras.
Army airborne command and control system (A2C2S)
    The budget request contained $24.4 million to procure 11
A2C2Ss.
    The A2C2S is a UH-60 deployable command post, which
provides a highly mobile data, voice, and imagery command and
control (C2) capability in support of Corps through Brigade
level commanders. While the committee is supportive of improved
C2 systems, it believes that programs entering initial
procurement under the Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program
(WRAP) should be procured at a more modest rate than planned
for the A2C2S in order to validate the success of the WRAP
research and development efforts. Therefore, the committee
recommends $13.4 million, a decrease of $11.0 million.
Army helicopter modernization plan
    The committee notes that the recently completed
congressionally mandated Army Helicopter Modernization Plan did
not include a strategy for fielding the next light utility
helicopter (LUH), arguably one of the basic aircraft for
performing the Army's mission. The committee is concerned with
the condition of the Vietnam war-era Army and Army National
Guard (ARNG) UH-1 Huey helicopters--the aircraft that currently
performs the LUH mission--and the Army's plan to maintain over
500 of these aircraft in the fleet beyond fiscal year 2010. The
recent worldwide grounding of all Army and ARNG UH-1 Hueys due
to the potential for engine spur gear fractures only heightens
this concern. The committee is aware of the ongoing development
of a LUH operational requirements document and strongly urges
the Secretary of the Army to complete it by the December 1998
scheduled completion date. The committee also urges the
Secretary to fund the LUH in the future years defense program.
C-12 modifications
    The budget request contained $2.7 million for avionics and
cockpit upgrades to C-12 aircraft.
    The C-12 is based throughout the world and is one of the
Army's primary passenger-carrying aircraft. This aircraft is
expected to continue in active service for at least the next 20
years and will be one of four types that will remain in the
Army's fixed wing utility aircraft fleet after a major
consolidation of the inventory is completed.
    The committee notes that the majority of the Army's C-12
aircraft continue to operate with the same avionics and
navigation equipment that was installed when they were
purchased in the 1970s and 1980s. While this equipment may have
been state-of-the-art at that time, today it is obsolete. Based
on the need for passenger-carrying military aircraft to have
the latest technology for safe flight operations, Congress
authorized and appropriated an increase of $6.0 million in
fiscal year 1998 for C-12 avionics and cockpit modifications.
The committee believes these upgrades should continue to be
accelerated and, therefore, recommends an increase of $7.0
million for this purpose.
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications
    The budget request contained $101.2 million for CH-47 cargo
helicopter modifications, of which $87.3 million was for T55
engine upgrades.
    The T55 engine upgrade includes engine conversion kits,
engine fielding kits, and engine conversions. Engine conversion
kits improve fuel, torque and rotor performance and include
newer metal alloy parts to reduce corrosion. Engine fielding
kits assist in torque management and engine temperature
reduction. Engine conversions allow for cockpit
instrumentation, associated wiring, and structural
modifications for new engines to prevent them from ejecting
toward crew and passengers in the event of a crash.
    While the committee is aware of the importance of these
modifications, it notes that 87 individual engine conversion
kits and engine conversions were included in the fiscal year
1999 budget request, while only 70 engine fielding kits were
requested. To adjust the procurement of these three items to
the fiscal years 1997 and 1998 level, the committee recommends
a decrease of $8.2 million for engine conversion kits and a
decrease of $4.5 million for engine conversions in order to
make them consistent with the number of engine fielding kits
being procured.
Endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
    The budget request did not contain funds for procurement of
endurance UAVs for the Army.
    The committee notes that the operational performance of the
Predator UAV in support of U.S. operations in Bosnia has been
impressive in all respects and understands that a draft
Operational Requirements Document indicates that the Predator
will meet the Army's endurance UAV criteria. Since the Predator
is the only operational endurance UAV that can support the
Army's tactical intelligence requirements, the committee
encourages the Army to procure this system.
Kiowa warrior modifications
    The budget request contained $40.4 million for Kiowa
Warrior system safety enhancement program (SSEP) modifications.
    Included in the SSEP are new crashworthy crew seats; an
inflatable air bag body and head restraint system; a new
handheld fire extinguisher; a full authority digital electronic
control engine upgrade; and an improved master controller
processor unit, which will replace three existing processors
with two state-of-the-art units providing considerable memory
growth while reducing aircraft weight and operating and support
costs. Similar to congressional action in fiscal year 1998,
which authorized and appropriated an additional $15.0 million
for these upgrades, the committee recommends an increase of
$16.0 million for this purpose.-
UH-60L blackhawk
    The budget request contained $218.8 million for the
procurement of 22 UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters, 10 of which are
for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
    The UH-60 Blackhawk is the Army's primary utility
helicopter for both the active and reserve components. As a
result of the fiscal year 1998 congressionally mandated Army
Modernization Plan, the Army determined that an additional 90
Blackhawks should be fielded to the ARNG. Beginning with the
fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Army plans to include
funding to procure 10 aircraft per year for 5 years toward the
additional 90 aircraft requirement. The committee notes that 40
aircraft remain unfunded and that additional Blackhawks are one
of the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded priorities for fiscal
year 1999. Therefore, the committee recommends $285.2 million,
an increase of $66.4 million, for eight additional aircraft for
the ARNG in order to reduce the shortfall.
                       Missile Procurement, Army
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $1,205.8 million for Missile
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,232.3 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Enhanced fiber optic guided missile (EFOGM)
    The budget request contained $13.7 million, of which $13.2
million was for the procurement of 96 EFOGMs.
    Both the committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132)
and the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-340) specifically state that
production EFOGMs would not be procured until successful flight
tests of prototype missiles occur. The committee notes
elsewhere in this report that the EFOGM has been plagued with
technical difficulties and has not demonstrated a successful
flight to date. Therefore, the committee recommends no funding
for EFOGM procurement.
Javelin
    The budget request contained $320.0 million for the
procurement of 3,316 Javelin missiles for the Army.
    The Javelin is a medium range, man-portable, fire-and-
forget, anti-tank missile, which can defeat all known and
projected armor threats and is employed by infantrymen, scouts
and combat engineers. The committee believes that this anti-
armor system is essential for light forces to maintain
battlefield dominance and has consistently supported
accelerating the fielding of this missile to both the Army and
the Marine Corps. Consistent with past actions, the committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million to continue accelerated
fielding of Javelin missiles.-
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems
    The budget request contained $85.4 million for the
procurement of 24 MLRS launchers, of which $20.9 million was
for engineering services. However, no funds were included for
procurement of launchers for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
    The committee notes that the funding for engineering
services in the budget request is excessive. The committee
believes such an increase is unjustified and, therefore,
recommends a reduction of $10.0 million.
    Although the ARNG provides nearly 70 percent of the
artillery fire support for the total Army, the committee is
aware that additional launchers are required to fill a
shortfall in ARNG MLRS battalions. Therefore, the committee
recommends $125.4 million, an increase of $50.0 million, for
additional MLRS launchers for the ARNG.
               Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $1,433.6 million for
procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for
fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,507.6 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Bradley base sustainment
    The budget request contained $285.8 million for the
procurement of 73 Bradley M2A3 fighting vehicles, but no funds
were included for upgrading Bradley ``A0'' vehicles to the
``A2'' Operation Desert Storm (ODS) variant.
    The Bradley A2ODS variant incorporates changes that improve
the vehicle's lethality, survivability, and mobility, as well
as the situational awareness of its crew. Modifications include
installation of a laser range finder, Global Positioning System
navigation capability, a combat identification system, a
driver's thermal viewer and a missile countermeasure device.
    When the Army completes all of its planned modifications to
the Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most
advanced ``A3'' variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The
Army National Guard (ARNG), however, will be left with
unmodified, first-generation ``A0'' vehicles, which, because of
major survivability deficiencies, were not used in the Persian
Gulf War and will not likely be taken into future combat.
    Because the ARNG comprises an increasing percentage of the
Army's warfighting capability as a result of active component
force reductions and consistent with actions taken in fiscal
year 1998, the committee recommends $360.8 million, an increase
of $75.0 million, for modifying Bradley ``A0'' vehicles to the
ODS variant for the ARNG.
Bradley base sustainment/command and control vehicle (C2V)
    The budget request contained $285.8 million for the
procurement of 73 Bradley M2A3 fighting vehicles and $44.2
million for the procurement of 10 C2V.
    The committee understands that the Army is considering the
savings and benefits associated with a multi-program multiyear
procurement contract for the Bradley M2A3 and the C2V. The
committee urges the Army to consider this contracting
opportunity beginning in fiscal year 2000 and recommends that
the Army consider additional vehicles in the contract, such as
the Bradley A3 Fire Support Team Vehicle, the Improved Recovery
Vehicle and the Multiple Launch Rocket System launcher
remanufacture program, thereby providing the Army with the
flexibility to change the vehicle mix from year-to-year as the
need arises.
M1 abrams tank modifications
    The budget request contained $53.3 million for
modifications to improve the M1 Abrams tank's lethality, safety
and survivability, of which $20.3 million was for M1A1-D
integration kits.
    The committee notes that the Army is in the third year of a
five-year multiyear procurement (MYP) contract to upgrade M1A1
tanks to the M1A2 system enhancement program (SEP) variant. The
committee fully supports this upgrade and believes that a full
complement of M1A2 SEP tanks will provide a more lethal armor
force in future digitized divisions compared to a mixed fleet
of lesser capable M1A1-Ds and M1A2 SEP variants. The committee
finds no compelling need for both the M1A1-D and M1A2 SEP
upgrades, and, therefore, recommends no funds for the M1A1-D
upgrade. The committee has included a provision (sec. 112) that
directs the Secretary of the Army to obligate the $20.3 million
requested for M1A1-D integration kits for M1A2 SEP Step One
digital communications upgrades.
    Additionally, the committee understands that the Army
intends to reduce the size of M1 tank battalions from 60 to 45
tanks in the near-term and that this force structure reduction
is possible due to the increased lethality, survivability and
command and control capability that the M1A2 SEP tank provides.
While the committee concurs with the National Defense Panel's
recommendation to develop a lighter, more deployable tank for
the Army After Next, it does not foresee technological advances
that would warrant the fielding of a follow-on tank to the M1A2
before 2015. Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the
Secretary of the Army to request authorization for a three-year
follow-on MYP contract in fiscal year 2000 with an annual
production rate of 120 tanks per year.
M-240 series machine gun
    The budget request contained $6.5 million to procure 673 M-
240 machine guns, and the committee recommends the requested
amount.
    The committee understands that the Army is planning to
modernize its UH-60 and CH-47 helicopter fleets with the M-240D
machine gun. Because it believes that this initiative will
provide unprecedented commonality in medium machine gun
equipage across the force, the committee encourages the Army to
expeditiously provide the resources for its implementation.
M4 carbine
    The budget request contained $4.2 million for the
procurement of 6,310 M4 carbines.
    The M4 carbine is a shoulder-fired 5.56 millimeter round
weapon for light forces designed to replace all M3A1 World War
II era .45 caliber machine guns and certain M16 rifles and M9
pistols. The committee recommends $5.2 million, an increase of
$1.0 million, for additional M4 carbines for light forces.
                      Ammunition Procurement, Army
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $1,008.9 million for
Ammunition Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,053.5 million for fiscal year
1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Ammunition
    The budget request contained $827.2 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $871.8 million, an
increase of $44.6 million for the following types of
ammunition:
                        [In millions of dollars]
Small/Medium Cal Ammunition:
    CTG 5.56mm All Types-.........................................  $5.6
    CTG 7.62mm All Types-.........................................   4.0
    CTG 25mm All Types-...........................................  10.0
Mortar Ammunition:
    CTG Mortar 60mm Illum M761/767-...............................   5.0
Tank Ammunition:
    CTG Tank 120mm HEAT-MP-T M830A1-..............................  10.0
Artillery Fuzes:
    M767A1 Electronic Artillery Fuze-.............................  10.0
                       Items of Special Interest
Arsenals
    The committee notes the historical importance of and unique
contributions made by U.S. Army arsenals as part of the defense
industrial base. Their support to the military under title 10,
United States Code, section 4532 (The Arsenal Act), aided
immeasurably in the demise of the Cold War and will continue
into the 21st century. However, with the decrease in defense
spending over the last decade, the committee is concerned over
the dramatic decrease in workload at these government-owned,
government-operated industrial facilities. Therefore, the
committee urges the Secretary of the Army to identify and
evaluate processes and economical practices that would enable
arsenals to remain viable and critical components of the
defense industrial base.
Non-toxic frangible ammunition
    The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of non-toxic frangible ammunition.
    Non-toxic frangible ammunition rounds are environmentally-
friendly, lead-free munitions for indoor or urban small arms
training. These rounds disintegrate on impact with hard surface
targets and reduce or eliminate lead contamination to the
environment while providing safer and cleaner training
scenarios than currently available. The committee notes the
Army's recent evaluation and safety certification of certain
commercial-off-the-shelf, non-toxic frangible 9 millimeter (mm)
and 5.56mm ammunition under the Joint Service Small Arms
Program (JSSAP). The committee understands, however, that the
certifications were granted with certain limitations and
restrictions. Nevertheless, the committee is encouraged by the
Army's efforts under the JSSAP. Since non-toxic frangible
ammunition is currently procured on a limited basis for
training requirements, the committee believes that continued
procurement is warranted for these unique requirements while
performance deficiencies are addressed.
                        Other Procurement, Army
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $3,198.8 million for Other
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends
authorization of $3,136.9 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless other
specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on
affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)
    The budget request contained $130.7 million for procurement
of ADPE, of which $44.0 million was for the procurement of the
Joint Computer Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support (JCALS)
system.
    The committee notes a nearly 25 percent increase in the
amount requested for JCALS over both the amount authorized and
appropriated in fiscal year 1998 and the amount projected for
fiscal year 2000. Additionally, the committee notes that the
system recently failed approval for Milestone III low rate
initial production for the second time. Therefore, the
committee recommends $24.9 million, a decrease of $19.1
million, for continued limited procurement of this system.
Close combat tactical trainer (CCTT)
     The budget request contained $113.9 million for continued
low rate initial production (LRIP) of the CCTT system, to
include 77 fixed site modules and 18 mobile modules.
    The CCTT is a networked system of manned simulators for the
Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, and M113A3 carrier and will train
both active and reserve component crews of armored and
mechanized infantry combat units. Although the committee is
aware of cost savings that can be achieved through simulation
training, it is concerned with delays that have been
experienced by this system as a result of the one-year slip in
initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). Moreover, the
committee is concerned with the 53 percent increase in the
request over the amount authorized and appropriated in fiscal
year 1998 prior to the system's having successfully completed
IOT&E. Therefore, the committee recommends $84.5 million, a
decrease of $17.0 million for modules and site equipment, $2.4
million for commercial trainers, and $10.0 million for
commercial image generators.
Co-site interference mitigation technology
    The budget request did not contain funds for the
procurement of co-site interference mitigation technology.
    Co-site interference mitigation technology limits
electronic interference created by multiple, co-located radio
transmission antennae when radios transmit simultaneously,
thereby producing ``bleed over'' of conversations from one
channel to another. The committee is aware of currently
available electronically-tuned helix antennae and interference-
canceling technologies that may provide a solution to co-site
interference and, therefore, recommends an increase of $3.0
million to procure these technologies for evaluation by Force
XXI experimental units.
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)
    The budget request contained $332.0 million for the
procurement of 2038 FMTVs.
    The committee is aware that these vehicles will be procured
under a four-year multiyear procurement (MYP) contract, with a
fifth one-year option, beginning in fiscal year 1998. The
committee is also aware of the Army's plan to develop a second
production source to achieve savings through competition.
However, the committee is concerned that the Army may not be
able to budget sufficient resources for medium trucks in its
future years defense program to justify two sources and
questions whether the Army's plan to develop a second source is
necessary.
    Therefore, the committee expects that the Secretary of the
Army will not enter into production qualification contracts
with potential second source suppliers until he certifies to
the congressional defense committees that a second source
acquisition strategy is cost effective, that sufficient funds
are programmed in the future years defense program to execute
that strategy and provides analysis supporting his
certification.
Forward entry device (FED)
    The budget request contained $25.0 million for the
procurement of 852 FEDs. The FED is a hand-held computer used
in heavy divisions by forward observers, field artillery
battery commanders, and fire support teams for transmitting
artillery fire requirements to field artillery units.
    The committee notes that the unit cost for the 852 FEDs
requested is three thousand dollars higher than the unit cost
for the 45 units procured in fiscal year 1998. The committee is
aware of some enhancements incorporated into the system, which
might explain a modest increase in unit cost. However, since
the proliferation of information technologies (IT) in both the
public and private sectors has greatly decreased IT costs, the
committee believes that the unit cost increase for the
procurement of 800 more units than were procured in fiscal year
1998 is unwarranted and recommends a reduction of $10.0
million.
Ground based common sensor (GBCS)
    The budget request contained $25.4 million for the GBCS-
Light (L) system, of which $1.5 million is for the Common
Modules Electronic Intelligence Subsystem (CMES).
    The committee notes that the GBCS-L system has had numerous
technical difficulties and experienced a significant fielding
delay as a result of a two-year slip in initial operational
test and evaluation (IOT&E). This delay has resulted in the
Department's twice having used GBCS as a source of funds for
reprogramming requests. The committee understands that the
GBCS-L may now begin IOT&E in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
1998, however, as a result of the sensor's past performance, it
believes that all of the requested funding may not be
executable because of further delays. Therefore, the committee
recommends $14.2 million, a decrease of $9.7 million for GBCS-L
hardware and $1.5 million due to the duplicate entries for CMES
in the budget request.
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)/HMMWV extended
        service plan (ESP)
    The budget request contained $12.1 million to procure 110
HMMWVs, 100 of which were up-armored variants, and $24.8
million to extend the life of 387 HMMWVs.
    The committee notes that subsequent to the submission of
the budget request, the Army decided to only procure new HMMWVs
rather than extend the life of older vehicles and that the new
HMMWVs are a top unfunded priority of the Army Chief of Staff.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funding for the HMMWV
ESP and recommends $22.1 million, an increase of $10.0 million,
for procurement of new up-armored HMMWVs.
Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint STARS) common
        ground station (CGS)
    The budget request contained $87.2 million for the
procurement of 20 Joint STARS CGSs.
    The committee is aware of the lack of adequate joint Army/
Air Force air-land battlefield sensor assets to detect, locate,
track, and classify both moving and stationary targets beyond
the forward line of troops. The CGS improves ground commanders'
battlefield command and control (C2) capability by integrating
into a single station the processing of signals, imagery and
other intelligence received through a data link from the Air
Force's E-8 Joint STARS aircraft radar. The committee is aware
of the proven success of the CGS in Operation Joint Endeavor in
Bosnia, and, therefore, recommends an increase of $10.0 million
for the procurement of 24 additional CGS workstations.
Joint tactical terminal
    The budget request contained $6.5 million in other
procurement, Army, and $4.2 million in other procurement, Air
Force, for the Joint Tactical Terminal intelligence broadcast
transceivers.
    These radios are an integral part of the Integrated
Broadcast Service that the committee fully supports. The
committee is concerned that, because of contract protests that
have resulted in delays in final contract award, the fielding
of these radios has slipped, leaving operational users without
the ability to receive tactical intelligence data broadcasts.
In order to correct this problem, the committee recommends
$11.5 million and $7.2 million, an increase of $5.0 million for
the Army and $3.0 million for the Air Force, respectively, for
accelerating the purchase and fielding of these radios.
Land warrior
    The budget request contained $51.4 million for initial
procurement of Land Warrior dismounted combat soldier weapon
systems, but no funds were included for all-torso body armor.
    In its report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132), the
committee noted that the effectiveness of modern all-torso body
armor was aptly demonstrated during Operation Provide Hope in
Somalia and that subsequent Army studies and analyses indicated
more than 50 percent of all life-threatening wounds received in
combat could be prevented by using such body armor. The
committee believes that the medical expenses and loss of human
life that could be avoided by employing this type of armor far
outweigh the costs of procuring and fielding it; therefore, the
committee recommends $56.4 million, an increase of $5.0
million, for the procurement of all-torso body armor.
Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)
    The budget request contained $545 thousand for 50 LMEs.
    The LME is a lightweight, frame-supported, mobile tent
designed to provide rapid deployed and forward maintenance
units a quick setup-and-takedown enclosed shelter in which to
perform field maintenance operations on tracked and wheeled
vehicles and other equipment in all climatic conditions. The
committee notes that light forces will be more mobile in the
future and must therefore be capable of rapidly repairing and
maintaining equipment while deployed. However, because the Army
identified a new requirement for LMEs after the budget request
was submitted to Congress, it was not adequately funded.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million
for the procurement of additional LMEs.
Night vision devices
    The budget request contained $29.6 million for procurement
of AN/PVS-7 night vision goggles, but no funds were included
for the procurement of AN-PEQ-2A infrared aiming target
pointers/infrared aiming lights.
    The AN-PEQ-2A infrared aiming target pointer/infrared
aiming light is a target designator mounted either on
individual or crew served weapons. Its eyesafe laser output is
visible only when used with image intensifier night vision
goggles, such as the AN/PVS-7. The committee notes that the
``Own the Night'' initiative--the Army's concept of fighting,
dominating and winning battles during nighttime operations--is
one of the Army Chief of Staff's top five priorities. However,
the committee is concerned that adequate funding for night
vision equipment is not included in the budget request, despite
its having proved to be a highly successful ``over match''
capability and ``force multiplier'' for light forces in the
Task Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiments. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for AN-PEQ-2A
infrared aiming target pointers/infrared aiming lights.
Nonsystem training devices
    The budget request contained $56.8 million for procurement
of nonsystem training devices, but no funds were included for
firefighter trainers. This training device is a computer-
controlled, natural-gas-fueled system, which provides safe,
realistic, and environmentally-friendly training for
firefighters at airports and training academies throughout the
country.
    The committee understands that Army firefighter training
sites have been or will be closed in the future because most
are not in compliance with environmental regulations. Because
of the site closures, the Army has established a program to
provide regional firefighter training and has awarded a
contract to procure 28 firefighter trainers over a five-year
period for this purpose. However, it will have procured only 12
of these trainers by the end of fiscal year 1998. The committee
continues to believe that these trainers provide a safe, unique
and fundamental fire prevention and teaching function for Army
firefighters. Therefore, consistent with action taken in fiscal
year 1998, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million
to procure four additional firefighter trainers. The committee
also urges the Secretary of the Army to provide funds for the
remaining trainer requirements in the fiscal year 2000 budget
request.
Shortstop
    The budget request contained no funds for procurement of
the Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS).
    The SEPS is a commercial electronics radio frequency
countermeasure system that protects personnel and high value
assets from artillery, mortar rounds and rockets by detonating
their proximity fuzes well before they impact in the target
area. The committee understands that initial Army testing of
5,000 rounds fired at the SEPS resulted in a 100 percent pre-
detonation success rate and that follow-on tests with both
artillery and rockets were also highly successful. However, for
the third straight year, the Army has failed to include funding
for SEPS in the budget request.
    SEPS, developed as a quick reaction capability system, was
deployed during Operation Desert Storm and more recently in
Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia. The committee authorized
$9.0 million (of which $6.0 million was appropriated) in fiscal
year 1998 for procurement of 30 units for forward-deployed
forces in Korea. Similar to prior year action, the committee
recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the procurement of
additional SEPS in order to complete the fielding of systems to
Korea and to begin fielding systems to Kuwait.
Small pusher tug
    The budget request contained $4.3 million for the
procurement of one small pusher tug.
    This tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin propeller vessel
designed to tow general cargo barges in harbors, inland
waterways and along coastlines. It can also assist larger tugs
in docking and undocking ships of all sizes, movement of
floating cranes and machine shops, and performing line handling
duties.
    The committee is aware of the unreliable performance of the
Army's 40 year-old small tugs during Operations Desert Shield
and Desert Storm and understands that the Army has a
requirement for eight new tugs to replace these older vessels.
The committee understands that two additional tugs can be
procured at a cost of $4.7 million. Since the Army has only
budgeted for six of these tugs in its future years defense
program, the committee recommends $8.6 million, an increase of
$4.3 million, for a total of three vessels, which would fulfill
the Army requirement and complete the program.
            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $855.1 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions, Army, for fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends authorization of no funds for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
 <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                        Item of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
    The budget request contained $855.1 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, including $182.8
million for research and development, $140.7 million for
procurement, and $531.7 million for operations and maintenance.
    Section 1412(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99-145) requires that funds
for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions, including funds for military construction
projects necessary to carrying out the demilitarization
program, shall be set forth in the budget of the Department of
Defense as a separate program and shall not be included in the
budget accounts for any military department.
    The committee is aware of delays associated with the
construction of the chemical demilitarization site at Pine
Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, that should result in a reduced level
of expenditures at that installation during fiscal year 1999.
The committee also notes projected increases that it does not
consider are warranted in the research and development request
for the destruction of stockpile and for non-stockpile agents
and munitions.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, and $834.0
million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense.
The recommendation includes a decrease of $11.9 million in
research and development, a decrease of $6.0 million in
procurement, and a decrease of $3.2 million in operations and
maintenance.
                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy
                                Overview
     The budget request contained $7,466.7 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends
authorization of $7,420.8 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
AV-8B
    The budget request contained $282.7 million to procure 12
remanufactured AV-8B aircraft and $55.7 million for advance
procurement of 12 remanufactured aircraft in fiscal year 2000.
    Consistent with its recommendations in fiscal years 1997
and 1998, the committee continues to support accelerated
mission capability and safety-related improvements to the AV-
8B. The committee notes that the Department's legislative
proposal requests authorization for multiyear procurement of
these aircraft and recommends a provision (sec. 121) that would
support this request. However, the committee also notes
unexplained growth in integrated logistics support and
government furnished avionics compared to fiscal year 1998, and
concludes such increase is unwarranted. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $279.5 million, a decrease of $3.2
million, and believes that this decrease will not affect the
ability of the Department to proceed with a multiyear contract.
    The committee understands that an unfunded option exists in
the proposed 72-aircraft multiyear contract that would
remanufacture the remaining 24 aircraft in the fleet and
encourages the Department to negotiate such an option.
AH-1W night targeting system (NTS)
    The budget request contained $22.4 million for AH-1W
helicopter modifications, and included $9.1 million for the AH-
1W NTS. According to the budget justification documents, fiscal
year 1999 is the final procurement year for this system.
    The NTS provides a night and adverse weather capability to
employ the Hellfire and tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire
guided (TOW) missiles. In addition, NTS will provide enhanced
conventional weapons delivery by utilizing the system's laser
ranging capability. The Commandant of the Marine Corps'
unfunded requirements list for fiscal year 1999 identified the
procurement of 10 additional systems among his highest
priorities so that the Marine Corps could achieve its objective
of 188 systems to modify training and attrition aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0
million for 10 NTSs.
EA-6B modifications
    The budget request contained $75.7 million for EA-6B
modifications but included no funds for the band 9/10
transmitter/receiver upgrade.
    The committee understands that the Department faces an
emergent requirement to counter high frequency radar techniques
of a new family of electronic threats. The committee further
understands that the EA-6B is not currently equipped to counter
these threats and notes that the Joint Tactical Electronic
Warfare Study identified a need for improving the aircraft's
jamming capability in the high frequency (band 9/10) ranges.
Inrecognition of this situation, the committee recommends an increase
of $39.0 million to meet this requirement.-
EP-3E flat panel display
    The budget request contained $5.4 million for modifications
to the EP-3E aircraft, but included no funds to procure flat
panel displays.
    The EP-3E is a land-based, long-range aircraft with
electronic intercept devices for detection and tracking of
enemy radars and radios. The committee understands that, as new
combat threats have emerged over the years, the fleet of EP-3E
aircraft has undergone numerous equipment upgrades that have
increased its weight. As a result, the committee also
understands that critical operational and safety equipment has
been removed in order to maintain the aircraft within its
designed weight limit. The much lighter-weight flat panel
display is a form, fit and function replacement for existing
displays and would save nearly 600 pounds per aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million to replace existing displays with the flat panel
displays in the Navy's EP-3E fleet of 12 aircraft.
ES-3 modifications
    The budget request contained $5.2 million for ES-3 series
modification kits. The Navy has informed the committee that it
intends to terminate the ES-3 program in fiscal year 2000.
Based on this decision, the committee sees no need for
modifying these aircraft prior to their removal from the fleet.
The committee, therefore, recommends no funding for these
modifications.
F-14 modifications
    The budget request contained $223.7 million for F-14
modifications, including $81.1 million for structural
improvements.
    The committee notes excessive cost growth related to
modifications for structural improvements and, therefore,
recommends a decrease of $7.3 million.
F/A-18E/F
    The budget request contained $2,787.8 million for 30 F/A-
18E/F aircraft and $109.4 million for advance procurement of 36
aircraft in fiscal year 2000.
    Based on the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR), the committee notes that the Department has reduced the
total procurement objective from 1,000 to 548 aircraft and has
also reduced procurement in the future years defense program
(FYDP) from 248 to 224. The committee notes that the Department
plans to request increases of six aircraft per year for each of
the next three fiscal years until its maximum production rate
of 48 aircraft per year is attained in fiscal year 2002.
However, for fiscal year 1999, the requested increase from
fiscal year 1998 is 10 aircraft.
    The committee is also aware that the Department has
increased the number of low rate initial production (LRIP)
aircraft in fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 from 42, as
approved in 1992 by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), to its
current plan of 62 aircraft. The Department's Selected
Acquisition Reports indicate that both its initial plan of 42
LRIP aircraft and its current plan of 62 LRIP aircraft were
predicated on a procurement objective of 1,000 aircraft. The
committee notes that were the Department to comply with the 10
percent LRIP guideline contained in section 2400 of title 10,
United States Code, 55 LRIP aircraft should be sufficient.
    During the past year, the committee has followed the
Department's challenges in solving an uncommanded rolling
motion problem that occurs at altitudes and angles of attack in
that portion of the flight envelope where the F/A-18E/F
performs air combat maneuvers. The Department's Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation recently testified that the
most promising solution to this problem--a porous wing
fairing--causes unacceptable airframe buffeting and that the
final solution to the problem may include other combinations of
aerodynamic alterations to the wing surface. According to the
Director, the root cause of the problem and modifications to
the porous wing fairing are still being investigated, and the
wing fairing configuration flown during developmental testing
does not incorporate the production representative wing fold
mechanism. Additionally, the Director stated that the
Department would not have a complete understanding of the
impact of the design fix, including uncertainty over air flow
effects around the weapons pylons, until the conclusion of
operational testing in 1999. Moreover, the Director also noted
other concerns with the aircraft such as deficiencies in the
performance of its survivability and radar jamming systems.
    In light of the significantly higher increase in production
proposed for fiscal year 1999, the apparent excess number of
LRIP aircraft, and the development and testing issues yet to be
fully resolved, the committee recommends a reduction of $213.1
million and three aircraft. Of the total $213.1 million
reduction, initial spares is reduced by $8.4 million. The
committee believes that an increase of seven aircraft from the
approved fiscal year 1998 level is appropriate and further
believes that a total of 59 LRIP aircraft, approximately 11
percent of the total procurement objective, will meet
requirements for operational testing and evaluation and will
also be sufficient to meet both initial training requirements
and the first operational deployment scheduled for fiscal year
2002.
Joint primary air training system (JPATS)
    The budget request contained no funds for the Navy JPATS.
    The JPATS, consisting of both the T-6A aircraft and a
ground-based training system, will be used by the Navy and Air
Force for primary pilot training. The T-6A will replace both
the Navy's T-34 and Air Force's T-37B fleets, providing safer,
more economical and more effective training for future student
pilots. The Air Force began procurement of the T-6A in fiscal
year 1995, and the committee understands that the Navy plans to
begin procurement in fiscal year 2000. The committee believes
that accelerating T-6A procurement for the Navy would not only
reduce procurement costs for both the Navy and the Air Force
but would reduce operations and maintenance costs forboth
services as well. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of
$12.2 million for four T-6A aircraft to initiate the Navy's procurement
of JPATS.
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
    The budget request contained no funds for the LESPA.
    The committee continues to support the LESPA to replace old
parachutes in the P-3 and E-2C aircraft. Due to its longer
repack cycle and extended service life, the committee believes
that the Navy will realize substantial life cycle cost savings
by procuring LESPA compared to continued use of existing
parachutes. Consistent with previous actions, the committee
recommends $22.0 million to procure LESPA, including $15.0
million for the P-3 and $7.0 million for the E-2C.
T-45TS
    The budget request contained $282.7 million for 15 T-45C
aircraft and $60.2 million for advance procurement of 15
aircraft in fiscal year 2000. The committee notes that fiscal
year 1999 is the first year of a planned five-year multiyear
procurement.
    The committee supports the Department's replacement of its
TA-4J and T-2C training aircraft fleets due to their decreasing
reliability and increasing maintenance costs. In fiscal year
1998, the committee recommended additional funding for
procurement of the T-45C from 12 to 15 aircraft in order to
accelerate the replacement process. Consequently, the committee
supports the Department's plan to procure this aircraft using a
multiyear contract. However, the committee notes unexplained
cost growth in airframe ground support and peculiar training
equipment. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of
$15.5 million for these items and understands that this
reduction will not impact the airframe multiyear contract.
V-22
    The budget request contained $610.8 million to procure 7 V-
22 tiltrotor aircraft and $54.0 million for advance procurement
of 10 aircraft in fiscal year 2000.
    The committee continues to support accelerated V-22
procurement and endorses the Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR)
recommendation to achieve a long-term production rate of 30
aircraft per year by 2004. Additionally, the committee notes
that the procurement of an additional MV-22 aircraft in fiscal
year 1999 is the Commandant of the Marine Corps' highest
unfunded aviation acquisition priority. However, the committee
also notes excessive cost growth for peculiar ground support
equipment. Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the
recommendations of the QDR, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps' unfunded priorities for fiscal year 1999, the committee
recommends an increase of $78.0 million to procure one
additional aircraft. The committee also recommends a decrease
of $14.0 million for peculiar ground support equipment,
resulting in a net increase of $64.0 million.
                       Weapons Procurement, Navy
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $1,327.5 million for Weapons
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,192.2 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Close-in weapon system (CIWS) surface mode upgrade
    The budget request contained $2.8 million for CIWS
modifications but included no funds for the surface mode
upgrade for amphibious ships.
    The CIWS is a fully autonomous, radar-directed gun system
designed for anti-ship missile defense. While the existing
system is effective against its designed threat, the Navy's new
focus on littoral operations requires an ability to defend
against small, fast surface craft for which most Navy ships
have a limited defense. The surface mode upgrade adds an
electro-optical infra-red radar that provides this capability.
To address this deficiency, the committee recommended an
increase of $20.0 million in fiscal year 1998, of which
Congress appropriated an increase of $15.0 million. Consistent
with its prior actions, the committee recommends an increase of
$4.0 million to procure CIWS surface mode upgrade kits for
amphibious ships.
    The committee is concerned that continued manpower and
budget reductions threaten the readiness and performance of the
CIWS, which the committee understands will be maintained in the
fleet beyond 2010. As a result, the committee has been advised
that the Department is considering proposals that would reduce
life-cycle costs of this system, including a single agency
support concept. Under this concept, the Navy would contract
with a single agency to integrate ordnance alteration kit
production and installation with overhauls, maintenance,
spares, warehousing, and shipping activities. The committee
encourages the Department to conduct a fleet demonstration of
this concept to assess its utility to the CIWS and other
systems.
Standard missile
    The budget request contained $225.7 million for 70 Block
III and 45 Block IV Standard missiles.
    The committee notes a 41 percent increase in support costs,
despite the fact that the total number of missiles would only
increase by 15 percent from fiscal year 1998 levels.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $205.7 million, a
decrease of $20.0 million, and believes that the Department can
procure the requested number of missiles within this amount.
               Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $429.5 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 1999. The
committee recommends authorization of $452.0 million for fiscal
year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                        Item of Special Interest
Marine corps ammunition
    The budget request contained $146.7 million for procurement
of ammunition.
    The committee recommends $171.7 million, an increase of
$25.0 million for the following types of ammunition:
                        [In millions of dollars]
9mm all types-....................................................  $0.8
CTG 5.56mm all types-.............................................   0.6
CTG 7.62mm all types-.............................................   0.7
CTG 25mm all types-...............................................   0.9
120mm TPCSDS-T M865-..............................................   0.5
120mm TP-T M831-..................................................   0.7
Rocket, 83mm Dual Mode PIP-.......................................  17.0
Fuze, Hand Grenade, practice-.....................................   2.5
Grenade, Hand Smoke Green-........................................   0.5
Grenade, Hand Practice Smoke TA M83-..............................   0.2
Igniter, Time Fuze Blasting-......................................   0.6
                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $6,252.7 million for
Shipbuilding and Conversion,
    Navy in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends
authorization of $5,992.4 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program (SLEP)
    The budget request contained no funds for LCAC SLEP.
    The LCAC is the only surface platform that can provide
high-speed, heavy lift for Marine Corps amphibious operations
from over-the-horizon. Despite the Department's failure to
provide funding for an LCAC SLEP in fiscal years 1997 and 1998,
Congress added $2.9 million in fiscal year 1997 and $19.5
million in fiscal year 1998 to begin to correct serious
corrosion problems on the LCACs that, if not addressed, would
force them out of service long before they reach their planned
twenty-year operational life. The Department plans to begin the
LCAC SLEP in fiscal year 2000.
    The Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded requirements
list for fiscal year 1999 identified acceleration of the LCAC
SLEP as his number one shipbuilding and conversion priority.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.0
million for the service life extension of two LCACs.
LPD-17
    The budget request contained $638.8 million for LPD-18, the
second ship of 12 in the LPD-17 class of new amphibious ships.
    The committee has recently learned that the AN/SPY-1 radar
and its associated combat system has been proposed to the Navy
as an alternative to the currently planned combat system of the
LPD-17 class of amphibious ships. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide to the congressional defense
committees an analysis of alternatives that compares the AN/
SPY-1 radar and its associated combat system with the
currently-planned combat system or any other combat systems
under consideration for the LPD-17 class by March 30, 1999.
This analysis should consider current and future requirements
for combat systems capability, as well as schedule and life-
cycle cost impacts of the various alternatives.
National defense features
    The committee continues its strong support for the National
Defense Features (NDF) program and believes that a robust NDF
program will provide superior ships to support mobilization
requirements, preserve domestic shipbuilding and supplier base
jobs, and assist U.S. shipyards in gaining commercial market
share. The incorporation of defense features into newly built
commercial vehicle carriers would be a cost effective method to
both expand surge sealift capability and recapitalize the Ready
Reserve Fleet.
    The committee believes that entry into the commercial
vehicle carrier market is a key element for the success of the
NDF program. The committee reaffirms that the NDF program and,
specifically, the entry of new U.S. built commercial vehicle
carriers equipped with NDF into the U.S.-Japan shipping market
are in the national interest. The committee expects the Navy to
follow the committee's guidance and to more aggressivelyexecute
the NDF program. Furthermore, the committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to enlist the cooperation of the Government of Japan to
overcome restrictions which inhibit U.S. flag carrier participation in
the Japan trade market. Such cooperation will advance the mutual
security interests of both nations.
New attack submarine (NSSN)
    The budget request contained $1,498.2 million for the
second NSSN and $504.7 million for advance procurement of the
third NSSN in fiscal year 2001.
    The committee has learned that the budget request
underfunds the integration of the non-propulsion electronic
systems (NPES). The NPES is composed of 24 subsystems,
including sonar, combat control, and electronic support
measures. The committee understands that underfunding NPES
integration would add future cost risk to this program and,
therefore, recommends an increase of $10.0 million to address
the integration shortfall.
Strategic sealift
    The budget request contained $251.4 million for procurement
of the final Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) vessel.
    Prior to the fiscal year 1999 budget request, procurement
of strategic sealift vessels was budgeted, authorized and
appropriated in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF). The
NDSF is a revolving fund that was specifically established by
the Congress to give autonomy and visibility to the critical
mission area of strategic sealift, in recognition of the low
priority sealift had been previously accorded by the Navy.
Consolidating the acquisition of sealift assets and their
operations into a single account was intended to protect it
from competing with other Navy priorities in the budget
formulation and program execution processes. Accordingly, the
committee recommends a reduction of $251.4 million to the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy request and an increase of
$251.4 million to the NDSF request in order to reflect the
procurement of the final LMSR in the NDSF.
                        Other Procurement, Navy
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $3,937.7 million for Other
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends
authorization of $3,969.5 million for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
AN/BPS-15(H) submarine navigation radar upgrade
    The budget request contained no funds for upgrading the AN/
BPS-15(H) submarine navigation radar to make it compliant with
the Navy's new electronic chart display information systems
(ECDIS-N) requirement.
    ECDIS-N compliance mandates the elimination of paper
navigation charts on submarines by upgrading their radar
navigation systems with computer-based charts designed to
international commercial-off-the-shelf standards. The committee
supports the ECDIS-N requirement and recommends an increase of
$9.0 million to provide for software and hardware upgrades to
the AN/BPS-15(H) in order to meet it. The committee believes
that this increase will further enhance the safety and improve
the operational capability of the Navy's submarine fleet.
AN/SQQ-89 surface anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combat system
    The budget request contained $27.4 million for the AN/SQQ-
89 ASW combat system, including $8.7 million for upgrade of
existing systems on DDG-51 destroyers.
    The AN/SQQ-89 detects, classifies, and localizes threat
attack submarines, and the planned upgrade is intended to
improve its shallow water capabilities. However, subsequent to
the submission of the Department's budget request, the
committee was informed that the upgrade cannot be integrated
into the existing systems. The committee has also learned that
a fleet evaluation demonstrated that portions of the upgrade
may not be effective or suitable to field. Moreover, limited
developmental testing of a related classification system showed
that it, too, may not meet performance requirements. As a
result of these deficiencies, the committee understands that
the Navy is reviewing and revising its AN/SQQ-89 upgrade
program to develop and procure a fully integrated system in
fiscal year 2003. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
decrease of $8.7 million for this upgrade.
AN/USC-42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) ultra-high
        frequency (UHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) terminals
    The budget request contained $145.2 million for SATCOM ship
terminals, but included no funds for AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA UHF
SATCOM terminals.
    The AN/USC-42 Mini-DAMA is a commercial-off-the-shelf
miniaturized submarine transceiver version of the DAMA
terminal. DAMA terminals quadruple the UHF satellite channel
capacity through multiplexing, thus providing adequate
satellite access to meet user requirements without requiring an
increase in the number of satellites on orbit. The committee
has learned that at less than one-tenth the size or weight of
previous UHF systems, the AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM
terminal digitizes, encrypts, transmits and receives data and
voice transmissions at more than ten times the efficiency of
terminals without DAMA capability. The committee understands
fiscal year1999 is the final production year for the AN/USC-42
terminal and that the Department has an operational requirement for 115
AN/USC-42 terminals but has only budgeted for 72, leaving a shortfall
of 43 terminals. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of
$10.0 million to procure additional mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminals and
associated spare parts.
Beamhit laser marksmanship training system (LMTS)
    The budget request contained $2.2 million for training
support equipment, but included no funds for the Beamhit LMTS.
    The committee is aware of the improved marksmanship
qualification scores achieved by Army, Army National Guard,
Army Reserve and Navy personnel with the Beamhit LMTS. By using
this system, the committee understands that military personnel
may train with their own weapons and do so under home station
conditions thereby conserving ammunition and other resources.
The committee has also learned that the Army Dismounted
Battlespace Lab at Fort Benning, Georgia, determined that the
Beamhit LMTS was so precise that it could be used to correct
the aim of both weapons and aiming devices. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this
system and encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine its
utility for use throughout the Department.
Cooperative engagement capability (CEC)
    The budget request contained $47.3 million for four CEC
systems.
    CEC allows theater air and missile defense weapons to
operate as a single system by distributing sensor data from any
ship or aircraft in the battle group to other platforms through
a real-time, line-of-sight, high-data-rate network. For fiscal
year 1998, the Chief of Naval Operations identified nine CEC
systems as one of his top three unfunded procurement
priorities, and the Congress provided $75.0 million to procure
the seven needed for a carrier battle group. The committee
understands that the Navy still requires five additional CEC
systems for training and operational requirements.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0
million to meet this requirement.
Weapons range support
    The budget request contained $8.1 million for weapons range
support, but included no funds to procure a deployable
rangeless air combat training system (DRACTS) or to procure
mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES) systems for the Pacific
Missile Range Facility (PMRF).
    The DRACTS is an air combat training system used by a
deployed aircraft carrier battle group as a primary means of
fleet readiness training. The committee has been advised that
DRACTS capability can be achieved by leveraging the Navy's
existing Large Area Tracking Range (LATR) capability through
the addition of an off-the-shelf processor and by the
reconfiguration of existing software. In its present
configuration, the LATR tracks aircraft and vessels during
large-scale battle group, mine warfare, and air combat training
exercises. The committee notes that a future such system, the
Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS), is under
development and, elsewhere in this report, recommends an
increase to accelerate this process. However, to improve the
near-term readiness of deployed carrier battle groups, the
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to procure
additional DRACTS components.
    The MRES, which is employed with the LATR system, is a
high-power electronic warfare simulator system capable of
illuminating aircraft, ships and various other signal
collection platforms. The system will also be capable of
receiving active electronic countermeasures (ECM) transmissions
for spectrum viewing and evaluation of ECM techniques. Existing
threat simulators at the PMRF are low-fidelity emitters
designed to track only ships and submarines and do not have the
capability to track fast-moving fighter and attack aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million to procure two MRES systems for the PMRF to improve
electronic warfare training for the Pacific fleet.
WSN-7 ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN-2 doppler sonar velocity log (DSVL)
    The budget request contained $45.3 million for other
navigation equipment, including $22.0 million for the
procurement of 26 WSN-7 RLGs, but included no funds for the
WQN-2 DVSL. The WSN-7 RLG is the common RLG for both surface
and subsurface platforms. The WQN-2 has been designated by the
Navy as the fleet standard speed log to replace the existing
logs which were designed in the 1950s.
    The committee understands that RLGs are less expensive,
more reliable, more accurate, and have lower cost of ownership
than the existing WSN-1, -3, and -5 navigators that they
replace. The committee also understands that savings in
maintenance costs alone will pay for replacement RLGs in three
to four years. For these reasons, fleet commanders have
emphasized the need to accelerate WSN-7 RLG installation.
Consequently, the committee recommended an increase of $18.0
million to accelerate the procurement of RLGs for fiscal year
1998. Consistent with its previous action, the committee
recommends an increase of $12.0 million to continue to
accelerate the procurement and installation of the WSN-7 RLG.
    The committee notes that the Navy has not budgeted funding
to modify the input/output boards of the WSN-7 RLG to make it
compatible with the antiquated speed logs throughout the fleet.
Since the WQN-2 is already compatible with these I/O boards,
the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to
initiate replacement of the existing speed logs and eliminate
the need for unnecessary, expensive modification of existing
speed logs. However, the committee understands that there are
at least two versions of the WQN-2 that could be competed for
production. Accordingly, the committee also recommends an
increase of $2.5 million to test and evaluate a second version
for a possible future production competition.
                       Procurement, Marine Corps
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $745.9 million for
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends authorization of $691.9 million for fiscal year
1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Marine corps electronic warfare support system
    The budget request contained $16.4 million for acquiring
two Marine Corps Electronic Warfare Support Systems (MEWSS).
    Because of developmental problems and delays in the testing
and fielding of the MEWSS, the committee directs that none of
the funds authorized may be obligated until completion of a
successful initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E).
    Although the development of the MEWSS is common with that
of the Army's Ground-Based Common Sensor (GBCS) system and that
the IOT&E of the MEWSS is directly dependent to the testing of
the GBCS, the committee does not see a specific need to make a
successful IOT&E of MEWSS contingent on a successful IOT&E of
GBCS.
Marine corps tactical intelligence equipment
    The budget requested contained no funds for purchasing and
evaluating commercial imagery display tools or modern printer
technologies.
    The committee is aware of the Marine Corps' highly
successful evaluation of the Remote Replication System (RRS).
The RRS allows the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) to deploy
with automated equipment that provides the capability to
``reach back'' to National Imagery and Mapping Agency data
bases and ``pull forward'' data in order to construct mapping
and imagery products. The committee believes this concept has
the potential to reduce drastically the paper products with
which the MEF currently deploys. However, despite the success
of the RRS concept, the committee understands that there has
been little attention paid to providing modern display and
printing technologies. Therefore the committee recommends $1.0
million for purchasing and evaluating commercial imagery
manipulation tools, state-of-the-art display devices and high
quality large format printers for field use.
Medium tactical vehicle replacement (MTVR)
    The budget request contained $83.7 million for procurement
of replacement vehicles for five-ton trucks, of which $19.8
million was for training devices in support of the replacement
vehicles. The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy
has requested authorization to enter into a multiyear
procurement contract for the MTVR program.
    The MTVR is the upgraded vehicle replacement for the
current M809/M939 five-ton truck. Major improvements include an
expanded 7\1/2\-ton off-road and up to 12-ton on-road cargo
capacity, a new electronically controlled engine and
transmission, independent suspension, central tire inflation
system, antilock brakes, traction control, corrosion control,
and safety and ergonomic features. While the committee supports
the use of training and simulation devices to reduce costs of
vehicle operations andmaintenance, it questions the procurement
of such a large number of these devices prior to a contract being
awarded for low rate initial production of the vehicle they support.
Therefore, the committee recommends $73.9 million, a decrease of $9.8
million for training devices. The committee also approves the
Secretary's request to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for
the MTVR program.
Unit cost growth
    The budget request contained $745.9 million for
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 1999.
    The committee is encouraged that the budget request is 50
percent higher than the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
However, the committee notes that a number of programs have
experienced unjustified unit cost growth even though for
several programs twice as many units are planned to be procured
in fiscal year 1999 than were procured in fiscal year 1998. The
committee is concerned by these increases, and, therefore,
recommends a decrease for the programs reflected in the table
below.
                        [In millions of dollars]
Automatic Test Equipment System:
    Third Echelon Test Set-.......................................  $7.0
Communications Switching and Control Systems:
    Tactical Data Network (TDN) Gateway/Shelter-..................   6.0
    TDN Server....................................................  17.0
Environmental Control Equipment Assorted:
    Enhanced Refrigeration Unit-..................................   0.5
    Recycling Unit-...............................................   0.3
Power Equipment Assorted:
    Generator, 30 Kw/60 Hz-.......................................   0.9
    Generator, 30 Kw/60 Hz-.......................................   0.5
Garrison Mobile Engineer Equipment-...............................   0.4
                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
                                Overview
     The budget request contained $7,756.5 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends authorization of $8,219.1 million for fiscal year
1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Bomber modernization
    The budget request contained $189.9 million in post
production support for the B-2 bomber and $15.7 million, $91.6
million and $38.3 million for aircraft modifications for the B-
2, B-1, and B-52 bombers, respectively.
    The Long Range Airpower Review panel was mandated by
section 8131 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
1998 (Public Law 105-56) to ``evaluate the adequacy of current
planning for United States long range airpower and the
requirement for continued low rate production of B-2 stealth
bombers.'' The panel concluded that in order to reach the full
potential of the current bomber fleet, consisting of B-52s, B-
1s, and B-2s, additional investments in upgrades should be
fully supported. The committee endorses this conclusion and
believes that upgrades to each of these aircraft, but
especially the very small fleet of B-2 bombers, must be a
priority. The committee received testimony from the panel that
upgrades to the B-2 identified by the Air Force will solve a
number of the problems concerning low observable
maintainability, further enhance the B-2's stealthiness, as
well as significantly improve situational awareness for B-2
crews. The panel strongly recommended that these upgrades be
funded, and the committee understands that funding added to the
B-2 program by Congress in fiscal year 1998 will meet the costs
of many, but not all, of these improvements. Consequently, the
committee recommends $275.9 million for B-2 post production
support, an increase of $86.0 million to continue to enhance
the B-2's operational effectiveness.
    The panel also stated that a long-term bomber force
structure plan, which includes consideration of additional
bomber aircraft procurement, needs to be developed to ensure
sustainment of the bomber force. The committee agrees with this
assessment and, therefore, directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to prepare such a plan and submit it to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 1999. The plan should identify
upgrades required for the current bomber fleet, a funding
profile for these upgrades, and a timeline for consideration of
the acquisition of a follow-on bomber.
C-130J
    The budget request contained $63.8 million for one C-130J
aircraft. No funds were requested for any C-130J variant--the
EC-130J, the WC-130J, and the KC-130J.
    The committee recommends an increase of $397.6 million for
seven additional aircraft. Two of these are to be configured as
KC-130J tankers for the Marine Corps, one is to be configured
as a special operations variant for the Air National Guard, and
one is to be configured as a weather reconnaissance variant for
the Air Force Reserve.
CV-22
    The budget request contained $22.3 million for advance
procurement of a CV-22 weapons system trainer.
    The CV-22 is a Special Operations Forces variant of the V-
22 tiltrotor aircraft. The Air Force plans to procure and field
50 CV-22 aircraft and associate support equipment for the
United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The Air
Force also plans to fund 85 percent of the procurement costs
for CV-22 training systems with USSOCOM funding the remaining
15 percent.
    According to the budget justification material for the CV-
22 weapons system trainer, it requires a three-year lead time
for delivery, requiring procurement funding to begin in fiscal
year 1999 in order to support a ready-for-training date of
September 2002. The committee is unaware of any previous
weapons system trainer of such complexity as to necessitate
advance procurement funds two years prior to the request for
full funding of the weapons system it supports. Consequently,
the committee believes these funds can be deferred until fiscal
year 2000 and recommends no authorization for this purpose.
Likewise, the committee recommends no funds for CV-22
modifications in the Defense-wide Procurement account, a
decrease of $4.0 million.
E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS)
    The budget request contained $463.1 million to procure two
E-8C Joint STARS aircraft, but included no advance procurement
funding to continue production of this aircraft.
    The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommended reducing
the procurement objective of the Joint STARS from 19 to 13
aircraft, based on the assumption that the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) would select Joint STARS as its
Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) aircraft and purchase 6 of
them. Despite NATO's having rejected the Joint STARS as its AGS
choice before the budget request was finalized, the Department
failed to change the QDR recommendation. The committee is
disturbed that the Department chose not to continue Joint STARS
production, despite the Air Combat Command's requirement for 19
of these ``low-density, high-demand'' aircraft. Accordingly,
the committee recommends $72.0 million for advance procurement
of two additional E-8Cs in fiscal year 2000.
F-15 modifications
    The budget request contained $196.6 million for F-15
modifications, including $17.8 million for upgrading 12 F100
engines to the 220E configuration. The request contained no
funds for procurement of the ALQ-135 internal countermeasures
set Band 1.5 upgrade.
    The committee understands that the so-called ``E-Kit''
upgrade will provide increased safety, reliability, and
performance at a fraction of the cost of a new production 220
engine. Since the F-15C will remain the Air Force's primary air
superiority fighter until the F-22 enters the inventory in the
mid-2000s, the committee believes that the ``E-Kit''
modification is critical to ensuring that this aircraft
continues to perform safely and at peak efficiency.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million to accelerate this upgrade.
    The committee also understands that the ALQ-135 Band 1.5
program, which is currently in the Engineering and
Manufacturing Development phase, is scheduled to complete
initial operational test and evaluation in May 1999. The
committee notes the Band 1.5 shares a high degree of
commonality with the currently fielded Band 3, which completes
production in late 1998. Because the Air Force did not request
procurement funds to begin production of Band 1.5, the
committee is concerned about the impact of a production break
and with the delay in getting this important upgrade fielded.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $25.0 million to upgrade
approximately one squadron of F-15Es with the modified ALQ-135
Band 1.5 in order to ensure this aircraft will have full
frequency protection.
    In total, the committee recommends $231.4 million for F-15
modifications, an increase of $34.8 million. In addition to the
increases described above, the committee recommends a decrease
of $10.2 million for various modifications which either show
excessive cost growth or were poorly justified.
F-16
    The budget request contained no funds for procurement of
the F-16C multirole aircraft.
    The committee notes that the Congress has funded 15
additional F-16Cs in the last three fiscal years--six each in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and three in fiscal year 1998--to
reduce the attrition reserve shortfall of 40 aircraft the Air
Force has projected through 2010. The committee believes that
it is prudent to continue to reduce this shortfall, especially
in the most capable Block 40 and Block 50 versions, and,
therefore, recommends $60.0 million to acquire two additional
F-16C aircraft for this purpose.
F-16 modifications
    The budget request contained $229.3 million for F-16
modifications but included no funding for the Digital Terrain
System (DTS) upgrade.
    The DTS, which provides both a precise navigation and a
ground collision avoidance capability, is designed to reduce
controlled flight into terrain mishaps. The committee strongly
supports the DTS upgrade as indicated by its addition of $20.0
million (of which $12.0 million was appropriated) to the fiscal
year 1998 budget request for this purpose. Although the Air
Force states that DTS is a firm requirement for the F-16 and it
is in the process of modifying the F-16's operational flight
program to accommodate DTS integration, it has not budgeted
funds to continue this upgrade until fiscal year 2001. The
committee finds this situation unacceptable and recommends
$12.0 million to continue to accelerate the incorporation of
DTS technology into the F-16 fleet. The committee also
recommends a decrease of $6.9 million for various poorly
justified modifications.
Global hawk
    The budget request contained $90.1 million in research and
development funds to complete fabrication and integration of
the final three demonstration aerial vehicles, which will be
used for military utility and user demonstration testing.
However, the budget request contained no procurement funds to
begin production of the vehicle. Global Hawk is a conventional,
high altitude, endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which
will provide all-weather, day/night, reconnaissance and
surveillance in direct support of Joint Forces Commanders.
    The committee understands that the Air Force will assume
management of the Global Hawk from the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office on October 1, 1998 and that planning is
underway to transition this UAV from an Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration platform to a production program.
However, the committee notes that even if production funds are
requested in fiscal year 2000, there will be a gap of two years
between delivery of the last demonstration vehicle and the
first production vehicle. In order to efficiently transition
this program to production, the committee recommends an
increase of $32.5 million for advance procurement of three
Global Hawk UAVs.
Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)
    The budget request contained $107.1 million for JPATS,
including $36.2 million for the Ground Based Training System
(GBTS).
    The committee notes that more research and development
funding for the GBTS is included in the budget request--$34.2
million--than was appropriated in fiscal years 1997 and 1998
combined. The committee further notes that this amount is only
slightly less than the procurement request--indicating the GBTS
program is highly concurrent. Although the committee strongly
supports the JPATS program, it believes that GBTS procurement
funding is premature in view of the pre-production research and
development activities remaining. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $36.2 million and defers initial GBTS
procurement. However, the committee also recommends an increase
of $9.1 million for three additional T6-A aircraft in order to
allow the Air Force to obtain the upper limit in its JPATS
variations-in-quantity contract. In total, the committee
recommends a decrease of $27.1 million for JPATS.
Miscellaneous production charges
    The budget request contained $221.5 million for
miscellaneous production charges, including $10.1 million for
High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile targeting pod modifications.
    The committee notes that $6.1 million was requested for the
same purpose in the ``Other aircraft modifications'' funding
line. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.1
million.
Navigational safety upgrades
    The budget request contained $49.5 million for Traffic
Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) equipment and $51.1
million for Enhanced Ground ProximityWarning System (EGPWS)
equipment. The committee is aware there is also funding for both TCAS
and EGPWS in other larger modification projects where itemized cost
breakouts are not exact.
    TCAS provides a flight crew predictive collision avoidance
information regarding its aircraft's position relative to
another aircraft. It operates without air traffic control from
ground-based systems. EGPWS provides an aircrew with knowledge
of impending collision with the ground.
    The committee is very supportive of providing these
navigational safety upgrades to the Air Force's fleet of
passenger- and cargo-carrying aircraft as expeditiously as
possible. The committee understands that the majority of these
upgrades for passenger-carrying aircraft have been funded in
prior years and believes that appropriate attention should now
be given to cargo-carrying aircraft. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $25.0 million for TCAS equipment and
$25.0 million for EGPWS equipment.
Pacer coin
    The budget request contained $2.4 million in aircraft
spares and repair parts for the transfer of mission equipment
from retiring Pacer Coin aircraft to the non-dedicated, follow-
on C-130 reconnaissance aircraft. The committee notes that a
fiscal year 1998 reprogramming action stated that all funds for
the C-130 follow-on program were included in that request.
Furthermore, the committee does not agree that $2.4 million of
procurement funding is required to transfer equipment from one
aircraft to another. Therefore, the committee recommends no
funding for this purpose.
                   Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
                                Overview
     The budget request contained $384.2 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends authorization of $383.6 million for fiscal year
1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                     Missile Procurement, Air Force
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $2,359.8 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends authorization of $2,234.7 million for fiscal year
1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
AGM-165 Maverick Modifications
    The budget request contained no funds for Maverick
modifications.
    The committee recommended $11.0 million in fiscal year 1998
to initiate a much-needed, low-cost, service life extension
program to the Maverick missile. Unfortunately, only $8.0
million was appropriated for this purpose. Consequently, the
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to provide the
necessary funds to ensure a smooth transition from development
to production. The committee expects the Air Force to include
continued funding for this upgrade in the future years defense
program.
Global positioning system
    The budget request contained $77.4 million for advance
procurement of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites.
    The committee understands that $28.4 million of the advance
procurement funds would be used to acquire the first three
Block IIF satellites and the remaining $49.0 million would
support a multiyear procurement of an additional 12 satellites.
While the committee continues to support the GPS program, it
believes that a commitment to a multiyear procurement for these
satellites is premature. GPS satellites continue to remain on
orbit much longer than their expected design lives. Although
the uncertainty inherent in satellite life span requires that a
certain number be constructed for contingencies, the committee
believes that the planned multiyear procurement would result in
an inventory well in excess of future requirements. Moreover,
the Department's fiscal year 1999 legislative proposal included
several requests for multiyear procurement approval, but it did
not include such a request for GPS. Therefore, the committee
recommends deferral of a GPS multiyear procurement and a
decrease of $49.0 million.
Inertial upper stage
    The budget request contained $48.0 million for the inertial
upper stage (IUS) program.
    The committee notes that the Department has withheld
approximately $2.0 million that was authorized and appropriated
for the IUS in fiscal year 1998 and understands these funds are
excess to program needs. Accordingly, the committee recommends
$46.0 million for the IUS and directs the Department to apply
the funds being withheld to fiscal year 1999 requirements.
Medium launch vehicle
    The budget request contained $188.4 million for the medium
launch vehicle program. The committee recommends $177.4
million, a reduction of $11.0 million,based on changes in the
launch schedule of Global Positioning System satellites that will
reduce medium launch vehicle operations costs.
Minuteman gyro stabilized platform
    The budget request contained no funding for advanced
inertial measurement units (IMU) or gyro stabilized platforms
(GSP).
    The committee notes that, although the Air Force has two
validated mission need statements for improved missile guidance
systems, Air Force Space Command has not completed a GSP
operational requirements document (ORD). The committee
understands that maintenance problems with the current IMU on
the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) are
increasing and believes that its replacement with an advanced
IMU would result in increased alert force reliability and
flexibility, as well as lower life cycle costs and improved
accuracy.
    The committee therefore urges Air Force Space Command to
complete the GSP ORD in time to support the fiscal year 2000
budget request and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide the congressional defense committees a report on IMU
options for the Minuteman III by January 15, 1999. The report
should include an analysis of options currently under
consideration, estimated cost of these options, and potential
benefits of any option involving a new GSP.
Minuteman III modifications
    The budget request contained $90.6 million for Minuteman
III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) modifications, of
which $83.7 million was for the guidance replacement program
(GRP).
    The committee notes that the Department reduced the fiscal
year 1999 GRP request from the level anticipated when the
fiscal year 1998 budget was submitted to Congress. The
committee understands that this reduction would delay the
program by up to two years and require continued use of
increasingly unreliable guidance packages. The committee also
believes that this delay could potentially undermine the ICBM
industrial base. As a consequence, the committee is concerned
that the proposed GRP funding level would increase risk to the
sustainability of the ICBM force and increase overall program
costs. Therefore, in order to mitigate such problems, the
committee recommends $113.6 million, an increase of $23.0
million, for GRP procurement.
Titan space boosters
    The budget request contained $578.5 million for Titan space
boosters. The committee understands that excess program funds
have been identified in fiscal year 1998 and believes that the
fiscal year 1999 request also contains excess funds. Therefore,
the committee recommends $550.5 million, a reduction of $28.0
million. Of this reduction, $12.0 million is from excess funds
in fiscal year 1998, which the committee directs be applied to
fiscal year 1999 program requirements.
                      Other Procurement, Air Force
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $6,974.4 million for Other
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $7,046.4 million for fiscal year
1998.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Base information infrastructure
    The budget request contained $159.4 million for base
information infrastructure, of which $72.7 million is for the
voice switching system (VSS) product area.
    The committee notes that the request for the VSS product
area exceeds the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1998 by
almost $67.0 million. This increase is attributed to the ``Year
2000'' problem, yet no justification has been provided to the
committee that explains how these funds will be used. Although
the committee is acutely aware of the ``Year 2000'' problem, it
believes that an increase of this magnitude is unwarranted
absent a detailed explanation for its intended use.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0
million.
Rangeless air combat training system (RACTS)
    The budget request contained $13.2 million for combat
training ranges, but included no funds for the RACTS.
    The RACTS, which can be used at either home station or in a
deployed location, provides realistic air combat training over
land or sea without dependence upon ground-installed
instrumentation. The committee notes that a RACTS was delivered
to Kadena Air Base, Japan, in August 1997, and the committee
understands that since its delivery, Air Force and Navy pilots
have successfully used this system on more than 3,000 sorties.
The committee also notes that a similar system is scheduled for
installation at Alpena Air National Guard Base, Michigan,
during fiscal year 1998. Since the committee has been informed
that the United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE) has a
requirement for a RACTS but has not budgeted funds to meet this
requirement, it recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this
purpose.
Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment
    The budget request contained $31.1 million for tactical CE
equipment, of which $27.3 million is for theater deployable
communications (TDC) sets. TDC is a compact, high bandwidth,
commercially available communications system used by forward-
deployed forces. It is much more capable than the aging
equipment it replaces and requires significantly reduced
airlift support.
    In April 1997, the Air Force created a command and control
(C2) task force and directed it to establish an air and space
C2 policy for the 21st century. One key finding of that task
force was the determination that the Air Force should
accelerate procurement of TDC sets and complete the buyout of
this equipment by fiscal year 2001. The committee endorsed this
finding and added $25.0 million ($18.0 million of which was
appropriated) for this purpose to the fiscal year 1998 budget
request. To continue acceleration of TDC equipment and
consistent with its fiscal year 1998 action, the committee
recommends anincrease of $20.0 million for TDC equipment.
                       Procurement, Defense-Wide
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $2,041.7 million for
Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,962.9 million for fiscal year
1998.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Automated document conversion system (ADCS)
    The budget request contained no funds for ADCS.
    The committee understands that the ADCS program is
performing a critical role in the attainment of the
Department's goal to digitize all engineering drawings and
technical data by fiscal year 2002. The committee continues to
strongly support this program and recommends $32.0 million for
the purchase of ADCS hardware and software.
Chemical-biological defense equipment for rapid assessment and initial
        detection teams
    The budget request contained a total of $620.3 million for
the chemical-biological defense program, including $283.9
million for procurement of chemical and biological defense
equipment for the military services and $336.4 million for
research, development, test and evaluation.
    The committee is aware that the budget request includes
$6.9 million for initial procurement of contamination avoidance
equipment for the National Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial
Detection (RAID) teams that the DOD has proposed be established
to provide immediate response and assistance to state and local
authorities in response to a domestic emergency involving the
use of weapons of mass destruction, or other chemical or
biological accident or incident. As discussed elsewhere in this
report, the committee is concerned that the Department's
efforts and initiatives have not been closely coordinated with
other agencies within the government who share responsibility
for responding to such incidents, and by the apparent lack of
an effectively coordinated effort on the part of these
agencies. Accordingly, the committee has deferred action on the
Department's recommendations for legislation which would
provide authority to establish the RAID teams in the National
Guard and on related matters, pending a report from the
Secretary of Defense on the Department's overall plan for
addressing these issues. Furthermore, the committee recommends
no authorization for procurement of equipment for the RAID
teams and recommends a decrease of $6.9 million for procurement
of chemical and biological defense contamination avoidance
equipment for the military services.
Defense support program office training and exercise
    The budget request contained $7.8 million for Defense
Support Program Office (DSPO) training and exercise support.
    The Secretary of Defense has informed the committee that
the DSPO is being abolished and its functions consolidated
within the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The committee
understands that the National Military and Operations Support
Office within the NRO is also charged with, and funded for,
training and exercise support. Therefore, the committee
believes the DSPO training and exercise support funding is no
longer required and recommends no funds for this purpose.
Flat panel night vision heads-up display system
    The budget request contained $47.0 million for rotary wing
upgrades and sustainment, but included no funds for upgrading
the HH-60G, MC-130P, C-141B, and MC-130E with a flat panel
night vision heads-up display (HUD) system.
    A night vision HUD system allows pilots to fly at night by
using outside visual references instead of using only aircraft
instruments. Since the early 1980s, Air Force special
operations aircrews have had such a system, but it was recently
removed from their aircraft because of safety issues related to
high cockpit voltages. As a result, these aircrews face
increased danger and mission degradation due to the lack of
night vision capability. The committee understands that the
newer-technology flat panel night vision HUD system is safer,
more effective, and more reliable than its predecessor. The
committee also understands that the flat panel night vision HUD
is a non-developmental item and can therefore meet the near-
term needs of Air Force special operations crews. Accordingly,
the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million to procure
and install the flat panel night vision HUD system into HH-60G,
MC-130P, C-141B, and MC-130E aircraft in order to improve the
safety and survivability of special operations aircrews.
Mentor protege
    The budget request contained $17.8 million for the Mentor
Protege program. This program provides funds to major
Department of Defense prime contractors for the purpose of
developing the technical capabilities of Small Disadvantaged
Businesses to perform as subcontractors.
    The committee notes that the legal authority for this pilot
program expires at the end of fiscal year 1998. Therefore, the
committee recommends no funds for the Mentor Protege program.
                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment
                                Overview
    The budget request contained no funds for National Guard
and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends authorization of $300.0 million for fiscal year
1999.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Air reserve forces
    The United States has dramatically decreased its defense
force structure over the last several years. To compensate for
this smaller force structure will require the active Air Force
to continue to rely on Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard
units to project and sustain power around the globe. The
committee notes that Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard
units have been seamlessly integrated into the total Air Force
for many years and have performed their missions superbly. In
order to adequately maintain a strong total Air Force, the
committee believes it is important that weapons systems
assigned to the air reserve forces and the active components be
comparably equipped. Therefore, the committee expects the Air
Force, and the other services as well, to ensure their
operational plans and budget submissions reflect this guidance.
Senior scout---------
    The budget request contained $14.3 million in operations
and maintenance, Air National Guard, partially for the
continued operation of the Senior Scout tactical reconnaissance
system.
    Senior Scout is a C-130-employed, roll-on/roll-off,
reconnaissance system operated by the Air National Guard. It
provides an airborne reconnaissance collection system that is
complementary to other airborne collection systems operated by
the active component.
    The committee perceives a lack of direction and support for
Senior Scout, noting that on several occasions the Air Force
has nearly terminated the program, that the system has not been
well supported in terms of upgrades or sensor improvements, and
that it has certainly not maintained technological pace with
the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft or other similar reconnaissance
platforms. Consequently, the committee does not believe
continuing Senior Scout to be either cost or mission effective.
    However, the committee believes the Air National Guard
linguists currently operating the Senior Scout are vital to the
overall national reconnaissance effort and sees a critical need
both to retain and train them on more modern equipment.
    In fiscal year 1997, the Congress authorized and
appropriated funding for two additional RC-135 Rivet Joint
aircraft. The committee has learned that the Air Force is
having difficulty fully manning these aircraft. Since the Guard
personnel are currently called on to supplement active
component RC-135 operations, the committee believes providing
at least one of these aircraft on a rotational basis to the Air
National Guard would both resolve the manpower problem and take
greater advantage of an available resource.
    Therefore, the committee expects the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide the congressional defense and intelligence
committees no later than October 1, 1999, a plan for phasing
out the Senior Scout reconnaissance system and replacing it
with an RC-135alternative or a plan for upgrading and
maintaining the Senior Scout system commensurate with Rivet Joint
capabilities.
           Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
                                Overview
    The budget request contained no funds for Chemical Agents
and Munitions, Defense, for fiscal year 1999. The committee
recommends authorization of $834.0 million for fiscal year
1999.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                     Defense Export Loan Guarantees
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $1.3 million for Defense
Export Loan Guarantees, Defense for fiscal year 1999. The
committee recommends authorization of $1.3 million for fiscal
year 1999.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
           Sections 101-109--Authorization of Appropriations
    These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
1999 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
                       Subtitle B--Army Programs
   Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Longbow Hellfire
                            Missile Program
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for the Longbow
Hellfire missile.
      Section 112--M1A2 System Enhancement Program Step 1 Program
    This section would require the Army to use the $20.3
requested in the budget for M1A1-D upgrade kits to instead
procure M1A2 System Enhancement Program Step 1 communications
upgrades.
                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for the Department of the
                                  Navy
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for the Navy AV-8B,
T-45TS, and E-2C aircraft programs and for the Marine Corps
Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement.
                       Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 141--Funding, Transfer and Management of the Assembled Chemical
                       Weapons Assessment Program
    This section would authorize funding for identification and
demonstration of technologies alternative to the baseline
incineration process for destruction of assembled chemical
munitions that are a part of the U.S. chemical munitions
stockpile. The provision would also direct the transfer of
management oversight responsibility for the program from the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology
(USD(A&T)) to the Secretary of the Army.
    The Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program was
established under section 8065, Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 104-208) as
the Department of Defense (DOD) program for assessment of the
feasibility of alternative technologies for the
demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions. Such
technologies could provide an alternative to the baseline
program, which uses incineration of chemical agents and
munitions as the means for demilitarization of the chemical
munitions stockpile. The assessment is to be completed with a
final report to the Congress in December 1998.
    Responsibility for the chemical agents and munitions
destruction program will be transferred from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Army as a part of
the Defense Reform Initiative (DRI). The committee believes
that transfer of the responsibility for the assembled chemical
weapons assessment (ACWA) program to the Army is also
appropriate and consistent with the DRI recommendations. In
making the transfer, the USD(A&T) and the Secretary of the Army
must insure the independence of the ACWA program from the
baseline incineration program, in order to maintain public
acceptance of, interaction with, and confidence in the ACWA
program management. The committee notes that the consultation
among ACWA program management and interested individuals from
the chemical weapons stockpile communities; federal, tribal,
and state environmental regulators; and national activist
organization representatives that regularly work on chemical
weapons issues has been a key factor in winning public
acceptance of the program. The committee strongly encourages
the Secretary of the Army to continue that consultation as an
integral part of the ACWA program.
Dialogue on assembled chemical weapons assessment
    The DOD has committed to meaningful public involvement in
the assessment program, and has stated that such involvement is
critical to its success. In response to this commitment, a
public interest group, known as the Dialogue on Assembled
Chemical Weapons Assessment (``the Dialogue'') has sought to
consult with the DOD to discuss issues relating to the
assessment program. The Dialogue consists of a diverse group of
interested individuals from the chemical weapons stockpile
communities; federal, tribal, and state environmental
regulators; and national activist organization representatives
that regularly work on chemical weapons issues.
    During the committee's consideration of the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1999 (H.R. 3616), a
concern was raised that the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Public Law 92-462; 5 U.S.C. App.) (FACA) might apply to the
Dialogue in its consultative relationship with the DOD on the
assessment program. The program's near-term deadline would make
it unlikely that a formal charter process for the Dialogue,
which would be required under FACA, could be completed in
sufficient time to meet the deadline for the assessment
program's final report to Congress and, concurrently,
incorporate public involvement. In response to this concern,
the committee consulted with the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, the committee of jurisdiction on issues
related to FACA. In the opinion of that committee, FACA does
not apply to the Dialogue in its relationship with the DOD on
the assessment program.
         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
                                OVERVIEW
    The budget request contained $36,078.5 million for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E),
representing a $144.1 million increase from the amount
authorized for fiscal year 1998.
    The committee recommends authorization of $36,228.0
million, an increase of $149.5 million from the budget request.
    The committee notes that the budget request proposes to
implement portions of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
recommendations including increases in new procurement and
major upgrades to current military equipment programs. However,
the committee is concerned that while procurement accounts are
projected to continue increasing by as much as 29 percent over
the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), the Department projects a
decline in research and development accounts of at least 14
percent during that same time period. The Department has
publicly placed great emphasis on QDR recommendations that
stress preparing for future conflicts, maximizing capabilities
of smaller force structures, and implementing leap-ahead
technologies, with only minimal investment in legacy
modernization programs. However, the committee notes that the
Department's plan to continue decreasing already underfunded
research and development accounts, the cornerstone investment
needed to support each service's future requirements, appears
in direct contradiction with QDR recommendations.
    The committee is also concerned with the continuing trend
of placing higher priority on a number of Department level
initiatives such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) and Advanced Concepts Technology Demonstrations
(ACTDs) at the expense of already seriously constrained service
research and development budgets. The committee notes, in
particular, that while the Army, Air Force, and defense-wide
research and development requests all decreased from fiscal
year 1998 levels, the service requests also include shifts over
$300.0 million from defense-wide programs to the services. This
shift results in actual increases to remaining defense-wide
programs while masking an even greater decline in service
programs.
    For these reasons and others stated elsewhere in this
report, the committee is seriously concerned that Department
statements asserting the health and growing improvement of the
defense budget are not evident in the research and development
budget request. While the Secretary of Defense has described
the fiscal year 1999 request as one that is carefully balanced
to address both present and future requirements, the committee
notes a very visible sacrifice on the part of high priority
service requirements to achieve that balance, and yet, no
similar level of sacrifice within the defense-wide programs.
The committee believes that the Department should provide a
more succinct explanation of how DARPA, ACTDs, and other large
defense-wide research and development programs are more
appropriate investments for addressing future requirements than
the focused service research and development accounts.
  Department of Defense Basic Research/Science and Technology Program
    The committee strongly supports the request for the
Department of Defense basic research and science and technology
programs, and recommends a total of $1,130.7 million for basic
research and a total of $7,280.4 million for the Defense
science and technology program (including basic research).
However, to address the committee's concerns with respect to
critical shortcomings in the service requests and perceived
imbalances between defense-wide and service research and
development programs, the committee recommends shifts of
funding, outlined elsewhere in this report, from the defense
agencies' science and technology accounts to those of the
services.
    The committee believes that the Department's basic research
program has long played a crucial role in the development of
technology and in the education and training of scientific
personnel required to support the continuing technical advances
critical to maintaining superior military capabilities. The
ability of today's U.S. military forces to deploy anywhere in
the world, sustain a forward presence, and win decisively on
the battlefield results from past investments in research and
technology. For more than 50 years, these investments have
enabled the Department of Defense to advance the frontiers of
knowledge and develop the technologies necessary to gain and
maintain operational and technical superiority. The committee
believes that the Department must continue to provide the
necessary investments in research and technologies that ensure
a strong, stable, and robust science and technology program for
our armed forces.
    The committee notes with concern that the research budget
request is at a 19 year low and that funding for Defense
science and technology is at an equally disturbing 13 year low.
While the committee is pleased that this year's request brings
an end to the disturbing decline in overall research funding
levels and proposes a period of projected growth of
approximately 5 percent over the period through fiscal year
2003, the committee expresses concern over the apparent
conflict between the Department's projection for growth in the
research budget in light of the current forecast for a 14
percent decline in overall research and development during the
same period.
               Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    The committee is concerned by the Department's continued
commitment to a very large budget for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in comparison to the science
and technology budgets of the military departments, and by the
trend this represents in the overall Department of Defense
science and technology program. The committee commends the
agency and its outstanding contribution over its 40 year
history to the development of advanced technology and military
systems for our armed forces, and believes that DARPA will
continue to play a key role in the development of advanced
capabilities for our future armed forces.
    The committee notes, however, that the budget request for
DARPA, although reduced from the peak level attained in 1994,
remains at a higher level (when measured in constant fiscal
year 1997 dollars) than at any time since 1960, two years after
the agency was formed. The committee also notes that, despite
the elimination of over $200.0 million in fiscal year 1998
programs from the DARPA budget by transfer to the military
departments or by cancellation, there is no commensurate
reduction in fiscal year 1999budget request. The committee
notes that a number of DARPA programs have grown significantly from the
fiscal year 1999 projection that was included with the fiscal year 1998
budget request. The committee believes that in this time of great
financial constraint, all expenditures must be considered carefully and
continued only where they make a clear contribution to critical service
requirements.
        Information Systems Technology, Superiority and Security
    The budget request contained a total of $705.7 million for
information technology research, development, test, and
evaluation. The budget request also included a total of $191.8
million for the Department of Defense (DOD) information systems
security program.
    The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) and
the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on
H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-340) directed the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the Congressional defense committees an assessment
of the DOD information systems security program that addresses
the current status of the program, specific actions being taken
on the recommendations of the 1996 Defense Science Board Task
Force on Information Warfare-Defense, and additional actions
that should be taken to assure the increased security and
integrity of the defense information infrastructure. The report
is to also address measures necessary to assure the integrity
of those elements of the national information infrastructure
and critical national infrastructure on which the defense
information infrastructure depends, and identify any additional
resources and legislative authority which may be required.
    The Secretary's report has not yet been received by the
committee. However, assuming that the report will have been
received by the Congressional defense committees prior to the
House-Senate Conference on H.R. 3616 and that there will have
been sufficient time for congressional review of the issues and
recommendations contained in the report, the committee intends
to address appropriate issues and recommendations from its
review of Secretary's report during the conference.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major issues
are discussed following the table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                               Army RDT&E
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $4,780.5 million for Army
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $4,793.0
million, an increase of $12.5 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 Army
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Army request are discussed following the table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Aerostat
    The budget request contained for $103.9 million for the
Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor
System (JLENS), formerly referred to as Aerostat, in PE 12419A.
    The committee is aware that JLENS is duplicative of more
promising missile defense efforts and believes funding should
be reduced to support strengthening other more essential Army
programs. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of
$73.9 million in PE 12419A.
All source analysis system
    The budget request contained $28.1 million in PE 64321A for
the All Source Analysis System (ASAS).
    The committee recommends $30.1 million, an increase of $2.0
million in PE 64321A to continue the development of situation
display fusion algorithms, for migrating these algorithms to
the other service intelligence support systems, and to achieve
ASAS Block II interoperability with the Defense Intelligence
Agency's Modernized Integrated Data Base.
Army after next combat vehicle initiative
    The committee is aware of the Army's commitment to ensure
that priority modernization efforts are fully compatible with
the Army's vision of required capabilities for the Army After
Next (AAN). While a significant number of important Army
modernization programs are being refocused or restructured to
incorporate new technologies needed for the AAN, the committee
notes with interest numerous criticisms, including recent Army
statements and the recommendations of the National Defense
Panel, that question the viability of the current combat
vehicle technology for the lighter, faster, more mobile AAN.
The committee also notes, however, that the Army is already
addressing these criticisms by conducting promising new
research on lighter, more capable vehicle systems, lighter-
weight and more fuel-efficient hybrid power systems and other
innovations to meet the emerging combat vehicle requirements of
the AAN.
    The committee is encouraged by these developments and finds
the associated longer range planning/development horizon
especially noteworthy for guiding investment of increasingly
scarce research and development funds. The committee believes
that longer planning horizons are required to develop the
reaching systems necessary to ensure technical viability and
longer useful service lives for AAN combat systems.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends:
            Advanced combat vehicle and automotive technology
    The budget request contained $4.8 million in PE 63005A for
advanced materials and components for advanced combat vehicle
technology.
    The committee notes that new composite materials have the
potential of reducing future combat vehicle weight and
operating costs, as well as for improving vehicle mobility and
transportability. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million in PE 63005A for advanced composite
materials.
            Digital fire control system
    The budget request contained $0.1 million for artillery
system engineering and development. No funds were included for
the Army and Marine Corps joint Light Weight 155mm Towed
Howitzer program and its digital fire control system.
    The committee notes the Army's continued efforts to develop
digital fire control technology that will yield significant
increases in howitzer system capability while reducing weight
and size of current 155mm howitzer fire control systems. The
committee believes that, given sufficient funding, this area of
technology offers the potential for significant contributions
to all 155mm howitzer systems, including Crusader.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in PE 64854A for further development of digital fire
control technology.
            Hardened materials
    The budget request contained $10.1 million for materials
technology in PE 62105A. The request did not include funds for
continuation of the hardened materials project.
    The committee notes that this project is directed toward
developing materials technology that will make heavy forces
lighter and more deployable while improving their
survivability. The committee recommends $15.1 million in PE
62105A, an increase of $5.0 million for advanced hardened
materials.
            Industry and academia alternative vehicle propulsion
                    initiative
    The budget request contained $40.1 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but did not include
funds for the ongoing industry and academia alternative vehicle
propulsion initiative.
    The committee notes that one of the Army's most significant
challenges for future vehicles is lighter, more efficient power
systems that comply with future environmental regulations. The
committee is aware that the Fuel-Efficient AAN Task Group
concluded that the AAN is conceived to be a highly mobile,
high-speed insertion force and stated that decrease in the fuel
logistics burden is a prerequisite to achieving this goal. The
task group determined that a significant fuel decrease is a
practical possibility that can be realized by two primary
approaches: (1) by doubling propulsion efficiency, and (2) by
decrease in vehicle weight.
    The committee believes that combining the efforts of the
private sector, academic research, and Army technical experts
offers a means of infusing both new ideas and technologies into
future Army vehicles. The committee recommends $50.1 million,
an increase of $10.0 million for the innovative industry and
academia alternative vehicle propulsion initiative.
            Innovative engine technology
    The budget request contained $54.4 million in PE 63005A for
advanced combat vehicle and automotive technology. No funding
was included for completion of the combined diesel/turbine
engine program.
    The committee is aware that the combined diesel/turbine
engine offers the potential for an improved power plant for
next generation vehicles. The committee recommends an increase
of $7.0 million in PE 63005A for completion and testing of the
combined diesel/turbine engine and other hybrid engine
developments.
            Crusader self-propelled howitzer
    The budget request contained $313.2 million in PE 63854A
for the Crusader self-propelled howitzer.
    The Crusader is an evolutionary development of a self-
propelled howitzer (SPH) intended to replace the current
Paladin 155mm SPH. It promises improved mobility, higher rate-
of-fire, and greater survivability than the Paladin. The
committee notes that the Crusader no longer incorporates some
of the key technologies, specifically liquid propellant gun
technology and common heavy vehicle chassis, that were original
cornerstones of the program when first introduced.
Nevertheless, the committee is aware of the Army's stated need
to modernize its tactical ground fire support forces and
remains very concerned that technology currently incorporated
in Crusader is not sufficiently advanced to ensure Crusader's
viability in the AAN. At a minimum, Crusader's weight, speed,
agility and fuel efficiency would be so dissimilar, to other
combat vehicles planned for the AAN, as to be operationally
limiting. Given the current and projected fiscal environment,
the committee does not believe that the Army should continue
making such large investments in new weapon systems such as
Crusader in order to maintain a proposed fielding schedule,
unless that system is fully compatible with AAN requirements.
Rather, the committee believes the Army should be developing
the first of the next generation combat systems instead of
developing and fielding the last of the current generation that
the Crusader program now represents.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to evaluate the restructuring of the Crusader program to
ensure incorporation of applicable state-of-the-art
technologies such as weight saving composite technology for
armor and structural uses, advanced lighter, more efficient
propulsion technologies to meet AAN fuel economy goals, and
innovative weapons technologies to increase lethality and
reduce the logistics tail. The committee believes that such
restructuring of Crusader development will provide for
maturation and integration of these promising technologies to
support alighter, more mobile, more lethal SPH that would be
more compatible with AAN combat vehicle requirements.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $59.6
million in PE 63854A.
Aviation advanced technology development
    The budget request contained $30.0 million in PE 63003A for
aviation advanced technology.
    The committee notes that the Army is seeking new propulsion
technologies to reduce the size and cost of future missiles
while increasing lethality and further notes the potential
benefits of scramjet propulsion technology for future missiles
and interceptors. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in PE 63003A for scramjet technology.
Comanche
    The budget request contained $367.8 million for Comanche in
PE 64223A.
    Comanche is a vital system for the 21st century Army, as
well as the Army After Next (AAN), and is planned to replace
several aging helicopters that cannot be upgraded to meet AAN
requirements. The Comanche schedule has steadily slipped beyond
its first envisioned operational capability in 1996 as a result
of numerous funding decreases which have collectively slowed
initial operational capability until late 2006. The Army's
decision to reduce prototype aircraft from eight to two has
delayed development still further and increased program risk.
Comanche development is presently proceeding with a single
prototype after funding was again reduced, reinforcing the
perception that the Army's Comanche program appears fated to
proceed at only a minimal level for the foreseeable future.
    The committee is aware that increased funding is required
to enable Comanche to fully participate in upcoming Army
warfighting experiments such as Division 00 and Digitized Corps
04. Additional funding will also reduce the unwarranted program
risk inherent in undertaking a major aviation development
effort with a single flying prototype. Specifically, additional
funding would support the Army Advanced Warfighting Experiments
(AWE), accelerate mission electronics package development and
weapons system integration, and integrate and test the proven
Apache Longbow radar, as well as lower outyear procurement
costs.
    The committee recommends $429.8 million, an increase of
$62.0 million in PE 64223A to accelerate fielding and equipping
the second Comanche prototype and provide a more robust testing
program in fiscal year 1999. The committee is aware that this
increase, coupled with additional funding throughout the future
year defense program, would enable the Comanche schedule to be
accelerated to coincide with establishment of the first
digitized Army division in 2004.
Command, control, communications technology
    The budget request contained $19.7 million in PE 62782A for
command, control and communications technology, including $12.9
million for communications.
    The committee notes that rapid dissemination of multimedia
information is critical to total integration of forces on the
future battlefield. The committee is aware of successful
demonstrations of the Army Multimedia Communications Device
which addresses warfighter requirements to conduct two-way
communication wherever they may be deployed.
    The committee supports efforts to improve communications
and provide better man-machine interfaces and recommends $22.5
million, an increase of $2.8 million in PE 62782A for further
development of the Army multimedia communications device.
Defense healthcare information assurance program
    The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 33140A for
the Army information systems security program.
    Congress provided $2.5 million for fiscal year 1998 to
initiate a demonstration program for military healthcare
information protection that would be consistent with national
healthcare and information protection initiatives. The
committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 103-132) directed the
Secretary of the Army to report to the Congressional defense
committees on the program's development, demonstration,
evaluation plan and funding requirements.
    The committee recommends $12.4 million, an increase of $5.0
million to continue the demonstration program for military
healthcare information protection. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide to the Congressional defense
committees an update to the program plan and funding required
to complete the demonstration program with the submission of
the fiscal year 2000 Defense budget request.
Defense information technology test bed
    The budget request contained no funding in PE 323751A for
the defense information technology test bed (DITT).
    The committee is aware that information dominance is vital
to success on the future battlefield and supports the Army's
ongoing joint DITT effort at the Center for Army Lessons
Learned at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas to establish a fully
electronic virtual intelligence archive for use by battlefield
commanders. The committee recommends $6.6 million in PE
323751A, an increase of $6.6 million to make DITT operational.
Environmental development and management programs
    The budget request contained $13.8 million in PE 62720A for
environmental quality technology. The committee notes that no
funding is specifically provided to continue the facility
environmental management and monitoring system and the computer
based land management efforts. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million for facility environmental management
and monitoring system and $4.0 million forcomputer based land
management, noting that these increases will complete these
developments.
Environmental quality technology
    The budget request contained $13.8 million for
environmental quality technology within PE 62720A.
    The committee supports continuation of the joint effort of
the U.S. Army Environmental Center and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to demonstrate the efficacy and cost effectiveness
of agriculturally based bioremediation to restore contaminated
military and civilian sites in geographically isolated Pacific
island ecosystems. The committee supports demonstration of
phytoremediation, composting, wetlands, and other
agriculturally based technologies to restore lands and related
resources and recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62720A to continue agriculturally based bioremediation efforts.
Future direct support weapon system
    The budget request contained $24.6 million in PE 63004A for
weapons and munitions advanced technology.
    The committee is aware that the Army After Next (AAN) will
require lighter, more transportable, and more mobile weapons
systems, and supports the Army's efforts to develop enabling
technologies such as soft recoil, advanced propellant
technology, and improved digital fire control that can provide
such systems. The committee supports development of lighter,
more agile AAN weapons and recommends an increase of $5.0
million for the future direct support weapon system.
Future missile technology integration program
    The budget request contained $86.1 million in PE 63313A for
missile and rocket advanced technology, which included $1.5
million for future missile technology integration.
    The committee notes the importance of lighter more
affordable missiles and supports composite technology
development for that purpose. The committee recommends an
increase of $6.0 million for composite missile technology.
Helmet-mounted retinal display technology
    The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63801A for
aviation advanced development, including $2.5 million for
aircrew integrated systems.
    The committee notes the aircrew integrated common helmet
(AICH) incorporates reaching technology including miniature
retinal display technology that greatly improves aircrew
performance. The committee recommends $12.5 million, an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63801A for retinal display
technology.
High mobility artillery rocket system
    The budget request contained $20.2 million in PE 63778A for
the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) improvement program.
    The committee notes the high mobility artillery rocket
system (HIMARS) is being developed as an early entry capability
for light forces and is scheduled to participate in the Army's
rapid force projection initiative. The committee strongly
supports development of this mobile, high lethality weapons
system for early entry and light forces and notes that this
effort represents an excellent example of leveraging the proven
capabilities of the MLRS system to address a specifically
defined force projection requirement. The committee recommends
$26.2 million, an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63778A for
HIMARS.
Improved fuel pumps and fuel controls
    The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 23752A for
the aircraft engine component improvement program.
    Improved fuel pumps and engine controls are necessary
elements of all fielded helicopters, as well as new helicopter
development programs such as Longbow Apache and Comanche. The
committee supports these critical improvements and recommends
$11.9 million in PE 23752A, an increase of $4.0 million for
improved fuel pumps and $5.0 million for the full authority
digital engine control.
Joint service small arms program
    The budget request contained $5.2 million for the joint
service small arms program in PE 63607A.
    The objective of this program is to demonstrate key
technologies leading to more effective small arms and munitions
for all services, including such technology as the objective
individual combat weapon.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for
the joint service small arms program.
Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint STARS)
    The budget request contained $5.5 million for engineering,
manufacturing and development system improvements to the Joint
STARS in PE 64770A. The committee notes the proven success of
the Joint STARS system in both Operation Desert Storm and
Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia. A key feature of Joint
STARS is the secure, encrypted, anti-jam Surveillance Control
Data Link (SCDL). The SCDL links the Air Force's E-8 Joint
STARS aircraft to the Army's ground support modules and common
ground stations, enabling real-time data transfer of command
and control information between the aircraft and ground
stations. The committee is aware that the ongoing SCDL System
Improvement Program (SIP), which eliminates obsolete parts and
updates older digital circuit boards with state-of-the-art,
software-based array boards, willincrease the data transfer
rate while reducing component cost, size, weight, and power
requirements by as much as 50 percent. Based on the increased
reliability and improved performance benefits of this SIP, the
committee recommends $21.5 million, an increase of $16.0 million in PE
64770A for its completion.
Lighter more lethal weapons
    The budget request contained $26.5 million in PE 63639A for
the armament enhancement initiative.
    No funds were included for the ongoing tank extended range
munitions-kinetic energy (TERM-KE) program. The committee notes
that the TERM-KE is a 120mm tank munition that uses a rocket
boosted standard kinetic energy penetrator and fire-and-forget
guidance to provide greater lethality at extended ranges. The
committee is aware that lighter, more lethal, fire and forget
weapons are needed for the Army After Next and supports such
efforts. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million
in PE 63639A for continued development of TERM-KE technology as
an integral part of efforts to meet the broad range of future
requirements for lighter, longer range, more lethal weapons.
    The committee is also aware of continued Army/Marine Corps
joint development of the lightweight 155mm howitzer and that
additional funding is needed for testing, evaluation of a
breech mounted laser ignition system, and modifications to
accommodate the Army's new propelling charge system. A
significant part of this effort is the Army's digital fire
control system. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for the lightweight 155mm howitzer and fire control
system in PE 64854A.
MedTeams
    The budget request contained $13.4 million in PE 62716A for
human factors engineering technology, including, $0.5 million
for the Emergency Team Coordination program (MedTeams) in PE
62716A.
    The committee notes that the Army MedTeams research under
the extended team performance efforts has improved shock trauma
care to reduce medical and casualty risks. The committee
recommends $18.2 million, an increase of $4.8 million in PE
62716A for MedTeams, with the clear understanding that this
increase will complete this program.
Missile and rocket advanced technology
    The budget request contained $86.1 million in PE 63313A to
support development of advanced missile technologies.
    The committee notes recent statements by the Army Chief of
Staff expressing concern over the inability of future budgets
to sustain the current number of Army modernization programs.
While the Army is currently pursuing a significant number of
anti-armor missile programs, the committee remains concerned
over continuing poor performance of the Enhanced Fiber Optic
Guided Missile (E-FOGM) missile system, and questions whether
this program is an appropriate use of the Army's extremely
limited modernization funds.
    Last year, the committee expressed great concern over the
Army's plan to procure over 300 of these missiles during the
Advanced Concepts Technology Demonstration (ACTD) based on only
two actual missile flights, both of which were failures.
However, $31.4 million was authorized in the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 to complete the planned
14 missile ACTD testing with the direction that no additional
missiles be procured for other than test purposes. A full year
later, still with no successful missile flights during the
ACTD, the fiscal year 1999 request includes funds to continue
ACTD testing and procure an additional 192 missiles, including
96 production missiles. The committee remains concerned over
the lack of successful missile flight tests and recent problems
with rising missile costs projections. Furthermore, the
committee has seen no indication that the Army intends to
pursue fielding this system beyond those capabilities obtained
during the planned scope of the ACTD.
    Based on the disappointing results of this program to date
and the assessment that fiscal year 1998 funds should be more
than sufficient to complete the remaining 12 missile flight
tests, the committee believes that the time has come to
terminate this effort and redirect limited resources to more
viable programs. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease
of $35.7 million in PE 63313A allocated for evaluation of the
E-FOGM missile system.
Missile defense battle integration center/battle lab
    The budget request contained $12.2 million in PE 63308A for
Army missile defense system integration.
    The Army is developing the missile defense battle
integration center (MDBIC), a flexible distributed interactive
simulation-based architecture for training, exercises, and
military operations. The committee notes that while missile
defense is a stated high priority for the Army, the MDBIC
program is inadequately funded. The committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million in PE 63308A to continue development
of the integrated battle lab.
Plasma energy pyrolysis system
    The budget request contained no funds in PE 62720A for
completion of the plasma energy pyrolysis system (PEPS)
development.
    The committee notes that PEPS technology has been validated
through testing to safely destroy hazardous waste streams into
inert gasses. The committee supports efforts to keep the
environment clean and recommends an increase of $3.0 million in
PE 62720A, to complete development, construction and delivery
of a transportable and a mobile PEPS system to the Army for
testing. The committee notes that this funding will complete
PEPS development, and any future PEPS procurement must be based
on military requirements and priorities.
Precision guided mortar munitions
    The budget request contained $24.6 million in PE 63004A,
including $1.9 million for precision guided mortar munitions
(PGMM).
    The committee notes that PGMM doubles the weapon range and
provides a precision kill capability against tanks and bunkers.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
63004A for PGMM.
Starstreak
    The budget request contained $30.0 million for aviation
advanced technology in PE 63003A. No funds were included for
Starstreak (ATASK)-Stinger missile side-by-side testing for the
Apache helicopter.
    The committee is aware that the Apache helicopter does not
have a defensive air-to-air missile capability, even though
other helicopters are being so equipped, and that Starstreak
and Stinger are being evaluated and compared using simulation.
The committee supports comparative test of Starstreak and
Stinger, as appropriate, in live side-by-side firings, and
recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63003A for this
purpose.
Stinger missile block two upgrades
    The budget request contained $11.3 million in PE 23801A for
missile/air defense product improvement, which included $2.0
million for Stinger product improvement.
    The committee notes efforts to develop block II
modifications to the Stinger missile to provide enhanced
performance. The committee supports continuation of this
initiative and recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE
23801A to support these efforts.
Stinger universal launcher
    The budget request contained $30.0 million for aviation
advanced technology in PE 63003A.
    The budget request contained no funds for the Stinger
universal launcher, which is under development, and required to
support side-by side testing. The committee notes that this
launcher has broad applicability to a number of platforms,
including Apache aircraft. The committee supports this
development including necessary weapons system interfaces and
recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63003A for this
purpose.
Strategic environmental research and development program
    The budget request contained $54.4 million for the
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP)/Environmental Security Technology in a new Army program
element (PE 63780A).
    SERDP was established in 1990 to address Department of
Defense and Department of Energy environmental concerns.
SERDP's stated objective is to improve DOD's mission readiness.
This program was transferred from the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD) to the Army with the fiscal year 1999 request.
The Army's budget request already contains ongoing
environmental programs including: Environmental Quality
Technology (PE 62720A), Environmental Conservation (PE 65853A),
Pollution prevention (PE 65854A), and Environmental Compliance
(PE 65856A) totaling $75.8 million. The committee believes that
the mission essential Army environmental protection needs can
be met within existing Army programs and, therefore, recommends
no funding for SERDP.
Tactical high energy laser
    The budget request contained $12.2 million in PE 63308A,
but included no funding for the tactical high energy laser
(THEL) program.
    The committee understands that the Army now has an
identified mission need for a directed energy air defense
system. The committee believes that the Army's continued
technical involvement in the THEL program represents an
effectively leveraged path to meeting its requirements.
    While the early prototypes of THEL will not have sufficient
mobility to meet Army needs, the committee understands that the
planned evolution of the THEL program will lead to a mobile,
sustainable battlefield system. Key elements of this effort
include development of materials for crystals and manufacturing
technology in support of solid state laser technology and
integration of a lightweight acquisition and tracking system
with a lightweight beam director. The committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million in PE 63308A for THEL.
Tactical exploitation of national capabilities
    The budget request contained $44.7 million in PE 64766A for
Army tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP).
    The committee notes that the amount requested represents
nearly a $26.0 million increase from the level approved for
fiscal year 1998. The committee is concerned that the Army may
be using the TENCAP program as a means for bypassing the
``normal'' acquisition process allowing it to procure and
operate combat systems associated with space sensors. The
committee is supportive of TENCAP efforts for short-term, high-
pay off concepts and initiatives that improve the use of
national space sensors and systems. However, the committee will
not support TENCAP funded development and production of entire
weapons systems. Therefore, the committee directs that future
TENCAP requests be limited to space exploitation initiatives
and projects that are of short-duration and high payoff.
    The committee recommends $40.1 million for the Army's
TENCAP program in fiscal year 1999, a reduction of 4.6 million
in PE 64766A.
Trajectory correctable munitions development
    The budget request contained $24.6 million weapons and
munitions advanced technology in PE 63004A. No funds were
provided for the Trajectory Correctable Munitions (TCM)
program.
    The committee is aware that the TCM will provide the Army
with a versatile projectile with unprecedented range and
accuracy and will significantly extend the range and accuracy
of both current and developmental 155mm artillery platforms.
The committee supports TCM development and recommends an
increase of $6.0 million in PE 63004A for TCM development.
Ultra lightweight camouflage net system
    The budget request contained $26.0 million for Logistics
and Engineer Equipment in PE 64804A, including $0.8 million for
camouflage systems (ULCANS).
    The committee notes that the ultra lightweight camouflage
net system is intended to increase force survivability in
arctic, desert and urban environments. The committee recommends
$28.0 million, and increase of $2.0 million for expedited
production qualification and testing of ULCANS.
                               Navy RDT&E
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $8,108.9 million for Navy
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $8,403.6
million, an increase of $294.6 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 Navy
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
ADC(X) auxiliary cargo ship development
    The budget request contained $133.6 million in PE 64567N
for the Navy's program for ship contract design and live fire
test and evaluation design, including $5.9 million for the
ADC(X) Dry Auxiliary Cargo Ship program.
    The committee is aware that research and development
funding for the ADC(X) should be shifted from PE 64567N, Ship
Contract Design, to PE 63564N, Ship Preliminary Design and
Feasibility Studies, to support the Build and Charter and
program for auxiliary ships that is recommended elsewhere in
this report. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease
of $5.9 million in PE 64567N and an increase of $5.9 million in
PE 63564N.
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle
    The budget request contained $104.8 million in PE 63611M
for the advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV).
    The AAAV is a self-deploying, high water speed, fully
tracked, nuclear biological and chemical warfare protected
armored amphibious personnel carrier. The committee is aware
that additional funding will permit accelerated development of
alternative propulsion system and suspension components which
are critical to the AAAV system. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million in PE 63611M to support these efforts.
Advanced anti-radiation guided missile
    The budget request contained $18.9 million in PE 25601N for
the Homing Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) improvement program,
including $10.5 million for continued development of the
advanced anti-radiation guided missile (AARGM). AARGM is a
Phase III Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program for
demonstration of an integrated anti-radiation homing seeker,
active millimeter wave terminal seeker, and precision mid-
course navigation suite within the size constraints of an
existing HARM missile. The program is designed to demonstrate
that a dual-mode seeker of this type can effectively engage and
destroy advanced air defenses even in the presence of system
shutdown or other anti-radiation missile countermeasures.
    The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132)
directed the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an independent
assessment of the AARGM program, including the program plan and
schedule, program execution, technical performance, and program
risk. The Secretary's report, dated April 3, 1998, stated that
the Navy had initiated and completed a revised program baseline
which significantly reduces program risk, and concluded that
the AARGM program is fundamentally sound, is executable with
the currently budget resources, and will provide a technology
demonstration which will determine technical feasibility and
military utility of the AARGM technology. The AARGM
demonstration program, if successful, will demonstrate system
level capabilitieswhich exceed current Navy tactical missile
capabilities. The program schedule includes completion of guided flight
tests and the demonstration program by fiscal year 2001. The report
states that funding budgeted for the rebaselined program is sufficient
to accomplish the technology demonstration, however, the report also
states that the current program does not address a number of issues
that would be required for a Milestone II development decision.
    The committee recommends a total of $25.5 million in PE
25601N for the AARGM program, an increase of $15.0 million to
address risk reduction and other issues necessary to support a
development decision following completion of the demonstration
program.
Arctic oceanographic observation program
    The budget request contained $56.7 million in PE 62435N for
applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technologies.
No funds were requested for continuation of the program for
Arctic Climate Observations Using Underwater Sound (ACOUS).
    ACOUS is a cooperative program for the utilization of
underwater acoustic techniques to determine ocean climate and
acoustic characteristics in a large ocean basin. The program
provides the capability for understanding the large temperature
changes occurring in the Arctic Ocean, the potential impact of
these changes on the Arctic, and their implications for global
climate. As a bilateral program with Russia, ACOUS furthers
U.S. national security interests through improved scientific
relations and the transfer of Russian defense technology and
scientific experience to peaceful uses. The committee
encourages the Navy to reprogram funds to continue the ACOUS
program in fiscal year 1999 and to include funds for completion
of the program in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Automatic target tracker
    The budget request contained $14.7 million in PE 26623M for
Marine Corps ground combat/support systems but included no
funding for an automatic target tracker for the M1A1 tank.
    The committee notes that an automatic target tracker has
been successfully tested on National Guard M1A1 tanks. The
committee is aware that automatic target tracking could
increase the Marine Corps warfighting capability and recommends
$3.0 million to evaluate this available capability for Marine
Corps use.
Autonomous underwater robotics technology
    The budget request contained $347.9 million in PE 61153N
for the Navy's defense research sciences program.
    Recent research, including software simulations and
hardware tests in the water, indicate that the application of
autonomous underwater robotic systems has the potential for
significant improvements in surveillance, tactical
oceanography, and shallow water mine countermeasures. The
committee believes that partnerships established among
academia, industry, and the Navy's research and development and
operational communities would be beneficial in the development
and evaluation of the technology and operational concepts for
these systems. Such partnerships could develop and evaluate
tactics and capabilities, as well as demonstrate the
operational utility of these systems in at-sea tests. Of the
funds provided in PE 61153N, the committee recommends $4.0
million for continued basic research and development in
autonomous underwater robotic systems for surveillance,
tactical oceanography, and shallow water mine countermeasures.
Autonomous underwater vehicle and sonar development
    The budget request contained $56.7 million in PE 62435N for
oceanographic and atmospheric technology, including $20.3
million for applied research in environmental influences on
mine countermeasures systems and littoral oceanography.
    The committee recommends $66.7 million, an increase of
$10.0 million to continue applied research and exploratory
development in technologies for advanced sensors and unmanned
underwater vehicles applicable to mine countermeasures and
other littoral operations.
Aviation depot maintenance technology
    The budget request contained $59.4 million in PE 63721N for
environmental protection demonstration and validation,
including $3.5 million for Naval aviation pollution prevention.
    The committee recommends $62.1 million, an increase of $2.7
million for the development and demonstration of aviation depot
maintenance technologies that will significantly reduce
maintenance and repair costs, and reduce or eliminate hazardous
waste and pollution products.
Carbon-carbon materials for reentry bodies
    The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer
technology.
    The committee encourages the Navy to continue a robust
program for the development of carbon-carbon heatshield and
insulation materials to address future Navy reentry body
requirements to survive long atmospheric flight trajectories
while maintaining a precision strike capability. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62234N for the
development of carbon-carbon materials.
Common support aircraft
    The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 64217N for
the Common Support Aircraft (CSA), a fiscal year 1999 major new
start program to develop the replacement for the Navy's S-3B,
ES-3A, E-2C, and C-2 aircraft. The common support airframe
would also be a primary candidate for the Navy's organic tanker
aircraft mission.The CSA program plan calls for a Milestone 0
decision in fiscal year 1999 to initiate the concept formulation phase
and achievement of CSA initial operating capability in 2013.
    The committee supports the need for a replacement for the
Navy's E-2/C-2 and S-3/ES-3 aircraft which represent 1960s and
1970s aviation technology, respectively, and will begin
reaching the end of their service lives in the 2010 time-frame.
However, based on the projected in-service date for the CSA,
the committee believes that the start of the CSA program should
be delayed until fiscal year 2000. Accordingly, the committee
recommends no funding for the CSA program for fiscal year 1999.
The committee expects that the program will be included in the
fiscal year 2000 defense budget request, and directs the
establishment of a separate concept exploration/product
definition and risk reduction program element for the program.
Cooperative engagement capability
    The budget request contained $131.6 million in PE 63658N
for cooperative engagement capability (CEC) demonstration and
validation.
    The committee is aware of additional funding requirements
for the CEC program that developed too late to be included in
the fiscal year 1999 defense budget request. These requirements
include correction of deficiencies discovered during the
initial operational test and evaluation of the system, and
support of follow-on testing in preparation for the
interoperability test that will involve two carrier battle
groups. The committee is also aware of the increasing role that
the Navy's CEC system will play in air defense and tactical
ballistic missile defense for the fleet and for joint forces.
Development and evaluation of these capabilities will require
an integrated test and evaluation system that links together
major military test and training ranges. Such a system should
capitalize on a number of existing government-sponsored high
performance computing and high-speed network programs. The
committee recommends $157.6 million for the CEC program, an
increase of $20.0 million to address funding shortfalls in the
program as outlined above, and $6.0 million for continued
development of the CEC test and evaluation system and linking
that system to the military test and training ranges
infrastructure.
Cooperative engagement capability frequency spectrum requirements
    The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132)
required the Secretary of Defense to review the impact of the
loss of portions of the frequency spectrum, previously assigned
to the CEC program, due to frequency spectrum sales under title
VI of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, and to report on
the measures being taken to compensate for any operational
degradation that might result from such loss. The DOD report to
Congress on spectrum requirements, dated March 1998, states
that in addition to the loss of capability resulting from the
transfer of 50 megahertz (MHz) from the radio frequency
operating band of the CEC, the reallocated spectrum also has
the potential for making a substantial portion of the remaining
CEC spectrum unusable. The report also states that there is an
existing radio frequency interference problem between the CEC
and the Light Airborne Multi-purpose System (LAMPS) that
impacts the use of the CEC. This interference problem could be
accommodated by movement of the LAMPS Mark III data link from
C-band to Ku-band at a potential cost of $115.0 million.
    Of the funds provided in PE 63658N for the CEC program, the
committee recommends $5.0 million to continue development
activities necessary for the transfer of the LAMPS Mark III
data link from C-band to Ku band. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a detailed assessment of the
measures required to compensate for the loss of the CEC
frequency spectrum and for the CEC/LAMPS Mark III data link
interference problem. The Secretary shall report the plan and
program required to maintain the CEC operational capability to
the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Cryogenic electronics technology
    The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer
technology.
    The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research are
demonstrating notable performance gains through the use of
cryogenic electronics and high temperature superconductivity
technology in analog and digital electronic components, and
that such applications may offer the potential for achieving
significant improvements in the ability of future radar systems
to detect and track low-flying targets in clutter. The
committee also understands that these technologies may permit
the development of advanced RF receiver/exciter subsystems that
could be common to a wide range of radar applications and could
result in significant reductions in the cost of future radar
systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million to continue the development of superconducting
waveform generator and analog-to-digital converter technology,
leading to the demonstration of an advanced ``cryo-radar'' with
increased performance and clutter rejection and reduced size,
power, and weight.
Distributed surveillance system
    The budget request contained $42.0 million in PE 64784N for
advanced deployable system (ADS) engineering and manufacturing
development.
    The committee recommends $48.7 million, including an
increase of $6.7 million to continue the planned introduction
of automation and data fusion capability for the ADS
demonstration system.
DD-21 land attack destroyer
    The budget request contained $133.6 million in PE 64567N
for ship contract design and live fire test and evaluation
design, including a total of $84.9 million for the Navy's DD-21
land attack destroyer program.
    The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132)
directed the Secretary of the Navy to review the acquisition
strategy for the Navy's next-generation surface combatant (SC-
21), determine if a prototyping strategy is appropriate for the
program,and report the results of the review to the Congress.
The Secretary's report, dated April 1998, describes a phased
acquisition process that would culminate in the selection of a single
contractor to complete system design, construction, test, delivery, and
support of the lead ship for the DD-21 class land attack destroyer. The
three-phased program would emphasize active competition among competing
contractors during the concept design and initial systems design
phases, and identification of a ``second ship builder'' prior to
completing the system design in the detailed design and construction
phase. The report also identified the following: early contractor
involvement, the use of state of the art engineering tools to enable
``virtual prototyping'' and analysis of alternatives prior to beginning
construction, and the use of ``cost as an independent variable''
criteria in meeting the affordability goals for the program.
Additionally, a risk management process that includes the use of
process teams, extensive modeling and simulation, networked land-based
engineering sites, lessons-learned from the Maritime Fire Support
Demonstrator program, and at-sea testing of DD-21 components and sub-
systems would be established.
    The committee supports the need for a competitive
acquisition strategy for the DD-21 and believes that such a
strategy is critical to achieve the advanced surface combatant
that will meet or exceed the aggressive cost and performance
goals established for the DD-21. The committee believes that it
is imperative that the Navy and industry make every effort to
ensure a competitive environment, even if a brief delay in
initiation of the concept phase of the program is necessary.
The committee notes that such a delay would affect the Navy's
ability to obligate fiscal year 1998 funds, which have been
provided for the concept phase, and reduce the requirement for
fiscal year 1999 funding for the DD-21 program.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $25.0
million in PE 64567N for the DD-21 land attack destroyer. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the
congressional defense committee within 30 days of the enactment
of this Act, the measures that will be taken to maintain
competitiveness in the DD-21 program.
DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof of concept demonstration
    The budget request contained $48.1 million in PE 63217N for
advanced development of air systems and weapons advanced
technology. No funds were requested for continuation of the DP-
2 thrust vectoring system (DP-2) proof of concept
demonstration.
    DP-2 is a proof of concept program to demonstrate in a one-
quarter scale flight test vehicle the technology for a short
take off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft of advanced
composite construction using thrust vector control. Following
the ground test demonstration of an all-composite, divert
thruster system that was supported by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, the program and $10.0 million in
fiscal year 1997 funds were transferred from DARPA to the
Department of the Navy for an 18-month, proof of concept
demonstration phase. Roll-out of the one-quarter scale flight
test vehicle is scheduled in February 1999 and the first flight
test in June 1999. Should the proof of concept demonstration
prove successful, the contractor has proposed the construction
and test of a full scale aircraft, which would demonstrate an
affordable, high performance, vertical take off transport
aircraft for ship to shore operation and for ship and shore
based reconnaissance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63217N for completion of the DP-2 proof of concept
demonstration. Completion of a successful proof of concept
demonstration could provide the basis for the Department of the
Navy to proceed with a full-scale aircraft development program.
Environmentally safe energetic materials
    The budget request contained $39.8 million in PE 63609N for
conventional munitions demonstration and validation.
    The committee has supported the elimination of toxic
materials and solvents from explosives and other energetic
material and the development of new insensitive explosives and
other materials that are able to meet increasingly stringent
environmental compliance regulations. Such developments could
lead to propellants and explosives that could result in higher
weapon systems performance and significant savings in overall
life cycle costs. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 63609N to accelerate the program for the
development of propellants and explosives that utilize
environmentally compliant energetic materials for undersea,
surface, and other weapons systems.
Escape system dynamic flow test facility
    The budget request contained $8.2 million in PE 63216N for
the aviation survivability demonstration/validation program.
    The committee believes that there is a need for
improvements in the ability to test the performance of aircraft
ejection seats in a realistic environment and to evaluate the
interaction between the ejection seat, aircrew equipment, and
aircraft cockpit as the seat leaves the aircraft. In recent
years, added aircrew equipment and the smaller stature of
female crewmembers have raised concerns about the safety of the
crew during ejection from an aircraft. The committee recommends
an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63216N for improvements in
ejection seat test capabilities.
Hybrid electronically scanned antenna
    The budget request contained $65.0 million in PE 62232N for
the Navy's command, control, communications, intelligence
surveillance and reconnaissance technology program, including
$20.8 million for applied research in radar technology.
    The committee is aware of work at the Naval Research
Laboratory leading to a hybrid electronically scanned antenna
for potential use with the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM).
If successful, this antenna development could replace the
existing ESSM mechanically scanned illuminator radar dish
antenna with a two-dimensional X-band array, and provide a
multiple target engagement capability for the ESSM and
significant reduction in ship radar cross section at an
affordable cost. The committee encourages theSecretary of the
Navy to consider reprogramming of fiscal year 1999 funds to accelerate
the development and an advanced technology demonstration of the new
antenna technology.
Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system technology
    The budget request contained $65.0 million in PE 62232N for
applied research in command, control, and communications
technology.
    The committee is aware that command and control functions
require a high degree of mobility and security and that current
shipboard communication systems cannot simultaneously provide
both maximum security and mobility. Wireless systems offer a
high degree of mobility, but are susceptible to intercept, and
fiberoptic systems offer increased security, but are limited to
fixed point-to-point communications. The committee is aware of
efforts to develop a shipboard communications system which
would combine distributed wireless base stations and fiberoptic
networks to achieve increased mobility and security, while
reducing the effects of frequency interference. The committee
believes that this technology may have the potential for
enhanced, secure shipboard command and control systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $66.0 million, an
increase of $1.0 million for development and demonstration of
the technology for hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications
systems.
Inter-cooled recuperated gas turbine engine
    The budget request contained $58.4 million in PE 63573N for
the Navy's advanced service machinery program (ASMP), including
$23.5 million for continued development of the inter-cooled
recuperated (ICR) gas turbine engine.
    The ICR engine program is a cooperative development program
between the United States, the United Kingdom and France to
develop and demonstrate an advanced fuel efficient gas turbine
engine that could be the prime power plant for future ship
applications.
    The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 1110 (H. Rept. 105-304) required the Secretary
of the Navy to conduct an assessment of the progress in the ICR
engine program, future plans for engine testing and
qualifications, and the status of agreements on program conduct
and funding with the United Kingdom and other participating
countries, and budget estimates of the cost to complete the
program. The Secretary's report, dated February 1998, and an
earlier report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services,
responds to these issues and states that testing requirements
were under discussion with the United Kingdom and France and
that an estimated $95.5 million in U.S. funding would be
required to complete the program. The committee is also aware
that engine testing to date has demonstrated the ability to
achieve 21 percent fuel savings and that 27 percent savings are
believed achievable.
    The committee supports continued development of the ICR
engine because of the potential the engine holds for increased
performance and improvements in fuel economy for future Navy
ships. The committee recognizes that the technical,
programmatic, and funding issues must be resolved in order to
insure a stable development program which will meet U.S. and
allied requirements for an advanced naval prime power plant.
    The committee recommends the budget request. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide an updated report,
which addresses the issues cited above, to the Congressional
defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2000
defense budget request. The committee also directs
consideration of the ICR gas turbine engine among the
alternatives for the prime power plant for the future DD-21
land attack destroyer.
Link 16 improvement program
    The budget request contained $49.8 million in PE 25604N for
the Navy's tactical data link program, including $4.4 million
for Link 16 improvements.
    The committee strongly supports the program that was
initiated in fiscal year 1998 for integration of Link 16 into
the Joint Maritime Command and Control System (JMCIS) and the
Global Command and Control System (GCCS). The committee is
aware that Link 16 integration into GCCS will satisfy many DOD
data dissemination requirements, including those from the Joint
Surveillance Tactical Reconnaissance System (JSTARS). Within
the funds provided in PE 25604N, the committee recommends a
total of $7.4 million for Link 16 improvements, an increase of
$3.0 million for that program.
LPD-17 amphibious assault ship self-defense
    The committee is aware that the Navy is evaluating combat
system alternatives for the LPD-17 Class Amphibious Assault
Ships. The committee reiterates the need for the LPD-17 to meet
the Navy's own ``Capstone'' requirement for ship self-defense
and previous congressional direction that the LPD-17 should
have no less self-defense capability than other Navy ships. The
committee also believes that to do otherwise could
unnecessarily place at risk the combat elements which may be
deployed on this class ship. In view of the fact that these
ships are projected to be in the fleet for 40 years, the
committee believes that the Navy should consider combat system
commonality and compatibility with other elements of the fleet,
life cycle support costs, and growth in combat system
capability required to keep pace with future threats. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report the
results of the evaluation to the Congressional defense
committees before proceeding with procurement of a combat
system for the LPD-17.
Man overboard indicator technology
    The budget request contained $6.2 million in PE 64516N for
Navy ship survivability program engineering and manufacturing
development.
    The committee has followed closely the Navy's efforts to
develop and introduce into the fleet a computer-based, total
ship damage control information management system that would
enable rapid/coordinated response to wartime and
peacetimecasualties, reduce crew manpower requirements, and improve
manpower utilization. The committee is aware that the Navy currently
has no method other than visual detection for detecting man overboard
incidents. The committee is also aware of a commercially available,
water-activated man overboard indicator, and believes that integration
into such an indicator of a human factors monitor and location-
monitoring device could significantly enhance crew safety and
survivability and also provide the personnel monitoring capabilities
sought in the damage control information management system. The
committee urges the Navy to investigate the utility of such a man
overboard indicator for fleet use and the feasibility of integrating a
human factors monitor and location-monitoring capability into the
indicator as outlined above. The committee requests that the Secretary
of the Navy report the results of these investigations to the
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year
2000 budget request. The committee recommends the budget request for
fiscal year 1999.
Marine Corps ground combat/support system
    The budget request contained $37.1 million in PE 63635M,
including funds for continued development of the joint Army/
Marine Corps lightweight 155mm howitzer.
    The lightweight 155mm towed howitzer will be the Marine
Corps sole artillery weapon for all forces and missions,
replacing the aging and operationally deficient M198 Howitzer.
The program is a third of the way through a three year
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). The committee
is aware that additional funding is needed for EMD testing and
program support, evaluation of a breech mounted laser ignition
system, modification to accommodate the Army's new propelling
charge system, and perform live fire testing of weapons crew
ballistic protection. The committee recommends $39.6 million,
an increase $2.5 million for the lightweight 155mm howitzer in
PE 63635M.
Marine mammal research
    The budget request contained $347.9 million in PE 61153N
for the Navy's defense research sciences program.
    Of the funds provided in PE 61153N, the committee
recommends $500,000 for continuation of the Navy's cooperative
marine mammal research program.
Molecular design materials science
    The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132)
required the Secretary of the Navy to submit an assessment of
the Department of the Navy's materials science program, which
was initiated in May 1995 at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory and at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The
Secretary's report, dated February 1998, indicates that first
phase of the program, in little more than two years and with an
initial investment of less than $10.0 million, has clearly
impacted materials science at the national and international
levels. The program has also contributed to faculty, graduate
student, and curriculum development and, through patents,
licensing, and technology transfer, has catalyzed industrial
activity and state partnerships. The committee notes that the
report stated that the funding provided by the Congress for
fiscal year 1998 is sufficient to support the next three years
of the program, consolidate discoveries made in the first
phase, and support other discoveries now in their early stages.
At the end of this second phase, a significant part of the
science and technology developed in the program will have
transitioned to private industry, and the remaining program
will be sufficiently well established to be funded by the
regular Navy budget process.
Multi-function self aligned gate technology
    The budget request contained $32.1 million in PE 35204D8Z
for continued development of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
tactical control system (TCS).
    The committee notes that the TCS will provide
interoperability and commonality for mission planning, command
and control, communications, and data dissemination for the
current and future family of tactical and medium altitude
endurance UAVS. The multi-function self aligned gate (MSAG)
technology developed as part of the TCS development has been
successfully demonstrated and is now ready for larger scale
testing. The committee acknowledges the Departments' plan to
transfer funding for this program to the Navy, as lead service
for this effort, and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in
PE 35204N for fabrication and testing of prototype MSAG active
array antennae for TCS UAVS.
Multipurpose processor
    The budget request contained $50.3 million in PE 64503N for
submarine system equipment development, including $37.2 million
for engineering and manufacturing development of submarine
sonar improvements.
    The committee notes the Navy's selection of the
multipurpose processor (MPP) as the cornerstone of sonar
upgrades for existing SSN-688, 688I, and TRIDENT submarines and
the improvement in sonar systems capability that has resulted
from the application of MPP acoustic signal processing
technology. The committee also believes that similar
improvements in the capability of airborne and surface sonar
systems and of undersea surveillance systems would be realized
through the use of MPP technology. Therefore, the committee
recommends $65.3 million in PE 64503N, an increase of $15.0
million, to continue the research and development necessary for
the introduction of MPP technology in submarine and other naval
sonar systems.
Navy land attack missile program
    The budget request contained $110.1 million in PE 63795N
for land attack technology, including $11.3 million for
continued evaluation of the Army Tactical Missile System
(ATACMS) for adaptation for naval surface ship and submarine
use. No funds are included in budget request for the Land
Attack Standard Missile (LASM).
    During fiscal year 1999 budget review briefings, the
committee was informed that the Navy's surface warfare
community and the Navy's submarine warfare communitywere
considering different approaches to fulfilling the requirement for a
land attack missile system for naval surface fire support. The former
favored selection of the LASM, while the latter favored selection of
the Navy Tactical Missile System (NTACMS), a naval variant of ATACMS.
The committee was also informed that the Navy surface warfare community
intends to move to a Milestone II decision in mid-1999 for the
selection of LASM as the land attack missile.
    The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-340) expressed the view that
a number of mature systems, sub-systems and components appear
to be capable of fulfilling surface fire support requirements
and that the Navy needs to conduct the basic analysis required
to narrow the field of candidates analytically and to take
maximum advantage of developed systems. The committee report on
H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) cautioned that a thorough,
objective, and independent cost and operational effectiveness
analysis of competing system alternatives would be required
before the Navy proceeds with any development milestone
decision for a land attack missile. The committee is unaware
that any such analysis has been completed.
    The committee strongly believes that the selection of a
land attack missile system must reflect the operational
requirements of the entire Navy, should capitalize on mature
systems, and should also capitalize on future system
capabilities. The committee believes that selection of a land
attack missile system will be a major defense acquisition
decision that will set the direction for future Navy fire
support systems capabilities and, as such, should be subject to
the rigorous analysis and review associated with such
decisions. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that an appropriate analysis of alternatives
(AOA) be conducted to support acquisition of a Navy land attack
missile program, and that the Navy may not proceed to a
Milestone I decision until this AOA and other requirements
appropriate to a major acquisition milestone decision have been
satisfied. The committee recommends $11.3 million for the Navy
Tactical Missile System as contained in the budget request.
Navy theater missile defense
    The budget request contained $190.4 million in PE 63868C
for the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) defense system.
    The committee recognizes the value of leveraging the large
investment in the Aegis fleet as the cornerstone of NTW
development and continues to support this important effort. The
committee notes that in a number of instances, ballistic
missile defense development costs are shared between the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and the executing
service. Examples include the Air Force Space Based Laser, Navy
Area Defense, and the Army Patriot Advanced Capability-
Configuration 3 (PAC-3) programs. The committee believes cost
sharing is justified if the resulting system serves multiple
missions, or if major elements of the resulting system meet
other service-unique requirements.
    The committee understands that while the projected NTW
Block I will continue to rely on the existing Aegis SPY-1
radar, the operating frequency of this radar is not adequate to
acquire ballistic missile targets without cueing from other
sources or to discriminate the threat warhead from other
clutter. Further evolution of the Aegis radar will be needed to
achieve the capabilities required by the objective NTW Block II
system. At the same time, the committee notes that these radar
improvements required for missile defense will help meet wider
Navy requirements for fleet defense against cruise missile and
air attack and that the Navy is pursuing other initiatives to
improve current Aegis radar capabilities.
    The committee believes that the Navy has unique expertise
in developing radar capabilities to meet fleet defense
requirements, that these requirements overlap with those
derived from the ballistic missile defense mission, and the
resulting radar system will be inherently multi-mission in
nature. Consequently, the committee recommends $50.0 million
for a new Navy program element, PE 636XXN, to develop SPY-1
radar upgrades critical to development of the NTW Block II
system and to integrate that development with continuing Navy
efforts to improve radar capabilities required for fleet
defense. In doing so, the committee believes that overall
control of the ballistic missile defense architecture must
remain with BMDO, and that Navy radar development must remain
closely coordinated with BMDO.
NSSN advanced technology insertion
    The budget request contained $218.8 million in PE 64558N
for the New Attack Submarine (NSSN) program, including $146.4
million for NSSN hull, mechanical, and electrical systems
development, and $72.5 million for NSSN combat systems
development.
    The committee continues to strongly support the development
of advanced submarine technologies for the NSSN and the
insertion of these technologies into its design at the earliest
possible opportunity. The committee has reviewed the Navy's
plan for technology insertion in the first four submarines of
the NSSN class and notes that the plan falls short in funding
for several technologies. Inclusion of these technologies in
the NSSN design would result in significant improvements in the
capabilities of the NSSN class. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the development of
high priority submarine technologies that are currently
unfunded and the insertion of these technologies into the NSSN
program. The committee is aware that insertion of the
technologies will also require a limited amount of procurement
funding across the first four submarines (less than $5.0
million) and encourages the Navy to reprogram from within
available funds the procurement funding necessary to complete
the technology insertion in the appropriate NSSN hulls.
Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer
    The budget request contained $347.9 million in PE 61153N
for the Navy's defense research sciences program.
    In shipboard radar surveillance systems, high instantaneous
bandwidth is need to achieve the necessary resolution for
theater ballistic missile defense, ship self-defense, and non-
cooperative target identification. The committee is aware that
the use of optical wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM)
technology, now being developed in thecommercial sector, may
provide the capability for wideband beamforming that could result in
the demonstration of a wideband electronically-steered active radar
antenna with high instantaneous bandwidth and the resolution necessary
for theater ballistic missile defense requirements. Use of optical WDM
technology to reduce hardware complexity would permit reductions in
system cost and achieve system performance levels that are needed for
ship-self defense in a littoral environment. The committee recommends
an increase of $4.5 million in PE 61153N to initiate a cooperative
program for research, development, and demonstration of a prototype
optically multiplexed, wideband, radar beamforming array using optical
WDM technology.
Parametric airborne dipping sonar
    The budget request contained $231.1 million in PE 64212N
for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and other helicopter
development, including $215.5 million for the Light Airborne
Multi-purpose System (LAMPS) ASW helicopter. No funds were
requested for the parametric airborne dipping sonar (PADS).
    The PADS project was initiated as a small business
innovative research program (SBIR) proposal in 1990 for an
advanced acoustic source for helicopter dipping sonar.
Following successful demonstration of a parametric projector
(acoustic source) beam-forming capability approximating
theoretical estimates, funding was added in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201) to initiate a limited PADS onboard helicopter
demonstration and at-sea helicopter PADS system test. The test
will be conducted in 1999 using funds added in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85). Following completion of the at-sea test in 1999, the Navy
plans to review the test results, assess the viability of
integrating PADS technology into current or future weapons
systems for enhanced shallow water ASW and mine detection
capabilities, and report the results of its review and
assessment to the Congress.
    The committee is aware of recommendations for insertion of
the PADS technology into the LAMPS ASW helicopter and
establishment of an engineering and manufacturing development
program for PADS during fiscal year 1999. In view of the time
required to complete the PADS testing and follow-on assessment
during 1999, the committee believes that this recommendation
should be addressed as a part of the fiscal year 2000 defense
budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommends no
increase in funding for PADS.
Power electronic building blocks and power node control centers
    The budget request contained $39.3 million in PE 63508N for
surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical
advanced technology. The request included funding to continue
the development and demonstration of power electronic building
blocks and power node control centers for shipboard electrical
power systems. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in PE 63508N to continue the program to accelerate the
development of power electronic building block technology and
the use of virtual prototyping and a virtual test bed to
demonstrate and evaluate advanced shipboard electrical power
system concepts. The committee also recommends an increase of
$2.0 million in PE 63508N to continue the development of power
node control centers for advanced electrical distribution
system fault detection, switching, reconfiguration, and control
of shipboard electrical systems.
Project M
    The committee has followed the progress of Project M--an
active approach for noise and vibration cancellation. The
results to date have shown that the active machinery raft may
provide unprecedented quieting for submarines.
    Congress appropriated $5.0 million in fiscal year 1998 to
be used for only active control of machinery rafts, and the
committee notes that Project M is to be tested on a submarine
large scale vehicle. However, the committee understands that no
funds have been budgeted to develop a prototype system for
surface ships. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to program funds to develop a prototype system for
surface ships in fiscal year 2000.
Reduction to fiscal year 1999 budget request programs
    The committee has reviewed the Navy's budget request for
fiscal year 1999 and, in a number of program elements,
identified program growth over fiscal year 1998 projected
funding for fiscal year 1999 funding for those programs to the
actual requested levels in fiscal year 1999. The committee
believes that these increases are not sufficiently justified in
comparison to higher priority Navy programs and recommends
reductions totaling $9.8 million and listed by program element
in the following table.
65152N--Studies And Analysis Support--Navy....................     $-1.0
65853N--Management, Technical & International Support.........      -1.0
65863N--RDT&E Ship And Aircraft Support.......................      -2.0
65864N--Test And Evaluation Support...........................      -5.8
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Reduction.........................................     $-9.8
Remote minehunting system
    The budget request contained $73.5 million in PE 63502N for
surface and shallow water mine countermeasures demonstration
and validation including $11.0 million for the Remote
Minehunting System (RMS). The RMS is a remotely operated system
that is being developed to detect and classify mines. This
system is the primary element of the Navy's program to provide
an organic mine countermeasures means for surface combatants.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
63502N to continue the program for accelerated development and
fielding of the RMS. This increase, and an increase recommended
for the shallow water influence minesweep system
(SWIMS)elsewhere in this report, reflect the high priority that the
committee places on the mine countermeasures program and on the
introduction of an organic mine countermeasures capability into the
Navy's battle groups and amphibious ready groups.
Shallow water influence minesweeping system
    The budget request contained $56.8 million in PE 63747N for
the Navy's undersea warfare advanced technology program.
    The committee strongly endorses the need for development
and deployment of improved mine countermeasures and believes
that systems are needed that have high speed minesweeping
capabilities, provide significantly improved area coverage, are
effective in all environments, and meet the requirements of the
Navy's mine warfare plan for littoral operations. The committee
recommends $64.8 million in PE 63747N, an increase of $8.0
million to continue the development and demonstration of
advanced magnetic and acoustical minesweeping system
technology.
Shipboard system component development
    The budget request contained $27.7 million in PE 63513N for
shipboard system component development demonstration and
validation.
    The committee is aware that the U.S. manufacturer of the
110-kilowatt static frequency converter for Navy combatant
ships has been selected by two foreign navies to develop a new
150-killowatt static frequency converter. The 110-kilowatt
unit, which uses 25-year old technology, is both difficult and
expensive to maintain. The committee believes that replacement
of the older 110-kilowatt unit with the new 150-kilowatt unit
in new construction of U.S. Navy ships, such as the LPD-17,
could result in significant cost savings. The committee
recommends that the Secretary of the Navy assess the
feasibility of using the new 150-kilowatt unit in new naval
ship construction programs, and, if such use is judged feasible
and cost-effective, conduct the necessary U.S. qualification
and environmental tests for the new converter. The committee
recommends $28.7 million in PE 63513N, an increase of $1.0
million for the qualification and testing program.
Shortstop electronic protection system
    The budget request contained $14.7 million for Marine Corps
ground combat/supporting arms but included no funding for
additional development of the shortstop electronic protection
system (SEPS). The committee notes recent completion of
successful testing of SEPS, which provides detection and early
detonation of incoming artillery, mortar and rocket rounds to
protect ground forces. However, SEPS requires upgrading to
protect forces from newer weapons. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 26623M, and an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 64270A, a total increase of
$10.0 million for this purpose.
Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates
    The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer
technology.
    Silicon carbide (SiC) is a wide band-gap semiconductor
material with unique physical and electrical properties that
will make possible the fabrication of the next-generation of
microelectronic devices. These devices will be capable of
operation in radiation environments and at high temperatures,
high voltages, high power levels, and high frequencies in the
microwave regime. These capabilities will enable a wide range
of applications in military and commercial systems, such as
high voltage/high power systems, advanced radar, nuclear,
instruments, satellite communications, and advanced sensors.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
62234N to accelerate the development of SiC semiconductor
materials and to advance high electrical power control and
other applications for next generation military platforms.
Standoff land attack missile--expanded response (SLAM-ER)
    The budget request contained $5.2 million in PE 64603N for
the Navy's SLAM-ER program.
    The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132)
required the Secretary of the Navy to provide an assessment of
the SLAM-ER program. The report, dated January 23, 1998, states
that SLAM-ER is the missile system that will meet the Navy's
requirement for an advanced air-launched, standoff land attack
system, that the Navy acquisition objective for SLAM-ER is
approximately 700 missiles, and that no further capability is
currently anticipated. Accordingly, the committee agrees with
the Navy's decision and recommends $5.2 million for SLAM-ER as
contained in the budget request.
Submarine sonar domes
    The budget request contained $218.8 million in PE 64558N
for the New Design SSN (NSSN) program.
    The committee is aware of a Navy risk reduction program in
which a new structural acoustic sandwich material system
composed of glass-reinforced plastic and rubber has been used
to fabricate a quarter-scale sonar dome. Although this advanced
material system was initially developed for surface ship sonar
domes and windows, at-sea testing of the quarter-scale sonar
dome indicated potentially significant advantages for the NSSN,
including major improvements in sonar performance, enhanced
sonar dome durability, and reduced manufacturing and life-cycle
costs. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in
PE 64558N to complete fabrication of a full-scale sonar dome
using this acoustic sandwich material system for further
evaluation and testing.
Tactical combat training systems development
    The budget request contained $28.4 million in PE 24571N for
the consolidated training system development program, including
$6.9 million for continued development of the Joint Tactical
Combat Training System (JTCTS).
    The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132)
directed the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the
Secretary of the Air Force, to conduct an assessment of the
requirement for the JTCTS and execution of the JTCTS program.
The Secretary's report, dated February 19, 1998, stated that
the joint instrumented range requirement remains valid, that
JTCTS meets the requirements of both the Navy and the Air
Force, and that the program had been restructured to allow the
Services to field a prototype JTCTS mobile, rangeless air
combat training capability in 1999, one year sooner than
originally scheduled. The report also stated that service
priorities have driven the first procurement of JTCTS with an
emphasis on replacing existing, less capable and aging air
combat range instrumentation systems. However, the report also
noted that JTCTS capabilities for joint simulation system
integration, ground interoperability, and shipboard weapons
system integration had been deferred to later in the program
with the full system capability becoming available in fiscal
year 2003.
    The committee notes the existing Navy large area tracking
ranges (LATR) and the Air Force's AN/ASQ-34 air combat training
system. In view of the projected delay in fielding of the full
JTCTS capability, the committee believes that the Navy and the
Air Force need to develop an overall strategy for transition
from these legacy systems to the full JTCTS capability. The
committee believes that such a transition strategy should
include potential improvements in the legacy systems,
requirements for interoperability with JTCTS as it is fielded,
and ultimate replacement of the legacy systems by JTCTS. The
committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, conduct a
further assessment of the feasibility and desirability of such
a transition strategy and report the results of that assessment
to the Congressional defense committees with the submission of
the fiscal year 2000 budget request. To accelerate the
development of the full capability of JTCTS and to address the
recommendations that may result from the assessment, the
committee recommends $33.4 million in PE 24571N, an increase of
$ 5.0 million and a total of $11.9 million for the JTCTS
program.
Tactical Tomahawk
    The budget request contained $66.7 million in PE 24229N for
Tomahawk operational system development; $132.9 million in
Weapons Procurement, Navy for the Tomahawk Block Improvement
Program (TBIP); $94.2 million in Other Procurement, Navy for
TBIP; and $117.1 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy for
TBIP.
    In September 1997, during the House-Senate conference on
H.R. 1119, the Department of the Navy and the Department of
Defense (DOD) advised the conferees of a proposal to upgrade
the capability and reduce the production unit cost of the
Tomahawk cruise missile. The upgraded missile, ``Tactical
Tomahawk,'' would include several enhancements to improve the
tactical responsiveness of the Tomahawk missile.
    In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 103-340), the conferees supported
the concept of the Tactical Tomahawk missile system, but raised
several issues regarding the acquisition strategy and funding
for the system that would need to be addressed before
initiation of the Tactical Tomahawk program.
    In February 1998, following submission of the President's
budget request for fiscal year 1999, the committee received a
reprogramming proposal from the DOD which would transfer fiscal
year 1998 funds provided for TBIP missile procurement to
research and development for the Tactical Tomahawk. Following
review of the supporting rationale for the reprogramming, the
committee approved the proposal in April, 1998.
    The committee is generally satisfied with the rationale
that the Navy and the DOD have provided to support the
reprogramming request. The committee is concerned, however,
about the Navy's ability to establish a competitive environment
for future Tactical Tomahawk procurement. The committee is
particularly interested in the measures that will be taken by
the Navy to insure a Tactical Tomahawk program that includes
the potential for a second source for missile system production
and also provides for a qualified second source engine for the
production phase of the program. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense
committees by September 30, 1998, the Navy's plan for ensuring
competitiveness in the production phase of the Tactical
Tomahawk program.
    To provide the fiscal year 1999 funding required to
complete the reprogramming for Tactical Tomahawk, the committee
recommends $165.3 million in PE 24229N for Tomahawk operational
systems development, an increase of $98.6 million; an increase
of $2.8 million in Other Procurement, Navy for TBIP; and
reductions of $96.5 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy, and
$4.9 million in Operations and Maintenance, Navy, for TBIP.
Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers
    The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for
applied research in materials, electronics, and computer
technology.
    The committee is aware that over the last three years the
Navy has engaged in a program to significantly advance the use
of ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers in high-performance,
high-density electronic modules. Through this research, the
Navy has concluded that ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers
could allow for the expanded use of commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) electronic components in military applications, such as
avionics, in which the high thermal output of such components
has constrained their use. The committee believes that the
potential exists for substantial savings if greater use could
be made of COTS components in aircraft and avionics systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million to
determine the feasibility of application of the Navy's recently
completed research in ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers.
Undersea warfare advanced technology
    The budget request contained $34.9 million in PE 62633N for
applied research in undersea warfare weaponry technology.
    The committee recommends $36.9 million, an increase of $2.0
million to continue the development and application of micro
electromechanical systems (MEMS) technology to Navy undersea
weapons systems.
Vacuum electronics
    The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for
the Navy's materials, electronics and computer technology
program, including $10.0 million for applied research in vacuum
electronics.
    The January 1997 Report to the Congress on the Tri-Service
Microwave Power Module Project by the Director, Defense,
Research, and Engineering, and the April 1997 Industrial
Assessment of the Microwave Power Tube Industry by the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Affairs and
Installations) underscore the importance of vacuum electronics
to the Department of Defense (DOD). The assessment cites the
requirement for a focused DOD research and development
investment strategy to advance the technology and improve
manufacturability of vacuum electronics to meet future DOD
system performance improvement and cost reduction requirements.
The assessment also notes that additional development funding
may be necessary to adapt emerging product technologies to meet
service-specific requirements. The committee supports
continuation of a robust vacuum electronics research and
development program, and expects the Navy as DOD executive
agent for the program to insure a coordinated vacuum
electronics research and development program among the military
services and defense agencies, and among the DOD and other U.S.
Government agencies, which will meet DOD requirements for
advanced vacuum electronics technology. The committee
recommends the budget request of $10.0 million for the vacuum
electronics program.
Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter technology
        demonstration
    The budget request contained $23.2 million in PE 62122N for
aircraft technology applied research. No funds were requested
for the Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller (VTDP) compound
helicopter technology demonstration program.
    The VTDP program is intended to demonstrate the technology
for a vectored thrust, ducted propeller in a compound
helicopter, which could meet requirements for improvements in
future rotor craft performance, survivability and
affordability. The funded program includes design, fabrication
and ground testing of full-scale VTDP components, control
system simulation, and system design focused on the H-60
helicopter as a demonstration platform. If successful, the
ground test program would provide a basis for a potential
follow-on flight demonstration program. The committee is aware
that the Navy expects to address the VTDP technology potential
for naval rotary wing aircraft before final preparation of the
fiscal year 2000 budget.
    The committee recommends the budget request. Should the
Navy make a decision to begin a flight demonstration phase for
the VTDP program in fiscal year 2000, the committee also
recommends that the Secretary of the Navy consider
reprogramming the fiscal year 1999 funds necessary to
transition the program from the ground test phase to the flight
test phase.
Vectoring ESTOL control tailless operation research
    The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 63217N for
advanced development in air systems and advanced technology,
including $7.0 million for the Vectoring Extremely Short Take-
off and Landing Control Tailless Operation Research (VECTOR)
project, and $11.0 million in PE 63790N, NATO Research and
Development, including $5.0 million for the VECTOR project.
    The committee notes that VECTOR is a new start,
international flight demonstration effort that would utilize
the X-31 experiment aircraft to demonstrate the feasibility of
tailless fighter designs to perform carrier and amphibious
ship/land-based strike fighter mission, and also demonstrate
extremely short take-off and landing (ESTOL) using thrust
vectoring directional control.
    The committee strongly supports the development of advanced
aviation technology, but notes that the VECTOR project
represents a new start program that was not included in the
fiscal year 1998 defense budget request and that was initiated
with a below threshold reprogramming of $3.0 million.
Notwithstanding the technical merit of the VECTOR project, the
committee believes that many of the operational capabilities
sought in the project duplicate those being pursued in the
Joint Strike Fighter program. The committee believes that
priority should be given to the development of advanced
aviation technology in the JSF program and that funding for the
VECTOR program should be deferred to fiscal year 2000,
following completion of JSF technology maturation
demonstrations and assessments. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a decrease of $7.0 million in PE 63217N for VECTOR;
and a decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63790N for VECTOR.
Vertical gun for advanced ships
    The budget request contained $110.1 million in PE 63795N
for project definition and risk reduction in land attack
technology, including $25.2 million for the Vertical Guns for
Advanced Ships (VGAS) program.
    The committee strongly supports the accelerated development
and fielding of advanced fire support system capabilities for
naval surface fire support and believes that an advanced gun
system for the next generation of Naval Surface Combatants (SC-
21) surface combatants will be an integral part of the future
system. However, the committee does not believe that the Navy
has given sufficient consideration to, nor completed the
rigorous analysis of alternative gun system concepts that would
justify selection of the VGAS concept as the preferred
alternative for the advanced naval gun system for SC-21. Nor,
in the committee's opinion, has the Navy given sufficient
consideration to the relative technical requirements and
operational roles of gun and missile systems. Until such an
analysis of alternatives is completed, the committee believes
that the Navy is not prepared to proceed to a Milestone I
decision for an advanced gun system as described in the fiscal
year 1999 budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommends
a decrease of $20.0 million for the VGAS project.
                            Air Force RDT&E
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $13,598.1 million for Air
Force RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$13,577.2 million, a decrease of $20.9 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 Air
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the
table and in the classified annex to this report.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Advanced low observable coatings
    The budget request contained $21.0 million in PE 63112F for
advanced materials for weapon systems.
    The committee is aware of the constantly evolving threats
to U.S. aircraft and notes numerous Department of Defense
initiatives pursuing survivability enhancements to address
these evolving threats. One technology approach which has
proven both adaptable and cost effective is that of low
observable coatings applied to aircraft and other high value
platforms which mask them from evolving battlefield sensors.
    The committee supports these efforts and recommends $30.0
million, an increase of $9.0 million for continued exploration
of advanced low observable coatings.
Advanced military satellite communications
    The budget request contained $54.4 million for the advanced
military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) program in PE
63430F.
    Advanced MILSATCOM is the planned Air Force replacement for
the MILSTAR extra high frequency (EHF) communications
satellite. The committee notes that the commercial satellite
communications industry is taking a strong interest in EHF
communications and in greatly increasing the on-board
processing capacity of communications satellites. The committee
believes that the overlap between these trends and advanced
MILSATCOM requirements offers an opportunity for the Air Force
to leverage commercially developed technology
    Therefore, the committee recommends $30.0 million, a
decrease of $24.4 million. The authorized funding would support
research and development for Air Force-unique requirements in
EHF communications, including radiation hardened electronics,
compatibility of a new system with the existing EHF
communications infrastructure, and interoperability with ground
terminals.
Aircrew laser eye protection
    The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63231F for
crew systems and personnel protection technology. No funds were
requested to support development of the aircrew laser eye
protection program.
    The committee supports the Department of Defense's
continued efforts to enhance aircraft crew member protection
systems and yet notes, with concern, recent incidences of
injuries sustained by crew members due to exposure to lasers.
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to develop dye based
aircrew visors and urges the Air Force to continue funding
these efforts.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million for
aircrew laser eye protection.
ALR-69 radar warning receiver
    The budget request contained $25.6 million in PE 63270F for
electronic combat technology. No funds were requested to
support development of the ALR-69 radar warning receiver.
    The committee is aware of continuing efforts by the
services to improve situational awareness of the radar threat
environment. While modernization of radar warning equipment has
progressed for the active forces, the committee remains
concerned that modernization of National Guard, Reserve, and
Special Forces aviation assets has not kept pace with available
technology to address this critical area of vulnerability. The
committee is aware of the potential of the ALR-69 radar warning
receiver to offer protection to these forces and recommends
$34.6 million, an increase of $9.0 million for integration of
the ALR-69 radar warning receiver into priority National Guard,
Reserve, and Special Forces aviation assets.
Ballistic missile technology
    The budget request contained $1.3 million for the ballistic
missile technology (BMT) program in PE 63401F and no funding
for a conventional ballistic missile demonstration in PE
63851F.
    Prior year ballistic missile technology funding has
supported several demonstrations of guidance technology, deep
earth penetrating warheads, and Global Positioning System (GPS)
range safety. This technology has in turn supported a
demonstration of a conventional ICBM that could be used for
long range precision strike of deeply buried or very hardened
targets. Many such targets, which include facilities for
command and control and weapons of mass destruction, are
currently immune from attack by anything but nuclear weapons.
The committee believes that this demonstration should be
pursued as part of the wider effort to develop effective non-
nuclear means to attack this target set.
    Last year, the BMT program was funded separately in PE
63311F. The committee believes that funding BMT in PE 63401F, a
program element for advanced spacecraft development is
inappropriate. The committee recommends $17.3 million, an
increase of $16.0 million, for advanced ballistic missile
technology and the conventional ballistic missile
demonstration. The committee recommends this funding for PE
63311F and believes that combining these efforts in one PE will
result in better program coordination.
Distributed agent information warfare
    The budget request contained $8.4 million in PE 33140F for
the information systems security program.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense is
engaged in several development initiatives to mature
information security technologies for military purposes. One
such effort, the Distributed Agent Information Warfare
Framework (DAIWF) has been successfully demonstrated in a small
business innovative research program under Air Force
supervision.
    The committee supports this development effort and
recommends $10.4 million for continued DAIWF development, an
increase of $2.0 million.
Ejection seats
    The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63231F for
crew systems and personnel protection and $8.2 million in PE
63216N for aviation survivability.
    Last year, the committee supported an increase in funding
to continue improvements in aircrew ejection seats and to
explore alternative technologies leading to injury-free
ejection seat designs that can accommodate both male and female
pilots.
    The committee remains supportive of these efforts and
recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63231F, and an
increase of $3.0 million in PE 63216N.
    The committee is also aware that the Navy has completed the
second phase of a small business innovative research program
(SBIR) for stabilizers for Navy fighter ejection seats, which
may produce an extraordinary reduction in injuries as well as a
dramatic increase in aircrew ability to survive ejection from
the aircraft. Based on the results of the feasibility
demonstration, the committee encourages the Navy and the Air
Force to consider establishing a phase III SBIR or a
demonstration/validation program to continue development of
this promising stabilization technology.
F-16 squadrons
    The budget request contained $125.1 million in PE 27133F
for continued operational system development support for the F-
16 fleet.
    The committee notes that the budget request reflects an
increase of $24.6 million over the level forecast as necessary
to support fiscal year 1999 requirements in the fiscal year
1998 budget request. Further, the committee believes that some
of the proposed fleet support modifications are not expected to
be carried out until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999 and
should be considered for incorporation into the fiscal year
2000 program.
    The committee recommends $100.5 million to continue F-16
fleet support at the level previously forecast for fiscal year
1999, a decrease of $24.6 million in PE 27133F.
Flight test safely enhancements
    The budget request contained $370.2 million in PE 65807F
for test and evaluation support.
    The committee is aware of Air Force efforts to improve the
safety of high performance aircraft flight test operations at
the Air Force Flight Test Center. The committee notes that
upgrades to air traffic control systems and on-board aircraft
equipment offer significant improvements in safety of flight
test operations and recommends $376.2 million, an increase of
$6.0 million to continue these efforts.
Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology
    The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63302F for
the integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology
(IHPRPT).
    The IHPRPT program is developing technologies and
components for insertion into existing launch vehicles, with
the goal of improving launch vehicle performance in a variety
of areas and lowering costs of space launch substantially. The
committee understands the importance of testing these new
technologies to demonstrate their performance. The committee
recommends $23.0 million for IHPRPT in PE 63302F, an increase
of $4.0 million, to support a Phase I Solid Boost and Orbit
Transfer demonstration.
Integrated powerhead demonstration
    The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 63302F for
space and missile rocket propulsion.
    The committee notes that the Air Force is maximizing
efforts to integrate advanced propulsion technologies into its
highest priority space related programs. Of particular
interest, the committee believes that the Integrated Powerhead
Demonstration included in this year's request offers potential
for significant advances in capability and cost reduction for
the Air Force and other service space programs.
    The committee strongly urges the Air Force to continue this
effort and supports the request for space and missile rocket
propulsion.
Longshot
    The budget request contained $17.6 million in PE 27590F for
the SEEK EAGLE weapons integration flight test program. No
funds were requested to support continued testing of the
Longshot guided munition adaption kit.
    The committee notes that the Longshot kit offers the
potential for a highly cost effective, precision stand-off
adaption kit that could provide a long range glide capability
combined with an inexpensive guidance system for increased
accuracy, and could be strapped on existing inventory bombs and
submunition delivery systems without modification.
    The committee notes that the system has only received
limited testing to date and recommends $19.6 million, an
increase of $2.0 million to continue testing of Longshot.
Low cost launch technology
    The budget request contained no funding for low cost launch
technology development. Fiscal year 1998 funding was
appropriated in PE 63173C and PE 63401F.
    Congress added funding for low cost launch technology
development in both fiscal year 1997 and 1998. The committee
continues to believe that these technologies, as embodied in
programs such as Scorpius and Excalibur, show considerable
promise and deserve additional support. The committee
encourages the Department to identify and program funds for
these efforts in the future years defense plan.
Microsatellite technology
    The budget request contained no funding for microsatellite
technology. Fiscal year 1998 funding for microsatellite
technology was appropriated in PE 63401F in the Clementine II
program.
    In congressional testimony, the commander-in-chief of U.S.
Space Command, identified the development of microsatellite
technology as a high priority. The committee notes that the
nation relies heavily on space-based assets for both commercial
and military purposes, and that reducing the size and weight
and increasing the agility of satellites and space vehicles has
the potential to lower costs and improve sustainability. The
committee understands that $4.0 million would allow the
microsatellite technology development program to fly a
satellite inspection mission. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million to PE 63401F for this purpose.
Military spaceplane
    The budget request contained no funding for the military
spaceplane in PE 63401F and $3.0 million for the space
maneuvering vehicle in the space test program, PE 65864F.
    The committee notes that U.S. military forces are
increasingly reliant on space-based capabilities and the Air
Force has identified requirements that are best met by a
military spaceplane and an associated family of vehicles. The
committee understands that any military spaceplane effort
should focus on militarily unique requirements and leverage
NASA investment in the reusable launch vehicle program. These
unique requirements are reflected in development efforts for a
space maneuvering vehicle (SMV) that would provide all-orbit
access and extended on-orbit dwell time, a low cost expendable
upper stage to deploy payloads to all orbits, and a common aero
vehicle (CAV) that would serve as a maneuvering reentry vehicle
capable of delivering various payloads anywhere on earth within
an hour of launch.
    The committee believes that a military spaceplane and its
related elements have the potential to contribute significantly
to U.S. military capability. The committee recommends an
addition of $15.0 million to PE 63401F to support further SMV
and CAV development.
More electric aircraft program
    The budget request contained $69.1 million in PE 62203F for
aerospace propulsion, including $17.9 million for More Electric
Aircraft (MEA).
    The committee is encouraged with Air Force efforts to
develop advanced electric power technology through the MEA
program and urges the Air Force to accelerate this program in
future budget requests. The committee recommends the $69.1
million requested.
Panoramic night vision goggle
    The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63231F for
crew systems and personnel protection technology.
    The committee notes the Air Force progress in development
of night vision technology for application to existing fighter
and tactical aircraft. Of particular note is the panoramic
night vision goggle (PNVG) program which significantly broadens
the field of view for pilots.
    The committee supports this effort and recommends an
increase of $4.5 million in PE 63231F to continue development
of PNVG.
Protein-based memory development
    The budget request contained $65.2 million in PE 62702F for
command, control and communications research.
    The committee notes the encouraging results of Air Force
research in protein-based ultra-high density memory storage. Of
particular interest is the progress made in the past year
confirming the potential for significant increases in memory
storage capacity. The committee urges the Air Force to continue
this research and recommends $68.2 million, an increase of $3.0
million.
Rocket system launch program
    The budget request contained $7.9 million for the rocket
system launch program (RSLP) in PE 65860F.
    The committee notes that the Air Force has a requirement
for improved high performance missile technology. The committee
understands that Advanced Solid Axial Stage (ASAS) technology
is potentially valuable for ballistic missile defense
interceptors and other future missiles, and that RSLP plays an
important role in ASAS development. The committee recommends
$18.9 million, an increase of $11.0 million in PE 65860F, for
ASAS development and activities related to current and future
RSLP flights.
                         Defense Agencies RDT&E
                                Overview
    The budget request contained $9,591.0 million for Defense
Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$9,454.3 million, a decrease of $136.7 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999
Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are
discussed following the table.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       Items of Special Interest
Advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD)
    The budget request contained $116.3 million for advanced
concept technology demonstrations in PE 63750D8Z, an increase
of $38.8 million over fiscal year 1998.
    Although the management of the ACTD initiatives appears to
have improved, the committee remains concerned that the
Department's selection criteria for ACTD candidates lacks
specificity and believes such a large increase is not
warranted. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million
in PE 63750D8Z.
Advanced synthetic aperture radar system improvement program
    The budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 35207D8Z
for the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS)
Improvement Program (AIP) for the U-2 aircraft.
    As a result of the termination of the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office, the Deputy Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology sent a letter to the Congress
recommending specific redistribution of Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Program funding in fiscal year 1999. Included in
this recommendation was an additional $2.5 million for AIP
research and development.
    The AIP program will dramatically increase the U-2's radar
system with significantly improved synthetic aperture radar
imagery, a highly capable moving target indicator tracking
capability, and integral onboard processing functions.
Unfortunately, the AIP has suffered cost growth and has a
fiscal year 1999 shortfall of over $18.0 million. Some of this
growth is due to contractor overruns and schedule slips caused
by late deliveries of commercial processors. Some of this
growth is due to a decision to postpone certain Global Hawk
High Altitude Unmanned Aerial Vehicle radar developments that
were cost sharing with AIP. This growth has forced the Air
Force to make decisions to slip the AIP, thereby further
increasing costs. In order to deliver the AIP when required,
the Air Force has stated a need to reprogram funding from
procurement to research and development in fiscal year 1999.
However, such a step would have a significant procurement
funding impact in fiscal year 2000.
    The committee recommends an authorization of $13.0 million,
an increase of $8.0 million for AIP development.
Ballistic missile defense
    The budget request contained $3.6 billion for ballistic
missile defense (BMD). The committee recommends $3.8 billion,
an increase of $132.8 million.
    The committee believes that the budget request represents a
reasonable effort to fund BMD priorities more adequately than
the budget requests of the past several years. The committee
notes specifically that the National Missile Defense (NMD)
program request is consistent with the revised estimate of
program requirements put forward by the Department last year.
The committee also believes that the Theater High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) program request reflects an effort to restore
funding reduced last year as a result of program delays.
    While the committee is gratified with this commitment of
funds, it is concerned that the Administration's commitment to
robust research and development and timely deployment in the
longer term is still lacking. According to Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) budget documents, BMD funding would
decline rapidly in the future years defense plan (FYDP), from
$3.6 billion requested in fiscal year 1999 to $2.6 billion in
both fiscal years 2002 and 2003. This decline would leave the
BMDO with an annual budget shortfall of over $1.0 billion and
unable to meet clearly identified and understood BMD
requirements. These documents acknowledge that the shortfall is
even greater than appears, because several high priority
programs are unfunded or underfunded throughout the FYDP,
including innovative research and development to support next
generation BMD systems, the medium extended air defense system
(MEADS), the Navy theater wide defense system, and NMD, should
a decision be made to deploy within the FYDP. This projected
shortfall would inevitably result in delayed development and
deployment schedules for virtually all BMD programs.
    The committee notes that missile defense remains a very
high priority with commanders in the field and that missile
threats to the U.S. homeland, deployed troops, and allies
continue to grow. The committee believes that the planned
reduction of the BMDO budget baseline is completely unjustified
and urges in the strongest terms that the Department identify
funds in the future year defense plans to meet legitimate
missile defense needs.
            Advanced technology development
    The budget request contained $166.7 million for Advanced
Technology Development in PE 63173C, of which $30.2 million is
for Operational Support (project 4000).
    The committee notes that the $30.2 million request for
Operational Support (project 4000) represents an eleven percent
increase over the fiscal year 1997 request. The committee
recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for Operational Support.
            Atmospheric interceptor technology
    The budget request contained $24.5 million for the
atmospheric interceptor technology (AIT) program in PE 63173C.
    The AIT program has been restructured to develop advanced
components for a variety of hit-to-kill vehicles, including
advanced high performance divert and attitude control systems,
seekers, energy sources, and avionics. The committee notes that
BMDO is now pursuing five hit-to-kill missile defense systems
which will remain in U.S. inventories for many years. The
committee believes that the AIT effort can provide beneficial
technology to all of these programs. The committee recommends
$46.5 million, an increase of $22.0 million.
            BMD research and development
    The committee notes with considerable concern that,
according to budget documents provided by the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO), by fiscal year 2002, BMDO research
and development accounts will fall to their lowest levels since
fiscal year 1985. This situation would result from the
precipitous decline in funding projected by the BMDO budget and
from the fact that several programs are transitioning from
development to acquisition.
    The committee believes that this projected level of
investment in next generation missile defense technologies is
inadequate. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the Congressional defense committees by
March 1, 1999, on the appropriate level of research and
development investment in next generation ballistic missile
defense technologies, the BMD budget level required to sustain
both acquisition of critical BMD systems and robust R&D, and
how the Department of Defense intends to manage the BMDO
transition from an R&D organization to one that must manage
both R&D and acquisition programs.
            Ballistic missile defense testing
    The committee has long expressed frustration with the lack
of a robust test program in a number of BMD programs, including
the theater high altitude area defense (THAAD), national
missile defense (NMD), and navy area defense systems. In its
recent report, the Panel on Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile
Defense Flight Test Programs criticized BMD flight test
programs for accepting excessive risk, in part because of the
perceived urgency of speeding BMD capabilities into the field.
The panel also argued that BMD flight test programs have
incorrectly viewed flight tests as significant advances in
technology rather than validations of technical advances and
carefully planned efforts to prove technology that cannot be
tested on the ground. The report recommended that BMD program
schedules be slowed, and that ground testing, modeling and
simulation be substantially increased.
    The committee finds considerable merit in the report, and
notes that many of its recommendations had already been
incorporated into the THAAD and NMD test programs prior to the
report's release. Due in part to funding added to by Congress,
the number of integrated ground tests planned in the NMD
program has doubled. Nevertheless, the committee believes that
the report's implication that the urgency of the need to deploy
TMD systems is merely ``perceived'' is seriously mistaken. Both
the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command, and the
commander of U.S. and United Nations forces in Korea testified
this year that theater missile defense is their top priority.
This priority is reflected in House passage of H.R. 2786, the
Theater Missile Defense Improvement Act of 1998, that would
provide additional test and development funds for a number of
systems to more effectively and more rapidly address emerging
theater missile threats. The committee continues to believe
that the earliest possible deployment of theater missile
defense capabilities remains a very high priority.
    The committee believes the report of the panel would have
been more valuable had it focused more directly on testing
practices that would allow BMDO to minimize development risks
while sustaining aggressive schedules, and believes that such a
focus would have benefited not only BMD programs and the
warfighters, but the test and evaluation community as well.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report to the Congressional defense committees by March 1,
1999, on innovative testing concepts, processes, and procedures
that have the potential to advance BMD technologies rapidly
with minimum risk.
            Cooperative ballistic missile defense
    The budget request contained $37.9 million for the Israeli-
American Arrow theater missile defense program and $12.8
million for the Russian-American Observation Satellites (RAMOS)
program in PE 63875C.
    The committee continues to endorse cooperative BMD efforts
as a means of leveraging U.S. BMD investments, and recommends
the requested amount for the Arrow program. The committee
understands that the rapid emergence of an Iranian ballistic
missile threat capable of threatening Israel requires an
effective and timely response. The committee notes that the
Israeli government has expressed strong interest in deploying a
third Arrow battery to mitigate this emerging threat and that
the Administration has recently endorsed U.S. assistance toward
that end. The committee urges the Administration to proceed
rapidly in determining appropriate funding sources and
finalizing appropriate agreements with the government of Israel
that would allow such aid to be provided expeditiously.
    The committee recognizes that the Iranian ballistic missile
program has advanced so rapidly in large part due to
substantial assistance from Russian sources. The committee
recommends $12.8 million for RAMOS, and recommends a
legislative provision (sec. 233) that would prohibit obligation
or expenditure of $5.0 million until the Secretary of Defense
certifies to Congress that the Department has acquired detailed
information concerning the nature, extent, and military
implications of ballistic missile technology transfer from
Russian sources to Iran.
            Joint theater missile defense
    The budget request contained $176.8 million for Joint TMD
in PE 63872C.
    The committee notes unjustified increases in the cost of
various TMD exercises, and recommends $174.8 million, a
decrease of $2.0 million in User Interface, project 3265.
            National missile defense
    The budget request contained $950.5 million in PE 63871C
for the national missile defense (NMD) program.
    The committee recommends the budget request. The committee
is encouraged by the Administration decision to fully fund the
NMD program and by the selection of the lead system integrator
(LSI). The committee believes that the LSI concept is sound and
will provide the necessary management expertise to move the
program forward expeditiously.
    The committee continues to support efforts to develop an
NMD system capable of defending all 50 states. The committee
believes that the threat of ballistic missile attack on the
U.S. homeland continues to grow, and understands that nations
hostile to U.S. interests are developing or seeking to acquire
long range ballistic missile technologies. Therefore, the
committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 231) that
expresses the sense of Congress that any deployed national
missile defense should defend all fifty states and that U.S.
territories should be protected from ballistic missile attack.
    The committee is aware that defense of all 50 states by an
NMD system could require changes to the Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty. The committee believes that the United States and
Russia should pursue approaches to the ABM Treaty responsive to
new strategic requirements that would permit an effective
limited defense of U.S. national territory and enhance the
security of both Russia and the United States. U.S.-Russian
discussions to explore these issues were pursued in the early
1990s but were discontinued in 1993. The committee does not
believe that such exchanges should or would restrict the right
to deploy an effective limited national missile defense when
U.S. interests require such a deployment. The committee
recognizes that the Treaty expressly provides for the right of
withdrawal, a right that could be exercised if a demarche with
Russia fails to produce the necessary agreement concerning the
intent or content of the Treaty.
            Navy theater wide
    The budget request contained $190.4 million in PE 63868C
for the navy theater wide (NTW) defense system.
    The committee continues to support this important theater
missile defense program. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research, Development, and Acquisition recently testified
that the NTW system could achieve Block I capabilities by
fiscal year 2002 if provided with sufficient additional funding
above the Administration's request. The committee notes recent
analysis performed by BMDO and the Navy indicating that this
date would entail very high program risk, very high near term
costs, and does not appear reasonably executable. The committee
further notes that BMDO and the Navy now support deployment of
a Block I capability by fiscal year 2005 as a fiscally
plausible and technically achievable goal. However, additional
funding in fiscal year 1999 and throughout the future year
defense plan will be necessary to achieve this objective. To
this end, the committee recommends $260.4 million, an increase
of $70.0 million for continued risk reduction, additional
testing of the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Interceptor (LEAP)
program and Aegis-LEAP integration. The committee urges the
Department to identify and support adequate funding in the
future years defense plan to sustain Block I NTW deployment.
    The committee is concerned that the technical evolution of
NTW Block I to Block II has not been adequately considered. As
a consequence, BMDO has not yet been able to provide assurance
to the committee that Block I development efforts are on a path
to support the evolution to Block II. The committee believes
that the long term success of NTW requires that Block II
technology requirements and architecture be well defined to
ensure that accelerated Block I development can proceed along
that critical path.
            Patriot advanced capability
    The budget request contained $343.2 million in procurement
and $137.3 million in PE 64865C for the Patriot Advanced
Capability-Configuration 3 (PAC-3) program.
    The committee understands that the PAC-3 development
program has experienced cost increases. The committee supports
the Department's request to use $40.0 million requested for
PAC-3 procurement in fiscal year 1999 to meet this development
shortfall and to ensure that the PAC-3 test program is
completed.
    The committee understands that this reduction to
procurement will reduce the number of low rate initial
production missiles that will be acquired in fiscal year 1999.
The committee believes that increasing the initial production
rate is an important goal as a means of addressing the threat
posed by potential deployment of Iranian theater ballistic
missiles to U.S forces, friends and allies in the Persian Gulf
and Middle East. The committee understands that an additional
$16.0 million would support increasing low rate initial
production to six a month. Consequently, the committee
recommends $303.2 million for PAC-3 procurement, a reduction of
$40.0 million, and $193.3 million for engineering and
manufacturing development, an increase of $56.0 million which
includes the $40.0 million transfer from procurement and an
increase of $16.0 million in PE 64865C.
            Space based laser
    The budget request contained a total of $93.8 million for
the Space Based Laser (SBL) program, of which $58.8 million is
in PE 63173C and $35.0 million is in 63876F.
    The committee understands that SBL technology has matured
to the point where a readiness demonstrator (SBLRD) is a
logical next step. However, the committee is concerned that a
program leading to an SBLRD launch in 2005 may be too costly
and would unnecessarily restrict the technical options open to
the program. The committee believes that innovative technical
ideas can reduce the cost of the SBLRD, advance the
technologies that might be used if a decision were taken to
develop and deploy an operational system, and provide valuable
proof of concept demonstrations. The committee believes that
these goals can be accomplished without an inordinate delay in
the launch date.
    However, the committee does not believe that the best path
to achieve these goals has been adequately laid out in the
currently proposed SBLRD program. Until the Department proposes
a technically achievable program plan and funding in the future
years defense plan has been identified, the committee believes
that a commitment to higher funding levels is premature.
Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0
million in PE 63173C and a reduction of $10.0 million in PE
63876F. The committee further recommends that BMDO establish a
separate SBL program element in its fiscal year 2000 budget
submission.
            Support technology--applied research
    The budget request contained $86.9 million in PE 62173C for
ballistic missile defense support technologies.
    The committee is concerned with the deep reduction in
innovative science and technology for BMD in project 1651, from
$60.5 million in fiscal year 1998 to a request of $24.0
million. The committee understands that BMDO seeks to support
only those areas of applied research relevant to BMD without
duplicating other efforts, but is also aware that a number of
such technology efforts are not sufficiently funded. The
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in project
1651, including $5.0 million for wide bandgap semiconductor
research.
    Furthermore, while the committee is aware and appreciative
of the value of involving small business in BMD research, the
committee is not convinced that a 35 percent increase in Small
Business Innovative Research and Small Business Technology
Transfer in project 1660 is justified. Therefore, the committee
recommends $50.0 million, a reduction of $12.2 million in
project 1660.
    The committee recommends $89.7 million for PE 62173C, an
increase of $2.8 million.
            Technical operations
    The budget request contained $190.1 million for BMD
technical operations in PE 63874C. The committee notes a
significant increase in fiscal year 1999 funding in project
3153, System Architecture and Engineering compared to
projections made in fiscal year 1998, and, therefore,
recommends $186.1 million, a reduction of $4.0 million.
            Theater high altitude area defense (THAAD)
    The budget request contained $497.8 million in PE 63861C
for THAAD demonstration and validation, and $323.9 million in
PE 64861C for THAAD engineering and manufacturing development.
    The committee continues its strong support for the THAAD
program and recommends authorization of the request. The hiatus
in THAAD flight testing has been used for extensive quality
control and risk reduction efforts, and has put the program on
a firmer technical footing. While THAAD missile development
remains an area of risk, the THAAD battle management/command,
control, and communications (BMIC3) system and ground based
radar have achieved significant progress. The committee
strongly encourages the Director of BMDO to proceed with EMD on
the elements of the program mature enough to do so, while the
THAAD missile continues to evolve. The committee believes that
starting EMD for the THAAD radar and BM/C3 will result in more
a capable system earlier than if those systems are held back.
    The committee notes that early deployment of a contingency
capability remains a high priority of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization to address longer range threat missiles,
such as those currently deployed in North Korea and under
development in Iran. The committee is aware of concern that a
decision to proceed to production of 40 User Operational
Evaluation System (UOES) missiles after one successful
intercept may be premature. The committee notes that the
decision to proceed is based not only on one intercept but
three subsequent ``in progress reviews.'' Further funding for
THAAD UOES acquisition can be suspended after any of these
reviews if problems or difficulties that warrant such an action
are discovered. The committee also understands that delaying
the commitment to UOES correspondingly delays delivery of a
contingency capability to the warfighters, and believes that
such a delay would unnecessarily deny them a valuable defensive
and deterrent capability.
Chemical-biological defense program
    The budget request contained a total of $620.3 million for
the Department of Defense chemical-biological defense program,
including $283.9 million for procurement of chemical and
biological defense equipment for the military services and
$336.4 million for research, development, test and evaluation
(RDTE). The budget request also included $88.0 million in PE
62383E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's
component of the biological warfare defense program.
    The committee has repeatedly expressed its concerns about
the need for a strong chemical-biological defense program to
meet the potential threat posed by the proliferation of
chemical and biological weapons in the post-Cold War world. The
committee has strongly supported and insisted upon a
coordinated and integrated chemical-biological defense program
and the need for joint coordination and oversight of the
program. The committee notes ongoing research and development
activities by the Department of Energy (DOE) national
laboratories that are addressed elsewhere in this report,
including $17.0 million for the DOE Deterrence and Detection
Technologies Program and $56.5 million for the DOE
Proliferation Detection Program.
    The committee believes that increased and continuing
emphasis should be given to the development of advanced stand-
off detectors that employ a range of potential sensing
technologies capable of detecting nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapon proliferation effluents and agents. The
committee also believes that the chemical-biological defense
program must incorporate the best efforts of the military
services' research and development establishment, defense
agencies, national laboratories, federally funded research and
development centers, and industry. The committee directs that
the Secretary of Defense address this issue, including plans
for developing a more fully integrated program with the DOE, as
a specific item of interest in the next annual report to
Congress on the Department of Defense Nuclear/Biological/
Chemical (NBC) Defense Program.
Counterproliferation support
    The budget request contained $70.6 million for
counterproliferation support in PE 63160BR. The committee notes
that the requested funding is significantly above last year's
projection for fiscal year 1999. The committee believes that
maintaining level funding is appropriate and recommends $57.6
million, a decrease of $13.0 million.
    The committee also recommends a provision (sec. 234) that
would prohibit obligation or expenditure of the funds
authorized and appropriated in PE 63160BR until the report on
the threat posed to the United States by weapons of mass
destruction andcruise and ballistic missiles is submitted to
Congress as required in section 234 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85).
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    The budget request contained $2,040 million for Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency programs.
    The committee is concerned, as detailed elsewhere in this
report, by the increased emphasis given to defense-wide
research, science, and technology programs at the apparent
expense of those programs within the military departments.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
adjustments in selected DARPA programs and transfer of the
funds to the accounts of the military departments: a reduction
of $37.0 million in PE 62702E for applied research in tactical
technology; a reduction of $27.5 million in PE 63760E for
command, control, and communications systems advanced
development; a reduction of $13.1 million in PE 63762E for
advanced development of sensor and guidance technology; and a
reduction of $11.6 million in PE 63764E for land warfare
technology advanced development.
            DARPA marine technology program
    The committee is also concerned by the overall reduction in
funding for the DARPA marine technology program, for which
$24.8 million in PE 63763E was requested. The objective of the
program is to identify and mature critical enabling
technologies for maritime systems, and to develop and
demonstrate advanced systems concepts to counter the threat
created by the worldwide proliferation of increasingly
sophisticated naval technology. The growing threat of quiet
diesel/electric submarines, the continuing worldwide
proliferation of advanced submarine and weapons capabilities,
and the easy availability of modern underwater mines all
necessitate the development of solutions for enhancing the
operating capabilities and the survivability of U.S. naval
forces in the littoral. With the cancellation of the Arsenal
Ship program at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 and other
adjustments in the marine technology program, the DARPA fiscal
year 1999 budget request for marine technology was reduced by
$64.0 million and estimated funding for the remainder of the
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) reduced by $135.2 million.
The committee believes that such reductions result in an
advanced marine technology program which is not adequate to
address the future requirements of U.S. naval forces. The
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology and the Secretary of the Navy to
conduct an assessment of the DARPA marine technology program
from the standpoint of these requirements and report to the
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 2000 defense budget request the results of the
assessment and recommendations for adjustments to budget
projections for the FYDP period.
Defense airborne reconnaissance program management
    The budget request contained $15.7 million for defense
airborne reconnaissance program (DARP) integration and support
in PE 35209D8Z, and $35.0 million in PE 35208D8Z for
distributed common ground systems.
    The committee notes that, subsequent to development of this
year's budget request, the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance
Office (DARO) has been eliminated and its functions absorbed
within the reorganized office of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence (OASD (C3I)) and within the military services. The
committee supports actions which adhere to the Department's
stated objective of maintaining very small cadre oversight
organizations within OSD, focused on policy level guidance to
ensure reconnaissance system interoperability and architectural
compliance. The Department provided a report to the
Congressional defense committees which included plans to
request reprogramming authority to shift DARO funding for DARP
integration and support from PE 35209D8Z to program elements
within the Air Force and other DOD agencies, as well as to
defense-wide operations and maintenance accounts.
    The committee supports this transfer of funding and,
therefore, recommends $7.0 million in Operations and
Maintenance, defense-wide for OASD (C3I), $2.5 million in PE
35208F, $2.5 million in PE 35208BQ, $2.5 million in PE 35208G,
and $2.0 million in PE 35208L, for a total transfer of $11.0
million, a decrease of $4.7 million in PE 35209D8Z and $5.6
million in PE 35208D8Z.
Defense manufacturing, technology program (MANTECH)
    The budget request contained $14.5 million in PE 78045A,
$59.1 million in PE 78011N, $51.0 million in PE 78011F, and
$26.2 million in PE 78011S, for the Department of Defense
manufacturing technology (ManTech) program.
    Section 211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) requires the Secretary of
Defense to prepare a five-year plan for the manufacturing
technology program and to submit the plan annually to the
Congress with the President's budget request. The committee has
received the first such plan which establishes the goals,
milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the
manufacturing technology program through fiscal year 2003. The
committee commends the Secretary for preparing a comprehensive
plan and is encouraged by the positive trends in the five-year
budget projection for the ManTech program.
    However, the committee believes that the budget projections
are still inadequate to accomplish the stated goals for the
program. In the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-340), the
conferees recommended an annual manufacturing technology
funding target for each of the military departments and defense
agencies of at least 0.25 percent of the total amount budgeted
in each service for demonstration and validation, engineering
and manufacturing development, operational system development,
and procurement programs. The fiscal year 1999 budget request
falls short of this recommended minimum funding level.
    The committee is aware of a number of promising candidate
ManTech programs, including electronic circuit board
manufacturing development, battery technology, rotary wing
sustainment, the Instrumented Factory for Gears, fiber optics,
advanced composites,synchronized drive trains, smart production
product model, and simulation based design and operational evaluation.
The committee believes that each program should compete for funding
within the overall priorities of the service ManTech programs.
    The Army is the single service manager for the defense
ammunition program. The committee believes that insufficient
attention has been paid to the development of manufacturing
technology for this critical commodity and recommends increased
funding for munitions manufacturing technology in the Army
ManTech program. The committee recommends that munitions
manufacturing technology be reflected as an integral part of
the ManTech program in the future and directs that this aspect
of the program be addressed as a specific item of interest in
the annual plan update.
    Accordingly, to bring the total ManTech program to the
level that has been recommended by the Congress, the committee
recommends a total of $41.7 million in PE 78045A for the Army
ManTech program (including $15.0 million for munitions
manufacturing technology), an increase of $27.2 million; $67.7
million in PE 78011N, an increase of $8.6 million; $58.4
million in PE 78011F, an increase of $7.4 million; and $26.2
million in PE 78011S.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a
legislative provision that addresses ManTech program cost
sharing.
Demilitarization of non-nuclear military explosives
    The budget request contained $11.6 million in PE 63104D8Z
for the development of explosives demilitarization technology,
including $7.4 million for continuation of the tunnel
demonstration program.
    The committee notes that funding for the conventional
munitions demilitarization program has decreased from the
original goals that were set when the program was established.
The committee also notes the need for increased emphasis on the
development of environmentally safe procedures and processes
for the disposal of non-nuclear military explosives.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $13.6 million in PE
63104D8Z, an increase of $2.0 million to allow continued
aggressive development of environmentally safe procedures to
safely dispose of military explosives.
Electro-optic framing technologies
    The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 35207D8Z
for electro-optic (EO) framing technology.
    The committee continues to strongly support the state-of-
the-art EO framing with on chip forward motion compensation
(FMC). This technology is proving itself in operationally
deployed systems.
    The committee recommends $13.4 million, an increase of $8.0
million in PE 35207D8Z for the purposes of furthering the EO
with on-chip FMC technologies. Specifically, these additional
funds are to be used for continued development of the ultra-
high resolution focal plane array and conformance with JPEG
2000 compression standards. These developments should produce
form/fit operational insertions into currently deployed CA-260
framing cameras. Further, these funds are to be used to develop
infra-red EO framing technologies and image intensified EO
framing sensors with FMC for operational insertion into
existing Air National Guard tactical reconnaissance aircraft
and other aircraft as appropriate.
Endurance unmanned aerial vehicle
    The budget request contained $178.7 million in PE 35205D8Z
for endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, and included $40.6
million for the DarkStar stealth high altitude endurance (HAE)
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), $90.1 million for Global Hawk
HAE UAV, and $48.0 million for the common ground segment.
    The committee is aware that there has been a tendency to
describe existing advanced concept technology demonstration
(ACTD) aircraft, such as DarkStar and Global Hawk, as systems
that may, in part, replace manned reconnaissance aircraft. The
committee notes that Global Hawk has recently completed its
first test flight. The committee is also aware that continuing
problems with the DarkStar development have prevented any
flight test since the previous crash during the attempted
second flight test of air vehicle #1. The committee is
concerned by continuing delays in the DarkStar flight test
schedule and is aware that the DarkStar, as well as other
similar ACTD aircraft, require significant redesign and
modification before user evaluation can be performed. Such
demonstration aircraft are not, nor were they designed to be,
operational aircraft. Predator, the first ACTD UAV to
transition to production has demonstrated the difficulties
inherent to this process. The committee reaffirms its direction
that the ACTD program is not to be used to circumvent
established acquisition procedures.
    The committee strongly supports continued development of
HAE UAVs as potential replacements for manned reconnaissance
aircraft, and recommends $178.7 million in PE 35205F only for
HAE UAV and common ground segment development.
Facial recognition technology
    The budget request contained $35.8 million for the DOD
counter-terror technical support (CTTS) program in PE 63122D8Z.
    The CTTS is an interagency program for development and
demonstration of surveillance, physical security, and
infrastructure protection technology. The committee continues
to support use of advanced technology to control access to
critical facilities and recommends an increase of $4.0 million
in PE 63122D8Z for the development and demonstration of
biometric access control technology, including the use of
authentication software and the principal component method of
facial recognition.
Flat panel displays
    The budget request contained $34.0 million in PE 62708E for
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's integrated
command and control technology applied research program.
    In 1994, the President and the Department of Defense
announced a five-year, National Flat Panel Display Initiative
(NFPDI) to establish a viable domestic industrialcapability for
the manufacture of high definition displays that could develop and
produce advanced technology flat panel displays for use by the military
services. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology
(USD(A&T)) recently provided a report, dated March 1988, to the
Congressional defense committees that states that the objective of the
NFPDI remains valid, that considerable progress has been made in the
development of a domestic industrial capability for commercial and
military applications of flat panel displays, but the objective of the
initiative has not yet been fully achieved. According to the report,
the issue facing DOD today is how to allocate its resources most
effectively to obtain assured, affordable access to advanced flat panel
display technology. The report also cites the need for improved
coordination of issues that cut across programs, such as assured
sources of supply, commonality, and upgrade and replacement of flat
panel display systems over the life cycle of weapon systems.
    The committee recommends $40.0 million in PE 62708E, an
increase of $6.0 million to continue the development of
advanced technology for flat panel displays. The committee
directs the USD(A&T) to report to the Congressional defense
committees with submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget
request the actions taken on the recommendations contained in
the USD(A&T) report.
Global positioning system guidance package
    The budget request contained $213.2 million in PE 63762E
for advanced development of sensor and guidance technology,
including $4.5 million for continued development, integration
and test of the global positioning system (GPS) guidance
package.
    The GPS guidance package (GGP) is a fiber-optic-gyro-based
inertial navigation system which has the potential to lower
substantially the cost, size, and weight of military inertial
navigation systems. If the objectives of the program are met,
the reduced cost of the system would make precise inertial
navigation and positioning available for use in a significantly
larger number of Army, Navy, and Air Force airborne and ground
vehicle systems. Of the funds authorized in PE 63762E, the
committee recommends $6.5 million for completion of the GGP
program, an increase of $2.0 million to the budget request for
that program.
Humanitarian demining
    The budget request contained $17.2 million for humanitarian
demining in PE 63920D8Z.
    The committee does not believe that humanitarian demining
is the sole responsibility of the Department of Defense, but
rather an initiative that should be conducted in close
coordination and shared funding with other agencies and
organizations. The committee notes that many of the tasks with
the humanitarian demining effort are assessed by the Department
as having low to medium utility to the military. Therefore, the
committee recommends $12.2 million in PE 63920D8Z, a decrease
of $5.0 million.
International medical programs global satellite system
    The budget request contained $2.0 million in PE 11017D8Z
for Partnership For Peace activities.
    The committee notes that the Peace Information Management
System (PIMS) is a NATO program to enable efficient, reliable
information exchange between partnership countries and NATO
members. The committee recognizes that the International
Medical Programs Global Satellite System (IMPGSS) is an
important part of the PIMS effort and recommends $6.0 million,
an increase of $4.0 million to initiate the IMPGSS in PE
11017D8Z.
    While supportive of this effort, the committee is concerned
about continuing loss of radio frequency spectrum allocated to
the Department of Defense (DOD) and believes that precautions
must be taken to ensure that the radio frequency authorization
for IMPGSS does not interfere with or result in the loss of
radio frequency spectrum to DOD users. Accordingly, the
committee directs that the Secretary of Defense shall not
obligate any funds provided for the IMPGSS program prior to
submitting a report to the Congressional defense committees
detailing the impact of the IMPGSS on the DOD radio frequency
spectrum.
Joint signals intelligence avionics family
    The budget request contained $80.4 million in PE 35206D8Z
for the joint signals intelligence avionics family (JSAF).
    The committee continues to be concerned by problems with
JSAF development. While the committee is encouraged by progress
in design of the low band subsystem (LBSS), it is concerned by
schedule delays and cost increases that have forced reduction
of system performance to remain within budget. Further, the
committee remains doubtful that the high band subsystem (HBSS)
development can successfully meet its cost and performance
goals.
    The committee's concerns are heightened by the fact that
the JSAF development is the only planned upgrade for future
airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) reconnaissance. If JSAF
fails to provide the needed capabilities, users ranging from
theater tactical forces to national policy makers will be
severely impacted.
    Executive Order 12333 charges the Director of the National
Security Agency (NSA) to conduct ``research and development to
meet the needs of the United States for signals intelligence. .
. .'' To ensure proper joint oversight of JSAF development, the
committee recommends the budget request be authorized in PE
35885G, the Defense Cryptologic Program. The committee believes
this action will allow the Air Force, as the executive agent
for JSAF, to continue to execute the program, while providing
joint oversight by NSA.
Live fire testing of vulnerability to asymmetric threats
    The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 65131D8Z
for the live fire testing program under the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation.
    The Department of Defense live fire testing program is
focused primarily upon assessing the vulnerability of U.S.
military systems to the effects of conventional threats, such
as projectiles and explosives. The committee is concerned by
the potential threat posed to U.S. weapons and supporting
defense systems by emerging threats such as those posed by low,
medium, and high energy lasers, high power microwave radio
frequency weapons, or by weapons capable of generating a high-
power electromagnetic pulse. Such weapons might be used by an
adversary to exploit a specific area of vulnerability, such as
communications, information warfare, or other selected areas,
to attack U.S. forces more effectively and efficiently, and
thereby achieve an asymmetric advantage. The committee believes
that increased attention should be given to the potential
threat posed by such weapons and to assessing their potential
threat to U.S. military systems.
    The committee recommends $13.9 million for the live fire
testing program, an increase of $4.0 million to expand threat
vulnerability testing and evaluation to include the threat of
radio frequency weapons. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct an assessment of the requirements for
testing of the vulnerability of U.S. military systems to
asymmetric threats and to submit the results of the assessment
to the Congressional defense committees with the fiscal year
2000 budget request.
Medical free electron laser
    The budget request contained $9.7 million for the medical
free electron laser program (MFEL) in PE 62227D8Z.
    The committee is aware that the MFEL has undergone rigorous
peer review and is now enabling new methods for treating burns
and other minimally invasive techniques. The committee supports
MFEL and recommends $14.7 million in PE 62227D8Z, an increase
of $5.0 million for MFEL.
National technology alliance
    The committee is aware that the National Technology
Alliance (NTA) program has demonstrated its worth in over a
decade of productive, cooperative efforts with government,
industry and academia which have measurably benefited users of
information technology. Originated by the intelligence
community, the NTA program has focused on advanced technology
solutions to address the expanding needs for information of
operational users.
    The committee notes that the program's unique user support
activities conducted by the National Media Laboratory, the
National Information Display Laboratory, and the new National
Center for Applied Technology have saved hundreds of millions
of dollars, and have been successful in providing dual-use
solutions for the Intelligence Community, Department of Defense
and civil agencies, due largely to the organization's ability
to work across agency and departmental boundaries on common
technological problems and technical standards.
    The committee believes that the NTA program should expand
its efforts to address intelligence and information needs
within the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee
recommends that the Secretary of Defense investigate means to
expand the NTA program to focus on cross-agency needs in
technology areas such as visualization, video technologies,
compression, digital libraries, displays, data storage and
operational user support, leveraging on the existing NTA
effort.
Next Generation Internet revolutionary applications
    The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 62110E for
applied research in the Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency (DARPA) component of the Next Generation Internet (NGI)
program.
    NGI is a major national initiative involving DARPA, the
National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE),
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), and
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in a
three-year, $100.0 million per year program to development and
demonstrate the technologies, protocols, and standards for a
very high speed, broad bandwidth NGI that will offer reliable,
affordable, secure information delivery. The program has three
primary goals: (1) develop the next generation network and
connect universities and Federal research institutions with
high speed networks that are 100 to 1,000 times faster than
today's Internet; (2) promote experimentation with the next
generation of networking technologies; and (3) demonstrate new
applications that meet important national goals and missions.
    The committee fully supports the NGI initiative and the
concept of working with the applications communities--Federal
agencies, the public sector, academia, and private companies--
to incorporate new and existing networking technologies and
capabilities developed under the NGI into applications of
importance to each community. The committee further supports
the formation of cooperative ventures with regional consortia
established for this purpose among federal agencies, local
governmental authorities, industry, and academic institutions.
The committee expects that such initiatives would leverage the
application specific funding, knowledge, skills, and methods
brought to the venture by the members of the regional
consortium. The committee recommends $53.0 million, an increase
of $13.0 million for the NGI program. The committee directs
that competitive procedures shall be used for awarding all
partnership grants and entering into all partnership contracts,
cooperative agreements, and other transactions under the
program, and encourages the establishment of cost-shared
relationships where feasible.
Polymer-cased ammunition
    The budget request contained no funding for polymer-cased
ammunition in PE 116404BB.
    The committee notes that polymer-cased ammunition offers
potential cost and weight savings compared to existing
munitions. The committee recommends $109.2 million in PE
116404BB, an increase of $3.0 million for polymer-cased
ammunition.
Operational field assessment program
    The budget request contained $15.3 million in PE 65118D8Z
for the Defense Operational Test and Evaluation program. No
funding was requested for the operational field assessment
(OFA) program.
    Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) directed the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the Congressional defense committees a
report on the conduct and management of the OFA program. In the
statement of managers which accompanied the conference report
on H.R. 2266, The National Defense Appropriations Bill for
Fiscal Year 1998, (H. Rept. 105-265), the conferees agreed to
provide $4.0 million for the operational field assessments
program, but expressed concern about the widely differing views
within the Department of Defense on this issue and directed the
Joint Staff Director for Force Structure, Resources and
Assessment (J-8) to conduct a thorough review of all aspects of
operational field assessments.
    The committee has reviewed the Secretary of Defense report
on the OFA program, dated April 3, 1998, which was prepared by
the DOT&E, and the letter from the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs
of Staff, dated March 30, 1998, which transmits the J-8's
findings and recommendations.
    Based upon the committee's review of these reports, it is
clear there is continuing disagreement within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD), and between OSD, the Joint Staff,
and the military departments, regarding the conduct and
management of, and funding for, the OFA program. The committee
believes that the Secretary of Defense needs to codify the role
of the DOT&E and the OFA process in the conduct of operational
field experiments, if that role and the OFA process are
warranted. Until the OFA process has been codified in DOD
instructions, the committee recommends no authorization of
funds for the OFA program.
Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition
    The budget request contained $5.1 million in PE 63232D8Z
for the development and demonstration of automatic target
recognition technology, $67.2 million in PE 62787A for the
Army's medical technology program, and $39.8 million in PE
63609N for the Navy's conventional munitions program.
    The committee continues to be encouraged by the progress
being made in the use of automatic target recognition (ATR)
technologies to support missiles, precision-guided weapons and
target cueing for surveillance systems. The committee
encourages the Director of Defense Research and Engineering
(DDR&E) to provide assistance to the Navy and other services
initiatives pursuing ATR technologies in their development of
optical correlators for potential use on the Navy's Standard
Missile and for other applications, such as medical diagnosis.
The committee expects the military services to capitalize on
current programs for the development of optical correlator
technology in the DDR&E's ATR program and to coordinate their
activities with the ATR program. The committee recommends $8.1
million in PE 63232D8Z, an increase of $3.0 million for the
DDR&E ATR program. The committee also recommends an increase of
$5.0 million in PE 63609N for development and demonstration of
a miniature, rugged optical correlator for automatic target
recognition and improved aimpoint selection for the Standard
Missile. The committee also recommends an increase of $2.0
million in PE 62787A for applied research in the use of low
cost optical correlator technology in medical diagnosis. The
committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition
and Technology) to report to the Congressional defense
committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2000 Defense
budget request, the Department's overall plan and program for
the development and demonstration of optical correlator
technology for automatic target recognition.
Seismic sensor technology
    The budget request contained $213.2 million in PE 63762E
for sensor and guidance technology.
    The committee notes that seismic technology is critical to
detection, verification and evaluation of both natural and
weapon related phenomena important to national security. The
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63762E
for seismic sensor technology.
Specialty aerospace metals initiative
    The budget request contained $244.4 million in PE 62712E
for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
materials and electronics technology program, including $145.4
million for applied research in materials processing
technology.
    The committee notes the progress made by DARPA in the
development of low-cost manufacturing of specialty aerospace
metals such as beryllium-aluminum, nickel-based, and titanium
alloys through the use of government-industrial partnerships.
The committee also notes actions that have been taken by the
military services to capitalize on the development of these
advanced technologies. Several have already successfully
transitioned into military systems such as aircraft engines,
guidance systems, and electronic components. The committee
understands that the Air Force Research Laboratory has created
a government-industrial consortium to further address
affordability and availability issues with regard to such
metals.
    Of the funds provided in PE 62712E for materials and
electronics technology, the committee recommends $10.0 million
to continue the DARPA program for development of manufacturing
technologies for specialty aerospace metals and the transition
of these technologies to the military departments. These funds
should be used in conjunction with other service funds to
establish cooperative government-industry programs for the
development of manufacturing technology and industrial
applications for these specialty metals.
Special operations intelligence systems
    The budget request contained $1.8 million in PE 1160405BB
for the special operations systems development.
    The committee notes that the special operations forces
intelligence vehicle (SOF IV) is an evolutionary ongoing effort
that requires additional funding to complete development. The
committee recommends $6.8 million, an increase of $5.0 million
for SOF IV in PE 1160405BB.
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles funding
    The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 35204A and
$37.2 million in PE 35204D8Z for tactical unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV).
    The committee notes that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology recently provided the Congressional
defense committees with the Department's plan to implement
legislative direction included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) for
reorganization of the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office
(DARO) and commends the Department for its prompt response.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85) contained further direction that the
Department of Defense review commercial solutions for the
various UAV requirements. The committee notes that the Navy is
now conducting a three-phase competitive demonstration of
vertical takeoff or landing (VTOL) UAVs to meet the Navy and
Marine Corps VTOL UAV requirement. The committee continues to
support this approach and urges the Navy to continue this
multiple-participant competitive demonstration through the
shipboard phase prior to final selection using the funds
provided.
    The committee notes the proposed plan for transfer of DARO
funding in the budget request to the appropriate service
accounts and recommends the following transfers of funds: a
decrease of $26.0 million in PE 35204A for the Tactical UAV
program, an increase of $18.0 million in PE 35204N for VTOL
UAV, and $8.0 million in PE 35204M for the Marine Corps close
range tactical UAV. In addition, the committee recommends
transfer of $37.2 million from PE 35204D8Z to PE 35204N for
ongoing common tactical control system development previously
managed by the Joint Program Office.
Thermionics
    The budget request contained $203.6 million in PE 62715BR
for weapons of mass destruction related technologies, but no
funding for thermionics.
    The committee recognizes the increasing importance of space
to commercial and military users and believes that high
performance, high reliability power and propulsion sources will
be critical to the effective exploitation of space assets. The
committee believes that advanced thermionic converters could
provide compact electrical generations systems. The committee
directs that of the funds provided in PE 62715BR, $5.0 million
shall be available to continue thermionics technology
development.
University research initiatives
    The budget request contained $216.3 million in PE 61103D8Z
for the university research initiatives (URI), including $10.0
million for the defense experimental program to stimulate
competitive research (DEPSCoR). The committee supports
continuation of the DEPSCoR program to strengthen the
infrastructure, enhance research, and develop human resources
to assist the DEPSCoR states to become more competitive for
regular research and training grants. Therefore, the committee
recommends $231.3 million, an increase of $15.0 million for
DEPSCoR.
Unmanned aerial vehicle systems integration laboratory
    The budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 35204D8Z
for the U.S. Army's Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Systems
Integration Laboratory (SIL), and included $3.0 million for
continued development of the Multiple UAV Simulation
Environment (MUSE).
    The committee supports the SIL's joint UAV developmental
work and it is concerned that the reorganization of Defense
Airborne Reconnaissance Program will leave the SIL without a
sponsor, thereby possibly losing a valuable joint UAV
integration organization and jeopardizing continued evolution
and improvement of the MUSE tool. While SIL is clearly a
service organization, it provides joint support that may well
be overseen directly by the new Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense (DASD) for Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. Therefore, the
committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence to provide
the Congressional defense and intelligence committees a plan,
which includes a funding profile, for the continued operation
of the SIL, by no later than March 31, 1999.
Verification technology demonstration
    The budget request contained $63.0 million in PE 63711BR.
    This request has increased by $12.8 million over the
funding level for fiscal year 1999 projected last year and
includes approximately $25.0 million for efforts other than
research and development, such as sustained systems operations,
equipment procurement and seismic detection. Of these areas,
seismic detection within the continental United States is the
specific responsibility of the U.S. Geological Survey. The
committee recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in PE 63711BR.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
              Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
    This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing
and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 1999.
           Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research
    This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal
year 1998 for technology base programs.
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
 Section 211--Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures
                                Programs
    This section would amend section 216(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993
(Public Law 102-190, as amended), and would extend the
implementation of the provision through fiscal year 2003.
    Since the completion of the Gulf War, the Congress has
repeatedly emphasized the need for improvements in the Navy's
mine countermeasures capabilities (MCM). In response to this
emphasis, the Navy has developed three successive mine warfare
plans, increased funding for MCM research and development,
focused on improving the readiness and sustainability of it's
dedicated MCM ships, and accelerated the development of a
Remote Mine hunting System. A limited contingency shallow water
mine hunting capability using laser mine detection has been
established in one Navy Reserve helicopter squadron. Since
1992, the Navy has spent about $1.2 billion and plans to spend
an additional $1.3 billion for MCM research and development
over the next six years.
    In 1996, a General Accounting Office (GAO) report (NSIAD-
96-104, Navy Mine Warfare--Budget Realignment Can Help Improve
Countermine Capabilities, March 1996) recommended that a long
range plan be developed to identify gaps and limitations in the
Navy's MCM capabilities, establish priorities, and fund the
most critical programs. The Office of the Secretary of Defense
responded that such a process was ongoing and would provide an
architecture within which the needs and shortfalls in MCM
capabilities could be identified and prioritized. The Navy has
changed its MCM strategy from a focus on dedicated MCM forces
to deploying organic MCM capabilities within the fleet and
developing rapid in-stride mine avoidance and clearing
capabilities. However, in a follow-up report (NSIAD-98-135,
Navy Mine Countermeasures--Plans to Improve Countermeasures
Capabilities Unclear, March 1998), the GAO observed that the
investment in MCM research and development had not produced any
systems that are ready to transition to production. Delaying
factors cited by the GAO included funding instability, changing
requirements, cost growth, unanticipated technical problems,
and inadequate contractor performance.
    The committee believes that the annual certification
process has served to increase the visibility of MCM
requirements within the DOD and the Navy and has had positive
results. However, as currently conducted, the annual
certification process has not been able to address the adequacy
of resources for the MCM mission because it addresses only the
adequacy of funding for the budget year and does not include
the out years. Nor does the certification contain any objective
measures against which the Navy's progress in enhancing its MCM
capabilities can be evaluated. In recommending an extension of
the requirement for certification through fiscal year 2003, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of staff to include such criteria in their
annual certification.
      Section 212--Future Aircraft Carrier Transition Technologies
    This section would make $50.0 million of the funds
authorized for development of technologies for the CV(X) next-
generation aircraft carrier available for research,
development, test, evaluation, and insertion of technologies
into the CVN-77 nuclear aircraft carrier program. The committee
understands that the U.S. Navy's plan to transition to the next
generation aircraft carrier--the CV(X)--is to use the CVN-77 as
a transition ship by incorporating new technology and process
design changes. This could have the double benefit of
dramatically enhancing the operating efficiency and capability
of the CVN-77, while also delivering proven aircraft carrier
enhancements to the CV(X) design and minimizing both risk and
cost for the new platform. This transition plan could also
provide technologies that would contribute to reduction of life
cycle costs when inserted into other aircraft carriers that are
already in the fleet.
             Section 213--Manufacturing Technology Program
    This section would amend section 2525 of title 10, United
States Code, to establish goals for cost sharing in the
manufacturing technology program and procedures by which the
requirement for cost sharing, that is now contained in current
law, could be waived. Section 211 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85)
requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare a five-year plan
for the manufacturing technology program and to submit the plan
annually to the Congress with the Presidents budget request.
Both the Secretary's plan, submitted to the Congress in
February 1999, and the Department of Defense Inspector
General's Audit Report ``Defense Manufacturing Technology
Program'', dated February 25, 1998, cite problems created by
the cost-sharing requirement in executing the manufacturing
technology problem, and the need for revisions in the cost-
sharing requirement and waiver procedures.
                 Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
              Section 231--National Missile Defense Policy
    This section would establish congressional findings
pertaining to the threat posed to U.S. national territory by
weapons of mass destruction and long range ballistic missiles.
It would also establish the sense of Congress that any deployed
national missile defense should defend all fifty states and
that the territories of the United States should be protected
from ballistic missile defense.
Section 232--Limitation on Funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense
                                 System
    The budget request contained $43.0 million in PE 63869C for
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). The committee
understands the requirement for the MEADS, strongly supports
the program, and recommends authorization of the requested
amount. The budget request again fails to include funding for
MEADS in the future years defense plan. Last year, the
committee expressed reluctance to continue its support of MEADS
in the absence of a clear commitment to the program from DOD.
    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
obligating or expending funds authorized and appropriated for
MEADS until the Secretary certifies to Congress that funding
has been designated for MEADS in the future years defense plan.
    The funds so identified must be sufficient to meet the
MEADS program goal of proceeding to low rate initial production
by fiscal year 2003 and first unit equipped by fiscal year
2007. The provision would require that if such certification is
not received by January 1, 1999, the funds authorized for MEADS
would thereafter be authorized only for the purpose of research
and development to adapt the Patriot Advanced Capability 3-
Configuration 3 (PAC-3) to meet the Army requirement for a
mobile theater missile defense system.
 Section 233--Limitation on Funding for Cooperative Ballistic Missile
                            Defense Programs
    This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of
$5.0 million authorized to be appropriated for the Russian-
American Observational Satellite (RAMOS) program until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the Department
of Defense has received detailed information concerning the
nature, extent, and military implications of ballistic missile
technology transfer from Russian sources to Iran.
  Section 234--Limitation on Funding for Counterproliferation Support
    This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of
the requested funds for counterproliferation support in PE
63160BR, until the report on the threat posed to the United
States by weapons of mass destruction and cruise and ballistic
missiles is submitted to Congress as required in section 234 of
the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
85).
        Section 235--Ballistic Missile Defense Program Elements
    This section would realign program elements for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and require each program
element to include funding for management and support necessary
for the activities within that program element.
                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
                                OVERVIEW
                           Funding Realities
    The fiscal year 1999 budget request for operation and
maintenance represents an $828.0 million increase from the
level authorized and appropriated by Congress for fiscal year
1998. The senior leadership of the Department of Defense has
stated on numerous occasions that the budget request contains
an increase of over one billion dollars. To date, the committee
has been unable to identify these increases, other than the
proposed transfer of $982.0 million from the Defense Working
Capital Fund account into the military services operation and
maintenance accounts for commissary store operations. Prior to
this year, the funding of the commissaries was not included in
the operation and maintenance accounts. This proposed
accounting transfer will do nothing to improve readiness. In
addition, the committee notes that many of the accounts having
little to do with readiness that are contained within the
operation and maintenance accounts contain budget increases.
These include accounts such as Cooperative Threat Reduction,
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid, among others.
Neither the movement into the operation and maintenance
accounts of commissary funding, or budget growth in non-
readiness operation and maintenance accounts should be
misconstrued as increased readiness spending.
    The committee remains deeply concerned with the continued
under-funding of critical readiness accounts and the impact
this practice is having on military forces in the field. In
fact, the problems seem to be getting worse. Despite the
addition by Congress of approximately $350.0 million in fiscal
year 1998 to arrest the backlog of depot maintenance and
repair, the backlog will grow by $120.4 million in fiscal year
1999. After the addition by Congress of $600.0 million in the
real property maintenance and repair accounts in fiscal year
1998, the backlog will grow by $1.6 billion. And after Congress
added $562.0 million to the Navy and Air Force flying hour/
spare parts accounts in fiscal year 1998, there is a projected
shortfall, in fiscal year 1999, of approximately $250.0 million
in these accounts. The five year shortfall in the readiness
related accounts, according to the military Service Chiefs, is
$18.1 billion. The effect of growing shortfalls in key
readiness accounts is readily evident in mounting readiness
problems in the field.
                          Readiness Realities
    Contradictions between reports on military unit readiness
provided by the senior leadership of the Department of Defense
(DOD) and observations made by military personnel in the field
continue to grow. Where official reports and testimony before
the committee portray the overall readiness of U.S. armed
forces as high, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines
increasingly admit that their units continue to slip below past
readiness standards.
    In its continuing effort to assess force readiness, the
committee once again conducted a series of field hearings at
various military installations throughout the United States to
hear the views of operational unit commanders and senior non-
commissioned officers from all of the military services. The
overwhelming impression left with the committee was of a force
working harder, longer, and with fewer personnel then ever
before. Funding and forces continue to shrink while the demands
of the job increase. For example, the Army, which conducted 10
``operational events'' outside of normal training and alliance
commitments during the 31 year period of 1960-1991, has
conducted 26 ``operational events'' just in the seven years
since 1991. The Marine Corps, which undertook 15 ``contingency
operations'' from 1982 to 1989, has conducted 62 since the fall
of the Berlin Wall. These increases in operational tempo are
occurring at the same time that the Army has been reduced from
18 to 10 Division, the Navy has reduced its ships almost by
one-half, and the Air Force has reduced from 24 to 12 fighter
wings.
    Among the disturbing problems raised in the committee's
hearings and investigations were indications of a growing
shortage of spare parts and the related increase in the
cannibalization of equipment; combat aircraft and vehicles are
being operated at a pace that requires longer and more
extensive repairs at the maintenance depot; and the
deterioration of base facilities where personnel live and work
are below acceptable standards. These are indicators of broader
trends throughout the force that are raising doubts about
present, and future readiness.
    None of this is new. Indeed, these readiness problems are
consistent with those enumerated in past committee hearings and
reports. The persistence of these problems leaves the committee
concerned by the lack of progress the Department of Defense has
made in developing a more comprehensive readiness measurement
system that better reflects today's operational realities. As
defense resources and force size have declined, and the number,
frequency and duration of contingency operations has increased,
the ability of U.S. armed forces to train for their primary
warfighting missions is being compromised.
    In addition to improving its readiness reporting systems,
discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee believes that
DOD should also take further steps to aggressively reduce costs
in areas that do not directly contribute to readiness. After a
review of the fiscal year 1999 budget request, the committee
notes repeated examples where funding for support activities,
such as headquarters and other support activities has
inexplicably increased over current spending. Accordingly, the
committee has identified administrative and support accounts
that do not directly contribute to readiness and re-prioritized
much of these spending increases to areas that will immediately
improve readiness, such as depot maintenance, real property
maintenance and aircraft spare parts.
    As the reprioritization of operation and maintenance
funding clearly demonstrates, and consistent with the testimony
of the Service Chiefs, the committee remains committed to
address the service readiness shortfalls even within a
declining defense budget.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                        Budget Request Increases
                 Critical Readiness Accounts Increases
    The committee remains committed to addressing critical
readiness problems and has, therefore, recommended an increase
of $610.7 million in a number of underfunded readiness
accounts. Although the committee has increased funding in key
readiness accounts over the President's budget by more than
$4.6 billion over the past three years, force readiness
continues to decline. The committee has carefully reprioritized
the Administration's request in an effort to once again provide
increases to key readiness accounts, many of which reflect the
priorities expressed by the Service Chiefs in their testimony
before the committee. Examples include:
                        [In millions of dollars]
Depot Maintenance--Army-..........................................  50.0
Depot Maintenance--Navy/Air-......................................  75.0
Depot Maintenance--Navy Sea-......................................  90.0
Depot Maintenance--Marine Corps-..................................  20.7
Aircraft Spare Parts--Navy-.......................................  50.0
Aircraft Spare Parts--Air Force-.................................. 150.0
Real Property Maintenance--Army-..................................  50.0
Real Property Maintenance--Navy-..................................  50.0
Real Property Maintenance--Marine Corps-..........................  25.0
Real Property Maintenance--Air Force-.............................  50.0
                      Mobility Enhancement Funding
    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to
improve deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies
through investment in en-route infrastructure. These funds are
provided for the United States Transportation Command Mobility
Enhancement Fund (MEF). The committee is aware that the MEF was
established to address strategic mobility shortcomings that
revealed themselves during Operation Desert Shield/Desert
Storm. The committee believes that this additional funding will
improve the ability of the military services to respond to
future contingencies.
                           Training Accounts
    The budget request once again proposes to require funding
for Army unit rotations at the National Training Center, (NTC)
Fort Irwin, California to pay for the use of the pre-positioned
equipment out of the funds provided for home station training.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 108-85), the committee added $60.2 million to the
Army's Operation and Maintenance account to continue central
funding of the equipment necessary to maintain the equipment at
theNTC, and urged the Army to continue funding the NTC
centrally. Unfortunately, the budget request does not support central
funding of equipment for the NTC.
    The NTC is the only U.S.-based training facility where Army
maneuver units can train against a dedicated opposing force in
an environment which most closely approximates high intensity
combat. The committee continues to believe that the Army policy
of requiring rotational units to fund training at the NTC
diminishes home station training and will adversely impact
training at the NTC.
    The committee is also concerned by inadequate funding for
the other military training centers. As an example, the
committee is aware of funding shortfalls for aggressor training
equipment at the Navy and Air Force air warfare centers, which
has severely reduced the frequency and level of training for
aircraft fighter crews. In addition, the training equipment at
the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana and
the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Training Center, Twenty Nine
Palms, California is in urgent need of repair and upgrade. Due
to increasing restrictions on the availability of local station
training ranges and other environmental concerns, the committee
reiterates that the military service training centers are
national assets that require additional attention and funding.
    Therefore, the committee recommends increases as follows:
                        [In millions of dollars]
National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California-.................  60.3
Naval Strike Air Warfare Center, Fallon Naval Air Station, Nevada-  20.0
Air Warfare Center, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada-................  20.0
Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana-............  20.0
Marine Air Ground Combat Center, Twenty Nine Palms, California-...   5.0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total....................................................... 125.3
            United States Marine Corps Cold Weather Clothing
    The committee is aware that the Marine Corps is in need of
additional funding for the Extended Cold Weather Clothing
System (ECWCS), which is designed to provide protection during
cold and wet weather. The committee believes the ECWCS is a
significant contributor to the combat readiness of the
individual marine and would significantly improve quality of
life. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.6
million for ECWCS.
                       Budget Request Reductions
                  Administration and Support Accounts
    The committee notes that at the same time the budget
request contains underfunded readiness and operational
accounts, many at levels even below current fiscal year 1998
spending, it proposes spending increases in a number of
administrative and support accounts with no direct impact on
service readiness. The committee disagrees with the budget's
priorities in this regard and, therefore, recommends decreases
in many of the military services' and defense agencies' non-
readiness accounts. These decreases reflect reductions in
spending growth over current fiscal year 1998 level:
                        [In millions of dollars]
Army Administration...............................................  27.5
Air Force Administration-.........................................  14.9
Joint Chiefs of Staff-............................................  24.4
Defense Logistics Agency-.........................................  35.0
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-...........................  35.0
Defense Information Systems Agency................................  30.0
    The committee fails to understand the justification for
budget growth in support accounts at a time when the services
face critical readiness shortfalls. For example, the Defense
Reform Initiative (DRI) proposed management reductions of 33
percent in the Office of the Secretary of Defense by the end of
fiscal year 1998, yet the budget request reflects no such
reduction. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of
$15.9 million in this account to bring the budget request in
line with the recommendations of the DRI.
    The committee also notes questionable funding requests in
the support accounts. As an example, the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, a working capital fund agency, request
contains nearly $35.0 million for executive and professional
training. The committee believes that funding for the training
of working capital funded employees should be charged against
the appropriate working capital fund and managed accordingly.
    As expressed in more detail elsewhere in this report, the
committee is disappointed that the department of Defense has
not fully complied with section 911 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85)
which required a five percent reduction in all headquarters and
headquarters support activities personnel by October 1, 1998.
Except for the Department of the Army, the budget request fails
to account for these reductions and in some cases, these
accounts reflect budget growth. Therefore, the committee
recommends the following reductions consistent with section 911
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85):
                        [In millions of dollars]
Navy-.............................................................  23.9
Air Force-........................................................  60.3
Defense Information Systems Agency-...............................   1.8
Defense Contract Audit Agency-....................................   1.6
Joint Chiefs of Staff-............................................   2.4
Special Operations Command-.......................................   3.4
                    Advisory and Assistance Services
    The committee recommends the following reductions for
Advisory and Assistance Services:
                        [In millions of dollars]
Army..............................................................  40.0
Navy..............................................................  40.0
Air Force.........................................................  40.0
Defense Agencies..................................................  40.0
    A more detailed discussion on Advisory and Assistance
Services can be found elsewhere in this report.
                          Bulk Fuel Reductions
    The General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that fuel
purchases by the services have been executed at levels below
those assumed in the budget request since fiscal year 1996. The
overestimates of fuel costs ranged from $440.0 million in
fiscal year 1996 to $201.0 million in fiscal year 1998. The
committee notes that the budget estimates used by the
Department of Defense (DOD) for fuel purchases for fiscal year
1999 exceed the latest DOD estimates by approximately $2 per
barrel. Consistent with the revised pricing date, the committee
recommends the following reductions:
                        [In millions of dollars]
Army..............................................................  29.9
Navy..............................................................  90.5
Air Force......................................................... 110.5
Defense Agencies..................................................   9.0
              Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions
    To determine civilian personnel requirements for the budget
request, the Department of Defense (DOD) applied the actual
fiscal year 1997 personnel levels and the estimated personnel
levels the Department would have on hand at the end of fiscal
year 1998, to forecast civilian personnel levels in fiscal year
1999. Because the DOD was unable to accurately estimate the
fiscal year 1998 end strengths prior to the submission of the
budget request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has
determined that DOD will employ fewer civilian personnel at the
beginning of fiscal year 1999 than it assumed and budgeted for
in the request.
    Therefore, to bring the request in line with GAO's
estimated civilian end strength levels for fiscal year 1999,
the committee recommends reductions in funding as follows:
                        [In millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. 518.0
Navy..............................................................  15.0
Defense Agencies..................................................   5.3
                      Foreign Currency Reductions
    Since the submission of the Department of Defense fiscal
year 1999 budget request, the U.S. dollar has increased in
value compared to various foreign currencies. As a result, the
committee believes that the fiscal year 1999 budget request is
overstated. In addition, the committee understands that the
Defense Foreign Currency Fluctuation account already contains a
balance of over $300.0 million to be used in the event that
unfavorable currency fluctuations develop. The committee
believes the requested amount is, therefore, in excess of the
needs of the Department and recommends the following
reductions:
                        [In millions of dollars]
Army..............................................................  78.2
Navy..............................................................   6.7
Air Force.........................................................  16.1
Defense Agencies..................................................   7.1
                          Environmental Issues
                  Air Force Plant #3, Tulsa, Oklahoma
    The committee commends the Department of the Air Force for
the expeditious response to the committee's concerns regarding
the cleanup of ground contamination at Air Force Plant #3 in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. However, despite this attention the committee
is aware that other environmental problems remain at the
facility, particularly in the above-ground structures. The
committee directs the Air Force to investigate these hazards
and provide a report on these risks along with a revised
obligation and cleanup schedule for the facility by December
31, 1998.
               Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
established the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation
(AMEC) program to cooperatively address the military impact on
the arctic environment. The committee urges the Secretary of
Defense, out of the $5.5 million available for AMEC, to use
$1.0 million to support the establishment of a Joint United
States-Russia Nuclear Materials Commission. The members of this
commission may include legislators, agency and ministry
leaders, and environmental experts, representing the
international environmental community, to provide
recommendations on establishing more effective tracking and
verification systems for nuclear nonproliferation and
contamination containment programs, consistent with the
objectives of AMEC. This commission may also support an
international summit on Russian nuclear waste to initiate this
cooperative effort.
                 Navy Environmental Leadership Program
    The committee continues to support the Chief of Naval
Operation's Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP), with
two designated sites-one on the east and the west coast of the
United States. The primary mission of each site is to identify
and demonstrate new technologies that improve the environmental
compliance, cleanup, conservation and pollution prevention
efforts within the Navy. The committee recommends an increase
of $4.0 million for the Navy Environmental Leadership Program.
The committee believes these additional funds are needed to aid
the east coast site in developing technologies to separate
aqueous fire-fighting foam and other contaminants in oily water
and wastewater, reduce waste generated by the de-painting/
painting process, and reduce emissions from fire-fighting
training facilities.
                      Pollution Prevention Program
    The committee notes recent Department of Defense (DOD)
testimony indicating a strategy of improving environmental
compliance by increasing priority and funding for pollution
prevention. According to this testimony, pollution prevention
is designed to lower overall compliance costs. The committee is
concerned that between fiscal years 1997 and 1999, DOD will
spend $776.0 million on pollution prevention, but compliance
costs are estimated to drop only $30.0 million during the same
period--roughly a four percent return on the pollution
prevention investment. In an effort to better understand why
the rate of return is only four percent, the committee directs
that the Secretary of Defense provide to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security,
by December 31, 1998, a report on DOD's pollution prevention
metrics, strategic plans, and how pollution prevention outcomes
relate to environmental compliance and cleanup outcomes.
                       Scrapping of Naval Vessels
    The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense
(DOD) has established a task force to review the scrapping of
naval vessels and has provided a report to Congress on this
issue recently. However, the committee believes the DOD
continues to have a lack of a credible domestic scrapping
program, and that additional innovative options should be
considered. One such option that should be considered is,
through competition, providing surplus ships for the purpose of
creating artificial reefs. The committee believes that such an
arrangement would allow qualified companies to seek
arrangements with states on cost sharing and appropriate
environmental clearances.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide,
by December 31, 1998, a report that reviews all options, both
domestic and foreign, for the scrapping of naval vessels. The
report shall also include a review of and recommendations for
the option to competitively sell surplus ships to create
artificial reefs.
                     Information Technology Issues
                                Overview
    The committee is concerned by the current status of the
Department of Defense (DOD) information technology programs. In
the last several years, the committee has taken several steps,
including requiring annual performance plans and the enactment
of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-106), to improve DOD's information technology
(IT) systems and programs. Despite these efforts, the committee
remains unconvinced that the Department has made the necessary
improvements in managing its $26 billion Command, Control,
Communications, and Computers (C4) program. This is
particularly disturbing, given the increasing role of
information technology in the battlefield of today and
tomorrow. As a result, the committee's recommendation focuses
on improving management of IT programs, supporting joint and
interoperable systems, eliminating funding due to program
redundancies, and shifting IT funding to higher priority areas.
                  Automatic Identification Technology
    The committee is aware that the Joint Task Force for
Automated Identification Technology (AIT) will pilot test AIT
systems for air, sea, ammunition, and personnel movement this
summer. Each AIT system under review is designed to support
joint operations and be interoperable with the Global Combat
Supply System (GCSS). Dependent on the outcome of these pilot
studies, the committee directs that the implementation costs of
each proven AIT systems shall be provided out of each of the
individual military departments fiscal year 1999 funding for
GCSS.
          Computer Crimes and Information Technology Security
    Section 907 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) required that all of the
military services criminal investigation agencies utilize the
joint computer security training center and forensics
laboratory. The committee understands that the Department of
the Army has not complied with section 907. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to join the other
Defense criminal investigation agencies in using the joint
computer security training center and forensics laboratory. The
committee also directs that the joint computer security
training center and forensics laboratory be budgeted in the
Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account. Further, the
Air Force Criminal Investigative Organization is directed to
serve as the executive agent for this joint program.
                   Information Technology Management
    The committee is concerned with the general management of
the Department of Defense's (DOD) information technology (IT)
systems. Recent analysis by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
identified poor management controls and implementation in such
areas as interoperability testing and certification, migration
strategy of legacy systems, and compliance with Year 2000
requirements. In an effort to refocus the management of IT
programs in DOD, the committee recommends two provisions
(sections 311 and 333) that would clarify and expand the roles
of the DOD and militarydepartment's Chief Information Officers
and the Smartcard Technology Office. In addition, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense, by December 1, 1998, to provide the committee
with a review of the department's efforts to improve its management of
information technology. This review shall include:
          (1) DOD's overall Information Technology Management
        strategic plan (ITM) (including any service and agency
        subsets);
          (2) Performance measures and plan for implementing
        the performance measures;
          (3) Barriers to achieving the goals in the ITM
        strategic plan and performance measures;
          (4) Directives and policies addressing the
        implementation of reforms required by the Information
        Technology Management Reform Act of 1996;
          (5) Actions taken to integrate the requirements of
        the Information Technology Management Reform Act of
        1996 into DOD's Program, Planning, and Budget System
        (PPBS);
          (6) Actions taken on the GAO recommendations (AIMD-
        98-5) to improve the Department's management control
        over the technology investments in its national
        security systems and its combat support
        (administrative) systems; and
          (7) DOD's plans to perform vulnerability assessment
        and operational testing for Year 2000 compliance or
        contingency plans, particularly for mission critical
        systems.
    The committee requests that GAO provide an analysis of this
report to the committee by February 15, 1999.
                   Information Technology Priorities
    The committee is concerned that the Department has not
provided the appropriate level of attention to the information
technology (IT) priorities of Year 2000 compliance and IT
infrastructure developments. As a result, the committee
recommends a provision (section 313) that would protect the
development and implementation of IT infrastructure programs
from internal transfers or reductions during execution of
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. In addition, the committee
recommends a provision (section 314) that would increase the
priority of Year 2000 compliance for mission critical systems
within the fiscal year 1999 information technology program. The
committee also recommends a provision (section 315) that the
Department utilize its military exercises to simulate the year
2000 in operational scenarios and to provide the committee with
a plan for incorporating such tests during fiscal year 1999
exercises.
    Furthermore, the committee recommends reallocating funds in
the budget request from lower priority IT systems and IT
systems that will be executed after the year 2000, to provide
for a $1.0 billion increase in funding for Year 2000
compliance. For example, the committee recommends a $33.2
million decrease to the Army's Joint Computer-Aided Acquisition
and Logistics Support (JCALS) system due to continued program
slippage and fielding after fiscal year 2000. Similarly, since
the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS) milestones
have slipped another six months, the committee recommends a
reduction of $6.0 million. The Army Recruiting System
(previously known as the Joint Recruiting Information Support
System) is a new system that duplicates existing systems in the
other military department. Therefore, the committee recommends
a reduction of $3.8 million for this program and directs the
Army to use an existing military department IT system.
                  Joint Information Technology Systems
    The committee is concerned that the Department is labeling
systems ``joint'' and ``global'' that are not single, standard,
or interoperable systems for use throughout the department. As
an example, the Global Combat Supply System (GCSS), which is
intended to provide an integrated view of combat support
functions, at a cost of approximately $370.0 million, will not
be a single system but at least four systems: GCSS-Army, GCSS-
Air Force, GCSS-Navy, and GCSS-JCS. The committee does not
believe that there is a justifiable requirement for developing
unique systems for each military department, instead of a
single, joint system integrating all logistics, medical,
transportation, finance, and personnel systems. The committee
is convinced that there should be joint, interoperable systems
in all areas of DOD, from electronic malls (E-malls) to
Automated Identification Technology and computer security
training centers.
    As a further example, the Department of the Navy and the
Defense Logistics Agency are developing a joint E-mall system.
However, the Departments of the Army and the Air Force are each
developing separate, service-specific E-mall systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (section 312)
that would create a Department-wide joint E-mall system and
recommends a decrease of $1.0 million from each of the
operation and maintenance accounts of the Army and the Air
Force. The committee believes this reduction is justified based
on a reduction in the staff and overhead costs that will not be
needed after incorporation into a joint E-mall system.
    The committee also recommends a reduction of $6.0 million
in the Army's operation and maintenance account consistent with
the requirement for the Army to eliminate their service-unique
computer security and forensics center and laboratory in
compliance with section 907 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85).
               Redundant Information Technology Programs
    The committee is concerned that the Department is not
implementing plans to eliminate redundant information
technology (IT) systems and old IT systems that have been
replaced by newer systems. The result is duplicative funding of
outdated and unused IT systems. For example, although the
decision was made to move all the military departments and
defense agencies onto a single system for program, budgeting,
and accounting (PBAS), the Air Force has refused to move to the
new system. In fact, the Air Force has began development of the
Financial Information Resources System (FIRST) that duplicates
PBAS and will utilize the Global Combat Supply System-Air Force
(GCSS-AF) contract to develop this program. The committee
believes that this not only represents an unnecessary
duplication of systems and funding, but is work outside of the
scope of the GCCS-AF contract. Therefore, the committee
recommends no funds forFIRST, and encourages the Department of
the Defense to upgrade the interoperability of PBAS.
    The Department has provided a report to Congress which
identifies all of the current IT systems that will be replaced
by newer IT systems. However, when this report is matched
against the current budget request, many of the IT systems
scheduled for elimination are still receiving funding even
though they have been replaced by newer systems. Based on the
information provided by DOD, the committee believes there is
$298.1 million in redundant IT systems that should be
eliminated and recommends the appropriate reductions in these
accounts.
              Utilizing Commercial Information Technology
    The committee is concerned with the trend by the DOD to
develop information technology systems in-house instead of
utilizing today's commercial-of-the-shelf (COTS) technology for
joint, interoperable warfare systems reliant on an information
technology infrastructure. For example, the Global Command and
Control System (GCCS) is being developed as the single Command,
Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence system (C4I)
supporting the warfighter from the foxhole to the command post.
GCCS is scheduled for implementation around 2003, however, most
of the technology under development for GCCS is available today
in COTS packages, at a fraction of the current DOD estimate of
$1.7 billion. In fact, most national news networks employing
existing commercial capabilities have significantly superior
battlefield mapping and imagery capabilities than our
warfighters take to the battlefield. The committee believes
that in many instances, providing the warfighters with superior
information technology need not wait until 2010, if DOD would
better capitalize on existing commercial technologies.
                          Intelligence Matters
                      Integrated Architecture Plan
    The budget request contained $6.1 million for the Command,
Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Integrated Architecture Plan (CIAP).
    CIAP has been strongly endorsed by the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence as well as the commanders-in-chief of the nine
unified commands. The CIAP developments have included the
highly successful C4ISR Architecture Framework for the
Department of Defense, the Command C4ISR Architectures for the
regional Commanders-in-Chief, and the initiation of the C4ISR
Architectures for the Warfighter (CAW) effort at selected
unified commands. The committee believes this later effort
should be extended to all nine unified commands.
    The committee believes these architectural developments
will provide a cohesive and more cost-effective strategy for
developing and procuring the proper intelligence support
systems for the users. Therefore, the committee recommends $9.1
million for the continuation of these efforts and extension of
the CAW to all unified commands.
                   Joint Reserve Intelligence Program
    The budget request contained $9.4 million in operations and
maintenance, defense-wide, for continued reserve component man
days for the conduct of the Joint Reserve Intelligence Program
(JRIP).
    The committee is favorably impressed by the intelligence
production mission load the JRIP has been able to accommodate
in support of the active forces. This has been particularly
true of the JRIP support to the European Joint Analysis Center
(JAC) from the Fort Sheridan, Illinois, Joint Reserve
Intelligence Center. This world-wide support has included
direct personnel support via temporary duty assignments as well
as support from the continental United States via virtual
connectivity whereby reservists can drill with their gaining
units without having to leave their home area. Further, this
support, in excess of 34,000 man days, has provided the active
components with critical intelligence augmentation to conduct
collection operations, process backlogs, and produce targeting
materials, final reports and studies--all without having to use
the presidential selected reserve call-up authority.
    The committee believes this program should be expanded and
its benefits maximized to the extent possible. The committee
recommends $12.6 million, an increase of $3.0 million for these
purposes.
             Intelligence Congressional Justification Books
    In the committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132),
the committee directed that the Congressional Justification
Books and the Congressional Budget Justification Books
accompanying the intelligence budget request must contain all
direct costs of a program, including the costs of operating and
maintaining the systems or project. The committee notes that
the materials received with this year's budget request are
incomplete in this respect. For example, the operations and
maintenance costs of some intelligence aircraft systems show
the direct operating costs, but do not provide the direct depot
maintenance costs. Several service systems show procurement
costs, but do not reflect the operations costs for fielded
systems nor the personnel required to man them. At best, this
practice makes understanding the total costs of a program
difficult; at worst, this practice is suggestive of an attempt
to hide these costs.
    The committee directs that, beginning with the fiscal year
2000 budget request, the Secretary of Defense and the Director
of Central Intelligence must include all associated costs of an
intelligence program or project within the justification
materials. Further, the committee directs that the intelligence
justification books contain a signed formal statement by the
Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence
that, to the best of their knowledge, all such associated costs
are included in each of the justification publications.
                 Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues
      Defense Commissary Agency Information Technology Acquisition
    The committee is aware that the Defense Commissary Agency
(DeCA) has had substantial difficulty in fielding the Defense
Commissary Information System (DCIS). The committee understands
that the development of this system has cost significantly more
than originally expected, and has taken considerably longer to
develop than planned. The committee understands that costs have
increased by over $20 million, and that the time to field the
system has increased from 18 to 40 months. Since the new system
is funded through the commissary surcharge account, commissary
patrons are bearing the cost of these overruns. The committee
notes that DCIS was intended to be a quick modification of a
commercial grocery chain's information technology system, and
notes that DeCA's inability to quickly adapt the system has
caused delay in meeting critical year 2000 software
adjustments. The committee is concerned about DeCA management
of this program and the effect of the cost overruns on the
patron funded surcharge account, and directs the Department of
Defense Inspector General to audit the award and execution of
the DCIS contract, and report her findings to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National
Security by January 31, 1999.
                               Libraries
    The committee has learned that the Army and the Navy have
closed libraries at active installations. The committee regards
libraries as essential category A morale, welfare, and
recreation activities that should be present on every military
installation, as well as on vessels afloat. Libraries are
important elements to any American community, and are
especially important in our education oriented military. School
children of military families living on base, as well as
soldiers seeking wholesome diversion, lessons in military
history, or Internet access for civilian job searches, deserve
quality libraries. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to suspend further library closings,
except at those installations being closed under BRAC, and
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on National Security by December 31, 1998, each
library closed by a military service since January 1, 1996,
list installations that have libraries open fewer than four
days a week, and explain why library service was either
terminated or established at fewer than four days a week for
each installation reported. The Secretary will further report
on plans to reestablish service at installations that have no
library service.
                      Performance Based Agreements
    The committee is aware that the Defense Commissary Agency
(DeCA) has negotiated performance based agreements as
authorized by section 374 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) as a way to
improve category management. The committee is concerned about
the adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls relating to
these agreements and about the possible negative impact on
customer selection and commissary sales. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security by
January 31, 1999 on the policy and procedures used to negotiate
and approve these agreements, the amount of annual revenue
expected, how that revenue is accounted for, and the
Department's plans for continuance of this program.
                        Public-Private Ventures
    The committee notes that the report required by section 376
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85) has not been received. Despite this
failure, the Department continues to submit proposals for
public-private ventures of various kinds to the committee's
Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare, and Recreation for
its approval. Further, these requests do not contain the
information required by law. The committee directs that the
Secretary of Defense submit public-private venture requests
annually, in the same manner that commissary surcharge and
nonappropriated fund major construction requests are submitted.
Exceptions may be submitted out of cycle for compelling
reasons. All requests must describe the impact that the
proposal will have on local businesses which provide the same
goods and services, and include local business comments on the
proposal.
       Uniform Health Benefit for Nonappropriated Fund Employees
    The committee notes that the Department still has not
implemented section 349 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337), which required
the Department of Defense to take such steps as necessary to
provide a uniform health benefits program for its
nonappropriated fund employees. In addition, the committee
report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) required that the
contract for a uniform plan be subject to the competitive
bidding process. The committee is concerned that the
competitive bid process has still not been initiated, and that
there is still no uniform benefit. The committee understands
that there is some disagreement among the affected
nonappropriated fund entities about the cost of the proposed
plan. While the committee expects that the plan would address a
certain minimum level of benefit at reasonable cost and provide
for portability of the benefit among nonappropriated fund
entities, the committee reminds the Department that the
implementing law did not require that the Department's plan be
the most costly available. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on National Security by December 31,
1998, on the features of the Department's final plan, and the
ways in which the final plan incorporates the objectives of
uniformity, competitive bidding, portability, and reasonable
cost.
                              Other Issues
                    Advanced Self-Protection Jammer
    The committee notes that the AN/ALQ-165, the Advanced Self-
Protection Jammer (ASPJ), is one of the most advanced tactical
aircraft electronic countermeasures systems in production. Over
530 F/A-18C/D and 50 F-14D aircraft in the Navy and theMarine
Corps inventory have been equipped for ASPJ installation, and it is the
only electronic countermeasures system installed on these aircraft that
can effectively counter the more modern threats encountered worldwide
today. However, the committee also notes that out of 131 ASPJ units
that have been procured thus far, only 82 systems are currently
available for use by the Navy and the Marine Corps. As there is no
organic depot capability to maintain the ASPJ systems, all failed
systems must be returned to the manufacturer for repairs resulting in
the Navy being only able to support approximately four fleet squadrons,
or around 48 to 50 aircraft. The committee is also concerned that the
lack of a sufficient ASPJ inventory requires that squadrons deploying
with the ASPJ must have them installed just prior to deployment or
while en route to the deployment areas. This situation precludes
sufficient time for either pilot or maintenance personnel to properly
train on the ASPJ system to ensure maximum operational proficiency.
    The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to fully
review all options for improving the availability of the ASPJ
system, including the consideration of establishing a logistics
support system for ASPJ maintenance and repair. Elsewhere in
this report, the committee recommends an increase of $75.0
million to address unfunded aviation depot maintenance
requirements.
 Appropriated Funds Used to Pay for Defense Information System Agency
                                 Costs
    The committee notes that the Defense Information System
Agency (DISA) is using direct appropriations to offset the cost
of Working Capital Fund (WCF) services. According to the
General Accounting Office, these costs could reach as high as
$285.0 million in fiscal year 1998. For example, approximately
$46.0 million in appropriated funds were used to support the
Defense Satellite Communication System, thereby artificially
deflating average telecommunications prices by four cents a
minute. These findings were also supported by a recent
independent telecommunications study, commissioned by DISA. As
a result, DISA charges to its customers may not represent the
true cost of the services provided.
    Therefore, the committee recommends reallocating $221.6
million from the DISA budget request, that should be part of
the WCF pricing structure, to the military department operation
and maintenance accounts to offset increased DISA WCF rates in
fiscal year 1999. Further, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense, beginning with the fiscal year 2000 budget request,
to more appropriately reflect and justify the DISA non-WCF
budget request.
                   Army Civilian Personnel Management
    The Department of the Army has been making substantial
progress in developing the Army Workload and Performance System
(AWPS), which allows it to manage civilian personnel according
to workload and prioritized requirements. The committee notes,
however, that two recent General Accounting Office (GAO)
studies point out several areas that need to be improved if
AWPS is to accurately determine civilian personnel
requirements. In a study that is nearing completion, GAO found
that the Army cannot achieve the most cost-effective system
without evaluating maintenance requirements for the total Army.
GAO has also reported that a number of active and reserve
component installations are developing depot-like facilities
without the Army assessing the impact of these activities on
its total maintenance program.
    The committee believes that it is critical for the Army to
assess its total maintenance program, including ad hoc programs
that are being developed at the local installations level and
any funding from procurement and foreign military sales. The
Army must determine the appropriate mix of the various types of
equipment maintenance that will ensure efficiency at public
depots, arsenals, and ammunition depots so that staffing levels
are adequate and costs are lowered not only in the public
depots, but also in the private sector or at the installation
level. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to conduct a study and report to the committee not later
than February 1, 1999, on the following issues:
          (1) The proliferation of depot maintenance type
        activities throughout the Army;
          (2) The total number of personnel involved in these
        activities;
          (3) Recommendations concerning the consolidation of
        any fragmented activities to the public depots;
          (4) A long-range master plan to implement AWPS;
          (5) Future applications for AWPS; and
          (6) The total funding for the implementation of AWPS.
    The committee requests that the GAO review the above
requested study and provide comments as to the adequacy and
completeness of the study, including any other relevant
information, to the committee not later than March 31, 1999.
    The committee is also concerned that the AWPS corporate-
level system requirements have not yet been defined and a
decision has not been made on whether to develop and install
the Decision Support System, which would provide roll-up data
from all installations and allow commands to identify areas
where performance could be improved through reengineering as
well as allowing the setting of performance goals. Since these
corporate-level systems are critical to enable the Army to
measure performance and identify areas for improvement, the
committee directs that the Secretary of the Army move forward
with the development of these modules as quickly as possible.
    Finally, the committee directs that none of the working
capital funds of the Department of the Army may be used for the
completion of the AWPS studies or any implementation of AWPS.
                Automatic Document Conversion Technology
    The committee believes that there is the potential for
significant savings from automatic document conversion software
for use in weapons systems engineering drawing digitization,
and that the Department of Defense (DOD) should increase its
efforts to digitize all weapons engineering drawings by the
year 2000. Therefore, the committee recommends the addition of
$15.0 million for engineering drawings and document storage and
retrieval to be directly managed by the Defense Logistics
Agency. The committee strongly urges the DOD to include funding
for document conversion technology in future budget requests.
                     Budget Justification Materials
    The committee is frustrated by the Department of Defense's
persistent tardiness in providing all of the budget
justification materials needed by Congress to fulfill its
oversight responsibilities and provide for effective decision-
making in the budget review process. The justification
materials, particularly for the operation and maintenance
accounts, continue to be provided to Congress late in the
committee's review process, often precluding the ability to
conduct thorough and in-depth analysis of the President's
budget request. Although an extensive amount of material is
eventually provided, much of it remains in formats that
contradict information from the individual services, making it
difficult to assess trends in similar functions. The complexity
of the multiple displays of budget information also makes
locating information on a specific subject difficult and time
consuming. In particular, details on efficiency savings
generated by outsourcing and business reforms are either not
provided or scattered throughout several tables.
    Because of these persistent difficulties, in the committee
report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) the committee directed
the Secretary of Defense to convene a working group, consisting
of representatives of the military departments and the
appropriate defense agencies, to develop a single DOD-wide
standard formulation for the display of budget justification
materials provided to Congress. The committee urged this
working group to consider eliminating repetitive and redundant
budget displays, and further directed that budget justification
materials provided to support the fiscal year 1999 budget
request conform, to the maximum extent practicable, with a new
department-wide standardized format. To the committee's
knowledge, none of these actions have been taken.
    The committee again directs the Secretary of Defense to
expeditiously reform and standardize the format and
presentation of the budged justification materials, with
particular emphasis on the operations and maintenance and
environmental materials. The committee notes that if DOD
continues to ignore repeated requests to improve the timing and
content of the budget justification materials required by
Congress, a legislative remedy may be required.
                    Classified Materials Containers
    The committee supports the Department of Defense plan to
retrofit existing classified material containers with security
locks that conform to the Federal Specification FF-L-2740A, and
the Department's other efforts to provide secure protection of
sensitive classified materials. In addition, the committee
encourages the Department to include in these efforts a review
of the protection of sensitive classified materials in the
possession of defense contractors and provide appropriate
recommendations to the committee, if any.
                       Corrosion Control Programs
    The committee believes that the ability to establish an
effective corrosion control program is an important component
of maintaining military readiness. This critical maintenance
activity increases the life of multi-million dollar weapons
systems and ensures their availability during times of crisis.
The capability to perform remote location corrosion control
must also be considered where wash facilities do not exist. At
the same time, environmental concerns mandate military
equipment/system washing on approved wash racks and disposal of
effluents in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency
standards. However, the committee further believes that
military readiness needs must be balanced with environmental
concerns and that both objectives must be achieved for the
security of the United States and the preservation of the
environment.
                   Defense Automated Printing Service
    The committee supports the Department's efforts to improve
the management of the Defense Automated Printing Service
(DAPS). However, the committee is concerned that DAPS has not
incorporated best business practices of the private sector and
is passing the costs of this inefficiency onto its customers.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to complete a
review of DAPS, utilizing a private sector source, and provide
a report by March 31, 1999. The Secretary shall ensure that the
contractor providing the review has experience in content and
network management, along with offset, gravure, digital
printing and print related services. The report shall include:
          (1) A description of the management structure of
        DAPS, including the location of all DAPS sites;
          (2) The total number of personnel employed by DAPS
        and their location;
          (3) A description of the functions performed by DAPS
        and the number of DAPS employees performing each of the
        DAPS functions;
          (4) A list of each inherently governmental and non-
        inherently governmental function performed by DAPS;
          (5) A site assessment of the type of equipment at
        each DAPS site;
          (6) The type and explanation of the networking and
        technology integration linking all DAPS sites;
          (7) Identify current and future customer
        requirements;
          (8) Assess the effectiveness of DAPS current
        structure in supporting current and future customer
        needs and plans to address any shortcomings;
          (9) Identify and discuss best business practices that
        are utilized by DAPS, and such practices that could be
        utilized by DAPS; and
          (10) Provide options on maximizing the DAPS structure
        and services to provide the most cost effective service
        to its customers.
                      Depleted Uranium Penetrators
    The committee is aware of the Department of the Army's
efforts to reduce from two to one the number of producers of
tank depleted uranium penetrators as part of an effort to
downsize and make more cost-effective the ammunition production
base.However, the committee is concerned that the Army has
apparently not identified any requirement for the removal of government
furnished equipment from the facility that will no longer produce the
depleted uranium penetrators. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to review this removal process and to report back to the
congressional defense committees on the Army's plans to remove
government furnished equipment from the facility in question and to
identify any necessary funding in future budget requests for this
purpose.
                  Infrastructure Reduction Initiatives
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense's
(DOD) current reform and infrastructure reduction initiatives
are not supported by executable programs. The Quadrennial
Defense Review states that one of the primary sources of
instability in future defense plans is the migration of funds
to cover shortfalls in savings estimates when competitive
outsourcing or business process reengineering initiatives fail
to achieve expectations.
    The committee remembers the Defense Management Review
Directives, initiated in 1989 by DOD to generate significant
savings and apply these savings against future years budgets.
The committee also remembers that many of these initiatives
failed to generate the anticipated savings and further
remembers the budgeting difficulties resulting from this
exercise. The committee generally supports the concept of
outsourcing and encourages the department to continue pursuing
improved business practices when they are cost effective and do
not affect the readiness of the military services. However,
savings estimates must be based on proven program results and
not incorporated into future budgets until determined to be
achievable.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to report, by
March 1, 1999, on the fiscal year 1999 and Five Year Defense
Plan (FYDP), supporting the fiscal year 1999 budget, savings
and personnel reductions for each military department and the
Defense Agencies due to outsourcing, for non-depot maintenance
and repair functions, or other Defense Reform Initiative
efforts. The report shall:
          (1) Determine whether or not the estimated savings
        and personnel reductions in the fiscal year 1999 budget
        or FYDP were based on the results of outsourcing
        studies completed during fiscal year 1999 or after
        fiscal year 1999, using either section 2462 of title
        10, United States Code or the Office of Management and
        Budget Circular A-76;
          (2) Identify those savings and personnel reductions
        in the fiscal year 1999 budget or FYDP that are linked
        to current outsourcing studies or planned outsourcing
        studies where the function to be outsourced has been
        identified;
          (3) Calculate the outsourcing savings identified as a
        percentage of the current cost of the function;
          (4) Identify those savings and personnel reductions
        in the fiscal year 1999 budget or the FYDP that are the
        result of DRI and other efforts unrelated to
        outsourcing; and
          (5) Determine the extent to which the military
        departments and Defense Agencies appear to be engaged
        in outsourcing activities that include inherently
        governmental functions, do not allowing civilian
        employees to compete, or do not providing the study and
        notification requirements of section 2461 of title 10,
        United States Code.
                    Military Affiliate Radio System
    The committee is encouraged by the Department's expression
of support for the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS), an
inexpensive DOD-sponsored program that relies on volunteer
radio communications personnel to provide the Department and
the armed forces with an auxiliary and emergency communications
capability as an adjunct to normal communications.
Specifically, the committee agrees with the conclusion of the
Secretary of Defense, in a report submitted to the committee on
December 31, 1997, that ``the broadly stated mission of MARS
continues to be valid.'' The committee also notes the
Department's estimate that use of the MARS system, in lieu of
commercial or DOD resources, results in annual savings to DOD
of between $11.1 million and $27.5 million, and encourages the
Department to proceed with plans to restructure the MARS
program in order to realize manpower savings, eliminate
duplicative efforts, improve coordination, and modernize the
program through technology improvements.
    The committee notes that although MARS is also used to
relay morale communications traffic for the armed forces, the
Department has relied on other means to fulfill this function,
which often result in out-of-pocket costs to U.S. military
personnel. For example, the Department has acknowledged that
the cost of commercial telephone calls for troops deployed in
Bosnia has been a morale issue. Notwithstanding the recent
agreement with AT&T to reduce commercial telephone rates for
U.S. troops participating in the Bosnia peacekeeping operation,
the committee believes that restoring a MARS capability within
Bosnia will provide a useful alternative and encourages the
Department to give serious consideration to this option.
                         Prime Vendor Contracts
    The committee supports prime vendor delivery of materiel,
since this program not only improves delivery response times
and product availability but lowers inventory costs. In
addition, the prime vendor program lowers the recovery rate
charged by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The prime vendor
contracts rates are around 15 percent of the cost of the sales
compared to DLA's current rate of 20 to 30 percent. The
committee is concerned that the disparity between rates
illustrates that DLA has made little effort to adjust its
administrative structure to respond to a new business
environment. Further, the committee encourages the Department
to require the military departments to utilize an existing
prime vendor contract for similar items, instead of generating
another contract for the same materiel.
                      Ship Repair Industrial Base
    The committee is concerned the Department of the Navy is
not providing sufficient ship repair and overhaul funding to
sustain a viable private sector industrialbase. In recognition
of continual under-funding in the overall ship depot maintenance
account, Congress has added significant additional funding during the
past three years to correct this deficiency. The committee notes that
the majority, if not all, of this additional funding has been applied
to the public shipyards. The committee further notes that if the
distribution of ship overhaul and repair funds are not more equitably
provided to private ship repair industry, the capabilities of this
critical defense industry will severely impacted. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to apply no less than 50
percent of any additional funding above the budget request to the
private sector.
                  Tagging System for Hydrocarbon Fuels
    The committee has learned of commercial technologies for
tagging and identifying hydrocarbon fuels. These commercial
technologies would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to
track and identify its fuels, provide a deterrence to fuel
theft, aid in investigation of fuel theft and environmental
pollution, and improve internal accounting. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report by
February 1, 1999 to the House Committee on National Security on
the feasibility of using commercial technologies to tag DOD
fuels particularly for:
          (1) Quantitative analysis and identification of DOD
        fuels;
          (2) Deterrence of theft and misuse of DOD fuels; and
          (3) Determining the source of surface and underground
        pollution.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
    This section would authorize $92.5 billion in operations
and maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense.
                   Section 302--Working Capital Funds
    This section would authorize $1.7 billion for Working
Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.
               Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home
    This section would authorize $70.745 million from the Armed
Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.
 Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer not more than $150.0 million from the amounts received
from sales in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military
services.
               Section 305--Refurbishment of M1-A1 Tanks
    This section would require that out of the total
authorization of operation and maintenance appropriations for
the Department of the Army, $49.3 million may be used only for
the refurbishment of up to 70 M1-A1 tanks under the AIM-XXI
maintenance and repair program.
   Section 306--Operation of Prepositioned Fleet, National Training
                     Center, Fort Irwin, California
    This section would authorize $60.2 million in additional
funding for the operation of the preposition vehicle fleet by
units of the armed forces during training rotations at the
Army's National Training Center (NTC).
    The committee believes that the reduced proficiency levels
of units arriving at the NTC is, in large part, due to the lack
of home station training funds available to prepare for the
rotation. This section, similar to section 307 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), would authorize the funds for the Army to pay for the
operation of the preposition fleet for all units rotating
throughthe NTC. In the future, the committee expects the
Secretary of the Army to take the necessary steps to ensure sufficient
funding is made available to pay NTC preposition fleet operational
costs out of a central fund.
                Section 307--Relocation of USS Wisconsin
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
utilize up to $6.0 million for the relocation of the USS
Wisconsin which is currently berthed in reserve status at
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia.
                 Section 308--Fisher House Trust Funds
    This section would authorize appropriations from the Fisher
House Trust Funds for use in the operation and maintenance of
the Fisher Houses of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
               Subtitle B--Information Technology Issues
  Section 311--Additional Information Technology Responsibilities of
                       Chief Information Officers
    This section would expand the responsibilities of the Chief
Information Officers within the Department of Defense.
 Section 312--Defense-Wide Electronic Mall System for Supply Purchases
    This section would require the development of a single,
joint, defense-wide electronic mall system.
  Section 313--Protection of Funding Provided for Certain Information
               Technology and National Security Programs
    This section would require the Department of Defense to
notify Congress prior to changing authorized funding level for
high priority information technology programs.
Section 314--Priority Funding to Ensure Year 2000 Compliance of Mission
     Critical Information Technology and National Security Systems
    This section would shift the priorities within the
Department of Defense's Command, Control, Communication, and
Computer budget request to ensure that mission critical systems
are Year 2000 compliant.
  Section 315--Evaluation of Year 2000 Compliance as Part of Training
                           Exercises Programs
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide Congress with a plan on utilizing training exercises in
the military departments and Joint Chiefs of Staff to test Year
2000 compliance of information technology systems to transmit
information from the point of origin to the point of
termination simulating the year 2000.
                  Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions
      Section 321--Authorization to Pay Negotiated Settlement for
 Environmental Cleanup at Former Department of Defense Sites in Canada
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
pay the Government of Canada up to $100.0 million in annual
payments over a ten year period. These payments would be
pursuant to a bilateral agreement between the United States and
Canada in which the United States agreed to pay cleanup costs
associated with the operations by the United States of various
military installations in Canada. Any future arrangements
relating to environmental damage by the Department of Defense
at overseas locations would be subject to treaty negotiations
and ratification by the United States Senate.
           Section 322--Removal of Underground Storage Tanks
    This section would enable the Department of Defense to use
authorized funds for removal of ten Army Corps of Engineers'
underground storage tanks.
         Subtitle D--Defense Infrastructure Support Improvement
    Section 331--Reporting and Study Requirements Before Change of
   Commercial and Industrial Type Functions to Contractor Performance
    This section would clarify the mandated reporting
requirements prior to the study and conversion of any defense
activities for possible performance by the private sector. The
Defense Reform Initiative (DRI) states that between fiscal
years 1999 and 2003 the Department of Defense will conduct
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 competitions for
150,000 federal positions. The committee has learned, however,
that at least two of these competitions have not used the A-76
guidance or complied with the current reporting requirements of
section 2461 of title 10, United States Code. Specifically, DOD
failed to notify Congress of its efforts to restructure over
1,700 positions at the Air Force's 38th Engineering and
Installation Wing (USAF 38th EIW) in Oklahoma, and its
intention to compete 664 positions at the Army's Logistics
Systems Support Command (USA-LSSC), St. Louis, Missouri.
    In addition to the legislative changes recommended by this
section, the committee clarifies that the title 10 reporting
requirements are not limited to competitions using the Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-76. Regardless of whether
such activities are called outsourcing, privatization,
divestiture, re-engineering or restructuring, section 2461 of
title 10 clearly states that Congress must be notified of a
decision to study any current defense activities for possible
performance by a private contractor.
    Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide to the committee, prior to any further activity
regarding the USAF 38th EIW or USA-LSSC ``competitions,'' all
the information required by law including the documentation
supporting each certification under sections 2461(a)(3) and (4)
of title 10. The committee also directs the General Accounting
Office to analyze and determine whether information provided by
the Army and Air Force on this matter supports the proposed
action.
Section 332--Clarification of Requirement to Maintain Government-Owned
           and Government-Operated Core Logistics Capability
    This section would clarify section 2464 of title 10, United
States Code, to provided a specific definition of work
performed by defense contractors in government-owned and
government-operated maintenance facilities as it would apply to
the requirements to maintain a core logistics capability.
 Section 333--Oversight of Development and Implementation of Automated
                       Identification Technology
    This section would extend the responsibilities of the
Smartcard Technology Office within the Defense Human Resources
Field Activity.
Section 334--Conditions on Expansion of Functions Performed Under Prime
                            Vendor Contracts
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, or the
secretary of a military department, to provide a report to
Congress 60 days prior to entering into a prime vendor contract
that would give a defense contractor the responsibility to
manage, store, and distribute inventory, manage and provide
services, or manage and perform research on behalf of the
Department of Defense or a military service. The section would
also require that the report include a description of the
competitive procedures to be used in the proposed prime vendor
contract, and a cost benefit analysis that demonstrates that
the use of the prime vendor contract will result in savings to
the government over the life of the contract.
Section 335--Clarification of Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and
                                 Repair
    This section would clarify section 2460(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to include the location at which depot-
level maintenance is performed.
Section 336--Clarification of Commercial Item Exception to Requirements
                 Regarding Core Logistics Capabilities
    This section would clarify section 2464(a)(5) of title 10,
United States Code, to establish specific requirements for the
determination of a commercial item exception for depot-level
repair and maintenance of equipment.
 Section 337--Development of Plan for Establishment of Core Logistics
        Capabilities for Maintenance and Repair of C-17 Aircraft
    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to provide to Congress, by March 1, 1999, a plan for the
establishment of a core logistics capability for the C-17
aircraft that would be consistent with section 2464 of title
10, United States Code. The section would also prohibit the
extension of the interim contract support agreement for the C-
17 aircraft until 60 days after the receipt of the plan by
Congress.
   Section 338--Contractor-Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores
                                Program
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide additional information on competitions that combine a
Contractor-Operated Civil Engineering Supply Store with other
functions.
 Section 339--Report on Savings and Effect of Personnel Reductions in
                         Army Materiel Command
    This section would require the Comptroller General to
submit a report to Congress concerning the effect that the
proposed personnel reductions in the Army Material Command will
have on workload and readiness, and a report on any anticipated
cost savings from these proposed reductions. The section would
also preclude some personnel reductions in the Army Material
Command until receipt of the report or March 31, 1993.
  Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
    Section 341--Continuation of Management and Funding of Defense
    Commissary Agency through the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    This section would require that the Defense Commissary
Agency (DeCA) continue to be managed and funded by the Office
of the Secretary of Defense. The budget request proposed to
return the funding and management of DeCA to the military
services. The committee is concerned that the Department's plan
would negate the benefits gained from consolidating the former
service commissary agencies into DeCA, and put further strain
upon the operating and maintenance accounts of the military
services.
     Section 342--Expansion of Current Eligibility of Reserves for
                          Commissary Benefits
    This section would increase the number of days that certain
ready reserve members and reserve retirees under the age of 60
are eligible to use commissary stores from 12 days each
calendar year to 24 days each calendar year. This section would
also extend commissary eligibility to members of the national
guard who are activated duringfederally declared disasters.
This committee recognizes the increased reliance the nation has placed
upon the reserve components in recent years. The committee notes that
this change is not expected to result in any measurable increase in
commissary sales, and expects that no requests for new commissary store
construction would be requested or approved as a result of this
increased benefit.
   Section 343--Repeal of Requirement for Air Force to Sell Tobacco
                     Products to Enlisted Personnel
    This section would repeal a provision of law that is
ambiguous and an apparent anachronism. The provision that would
be repealed, section 9623 of title 10, United States Code,
requires the Air Force to sell not more than 16 ounces of
tobacco a month to an enlisted member who requests it. There
are no similar provisions of law that apply to the other
military services.
   Section 344--Restrictions on Patron Access to, and Purchases in,
               Overseas Commissaries and Exchange Stores
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
continue to restrict the sale of certain items in overseas
exchanges and commissaries, but would require that the
secretary ensure that such restrictions are consistent with the
primary purpose of providing U.S. made goods to authorized
patrons. The committee firmly believes that access to these
products is an important morale boost to those serving in
remote locations, and that restrictions should only be imposed
for the best of reasons. The committee is concerned that
overseas commanders have exercised unfettered reign in this
area, have taken the view that patron convenience is a
secondary concern, and have been free from departmental
oversight. The committee expects the Department to begin
exercising effective supervision of these programs, and expects
that necessary controls will be consistent with the goal of
minimizing infringement on the right of authorized patrons to
purchase U.S. made products.
Section 345--Extension of Demonstration Project for Uniform Funding of
               Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities
    This section would amend section 335(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) to extend for one year the authority of the Department of
Defense to conduct a demonstration project for the uniform
funding of morale, welfare, and recreation activities at
certain military installations. The committee understands that
the demonstration project appears to be working well. The
committee will consider the Department's views on the merits of
expanding the program throughout the Department after the
Department submits the report required by the authorizing test
legislation. The extension of authority provided by this
section would permit the test installations to maintain the
test funding procedures and avoid the disruption of reversion
to the traditional method of funding while the report is being
prepared and considered by the Congress.
   Section 346--Prohibition on Consolidation or Other Organizational
            Changes of Department of Defense Retail Systems
    This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from
consolidating military exchange and commissary operations and
from conducting further study of consolidation, unless
specifically authorized by law. The committee is aware of an
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed study within the
Department of Defense regarding the creation of a DOD Resale
Agency. The committee is concerned that OMB's direction of the
resale study may be indicative of a shift in policy on the part
of the Administration away from one of ensuring that commissary
and exchange services are properly supportive of the needs of
military families and retirees and toward one of allowing
economic efficiencies to be the principal driver that
determines these essential benefits. The committee notes that
the recent proliferation of suggestions to change the military
resale system has caused concern among service members, their
families, and retirees about the health of the resale benefit.
The committee firmly asserts its support for the commissary and
exchange benefit, and strongly believes that no further changes
should be made to the resale system without specific
Congressional approval. The committee notes that the Department
recently contracted for a due diligence study regarding
exchange integration issues. The committee intends for that
study to continue, but expects that implementation of any study
recommendations would await Congressional approval.
  Section 347--Authorized Use of Appropriated Funds for Relocation of
                     Navy Exchange Service Command
    This section would provide that the Navy Exchange Service
Command (NEXCOM) shall not be required to reimburse the United
States for appropriated funds allotted to NEXCOM during fiscal
years 1994, 1995, and 1996 for costs incurred in connection
with the relocation of NEXCOM headquarters to Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and for the lease of headquarters space.
Section 348--Evaluation of Merit of Selling Malt Beverages and Wine in
            Commissary Stores as Exchange System Merchandise
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
survey eligible commissary store patrons to determine their
interest in commissary stores selling beer and wine. The
provision would also authorize the secretary to conduct a
demonstration project at seven military installations in the
United States, after consideration of the survey results. The
demonstration project, if conducted, would only be permitted in
those states in which the sale of beer and wine in grocery
stores is lawful, and would authorize the sale of beer and wine
in commissary stores at exchange prices.
                       Subtitle F--Other Matters
 Section 361--Eligibility Requirements for Attendance at Department of
      Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools
    This section would permit dependents residing in a
territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States to
participate in an educational program where the parent is a
service member assigned to a remote or unaccompanied location.
This section would also clarify the Secretary of Defense's
authority to provide exceptions for enrollment in dependent
schools for dependents of civilian employees in Puerto Rico and
Guam, where such employees reside off the installation, and
would provide that the Department would be reimbursed for the
cost of such education.
Section 362--Specific Emphasis of Program to Investigate Fraud, Waste,
                 and Abuse within Department of Defense
    This section would identify the specific Department of
Defense (DOD) agency to manage the pilot program established in
section 388 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). The committee understands
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) has identified
hundreds of millions of dollars in contract overpayments at
DOD. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106), the Congress provided the authority
for a DOD pilot study to test private sector methods in
identifying contract overpayments. This pilot was expanded by
section 388 of Public Law 105-85 to test whether such
commercial techniques were applicable to a larger variety of
DOD contracts. The committee has learned that, to date, DOD has
failed to take the necessary steps to fully implement section
388. Specifically, DOD has not determined the functional
contract areas for review, established a program management
office, or established a date for the release of a request for
proposal for this program.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to select at least two commercial functions within the working
capital funds accounts and release a Request For Proposal (RFP)
for competitive bid by December 31, 1998 that would fully
implement section 388 of Public Law 105-85. The committee also
directs the GAO to provide an initial review of both pilot
programs by April 1, 1999.
  Section 363--Revision of Inspection Requirements Relating to Armed
                         Forces Retirement Home
    This section would revise the current procedures for the
periodic inspection of the Armed Forces Retirement Homes by the
Inspector General of each of the military departments on an
alternating basis, and would require that upon completion of
these inspections, the report of the inspections shall be
provided to Congress.
   Section 364-Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit
  Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
                           Civilian Employees
    This section would authorize $35.0 million for educational
assistance to local education agencies where the standard for
the minimum level of education within the state could not be
maintained because of the large number of military connected
students or the effects of base realignments and closures. The
Department of Education impact aid program provides
supplementary funds to eligible school districts nationwide.
The committee believes that the Department of Education bears
the principal responsibility for providing support for the
education needs of the nation's children, and, therefore, does
not support additional assistance beyond what is authorized in
the section.
    Section 365--Strategic Plan for Expansion of Distance Learning
                              Initiatives
    This section would require the Department of Defense (DOD)
to develop a plan to establish a framework for developing and
applying distance learning technologies to training courses
where it makes sense and is cost effective. The committee is
concerned that DOD has not taken sufficient steps to avoid
duplicative investment in distance learning technology, has not
established appropriate standards for software design, and may
not be fully exploring new technologies for distance learning
such as the use of home study through the internet. Further,
the committee believes there is insufficient funding in the
five year defense plan to take best advantage of the economies
of inter-operable information distribution platforms that are
durable and can be accessed globally. The committee believes
that DOD should refocus its efforts on distance learning and
take steps to ensure the initiatives associated with distance
learning are adequately funded and are clearly established as a
DOD priority.
   Section 366--Public Availability of Operating Agreements Between
           Military Installations and Financial Institutions
    This section would subject operating agreements that
provide financial services, including electronic banking, on
military installations in the United States, to the same
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as all
other federal contracts. The committee believes this section
would not provide any new authorization, nor does it extend or
limit any part of the financial agreements, services, or
institutions governed by the Department of Defense Directive
1000.11, ``Financial Institutions on DoD Facilities'', dated
July 26, 1989.
    The committee is concerned that all solicitations for
banking services on military installations may not currently be
conducted in an open competition, which could impact potential
services to military personnel. The committee believes that
subjecting these solicitations and agreements to FOIA will
provide a means for all interested parties to review the
proposals. In addition, the committee directs the General
Accounting Office to review and report its findings to the
committee by March 1, 1999 on the solicitation process for
selecting banking services on military installations and the
potential for generating revenue from fees, charges, or other
payments from depository institutions.
     Section 367--Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System
    Over the past four years, the committee has become
increasingly frustrated by the contradictions between
assessments of military unit readiness as reflected in official
reports and the observations made by military personnel in the
field. Where official reports portray the overall readiness of
U.S. armed forces as high, soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines increasingly admit that their units are slipping below
past standards. Indeed, they frequently state that the
readiness reporting system is inaccurate, even corrupted.
    In recent hearings before the committee, service officials
at all levels expressed significant concern over many issues
affecting readiness, including operating tempo, increased
deployments, morale, the impact of peacekeeping operations, and
the increasing use of training funds for other purposes.
Ironically, none of these factors are measured by the current
reporting system. Their effects on readiness, and the effects
of other such factors, are not apparent in formal readiness
assessments and could go unnoticed by senior officials until
readiness is severely degraded.
    The themes of this testimony are not new and are consistent
with those enumerated in past committee hearings and reports.
The persistence of these problems leaves the committee
concerned by the lack of progress the Department of Defense has
made to develop a more comprehensive readiness measurement
system reflective of today's operational realities. As defense
resources have declined in real terms, and the number,
frequency and duration of contingency operations has increased,
the ability of U.S. armed forces to train for their primary
warfighting missions has been compromised. Yet at the same
time, unit readiness reports have remained unchanged, at high
levels. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
367) that would direct the Secretary of Defense to create a
more complete and accurate readiness reporting system by July
1, 1999.
    Senior uniformed leaders frankly acknowledge this lack of
accuracy in readiness reporting. The committee recognizes and
praises the efforts now being made to enhance joint assessments
through the Joint Monthly Readiness Reviews, the establishment
of a Senior Readiness Oversight Council that elevates readiness
issues to the senior officer level, and those efforts aimed at
developing a Readiness Baseline. In addition, some of the
services are attempting to adjust their readiness reporting
systems. However, none of the actions undertaken by the
Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor the services has yet
to result in a readiness measurement system capable of timely
and accurate reporting. The committee is concerned that the
current plan for achieving such a system has been underfunded,
suffered from lack of senior leadership attention, and suffered
from entrenched bureaucratic resistance.
    In light of its review of the current readiness reporting
system, the committee believes that an improved and
comprehensive readiness reporting system would consist of four
basic elements: a unit status report, measuring the readiness
of service units; a training establishment status report,
measuring the condition of service training institutions; a
defense infrastructure status report, measuring the ability of
service and other defense facilities to deploy, sustain and
reconstitute forces from the United States and abroad; and a
joint forces status report, which would measure the ability of
the Department of Defense to successfully conduct the two major
theater wars as called for in the Defense Planning Guidance and
on the timelines specified by the relevant theater commanders-
in-chief.
    Moreover, the committee believes that these status reports
should accomplish three fundamental tasks: objectively capture
current conditions as of the date of reporting, separately
report commander's readiness estimates and risk assessments,
and highlight deficiencies so that programmatic adjustments can
be made. The committee firmly believes that the results of this
readiness reporting system need to be widely available to
senior civilian leaders in the Department of Defense and
Congress; the complexity, incompleteness and inaccuracies of
the current system create confusion where there should be
common understanding. The committee also encourages the
Department and the services to reassess their readiness
reporting regulations to eliminate loopholes, exceptions,
inconsistencies and inappropriate subjective assessments. In
sum, it is the committee's view that the purpose of the
readiness reporting system should be to capture what personnel
and equipment are available and what training has been
accomplished as of the date of the report, and that these
quantitative measures should be considered in light of wartime
requirements alone.
    The heart of any readiness reporting system must be to
capture the current status of operational units. In the
committee's judgment, the unit status report should quantify
personnel available for duty, the number of available ``skill-
qualified'' personnel, the available officers and senior-grade
enlisted personnel (pay grade E-5 and above, and the percentage
of these personnel who are available for duty when calculated
against the unit's wartime requirements--not against the
budgeted level of unit fill. The committee's study of service
regulations governing personnel reporting provides a cause for
deep concern in that many of these measurements are devalued by
the variety of waivers and loopholes that permit units to
consider personnel as available even when they are temporarily
deployed in a distant theater of operations. The committee
urges the services, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the Secretary of Defense to review these regulations with
an intent to make them more realistic.
    Equipment readiness also is recognized as an essential
measure of unit readiness. The committee is concerned that
current equipment measures are insufficient and riddled with
waivers and loopholes. The committee firmly believes that the
appropriate standard of unit readiness is the calculation of
equipment that is both on hand and rated as mission capable.
The committee has been dismayed to learn that the services
continue to rate the percentage of on-hand equipment against
the level of equipment authorized, and the level of serviceable
equipment compared to that which is on-hand. The committee
urges the Secretary of Defense to enforce a department-wide
standard establishing the percentage of equipment both on-hand
and mission capable as the unexceptionable measure of equipment
readiness.
    However, the key element in improving the objectivity,
consistency and credibility of the unit readiness reporting
system is an improvement in training measures. The committee
has concluded that it is of the highest importance that the
Department of Defense establish a set of objective criteria for
judging training readiness, and to develop an automated system
for weighting warfighting training priorities. Projects now
underway in the Army and other services have demonstrated the
validity of this concept, and the committee applauds the Army's
attempt to develop a set of algorithms that willmake training
readiness calculations as simple as a computer-assisted tax preparation
program. Despite the complexity of the task, the committee is
encouraged by the Army's example that an automated training reporting
system is an achievable goal, and urges the Secretary of Defense to
make such efforts his highest priority in reforming the readiness
reporting system.
    This objective training reporting system must be keyed to
the unit's wartime mission and the identified tasks associated
with that mission. Yet because military units are so often
called today to execute missions in peacekeeping operations and
other similar operations other than war, the Secretary should
consider including an element in the unit status report that
allows for recognition of this reality. Thus, an Army unit
deployed to Bosnia or an Air Force squadron conducting a no-fly
zone may be performing their assigned missions at a high level
of competence and readiness, but require additional training to
properly execute their warfighting missions. The committee
believes it is appropriate to measure both kinds of readiness,
but that the core readiness rating should be that related to
the wartime requirement.
    As suggested above, the committee believes that, even as
the level of objectivity in readiness reporting is raised,
there is an important role to be played by unit commanders in
assessing overall readiness. In particular, the committee has
concluded that the commander can bring a unique perspective in
regard to two salient factors: the overall ability of the unit
to accomplish its assigned wartime mission and the level of
risk associated with the conduct of that mission based upon the
unit's current status. Such judgments are already an element in
the Department's readiness assessments, yet the committee
believes these judgments should be part of a regular and formal
process, and conducted at all levels of command. Commanders
should be encouraged to draw upon the full range of their
professional experience and expertise in making such judgments,
including such factors as equipment modernization, doctrinal
development or other assessments as appropriate. While these
judgments should generally reflect and be based upon the
results of the objective readiness reporting system, their
purpose should be to add nuance, context and fuller explanation
of the unit's combat status.
    The committee also believes that a comprehensive readiness
reporting system must better capture the effects of factors
outside the current unit reporting system. This, the second
component of an improved overall readiness system must be an
assessment of the institutional training establishments that
are the seed-corn of sustained unit readiness over time. In
hearings, interviews and in reports, the committee has become
alarmed at the degree to which training establishments
increasingly are being deprived of resources, equipment and
personnel in order to provide for the needs of deploying
operational units. The committee applauds the Army's efforts to
measure the readiness of its training establishment and the
fact that this report has served as an important tool in
maintaining the health of its Training and Doctrine Command.
Though the command continues to suffer resource shortfalls, the
Army has found that at least it can measure and limit the
effects of these shortfalls.
    Likewise, in the committee's judgment, defense
infrastructure is an increasing factor in the readiness of
units that are constantly deployed. The committee has heard
repeated testimony that such factors as the quantity and
quality of child care, medical care and housing have become
major concerns as the pace of operations increases. These and a
variety of other factors must be properly assessed and weighed
to create a comprehensive picture of current military
readiness.
    The committee has been pleased to learn of the efforts of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior military
leaders of all services that have led to the creation of the
Joint Monthly Readiness Report. This will provide a very good
basis for monitoring the readiness of joint U.S. armed forces
to support the National Military Strategy, and the committee
applauds the explicit requirement to assess the risk to that
strategy resulting from the pace of current operations. Though
the committee has been sobered to learn how senior military
leaders currently assess that risk, it finds the effort to do
so commendable and correct; indeed, overdue.
    In conclusion, the committee underscores its belief that
this reporting system must be as objective and as widely
disseminated as possible. Past assessments and discussions of
readiness have suffered from the Department's inability to
create and implement objective and consistent readiness
reporting criteria, especially with respect to training
assessments, that are capable of providing a clear picture to
senior uniformed leaders, senior defense civilians, and the
Congress. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
establish the rapid creation of such a readiness reporting
system as one of his top priorities.
   Section 368--Travel by Reservists on Carriers under Contract with
                    General Services Administration
    This section would permit members of the reserve components
to use General
    Services Administration (GSA) federal supply contracts for
commercial air transportation in order to perform inactive duty
training. At present, travel arranged through the GSA contract
is limited to service members and federal employees traveling
at government expense. Although reserve personnel are not
authorized reimbursement for travel to and from inactive duty
training, the committee notes that reserve personnel are
eligible for military medical care for any injuries incurred in
connection with such travel. The committee believes that this
provision would assist the reserve components in recruiting
qualified personnel to perform reserve duties in overseas and
other remote locations.
   Subtitle G--Demonstration of Commercial-Type Practices to Improve
                 Quality of Personal Property Shipments
              Section 381--Demonstration Program Required
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a demonstration program to test commercial-style
practices to improve the quality of personal property shipments
within the Department of Defense.
              Section 382--Goals of Demonstration Program
    This section would establish the goals of a demonstration
program to test commercial-style practices to improve the
quality of personal property shipments within the Department of
Defense.
                   Section 383--Program Participants
    This section would establish the participants of a
demonstration program to test commercial-style practices to
improve the quality of personal property shipments within the
Department of Defense.
                         Section 384--Test Plan
    This section would establish the components of a
demonstration program to test commercial-style practices to
improve the quality of personal property shipments within the
Department of Defense. The section would also provide for
performance evaluations during the demonstration test program
and would revise procedures for the settlement of claims for
losses or damage during shipments of household goods.
        Section 385--Other Methods of Personal Property Shipping
    This section would specify that the demonstration program
for the improvement of personal property shipments would not
affect the existing Do-It-Yourself or the Direct Procurement
Method Program for the shipment of household goods.
             Section 386--Duration of Demonstration Program
    This section would establish the beginning date and the
duration of a demonstration program to test commercial-style
practices to improve the quality of personal property shipments
within the Department of Defense.
            Section 387--Evaluation of Demonstration Program
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide for the evaluation of a demonstration program to test
commercial-style practices to improve the quality of personal
property shipments within the Department of Defense. The
evaluation would be provided to Congress within 180 days before
the termination date of the demonstration program.
              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                       Subtitle A--Active Forces
              Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
    Based on repeated reports of manpower shortages in all
services, and especially in the Army, the committee believes
that the end strengths for active forces requested in fiscal
year 1999 are too low to adequately support service
requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends end strengths
levels nearly 11,000 above those requested. Accordingly, this
section would authorize the following end strengths for active
duty personnel of the Armed Force as of September 30, 1999:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            FY 1998                      FY 1999               Change from fiscal year
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Service                               Authorized
                                                                    and floor      Program       Request    Recommendation  1999 Request   1998 Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................................................       495,000       488,000       480,000        484,800          4,800         (3,200)
Navy............................................................       390,802       386,894       372,696        376,423          3,727        (10,471)
USMC............................................................       174,000       172,987       172,200        173,922          1,722            935
USAF............................................................       371,577       371,409       370,882        371,577            695            168
DOD.............................................................     1,431,379     1,419,290     1,395,778      1,406,722         10,944        (12,568)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, based on a high priority requirement
identified by the Army Chief of Staff, the committee recommends
an increase of $74.0 million in the Army's military personnel
account over the amount requested to assist the Army in
maintaining active force manning levels throughout fiscal year
1999.
         Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Levels
    The budget request sought to repeal section 691 of title
10, United States Code, that established permanent end strength
levels for members of the armed forces on active duty. The
committee believes that it is necessary to retain end strength
floors, not only because of a long-standing concern that the
end strength levels of active forces remain inadequate to
support the national military strategy, but also because of a
growing concern that military personnel reductions are now and
will continue to be an expedient means to finance the growing
shortfalls across the defense budget. Retention of the end
strength floors remains, therefore, a means for Congress to
control the propensity by the services to accelerate personnel
reductions in order to generate savings during a fiscal year as
assumptions about presumed savings and efficiencies in other
programs fail to materialize. Therefore, this section would
amend section 691 of title 10, United States Code, by
establishing new end strength floors for the active forces at
the levelsrecommended by the committee in section 401. This
section would also permit active end strengths to vary up to one
percent below the established floor.
    In addition, the committee notes that fiscal year 1998 end
strengths for some of the services will fall below the
appropriated levels. Such underexecution works to the advantage
of a service in two ways: (1) as people are eliminated faster
than planned, savings are achieved and funds are made available
for other purposes in fiscal year 1998, the current fiscal
year, and (2) savings are achieved for the following year,
fiscal year 1999, because the service starts the year with
fewer people than anticipated. The committee estimates the
fiscal year 1999 so-called ``savings'' associated with the
Department's fiscal year 1998 military personnel underexecution
to be $125.0 million. The committee recommends reallocation of
the fiscal year 1999 underexecution savings to support a range
of military pay, end strength, and recruiting initiatives that
were not included in the budget request.
Section 403--Date for Submission of Annual Manpower Requirements Report
    Section 115a of title 10, United States Code, requires the
submission of an Annual Manpower Requirements Report not later
than February 15 of each fiscal year. This section would
establish a new suspense date for the report, requiring it to
be transmitted to Congress not later than 30 days after the
budget for the next fiscal year is submitted to Congress.
Section 404--Extension of Authority for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
 Staff to Designate Up to 12 General and Flag Officer Positions to Be
        Excluded from General and Flag Officer Grade Limitations
    This section would extend to October 1, 2001, from October
1, 1998, the authority for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to exclude up to 12 general and flag officer positions
from existing grade limitations.
                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
            Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
    This section would authorize the following end strengths
for the selected reserve personnel, including the end strength
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves, as of
September 30, 1999:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year 1998             Fiscal year 1999           Change from fiscal year
                             Service                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Authorized      Program       Request    Recommendation  1999 request   1998 program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARNG............................................................       361,516       361,516       357,000        357,000              0         (4,516)
USAR............................................................       208,000       208,000       208,000        209,000          1,000          1,000
USNR............................................................        94,294        94,294        90,843         90,843              0         (3,451)
USMCR...........................................................        42,000        40,855        40,018         40,018              0           (837)
ANG.............................................................       108,002       108,002       106,991        106,991              0         (1,011)
USAFR...........................................................        73,447        73,447        74,242         74,242              0            795
CGR.............................................................         8,000         7,800         8,000          8,000              0            200
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................       895,259       893,914       885,094        886,094          1,000         (7,820)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The increases in selected reserve end strength shown above
include the additions to the end strength for reserves on
active duty in support of the reserves described in section
412.
 Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
                              the Reserves
    This section would authorize the following end strengths
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of
September 30, 1999:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year 1998             Fiscal year 1999           Change from fiscal year
                             Service                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Authorized      Program       Request    Recommendation  1999 request   1998 program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARNG............................................................        22,310        22,310        21,763         21,763              0           (547)
USAR............................................................        11,500        11,500        11,804         12,804          1,000          1,304
USNR............................................................        16,136        16,136        15,590         15,590              0           (546)
USMCR...........................................................         2,559         2,494         2,362          2,362              0           (132)
ANG.............................................................        10,616        10,671        10,930         10,930              0            259
USAFR...........................................................           748           867           991            991              0            124
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................        63,869        63,978        63,440         64,440          1,000            462
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The section would also increase by 1,000 the number of
AGR's requested for the United States Army Reserve. The
committee believes this increase is necessary to offset
reductions in other components of the full-time force
supporting the Army Reserve, and to improve the readiness of
early deploying units. To support this additional end strength,
the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in the
Army Reserve military personnel account.
   Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
    This section would authorize the following end strengths
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30,
1999:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year 1998             Fiscal year 1999           Change from fiscal year
                             Service                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Authorized      Program       Request    Recommendation  1999 request   1998 program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARNG............................................................        23,125        22,849        22,179         23,125            946            276
USAR............................................................         5,503         5,503         5,205          5,395            190           (108)
ANG.............................................................        22,853        22,853        22,408         22,408              0           (445)
USAFR...........................................................         9,802         9,802         9,761          9,761              0            (41)
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................        61,283        61,007        59,553         60,689          1,136           (318)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 10216 of title 10, United States Code, provides
that military technician end strength authorizations shall only
be reduced in connection with military force structure
reductions. The committee notes that the President's budget
requested end strengths for military technicians (dual status)
in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve that were well
below the fiscal year 1998 authorizations, however, in
violation of the statute, the Army National Guard reductions
were unsupported by force structure changes, and the Army
Reserve reductions were supported only in part by force
structure changes. The committee admonishes the Secretary of
the Army to ensure that all future budget requests for
reductions in military technician (dual status) end strength
below the level authorized in fiscal year 1999 are made only as
a result of force structure changes.
    The committee is also aware that the Chief of Staff of the
Army identified the restoration of national guard military
technician (dual status) end strength as the second highest
priority among the Army's unfunded requirements list submitted
to the committee. The restoration was required because of a
total Army decision to defer some national guard force
structure reductions until fiscal year 2000 and beyond. The
committee commends the senior Army leadership (both active and
national guard) for the priority afforded to this Army National
Guard requirement, and recommends that the Army National Guard
operations and maintenance account for operating forces (land
forces) be increased by $27.0 million to facilitate the
restoration of military technicians (dual status).
Section 414--Increase in Number of Members in Certain Grades Authorized
           to Serve on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves
    This section would authorize increases in the grades of
reserve members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-
time national guard duty for the administration of the reserves
or the national guard. The provision would authorize 133
additional majors, 22 additional E-9s, and 89 additional E-8s
in the Air Force. The provision would also authorize 26
additional colonels and 20 additional E-9s in the Army. The
committee believes these increases are necessary to support the
additional missions now being performed by the reserve
components.
              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
  Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel
    This section would authorize $70,697.1 million to be
appropriated for military personnel.
    This authorization of appropriation reflects both
reductions and additions to the President's budget request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Military
             Recommended Increases               personnel       O&M
                                                  accounts     accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Pay Increase (3.6% vs 3.1%).............        186.0  ...........
Recruiting Advertising:
    Navy Recruiting Advertising...............  ...........         35.0
    USMC Recruiting Advertising...............  ...........         12.0
    Air National Guard Recruiting Advertising.  ...........          3.0
    USAFR Recruiting Advertising..............          3.0  ...........
End Strength:
    Active Army...............................         74.0  ...........
Reserve Components:
    USNR Contributory Support to CINCs (ADT)
     (RPN)....................................         10.0  ...........
    USNR Active Duty Special Work (MPN).......         10.0  ...........
    USMCR Increased Use.......................          3.4          1.2
    USMCR Active Duty Special Work............  ...........          2.1
    Increase USAR AGR's.......................         25.0  ...........
    Retain Army National Guard Mil.
     Technicians..............................  ...........         27.0
    Equitable Imminent Danger Pay for RC......          3.0  ...........
Other Recruiting Priorities:
    Navy:
        Enlistment Bonus......................          9.4  ...........
        College Fund..........................         13.9
        Recruiter Support.....................  ...........          3.6
    USMC:
        Enlistment Bonus......................          3.0  ...........
        College Fund..........................          5.9  ...........
        Recruiter Support.....................  ...........          1.5
    Army:
        Enlistment Bonus......................         10.0  ...........
Defense Health Program:
    Environmental Risk Assessment.............  ...........          1.8
    Medical Trauma Training...................  ...........          4.8
    Transitional CHAMPUS for Disabled Retirees  ...........          3.0
Other:
    Repayment of Health Professional
     Scholarship..............................          5.0  ...........
    Authorize Rental Car when Shipped POV
     Delayed..................................          2.0  ...........
    National Guard Youth Challenge Program....  ...........         21.5
    Army Basic Training Barracks Modifications  ...........          8.0
                                               -------------------------
      Total Increases.........................        360.6        127.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Revolving
                                     Military       O&M          and
      Recommended reductions        personnel     accounts    management
                                     accounts                   funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligations for Advanced Pay:
    Army.........................        161.0  ...........  ...........
    Navy.........................         69.0  ...........  ...........
    Air Force....................         53.0  ...........  ...........
    USMC.........................         18.0  ...........  ...........
Innovative Readiness Training....  ...........         16.0  ...........
FY 98 End Strength
 Underexecution:
    Navy.........................         94.0  ...........  ...........
    USMC.........................         21.0  ...........  ...........
    USAF.........................          4.0  ...........  ...........
    USMCR........................          6.0  ...........  ...........
Weapons of Mass Destruction:
    Military Personnel, Army.....          0.1  ...........  ...........
    Reserve Personnel, Army......          0.8  ...........  ...........
    National Guard Personnel,
     Army........................         13.4  ...........  ...........
    Military Personnel, Navy.....          0.1  ...........  ...........
    Military Personnel, Air Force          0.1  ...........  ...........
    National Guard Personnel, Air
     Force.......................          0.1  ...........  ...........
    O&M, Army Reserve............          5.0  ...........  ...........
    O&M, Army National Guard.....          2.0  ...........  ...........
Mobilization Income Insurance....  ...........  ...........         24.5
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total Reductions...........        440.6         23.0         24.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                     National Guard Youth Challenge
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85) provided the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, authority to
conduct a program known as the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe
Program and authorized the expenditure of up to $50.0 million
in federal funds on the program. The budget request only
contained $28.5 million for the ChalleNGe program. The program
is a 22-week, quasi-military, residential program for drug-free
16- to 18-year old high school dropouts who are unemployed and
have no criminal record. The program seeks to improve the life
skills and potential for employment or military service of its
participants through military-based training, supervised work
experience, and post-graduation mentoring. The committee
recommends an increase of $21.5 million to maintain the fiscal
year 98 level of funding. The committee urges the Secretary to
maintain this level of funding in future budget requests.
                               Recruiting
    The committee continues to be concerned that the services
are not able to attract sufficient high quality recruits to
maintain the quality force so critical to military readiness.
The Army, traditionally the first service to feel pressure from
downturns in recruiting trends, was barely able to meet their
recruiting objectives in fiscal year 1997 despite reducing
recruit quality objectives, increasing the number of field
recruiters, lowering accession goals, and adding over $100.0
million to recruiting accounts.
    As expected, the Navy was the next to experience severe
problems. During the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, Navy
recruiters missed their mission by over 1,400 recruits and the
Navy offered little hope of recovery before the end of the
year. Today, all the services acknowledge that recruiting
objectives are exceedingly difficult to attain given the
increased competition from a strong economy and increasing
propensity for youth to attend college.
    The committee asked the services to provide lists of
unfunded recruiting requirements in the fiscal year 1999 budget
request. Following a review of those lists, the committee
recommends the following increases in funding.
          (1) Navy recruiting advertising: $35.0 million.
          (2) Marine Corps recruiting advertising: $12.0
        million.
          (3) Air National Guard recruiting advertising: $3.0
        million.
          (4) Air Force Reserve recruiting advertising: $3.0
        million
          (5) Navy enlistment bonus: $9.4 million.
          (6) Navy College Fund: $13.9 million.
          (7) Navy recruiter support: $3.6 million.
          (8) Marine Corps enlistment bonus: $3.0 million.
          (9) Marine Corps College Fund: $5.9 million.
          (10) Marine Corps recruiter support: $1.5 million.
          (11) Army enlistment bonus: $10.0 million.
               Reserve Component Full-time Support Force
    Since the end of the Cold War, significant reductions in
the size of U.S. active forces, combined with a national
military strategy that is characterized by unprecedented levels
and frequency of peacetime commitment of U.S. military forces,
has resulted in an increased reliance on U.S. reserve component
forces. As a consequence, in the last decade, the reserve
components have been transformed from a force training and
waiting to be mobilized for major wars, to a force that is
integrated and essential to the success of nearly every
military operation during peace and war. The committee notes
that the recent recommendations flowing from both the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the National Defense Panel
(NDP) portend even broader roles for and greater integration of
the reserve components in the day-to-day conduct of the
national military strategy.
    The committee has long understood that an important
component in the ability of the reserve components to be ready
when mobilized for a major war was a full-time support force
numbering in excess of 150,000 and consisting of military
technicians, reservists on active duty, active component
personnel and Department of Defense civilians. Heretofore, the
principal focus of this full-time force was to facilitate the
training, readiness and maintenance of the reserve components
for deployment in a major war. Consistent with that focus,
Congress constrained in law the roles that the full-time
support force may perform. For example, reservists on full-time
active guard and reserve duty are limited to duties related to
organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training
the reserve components. Neither the support of the active
components, nor the performance of full-time operational
missions was contemplated as permissible by such congressional
limitations.
    With the increasing integration of the reserve components
into the day-to-day operation of the Total Force--in many cases
as a substitute for the active components--the committee is
concerned that there has been a de facto, incremental shift in
the role of the full-time support force that is not now
permitted by law, and the implications of which are only
partially understood by the Congress, the Department of Defense
and the military services. The committee notes as evidence of
such shifts, for example: reserve component assumption of the
active Air Force command and control mission for continental
air defense; reserve component assumption of control of the
Operational Support Aircraft command for the Department; the
increasing presence of full-time reservists performing Total
Force missions like legislative affairs in the Department's
national capital region headquarters; assignment of active duty
officers as reserve component unit commanders; the recent
formation of Army active/guard integrated divisions; the
contemplated formation of Army multi-component units; and, the
Department's request in the budget request to expand the role
of full time reservists to conduct operational missions in
connection with the domestic preparedness and response to the
use of weapons of mass destruction.
    The committee fully supports further integration of the
reserve components into the performance of Total Force
missions. However, the proliferation of initiatives that expand
the roles and purpose of the full-time force appear to be being
applied in an applique fashion without a comprehensive
understanding of the personnel, force structure or cost-benefit
implications. Nor does there seem to be an effort within the
Department to redesign the full-time support force in a
rational way that anticipates the future Total Force missions
contemplated for the reserve components by the QDR and NDP.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment and report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security,
not later than May 1, 1999, on the revisions in law and policy
necessary to reform the reserve component full-time support
force to meet current and anticipated Total Force requirements.
The assessment and recommendations should address, at a
minimum, the following:
          (1) An overview that provides a comprehensive
        statement of the future of the reserve component full-
        time support force;
          (2) The extent to which the reserve components have
        assumed and will assume peacetime operational missions
        previously performed by active component forces;
          (3) The extent to which the existing reserve
        component full-time support force remains capable of
        performing its traditional role of preparing the
        reserve components for major war missions while
        assuming greater responsibility for and involvement in
        peacetime Total Force missions;
          (4) The nature and extent to which the reserve
        component full-time support forces are performing
        missions in support of the Total Force like legislative
        affairs in the Department's National Capital region
        headquarters;
          (5) The need for changes in law and policy that would
        enable military technicians and reservists on active
        Guard and Reserve duty to serve full careers;
          (6) The need to revise the end-strength;
          (7) The need to continue the various categories of
        the full-time support force; and
          (8) The development of a system to rationalize the
        assignment of specific missions to those forces.
        Reserve Component Joint Professional Military Education
    The committee is concerned about inadequacies in the
Department's professional military educational curricula with
respect to the preparation of reserve component officers for
joint duty assignments. Section 666 of title 10, United States
Code, requires only that the Secretary of Defense establish
policies emphasizing joint education and experience for reserve
component officers. To date, none of the services requires any
joint professional military education for reserve officers.
    The reality is that reserve component officers serve with
increasing frequency with our war-fighting commands in a joint
environment. In order to assure maximum effectiveness in such
roles, the committee believes that reserve component officers
require joint professional military education. To some extent,
the Department has recognized this requirement for its most
senior officers and has recently opened the Capstone course to
more reserve component officers. However, it is clear to the
committee that as the military services participate in more
joint military operations than ever before, more active and
reserve junior officers will serve in joint duty assignments in
the future.
    In order to prepare reserve component field grade officers
for joint duty assignments, the committee directs that a course
similar in content to, but not identical to, the in-residence
Armed Forces Staff College course for field grade active
component officers be developed as soon as possible. Although
the specifics of the course of instruction are best left to the
Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries, the committee
believes that a curriculum including periods of in-residence
training, as well as distance learning, presents the best
combination of academic rigor, cohort development, and cross-
service acculturation. The committee recognizes that even
during a full career, the time available to reserve component
officers to complete training and education requirements is
extremely limited. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary
of Defense to be cognizant of such limitation in developing
joint professional military education requirements for reserve
component officers.
    In addition, the committee directs the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, through the Secretary of Defense, to
submit a report by not later than April 1, 1999, setting forth
the progress made in establishing a joint professional military
education course for mid-career reserve component officers.
 Sustaining Education and Teaching Excellence at the National Defense
                               University
    The committee notes that the National Defense University
has assumed numerous additional functions in recent years which
have challenged both the capacity of the current faculty and
the available resources. In addition, the committee is
concerned that the increasing competition for resources within
the Department of Defense is challenging the Department's
ability to sustain the requisite level of excellence. The
committee is aware of the commitment of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to the university's teaching and
education excellence. In order to understand that commitment
more fully, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to report to the committee on measures both
ongoing and projected to ensure that the University is able to
recruit and retain the best possible, nationally recognized,
military and civilian faculty. The report should address
options for maintaining and filling the current 67 civilian
faculty positions (51 funded authorizations and 16 additional
hires) operated under the authority of title 10, United States
Code. The report should be submitted to the committee within
120 days of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Section 501--Codification of Eligibility of Retired Officers and Former
         Officers for Consideration by Special Selection Boards
    This section would clarify that a retired or former officer
may be considered for promotion by a special selection board
without being returned to active duty.
   Section 502--Communication to Promotion Boards by Officers under
                             Consideration
    This section would clarify that the Congress intended that
written communications from officers to promotion boards
authorized in section 614 of title 10, United States Code, be
limited to matters that enhance the officer's case for
promotion. The committee believes that officers who do not wish
to be promoted should discuss their desire for non-selection
for promotion and separation from the military with their
immediate supervisor so that a solution can be found that
serves the mutual interests of the military service and the
officer.
    Section 503--Procedures for Separation of Regular Officers for
        Substandard Performance of Duty or Certain Other Reasons
    This section would eliminate the requirement to convene
boards of review for regular officers who have been recommended
for administrative separation by boards of inquiry. The
provision would also eliminate the 30-day board of inquiry
notification process. The committee believes that boards of
review are redundant and their elimination, in addition to the
elimination 30-day board of inquiry notification requirement,
would not detract from the substantial due process afforded
regular officers being considered for separation.
            Section 504--Posthumous Commissions and Warrants
    Currently, a posthumous promotion may be granted only when
the service secretary has approved the results of the promotion
board prior to the date of death. This section would authorize
the President to promote an officer posthumously when the
service secretary approves the results of the board after the
date of death of the officer, so long as the officer is
selected for promotion by a promotion board before the date of
death.
       Section 505--Tenure of Chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps
    This section would clarify that the Secretary of the Air
Force determines the length of the tour served by the Chief of
the Air Force Nurse Corps.
                 Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters
   Section 511--Composition of Selective Early Retirement Boards of
     Reserve General and Flag Officers of the Navy and Marine Corps
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convene selective early retirement boards for rear admirals in
the Navy Reserve and major generals in the Marine Corps Reserve
without complying with the requirement specified in section
14102 of title 10, United States Code, that one half of the
selection board members be reserve officers and that all the
board members hold higher permanent grades than the officers
being considered by the board.
     Section 512--Active Status Service Requirement for Promotion
   Consideration for Army and Air Force Reserve Component Brigadier
                                Generals
    This section would require the Secretary of the Army and
the Secretary of the Air Force to consider reserve brigadier
generals serving in an inactive status for promotion if the
officers had been in an inactive status for less than one year
as of the date of the convening of the promotion board, and had
continuously served for at least one year on the reserve active
status list or the active duty list immediately before transfer
to inactive status. Such officers are not currently eligible
for promotion consideration.
   Section 513--Revision to Educational Requirement for Promotion of
                            Reserve Officers
    This section would authorize an exception to the
requirement for reserve officers in the Army commissioned
through the Army Officer Candidate School to possess a
baccalaureate degree before being promoted to the grade of
captain. The exception would expire on October 1, 2000.
              Subtitle C--Military Education and Training
      Section 521--Requirements Relating to Recruit Basic Training
    This section would amend title 10, U.S. Code, to require
each of the military services to assign male and female
recruits to same-gender units at the platoon, flight and
division levels, and to house male and female recruits in
separate barracks or troop housing facilities. It would provide
each of the service secretaries the authority to waive the
separate barracks requirement initially at specific
installations due to a lack of adequate facilities at the
installation. However, it would require that no such waiver be
in effect after October 1, 2001. This section also would
require that if a waiver is granted at a particular
installation, the service secretary shall require that male and
female recruits be housed on separate floors in military
barracks or troop housing facilities at that installation.
During the interim period, housing recruits on separate floors
is defined to include billeting male and female recruits
separately and securely either on separatefloors, in separate
bays or on same floors with a fire-safe wall separating the recruits.
Further, the separate billeting spaces should include independent
sleeping areas, latrines and separate, lockable entrances. To
facilitate the Army's ability to make barracks modifications needed for
housing by separate floors, the committee recommends an increase of
$8.0 million in that service's operations and maintenance account.
  Section 522--After-Hours Privacy for Recruits During Basic Training
    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
require each of the service secretaries to restrict after-hours
access to recruit housing areas to same-sex training personnel.
The provision would allow an exception to this policy in case
of an emergency or circumstance requiring immediate action.
 Section 523--Extension of Reporting Dates for Commission on Military
                   Training and Gender-Related Issues
    This section would amend section 562 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85) to extend the reporting dates required of the Commission on
Military Training and Gender-Related Issues. This provision
would extend the date of the initial report to October 15,
1998, and the final report to March 15, 1999.
    Section 524--Improved Oversight of Innovative Readiness Training
    The General Accounting Office, following a case-study
review of six of the Department's Innovative Readiness Training
(IRT) projects, concluded that the IRT `program required
stronger oversight. This section would require the Department
to implement the GAO recommendations to improve program
compliance with section 2012 of title 10, United States Code,
which governs the IRT program. In addition, the section would
require the Department to establish better cost accounting
methods so as not only to capture the total costs of the
program, but also to provide proper fiscal oversight of the
program. The committee believes this latter requirement is
needed because an additional GAO review of the documentation
and cost accounting records for 143 IRT projects conducted in
1997 found that it was not possible in many cases to determine
either an amount requested or an amount approved for each
project. In addition, the GAO review found that: some projects
were not recorded in the files because the Department approved
them orally, with no supporting documentation; additional
funding may have been provided but was not documented in the
Department files; the military services may have spent the
money approved for an IRT project on other approved projects as
the military services deemed appropriate; some approved
projects may not have been conducted; and some projects may
have required less funding that had been approved. As a result
of this ineffective oversight and cost accounting by the
Department, the committee recommends that the $16.0 million
contained in the budget request for the IRT program be
reallocated to other committee priorities.
           Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards and Commendations
 Section 531--Study of New Decorations for Injury or Death in Line of
                                  Duty
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
cooperation with the secretaries of the military departments
and the Secretary of Transportation with regard to the Coast
Guard, to determine the appropriate name, policy, award
criteria, and design for two new decorations to recognize the
services of members of the armed forces who are killed or
wounded under non-combat conditions and U.S. civilian nationals
who are killed or wounded while serving in an official capacity
with a U.S. armed force. The provision would require the
Secretary to submit a legislative proposal to establish the two
decorations and a recommendation concerning the need for the
new decorations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on National Security not later than July
31, 1999.
     Section 532--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain
                    Decorations to Specified Persons
    This section would waive the statutory time limitations for
the award of military decorations to individuals who have been
recommended for award of the decorations by the secretaries of
the military departments.
 Section 533--Commendation of the Navy and Marine Corps Personnel who
     Served in the United States Navy Asiatic Fleet from 1910-1942
    This section would express the commendation of the Congress
to those personnel who served in the Asiatic Fleet of the
United States Navy between 1910 and 1942.
Section 534--Appreciation for Service during World War I and World War
II by Members of the Navy Assigned on Board Merchant Ships as the Naval
                          Armed Guard Service
    This section would express the appreciation of the Congress
and the American people for the service of members of the Navy
assigned as gun crews aboard merchant ships as part of the
Naval Armed Guard Service during World War I and World War II.
    The committee notes that merchant marine officers and crew
served with great courage and distinction during World War I
and World War II on the same vessels as the Naval Armed Guard
Service and are also deserving of the appreciation of a
grateful nation.
 Section 535--Sense of Congress Regarding the Heroism, Sacrifice, and
 Service of the Military Forces of South Vietnam and Other Nations in
   Connection with the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam
                                Conflict
    This section would recognize and honor the significant
heroism, sacrifices, and service that the armed forces of South
Vietnam and other allies made while fighting together with
American military forces during the Vietnam conflict.
 Section 536--Sense of the Congress Regarding the Heroism, Sacrifice,
  and Service of Former South Vietnamese Commandos in Connection with
        United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam Conflict.
    This section would recognize and honor the significant
heroism, sacrifices and service that the South Vietnamese
commandos made during the Vietnam conflict. The committee notes
that section 657 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) authorized compensation
for Vietnamese commandos who were incarcerated for 20 years or
more.
   Subtitle E--Administration of Agencies Responsible for Review and
                     Correction of Military Records
            Sections 541-544-Corrections of Military Records
    Section 541 would preserve the current level of performance
of the Army Review Board Agency, the Air Force Review Boards
Agency, and the Board for Correction of Naval Records by
requiring a report to the Congress 90 days before the number of
employees assigned to those organizations is reduced below the
number assigned as of October 1, 1997.
    Sections 542-544 would amend chapter 79 of title 10, United
States Code to improve the timeliness, independence, and
fairness of actions to correct the military records. The
amendments include:
          (1) A requirement for each agency to employ an
        attorney and a physician to serve as advisors to the
        staff on legal and medical matters being considered by
        the board.
          (2) A requirement for each agency to provide
        applicants copies of communications that directly apply
        to or have a material effect on the applicants' cases.
          (3) A requirement for each board for the correction
        of military records to improve the timeliness of board
        actions over a ten year period beginning in fiscal year
        2001 and culminating with a requirement to complete
        action on 90 percent of the cases within ten months of
        receipt during fiscal year 2011 and beyond.
    The committee is strongly committed to making improvements
to the process for correcting military records within each of
the military departments. The committee is very sensitive to
the many complaints from constituents about the timeliness of
actions and perceived problems concerning the independence and
fairness of decisions by the boards for the correction of
military records. The committee views the boards as
administrative arms of the Congress entrusted with the
responsibility to be the guarantors of fair and equitable
treatment for thousands of active duty military members,
veterans, and retirees. The committee expects that the service
secretaries will provide the manpower, equipment, and fiscal
resources necessary to ensure that the boards are able to meet
the timeliness standards specified in the provision.
                       Subtitle F--Other Matters
 Section 551--One-Year Extension of Certain Force Drawdown Transition
       Authorities Relating to Personnel Management and Benefits
    This section would extend through fiscal year 2000 certain
temporary authorities which provide the tools the armed
services need to manage personnel reductions and shape the
force following the completion of the drawdown of military
forces. These authorities include:
          (1) Active duty early retirement authority.
          (2) Special separation benefit authority.
          (3) Voluntary separation incentive authority.
          (4) Increased flexibility in the management of
        selective early retirement boards.
          (5) Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for
        retention of grade upon voluntary retirement.
          (6) Reduction of length of commissioned service for
        voluntary retirement as an officer.
          (7) Increased flexibility in the management of
        limited duty officer retirements.
          (8) Enhanced travel and transportation allowances and
        storage of baggage and household effects for certain
        involuntary separated members.
          (9) Increased flexibility for granting educational
        leave relating to continuing public and community
        service.
          (10) Enhanced health, commissary, and family housing
        benefits.
          (11) Increased flexibility in the management of
        enrollments of dependents in the Defense Dependents'
        Education System.
          (12) Definition of the force reduction transition
        period for reserve forces.
          (13) Force reduction period reserve retirement
        authority.
          (14) Reduction of length of non-regular service
        requirements for reserve retirements.
          (15) Reserve early retirement authority.
          (16) Increased flexibility in the management of the
        affiliation of active duty personnel with reserve
        units.
          (17) Increased flexibility in the management of
        eligibility for reserve educational assistance.
    The committee has elected to limit the extension of these
authorities to one additional year because of concern that
further reductions of the armed forces are ill-advised and
should be carefully scrutinized before being facilitated by the
authorization of these drawdown tools. The committee believes
that the continued reductions in end strengths has contributed
to the increased personnel tempo within the armed services that
has eroded readiness and severely hampered efforts to retain
quality military members.
    Section 552--Leave Without Pay for Academy Cadets and Midshipmen
    This section would authorize the appropriate service
secretary, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of the
United States Military Academy, the United States Naval
Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, or the United
States Coast Guard Academy, to order a cadet or midshipman to
be placed on involuntary leave without pay under certain
circumstances.
   Section 553--Provision for Recovery, Care, and Disposition of the
                Remains of All Medically Retired Members
    This section would authorize military retirees the same
recovery, care, and disposition of remains benefits as active
duty members when that member is medically retired from active
duty while hospitalized and the hospitalization is continuous
until date of death.
Section 554--Continued Eligibility under Voluntary Separation Incentive
  Program for Members who Involuntarily Lose Membership in a Reserve
                               Component
    Section 1175 of title 10, United States Code, requires
recipients of the Variable Separation Incentive (VSI) to
maintain an active status in the reserves to remain eligible
for VSI payments. This section would authorize VSI recipients
to continue to receive VSI payments after separation from the
reserves when the separation was due to age, years of service,
failure to be selected for promotion, or medical
disqualification, provided the ineligibility does not result
from a deliberate action to avoid service.
Section 555--Definition of Financial Institution for Direct Deposit of
                                  Pay
    This section would amend sections 1053 and 1594 of title
10, United States Code, to specify that the term financial
institution means a bank, savings and loan association or
similar institution, or credit union chartered by the United
States or a State.
    Section 556--Increase in Maximum Amount for College Fund Program
    This section would increase the maximum payment offered
with the College Fund to $50,000. The current maximum of
$40,000 is not expected to provide an adequate incentive to
enlist beyond 1999 due to the 6 percent annual inflation rate
in college costs. The increase in authorization is effective
October 1, 1999 for service members enlisting after that date.
         Section 557--Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish joint manning requirements for the Central
Identification Laboratory, Hawaii (CILHI), and to staff CILHI
at 100 percent of its manpower requirements. Although CILHI is
an Army activity, it performs the important national mission of
identifying the remains of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines lost in previous conflicts. The committee has learned
that the Army intends to reduce CILHI staffing by 33 personnel
in fiscal year 1999 in anticipation of receiving personnel
support from other services. The committee believes this
reduction is premature and ill advised given the sensitive
mission of CILHI, the workload increase expected by more open
access to sites on the Korean peninsula, and the uncertainty of
other service support. This provision would prohibit the Army
from executing any personnel reductions until the Secretary of
Defense has a comprehensive joint staffing plan in place.
        Section 558--Honor Guard Details at Funerals of Veterans
    This section would require the secretaries of the military
departments to provide, upon request, honor guard details for
the funerals of veterans. The provision would specify that the
honor guard details be comprised of not less than three persons
with the capability to play a recording of Taps, unless a
bugler is included in the detail. The honor guard detail would
consist of members of the armed forces, members of veterans
organizations, or other organizations approved for
participation by the Secretary of Defense.
    The Secretary of Defense would be required to establish a
system for selection of units of the armed forces or other
organizations to provide honor guard details. Before issuing
regulations to establish the system, the Secretary of Defense
would be required to consult with veterans service
organizations to determine the views of those organization
regarding methods for providing honor guard details at funerals
for veterans, suggestions for organizing the system to provide
those details, and estimates of the resources that those
organizations could provide for honor guard details. The system
required by this provision would apply to burials of veterans
that occur on or after October 1, 1999.
    The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, would be required to study
alternative means for providing the honor guard details at the
funerals of veterans and to provide a report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National
Security not later than March 31, 1999.
Section 559--Applicability to All Persons in Chain of Command of Policy
   Requiring Exemplary Conduct by Commanding Officers and Others in
                     Authority in the Armed Forces
    Since 1956, title 10 of the United States Code has required
commanding officers and others in authority in the Navy and
Marine Corps to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85) established the same requirement for exemplary
conduct for commanding officers and others in authority in the
Army and Air Force. This section would extend the requirement
for exemplary conduct to the President, as commander in chief,
and the Secretary of Defense, both of whom exercise authority
in the military chain of command.
    Section 560--Report on Prisoners Transferred from United States
 Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Federal Bureau of
                                Prisons
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
evaluate and report to Congress on the rationale for and
effectiveness of the policy of transferring prisoners from the
United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,
to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The section would also
require the Secretary of the Army to monitor the parole and
recidivism rates of the military prisoners transferred to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. The committee takes these actions in
order to understand whether implementation of the transfer
policy facilitates or hinders one of the major objectives of
the military prison system: rehabilitation of military
prisoners.
Section 561--Report on Process for Selection of Members for Service on
                             Courts-Martial
    As now required by title 10, United State Code, the
convening authority selects members for service on courts-
martial, but is not required to use a statistically random
selection process. The committee believes that the use of a
statistically random selection process may help to insulate the
process from charges of undue command influence. Therefore,
this section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
cooperation with the secretaries of the military departments,
to develop a plan for random selection of members of courts-
martial as a potential replacement for the current selection
process. In developing this plan, the Secretary of Defense is
required to obtain the views of the members of the code
committee for the Uniformed Code of Military Justice on such a
plan and submit both the plan and those views to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National
Security no later than April 15, 1999.
 Section 562--Study of Revising the Term of Service of Members of the
          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
    The section would require the Secretary of Defense to
report to Congress on the desirability of revising the term of
appointment of judges of the United States Court of Appeals so
that they might serve until age 65. At present, a judge is
limited to a term of 15 years. The report is due not later than
April 15, 1999.
      Section 563--Status of Cadets at the Merchant Marine Academy
    The section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to ensure
that citizens of the United States appointed as cadets at the
United States Merchant Marine Academy are members of the Naval
Reserve. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to issue such cadets military identification cards.
          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
                                OVERVIEW
    The committee remains deeply concerned about the level of
compensation provided to service members and their families.
Although the committee has embarked on a strategy to
incrementally increase the various elements of military
compensation, the committee has observed with growing alarm
that the services are struggling to recruit and retain the
quality force that has been the hallmark of the U.S. military
over the last 15 years. The committee believes that the
continuing erosion in the value of military pay and allowances
has contributed to the recruiting and retention problems that
plague the armed services.
    This year, the committee has elected to add $186.0 million
to increase the military pay raise from the 3.1 percent
requested in the President's budget to 3.6 percent. The
additional one half of one percent brings the pay raise level
in line with pay increases in the private sector as measured by
the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The Committee was again
disappointed that the President's budget request for fiscal
year 1999 continues to employ the ``by law'' model for the
military pay raise that would allow the gap between pay raises
in the private sector and pay raises in the military to grow to
14 percent.
    The committee is convinced that the continued erosion in
the value of military compensation can only serve to further
exacerbate recruiting and retention challenges that confront
each of the armed services. So long as the budget request
undervalues the high degree of professionalism, long work
hours, and extended absences from home demanded from our
military personnel, the committee believes that the
preservation of a quality force so critical to readiness will
grow increasingly difficult. The committee remains committed to
improving compensation programs and will continue to seek the
additional funding needed to make those improvements in the
future.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                          Military Retirement
    The committee remains concerned about the ability of the
services to retain quality officers and enlisted members. The
committee continues to receive reports, including the testimony
of the service chiefs, that the calculation of retired pay
using the high-three average of income implemented in 1980 and
the changes associated with the Military Retirement Reform Act
of 1986 (Public Law 99-348) have seriously degraded the
retirement system as a retention incentive. The committee
believes it is necessary to determine the effect on retention
of the retirement changes cited above and assess the need to
restore the value of military retirement.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the service secretaries, to
examine the implications for retention of the 1980 and 1986
changes to the retirement system and submit a report not later
than June 30, 1999 to theSenate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on National Security. In addition to the findings
concerning the implications for current retention, the report should
include the Secretary's recommendation on the need to restore the value
of military retirement, a review of the costs associated with restoring
the value of retirement, and a proposed plan to facilitate a
Congressional review of retirement issues. The plan should include an
outline of the studies that would be undertaken, the agencies that
would be tasked to complete the studies, and a projected schedule for
completion of the studies.
                         Survivor Benefit Plan
    The committee remains concerned that the government subsidy
of the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) has fallen to 26 percent,
well below the objective for a 40 percent subsidy set by the
Congress. Although the process for making the necessary changes
is complicated by budgetary rules that restrict increases in
entitlement spending, the committee remains committed to
exploring options that will increase the subsidy and make the
program more attractive to military retirees and their
families.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
        Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 1999
    This section would provide a 3.6 percent military pay
raise. This is one half of one percent more than the pay raise
called for in the President's budget request. The committee,
therefore, recommends an increase in funding for the additional
one half of one percent increase in the military pay raise
during fiscal year 1999 of $186.0 million over the amount
requested in the President's budget.
   Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing Outside the United States
    This section would authorize the payment of advance
deposits and rent for housing in overseas areas when required
by local conditions. The provision would also protect the
member from losses due to fluctuations in the value of foreign
currency and would allow the government to recoup the full
amount of advances, to include any gain resulting from currency
fluctuations.
       Section 603--Basic Allowance for Subsistence for Reserves
    This section would clarify the entitlement of reservists to
rations in kind when training or payment for meals purchased
when rations in kind are not available.
           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
  Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
                     Authorities for Reserve Forces
    This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve
in critically short wartime specialties, selected reserve
reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment bonus,
special pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve
assigned to certain high priority units, the selected reserve
affiliation bonus, the ready reserve enlistment and
reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus
until September 30, 2000. The provision would also extend the
authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health
professionals who serve in the selected reserve until October
1, 2000.
  Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse
                              Anesthetists
    This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists until September 30, 2000.
 Section 613--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
                     Other Bonuses and Special Pays
    This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, reenlistment bonus for active members,
enlistment bonuses for members with critical skills, special
pay for nuclear qualified officers extending the period of
active service, and nuclear career accession bonus to September
30, 2000. The provision would also extend the authority for the
nuclear career annual incentive bonus until October 1, 2000.
    Section 614--Aviation Career Incentive Pay and Aviation Officer
                            Retention Bonus
    This section would make clarifying amendments to sections
301a and 301b of title 37, United States Code, to facilitate
the payment of Aviation Career Incentive Pay and Aviation
Continuation Pay to warrant officers.
                Section 615--Special Pay for Diving Duty
    This section would clarify that the service secretaries may
continue paying diving pay to members not assigned to diving
duties when the members are required to maintain diving
proficiency. The committee believes that members should be
required to maintain proficiency as a diver only when they are
subject to no notice return to diving duty on a temporary or
permanent basis.
   Section 616--Selective Reenlistment Bonus Eligibility for Reserve
            Members Performing Active Guard and Reserve Duty
    This section would authorize payment of selective
reenlistment bonuses to members of reserve components who are
on extended active duty in the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR)
program.
     Section 617--Removal of Ten Percent Restriction on Selective
                          Reenlistment Bonuses
    This section would remove the 10 percent limitation on the
number of selective reenlistment bonuses in excess of $20,000
that may be paid.
    Section 618--Increase in Maximum Amount of Army Enlistment Bonus
    This section would increase the maximum bonus for
enlistment in the Army from $4,000 to $6,000.
 Section 619--Equitable Treatment of Reserves Eligible for Special Pay
          for Duty Subject to Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger
    This section would authorize reserve members to receive the
amount of imminent danger pay authorized for a full month
regardless of the number of qualifying days served by the
member during the month. The provision makes the imminent
danger pay payment policy for reservists consistent with the
policy for active duty members. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase in funding for reserve imminent danger
pay of $3.0 million over the amount contained in the budget
request.
            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
  Section 631--Exception to Maximum Weight Allowance for Baggage and
                           Household Effects
    This section would authorize the service secretaries to
exceed the maximum weight allowance for shipment of household
goods to a new permanent duty station to accommodate shipment
of consumable goods that cannot be reasonably obtained at the
new location.
Section 632--Travel and Transportation Allowances for Travel Performed
by Members in Connection with Rest and Recuperative Leave from Overseas
                                Stations
    This section would clarify that the service secretaries may
provide the transportation authorized for the rest and
recuperation travel using either government or commercial
carriers. This amendment would enhance the cost efficiency of
the rest and recuperation program being provided to personnel
assigned to Operation Joint Guard in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
         Section 633--Storage of Baggage of Certain Dependents
    Section 430 of title 37, United States Code, authorizes
dependents of military members assigned to overseas locations
annual round trip visits while those dependents are college
students in the United States. This section would authorize the
storage of unaccompanied baggage of such dependents in lieu of
shipment if advantageous to the government.
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
 Section 641--Effective Date of Former Spouse Survivor Benefit Coverage
    This section would standardize the effective date of
Survivor Benefit Plan coverage for a former spouse as the first
day of the first month following the date of the court order
directing the coverage.
                       Subtitle E--Other Matters
 Section 651--Deletion of Canal Zone from Definition of United States
             Possessions for Purposes of Pay and Allowances
    This section would delete the Canal Zone from the list of
U.S. possessions as defined in title 37, United States Code.
              Section 652--Accounting of Advance Payments
    The budget request, based upon technical interpretations of
law by the Department of Defense general counsel, set aside
from the services' personnel accounts $301.0 million to be
available to provide for advance pay obligations or
expenditures at the end of a fiscal year. This section would
clarify that obligations and expenditures incurred for advanced
payment of pay and allowances shall not be accounted for or
included in any determination of amounts available for
obligation or expenditure except in the fiscal year in which
such advances are ultimately earned. The clarification provided
by this section would make the $301.0 million that was included
in the President's request available to the committee for other
purposes.
 Section 653--Reimbursement of Rental Vehicle Costs when Motor Vehicle
               Transported at Government Expense Is Late
    This section would authorize a service member being
transferred to an overseas station to rent a car when his
privately owned vehicle that he shipped to the overseas
location does not arrive as scheduled. The provision would
limit the car rental reimbursement to $30 a day for one week.
Prior to any reimbursement for a rental car, the provision
would require the Secretary of Defense to certify in a report
to the Congress that a system is in place and operational to
recover the cost of the reimbursement for the rental car from
the shipping company that caused the delay.
   Section 654--Education Loan Repayment Program for Certain Health
            Profession Officers Serving in Selected Reserve
    This section would increase the authorized caps on the
education loan amounts that may be repaid by the Secretary of
Defense to recruit and retain health professionals with
shortage wartime critical medical skills who serve in the
selected reserve. The provision would increase the repayment
amounts from $3,000 per year and $20,000 total to $10,000 and
$50,000, respectively.
                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
                                OVERVIEW
    The committee was pleased that the Department, after under-
funding the Defense Health Program for two consecutive years,
announced that the President's budget request for fiscal year
1999 provides full funding for the Defense Health Program.
However, the committee was disappointed to note that, despite
repeated encouragement from the congressional defense
committees to provide adequate funding for retiree health care
coverage, the President's budget request does not include any
additional funding for retiree health care; nor does it offer
any viable new alternatives for meeting the health care needs
of this well-deserving beneficiary population.
    This omission is particularly glaring in light of the fact
that Department of Defense (DOD) witnesses have testified that
the TRICARE program is saving the Department billions of
dollars in health care costs. Apparently, though, these savings
are not being used to improve health care coverage for military
retirees and their families who were promised a lifetime of
medical care. The committee believes that the Department should
consider using at least part of these savings to ensure the
availability of health care for all beneficiaries, including
those eligible for Medicare.
    In addition, the committee is disappointed that the
Department continues to severely limit the manner in which the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS) provides reimbursement as a second payer to other
health insurance in order to ``live within the Defense Health
Program budget.'' Last year the committee expressed concern
over this policy change and urged the Secretary of Defense to
either improve enforcement of the limitation for health care
providers to charge CHAMPUS beneficiaries no more than 115
percent of the CHAMPUS maximum allowable rate, or to continue
to use the Department's previous policy on paying for health
care services when paying as a second payer to other health
insurance. The Department adopted neither of these two
recommendations. The committee views this action to limit an
important benefit as one more signal being sent to military
personnel that benefits are eroding.
    With health care benefits being limited or denied to some
beneficiaries, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of
Defense to provide sufficient funding for the Defense Health
Program in the budget request for fiscal year 2000 to meet the
health care needs of all military beneficiaries who rely on the
military health system. Further, the committee directs the
Secretary to submit as part of the President's budget request
any proposals for legislation that may be needed to correct
deficiencies in retiree health care. The committee continues to
believe that health care coverage is viewed as one of the most
important quality of life benefits to military members and
their families. Failure to provide adequate health care
coverage not only constitutes a serious breach of faith with
those who have served, it also may have a noticeable, negative
effect on recruiting and retention efforts. The committee
believes that this very important quality of life issue
deserves the full attention and support of the Department of
Defense.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
           Depleted Uranium Training and Health Surveillance
    The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to
institute training programs on the proper safety standards
concerning the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions. DU is
radioactive, but more importantly in terms of potential health
effects, it is chemically toxic. Studies have shown that
exposure to uranium may be associated with some adverse health
effects. Lessons learned from the Gulf War show that many
service personnel were unaware of the potential health hazards
posed by contamination from the use of DU munitions. While some
exposure took place as a result of ``friendly fire,'' many
soldiers who worked with contaminated combat vehicles hit by DU
munitions and other debris were exposed unnecessarily. Attempts
by the Department after the conflict to direct the services to
enact DU training programs have met with little success.
    The committee believes that every attempt should be made to
inform soldiers of the proper precautions that must be taken to
avoid exposure to DU. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to implement DU training programs across
the services and to report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on National Security no later
than March 1, 1999, on progress made by each of the services in
their implementation of depleted uranium training programs.
This report shall include each service's plans to fully
implement training, identification of specific units to receive
the training, and plans to conduct follow-up training.
    Furthermore, the committee supports the DOD and Secretary
of Veterans Affairs (VA) efforts to conduct medical
surveillance of Gulf War veterans exposed to DU, in particular,
the Depleted Uranium Follow-up Program. This program, which is
managed by the VA, tracks the health status of Gulf War
veterans who were exposed to DU munitions due to ``friendly-
fire'' incidents. The committee believes this program will lead
to more definitive answers about the short and long-term
effects of exposure to DU. However, the committee understands
there have been problems in identifying Gulf War veterans who
may have been exposed during ``friendly-fire'' incidents, as
well as in DOD support to the study to ensure that Gulf War
veterans and control subjects are made available for needed
medical examinations and tests. The committee strongly supports
the Department's full cooperation with VA's Depleted Uranium
Follow-up Program and directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide all support necessary to ensure that the study is
completed successfully.
                  Graduate Medical Education Programs
    In response to concerns over a controversial Navy decision
to close selected Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs,
the committee directed the Comptroller General of the United
States, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), to evaluate the validity of the
recommendations made by the Navy's Medical Education Policy
Council. The forthcoming report of this evaluation is expected
to conclude that the Department of Defense and the services
lack policy guidance and criteria governing site and program
selection, including collaborationamong decision makers and
those affected. Further, the study found that other DOD initiatives,
including TRICARE, on-going sizing studies, and medical modeling
application differences can bear on GME decisions and need to be taken
into account in the development of GME program closure guidance for the
closure process to be effective. While the Department and the Air Force
and Navy fully concur with the report and its recommendations, the Army
apparently does not.
    Based on the findings and recommendations of the
Comptroller General's evaluation of military graduate medical
education programs, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to take the following actions in coordination with each
of the military services chiefs:
          (1) Develop GME closure policy guidance and
        implementing criteria and processes covering such
        matters as key factors in identifying and screening
        potential sites; how to project and mitigate potential
        adverse effects on beneficiary health care and
        readiness; how and when to involve affected parties in
        the services and local areas in the decision-making
        process; how to reach program closure agreement; and
        how to communicate and implement the resulting
        decisions;
          (2) Provide in the guidance for the potential effects
        of DOD and service initiatives, such as TRICARE, that
        can affect GME decisions; and
          (3) Develop, obtain agreement upon, and publish such
        policy guidance before any further GME closure
        decisions are made.
    The committee understands that in order to attain the
Department's overall policy goal of training to wartime
requirements, the services may need the ability to make GME
reductions. However, the committee believes that any decisions
to reduce service GME programs should be based on well-defined
criteria, and should be fully coordinated among decision makers
and those affected by the reduction. As exemplified by the
Army's apparent non-concurrence with the Comptroller General's
recommendations, the committee understands that getting
agreement on the criteria and implementing closure decisions
will not be easy. Therefore, the committee further directs the
Secretary of Defense to develop and report the GME closure
policy guidance and implementation criteria to the committee
within six months after the issuance of the Comptroller
General's report.
                 Medical Readiness Learning Initiative
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense
faces significant training challenges if the reserve components
are to be adequately prepared to respond to the domestic use of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). No more challenging
requirement exists than the need to develop and implement cost
effective training that increases the core medical readiness of
those charged with responding to WMD emergencies. The committee
is aware that the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences (USUHS), working in connection with the Henry M.
``Scoop'' Jackson Foundation, has tested interactive training
programs that enabled reserve component units to improve their
standard of care and management of mass casualties. The
committee urges that the Secretary of Defense give early
priority and close scrutiny to the USUHS interactive training
initiative to determine its usefulness and cost effectiveness
in meeting WMD medical training challenges.
                      TRICARE Contract Performance
    The committee remains very concerned about the delivery of
health care services under the TRICARE program. Specifically,
the committee is concerned about the complaints of many
beneficiaries that the transition to this managed care program
is compromising the quality and availability of their health
care benefit. Concerns have been raised by beneficiary groups
about the program's ability to provide a uniform benefit for
all military beneficiaries, its ability to attract well-
qualified civilian physicians, and its ability to provide
access to quality, low-cost care in remote or rural locations.
Additionally, civilian medical providers have expressed
concerns about administrative shortcomings under TRICARE such
as slow reimbursement, unreliable customer telephone service,
and a slow preauthorization process to approve medical
treatment, which contribute to their apprehension to
participate in the TRICARE program.
    Based on these concerns, the committee has questions about
TRICARE contractor performance in delivering health care
benefits in some regions, particularly the Central Region. The
committee is particularly disturbed by reports of cases in
which the administrative process has taken precedence over the
provision of needed health care services. Therefore, the
committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to closely
monitor contractor performance to ensure the delivery of
responsive, quality and adequate care. Specifically, the
committee encourages the Department to examine contractor
performance in the areas of network development, timely
reimbursement to providers, overall beneficiary satisfaction,
and commitment to patient care.
    The committee believes the Secretary should take all
appropriate actions to ensure TRICARE contractors comply with
the program requirements and to ensure patient care is the
number one priority. In cases where the contractor repeatedly
has difficulty in complying with these standards, the committee
urges the Secretary to consider termination of the contract for
the good of the government.
    Furthermore, the committee appreciates that implementation
of any new system may result in initial issues and problems
that need to be addressed to ensure an effective program.
However, the committee believes that if the Department of
Defense cannot promptly and efficiently address the concerns
associated with the TRICARE program, and make substantive
changes to improve it, the Secretary should consider
alternative options for delivering health care coverage to
military beneficiaries.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                    Subtitle A--Health Care Services
 Section 701--Expansion of Dependent Eligibility Under Retiree Dental
                                Program
    This section would amend section 1076c of title 10, United
States Code, to allow dependents of certain retired service
members to enroll in the retiree dental program even if the
retired member does not enroll in the program. Presently,
dependents may enroll in the program only if the retired member
also enrolls. However, some retired members are entitled to
receive dental care from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or
have medical or dental conditions which preclude their use of
the dental program. The committee believes it is not reasonable
to ask these retirees to enroll in, and pay premiums for, a
program which offers them no benefits only so their dependents
may also enroll in the program. Therefore, this provision would
allow the dependents of these specific retirees to enroll in
the retiree dental program independently.
 Section 702--Plan for Provision of Health Care for Military Retirees
 and Their Dependents Comparable to Health Care Provided Under TRICARE
                                 Prime
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to Congress, by March 1, 1999, a plan for ensuring that
military retirees, including Medicare-eligible retirees, and
their dependents have access to health care benefits comparable
to those offered through TRICARE Prime, the managed-care option
of the TRICARE program.
    The availability of medical care for military retirees and
their families has become an issue of tremendous concern to the
committee over the past few years. Due to budget cuts, medical
personnel reductions and base closures, access to quality care
within the Military Health System has become increasingly
difficult for military retirees and their dependents. While
retirees under age 65 are eligible for TRICARE benefits,
retirees over age 65, who are eligible for Medicare, are not.
As a result of these factors, many military retirees have
discovered that the military health care they ``earned''
through dedicated career service in the military may be
difficult to obtain when they need it.
    The committee strongly supports efforts to enact
legislation authorizing Medicare subvention, which provides for
Medicare reimbursement to the Department of Defense for care
rendered to Medicare-eligible military retirees and their
spouses in the Military Health Services System. Additionally,
in response to concerns that subvention would only help part of
the military Medicare-eligible population, the committee
directed both the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the
Department of Defense to study alternatives to subvention,
including authorizing eligibility in the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) for military retirees, and
making CHAMPUS/TRICARE a second-payer to Medicare. While GAO
completed its study of numerous alternatives in June 1997, the
Department to date has not presented any formal recommendations
nor offered any viable alternatives for meeting the health care
needs of all military retirees.
    The committee is extremely disappointed with the
Department's inaction on this very important issue, and
understands that it is due in part to concerns about the costs
of the various options. While the committee appreciates that
the cost of some of these options may be substantial, the
committee believes that not delivering on the health care
promises made to career service members could have an equally
substantial cost on recruiting and retention. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan,
including a legislative proposal and cost estimate, under which
all military beneficiaries will have access to an adequate
health care benefit by October 1, 2001. In developing this
plan, the committee believes the Department should fairly
evaluate all potential options, including TRICARE eligibility
and enrollment, Medicare subvention, Medicare Partnering,
FEHBP, Medigap supplemental policies, Medicare risk plans, and
CHAMPUS as a second-payer to TRICARE. The committee strongly
believes the Administration has an obligation to fulfill the
commitments made to our military retirees.
       Section 703--Plan for Redesign of Military Pharmacy System
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a plan to Congress by March 1, 1999, that would provide
for a system-wide redesign of the military and contractor
retail and mail-order pharmacy system. Additionally, it would
require the Secretary to suspend any plans for establishing a
national retail pharmacy program until the plan is submitted to
Congress and cost-saving reforms have been implemented.
    Over the past few years, the committee increasingly has
become concerned about the quality and consistency of the
military pharmacy benefit, as well as its effectiveness in
meeting the needs of all military beneficiaries. The committee
has received numerous complaints from beneficiaries about not
being able to obtain certain prescribed medications at military
pharmacies, and it remains concerned that many military
treatment facilities (MTFs) are severely reducing pharmacy
formularies as a cost-saving measure. The committee also
remains concerned about the tremendous increase in pharmacy
costs within the TRICARE retail pharmacy networks, and believes
that the use of very restrictive formularies in military
treatment facilities may be contributing to these substantial
cost increases. As a result of these concerns, the committee
directed, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), that the Comptroller General of
the United States conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the DOD
pharmacy system to identify solutions for providing for a more
uniform, cost-effective pharmacy program. The forthcoming
report of this evaluation is expected to include a
recommendation that the Secretary of Defense redesign the
entire pharmacy system, in consultation with TRICARE and
national mail-order contractors and industry experts, to
incorporate pharmacy ``best practices'' of the private sector
and to achieve integrated, cost-effective and uniform pharmacy
programs. The General Accounting Office estimates that such a
comprehensive redesign of the program would result in
tremendous cost savings to the Department of Defense.
    Based on the findings of the Comptroller General study, and
consistent with the committee's recent efforts to encourage the
Department of Defense to make greater use of best business
practices, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultationwith TRICARE and national mail-order contractors
and industry experts in pharmacy management, to develop a plan that
would provide for a completely redesigned pharmacy system. The
redesigned system shall provide for a universal, uniform pharmacy
benefit that is available to all categories of military beneficiaries,
including those eligible for Medicare, and it should incorporate
pharmacy best practices. Specifically, this redesigned pharmacy benefit
should include:
          (1) A uniform formulary for use by both military
        treatment facilities and TRICARE and national mail-
        order pharmacy contractors that is consistent with
        industry standards;
          (2) Computer integration of pharmacy patient
        databases to implement automated prospective drug
        utilization review systems; and
          (3) A system-wide drug benefit for all beneficiaries,
        including Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.
    Additionally, the benefit may include an incentive-based
formulary under which non-formulary or ``special order''
prescription drugs would be available with a higher cost-
sharing requirement, even at MTFs. The committee believes that
this approach would be beneficial to both the Department and to
the beneficiary. By offering non-formulary or special order
drugs to beneficiaries at a TRICARE cost sharing level at MTFs,
the Department could save money by purchasing pharmaceuticals
under the federal pricing schedule, and the beneficiary would
not have to run all over town trying to fill a given
prescription. However, the committee stresses that this option
should not be used as a way to restrict the uniform formulary
even further. By applying pharmacy best business practices, the
committee hopes that the Department actually would establish a
uniform formulary that is less restrictive than the formularies
in use by most MTFs today.
    The committee understands that the pharmacy program is a
very important benefit to military beneficiaries. As such, the
committee believes it should be a reliable, consistent, and
easily understood benefit that effectively meets the needs of
all beneficiaries, regardless of their beneficiary category.
 Section 704--Transitional Authority to Provide Continued Health Care
  Coverage for Certain Persons Unaware of Loss of CHAMPUS Eligibility
    The section would provide the Secretary of Defense the
authority to temporarily extend CHAMPUS eligibility to certain
beneficiaries who may have been unaware of their loss of
eligibility for CHAMPUS coverage. Under the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992, (Public Law 102-190)
CHAMPUS became second payer for beneficiaries entitled to
Medicare on the basis of disability, but only if they also
enrolled in Medicare Part B. However, many of these
beneficiaries were not informed of the change in the law and
continued to use CHAMPUS erroneously. Recently, the Department
of Defense and the Health Care Financing Administration, the
agency that manages the Medicare program, devised a mechanism
for notifying these individuals of the requirements of the law.
However, this was accomplished too late for many of them to
enroll in Medicare Part B during the 1998 open-enrollment
period. As a result, this section would provide for continued
CHAMPUS coverage of these beneficiaries until they have been
given a sufficient opportunity to enroll in Part B during the
next open enrollment period, and until that enrollment takes
effect on July 1, 1999.
                      Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
 Section 711--Payment of Claims for Provision of Health Care Under the
         TRICARE Program for which a Third Party May be Liable
    This section would amend section 1095 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to allow
TRICARE contractors to pay certain provider claims for the
provision of health care services for accidental injury prior
to seeking payment from potential third-party payers.
    The committee was distressed to learn at a February 26,
1998, TRICARE hearing that beneficiaries have been subjected to
collection actions due to contractor delays in settling claims
for health care services provided under the TRICARE program.
According to program contractors, this problem is partially due
to the TRICARE procedure for processing claims with an
indication of third party liability due to accidental injury.
The current TRICARE policy requires the contractor to gather
information regarding potential third-party payers which will
enable the government and/or the contractor to seek
reimbursement for the medical care provided, before the TRICARE
claims may be paid. This ``chase and pay'' method is contrary
to standard insurance industry practice in which the contractor
pays the claim first, and then seeks recovery of payment from
the other insurance coverage. TRICARE will remain secondary
payer under coordination of benefits rules, and this will not
effect other primary health insurance coverage, but will
include special coverage such as personal injury protection
payments.
    The committee believes that the credit records of military
beneficiaries should not be tarnished by a cumbersome TRICARE
claims processing requirement. Therefore, the committee
believes the TRICARE contractors should pay all provider claims
in a timely manner, then seek recovery from third parties who
may be liable.
     Section 712--Procedures Regarding Enrollment in TRICARE Prime
    This section would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, to insert a new section 1097a that requires the
Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for certain
enrollments in TRICARE Prime, the managed care option of the
TRICARE program.
    This section would direct the Department to establish
procedures for the automatic enrollment in TRICARE Prime at a
military treatment facility for active-duty dependents residing
within the catchment area of the facility. These procedures
would include advance written notification of this enrollment,
and shall allow enrolled family members to disenroll from MTF
TRICARE Prime at any time. Since TRICARE Prime is designed to
reduce out-of-pocket costs to beneficiaries, and since active-
duty family members do not pay an enrollment fee for TRICARE
Prime, this provision would facilitate easy enrollment and
prompt coverage under this cost-saving option.
    This section also would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish procedures for the automatic re-enrollment of TRICARE
Prime enrollees and to allow retired members and their
dependents to pay the annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime
by monthly allotment.
                       Subtitle C--Other Matters
  Section 721--Inflation Adjustment of Premium Amounts for Dependents
                             Dental Program
    This section would amend section 1076a(b)(2) of title 10,
United States Code, to allow for the cap on an enrolled
member's share of the monthly premium to be adjusted annually
for inflation.
  Section 722--System for Tracking Data and Measuring Performance in
                    Meeting TRICARE Access Standards
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a system for measuring military treatment facilities
(MTFs) and TRICARE contractors' performance in meeting the
Department of Defense's standards for access to primary care
services. Under TRICARE, the Department's managed health care
program, the Department established access standards that apply
to both military and civilian providers and address areas such
as wait times for appointments and the availability of
emergency services. However, beneficiary groups and the General
Accounting Office have been critical of the Department's
ability to monitor adherence to these standards. Therefore,
this provision would require implementation of a TRICARE-wide
system to collect data on the timeliness of appointments in
order to measure TRICARE's performance in improving beneficiary
access to care, as well as to capture precise waiting time
information.
Section 723--Air Force Research, Development, Training and Education on
       Exposure to Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Hazards
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to conduct research on the health-related, environmental and
ecological effects of exposure to chemical, biological and
radiological hazards and to develop more accurate risk
assessment tools. This section would specifically recommend
research on soil and ground water contamination and its impact
on the biosystem and the health risk of exposure to jet fuel.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.8 million in the
Defense Health Program to support the Air Force Environmental
and Occupational Health Program to conduct this environmental
risk assessment program.
   Section 724--Authorization to Establish a Level 1 Trauma Training
                                 Center
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
establish a Level 1 Trauma Training Center in accordance with
the American College of Surgeons standards for trauma centers.
The establishment of the trauma training center would allow for
forward surgical teams to train together as full teams. The
committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in the Defense
Health Program to support the Army Medical Department in this
initiative.
 Section 725--Report on Implementation of Enrollment-based Capitation
         for Funding for Military Medical Treatment Facilities
    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide Congress with a report by March 1, 1999, on the
potential impact of using an enrollment-based capitation
methodology to allocate funds to military medical treatment
facilities. Under this methodology, referred to as enrollment-
based capitation, military treatment facilities would be
allocated funding based primarily on the number of eligible
beneficiaries who enroll in TRICARE Prime, the program's
managed care option, at the military treatment facility (MTF).
    The committee previously has expressed concerns over this
funding mechanism because it attempts to apply a strict
managed-care financing mechanism to facilities that do not
operate solely as managed-care facilities. The committee's
concerns have increased based on inputs it has received from
senior MTF and service officials, TRICARE contractors and
beneficiary associations. Specific concerns include the
potential impact on the pharmacy benefit; the availability of
space-available care for non-enrolled beneficiaries,
particularly those eligible for Medicare; and the TRICARE
uniform benefit.
    As a result of these concerns, the committee directed the
Secretary of Defense, in the committee report on H.R. 3230, (H.
Rept. 104-563), to test this concept in one TRICARE region
prior to implementing the concept across the military health
system. However, to date, that test has not been conducted, and
the committee is disappointed to learn that the Department
plans to move forward with full implementation of this concept.
Therefore, this section would require a report that provides:
          (1) The Department's plans to implement enrollment-
        based capitation;
          (2) The justification for implementing this concept
        without conducting a demonstration of the concept;
          (3) The potential impact on space-available care,
        particularly for Medicare-eligible retirees and
        beneficiaries residing outside the catchment area of an
        MTF;
          (4) The potential impact on the MTF pharmacy benefit,
        since this approach funds MTFs based on the number of
        Prime enrollees, but any beneficiary is allowed to fill
        a prescription at an MTF pharmacy;
          (5) An explanation of how additional funding will be
        provided to ensure the provision of care and pharmacy
        benefits to non-enrolled eligible beneficiaries; and
          (6) An explanation of how the concept will impact the
        TRICARE uniform benefit.
    The committee commends the Department for trying to provide
incentives to MTF commanders to improve the efficiency of their
facilities. However, the committee is concerned that using a
straight managed-care financing approach to fund military
treatment facilities could have a detrimental effect on the
availability of military medical care to beneficiaries who
either cannot, or elect not to, enroll in TRICARE Prime.
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
                                MATTERS
                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                    Payments to Subtier Contractors
    The committee has become aware of a continuing problem
facing subtier contractors in receiving proper compensation
from prime or second tier contractors on Department of Defense
contracts following delivery of contracted goods and services.
In particular, this situation appears to have significantly
impacted a number of subtier contractors involved in
environmental cleanup activities at military facilities
affected by the base closure process. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to assess the extent of this problem and
take whatever remedial actions may be necessary to ensure that
subtier contractors are properly compensated for services
provided under Department of Defense contracts. The committee
notes that the Department currently has at its disposal a
number of contractual options such as requiring the use of
payment bonds, applying past performance criteria to this area,
and others. The committee urges the Secretary to determine
whether the use of any such options might prove beneficial in
ensuring the proper compensation of subtier contractors.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
  Section 801--Limitation on Procurement of Ammunition and Components
    This section would require that ammunition procured by the
Department of Defense be acquired from domestic sources
pursuant to section 2534 of title 10, United States Code.
               Section 802--Acquisition Corps Eligibility
    This section would enable civilian members of the Defense
Acquisition Corps who are reduced in grade due to a base
closing or downsizing to retain their membership in the
Acquisition Corps for the purposes of the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Improvement Act (title XII of Public Law 101-510).
     Section 803--Amendments Relating to Procurement From Firms in
              Industrial Base for Production of Small Arms
    This section would amend section 2473 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to procure all
small arms end items, small arms repair parts, modifications to
improve small arms, and repair parts consisting of small arms
barrels, bolts and receivers from the small arms production
industrial base.
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 901--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce
    The committee recommends a provision (sec. 901) that would
annually reduce the defense acquisition workforce, as defined
in section 912(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), by a total of 70,000 over
three years.
    The committee commends the members of the Defense Science
Board (DSB) for the report in response to the requirement
contained in section 912(e) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85).
Specifically, the DSB identified a variety of areas where the
Department can and should endeavor to re-organize and
streamline its acquisition operations for the purposes of
reducing overhead and improving interoperability and jointness
among the military services.
    While the Department has technically complied with the
multiple reporting requirements contained in section 912, the
Secretary's implementation plan postpones enacting virtually
every major initiative proposed in the DSB study pending
further examination and analysis. The committee notes the
Congress previously required the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a detailed review of the issue in section 906 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106). The committee believes the Department has had
ample time to consider the issue and must expeditiously proceed
to fundamentally restructure its acquisition organizations.
    Further, the committee urges the Secretary not to exercise
the waiver authority provided in section 912(a) as personnel
streamlining is an essential element of acquisition re-
organization. The committee remains convinced that the
Department's failure to reduce acquisition overhead will
continue to drain critical resources from high priority, combat
mission areas.
 Section 902--Limitation on Operation and Support Funds for the Office
                      of the Secretary of Defense
    The committee notes with particular concern the
Department's failure to provide Congress with statutorily
mandated reports on the topics of management headquarters and
advisory committees. While the committee recognizes the
significant progress made by the Department in issuing the
Defense Reform Initiative (DRI) to reorganize and streamline
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the committee
does not believe the DRI is a substitute for the
Congressionally mandated reports and implementation plans.
Additionally, the committee firmly opposes the Department's
request for repeal of the personnel reductions and reporting
requirements contained in section 911 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85).
    The committee reiterates its strong belief that the
Department must comply with existing statutory reports on
management headquarters contained in section 904 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public
Law 104-201) and section 911 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) in
addition to the annual justification report for advisory
committees contained in section 904 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85).
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 902)
that would restrict the obligation of 10 percent of funding
authorized in fiscal year 1999 associated with the operation
and support activities of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense until the Department complies with the aforementioned
reports on management headquarters.
   Section 903--Revision to Defense Directive Relating to Management
            Headquarters and Headquarters Support Activities
    The committee understands the Department has begun to
examine and improve its definition of management headquarters
and headquarters support activities as contained in Department
of Defense Directive 5100.73. The committee supports this
effort in light of the significant loopholes within the current
governing regulation that identifies personnel by organization
rather than actual activity. Both the General Accounting Office
(GAO) and the study initiated by the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) on the topic have stated the current definition of
management headquarters contributes to widespread
underreporting of management headquarters personnel.
    Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) requires an overall
reduction in personnel dedicated to management headquarters
activities of 25 percent over five years. The basis for this
action was a concern with the size and cost of the Department's
management headquarters relative to an overall diminished force
structure. Section 911 also required the Secretary of Defense
to provide an implementation plan by January 15, 1998, that
includes recommendations on revising, replacing, or augmenting
Directive 5100.73. To date, that report has not been
forthcoming. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 903) that would require the Department to implement a
revised directive, to be applied uniformly throughout the
Department, that accounts for management headquarters personnel
by function rather than organization.
      Section 904--Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to Have
    Responsibility with Respect to Export Control Activities of the
                         Department of Defense
    The committee supports the Department's commitment to
reforming its organization and operation consistent with
congressional mandate and notes that under the Defense Reform
Initiative a new Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) would
be created, consolidating the work of a number of existing
agencies under the DTRA umbrella. Functionally, the DTRA would
be responsible for arms control on-site inspection, technology
security, nuclear support, special weapons technology,
cooperative threat reduction, chemical and biological weapons
defense, counterproliferation, and force protection. The
existing On-Site Inspection Agency, Defense Technology Security
Administration, and Defense Special Weapons Agency would be
disestablished and their activities, along with several program
management functions within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, consolidated within DTRA. The Director of DTRA, who
has not yet been appointed, would report directly to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (USD(A&T)).
    The committee is concerned that the proposed DTRA reporting
chain through the USD(A&T) is incompatible with the role and
responsibilities that several DTRA components exercise in
policy decision-making. In particular, the committee notes that
the mission of the Defense Technology Security Administration,
which would be abolished and consolidated within DTRA, has a
primarily policy orientation. The committee is further
concerned that establishing the reporting chain for this
function through the USD(A&T) may create an unhealthy
institutional conflict of interest between the sometimes
contradictory missions of preventing the acquisition of
sophisticated technologies by other countries and promoting
technology transfers as a means of reducing unit production
costs to the U.S. Government or fostering cooperative
development programs with other nations.
    The committee's concern is heightened in this regard by the
draft DTRA charter, which requires the Director of DTRA to
``represent or support the USD(A&T) in departmental processes
involving matters relating to the DTRA mission * * *.'' In the
case of a particularly controversial export decision, this
might lead to DOD acquisition priorities taking precedence over
nonproliferation policy priorities. In addition, the committee
believes that important counterproliferation activities that
would be carried out by the DTRA also require a more explicit
and tangible link to the Department's policy organization.
While the committee recognizes that the draft DTRA charter
remains a work in progress, the committee is concerned that it
may lead to ambiguity and confusion as to who is precisely
responsible for policy direction. For instance, the draft
charter's direction that the DTRA Director shall fulfill
certain technology security-related functions ``pursuant to the
direction of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy)''--despite
the charter's establishment of DTRA ``under the authority,
direction, and control'' of the USD(A&T)--reflects an apparent
confusion over who should be responsible for these issues.
    The committee is particularly concerned about how the issue
of supercomputer exports will be handled by the Department,
given the requirements established by section 1211 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85). This provision establishes a procedure by which
the Department is notified in advance of proposed supercomputer
exports and may object within a 10-day period after
notification to such exports taking place without a formal
license review. However, the regulations for implementing this
provision require that any objection must be raised at the
Under Secretary level. Although the committee believes that it
is more appropriate for those directly in charge of technology
security to exercise this function, requiring action by an
Under Secretary illustrates the importance of clarifying the
relationship between the Director of DTRA and the Department's
policy organization. In light of the concerns expressed above,
the committee believes that the responsibility for exercising
this requirement should rest within the Under Secretary of
Defense (Policy) organization.
    For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 904) that would amend section 134(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, to include among the responsibilities of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy issues related to
export control. This change would clarify the preeminent role
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in this area. In
addition, this provision would require the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the committee explaining how the
Department intends to implement this change organizationally
and describing the procedures for Joint Staff involvement in
policy decisions on export control issues.
    The committee is pleased that the Department has sought
congressional input in an effort to deal with these concerns,
and believes that they can be addressed within the
organizational framework of a new agency. The committee
welcomes continued dialogue with the Department on these
issues.
Section 905--Independent Task Force on Transformation and Department of
                          Defense Organization
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
create a task force of the Defense Science Board for the
purpose of determining the appropriate organization of the
Department of Defense in light of the ongoing transformation in
the conduct of war. The task force is to be established not
later than November 1, 1998 and the Secretary is to transmit
its findings along with recommendations and comments to the
Congress by March 1, 1999.
     Section 906--Improved Accounting for Defense Contract Services
    The Congress has repeatedly expressed concern with the
volume and cost of Advisory and Assistance Services (AAS) to
the Department of Defense (DOD). Despite efforts to reduce
annual AAS expenses, the Department has continued to rely
heavily upon such support services. While the committee
recognizes the value of AAS for short-term, specialized
professional or technical advice and assistance, historical
steady-state AAS funding levels of approximately $3.0 billion
suggest an institutional dependency by the Department upon the
private sector for these services. By definition, AAS are
project-based contractual services that are limited in scope
and duration. Moreover, DOD Directive 4205.2 specifically
prohibits AAS contracts unless readily available, in-house
capability does not exist within the Department or another
government agency. The committee notes the Department employs
over two million uniformed and civilian personnel and has
immediate access to immense resources, to include a technically
proficient and highly trained acquisition workforce in excess
of 343,000 people.
    While the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense budget
estimate of AAS is nearly identical to the amount reported in
fiscal year 1998, the committee is aware of extensive analysis
conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of the
Department's contract action reporting system that indicates
AAS was underreported by $9.0 billion in fiscal year 1996.
According to GAO, since 1985, over 30 reports have identified
problems with DOD's management and reporting of AAS. In
particular, a 1995 DOD Inspector General audit report estimated
that AAS was underreported by $4 billion to $9 billion. Both
GAO and the Inspector General attribute a portion of the
underreporting to unclear terminology and lack of consistency
in identifying, recording, and reporting advisory and
assistance costs.
    Of the $132.4 billion in services expected to be contracted
by the Department in fiscal year 1999, less than two percent
are identified by the Department as Advisory and Assistance
Services while over 50 percent are largely undefined and
located in a miscellaneous budget category. According to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) data, this miscellaneous
category has grown from $46.7 billion in fiscal year 1996 to an
estimated $69.2 billion in fiscal year 1999. The committee
finds this trend unacceptable and suggestive of a pattern of
deficient fiscal management that obscures proper visibility of
AAS costs and permits significant underreporting of AAS
activity to continue.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 906)
that would prohibit the Department from classifying more than
15 percent of its contractual services in a miscellaneous
budget category. The provision would provide a transition
period by allowing the Department, in the budget request for
fiscal year 2000, to report up to 30 percent of its contractual
services as miscellaneous services. In addition, the section
would provide a statutory definition of AAS for the Department
of Defense and require the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to annually review all DOD service contracts for
applicability under this definition by February 1, 1999, and
prior to the submission of the DOD budget request hereafter.
The review would also include a requirement for the Comptroller
to identify and report to Congress on the total costs and level
of manpower effort involved in contract services. The provision
would task the General Accounting Office (GAO) with reviewing
the information contained in the Comptroller report and
transmitting its findings to Congress. Subsequent to the
Comptroller review, the provision would require the Secretary
of Defense to reduce Advisory and Assistance Services by $500
million in fiscal year 1999.
 Section 907--Repeal of Requirement Relating to Assignment of Tactical
                 Airlift Mission to Reserve Components
    This section would repeal section 1438 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1991 (Public Law 101-
510) which requires the Department of Defense to shift the
tactical airlift mission to the reserves, unless the Secretary
of Defense waives this requirement on annual basis. The
committee notes that this requirement has been routinely waived
by the Secretary of Defense every year and therefore finds this
provision to be obsolete and serving no particular purpose.
   Section 908--Repeal of Certain Requirements Relating to Inspector
             General Investigations of Reprisal Complaints
    This section would eliminate two burdensome administrative
requirements in the process of investigating and resolving
reprisal complaints. One provision would eliminate the
requirement to report to the Secretary of Defense and the
member if the complaint cannot be resolved in 90 days. The
second provision would eliminate the requirement for a post
investigation interview. Although the committee supports the
elimination of both requirements, the committee expects the
Department to maintain reasonable communication with the member
during the course of each investigation.
Section 909--Consultation with Commandant of the Marine Corps Regarding
                         Marine Corps Aviation
    The committee is aware that, due to the unique relationship
between the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, the Commandant has sometimes not been fully
consulted on matters related to Marine Corps aviation programs,
which are funded in the Navy Aircraft procurement and research,
development, test and evaluation accounts. The committee is
concerned that this arrangement may be leading to situations
where critical decisions affecting the core combat capability
of the Marine Corps may be made without the benefit of the
input or the perspective of the Commandant, as may have
occurred with the decision on how to proceed with depot
maintenance support for the V-22 engine. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision (sec. 909) that would require
the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the views of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps' are obtained before a major
acquisition decision is made on Marine Corps aviation matters.
The committee notes that this provision is not intended to
provide a mechanism by which the Commandant may block the
ability of the Secretary of the Navy to proceed with a
particular acquisition decision. Rather, the provision is
intended to ensure that the Commandant's expertise and
important perspective is taken fully into account when
acquisition decisions are made that affect Marine Corps
aviation.
                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
                        Counter Drug Activities
                                Overview
    The committee remains deeply concerned that the President's
request for Department of Defense counter-drug activities once
again contains funding for programs beyond its traditional
authority, even though the DOD Counter-Drug Program does not
adequately support its primary role as the lead agency for
detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime transit of
illegal drugs into the United States. The committee continues
to support the Department's core counter-drug mission, but is
concerned by the continuing pattern of expansion into
additional missions that jeopardize the critical task assigned
to the Department of Defense.
    This year, the committee's initiatives include a
reprioritization of programs within the DOD counter-drug
account to maintain the integrity of the Department's role in
disrupting the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. In
support of a promising operation in the eastern Pacific Ocean,
the committee provides direction and redirects funds from
lesser priority projects included in the budget request. In
addition, the committee increases funding to enhance
intelligence capabilities in support of law enforcement
counter-drug efforts worldwide. Finally, the committee, in
response to requests for assistance from the National Guard and
law enforcement agencies, recommends additional funds for
programs aimed at interdicting drugs and drug operations in the
United States. These budgetary and legislative initiatives are
discussed in greater detail below.
    The budget request for Department of Defense fiscal year
1999 drug interdiction and counter-drug activities contained
$727.6 million, plus $155.3 million for operational tempo which
is included within the operating budgets of the military
services. This represents a net increase of $14.7 million from
the fiscal year 1998 appropriated level of $712.9 million, and
an increase of $20.4 million for operational tempo from the
fiscal year 1998 appropriated level of $134.9 million.
    The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year
1999 defense counter-drug activities as follows:
                        [In thousands of dollars]
FY99 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request.................   727,582
    Demand Reduction and Use..................................    12,830
    Domestic Law Enforcement Agencies Support.................    86,669
    Demand Reduction for Department of Defense and National
      Guard Personnel-........................................    72,936
    Transit Zone and Southwest Border.........................   301,334
    Source Zone and Domestic Marijuana Eradication............   253,813
Recommended Decreases:
    Joint Military Intelligence Program.......................     3,500
    Southern Air Forces Counter-Drug Support (Project #4419)..    19,000
    JIATF-South (Project #4450)...............................    15,400
    National Guard Cargo/Mail Inspection Support (Project
      #7401)..................................................    29,000
Recommended Increases:
    Joint Military Intelligence Program.......................     3,500
    National Guard General Support (Project #7403)............    29,000
    Gulf States Counter-Drug Initiative (Project #7406).......     4,000
    Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force (Project #7408)...........     1,000
    Operation Caper Focus.....................................    24,400
    Southwest Border Fence Project............................     5,000
Recommendation................................................   727,582
                       Items of Special Interest
Gulf states counter-drug initiative command, control, communications
        and computer network
    The budget request contained $1.1 million for the Gulf
States Counter-Drug Initiative (GSCI) automated Command,
Control, Communications and Computer (C<SUP>4</SUP>) network.
    The committee fully supports the GSCI C<SUP>4</SUP>
network, which assists law enforcement counter-drug efforts in
Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. The committee
notes that although the information system was initiated and is
currently funded as a counter-drug program, the state law
enforcement agencies have adopted the GSCI network as a
Regional Investigative and Intelligence Support System that can
also support weapons proliferation, transnational organized
crime and counterterrorism efforts. In addition, the committee
understands that the role of the Department of Defense (DOD) in
the design, development, acquisition and implementation of the
information system is nearing conclusion. The GSCI network is
fully operational and DOD continues to provide system
maintenance and training.
    The committee recommends $4.1 million, an increase of $3.0
million, for the sustainment of the GSCI network. Given the
expanded mission of the GSCI in the final phase of DOD
involvement, the committee encourages the designation of non-
counter-drug DOD, Department of Justice, state or local funds
for additional operation and maintenance and procurement costs
identified by law enforcement agencies to sustain the GSCI
information system in the outyears.
Gulf states counter-drug initiative regional counter-drug training
        academy
    The budget request contained $2.2 million for the Gulf
States Counter-Drug Initiative Regional Counter-Drug Training
Academy (RCTA).
    The committee continues to support the efforts of the RCTA
in Meridian, Mississippi. This unique, multi-state training
facility provides counter-drug courses to civilian law
enforcement officers of state, county, and municipal agencies
throughout theUnited States and to National Guard personnel
providing support to local law enforcement agencies. The committee
understands that the additional funds are necessary to accommodate the
increasing number of students from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and
Mississippi on the RCTA waiting list.
    The committee recommends $3.2 million, an increase of $1.0
million, for personnel and administrative costs, operations and
maintenance, student expenses (to include quarters and
subsistence), and equipment expenses for the RCTA.
Joint interagency task force south
    The budget request contained $23.1 million for Joint
Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S), an increase of almost
$17.0 million from the fiscal year 1998 appropriated level of
$6.1 million.
    While the committee is well aware of the role of JIATF-S in
the coordination of DOD resources in support of interdiction
agencies, it believes there should be a more moderate budget
increase in light of the stalled negotiations regarding a post-
1999 U.S. presence in Panama. The committee understands that
JIATF-S has been operating out of Howard Air Force Base since
June 11, 1997 as an interim organization while relocation plans
are under consideration. Consequently, the committee wishes to
maintain a sufficient funding level to meet mission
requirements until a permanent organization is established.
    For these reasons, the committee recommends $7.7 million, a
decrease of $15.4 million for JIATF-S.
Joint military intelligence program
    The budget request contained $4.2 million for a program
funded within the Defense Intelligence Counterdrug Program.
    The committee recommends $0.7 million for this program, a
decrease of $3.5 million and a corresponding increase of $3.5
million for other programs funded within the Defense
Intelligence Counterdrug Program. Further discussion of these
programs can be found in the classified annex accompanying this
report.
Multi-jurisdictional task force
    The budget request contained $2.0 million for the Multi-
Jurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force.
    The committee understands that additional funds are needed
to improve the Multi-Jurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force's
training program by increasing the number of conventional
courses, distance learning projects and state narcotics
conventions for law enforcement officers.
    The committee recommends $3.0 million, an increase of $1.0
million for the Multi-Jurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force.
National guard state plans
    The budget request contained $29.0 million for National
Guard Cargo/Mail Inspection Support and $118.6 million for
National Guard General Support.
    The committee notes that beginning in fiscal year 1998,
funds for cargo/mail inspection support were transferred from
the general support account due to its high priority at the
national level. While the committee continues to endorse this
program as a means to deny illegal drugs from entering the
United States, the committee directs that funding for this
project be transferred back to the general support account. The
committee encourages the state and territorial governors to
include adequate funding for the cargo/mail inspection program
within the state plans submitted under section 112 of title 32,
United States Code.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $147.6 million for
National Guard General Support, an increase of $29.0 million
and a corresponding decrease of $29.0 million for National
Guard Cargo/Mail Inspection Support.
Southern air forces counter-drug support
    The budget request contained $24.4 million for Southern Air
Forces (SOUTHAF) Counter-Drug Support, including $19.0 million
for the operation and maintenance of ground mobile radars
(GMRs) within the US Southern Command area of operations.
    The committee recommends $5.4 million for SOUTHAF Counter-
Drug Support, a decrease of $19.0 million. Further discussion
of this program can be found in the classified annex
accompanying this report.
Southwest border fence project
    The committee continues to support the Southwest border
road, fence and lighting project in East San Diego County,
California.
    The committee has consistently added funds for a reinforced
fence along the fourteen miles of international border east of
the Pacific Ocean, and the construction of second and third
fences, with roads between the fences, to improve border
security in this high intensity drug trafficking area (HIDTA).
The committee notes that in just three years, the seizure of
illegal drugs and the number of murders that occurred along
this section of the border have decreased significantly as a
result of this initiative, according to ``The National Drug
Control Strategy, 1998.'' To ensure the efficient execution of
this project, the committee encourages the California National
Guard and the Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) to allocate
sufficient resources for this national priority from within
their respective counter-drug budgets. Further, the committee
directs that funds authorized and appropriated in fiscal year
1998 be obligated for this project as intended by the Congress.
    In addition, the committee recommends $5.0 million to
facilitate completion of the Southwest border fence project
from within the domestic law enforcement agencies support
component of the Department of Defense Counter-Drug Plan.
Support for counter-drug activities of Peru and Colombia
    Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) authorized the Secretary
of Defense to provide support for the counter-drug activities
of the Governments of Peru and Colombia. The committee wishes
to clarify that the intent of Congress was to provide nonlethal
assistance, including unarmed riverine patrol boats, to
establish a riverine interdiction program in Peru and Colombia.
                             Other Matters
    Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
    The budget request contained a number of legislative
provisions to expand the ability of the Department of Defense
to respond to domestic terrorist activity and to the potential
use by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction on U.S.
territory. Other DOD proposals provide for the procurement,
operation, and maintenance of equipment, and the authority to
transfer funds among DOD accounts for counterterrorism or force
protection purposes. In addition, the Department's fiscal year
1999 legislative proposal for defense reform seeks expanded
authority to use the National Guard and reserves to respond to
domestic emergencies involving the use of weapons of mass
destruction.
    After careful review of these proposals, the committee is
concerned that the Department's efforts and initiatives are not
closely coordinated with other agencies within the government--
federal, state, and local--who share responsibility for
responding to domestic incidents involving weapons of mass
destruction. The need for such coordination was the hallmark
theme of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of
1996, enacted into law as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
    The committee believes strongly in the need for greater
overall preparedness to deal with potential terrorist activity
within the United States and that a significant amount of
counterterrorism expertise and materiel resides with the DOD.
However, the committee is troubled that the Department has not
provided a comprehensive blueprint detailing the extent to
which the expanded authority it seeks is necessary. Nor has the
Department addressed critical questions involving the
appropriate use of the armed forces for purposes of countering
the effects of domestic terrorism. Instead, the Department's
proposals appear to reflect a presumption that DOD alone can
and should shoulder the response burden, as well as a piecemeal
approach for incrementally expanding its authority to counter
terrorist activity without an apparent consideration of the
broader implications involved. The committee believes that the
effort to counter terrorist acts against the United States,
especially those involving the use of weapons of mass
destruction, goes well beyond the purview of the Department of
Defense.
    The committee is also troubled by the apparent lack of an
effective coordinated effort on the part of other federal
departments and agencies that address the overall federal
response and support to state and local governments. The
committee's concerns in this regard are heightened by the fact
that FEMA recently withdrew as chair and administrator of the
Senior Interagency Coordination Group, the interagency forum
for domestic terrorism-related consequence management issues,
and by the results of a draft study commissioned by the U.S.
Attorney General, which reportedly concludes that significant
deficiencies exist in the inter-agency coordination process.
Although a September 1997 GAO report considered the efforts of
federal agencies to implement national policy on
counterterrorism, it did not evaluate the effectiveness of the
federal government's programs or coordination activities.
Accordingly, the committee directs that the GAO should conduct
a follow-up assessment of this issue. In addition, the
committee expects that a new Presidential Decision Directive
reportedly being drafted will clarify the appropriate roles of
government agencies in dealing with terrorism.
    In this regard, the committee is concerned by reports that
the National Security Council may be given a central
operational role to oversee the federal government's
counterterrorism efforts, including the activities of the DOD.
The committee believes this proposal raises questions regarding
the statutory role of the National Security Council to advise
and make recommendations to the President with regard to
national security policy, in contrast to the operational role
of executive departments and agencies to carry out that policy.
Accordingly, the committee holds serious concerns about where
operational control of the Department's counterterrorism
efforts will reside. These concerns extend to uncertainty over
funding and program prioritization issues. While the committee
believes in and strongly endorses the need for a coordinated
effort at the national level, the committee does not believe as
a matter of policy that it is appropriate to assign operational
responsibilities to the National Security Council.
    With respect to the DOD, the committee considers that
approval by Congress of the Department's suggested changes to
law, without a comprehensive understanding of the overall
implications for the military's role in countering terrorism,
would be premature. Therefore, the committee recommends that
action on the changes proposed by the Department be deferred
until the committee has received and analyzed the Department's
overall plan for addressing these issues. Consequently, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees by no later than
December 31, 1998 that:
          (1) Outlines the Department's overall strategy for
        countering terrorism, including the use of weapons of
        mass destruction on U.S. soil, and explains the
        existing legal authorities that allow DOD to assist
        other federal agencies in the event of a terrorist
        incident;
          (2) Describes how the Department's proposals for
        changes to existing statutes and statutory prohibitions
        correspond to its broader counterterrorism strategy;
          (3) Provides a detailed justification for such
        changes, including an explanation of what specific
        activities would be prevented if the Department's
        recommended changes were not enacted, what consequences
        would ensue, and whether the proposed changes are in
        response to specific problems that have arisen or
        represent simply an attempt to prepare for all
        contingencies;
          (4) Describes how counterterrorism functions will be
        organizationally integrated into the Department's
        proposed Defense Threat Reduction Agency;
          (5) Describes the role of the National Guard and
        reserves in domestic counterterrorism and how these
        roles are to be integrated with the efforts of state
        and local authorities responsible for responding to
        domestic emergencies;
          (6) Describes the relationship between federal,
        state, and local authorities regarding domestic
        counterterrorism, including the Department's
        cooperative efforts with other federal agencies to
        prevent and respond to domestic emergencies involving
        the use of weapons of mass destruction, and addresses
        what modifications to the Stafford Act are necessary
        for the Department to implement these efforts;
          (7) Explains the rationale for the current legal
        prohibition on using the armed forces for civilian law
        enforcement-type purposes, provides the Department's
        assessment of whether that demarcation line needs to be
        revised in light of the nature of terrorist threats,
        and provides an assessment of whether enacting the
        changes proposed by the Department will blur this
        traditional distinction; and
          (8) Assesses whether an agreement to expand the
        Department's authority and role in counterterrorism
        would set a precedent for greater DOD involvement in
        countering other types of transnational domestic
        threats that have traditionally been handled by
        domestic state and local law enforcement agencies.
    The committee notes its intent to work with the other
committees of the House of Representatives to formulate a
comprehensive and effective approach to the issue of
counterterrorism.
                      Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
    The committee is concerned that U.S. political and military
leaders have underestimated the potential impact of
electromagnetic pulse on U.S. military systems and critical
portions of the nation's infrastructure. The committee is aware
of foreign research into the effects of EMP resulting from a
high-altitude nuclear explosion and that not all of these
effects are well understood or widely recognized. The committee
directs that the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the
Director of Central Intelligence, submit a report by March 1,
1999 to the congressional defense committees on the potential
effects of high- and low-frequency EMP, including magneto-
hydrodynamic EMP. The report should include an assessment of
the effects on U.S. military systems, commercial systems on
which the military now relies (such as communications systems),
overall military effectiveness, and key aspects of the U.S.
civilian infrastructure necessary to sustain life and commerce
(such as the power grid, water pumping stations, and data
storage and processing systems); steps that might be taken to
reduce vulnerability to EMP; the costs associated with those
steps; and a judgment concerning preferred courses of action.
      Intelligence Community Access to Export Control Information
    The committee is troubled by the pattern of delay and
obfuscation by the Department of Commerce in providing critical
export control information upon request by intelligence
agencies engaged in assessing the national security impact of
the transfer of U.S. technology abroad. In particular, the
committee notes that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and
the Department of Energy (DOE) were requested in December 1997
to prepare for the committee assessments of the impact on
national security of high-performance computer exports to
certain countries. These assessments were to be submitted to
the committee by March 3, 1998 and have not yet been received.
Export information necessary to conduct these assessments is in
the possession of the Department of Commerce and was not
promptly transmitted to DIA and DOE, despite the formal
requests by these agencies and the committee's direct request
to the Secretary of Commerce to do so.
    The committee is particularly perplexed by the failure of
the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence to support the
committee's request that this information be provided to DIA
and DOE. During testimony before the committee on February 25,
1998, the Deputy Director was asked if the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) supported the DIA and DOE's request for access to
this information. This question was not answered and a written
response was promised. Repeated subsequent inquiries to the CIA
have yet to produce the promised response. The committee fails
to understand why the CIA would not unequivocally support
access by other intelligence agencies to information necessary
to conduct assessments of the national security implications of
potentially dangerous technology transfers, especially in
response to congressional requests. The committee considers
this a serious issue and believes it raises important policy
and procedural concerns over how the national security agencies
are afforded an opportunity to influence the executive branch's
formulation of technology transfer and export control policy.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of Central
Intelligence to provide the congressional defense and
intelligence committees with a report by no later than
September 30, 1998 on the steps being taking to ensure that the
intelligence community has full and timely access to export
license information in order to assess the national security
and proliferation consequences of U.S. technology transfers.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters
                    Section 1001--Transfer Authority
    This section would permit the transfer of amounts of
authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any
fiscal year to any other authorization made available in
Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that
such a transfer would be in the national interest. The
provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming
involving the transfer of authorization between amounts
authorized as set out in bill language.
    The authority to transfer could only be used to provide
authorization for higher priority items than the items from
which authorization was transferred and could not be used to
provide authorization for an item that was denied authorization
by the Congress. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
notify Congress promptly of transfers. The total amount of
transfers would be limited to $2.0 billion. Historically, the
transfer authority authorized has changed as follows:
        Fiscal year                                             Billions
1985-1988......................................................... $2.00
1989-1991.........................................................  3.00
1992..............................................................  2.25
1993..............................................................  1.50
1994-1998.........................................................  2.00
            Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex
    This section would incorporate the classified annex
prepared by the Committee on National Security into the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
                    Section 1003--Outlay Limitations
    This section would restrict the amount of discretionary
outlays in the national defense function to the totals provided
in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for fiscal year 1999.
                Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
  Section 1011--Revision to Requirement for Continued Listing of Two
              Iowa-Class Battleships on the Naval Register
    This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
maintain the U.S.S. Iowa (BB-61) and the U.S.S Wisconsin (BB-
64) on the naval register in compliance with section 1011 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106).
            Section 1012--Transfer of the U.S.S. New Jersey
    This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
strike the U.S.S New Jersey (BB-62) from the naval vessel
register and transfer that vessel to a non-for-profit entity,
in accordance with section 7306 of title 10, United States
Code. The section would further direct the Secretary to require
that the transferee locate the vessel in the State of New
Jersey as a condition of transfer.
    Section 1013--Long-Term Charter of Three Vessels in Support of
                  Submarine Rescue, Escort, and Towing
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into contracts in accordance with section 2401 of title
10, United States Code, for the charter of three vessels, the
CAROLYN CHOUEST, KELLIE CHOUEST, and DELORES CHOUEST through
fiscal year 2003 in support of Navy's submarine rescue, escort
and towing missions.
            Section 1014--Transfer of Obsolete Army Tugboat
    This section would allow the Secretary of the Army to
substitute and transfer one obsolete tugboat in place of a
previously designated obsolete tugboat to the Brownsville
Navigation District, Brownsville, Texas.
Section 1015--Long-Term Charter Contracts for Acquisition of Auxiliary
                 Vessels for the Department of Defense
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
contract for the long-term lease or charter of newly
constructed surface vessels, including their crews. Such leases
or charters would apply to the Navy's combat logistics force
and strategic sealift programs, as well as other auxiliary
support vessels of the Department of Defense.
        Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1021--Department of Defense Support for Counter-Drug Activities
    This section would amend section 1004 of the National
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-
510), as amended, to extend the current authority governing
Department of Defense (DOD) support for other agencies for
counter-drug activities.
    The DOD counter-drug objectives include assistance to
international and domestic law enforcement agencies to disrupt
the illegal drug traffic into the United States and support for
domestic law enforcement to interdict drugs and drug operations
in the United States. To achieve these objectives, the
Secretary of Defense is authorized under currentlaw to provide
the following types of support to facilitate counter-drug activities
within or outside the United States:
          (1) The maintenance, repair and upgrading of
        equipment made available to any federal department or
        agency or to any state or local government by DOD;
          (2) The transportation of U.S. and foreign personnel
        and the transportation of equipment;
          (3) The establishment and operation of training
        facilities and bases of operation;
          (4) The training of law enforcement personnel of the
        federal, state, local or foreign governments;
          (5) The detection, monitoring and communication of
        the movement of air, sea and surface traffic;
          (6) The construction of roads, fences and
        installation of lighting across international
        boundaries;
          (7) The establishment of command, control,
        communications and computer networks for integration of
        law enforcement, active military, and National Guard
        activities;
          (8) The provision of linguist and intelligence
        analysis services;
          (9) Aerial and ground reconnaissance.
    This section would reauthorize DOD assistance for the
counter-drug activities of any other department or agency of
the federal government or of any state, local or foreign law
enforcement agency through fiscal year 2000. In addition, this
section would clarify that the expanded establishment of
training facilities and bases of operation shall comply with
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, regarding
unspecified minor construction.
      Section 1022--Support for Counter-Drug Operation Caper Focus
    The committee understands that although the Department of
Defense continues to serve as the single lead federal agency
for the detection and monitoring of suspected drug-trafficking
activities within the transit zone, the Department's budget in
this region has declined dramatically since 1993. This decline
is a result of presidential guidance in 1993 that directed a
gradual shift in emphasis from the transit zone to the source
zone counter-drug activities. While the Administration's
strategic focus moved to South America, illegal drugs continued
to flow through the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea to
U.S. markets. In fact, according to the Department of State's
1997 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, about 760
metric tons were produced in South America in 1996 and about
608 metric tons of cocaine moved through the transit zone into
the United States. Of this amount, approximately 234 metric
tons flowed through the Eastern Pacific.
    The committee is disturbed by the recent testimony of
General Charles E. Wilhelm, Commander-in-Chief, United States
Southern Command (CINCSOUTH), regarding the Department's
inability ``to mount effective detection, monitoring and
tracking operations in the Eastern Pacific, a pipeline which
feeds Mexico and ultimately the U.S.'' As a result of competing
demands for maritime patrol aircraft, the Secretary of Defense
postponed the final phase of Operation Caper Focus, a promising
operation targeting multiton cargo vessels in the eastern
Pacific. During the initial phases of Operation Caper Focus,
Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-E) assets interdicted
27 metric tons of cocaine and gained valuable intelligence on
regional trafficking methods. Despite these preliminary
results, the Secretary of Defense has not made available the
additional air or maritime assets necessary to execute the
operation, nor has the Director of JIATF-E transferred assets
from the Caribbean because the ``movement of assets may have
undesirable political consequences,'' according to an October
1997 study by the General Accounting Office entitled ``Update
on U.S. Interdiction Efforts in the Caribbean and Eastern
Pacific'' (GAO/NSIAD-98-30).
    The committee is convinced of the need to take advantage of
this opportunity to seize large amounts of cocaine through the
execution of Operation Caper Focus. The committee further
understands that JIATF-E has requested a total of four surface
ships and 650 aircraft surveillance flight hours per month to
support an 18-month Eastern Pacific operation. Therefore, the
committee includes a provision (sec. 1022) that would direct
that the Secretary of Defense reevaluate the Department's
priorities and make available the requisite number of maritime
patrol aircraft and surface assets and crews currently
available within the existing DOD infrastructure for the
purposes of executing Operation Caper Focus.
    In addition, the provision would authorize $24.4 million to
support this operation. The committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to seek the views of the CINCSOUTH in identifying the
capabilities needed to determine how these funds should be
applied. Finally, the committee directs that the Secretary of
Defense provide the Congressional defense committees a report
outlining the recommendations of CINCSOUTH and an
implementation plan detailing DOD's expanded operational
support to Operation Caper Focus no later than September 30,
1998.
       Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals
   Section 1031-Annual Report on Resources Allocated to Support and
                           Mission Activities
    The committee is increasingly concerned over the growing
gap between the level of resources within the Department of
Defense (DOD) dedicated to support versus mission activities.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that the
Department of Defense will spend nearly 60 percent of its
budget on mission support programs from fiscal year 1997
through 2001. Furthermore, GAO calculates that 45 percent of
all active duty military personnel are currently assigned to
support programs. A 1996 Defense Science Board report concurs
with GAO's findings and adds that only 20 percent of all active
duty military personnel serve in combat related positions.
    During a period of steadily declining defense budgets and
growing readiness, quality of life, and modernization
shortfalls, the committee is alarmed by these trends and
believes increased understanding and clarification of the issue
is imperative. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1031) that would require the Secretary of
Defense to provide in his annual report to the Congress a
detailed description of the personnel and budgetary resources
dedicated to support activities as compared to mission related
activities.
                       Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 1041--Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority, Armed Forces
                 Retirement Home, District of Columbia
    This section would clarify subsection (a) of section 1053
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public law 104-201), to state clearly that the original
purpose of this disposal provision was to authorize only the
sale of a specific parcel of land at the Armed Forces
Retirement Home, Washington, DC. The committee understands that
the Armed Forces Retirement Homes Board of Directors may be
considering a development strategy for the property. The
intention of the original provision was for the outright sale,
at fair market value, of this property with the receipts of the
sale to be deposited in the Armed Forces Retirement Homes Trust
Fund. The committee believes that if the Armed Forces
Retirement Homes Board of Directors wishes to propose a
development plan for any portion of either the Soldiers' and
Airmen's Retirement Home or the Naval Retirement Home, the
board should provide a proposal to Congress for review.
  Section 1042--Content of Notice Required to be Provided Garnishees
                 Before Garnishment of Pay or Benefits
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
notify service members and DOD civilian employees, in cases
where the secretary has been directed by court order to
withhold pay from a service member or DOD civilian employee in
order to enforce child support or alimony payments, that their
pay will be withheld by including a description of the legal
document that authorizes the garnishment of wages. Currently,
the secretary is required to forward a copy of the legal
document to the service member or civilian employee. The
secretary would continue to be required to provide written
notice of the intent to withhold pay to the affected
individual, and to inform the individual of the means to obtain
a copy of the notice, but the secretary would be relieved of
the obligation of sending a copy of the actual legal notice
directing the garnishment. This requirement has served little
purpose since the individual had already been through a full
judicial process to have the obligation decreed.
   Section 1043--Training of Special Operations Forces with Friendly
                             Foreign Forces
    This section would amend section 2011 of title 10, United
States Code, which authorizes the Commander of the Special
Operations Command (SOCOM) to pay for the costs to conduct
training activities with the forces of other nations. The
amendments would improve the level of reporting associated with
the use of this authority and require that any training program
that occurs under this authority receive the prior approval of
the Secretary of Defense.
           TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Authority for Release to Coast Guard of Drug Test Results
       of Civil Service Mariners of the Military Sealift Command
    This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to
release to the Coast Guard the results of a drug test of a
former employee of the Department of the Navy who was employed
as a civil service mariner. This authority would allow the
Coast Guard full disclosure of positive drug results as part of
Coast Guard mariner licensing procedures.
              Section 1102--Limitations on Back Pay Awards
    This section would clarify that any award of back pay to
Civil Service employees, resulting from a finding of an
unjustified personnel action adjudged under section 5596 of
title 5, United States Code, shall not exceed six years, unless
a shorter limitation period applies. Arbitrators and
administrators have, in some cases, applied the six year limit
found in section 2402 of title 28, United States Code, and in
section 3702 of title 31, United States Code. In other cases,
some arbitrators and administrators have applied no time limit,
since none is specified within section 5596 of title 5, United
States Code. This provision would remove the ambiguity of these
various sections by establishing a standard six year limit in
title 5, United States Code, and would ensure that the amount
of redress available to employees would be the same regardless
of the statutory avenue chosen to seek that redress.
   Section 1103--Restoration of Annual Leave Accumulated by Civilian
   Employees at Installations in the Republic of Panama to be Closed
              Pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
    This section would provide federal employees, working to
close installations in the Republic of Panama in accordance
with the Panama Canal Treaty Implementation Plan, the same
automatic restoration of excess annual leave that is provided
to employees at bases closed under current Base Realignment and
Closure procedures. The committee has learned that as the 1999
deadline for the turnover of the Canal Zone nears, there are
fewer employees available to perform the required work of
preparing bases for reversion to the Republic of Panama,
thereby reducing the opportunity for those employees to take
annual leave.
Section 1104--Repeal of Program Providing Preference for Employment of
           Military Spouses in Military Child Care Facilities
    This section would repeal section 1792d of title 10, United
States Code, which provides military spouses with an additional
hiring preference in the civil service. This job preference has
proven unnecessary given the more general military spouse
preferences provided by section 1784 of title 10, United States
Code. Additionally, the provision had the unintended effect of
incentivizing applicants to use the child care preference as a
stepping stone to other civil service positions, after
undergoing extensive child care training but working minimal
time in child care.
 Section 1105--Elimination of Retained Pay as a Basis for Determining
                       Locality Based Adjustments
    This section would eliminate windfall pay adjustments that
have been made to some federal employees. In cases where
special pay rates are no longer required to retain employees,
sections 5302(8)(B) and 5363(a)(2) of title 5, United States
Code, requires that pay adjustments continue to be made against
those unnecessary higher rates, resulting in pay that is more
generous than is needed to compensate and retain those
employees. This provision would require that future pay
adjustments be measured against the pay rate necessary to
retain the employees, and eliminate the windfall.
Section 1106--Observance of Certain Holidays at Duty Posts Outside the
                             United States
    This section would allow Civil Service employees, working
in foreign areas where the regular work week is other than
Monday through Friday, to observe federal holidays in
conjunction with a weekend. Since the enactment of section 6103
of title 5, United States Code, which established five public
holidays that are to be observed on a Monday, federal employees
working in foreign countries where the work week begins on
Saturday or Sunday, have lost the opportunity to observe these
holidays as part of a three day weekend.
              TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                      Arms Control Implementation
    The fiscal year 1999 budget request contained $275.2
million, representing a slight decrease from the fiscal year
1998 appropriated level of $288.8 million. The committee
recommends $237.2 million, a decrease of $38.0 million.
    The committee finds that the requested level of funding is
based in large measure on optimistic planning assumptions
regarding a number of treaties that have not yet entered into
force, including START II, the Open Skies Treaty, and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). For example, according to
the budget justification documents on which the START II budget
request was based, ``the current EIF assumption is first/second
quarter 1998; however, we anticipate revised planning
assumptions will be issued in the near future which will slip
the EIF date until the third quarter 1998.'' Because of START
II's delayed entry into force, the additional time allowed for
the elimination of strategic offensive arms as a result of the
March 1997 Helsinki summit agreement, and the likely relaxation
in the schedule of inspection activity, the committee
recommends a reduction of $1.5 million for START II
implementation activities.
    The Department's planning assumption regarding entry into
force of the Open Skies Treaty also appears optimistic.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million
for Open Skies Treaty implementation activities.
    In addition, the Department is still planning for entry
into force of the CTBT sometime in fiscal year 1999. This
assumption appears unrealistic. Forty four specific states--
including the United States--are required to ratify the treaty
before it can enter into force. Only six of these states have
ratified it so far. Three required ratifiers--India, Pakistan,
and North Korea--have so far refused even to sign the treaty
and are unlikely to do so anytime soon. For this reason, the
committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million in the
operations and maintenance request to support CTBT activities.
    The budget request also contained $35.2 million for
research, development, testing and evaluation activities to be
conducted in support of CTBT requirements. However, a portion
of this activity does not appear to be strictly ``research and
development'' (R&D) type activity and may duplicate the
activities of the U.S. Geological Survey. For these reasons,
the committee recommends a reduction of $25.0 million for CTBT
R&D activities and directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the committee no later than September 30, 1998 that
provides a detailed explanation of CTBT-related projects using
R&D funds.
    With respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the
committee disapproves of the Department's plan to reimburse the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for costs
associated with CWC inspections of DOD facilities. Therefore,
the committee recommends a reduction of $9.0 million for CWC
activities.
    Finally, as many of the responsibilities for arms control
treaty implementation transfer from existing agencies to the
new Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the committee expects
additional savings beyond the projected five percent
consolidation savings and recommends an additional $0.5 million
reduction in the general and administrative support function
for the new agency.
 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States
    Subtitle B of Title XIII of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201), as
amended by section 1306 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), established a
Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United
States and notes that the commission's work is proceeding in
accordance with its legislative mandate. The committee
anticipates receiving the commission's report, as called for in
section 1323 of Public Law 104-201, this summer.
    The committee regrets the delay in constituting the
commission according to the original legislation, necessitating
an amendment last year to the original fiscal year 1997
enabling legislation. The delay has also made it difficult for
the results of the commission's work to be considered in this
year's legislative cycle. The committee believes in the value
of competitive intelligence assessments and anticipates that
the commission's work will play a valuable role in the debate
next year over ballistic missile defense policy. The recent
release of a classified intelligence assessment, ``Annual
Report to Congress on Foreign Missile Developments,'' prepared
by the National Intelligence Council in response to a request
from members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is
also likely to contribute to this debate. Consequently, the
committee encourages the Director of Central Intelligence to
extend the security clearances of commission members and key
staff until the end of 1999 so that they may continue to have
access to up to date information in the event the Congress
wishes to call on them to provide updated assessments of the
conclusions reached in their report.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
 Section 1201--Limitation on Funds for Peacekeeping in the Republic of
                         Bosnia and Hercegovina
    This section would limit the Secretary of Defense from
expending funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1999 in excess of $1,858.6 million for the purpose
of providing for United States participation in Bosnia
peacekeeping operations. The section also contains a provision
for an emergency exception of not more than $100.0 million for
the purpose of safeguarding United States forces in the event
of hostilities, and requires the Secretary of Defense to submit
a report to Congress by April 1, 1999 projecting any additional
funds required for Bosnia operations in fiscal year 1999.
  Section 1202--Reports on the Mission of United States Forces in the
                   Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina
    This section would require the President to prepare a
report on progress in tasks related to implementation of
civilian tasks associated with the Dayton Accords. The
committee believes that President Clinton's decision to extend
the participation of U.S. military forces in the NATO mission
in Bosnia has changed the character of their mission. In
particular, the duration of the NATO mission will be measured
by the achievement of an ``end-state''--reconstructing Bosnian
society and political life along the guidelines established in
Dayton--rather than as previously by an ``end-date.''
    The duration of the associated deployment of U.S. ground
combat forces in Bosnia will be determined by the pace of
progress in implementing these civilian tasks, which are well
defined and understood. The report required by this section is
based upon those measures identified by the Administration as
appropriate for judging progress.
    In addition, the committee believes this change of mission
will have a variety of effects upon U.S. military forces in
Bosnia, in Europe, and around the world. Thus, this section
also would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report
on the effects of U.S. military operations in Bosnia and the
Balkans on the ability of U.S. military forces to execute the
missions called for in the National Military Strategy and, in
particular, the ability to conduct successfully two nearly
simultaneous major theater wars.
    The committee recognizes that security and stability in
Europe constitute a vital national security interest of the
United States. Yet the ability to successfully conduct two
major theater wars in Southwest Asia and on the Korean
peninsula remains the heart of U.S. national military strategy.
The new Bosnia mission will have a substantial impact on U.S.
forces in Europe and the entire U.S. Army, as the recent
decision to deploy the 1st Cavalry Division to Bosnia makes
clear. The combined effects of an open-ended mission and the
repeat deployments, often of understrength units, will limit
the number of Army units available to participate in a major
theater war.
    The committee believes that this report is essential to
measuring the true risk--measured not in dollars but in terms
of reduced ability to respond to other crises including major
theater wars--of repeated contingency operations in Bosnia and
the Balkans. Without such an accounting, the complete costs of
the Bosnia mission to U.S. national security strategy and
interests will be elusive.
   Section 1203--Report on Military Capabilities of an Expanded NATO
                                Alliance
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prepare a report on the planned future military capabilities of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The committee
has found that past U.S. and NATO reports on the costs of
alliance expansion to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic have been confusing and contradictory. More
significantly, the focus of these reports on cost, though
important, is misdirected in that these reports have not
adequately addressed the more fundamental issue of future
alliance military capability and requirements.
    The expansion of NATO raises a host of basic questions of
concern to the committee, such as: What are alliance plans for
defending the territory of the new, candidate member states,
particularly Hungary, which is not contiguous to the current
alliance? What abilities do the national militaries of Poland,
the Czech Republic, and Hungary possess for their own
territorial defense? What abilities do current alliance members
have to project forces forward to defend new members? Can they
sustain these forces? What additional burdens will the United
States be required to shoulder? What are the plans of current
and candidate members for addressing these shortfalls? Detailed
committee inquiries on these and related questions, including a
letter sent by the chairman and former ranking member to the
President, have failed to provide satisfactory answers.
    The committee supports the concept of NATO expansion,
believing that it will help preserve the current general peace
in Europe and advance U.S. national security interests in the
region and around the world. However, the committee is equally
concerned that the decision to expand the alliance has been
made without adequate discussion and debate about the
additional military responsibilities imposed by expansion or an
understanding of how alliance members will address these new
responsibilities separately and collectively.
 Section 1204--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities
        for Support of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq
    This section would extend the authority through fiscal year
1999 for the Department of Defense to provide support to the UN
Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) under the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Control Act of 1992.
    The committee supports the extension of this authority
given Iraq's continued efforts to preserve a weapons of mass
destruction capability and its interference with the work of
the Special Commission. The committee notes that the work of
UNSCOM has been made more difficult as a result of the
disruption in the weapons inspection process resulting from
Iraq's expulsion of U.S. inspectors last year and the temporary
suspension of the UN weapons monitoring program. This action by
Iraq was a flagrant violation of its obligations under UN
Security Council resolutions. While the agreement reached in
February 1998 between Iraq and the UN Secretary General to
allow inspections to resume under a modified inspection regime
forestalled military action, the committee is concerned that
the conditions attached to the agreement regarding the
inspection of so-called presidential sites represent a retreat
from previous UN Security Council resolutions calling for
``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and
all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of
transportation'' and may undermine the ultimate viability of
the UNSCOM inspection regime.
    Although supportive of an extension of this authority in
light of recent events, the committee reiterates its view that
the costs of providing specialized support to UNSCOM should not
be permanently borne by the Department of Defense. The
committee notes that much of the cost of UNSCOM activities is
funded from a portion of the revenues generated by Iraqi oil
sales. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1153, adopted on
February 20, 1998, the quantity of oil that Iraq is allowed to
sell was more than doubled. Because existing oil revenues are
sufficient to fund UNSCOM's annual operating budget, no
additional revenues from increased oil sales are expected to
flow to UNSCOM. However, the committee reiterates its belief
that the Department should seek reimbursement for expenses
incurred in providing support to UNSCOM, and encourages the
Department to seek an agreement with the United Nations that
would reimburse the Department for the specialized services it
provides to UNSCOM through a portion of the increased revenues
generated by additional Iraqi oil sales. The committee notes
that the Department of Defense and the Department of State have
discussed the possibility of seeking an agreement with the
United Nations that would allow U.S. government support to be
provided on a reimbursable basis, along the lines provided for
by section 607 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The
committee supports this effort and directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide it with a report no later than September 30,
1998 detailing the efforts being pursued by the Department to
seek reimbursement, the specific support activities for which
reimbursement would be sought, and the results of any
discussions with United Nations officials on this issue.
              Section 1205--Repeal of Landmine Moratorium
    This section would repeal the one-year moratorium on the
use by U.S. armed forces of antipersonnel landmines mandated by
section 580 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-107).
 TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET
                                 UNION
                                OVERVIEW
    The budget request contained $442.4 million for cooperative
threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing an increase of
$60.2 million over the amounts appropriated for fiscal year
1998. The request included $9.4 million for warhead
dismantlement processing in Russia, $10.3 million for weapons
transportation security in Russia, and $2.0 million for
biological weapons proliferation prevention in Russia. Funding
for these programs was not included in last year's CTR budget
request.
    The request also included $287.7 million for destruction
and dismantlement, $112.9 million for fissile materials and
nuclear weapons safety and storage, $29.8 million for reactor
core conversion in Russia, and $12.0 million for other program
support, including defense and military contacts.
    The committee recommends a total of $417.4 million for CTR
activities in fiscal year 1999, a reduction of $25.0 million
from the budget request and an increase of $35.2 million over
the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends the request of $142.4 million for strategic
offensive arms elimination activities in Russia; $47.5 million
for strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine; $60.9
million for a fissile material storage facility in Russia; $9.4
million for warhead dismantlement processing in Russia; $10.3
million for weapons transportation security in Russia; $41
million for weapons storage security in Russia; $29.8 million
for reactor core conversion in Russia; and $2.0 million for
biological weapons proliferation prevention. In addition, the
committee recommends an additional $31.4 million for strategic
arms elimination activities in Russia and Ukraine. The
committee recommends the following reductions to the budget
request: $53.4 million for chemical weapons destruction; $2.0
million for defense and military contacts; and $1.0 million for
other program support. The discussion below provides the
rationale for these reductions and raises other matters of
interest and concern to the committee.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                  Arms Elimination Projects in Russia
    The budget request contained $142.4 million for strategic
offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, almost double
the fiscal year 1998 appropriated amount of $77.9 million.
    The committee again emphasizes its support for the
accelerated dismantlement and destruction of strategic
offensive weapons in Russia under the terms of the START I
Treaty. However, the committee is concerned over Russia's
willingness, in the absence of U.S. funding, to eliminate
certain strategic systems in accordance with its START I Treaty
obligations. The committee believes that the United States
should not have to buy Russian compliance with its arms control
commitments.
    The committee also supports efforts to reduce Russian
strategic offensive arms in accordance with START II
limitations, even though Russia has still not ratified the
treaty. The committee understands that the increased budget
request for strategic offensive arms elimination reflects a
greater level of activity in this area and approves the
requested amount. However, the committee remains concerned with
Russia's delay in ratifying START II while it continues to
invest scarce resources in the modernization of its land- based
and sea-based strategic missile force despite its purported
inability to contribute financially to the strategic arms
elimination effort. Moreover, the committee notes that the
certification required by section 1404 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) with
respect to START II Treaty-related elimination activities in
Russia has not yet been received by the Congress. For these
reasons, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1307) that
would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year
1999 funds for START II-related elimination activities until
the requirements of section 1404 of Public Law 105-85 have been
met. Because the committee believes that strategic arms
eliminations should take priority over chemical weapons
elimination activities, the committee also recommends that
additional funds be directed toward strategic arms elimination
activities in Russia in lieu of increases for chemical weapons
destruction purposes. Specifically, the committee recommends
that $31.4 million be allocated for additional strategic arms
elimination activities in Russia and Ukraine, and recommends a
provision (sec. 1310) that would prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of these funds until 30 days after the Secretary of
Defense has notified the congressional defense committees of
the Department's plan for using these funds.
                  Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine
    The budget request contained $47.5 million for strategic
nuclear arms elimination projects in Ukraine, a reduction of
$29.2 million from the fiscal year 1998 appropriated level. The
committee supports this effort and approves the requested
amount for strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine. As
noted above, the committee recommends that additional funds be
directed toward strategic arms elimination activities in
Ukraine in lieu of increases for chemical weapons destruction
purposes, and recommends a provision (sec. 1310) that would
prohibit the obligation or expenditure of these funds until 30
days after the Secretary of Defense has notified the
congressional defense committees of the Department's plan for
using these funds.
         Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia
    The budget request contained $2.0 million to initiate a new
project that would fund collaborative research work with
scientists currently employed at Russian institutes where
biological weapons work has been carried out. This effort
appears to be similar to the Department of State-funded
scientific exchange program carried out under the auspices of
the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), and
would channel DOD funds through the ISTC for this purpose.
    The committee recognizes the serious threat posed by the
proliferation of biological weapons and the unique difficulties
of countering that threat, given the extensive nature of the
former Soviet Union's biological weapons activities. However,
the committee questions whether this new project will achieve
the desired objective and is skeptical that non-weapons-related
work on biological toxins can be divorced from potential
weapons applications.
    The committee notes that the Russian biological weapons
program remains shrouded in secrecy, despite the fact that
Russian President Yeltsin officially canceled the program in
1992 (former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev also officially
canceled it in 1990). In addition, Russia has reportedly
refused repeated requests to allow international inspection of
its biological weapons facilities and has rejected U.S.
proposals to expand the coverage of a trilateral confidence-
building agreement it signed with the United States and the
United Kingdom in 1992 to include military sites. While an
October 1997 National Academy of Sciences report asserts that
``by increasing linkages between the civilian and military
sectors, transparency will increase * * *'' it also notes that
the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) has been unwilling to
participate in these collaborative efforts. The committee
believes that no level of cooperative research will produce the
desired level of transparency in Russia's biological weapons
program as long as the Russian MOD continues its work in
secrecy.
    The committee is also troubled to learn that Russian
scientists working at the State Research Center for Applied
Microbiology in Obolensk, one of the facilities at which pilot
collaborative research projects have taken place and additional
projects are planned with this funding, have developed a
genetically-engineered strain of anthrax that is reportedly
resistant to the anti-anthrax vaccine being administered to
U.S. military personnel. The Russians have reportedly refused
U.S. requests to inspect this anthrax strain.
    The committee believes that far greater transparency on
Russia's part is essential. Without greater U.S. visibility
into the kinds of activities Russian biological weapons
scientists are pursuing and the relationship of these
activities to actual weapons development, collaborative efforts
to channel Russian scientific activity into more peaceful
pursuits may produce the opposite result from that intended.
The committee notes the statement earlier this year of Ken
Alibek, the former First Deputy Director of the Soviet Union's
main biological weapons directorate: ``Unfortunately, until
Russia opens its military biological weapons sites. to full-
scale inspections, as the United States did many years ago,
such cooperation is not only senseless, but also dangerous.''
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
1309) that would prohibit the obligation of expenditure of
fiscal year 1999 CTR funds on this project until 15 days after
the Secretary of Defense has certified to Congress that CTR
funds have not been used to support activities that have
resulted in the development by Russia of new strains of anthrax
and has notified the congressional defense committees that the
United States has inspected and tested the new anthrax strain
developed at the aforementioned Obolensk institute. In
addition, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1308) that
would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to
Congress by no later than December 31, 1998 detailing Russia's
activity in the biological weapons area, outlining the security
benefits expected to accrue to the United States through
collaborative biological programs with Russia, and detailing
the effect previous pilot projects have had in increasing
transparency in Russia's biological weapons program.
                 Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia
    The budget request contained $88.4 million for chemical
weapon destruction activities in Russia, including funding for
construction activities and procurement of equipment for a
chemical weapons destruction facility to be built near
Shchuch'ye, Russia. This represents a nearly 150 percent
increase over the fiscal year 1998 appropriated level for this
particular project.
    The committee has a number of continuing concerns about
this project. Unlike strategic nuclear weapons and long-range
ballistic missiles, which pose a direct threat to U.S.
security, the Russian chemical weapons stockpile poses more of
a local environmental threat than it does a security threat to
Americans.
    According to the Department, the ultimate cost of this
project may be as much as $800.0 million. Moreover, the
committee is concerned with Russia's ability to absorb its
share of the costs associated with chemical weapons
destruction, a situation which the Department acknowledges
``remains problematic.'' The costs of destroying Russia's
40,000 tons of declared chemical weapons agents has been
estimated at between roughly $5.0 billion and $10.0 billion.
Although Russia budgeted a modest amount--approximately $24.0
million--for this activity in fiscal year 1997, only about one-
third of these funds were actually made available. For fiscal
year 1998, Russia has budgeted approximately $85.0 million for
chemical weapons destruction activities. However, it is again
unlikely that all of these resources will be made available to
support work on this project, as the focus of Russia's chemical
weapons destruction efforts involves activities at other
chemical weapons sites. In the words of one CTR official,
``Shchuch'ye is not their top priority.''
    While the committee believes that initial CTR expenditures
on this project indirectly contributed to U.S. security by
funding research and development of the two-stage
neutralization process for demilitarizing chemical agents, the
development of that neutralization technology was essentially
completed last year. The project is now transitioning to the
construction of the Shchuch'ye facility, which raises the
broader concerns discussed above. Despite the fact that a final
site for construction has yet to be chosen, more than one-half
of the CTR budget request for chemical weapons destruction for
fiscal year 1999 is to fund preliminary construction work at
Shchuch'ye.
    The committee notes that sections 1405 and 1406 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85) required that notifications and certifications be
sent to Congress regarding Russia's political and financial
commitment to chemical weapons destruction prior to the
obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 1998 funds on this
project. These notifications and certifications have not yet
been received and no fiscal year 1998 funds have yet been
obligated. Consequently, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 1307) that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of fiscal year 1999 funds for chemical weapons destruction
purposes until the requirements of sections 1405 and 1406 of
Public Law 105-85 are met. In addition, because of the concerns
expressed above, the committee denies the request for
$53.4million in construction funds for this project and recommends a
provision (sec. 1304) that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of any fiscal year 1999 or prior year CTR funds for construction of a
chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia. As previously noted,
the committee believes that additional CTR funds can more productively
be used for strategic arms elimination projects in Russia and Ukraine
rather than for chemical weapons destruction purposes.
                   Fissile Material Storage Facility
    The budget request contained $60.9 million for equipment
and construction of a fissile material storage facility in
Russia to house materials from dismantled strategic nuclear
weapons. This is a modest increase from the $57.7 million
appropriated for fiscal year 1998. The committee reiterates its
support for efforts to ensure the safe and secure storage of
fissile materials in Russia and approves the requested amount
for this project.
    Nevertheless, the committee continues to be concerned over
the total cost of the facility and the U.S. share, which the
Department has indicated will be capped at $275.0 million. The
committee also remains concerned over the lack of a
transparency agreement with Russia that would ensure the
facility is in fact being used for its intended purpose and
that materials stored there are not capable of being used in
the construction of additional weapons. Section 1407 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85) requires the Secretary of Defense to notify
Congress that cost-sharing and transparency agreements have
been reached prior to the obligation or expenditure of fiscal
year 1998 funds. That certification has not yet been received
and no fiscal year 1998 funds have been obligated.
Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1307)
that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal
year 1999 funds for this purpose until 15 days after the
notification required by section 1407 of Public Law 105-85 has
been received.
    The committee is also concerned by recent Russian press
reports indicating that the State Committee on the Environment
ordered a halt to construction of the fissile material storage
facility on March 27, 1998 on the grounds that the necessary
environmental impact study was not conducted. A halt in
construction would likely impact the funding and schedule for
completion of the project and raise questions about the
Department's ability to execute its plans with the requested
level of funding. The Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy has
reportedly asserted that this situation developed as a
consequence of the lack of Russian government funding for the
project. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than December 31, 1998 on how this issue
is being addressed by U.S. and Russian authorities and what
impact it will have on project completion and cost.
                    Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion
    The budget request included $29.8 million for nuclear
reactor core conversion projects in Russia to support the goal
of eliminating Russian plutonium production by 2000. This is a
reduction from the $41.0 million appropriated for fiscal year
1998 and, according to the Department, represents the last
fiscal year they intend to request CTR funds for this project.
    The committee supports this objective, but continues to
believe that this activity is more appropriately the
responsibility of the Department of Energy, which initially
began this project and is primarily responsible for its
execution. The committee approves the requested amount for this
project.
           Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia
    The budget request contained $9.4 million to initiate a
project that would assist Russia in processing the fissile
components of dismantled nuclear warheads for long-term
storage. The committee understands that this project was
considered as a result of Russia's July 1997 request for U.S.
assistance. The committee supports this effort, which is
consistent with the core objectives of the CTR program, and
approves the requested amount for this purpose.
               Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia
    The budget request included $41.7 million for nuclear
weapons storage security activities in Russia, a $5.7 million
increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1998.
    The committee reiterates its support for efforts to ensure
the safe and secure storage of fissile materials. The committee
also notes the establishment in February 1998 of a Security
Assessment and Training Center in Sergiev Possad that,
according to the Department of Defense, is intended to serve as
a testing and evaluation facility for ``advanced security
protection technologies and procedures.''
    Last year, the committee noted its concern over Russia's
unwillingness to allow the United States access to certain
weapons storage sites, raising questions regarding the use of
CTR-provided equipment. Consequently, section 1408 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to
Congress a report ``on the status of negotiations between the
United States and Russia on audits and examinations with
respect to weapons storage security'' prior to the obligation
or expenditure of fiscal year 1998 funds. Although the
committee has been informed that audit and examination issues
have been resolved, the report required by section 1408 of
Public Law 105-85 has not been received and no fiscal year 1998
funds have yet been obligated. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1307) that would prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 1999 funds for weapons
storage security purposes in Russia until the reporting
requirements noted above have been met.
                Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security
    The budget request contained $10.3 million for nuclear
weapons transportation security in Russia. No funds were
requested for this activity for fiscal year 1998. The bulk of
the requested fiscal year 1999 funds would be used to pay the
costs of railtransportation of nuclear weapons from operational
deployment sites to storage facilities, a cost that has, to date, been
borne by the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD). However, the Russian
MOD has informed the United States that it can no longer afford to pay
these transportation costs. Consequently, the Department of Defense is
proposing to fund this effort.
    The committee supports continuing with the nuclear weapons
elimination process and the transportation of nuclear weapons
safely and securely as part of that process. Consequently, the
committee approves the requested amount for this purpose.
However, the committee emphasizes that its support for this
funding for fiscal year 1999 should not be interpreted by
Russia as an open-ended willingness on the part of the United
States to pay any and all future expenses associated with
weapons elimination for which the Russians decide they will no
longer pay. In addition, the committee encourages the
Department to work with Russia toward a prompt resolution of
this issue in a manner that will alleviate the need for future
U.S. funding for this purpose.
                         Other Support Programs
    The budget request contained $2.0 million for defense and
military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union,
an amount that is significantly less than previous requests as
a result of a backlog of unobligated prior-year balances. The
committee does not support the Department's request for an
additional $2.0 million for fiscal year 1999 when more than
$25.0 million in unobligated prior year funds remain available
for this purpose. Consequently, the committee denies this
request.
                            Program Overhead
    The budget request contained $8.0 million for management
and administrative costs, project development, and audits and
examinations, a reduction from the $20.5 million appropriated
for fiscal year 1998. As the Department has noted, this
reduction is made possible as a result of funds appropriated in
prior years in excess of requirements. Indeed, a significant
portion of prior-year appropriated funds were used from this
account last year to help fund the purchase of MiG aircraft
from Moldova.
    While the committee welcomes the Department's admission
that prior-year requests exceeded requirements, the committee
also believes that additional efficiencies and savings are
possible in this account as a result of the consolidation of
much of the CTR program within the proposed Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA), scheduled to stand up on October 1,
1998. As the consolidated DTRA budget request for fiscal year
1999 does not reflect all of the management savings that the
Department acknowledges are likely to be achieved as a result
of the consolidation of various agencies into the DTRA, the
committee recommends a reduction in the budget request of $1.0
million for this purpose. The committee intends that this
reduction not impact the number, frequency, or thoroughness of
audits conducted.
                  Prohibition of Specified Activities
    The committee reiterates its belief that funding for CTR
activities should be directed toward facilitating the safe
transportation, storage, and elimination of weapons of mass
destruction, their delivery vehicles, and components, and for
programs and activities to prevent proliferation. The committee
has an established record of not supporting CTR funding for
activities outside these basic purposes.
    In this regard, the committee is troubled by the
Department's often broad interpretation of what constitutes a
duly authorized nonproliferation program eligible for CTR
funding. Specifically, the committee notes the Department's use
of CTR funds last year to purchase from Moldova MiG-29 aircraft
sought by Iran. The Department contends that it has the legal
authority under CTR legislation to fund ``preemptive
acquisition'' programs involving any former Soviet weapons,
including conventional arms, although it acknowledges that ``as
a matter of policy--and consistent with congressional
preference--CTR programs have addressed exclusively nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, and
related delivery vehicles, materials and expertise.'' The
committee does not challenge the wisdom or desirability of
acquiring from foreign suppliers sophisticated conventional
weaponry or delivery systems as a means of preventing their
proliferation. However, since, for example, all tactical
aircraft have an inherent capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, the committee does not understand where the
Department draws the line in cases of using CTR funds for the
``preemptive acquisition'' of items for nonproliferation
purposes. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to work with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Energy, and other appropriate U.S. government officials
involved in nonproliferation policy to identify appropriate
options for addressing and funding such non-proliferation
initiatives in the future.
    For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 1303) that would maintain a prohibition on the use of CTR
funds for peacekeeping-related activities, housing,
environmental restoration, job retraining, and defense
conversion. The committee also recommends a provision (sec.
1305) that would clarify the definition of CTR programs.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
 Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
                               and Funds
    This section would specify the kinds of programs to be
funded under this title.
                   Section 1302--Funding Allocations
    This section would allocate fiscal year 1999 funding for
various CTR purposes and activities.
    Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified Purposes
    This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for
specified activities, including peacekeeping-related, housing,
environmental restoration, job retraining, and defense
conversion purposes.
     Section 1304--Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons
                          Destruction Facility
    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of fiscal year 1999 or prior year funds for the construction of
a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia.
 Section 1305--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for a Specified Period
    This section would amend title 10, United States Code to
limit the use of all appropriated funds for CTR purposes to a
period of three years. It would also clarify the definition of
CTR programs.
 Section 1306--Requirement to Submit Breakdown of Amounts Requested by
                            Project Category
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit, within 30 days of the President's annual budget
submission, a detailed breakdown of requested funding by CTR
project category and a comparison of that request with the
previous fiscal year's allocations.
  Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Completion of Fiscal
                         Year 1998 Requirements
    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds for various CTR projects until the requirements
established by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) are met.
     Section 1308--Report on Biological Weapons Programs in Russia
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees not later than
December 31, 1998 a detailed report on Russia's biological
weapons program, Russia's compliance with international
agreements relating to the control of biological weapons, and
the political and military utility of collaborative U.S.-Russia
biological research programs.
    Section 1309--Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological Weapons
             Proliferation Prevention Activities in Russia
    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds on biological weapons proliferation prevention
programs in Russia until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense
certifies that CTR funds have not been used for illegitimate
purposes and notifies the congressional defense committees that
the United States has inspected the new strain of anthrax
developed in Russia.
  Section 1310--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds for Strategic Arms
                    Elimination in Russia or Ukraine
    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of certain funds for strategic arms elimination purposes in
Russia and Ukraine until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense
submits to the congressional defense committees notification on
how these funds are to be used.
                  Section 1311--Availability of Funds
    This section would make fiscal year 1999 CTR funds
available for obligation for three years.
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
                                PURPOSE
    The purpose of Division B is to provide military
construction authorizations and related authority in support of
the military departments during fiscal year 1999. As approved
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in
the amount of $8,228,074,000 for construction in support of the
active forces, reserve components, defense agencies for fiscal
year 1999.
                     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
    The military construction authorization request for fiscal
year 1999 was introduced by request as H.R. 3695 on April 21,
1998.
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $4,300,744,000 for fiscal year 1999 for
military construction, including $1,730,704,000 for activities
associated with base closure and realignment, and
$3,477,330,000 for family housing construction and support. The
committee recommends $4,721,521,000 for military construction,
including $1,730,704,000 for activities associated with base
closure and realignment, and $3,506,553,000 for family housing
construction and support for fiscal year 1999.
    The committee restates its serious concern about the
condition of the Nation's military installations and facilities
and continues to be troubled by the continuing and persistent
underinvestment by the Administration in military facilities
and infrastructure. The budget request for the military
construction and military family housing programs of the
Department of Defense (DOD) represents a 15 percent reduction
from current spending levels, a seven percent reduction from
the budget submission for fiscal year 1998, and a four percent
reduction from the budget estimates for the coming fiscal year
presented to Congress one year ago. If enacted, the
Administration's program would represent a 30 percent reduction
in funding for basic construction requirements and facilities
upgrades than the program authorized by Congress for fiscal
year 1996. The committee notes that the service chiefs have
identified a shortfall over of $7.6 billion in military
construction and military family housing funding within the
current Future Years Defense Program.
     The effects of sustained and structural inattention by DOD
and the military departments to basic infrastructure are
apparent on nearly every military installation. The committee
has noted on prior occasions the findings of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life which reported that
62 percent of barracks and dormitories are unsuitable and 64
percent of military family housing units are in a similar
condition. Likewise, the committee has noted on prior occasions
the effects of underfunding for military construction on
facilities which support the training and readiness of the
active and reserve components. While the committee notes the
progress of the military departments in addressing a select
group of facilities problems, such as the implementation of an
improved standard for permanent party troop housing
construction and the modernization of infrastructure to support
strategic mobility, the committee regrets the lack of
comprehensive, long-term, and sustainable facilities
modernization planning by DOD and the military departments.
    In an effort to improve the quality of life for military
personnel and their families, the committee reiterates its
support for the authorities provided in subchapter IV, chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code. The Military Housing
Privatization Initiative remains a central component of the
ultimate resolution of the military housing crisis. The
committee, however, reiterates its view that the Initiative
should not be viewed by the military departments as a
substitute for military family housing construction projects
where those projects are necessary to alleviate immediate
housing problems or in those locations where the privatization
initiative is not economically or otherwise feasible. The
committee urges the Department to ensure that the military
departments provide a sustained level of investment in military
family housing construction that will permit the resolution of
the military housing crisis within the next decade. The
committee further urges the Department to ensure the timely
execution of military family housing construction projects
authorized by Congress in prior years.
    To alleviate some of the facilities shortfall, the
committee recommends an increase in new budget authority for
these programs of $450,000,000.
    A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in
Division B for fiscal year 1999 follows:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    A tabular summary of the military construction projects
included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal
year 1999 for the BRAC III and BRAC IV accounts follows:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                            TITLE XXI--ARMY
                                SUMMARY
     The budget request contained $790,876,000 for Army
military construction and $1,220,973,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of
$780,599,000 for military construction and $1,229,437,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1999.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                Improvements of Military Family Housing
    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Army execute the following project: $8,800,000
for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Phase II (104 units) at
Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
                                Projects
    This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 1999. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
                      Section 2102--Family Housing
    This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
1999.
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
    This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1999.
          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
    This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
1999. This section would also provide an overall limit on the
amount the Army may spend on military construction projects.
 Section 2105--Increase in Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization for Military
  Construction Project at Fort Drum, New York, and Fort Sill, Oklahoma
    This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(division B of Public Law 105-85) to provide for an increase in
the amount authorized for the construction of an aerial gunnery
range at Fort Drum, New York, and a barracks at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma.
                            TITLE XXII--NAVY
                                SUMMARY
    The budget request contained $468,150,000 for Navy military
construction and $1,196,083,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of
$570,643,000 for military construction and $1,206,083,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1999.
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Condition of Laboratory Facilities, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft
                    Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey
    The committee notes the continuing importance to the safety
and efficiency of carrier-based naval aviation of advancements
in aircraft/platform interface systems and equipment. The
committee is concerned that current engineering and testing
facilities at Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division,
Lakehurst, New Jersey, are inadequate to the requirements
imposed by advances in technology and the tolerances demanded
by contemporary equipment and is further concerned about the
serious safety deficiencies present in the current facility.
The committee understands that funding for a military
construction project to provide for needed laboratory and other
facilities upgrades is currently programmed within the Future
Years Defense Program of the Department of the Navy. The
committee supports the funding for planning and design for this
facility included in the budget request for fiscal year 1999
and further urges the Secretary of the Navy to make every
effort to include this construction requirement in the fiscal
year 2000 budget request.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
                                Projects
    This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 1999. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
                      Section 2202--Family Housing
    This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
1999.
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
    This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1999.
          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
    This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 1999. This
section would also provide an overall limit on the amount the
Navy may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2205--Authorization to Accept Road Construction Project, Marine
                Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
accept a road construction project valued at $2,000,000 from
the State of North Carolina at Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina.
                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
                                SUMMARY
    The budget request contained $454,810,000 for Air Force
military construction and $1,016,030,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of
$550,475,000 for military construction and $1,026,789,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1999.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
  Section 2301-Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
                                Projects
    This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 1999. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
                      Section 2302--Family Housing
    This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 1999.
      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
    This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1999.
        Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
    This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 1999.
This section would also provide an overall limit on the amount
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
                                SUMMARY
    The budget request contained $491,675,000 for defense
agencies military construction, $1,730,704,000 for base closure
and realignment activities, and $44,244,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of
$611,075,000 for military construction, $1,730,704,000 for base
realignment and closure activities, and $44,244,000 for family
housing.
                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
             Department of Defense Education Activity, Guam
    The committee recognizes the decision by the Secretary of
Defense to establish a system of Department of Defense
Dependents Schools (DODDS) in Guam. The committee acknowledges
the inadequate conditions of facilities currently being
utilized for educational purposes which were not designed for
that purpose. The committee supports the $13,200,000 contained
in the budget request for military construction projects to
provide facilities for the elementary and secondary education
needs of the dependents of U.S. military personnel stationed in
Guam. The committee also acknowledges questions raised by
representatives of the Government of Guam about the basis for
the decision to establish DODDS schools in Guam. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to report on the Department's
findings which led to the decision to establish DODDS schools
in Guam, the prospects and conditions for reintegration of the
educational system, and to identify any additional military
construction requirements associated with the establishment of
a DODDS system in Guam. The Secretary shall submit a report on
the Department's findings to the congressional defense
committees by December 1, 1998.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
                          Acquisition Projects
    This section contains the list of authorized defense
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 1999. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
      Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 1999 in an amount not to exceed $345,000.
               Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects.
    Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
    This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year
1998. This section would also provide an overall limit on the
amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction
projects.
 Section 2405--Increase in Fiscal Year 1995 Authorization for Military
  Construction Projects at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, and Umatilla
                           Army Depot, Oregon
    This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(division B of Public Law 103-337), as amended, to provide for
an increase in the amount authorized for military construction
projects to support chemical weapons and munitions destruction
at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, and Umatilla Army Depot,
Oregon.
 Section 2406-Increase in Fiscal Year 1990 Authorization for Military
      Construction Project at Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia
    This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990
and 1991 (division B of Public Law 100-189) to provide for an
increase in the amount authorized for the construction of a
replacement hospital at Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia.
      TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
                                SUMMARY
    The budget request contained $185,000,000 for the NATO
infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for
fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends $169,000,000.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
    Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
                                Projects
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
    This section would authorize appropriations of $169,000,000
as the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment
program.
            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
                                SUMMARY
    The budget request contained $179,529,000 for fiscal year
1999 for guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends
authorization for fiscal year 1999 of $321,739,000 to be
distributed as follows:
Army National Guard.....................................     $70,338,000
Air National Guard......................................      97,701,000
Army Reserve............................................      84,608,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      35,371,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................      33,721,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     321,739,000
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
   Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land
                          Acquisition Projects
    This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for
fiscal year 1999. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
 Section 2602--Army Reserve Construction Project, Salt Lake City, Utah
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
accept financial or in-kind contributions from the State of
Utah in connection with the construction of a reserve center
and organizational maintenance shop in Salt Lake City, Utah.
This section would also terminate the authorization for a
similar military construction project at Camp Williams, Utah,
authorized in section 2601 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public
Law 105-85).
        TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
 Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be
                            Specified by Law
    This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities,
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will
expire on October 1, 2001 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2002, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
before October 1, 2001 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1996
                                Projects
    This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1996 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1999, or the date of the enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2000, whichever is later.
 Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1995
                                Projects
    This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1995 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1999, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2000, whichever is later.
                      Section 2704--Effective Date
    This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1,
1998, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
                    TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
   Incorporation of Energy Conservation Criteria in the Planning and
                          Design of Facilities
    The committee notes a recent report conducted by the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense concerning the
inadequacies in the Department's performance measurements in
reaching targets for energy conservation in the planning and
design of new facilities. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to issue guidance to the military departments to re-
emphasize existing design requirements to perform energy
studies and life-cycle cost analyses in the development of new
facilities. The committee further directs the Secretary, in
consultation with the secretaries of the military departments,
to establish a system to validate the accuracy of design energy
targets. The committee further directs the Secretary and the
secretaries of the military departments to indicate as part of
the budget justification for specific new military construction
projects whether an energy study and a life-cycle cost analysis
was performed in support of the design of proposed new
facilities.
        Military Family Housing Referral and Set-Aside Programs
    The committee continues to be seriously concerned about the
condition and adequacy of military housing. In addition to the
military housing privatization program, the committee
encourages the military departments to accelerate the
development of referral and set-aside arrangements with local
housing interests in the private sector. The committee notes
the success of such arrangements at a number of military
installations, particularly those of the Marine Corps. The
committee believes such arrangements may work effectively on a
broader basis at little cost to the military departments. The
committee notes, however, that the military departments have
not made a serious effort to expand existing programs or to
coordinate programs jointly at locations containing a number of
military installations. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military
departments, to conduct a study on the effectiveness of
referral and set-aside arrangements in addressing military
housing shortfalls, including a detailed list of installations
where such arrangements are in use and the number of units
provided under such arrangements. The committee further directs
the Secretary to submit a report on the Department's findings,
including any recommendations, to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 1999.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
                                Changes
 Section 2801--Definition of Ancillary Supporting Facilities under the
   Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military
                                Housing
    This section would amend section 2871 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that the development of ancillary
supporting facilities in military housing projects undertaken
under the authority of subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10,
United States Code, may include the development of educational
facilities to support the needs of dependents of military
personnel. The committee encourages the military departments,
where economically feasible and without a significant effect on
the number of housing units to be provided, to incorporate
plans for the development of dependent educational facilities
into future requests for proposals for the development of
military family housing, particularly in those instances where
the development is intended to address comprehensively the
housing requirements at a military installation.
        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
   Section 2811--Restoration of Department of Defense Lands Used by
                         Another Federal Agency
    This section would amend section 2662 of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the authority for the secretary of a
military department to require, as a condition of a lease,
permit, license, or other grant of access to lands under the
control of the secretary to another federal agency, the removal
of any improvements or the taking of any corrective action
necessary to restore the land used by another federal agency to
the condition the land was in prior to such use.
Section 2812--Outdoor Recreation Development on Military Installations
for Disabled Veterans, Military Dependents with Disabilities, and Other
                       Persons with Disabilities
    This section would amend section 103 of the Sikes Act to
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that opportunities
for outdoor recreation on military installations would be
equally available, without substantial modification of the
natural environment, to disabled veterans, military dependents
with disabilities, and other persons with disabilities.
   Section 2813--Report on Use of Utility System Conveyance Authority
    This section would require the secretary of each military
department to submit to Congress not later than March 1, 1999,
a report describing the criteria to be used by the secretary in
the selection of utility systems and related real property for
conveyance pursuant to the authority provided by section 2688
of title 10, United States Code, a description of the manner in
which the secretary will ensure that any such conveyance would
not adversely affect the national security of the United
States, and a list of utility systems which are likely to be
conveyed.
            Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
   Section 2821--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed under the
 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
    of 1980 in Connection with McClellan Air Force Base, California
    This section would authorize payments from the base closure
and realignment accounts for stipulated penalties assessed
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) in connection with the
closure of McClellan Air Force Base, California. The committee
wishes to make clear that this provision shall not result in
any limitation on the ability of the Secretary of Defense to
pay CERCLA stipulated penalties from non-Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) accounts.
  Section 2822--Elimination of Waiver Authority Regarding Prohibition
 Against Certain Conveyances of Property at Naval Station, Long Beach,
                               California
    This section would amend section 2826 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B
of Public Law 105-85) to eliminate the authority of the
President to wave the prohibition against the direct or
indirect conveyance, by sale, lease, or other method, of real
property at the former Naval Station, Long Beach, California,
under the authority provided by the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510) to the China Ocean Shipping Company or any successor
of that company.
                      Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
                        Part I--Army Conveyances
 Section 2831--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Massena, New York
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements in Massena, New York, to the Village of Massena.
The property is to be used for recreational, educational, or
other public purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for
the conveyance would be borne by the Village.
  Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Ogdensberg, New
                                  York
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements in Ogdensberg, New York, to the Town of
Ogdensberg. The property is to be used for recreational,
educational, or other public purposes. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Town.
  Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Jamestown, Ohio
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements in Jamestown, Ohio, to the Greeneview Local School
District. The property is to be used for educational purposes.
The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be
borne by the District.
Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Stewart Army Sub-Post, New Windsor, New
                                  York
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 391 acres, to the
Town of New Windsor, New York. The property is to be used for
economic development purposes. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Town.
     Section 2835--Land Conveyance, Indiana Army Ammunition Plant,
                          Charlestown, Indiana
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately 4,660 acres at the Indiana Army Ammunition
Plant, Charlestown, Indiana, to the Indiana Army Ammunition
Plant Reuse Authority. The property is to be used for economic
development purposes. As consideration for the conveyance, the
Authority would pay to the United States an amount equal to the
fair market value of the property at the end of the ten year
period beginning on the date the conveyance is completed. The
cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance, and any
additional administrative expenses, would be borne by the
Authority. This section would also amend section 2858(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(division B of Public Law 104-106), as amended, to authorize
the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, an
additional parcel of real property consisting of approximately
2,000 acres at the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, Charlestown,
Indiana, to the State of Indiana. The property is to be used
for recreational purposes.
    Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant,
                         Chattanooga, Tennessee
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately 1,033 acres at the Volunteer Army Ammunition
Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Hamilton County, Tennessee.
The property is to be used for economic development purposes.
As consideration for the conveyance, the County would pay to
the United States an amount equal to the fair market value of
the property at the end of the ten year period beginning on the
date the conveyance is completed. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance, and any additional administrative
expenses, would be borne by the County.
  Section 2837--Release of Reversionary Interest of United States in
Former Redstone Army Arsenal Property Conveyed to Alabama Space Science
                           Exhibit Commission
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
release, without consideration and to such extent necessary to
protect the interests of the United States, the reversionary
interests of the United States in a parcel of real property
conveyed to the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission
pursuant to Public Law 90-276, section 813 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act, 1980 (Public Law 96-125), and
section 813 of the Military Construction Authorization Act,
1984 (Public Law 98-115).
                       Part II--Navy Conveyances
  Section 2841--Easement, Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, California
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
grant an easement in perpetuity over a parcel of real property,
consisting of approximately 340 acres, to the Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor Agency. The easement is to be used to
permit the construction, operation, and maintenance of a
restricted access highway. As consideration for the easement,
the Agency would pay to the United States an amount equal to
the fair market value of the easement. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the easement would be borne by the Agency.
    Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Readiness Center,
                            Portland, Maine
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey a parcel of real property, with improvements, consisting
of approximately 3.72 acres, to the Gulf of Maine Aquarium
Development Corporation. As consideration for the conveyance,
the Corporation would pay to the United States an amount equal
to the fair market value of the property. The Secretary would
use the funds paid by the Corporation for the design,
construction, or acquisition of facilities suitable for use by
the Naval Reserve.
                    Part III--Air Force Conveyances
    Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Lake Charles Air Force Station,
                               Louisiana
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property
with improvements, consisting of approximately 4.38 acres, at
Lake Charles Air Force Station, Louisiana, to McNeese State
University. The property is to be used for educational purposes
and for agricultural research. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the University.
 Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Air Force Housing Facility, La Junta,
                                Colorado
    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property
with improvements, consisting of approximately 28 acres, to the
City of La Junta, Colorado. The property is to be used for
housing and educational purposes. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the City.
                       Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 2861--Repeal of Prohibition on Joint Use of Gray Army Airfield,
                 Fort Hood, Texas, with Civil Aviation
    This section would repeal the prohibition on joint civilian
and military use of Gray Army Airfield, Fort Hood, Texas,
contained in section 319 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1987 (Public Law 99-661).
Section 2862--Designation of Building Containing Navy and Marine Corps
                    Reserve Center, Augusta, Georgia
    This section would designate the building housing the Navy
and Marine Corps Reserve Center in Augusta, Georgia, as the A.
James Dyess Building.
         Section 2863--Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery
    This section would authorize the transfer of real property,
and exchange of jurisdiction, between the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of the Army to provide for an expansion of
Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia. The property to be
transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary
of the Army consists of three parcels, totaling approximately
36.5 acres, located at the Navy Annex of the Pentagon. The
provision would also require the Secretary of the Army modify
the boundary of Arlington National Cemetery to include two
parcels of real property, totaling approximately eight acres,
situated in Fort Myer, Virginia, contiguous to the Cemetery.
 Section 2864--Reporting Requirements Under Demonstration Project for
Purchase of Fire, Security, Police, Public Works, and Utility Services
                     from Local Government Agencies
    This section would amend section 816(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-
337) to extend the period under which a demonstration project
is authorized for the purchase of fire, security, police,
public works, and utility services from local government at
specified locations in Monterey, California.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
                                OVERVIEW
    The budget request contained $12.1 billion for DOE national
security programs, including $4.5 billion for weapons
activities, $5.8 billion for environmental restoration and
waste management, $1.7 billion for other defense activities,
and $190.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal. The
committee recommends $11.7 billion, a reduction of $400.7
million. The following table summarizes the request and the
committee recommendations:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
               Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
    The budget request contained $517.8 million for stockpile
stewardship computing needs, of which $329.1 million is for the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI).
    ASCI is a centerpiece of the science based stockpile
stewardship effort being pursued by the Department to assure
the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile
while the United States observes a nuclear test ban. The goal
of the ASCI program is to develop computers that perform 100
trillion operations (teraflops) a second, software for three
dimensional simulation of nuclear weapons performance, and
storage, communications, and visualization technology capable
of handling the massive quantities of data required. The
committee notes that the ASCI funding request represents an
increase of 47 percent over fiscal year 1998 in order to
aggressively advance the state-of-the-art in computer hardware
and software.
    The committee is concerned that ASCI remains a high risk
program. The committee is aware that ASCI computer hardware
development has resulted in some impressive accomplishments,
including the one teraflop Option Red computer at Sandia
National Laboratory. However, the committee understands that
Option Red architecture is not optimal for the tasks for which
it was designed and that contractors have not met early
milestones for the three teraflop Option Blue computers at Los
Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. The
committee has also received information indicating that
software development needed for science based stockpile
stewardship remains a significant challenge and has not
proceeded at the pace necessary to fully utilize the computer
hardware in place.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $279.1 million for
ASCI, a reduction of $50.0 million. The committee believes that
this level of funding, which would represent a 25 percent
increase over fiscal year 1998, will provide a healthy infusion
of funds to keep the program on an aggressive, but more
measured, pace.
    The committee is also concerned over the adequacy of
compliance with section 3157 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85),
requiring that ASCI contractors report, on a quarterly basis,
all exports to Tier III countries of computers capable of
operating at speeds in excess of 2,000 millions of theoretical
operations per second (MTOPS). The committee continues to
believe that DOE should use these reports to monitor exports of
U.S.-origin high performance computers to end-users of
proliferation concern. The committee remains committed to
monitoring compliance with this statutory requirement and
expects that the Department will notify the committee of any
systemic compliance problem it should encounter in fulfilling
the requirements of this provision of law.
       Advanced Manufacturing, Design and Production Technologies
    The budget request contained $62.6 million for the advanced
manufacturing, design and production technologies (ADAPT)
program. The committee notes that this funding level represents
a 15 percent reduction from fiscal year 1998. The committee
believes that ADAPT funding is essential to the development of
technologies critical to an efficiently operated nuclear
weapons production complex and that the funding requested is
inadequate. The Kansas City plant, for example, may have to lay
off a significant portion of its engineering staff without
additional funding for this program. Consequently, the
committee recommends $78.1 million, an increase of $15.5
million.
                Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Safeguards
    The President has established six necessary conditions
which must be met for the United States to enter into the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). These include:
          (1) The conduct of a broad range of experimental
        tests which do not result in a sustained nuclear
        reaction;
          (2) The maintenance of very capable weapons labs;
          (3) The maintenance of the ability to resume nuclear
        testing;
          (4) The development of strong treaty monitoring
        capabilities;
          (5) The development of strong intelligence
        capabilities to monitor nuclear weapons programs in
        other nations; and
          (6) The definition of a process under which the
        President would withdraw from the CTBT for reasons of
        ``supreme national interest.''
    The committee believes that strong manufacturing
capabilities and a viable production complex to support our
nuclear stockpile are also essential, whether or not the United
States enters into the CTBT. Consequently, the committee urges
the Department to recognize the importance of the production
complex in this context, to advise the committee on any
shortfalls in the ability of the production complex to support
stockpile needs in the absence of testing, and to include the
maintenance of a robust production complex in any future
delineation of safeguards required for U.S. entry into the
CTBT.
               Core Stockpile Management Weapons Program
    The budget request contained $307.4 million for the core
stockpile management weapons program. The committee understands
that the request is not adequate to meet requirements for
surveillance of the B61-3/4/10, the B61-7/11, and the W62;
dismantlement of the W79, W56, and W70; maintenance for a
number of weapons; and other projects pertaining to component
disposition and containers performed at the Pantex plant.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $332.4 million, an
increase of $25.0 million.
  Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Science and
                               Technology
    The budget request contained $193.0 million for Defense
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Science and
Technology. The committee recommends $279.5 million, an
increase of $77.8 million. The committee intends that the
additional resources will be used to develop new technologies
for defense nuclear waste cleanup. The committee believes that
such new technologies are necessary to expedite site cleanup so
that landlord costs at the sites can be reduced. The committee
directs that $30.0 million of the additional resources be
allocated to the use of innovative environmental restoration
technologies at projects designated as ``Site/project
completion'' projects, and $30.0 million be allocated to the
use of innovative environmental restoration technologies at
projects designated as ``Post 2006 completion'' projects.
                 Defense Programs Construction Projects
    The budget request contained $515.1 million for
construction projects at the laboratories and production
facilities, of which $65.7 million would be for 13 new starts.
    The committee is aware that a number of the projects for
which the Department is requesting funding have suffered cost
overruns and delays and have been reviewed for management
deficiencies. The committee appreciates the Department's self-
critique, which attributes the poor performance on these and
other construction projects to inadequate oversight from
headquarters, poor input and support from the intended end
users of the facilities, lack of adequate definition in the
design phase, and a poor requirements review process.
    The committee is encouraged that the Department is taking
action to avoid the recurrence of these problems. However, the
committee is concerned that the budget request fails to
consider the time necessary to implement the Department's
reforms and consequently believes that the number of new starts
in the request is excessive. The committee also believes that
continuing construction projects which have experienced these
systemic difficulties should be carefully reviewed to determine
appropriate corrective actions.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $200.9 million, a
reduction of $30.0 million to the construction accounts in
stockpile stewardship and management. The committee believes
that this amount would allow the Department to proceed with the
high priority construction projects necessary to assure the
future safety, reliability and effectiveness of the stockpile
while at the same time implementing needed reforms.
                          Emergency Management
    The budget request contained $23.7 million for Emergency
Management. The committee believes that two of the activities
for which funds were requested involve responses to non-
radiological events--expanding the Atmospheric Release Advisory
Capability for chemical and hazardous material releases and
assisting state and local governments in their response to
natural and manmade disasters--and are more appropriately
funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Therefore,
the committee recommends $21.3 million, a reduction of $2.4
million.
              Hanford Tank Safety and Remediation Projects
    The budget request contained $273.8 million for High-Level
Waste Management in the Post 2006 Completion project at the
Hanford Site. The committee recommends $308.8 million, an
increase of $35.0 million. The committee directs that this
increase be provided for the following activities: $18.0
million to drain single-shell tanks that contain high-level
waste, $7.0 million for implementation of the final safety
analysis report for tank farm operations, $9.0 million for
timely resolution of flammable gas and organic safety issues,
and $1.0 million for reduction of vadose zone contamination.
      Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Privatization Phase I
    The budget request contained $330.0 million for the Hanford
Tank Waste Remediation System Privatization Project, Phase I.
    The committee understands that the two contractors working
on Phase IA of the project have submitted their proposals for
proceeding with Phase IB and that each of the contractors has
stated the need to conduct further development work for a
period of 16 to 24 months before they are ready to proceed with
Phase IB work. The contractors have indicated that this
additional development work is necessary to reduce technical
uncertainty. Therefore, the committee believes that the $330.0
million requested is not needed in fiscal year 1999. However,
consistent with its commitment to cleanup the Hanford tank
wastes, the committee recommends authorization of $100.0
million to be added to the accumulated budget authority
currently held in reserve for this project. This recommendation
represents a reduction of $230.0 million.
    In addition, the committee recommends the requested amounts
for two other projects that support the Hanford privatization
project: $14.8 million for the Privatization Phase I
infrastructure support project (99-D-403), and $16.1 million
for the Pretreatment and Immobilization Science and Technology
Development project.
 Hazardous Material Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) Program
    The budget request contained $65.1 million for program
direction at the Richland, Washington Field Office. The
committee recommends that $0.8 million of that amount be used
to support the HAMMER program for training in emergency
response to hazardous materials release at DOE's Hanford,
Washington site.
                         Heavy Water Processing
    The budget request contained $2.6 million for the Heavy
Water Processing project at the Savannah River Site. The
committee recommends $22.6 million, an increase of $20.0
million.
    The budget request would support the continued
consolidation and storage of 3,000 drums of tritium-
contaminated heavy water into the former K-Reactor at Savannah
River. However, the committee believes that this excess heavy
water, a potential pollution source, should be removed from the
site since its monitoring and maintenance will continue to cost
millions of dollars. The committee understands that the heavy
water is contaminated with tritium. The committee also
understands that if the tritium is removed from the heavy
water, the heavy water can be removed from the Savannah River
Site and sold. The committee believes that this would have two
beneficial effects: (1) it would remove a potential pollution
source from Savannah River, and (2) the sale of the heavy water
would generate revenue for the government. The committee
directs that the additional resources provided by this increase
be used to implement such a project.
                      Inertial Confinement Fusion
    The budget request contained $213.8 million for the
inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program. The committee
believes that work by the University of Rochester's Laboratory
for Laser Energetics with the Omega laser is an essential
element of the ICF program. The committee recommends the
requested amount and directs that, within this total, the
Department make available the $29.0 million requested for the
Laboratory for Laser Energetics.
                     In-Tank Precipitation Process
    The budget request contained $382.7 million for the High-
Level Waste Treatment at the Savannah River Site. The committee
recommends $412.7 million, an increase of $30.0 million. The
committee directs that the additional resources provided by
this increase be used to modify the In Tank Precipitation
Process equipment to address equipment problems associated with
the release of explosive benzene that were identified in recent
startup testing.
                      International Nuclear Safety
    The budget request contained $35.0 million for the
International Nuclear Safety program. The committee recommends
the requested amount, but believes DOE should broaden the
program's focus beyond reducing environmental threats from
unsafe Soviet-designed reactors. The committee directs DOE to
begin to address nuclear materials safety during the
disposition of excess weapons plutonium and HEU in Russia.
      Laboratory Collaboration With the Ballistic Missile Defense
                              Organization
    The budget request contained no funding for the use of
Department of Energy assets or expertise to assist the
Department of Defense Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's
(BMDO) test program. The committee notes that in fiscal year
1998, $49.9 million in BMDO funding is expected to be spent at
the DOE national laboratories and that the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85)
required the Secretaries of Energy and Defense to enter into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) to facilitate the use of
assets and expertise at the national laboratories for ballistic
missile defense programs.
    The committee understands that this MOU has now been signed
and the Department of Energy and BMDO have identified several
additional projects in whichlaboratory expertise could meet
legitimate BMDO needs. The committee believes these projects, like
other laboratory projects that are not directly related to DOE's
nuclear weapons programs, will assist the laboratories in the
development of tools and expertise necessary for effective stockpile
stewardship and further believes that this proposed expansion of
collaboration between BMDO and the Department of Energy will be
beneficial for both organizations. The committee, therefore, recommends
an increase of $20.0 million to the core stockpile stewardship program
to implement the additional projects identified by BMDO and the DOE
laboratories. The committee expects that regular reviews by BMDO and
the Department of Energy will continue to refine and improve this
cooperative arrangement and that future budget requests will reflect
appropriate cost sharing between the two organizations.
    In addition, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
3133) that would require the Secretary of Energy to make
available, of the funds authorized for Department of Energy
defense programs, no less than $60.0 million for additional
missile technology development in cooperation with BMDO for the
purpose of developing, demonstrating, and testing hit-to-kill
interceptor vehicles for theater missile defense systems. The
committee recognizes that the development of such vehicles
remains a significant technical challenge. The committee
believes that this effort should be in parallel to ongoing
BMDO-managed system and technology development programs.
                             Naval Reactors
    The budget request contained $665.5 million for the naval
reactors program.
    The committee understands that the current program for
shutdown and environmental remediation of land-based training
and research and development reactors is making substantial
progress and the Navy is managing a successful on-going program
for the disposal of defueled decommissioned nuclear propulsion
plants.
    However, the committee understands that planned non-
pressure vessel removal work at the Kesselring site in New York
was deferred and other remediation work was scaled back in
response to fiscal year 1998 funding shortfalls. The committee
is concerned that the budget request for inactivation of
prototype reactors failed again to fully fund these efforts as
well as planned remediation efforts in Idaho.
    The committee believes that additional funding is required
to proceed with the shutdown and environmental remediation of
naval reactor sites in New York and Idaho at a prudent and
efficient pace. Therefore, the committee recommends $681.5
million, an increase of $16.0 million for this purpose.
               Office of Environment, Safety, and Health
    The budget request contained $74.0 million for the defense
component of the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health. The
committee recommends $94.0 million, an increase of $20.0
million. This increase would restore funding for the defense
component of the program to the fiscal year 1998 level. The
committee does not endorse the Department's transfer of half of
the Environment, Safety, and Health staff to the DOE Energy
Supply program. The DOE workforce at the current and former
weapons production sites are those most at risk, and the
committee believes emphasis should be placed on their health
and safety.
                           Program Direction
    The budget request contained $260.5 million for defense
programs program direction, which includes salaries, personnel,
contractor support, and advisory and assistance funding. This
amount represents a $10.5 million increase to the level of
funding approved by Congress for fiscal year 1998. The
committee recommends $240.0 million, a reduction of $20.5
million to advisory, assistance, and support services.
              Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning
    The budget request contained $4.8 million for Facility
Decommissioning at the Hanford Site. The committee recommends
$16.8 million, an increase of $12.0 million. The committee
directs that these additional resources be used to continue
progress on the cocooning of the F and H reactors at the
Hanford site. Such safe storage of the reactor cores on an
interim basis will allow the Department to target remediation
funds to decontaminate and decommission ancillary buildings at
Hanford, potentially saving millions of dollars in annual
maintenance and surveillance costs.
       Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project
    The budget request contained $625.2 million for the Rocky
Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project. For the
last two years, the committee has emphasized the importance of
providing adequate funding for the cleanup efforts at sites
that are nearing closure. The Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site is scheduled for closure by 2010 at a projected
total cost of $7.3 billion. However, the Secretary has
challenged the Department staff and associated contractors to
close the site by 2006, which would save an estimated $1.3
billion. The committee endorses the Secretary's challenge and
recommends $665.2 million, an increase of $40.0 million for
this cleanup acceleration.
             Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment
    The budget request contained $492.3 million for site and
project completion at the Savannah River site. The committee is
concerned that capital equipment projects and spare equipment
needs have gone unmet due to funding shortfalls, resulting in
recent operational shutdowns at the defense waste processing
facility (DWPF). Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $18.0 million to replace required equipment and
thus ensure continuity of operations at the DWPF.
                   Stockpile Management at Y-12 Plant
    The budget request contained $2.1 billion for the stockpile
management program.
    The committee believes that additional funding is required
for reprocessing of uranium materials and infrastructure
upgrades, as well as completion of priority actions recommended
by the 1997 Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Study, including
seismic upgrades to storage fixtures and removal of HEU from
inadequate Y-12 facilities. Therefore, the committee recommends
an increase of $13.0 million for these purposes.
                        Technology Partnerships
    The budget request contained $60.0 million for the
technology partnership program.
    Funding for technology partnerships is used at the
discretion of the Department's laboratory directors to enter
into cooperative research and development agreements with
industry to help commercialize DOE technology and provide the
Department with information useful to its stockpile stewardship
program.
    The committee understands the value of leveraging
investment in the commercial sector, but notes that the program
remains too diffuse and lacks insufficient overall direction
and coordination. Moreover, the committee believes that the
Department has done a poor job of justifying its budget
request.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $40.0 million for
technology partnerships, a reduction of $20.0 million. Of the
remaining amount, the committee expects $10.0 million to be
used for the American Textiles Partnership project.
                           Tritium production
    The budget request contained $157.0 million for production
of tritium.
    The committee understands that the Department is examining
two technical options, a commercial light water reactor and an
accelerator, to produce tritium necessary to meet its future
requirements and that the Department will sustain the option
not selected as a potential back-up source. The committee is
concerned that the request fails to support the design work
necessary for the accelerator produced tritium (APT) option.
The committee notes that this design work will be necessary
whether APT is selected as the primary or back-up source and,
therefore, recommends an increase of $30.0 million to support
this effort.
    The committee also understands that the performance of
tritium collecting fuel rods is being tested at the Watts Bar
nuclear plant. The committee believes that the information
generated by this test is essential to the selection of a
primary technology for future tritium production. Therefore,
the committee recommends a provision (sec. 3134) that would
require the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on the
results of the test and would defer the selection date for
tritium production technology to December 31, 1999.
             Uncosted Obligations and Unobligated Balances
    The committee concurs with the Department's assessment that
efficient operations require uncosted obligations and
unobligated balances from prior year funding be carried over to
succeeding fiscal years. These funds, also known as carryover
balances, serve as a financial bridge from one fiscal year to
the next. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has recommended
that targets be set for these balances to help determine
whether they are excess to Departmental needs. In its initial
reports, GAO used targets, developed by DOE, of 8 percent of
operating funds and 50 percent of funds for capital equipment
and general plant projects, equating to a weighted carryover
target of 9 to 10 percent. More recently, targets ranging from
12 to 15 percent have been proposed.
    The committee understands that the Department uses a 15
percent target and calculates the target in a manner that
further inflates its value compared to the methodology used by
GAO. Until the Department transitions to a budget that
incorporates limited-term funding rather than no-year funding,
the committee believes, for several reasons, that a 12 percent
carryover provides the Department with adequate prior year
funds to meet its needs. First, such a target is substantially
in excess of the 9 to 10 percent originally used by the
Department and offers a considerable safeguard against any
unanticipated spending variations. Second, both GAO and DOE
have historically overestimated Departmental spending rates.
Such overestimates mean that the Department typically has a
larger carryover balance entering a new fiscal year than
estimates would have indicated. Third, the carryover balance
pertains only to program direction, capital equipment, and
general plant projects, not to construction projects.
Construction projects manage their own funds and ``bank'' their
own appropriations.
    The committee notes that GAO projects that both the
environmental management and defense program accounts will
carry over prior year uncosted obligations and unobligated
balances to fiscal year 1999 in excess of this 12 percent
target. The committee understands that much of this excess can
be attributed to greater-than-expected savings from internal
reorganizations and is unrelated to any specific program
spending.
    Therefore, consistent with maintaining a prior year
carryover balance of 12 percent, the committee recommends a
reduction of $94.1 million to defense environmental restoration
and waste management program accounts and a reduction of $340.9
million to defense program accounts. The committee makes this
reduction without prejudice and does not believe that requiring
the Department to operate with a lower carryover balance should
have a negative impact on ongoing programs.
        Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Waste Transportation
    The budget request contained $23.8 million for
transportation of transuranic waste to the WIPP in Carlsbad,
New Mexico. The committee recommends $38.8 million, an increase
of $15.0 million, to assist the State of New Mexico in
completing a bypass around Santa Fe as expeditiously as
possible so as to avoid the transportation of radioactive waste
through the city.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
          Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorization
                    Section 3101--Weapons Activities
    This section would authorize DOE weapons activity funding
for fiscal year 1999.
  Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
    This section would authorize funds for DOE defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities for
fiscal year 1999.
                 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
    This section would authorize funds for DOE other defense
activities for fiscal year 1999.
              Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
    This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear
waste disposal activities of the Department for fiscal year
1999.
                Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
                      Section 3121--Reprogramming
    This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in
excess of 110 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for
the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the
Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services of the Senate,
and the Committees on Appropriations and National Security of
the House of Representatives and a period of 30 calendar days
has elapsed after the date on which the notification is
received.
             Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects
    This section would limit the initiation of ``general plant
projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost
for any project exceeds $5.0 million. However, if the Secretary
of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any project will
exceed $5.0 million, the Committees on Appropriations and Armed
Services of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations
and National Security of the House of Representatives must be
notified of the reasons for the cost variation.
             Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects
    This section would permit any construction project to be
initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the
amount authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total
estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for
such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy
must report in detail to the Committees on Appropriations and
Armed Services of the Senate, and the Committees on
Appropriations and National Security of the House of
Representatives and the report must be before the committees
for 30 legislative days. This section would also specify that
the 125 percent limitation would not apply to projects
estimated to cost under $5.0 million.
                 Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
    This section would permit funds authorized by the bill to
be transferred to other agencies of the government for
performance of work for which the funds were authorized and
appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such
funds with the authorizations of the agency to which they are
transferred. This section would also limit to no more than five
percent the amount of funds that may be transferred between
accounts in the Department of Energy that were authorized
pursuant to this bill.
     Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
    This section would limit the Secretary of Energy's
authority to request construction funding until the Secretary
has certified a conceptual design has been completed. This
limitation would not apply in the case of emergencies.
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction
                               Activities
    This section would permit, in addition to any advance
planning and construction design otherwise authorized by the
bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national
security program construction project whenever the Secretary
determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to
protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of
national defense, or to protect property.
Section 3127--Funds Available for All National Security Programs of the
                          Department of Energy
    This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of
this bill, amounts for management and support activities and
for general plant projects to be made available for use, when
necessary, in connection with all national security programs of
the Department of Energy.
                  Section 3128--Availability of Funds
    This section would allow amounts appropriated for operation
and maintenance or for plant projects to remain available until
expended. However, funds authorized to be appropriated for
program direction activities in fiscal year 1999 would be
available to be expended only until the end of the fiscal year
2000.
   Section 3129--Transfers of Defense Environmental Management Funds
    This section would provide the manager of each field office
of the Department of Energy with the limited authority to
transfer defense environmental management funds from a program
or project under the jurisdiction of the office to another such
program or project.
   Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
   Section 3131--Prohibition on Federal Loan Guarantees for Defense
                  Environmental Privatization Projects
    This section would prohibit the use of federal government
loan guarantees in DOE Defense Environmental Management
Privatization projects.
    The committee understands that the objectives of the DOE
environmental management privatization program are to reduce
the near-term costs to the government of environmental cleanup
projects and to shift the risk from the government to the
performing contractors. In addition, the committee understands
that the concept of the privatization program was based upon
the contractor seeking private funds to finance the
construction of waste treatment facilities. By making such a
financial commitment, a private contractor would have a greater
incentive to succeed.
    However, the committee understands that government loan
guarantees may be considered to make it easier for the
contractors to obtain private funding. The committee believes
that if government loan guarantees are extended to cover loans
DOE contractors obtain to finance cleanup projects, the
government will continue to suffer the financial consequences
of failures by these contractors, thereby defeating one of the
principal justifications behind the privatization initiative.
      Section 3132--Extension of Funding Prohibition Relating to
            International Cooperative Stockpile Stewardship
    This section would prohibit expenditure of funds on
cooperative stockpile stewardship efforts with any countries
except for France, Great Britain, or as specifically
authorized, with nations of the former Soviet Union.
   Section 3133--Use of Certain Funds for Missile Defense Technology
                              Development
    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to make
available, from funds authorized for Department of Energy
atomic energy weapons activities, no less than $60.0 million
for missile defense technology development in cooperation with
BMDO for the purpose of developing, demonstrating, and testing
hit-to-kill interceptor vehicles for theater missile defense
systems.
      Section 3134--Selection of Technology for Tritium Production
    This section would delay the date by which the Secretary of
Energy must select a primary technology for the production of
tritium to no later than December 31, 1999. The section would
also prohibit this selection until completion of an ongoing
test at the Watts Bar Nuclear Station and submission of a
report on the results of that test by the Secretary of Energy.
    Section 3135--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds at Hanford Site
    This section would prohibit the use of certain funds at the
Hanford site until the Secretary of Energy certifies to
Congress that the Department does not intend to pay overhead
costs of more than 33 percent of total contract costs at the
Hanford site. Until the Secretary completes the certification,
the use of $12.0 million for reactor decontamination and
decommissioning and $18.0 million for drainage of single-shell
waste tanks at the Hanford site would be prohibited.
                       Subtitle D--Other Matters
             Section 3151--Worker and Community Transition
    This section would repeal the requirements of section 3161
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484). Section 3161 required the implementation
of a worker and community transition program to restructure the
DOE private contractor workforce at the end of the Cold War.
This section would also prohibit the expenditure of funds for
the DOE Worker and Community Transition program after September
30, 1999.
    The committee, in its report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-
132), recommended that the provisions contained in section 3161
should be phased out by the end of fiscal year 1999. The
committee believes that the expenditure of nearly $811.1
million by the Worker and Community Transition program to date
has already significantly mitigated the effect of post-Cold War
downsizing of the DOE contractor base. The committee notes that
this program benefits DOE contractor employees only, and that
similar programs are not available to other private sector
contractor employees who have lost their jobs as a result of
downsizing of the national security industrial base in the
post-Cold War world.
    Notwithstanding the repeal of section 3161, like assistance
would still be made available to workers of the United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) through the 270 budget function.
The committee understands that one of the two gaseous diffusion
plants of the USEC may close by 2002. In 1996 Congress passed
the USEC Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134). Section 3110
of the act made the workers of USEC eligible for the Worker and
Community Transition program to lessen the impact of a plant
closure.
Section 3152--Requirement for Plan to Modify Employment System Used by
   Department of Energy in Defense Environmental Management Programs
    This section would prohibit the use of more than 75 percent
of Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
program direction funds for fiscal year 1999 until the
Secretary of Energy submits a plan for improvement of the DOE
federal employment system. The committee notes the Department's
poor record in the area of environmental management and
believes that too often failures in environmental cleanup have
occurred because of management and personnel problems.
Therefore, the requested plan should address strategies to
recruit and hire individuals for the Defense Environmental
Management program who are highly skilled and who have
experience as project and construction managers. The plan
should also identify any provisions of federal law that must be
altered to allow its implementation.
         Section 3153--Report on Stockpile Stewardship Criteria
    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on National Security by March 1, 1999, on
DOE efforts to develop a clear set of criteria pertaining to
the technical performance of SBSS tools and their relationship
to key nuclear weapons technologies, that, if met, will offer a
sufficient degree of certainty that the U.S. stockpile is safe
and reliable.
    Because national policy prescribes a testing moratorium and
supports a complete ban on underground nuclear testing,
development of science based tools to assure the safety and
reliability of nuclear weapons is absolutely necessary. The
committee is concerned that the criteria the Department will
use to determine if SBSS is providing sufficient confidence in
stockpile safety and reliability have not been well defined.
These criteria need to be more clearly understood, more
accurately detailed, and portrayed in such a way that they
support decision-makers in their consideration of future
science based stockpile stewardship and nuclear testing
requirements.
          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISION
                      Section 3201--Authorization
    This section would authorize $17.5 million for the
operation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB).
                TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                           Materials Research
    The committee remains concerned with the direction of
materials research within the Department of Defense, and
believes that such research should seek to reduce long-term
dependence upon foreign sources for critical defense materials.
The committee believes that materials research, by agencies
such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is
necessary in maintaining a technology edge to preserve long
term national security. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to undertake a basic review of the
policies and programs regarding defense critical materials and
critical materials research. This review should address, at a
minimum, the issue of the vulnerabilities of the domestic and
foreign supplier base for critical defense materials needed in
the production of future defense systems, and issues ranging
from current funding for basic research to the critical
weaknesses within production research which may have an impact
of the fielding of future defense systems. The committee
further directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the
committee by February 15, 1999, the results of this review.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                       Section 3301--Definitions
    This section would provide specific definitions of the
National Defense Stockpile and the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund.
            Section 3302--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds
    This section would authorize $82.647 million from the
National Defense Stockpile
    Transaction Fund for the operations and maintenance of the
National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 1999. The provision
would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary
or emergency conditions after a notification to Congress.
                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
                       Section 3401--Definitions
    This section would provide specific definitions of the
Naval Petroleum Reserves.
             Section 3402--Authorization of Appropriations
    This section would authorize $22.5 million for fiscal year
1999 for the Naval Petroleum Reserves.
  Section 3403--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum During
                            Fiscal Year 1999
    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to sell
petroleum produced for the Naval Petroleum Reserves at
established prices.
      Section 3404--Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
sell, lease, or transfer to the Department of the Interior, the
Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2 located in the state of
California. The committee does not intend for this provision to
relieve the Secretary of any obligations he may have pursuant
to section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), more commonly known as
the Superfund law, or other applicable environmental laws.
      Section 3405--Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy, after
a determination to abandon oil and gas operations is made, to
sell, lease, or transfer the Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered
3, located in the state of Wyoming.
      Section 3406--Disposal of Naval Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
transfer to the Department of the Interior the Naval Oil Shale
Reserve Numbered 2 located in the state of Utah.
                      Section 3407--Administration
    This section would provide administrative requirements to
be used in the sale, lease, or transfer of Naval Petroleum
Reserves Numbered 2 and 3, and for Naval Oil Shale Reserve
Numbered 2.
                  TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
   Section 3501--Short Title; References to Panama Canal Act of 1979
    This section would establish the Act as the ``Panama Canal
Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.''
              Section 3502--Authorization of Expenditures
    This section would authorize the Panama Canal Commission
(the Commission) to make expenditures from the Panama Canal
Commission Revolving Fund within existing statutory limits. The
Commission operates as a wholly-owned government corporation
and is supervised by a nine member supervisory board, commonly
referred to as the Panama Canal Commission Board of Directors.
The Commission does not draw from U.S. taxpayer funds for the
operation of the Canal, but receives funding to cover its
operating, administrative and capital improvement expenses from
tolls and other revenues collected. The Commission's total
operating costs, including depreciation and interest payments,
in fiscal year 1999 are estimated to be $628.5 million.
                   Section 3503--Purchase of Vehicles
    This section would authorize the Commission to purchase
passenger motor vehicles provided that the purchase price is
less than $23,000 per vehicle.
      Section 3504--Expenditures Only in Accordance with Treaties
    This section would restrict expenditures to those in
accordance with the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 and any
United States laws implementing those treaties.
               Section 3505--Donations to the Commission
    This section would authorize the Commission to seek and
accept donations of funds, property and services for the
purpose of carrying out promotional activities. It would also
require the Commission to establish written guidelines to set
forth criteria to ensure that any donations do not reflect
unfavorably upon the Commission or its employees or give the
appearance of compromising the ability of the Commission or its
employees to carry out their duties.
  Section 3506--Sunset of United States Overseas Benefits Just Before
                                Transfer
    This section would terminate selected benefits available to
certain United States Government employees in Panama on
December 30, 1999. These benefits include tropical differential
pay, leave and travel, transportation and repatriation rights,
and group health and life insurance. The purpose in terminating
these benefits immediately prior to the transfer of the Canal
is to prevent an interpretation of Panamanian law which would
require the Panama Canal Authority, the Panamanian entity which
will succeed the Commission after the transfer, to continue to
provide these benefits after the transition. These changes will
enable the Panama Canal Authority to establish appropriate
wages and benefits for its employees according to prevailing
market conditions and will not have any effect upon Commission
employees prior to the transfer.
                 Section 3507--Central Examining Office
    This section would repeal the statutory authorization for
the Central Examining Office. The office was originally
established in 1979 coordinate policies and activities of all
U.S. Government agencies participating in the Panama Canal
Employment System. Since September 1966, the Commission has had
sole responsibility for these functions. The Central Examining
Office no longer exists and the Commission's Department of
Human Resources now has sole responsibility for these
functions.
              Section 3508--Liability for Vessel Accidents
    This section would limit the Commission's exposure to
liability for damage to vessels and cargo, as well as for
injuries to crew and passengers, for vessels transiting the
canal to those cases in which the claimant is covered by
insurance against mishaps in the Canal in the amount of $1.0
million. This section would require the Commission to pay only
those damages that are in excess of the amounts recovered or
recoverable by the claimant from its insurer. This section
would also foreclose any claim in the nature of subrogation
against the Commission by an insurer. These changes will make
the Commission's liability for damages more consistent with
existing practices in ports and waterways in other parts of the
world.
          Section 3509--Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals
    This section would eliminate the mandatory date for
establishment and functioning of the Panama Canal Board of
Contract Appeals and allow more time to establish the board.
This change would allow the United States and Panama sufficient
time to establish the board in a manner that will meet the long
term needs of the transition. This section would also permit
the Commission's supervisory board to establish compensation
levels for board members so as to be more consistent with local
salary conditions.
                   Section 3510--Technical Amendments
    This section would carry out various technical amendments.
                  TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
                        Merchant Marine Academy
    The committee is concerned about the deteriorating material
condition of the physical plant of the midshipmen barracks at
the United States Merchant Marine Academy. The plant is
antiquated and in need of replacement before it becomes a
health and safety concern to the midshipmen and staff. The
committee understands that the Maritime Administration is
conducting a feasibility study for the design of a replacement
utility system and intends to closely monitor the progress of
this and other important capital improvement projects at the
academy.
                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
   Section 3601--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999
    This section would authorize $90.6 million for fiscal year
1999, as contained in the budget request, for the United States
Maritime Administration. Of the funds authorized, $70.6 million
would be for operations and training programs, $16.0 million
would be for the costs, as defined in section 502 of the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of loan guarantees
authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), and $4.0 million would
be for administrative expenses related to these loan guarantee
commitments.
          Section 3602--Conveyance of NDRF Vessel M/V Bayamon
    This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to sell, at fair market value, a surplus
National Defense Reserve Fleet vessel to the Trade Fair Ship
Company of New York, New York for use as a floating trade
exposition.
 Section 3603--Conveyance of NDRF Vessels Benjamin Isherwood and Henry
                                Eckford
    This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to sell, at fair market value, two surplus TAO
class vessels that were not completed and transferred to the
National Defense Reserve Fleet.
          Section 3604--Clearinghouse for Maritime Information
    This section would authorize the establishment of a
clearinghouse for maritime information by providing an online
trade information database at a State maritime academy. The
clearinghouse would provide access to economic resource and
transportation data via the Internet.
      Section 3605--Conveyance of NDRF Vessel Ex-USS Lorain County
    This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to convey, at no cost to the government, a
surplus National Defense Reserve Fleet vessel to Ohio War
Memorial, Inc. for use as a memorial to Ohio veterans.
                           DEPARTMENTAL DATA
    The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, March 17, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the
enclosed draft of legislation, ``To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the Department
of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes.''
    This legislative proposal is part of the Department of
Defense legislative program for the Second Session of the 105th
Congress and is needed to carry out the President's budget
plans for fiscal year 1999. The Office of Management and Budget
advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this
proposal to the Congress and that its enactment would be in
accord with the program of the President.
    This bill provides management authority for the Department
of Defense and makes several changes to the authorities under
which we operate. These changes are designed to permit a more
efficient operation of the Department of Defense.
    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) requires that
all revenue and direct spending legislation meet a pay-as-you-
go (PAYGO) requirement. That is, no bill should result in an
increase in the deficit; and if it does, it could contribute to
a sequester if it is not fully offset. This legislation would
affect direct spending and receipts; therefore, it is subject
to the PAYGO requirement. The Office of Management and Budget's
preliminary scoring estimates indicate that this bill's direct
spending is fully offset.
    Enactment of this legislation is of great importance to the
Department of Defense and the Department urges its speedy and
favorable consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Judith A. Miller.
    Enclosures.
                                ------
              MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                 Washington, DC, February 17, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is proposed legislation to
authorize military construction and related activities of the
Department of Defense. Enactment of this legislation is
necessary to carry out the President's Fiscal Year 1999 budget
plan.
    If enacted, this legislation would make several
improvements to the efficiency of managing military
construction, base housing, and the use of defense lands. These
improvements would include authority to purchase leased family
housing at Eielson Air Force Base and to require federal
agencies using defense lands to restore those lands. The
legislation also would make an inflationary increase in the
threshold for notification of construction design undertaken
with respect to a military construction project not otherwise
authorized by law.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this proposal to Congress,
and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of
the President.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Judith A. Miller.
    Enclosure.
                                ------
                           COMMITTEE POSITION
    On May 6, 1998 the Committee on National Security, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 3616, as amended, by a vote of 50
to 1.
                                ------
                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
                          House of Representatives,
                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that on May 6,
1998 the Committee on National Security ordered reported H.R.
3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999. As ordered reported by the National Security Committee,
this legislation contains a number of provisions which fall
within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. These
provisions include the following:
          Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year
        1999
          Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing Outside the
        U.S.
          Section 603--Basic Allowance for Subsistence for
        Reserves
          Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses
        and Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces
          Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses
        and Special Pay Authorities for Nurse Officer
        Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists
          Section 613--One-year Extension of Authorities
        Relating to Payment of Other Bonuses and Special Pays
          Section 614--Aviation Career Incentive Pay and
        Officer Retention Bonus
          Section 617--Removal of Ten Percent Restriction on
        Selective Reenlistment Bonuses
          Section 619--Equitable Treatment of Reserves Eligible
        for Special Pay for Duty Subject to Hostile Fire or
        Imminent Danger
          Section 631--Exception to Maximum Weight Allowance
        for Baggage and Household Effects
          Section 632--Travel and Transportation Allowances for
        Travel Performed by Members in Connection with Rest and
        Recuperative Leave from Overseas Stations
          Section 633--Storage of Baggage of Certain Dependents
          Section 641--Effective Date of Former Spouse Survivor
        Benefit Coverage
          Section 652--Accounting of Advance Payments
          Section 653--Reimbursement of Rental Vehicle Costs
        When Motor Vehicle Transported at Government Expense is
        Late
          Section 701--Expansion of Dependent Eligibility Under
        Retiree Dental Program
          Section 3151--Termination of Worker and Community
        Transition Assistance
          Section 3211--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
        Authorization
          Section 3401--Naval Petroleum Reserves--Definitions
          Section 3403--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain
        Petroleum During Fiscal Year 1999
          Section 3404--Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve
        Numbered 2
          Section 3405--Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve
        Numbered 3
          Section 3406--Disposal of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered
        2
          Section 3407--NPR--Administration
    Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation
before the House expeditiously, the Commerce Committee agrees
not to seek a sequential referral of the bill based on the
provisions listed above. By agreeing not to seek a sequential
referral, the Commerce Committee does not waive its
jurisdiction over the provisions listed above or any other
provisions of the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction.
In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves its right to seek
conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are
considered in the House-Senate conference.
    I want to thank you and your staff for their assistance in
providing the Commerce Committee with an opportunity to review
the text of H.R. 3616. I would appreciate your assistance in
including this letter as a part of the National Security
Committee's report on H.R. 3616 and as part of the record
during consideration of this bill by the House.
            Sincerely,
                                              Tom Bliley, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on National Security,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 1998.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 12,
1998 regarding H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
    I agree that the Committee on Commerce has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation. I understand that the Committee on Commerce would
be successful in asserting its right to a sequential referral
of H.R. 3616, and I am most appreciative of your decision not
to request such a referral in the interest of expediting
consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a
sequential referral, the Committee on Commerce is not waiving
its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of
letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                         Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Spence: Thank you for working with me in your
development of H.R. 3616, National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999, specifically: Section 361, Eligibility
Requirements for Attendance at Department of Defense Domestic
Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools; Section 364,
Assistance to Local Education Agencies that Benefit Dependents
of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees; Section 551, One-Year Extension of Certain
Force Drawdown Transition Authorities Relating to Personnel
Management and Benefits; Section 3151, Termination of Worker
and Community Transition Assistance. As you know, these
provisions are within the jurisdiction of the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
    While I do not intent to seek sequential referral of H.R.
3616, the Committee does hold an interest in preserving its
future jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the
aforementioned provisions, and its jurisdictional prerogatives
should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments
thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We would
expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions should
a conference with the Senate arise.
    Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the
amendments to H.R 3616 and look forward to working with you on
these issues in the future.
            Sincerely,
                                           Bill Goodling, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                                       Washington, DC, May 5, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight agrees to waive sequential jurisdiction over The
Travel By Reservists On Carriers Under Contract With The
General Services Administration Amendment to H.R. 3616 offered
by Mr. Buyer of Indiana.
    This waiver is not intended or designed to limit our
jurisdiction over any future jurisdiction of related matters.
    Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consultation with the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee to ensure that these
provisions address the legislative goals of both Committees as
well as the American Taxpayer.
            Sincerely,
                                              Dan Burton, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
              Committee On Government Reform and Oversight,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight agrees to waive jurisdiction over the following
provisions in H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999, that fall within the legislative
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
    Sec. 368: Travel by Reservists on Carriers Under Contract
with General Services Administration.
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters
    Sec. 1101: Authority for Release to Coast Guard of Drug
Test Results of Civil Service Mariners of the Military Sealift
Command.
    Sec. 1102: Limitations on Back Pay Awards.
    Sec. 1103: Restoration of Annual Leave Accumulated by
Civilian Employees at Installations in the Republic of Panama
to be Closed Pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.
    Sec. 1104: Repeal of Program Providing Preference for
Employment of Military Spouses in Military Child Care
Facilities.
    Sec. 1105: Elimination of Retained Pay as a Basis for
Determining Locality-Based Adjustments.
    Sec. 1106: Observance of Certain Holidays at duty Posts
Outside the United States.
Title XVIII--General Provisions
    Sec. 2812: Outdoor Recreation development on Military
Installations for Disabled Veterans, Military Dependents with
Disabilities, and other Persons with Disabilities.
Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission:
    Sec. 3506: Sunset of United States Overseas Benefits Just
Before Transfer.
    Sec. 3507: Central Examining Office.
    As you know, House Rule X, Establishment and Jurisdiction
of Standing Committees, grants the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee wide jurisdiction over government
management issues including matters related to Federal civil
service, procurement policy and property disposal. This
committee also oversees legislation regarding holidays and
celebrations. This waiver is not intended or designed to limit
our jurisdiction over any future consideration of related
matters.
    Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consultation with the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee to ensure that these
provisions address the legislative goals of both Committees as
well as the American taxpayer.
    I look forward to working with you on this and other issues
throughout the 105th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                              Dan Burton, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Judiciary,
                                      Washington, DC, May 10, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 3616,
legislation that was ordered reported by the Committee on
National Security on May 6, 1998.
    As reported, H.R. 3616 contains language within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically,
section 2812 of the bill would treat volunteers who assist the
Department of Defense in developing and conducting outdoor
recreation programs for disabled veterans as federal employees
for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
    The Judiciary Committee staff was consulted on this
provision of the bill, and changes were made in H.R. 3616 to
accommodate their concerns. For this reason, the Committee does
not object to the terms of this provision, and will not request
a sequential referral. However, this does not in any way waive
this Committee's jurisdiction over those portions of the bill
which fall within this Committee's jurisdiction, nor does it
waive the Committee's jurisdiction over any matters within its
jurisdiction which might be included in H.R. 3916 during
conference discussions with the Senate.
            Sincerely,
                                           Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on International Relations,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 6,
1998, the Committee on National Security ordered favorably
reported H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999. The bill includes a number of provisions that
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of
Representatives.
    The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction
are: (1) Section 233, Limitation on Funding for Cooperation
Ballistic Missile Defense Programs; (2) Section 1021,
Department of Defense Support for Counter-Drug Activities; (3)
Section 1043, Training of Special Operation Forces with
Friendly Foreign Forces; (4) Section 1201, Limitation of Funds
for Peacekeeping in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; (5)
Section 1202, Reports on the Mission of United States Forces in
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; (6) Section 1203, Report on
Military Capabilities on an Expanded NATO Alliance; (7) Section
1204, One-Year Extension of Counter-Proliferation Authorities
for Support of United Nations Special Commission in Iraq; and
(8) Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of
Former Soviet Union.
    Pursuant to Chairman Solomon's announcement that the
Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule
for H.R. 3616 and your desire to have the bill considered on
the House floor next week, and in recognition that both of our
staffs have been consulting on these provisions, the Committee
on International Relations will not seek a sequential referral
of the bill as a result of including these provisions, without
waiving or ceding now or in the future this committee's
jurisdiction over the provisions in question. I will seek to
have conferees appointed for these provisions during any House-
Senate conference committee.
    I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of
the report on H.R. 3616 and as part of the record during
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
    With best wishes,
            Sincerely,
                                      Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for keeping me and my staff
apprised of H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999. I have reviewed this bill and note
several provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Resources. These provisions include:
          Title V--Military Personnel Policy [as it affects the
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
        Corps]
          Section 601--Increase in basic pay for fiscal year
        1999 [as it affects the NOAA Corps]
          Section 613--One-year extension of authorities
        relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays
        [as it affects the NOAA Corps]
          Section 614--Aviation career incentive pay and
        aviation officer retention bonus [as it affects the
        NOAA Corps]
          Sections 631-633--Travel and Transportation
        Allowances [as they affect the NOAA Corps]
          Section 652--Accounting of advance payments [as it
        affects the NOAA Corps]
          Section 653--Reimbursement of rental vehicle costs
        when motor vehicle transported at government expenses
        is late [as it affects the NOAA Corps]
          Section 701--Expansion of dependent eligibility under
        retiree dental program [as it affects the NOAA Corps]
          Section 2812--Outdoor recreation development on
        military installations for disabled veterans, military
        dependents with disabilities and other persons with
        disabilities
          Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves [Naval
        Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2; Oil Shale Reserve
        Numbered 2]
    Because of the continued cooperation and consideration you
have afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, I
will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 3616 based on their
inclusion in the bill. Of course, this waiver does not
prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these
provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to
seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on
these provisions, should a conference on H.R. 3616 or a similar
measure become necessary.
    Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and
Robert Rangel, Phil Grone, and Michael Higgins of your staff. I
look forward to seeing HR. 3616 enacted soon.
            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your information and
cooperation regarding H.R. 3616, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, and provisions that are
within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 3616 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of
provisions of the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential
referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual
understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision
to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise
affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to
include any agreements worked out by staff of our two
Committees in amendments as the bill is taken to the House
Floor, and that a copy of this letter and of your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in
the Committee Report. In addition, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee reserves the right to be included as
conferees on any matter within its jurisdiction should
thislegislation go to a House-Senate conference.
    Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1(q), of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee has jurisdiction over oil and other pollution of
navigable waters as well as the Coast Guard. This includes
provisions which amend or affect the Clean Water Act, the Ocean
Dumping Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships, and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA).
    Accordingly, our Committee has a jurisdictional interest in
various provisions in H.R. 3616, including section 3201 which
authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to administer and
execute the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
Nonmilitary activities of the Corps are within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and this
additional program will impact the Corps' ability to carry out
its existing missions.
    The Committee has an interest in the following sections, as
well as any other section in the reported version of the bill
affecting Coast Guard pay or personnel matters:
          531. Study of New Decorations for Injury or Death in
        Line of Duty.
          551. One-Year Extension of Certain Force Drawdown
        Transition Authorities.
          552. Leave Without Pay for Academy Cadets and
        Midshipmen.
          601. Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 1999.
          602. Basic Allowance for Housing Outside the United
        States.
          613. One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
        Payment of Other Bonuses and Special Pays.
          614. Aviation Career Incentive Pay and Aviation
        Officer Retention Bonuses.
          641. Effective Date of Former Spouse Survivor Benefit
        Coverage.
          653. Reimbursement of Rental Vehicle Costs.
          701. Expansion of Dependent Eligibility Under Retiree
        Dental Program.
          1101. Authority for release to Coast Guard of drug
        test results of civilian service mariners of the
        Military Sealift Command.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on H.R. 3616 and other
matters of mutual interest to our two Committees
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on National Security,
                                      Washington, DC, May 12, 1998.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 12,
1998 regarding H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
    I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation. I understand that the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would be
successful in asserting its right to a sequential referral of
H.R. 3616, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request such a referral in the interest of expediting
consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a
sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you
requested, this exchange of letters will be included in the
Committee report on the bill.
    Finally, it is my understanding that discussions among our
staffs have led to an agreement on the issue of modifications
to the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency within
the Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program. You have my
assurance that I will support the amendment resulting from
these discussions if offered on the House floor during
consideration of H.R. 3616.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                         Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
                                ------
                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                       Washington, DC, May 5, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Floyd: I am advised that the Committee on National
Security intends to order reported the National Defense
Authorization Act for 1999, and that the measure will include
two provisions which are also within the jurisdiction of the VA
Committee. I am writing to you on behalf of the Committee to
advise you that the Committee has no objection to House
consideration of the bill even though the VA Committee has
taken no action on these provisions.
    The first of these provisions, section 556, would amend
title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of
Defense to offer higher educational assistance ``kickers'' to
persons enlisting in the armed forces in the future who have a
skill or specialty for which there is difficulty recruiting.
The maximum amount of the kicker would be raised from $700 a
month to $950 a month. These ``kickers'' are paid out of
Defense funds and are in addition to the basic benefit which
these enlistees would get under the Montgomery GI Bill.
    The second provision, which will be offered as an amendment
on behalf of Mr. Hefley and me, would transfer land adjacent to
Arlington National Cemetery so that the cemetery can be
expanded in the future. The land consists of a parcel presently
occupied by the Navy Annex and vacant land along the present
boundary between Arlington National Cemetery and Fort Myer. The
transfer will be of lands already in the possession of the
Defense Department at no cost to Arlington.
            Sincerely,
                                               Bob Stump, Chairman.
                              FISCAL DATA
    Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 1999 and the
four following fiscal years. The results of such efforts are
reflected in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this
report pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of House Rule XI.
                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate
    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted
pursuant to section 403(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is as follows:
                                                      May 12, 1998.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3616, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
             Sincerely,
                                                   June E. O'Neill.
               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
    Summary: H.R. 3616 would authorize appropriations for 1999
for the military functions of the Department of Defense (DOD)
and the Department of Energy (DOE). It also would prescribe
personnel strengths for each active duty and selected reserve
component of the U.S. armed forces. Assuming appropriation of
the authorized amounts for 1999, CBO estimates that enacting
H.R. 3616 would result in additional discretionary spending
from 1999 appropriations of $266 billion over the 1999-2003
period. In addition, the bill contains provisions that would
lower the costs of discretionary defense programs over the
2000-2003 period by about $7.3 billion.
    The bill contains provisions that would affect direct
spending through land conveyances, the sale of vessels, changes
to military retirement and survivor benefit programs, and other
provisions. CBO does not have enough information to estimate
the budgetary impact of certain land conveyances. We estimate
that the direct spending from other provisions of H.R. 3616
would be less than $500,000 annually or would be offset by the
proceeds from asset sales. Because it would affect direct
spending, the bill would be subject to pay-as-you-go
procedures.
    H.R. 3616 would require some airlines to extend federal
government rates to reservists traveling to and from their
inactive duty stations. This requirement may be a private-
sector mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA). However, the cost of this provision would be
small, and well below the threshold established by UMRA. UMRA
excludes from application of that act legislative provisions
that are necessary for the national security. CBO has
determined that all other provisions in H.R. 3616 either fit
within this exclusion or do not contain intergovernmental
mandates as defined by UMRA.
    Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 3616 is shown in Table 1, assuming
that the bill will be enacted by October 1, 1998.
     TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 3616 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION ACTION
Spending Under Current Law for Defense Programs:
    Budget Authority \1\............................   270,854         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays...............................   269,125    91,079    33,955    15,117     6,586     3,047
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level.............................         0   270,837         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays...............................         0   179,344    53,817    20,319     8,980     3,547
Spending Under H.R. 3616 for Defense Programs:
    Authorization Level \1\.........................   270,854   270,837         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays...............................   269,125   270,423    87,772    35,436    15,566     6,594
                                                 DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority..........................         0     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)
Estimated Outlays...................................         0     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)
                                                 ASSET SALES \3\
Estimated Budget Authority..........................         0     (\4\)     (\4\)     (\4\)     (\4\)     (\4\)
Estimated Outlays...................................         0     (\4\)     (\4\)     (\4\)     (\4\)    (\4\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1998 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
\2\ CBO does not have enough information to estimate the budgetary impact of certain land conveyances in H.R.
  3616. Direct spending under other provisions of the bill is either less than $500,000 annually or is limited
  to the proceeds from asset sales.
\3\ Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, proceeds from a nonroutine asset sale may be counted for purposes of
  pay-as-you-go scorekeeping only if the sale would entail no net financial cost to the government.
\4\ CBO does not have enough information to estimate the budgetary impact of the asset sales that would be
  authorized by H.R. 3616.
 Note.--Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050 (national defense), except for certain items
  noted in the text.
Authorizations of Appropriations
    The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling
$271 billion in 1999 for military programs in DOD and DOE (see
Table 2). These costs would fall within budget function 050
(national defense). The estimate assumes that the amounts
authorized will be appropriated for 1999. Outlays are estimated
based on historical spending patterns. In addition, H.R. 3616
would authorize specific appropriations for other budget
functions:
  TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1999, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE
                                      HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Category                               1999      2000      2001      2002      2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
    Authorization Level.......................................    70,697         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................    66,720     3,464       212        71         0
Operation and Maintenance:
    Authorization Level.......................................    92,880         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................    70,274    17,195     3,027     1,068       436
Procurement:
    Authorization Level.......................................    49,052         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................    11,551    13,845    12,264     6,317     2,544
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
    Authorization Level.......................................    36,228         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................    18,909    13,274     2,705       689       236
Military Construction and Family Housing:
    Authorization Level.......................................     8,228         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................     2,614     2,508     1,493       786       254
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
    Authorization Level.......................................    11,897         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................     7,860     3,245       621        57        57
Other Accounts:
    Authorization Level.......................................     1,786         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................     1,075       339       117        52        40
General Transfer Authority:
    Authorization Level.......................................         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................       280       -60      -120       -60       -20
Total:
    Authorization Level.......................................   270,768         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................   179,282    53,810    20,319     8,980     3,547
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          $23 million for the Naval Petroleum Reserve (function
        270).
          $91 million for the Maritime Administration (function
        400).
          $71 million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
        (function 700).
    The bill also contains provisions that would affect various
costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the
fiscal year 1999 authorization and by authorizations in future
years. Table 3 contains estimates of these amounts. In addition
to the costs covered by the 1999 authorizations in the bill,
these provisions would lower estimated costs by $7.3 billion
over the 2000-2003 period. The following sections describe the
estimated authorizations shown in Table 3 and provide
information about CBO's cost estimates.
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 3616 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY
                                     THE HOUSE COMMITEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Category                               1999      2000      2001      2002      2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endstrenths:
    Department of Defense:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................    -1,030    -1,065    -1,105    -1,140    -1,177
        Estimated Outlays.....................................      -972    -1,056    -1,098    -1,135    -1,171
    Coast Guard Reserve:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................        69         0         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays.....................................        62         7         0         0         0
    Grade Structure:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         2         2         2         2         2
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         2         2         2         2         2
Compensation and Benenfits (DOD):
    Military Pay Raise in 1999:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................       186       248       254       261       269
        Estimated Outlays.....................................       177       244       254       261       269
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances:
    Enlistment/reenlistment Bonuses (Active):
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         0       174        53        49        35
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         0       165        59        49        36
    Aviation and Nuclear Special Pay:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         0        90        34        34        26
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         0        86        36        34        27
    Various Bonuses (Reserve):
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         0        55        45        30        22
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         0        52        46        31        22
    Special Pay for Nurses:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         0        10         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         0         9         1         0         0
    Honor Guard Details:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................       320       330       339       350       360
        Estimated Outlays.....................................       304       329       339       350       360
    Voluntary Separation/Early Retirement:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         0       160         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         0       155         5         0         0
    Benefits for Involuntary Separations:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         0        40         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         0        38         2         0         0
    Recruiting Incentives:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         4        24        24        24        24
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         4        24        24        24        24
    Changes in Reenlistment Bonuses:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................        10        10        10        10        10
        Estimated Outlays.....................................        10        10        10        10        10
    Education Loan Repayment:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         5         5         5         5         5
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         5         5         5         5         5
    Reserve Hostile Fire Pay:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         3         3         3         3         3
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         3         3         3         3         3
    Reimbursement for Car Rental:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         2         2         2         2         2
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         2         2         2         2         2
Reduction in Acquiisition Workforce:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................       -19      -672    -1,467    -2,074    -2,192
        Estimated Outlays.....................................       -18      -653    -1,443    -2,056    -2,189
Dependents' Dental Premiums:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................     (\1\)        -1        -2        -3        -4
        Estimated Outlays.....................................     (\1\)        -1        -2        -3        -4
Long-Term Charter of a Naval Vessel:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................        30        16         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         4        10        11        10        10
Worker and Community Transition Assistance:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         0         0       -20         0         0
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         0         0       -13        -6        -1
Separate Housing:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................         0       100       100         0         0
        Estimated Outlays.....................................         0        17        52        62        40
Total Authorization of Appropriations:
        Estimated Authorization Level.........................      -418      -469    -1,723    -2,447    -2,615
        Estimated Outlays.....................................      -418      -552    -1,706    -2,356    -2,554
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.
Notes.--For every item in this table except one, the 1999 impacts are included in the amounts specifically
  authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of
  endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the amounts in Table 2.
This table does not include the costs of section 712, which would require that certain dependents of active-duty
  personnel be automatically enrolled in Tricare Prime. CBO estimates that those costs would be less than $5
  million annually.
    Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve
endstrengths for 1999 and would lower the minimum endstrength
authorization under permanent law. The authorized endstrengths
for active-duty personnel and personnel in the Selected Reserve
would total 1,406,720 and 878,094, respectively. The bill would
specifically authorize appropriations of $70.7 billion for
military pay and allowances in 1999. Current law sets the
minimum endstrength for active-duty personnel at 1,431,379, but
the bill would lower that figure for future years to the level
it would authorize for 1999, thus reducing future personnel
costs by about $1.1 billion annually.
    Also the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in
1999 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost
about $69 million and would fall under budget function 400,
transportation.
    Grade Structure. Section 414 would change the grade
structure of active duty personnel in support of the reserves.
This change would not increase the overall endstrength, but
would result in more promotions. The provision would cost about
$2 million a year.
    Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 3616 contains several
provisions that would affect military compensation and
benefits.
    Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 3.6
percent or $1.3 billion in 1999. Because this pay raise would
be 0.5 percent above current law, CBO estimates that the
incremental costs would be $186 million in 1999 and over $200
million annually in subsequent years.
    Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would
extend for one year DOD's authority to pay certain bonuses and
allowances to current personnel. The authorities are scheduled
to expire at the end of 1999, but in some cases renewing
authorities for one year results in costs over several years
because payments are made in installments. CBO estimates that
payment of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for active duty
personnel would cost $174 million in 2000. The cost of
extending special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified
personnel would be $90 million in 2000. Payment authorities for
various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would total
$55 million in 2000. We estimate that authorities to make
special payments to nurse officer candidates, registered
nurses, and nurse anesthetists would cost $10 million in 2000.
    Honor Guard Details at Funerals of Veterans. Section 558
would require the secretary of a military department to
provide, upon request, an honor guard detail for the funeral of
any veteran. Costs associated with this provision would include
additional pay, transportation, and per diem expenses for those
participating in the honor guard detail. CBO estimates that
honor guards would be requested for about 250,000 services.
Costs for sending guard details averaging five members would
total about $320 million in 1999 and increasing amounts in
subsequent years.
    Voluntary Separation Benefits and Early Retirement. Section
551 would extend for one year DOD's authority to separate
personnel by paying voluntary separation benefits and offering
early retirement. Because DOD has made relatively little use of
the voluntary separation benefit in recent years, CBO estimates
the cost of extending that authority would be less than $10
million. However, recent experience indicates that early
retirement incentives may be used more often. CBO estimates
that DOD would spend about $150 million in 2000 to cover the
costs of extending an option to retire early.
    Benefits for Involuntary Separations. Section 551 would
also extend for one year transitional benefits for former
military personnel who have left service involuntarily. These
benefits include travel and transportation allowances, payments
for storing household goods, and access to health care,
commissaries and family housing. CBO estimates that costs for
extending these benefits would total $40 million in 2000.
    Recruiting Incentives. Section 618 would increase the
maximum enlistment bonus in the Army from $4,000 to $6,000
dollars for individuals who enlist for three years and score 50
or above on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Based on
current recruitment goals, CBO estimates that costs for
enlistment bonuses would increase by $4 million annually. In
addition, the maximum benefit from each college fund would
increase in 2000 from $40,000 to $50,000 under section 556, at
an estimated cost to the military pay accounts of $20 million a
year.
    Changes in Reenlistment Bonus Eligibility. The services
extend reenlistment bonuses to personnel in specialties
characterized by inadequate manning, low retention, and high
replacement costs. The maximum bonus payment under current law
is $45,000, but no more than 10 percent of the bonuses can
exceed $20,000. Section 617 would remove the ten percent
restriction and allow the services to extend large bonuses to
more people. In addition, section 616 would allow the services
to extend reenlistment bonuses to reserve members performing
active guard and reserve duty. CBO estimates that extension of
additional reenlistment bonuses would cost $10 million a year.
    Caps on Education Loan Repayment. The bill would increase
the authorized caps on loans that DOD may repay for health
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve and who have
critical skills. The repayment caps would increase from $3,000
per year and $20,000 in total to $10,000 and $50,000,
respectively. The provision would cost an estimated $5 million
a year.
    Additional Hostile Fire Pay for Reservists. Section 619
would increase Hostile Fire Pay to a full month of coverage
whenever reservists become eligible for payment. Under current
law, reservists may collect the pay for only those days that
they are assigned to dangerous duty. CBO estimates that section
619 would increase payments by about $3 million annually.
    Reimbursement for Car Rental. The bill would authorize DOD
to reimburse service personnel for the cost of renting a car if
DOD is shipping their vehicle and it fails to arrive on
schedule. The provision would limit the reimbursement to $30 a
day for one week. CBO estimates the annual cost of the
reimbursement to be $2 million.
    Currency Fluctuations and Overseas Housing. Under current
law DOD advances housing allowances to certain military
personnel overseas. The individual reimburses the department
over a period of months and bears the risk of currency
fluctuations. Section602 would shift that burden to the
department by requiring DOD to adjust the amount it deducts from a
member's pay as reimbursement. Because currency fluctuations are
extremely difficult to estimate, spending could be either higher or
lower than the amounts authorized for overseas housing. Therefore, this
estimate does not include costs associated with currency fluctuations.
    Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce. The bill would
limit the size of the acquisition workforce and would require a
reduction of 70,000 personnel over a three-year period. Because
the number of military personnel is determined by endstrength
requirements, CBO assumes that the provision would mainly
affect civilian employees and that about half of the reduction
would occur under current law. We estimate that further
reducing the acquisition workforce would save $19 million in
1999 and over $2 billion a year once the reduction is fully
accomplished in 2002 and thereafter.
    Military Health Care Programs and Benefits. Title VII
contains several provisions affecting health care programs and
benefits, although only a few would have a budgetary impact.
    Dependents' Dental Premiums. Under current law,
participating dependents of active-duty personnel must pay part
of the total premium for dental care coverage, but the amount
is capped at $20 per month per family. Section 721 would allow
DOD to adjust the participants' premium for inflation. Under
the bill DOD would not have to pay an increasing share of the
family premium. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce
DOD's costs by a negligible amount in 1999 but that savings
would increase by about $1 million annually thereafter.
    Tricare Access Standards. Section 722 would require DOD to
collect data on beneficiaries' access to primary care and to
measure the performance of other Tricare providers against the
standards established for the Tricare Prime program. Currently,
DOD collects some information on access through a survey of
beneficiaries, but that survey is limited to beneficiaries who
use military treatment facilities (MTFs) as part of Tricare
Prime. CBO estimates that the cost of this provision would be
insignificant if DOD could expand its current survey to satisfy
this provision. However, the costs would be substantial if DOD
interprets this provision to require a system for collecting
information from all providers at each encounter (for example,
an office visit) rather than through surveys.
    Automatic Enrollment and Reenrollment in Tricare Prime.
Under current law, if dependents of active-duty personnel want
to join Tricare Prime, they must enroll each year. Enrollees
can choose either military or civilian primary care providers
or they may be assigned to civilian providers if an MTF reaches
its enrollment capacity. Section 712 would provide that such
individuals who live within 40 miles of an MTF, a so-called
catchment area, be automatically enrolled in Tricare Prime at
the MTF. They would remain enrolled at the MTF until they
elected to disenroll or became ineligible for coverage.
    CBO estimates that this provision would raise DOD's health
care costs less than $5 million a year. Costs would increase if
automatic enrollment attracts beneficiaries who do not
participate in DOD's health programs under current law. If all
such beneficiaries were enrolled and began receiving care from
the MTFs, then DOD's costs would increase by about $90 million
in 1999. Also, if automatic enrollment encourages current
participants in Tricare Extra and Tricare Standard to get care
from the MTFs instead, then DOD would incur more costs in the
direct care system. However, only a small part of this
population would be likely to change providers based solely on
automatic enrollment, and because Tricare contractors would
experience lower health costs from shifts to the MTFs, at least
some of DOD's extra costs would be offset by adjustments to the
price of the managed care contracts.
    Authority to Provide Tricare Coverage. Under current law
beneficiaries lose eligibility for Tricare once they are
eligible for Medicare. The bill would allow DOD to extend
Tricare eligibility through June 30, 1999, for certain
beneficiaries who have become eligible for Medicare because of
a disability but who have not enrolled in Medicare Part B. CBO
estimates that DOD would spend about $3 million in health care
costs for these individuals, based on information from DOD on
the number of affected beneficiaries. Information from DOD
suggests that it has been willing to pay these expenses even
though current law does not require it. Thus, assuming that DOD
would continue to pay these costs under current law, this
provision would have no net budgetary impact.
    Long-Term Charter of Naval Vessels. Section 1015 would
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into long-term
commitments to either lease newly built surface vessels or
contract for services employing such vessels; in either case
the contract may include an option for the Navy to purchase the
vessel. Contracts under this section would have to be
specifically authorized in subsequent legislation. Under
current practices, a contract authorized under this section
would probably be considered either a capital lease or a lease-
purchase arrangement. As a result, the subsequent authorization
would be scored with a large amount of budget authority in the
first year. If the arrangement is a lease-purchase, the budget
would record all outlays in the first year for contracts on
existing vessels and over the expected construction period for
contracts to acquire new vessels.
    Section 1013 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
charter through 2003 three vessels in support of submarine
rescue, escort, and towing. The charter would be a capital
lease that would cost about $46 million through 2003. Because
two charters would begin in 1999 and the third would begin in
2000, the estimated authorization is counted in those two
years. The estimate is based on information provided by the
Navy and the owner of the vessels.
    Worker and Community Assistance. Section 3151 would
terminate after fiscal year 2000 the worker transition
assistance program. This program assists employees of the
Department of Energy (DOE) with the costs of relocating to
other facilities and former employees of DOE with the costs of
finding new employment. DOE projects that under current law,
worker assistance programs would decrease over the next two
years and be completely eliminated by the end of fiscal year
2001. Based on this information, CBO estimates that savings
would total $20 million in 2001. Savings would vary, however,
depending on the extent of any restructuring of DOE and its use
of the authority under current law.
    Similarly, section 3151 would discontinue assistance to
communities affected by restructuring DOE. CBO estimates that
any savings from terminating DOE's community assistance
programs would be offset by costs in other federal programs.
    Separate Housing During Basic Training. The bill would
require DOD to house male and female recruits in separate
barracks during basic training. The cost of this provision
would vary widely depending on whether new buildings are
constructed or existing buildings are renovated. Information
from the Navy, which conducts most of its training at one base,
suggests one-time costs of $1 million to $2 million, assuming
it can fulfill the requirement with slight modifications to
existing structures. On the other hand, data from the Army and
Air Force, which conduct basic training on many different
bases, indicate costs of about $150 million and $50 million,
respectively, because each may require construction of new
barracks. To the extent that construction would be required,
annual operating costs for those bases would marginally
increase because of increased overhead and maintenance.
Direct spending and asset sales
    H.R. 3616 contains several provisions that would affect
direct spending and asset sales.
    Land Conveyances. The bill contains several provisions that
would convey land to nonfederal entities. In some cases the
provisions would raise receipts of the federal government, but
other provisions would lower them. CBO cannot estimate the
aggregate budgetary impact because DOD has not assessed the
market value of all the affected properties.
    Section 2841 would grant an easement of 340 acres at Camp
Pendleton Marine Corps Base, California to a local
transportation agency for the construction of a freeway. The
agency would pay the United States fair market value for the
easement, thereby increasing receipts to the Treasury.
    Section 2834 would authorize DOD to give about 300 acres to
the town of New Windsor, New York. This property is excess to
the needs of the Army and under current law all or part of it
would probably be turned over to the General Services
Administration (GSA) for disposal. Under GSA's procedures,
properties can be sold to the public if other entities,
including other federal agencies, do not acquire them, thus
section 2834 could result in costs to the Treasury.
    Section 2835 would sell about 5,000 acres to an Indiana
Reuse Authority and section 2836 would convey about 1,000 acres
to Hamilton County, Tennessee. In each case, payment would
occur 10 years after the land was transferred. The delayed
payment would represent loans by the United States under
procedures established by the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990. The budgetary impact would be the difference between the
sale price and the subsidy cost. However, because DOD does not
know the market value of the land, CBO cannot estimate the
budgetary effects.
    Sections 2835 and 2836 also would grant the Secretary of
the Army authority to accept and spend reimbursements from
local authorities for administrative expenses incurred during
the conveyances. Because receipts and spending would offset
each other, this authority would have no net budgetary impact.
    Other sections would either authorize DOD to give or sell
parcels of property that GSA might sell under its disposal
procedures. CBO estimates that these sections would not have a
significant budgetary impact.
    Naval Petroleum Reserve. Title XXXIV would direct DOE to
dispose of certain lots within the Naval Petroleum Reserve
Number 2 (NPR-2) in California. DOE also would be authorized to
dispose of other NPR properties after oil and gas operations
have been abandoned. Based on information provided by DOE, CBO
estimates that selling the specified lots within NPR-2 would
increase receipts by about $300,000 sometime in the next two to
three years. Receipts from the disposal of other properties are
not expected to be significant over the 1999-2003 period.
    Sale of Vessels. Title XXXVI would authorize the Secretary
of Transportation to sell three vessels in the National Defense
Reserve Fleet at fair market value. The Secretary would deposit
all proceeds from the sales as offsetting collections into the
Vessel Operations Revolving Fund, from which they would be
available to the Maritime Administration without further
appropriation to acquire and maintain other ships. Under
current law, these ships would likely be sold under the
agency's scrapping program. The proceeds would be treated the
same under current law as they would under this provision. But
because vessels sold under the authority provided in this bill
may bring in more money than those sold under the existing
program, additional offsetting collections could be slightly
higher than under current law.
    Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an
insignificant budgetary impact:
          Section 551 would extend the authority to require the
        retirement of certain senior officers who fail to
        receive promotions to the next higher grade.
          Section 641 would require certain retirees to begin
        paying premiums under the Survivor Benefit Program the
        month following a court order.
          Section 2812 would authorize the Secretary of Defense
        to accept donations of funds, property, or services in
        connection with the department's programs for public
        outdoor recreation at military sites. This provision
        would have no net budgetary effect because any new
        receipts would be offset by any new outlays.
          Title XXXV would authorize the Panama Canal
        Commission (PCC) to solicit and accept donations of
        funds, property, and services from nonfederal sources
        for the purpose of carrying out promotional activities.
        This provision would have no net effect on direct
        spending because any new offsetting collections would
        be deposited into the PCC's revolving fund, from which
        they would be spent without further appropriation
        action.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-
as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending
or receipts. CBO does not have enough information to estimate
the budgetary impact of certain landconveyances. CBO estimates
that the direct spending from other provisions of H.R. 3616 is either
less than $500,000 annually or would be offset by the proceeds from
asset sales.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) excludes from
application of that act legislative provisions that are
necessary for the national security. CBO has determined that
the provisions in H.R. 3616 either fit within this exclusion or
do not contain intergovern-mental mandates as defined by UMRA.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: One provision of
H.R. 3616 could impose a new private-sector mandate. Section
368 of title III would require airlines and other common
carriers under contract with the General Services
Administration to provide transportation at the contracted
federal government rate to reservists traveling to and from
their inactive duty training station. To the extent that the
contracted government rate is lower than available commercial
rates, this provision would reduce carriers' revenues and
income. About 700,000 reservists are required to participate in
monthly drills and annual training. The annual cost of this
provision would be well below the $100 million threshold set by
UMRA, since most reservists travel to their training bases by
private automobile rather than by common carrier. Furthermore,
once the General Services Administration renegotiates its
service agreements with the carriers, this provision would
become a standard condition of the contract that the carriers
accept, and would therefore no longer constitute a private-
sector mandate.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost: The estimates for
defense programs were prepared by Valerie Barton (military
retirement), Shawn Bishop (health programs), Kent Christensen
(military construction and other defense), Jeannette Deshong
(military and civilian personnel), Raymond Hall (procurement,
RDT&E, stockpile sales, and atomic energy defense activities),
and Dawn Sauter (operation and maintenance). Kathy Gramp
prepared the estimates for the Naval Petroleum Reserve, and
Deborah Reis prepared the estimate for programs of the Maritime
Administration and the Panama Canal Commission.
    Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex.
Impact on the Private Sector: R. William Thomas.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
                        Committee Cost Estimate
    Pursuant to clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
the estimates for budget authority and direct spending as
contained in the report of the Congressional Budget Office.
However, the committee notes that the Congressional Budget
Office estimate fails to fully consider the restrictions on
defense outlays imposed by section 1003. This provision would
limit total outlays available to the Secretaries of Defense and
Energy for national defense, function (050), programs to
amounts consistent with the limitations imposed by the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997. These limitations are in line with the
fiscal year 1999 national defense estimates contained in the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998 (H.
Con. Res. 84). Furthermore, should the Congress appropriate
funds as authorized by this bill, enforcement mechanisms
contained in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended, would preclude any increase in total
defense outlays beyond those allowed by the statute.
                       Inflation Impact Statement
    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee concludes that the bill
would have no significant inflationary impact.
                           Oversight Findings
    With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
    With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
    With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the committee has not received
a report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 3616.
                   Constitutional Authority Statement
    Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
                     Statement of Federal Mandates
    Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
intergovernmental mandates.
                             Rollcall Votes
    In accordance with clause 2(1)(2)(B) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, rollcall and voice votes
were taken with respect to the committee's consideration of
H.R. 3616. The record of these votes is attached to this
report.
    The committee ordered H.R. 3616 reported to the House with
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 50-1, a quorum being
present.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
SECTION 216 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS
                             1992 AND 1993
SEC. 216. MANAGEMENT OF NAVY MINE COUNTERMEASURES PROGRAMS.
  (a) Responsibility.--Subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the Secretary of Defense, the Director, Defense
Research and Engineering shall have the primary responsibility
for developing and testing naval mine countermeasures systems
during fiscal years 1995 [through 1999] through 2003.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle A--General Military Law
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Sec.
111.  Executive department.
     * * * * * * *
117.  Readiness reporting system: establishment; reporting to
          congressional committees.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 113. Secretary of Defense
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (l) The Secretary shall include in the annual report to
Congress under subsection (c) the following:
          (1) A comparison of the amounts provided in the
        defense budget for support and for mission activities
        for each of the preceding five years.
          (2) A comparison of the number of military and
        civilian personnel, shown by major occupational
        category, assigned to support positions and to mission
        positions for each of the preceding five years.
          (3) An accounting, shown by service and by major
        occupational category, of the number of military and
        civilian personnel assigned to support positions during
        each of the preceding five years.
          (4) A listing of the number of military and civilian
        personnel assigned to management headquarters and
        headquarters support activities as a percentage of
        military end-strength for each of the preceding 10
        years.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 115a. Annual manpower requirements report
  (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress[, not
later than February 15 of each fiscal year,] an annual manpower
requirements report. [The report shall be in writing and] The
report shall be submitted each year not later than 30 days
after the date on which the budget for the next fiscal year is
transmitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31,
shall be in writing, and shall contain the Secretary's
recommendations for--
          (1) the annual active-duty end-strength level for
        each component of the armed forces for the next fiscal
        year; and
          (2) the annual civilian personnel end-strength level
        for each component of the Department of Defense for the
        next fiscal year.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 117. Readiness reporting system: establishment; reporting to
                    congressional committees
  (a) Required Readiness Reporting System.--The Secretary of
Defense shall establish a comprehensive readiness reporting
system for the Department of Defense. The readiness reporting
system shall measure in an objective, accurate, and timely
manner the capability of the armed forces to carry out--
          (1) the National Security Strategy prescribed by the
        President in the most recent annual national security
        strategy report under section 108 of the National
        Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a);
          (2) the defense planning guidance provided by the
        Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 113(g) of this
        title; and
          (3) the National Military Strategy prescribed by the
        Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  (b) Readiness Reporting System Characteristics.-- In
establishing the readiness reporting system, the Secretary
shall ensure--
          (1) that the readiness reporting system is applied
        uniformly throughout the Department of Defense;
          (2) that information in the readiness reporting
        system is continually updated, with any change in the
        overall readiness status of a unit, of an element of
        the training establishment, or an element of defense
        infrastructure that is required to be reported as part
        of the readiness reporting system shall be reported
        within 24 hours of the event necessitating the change
        in readiness status; and
          (3) that sufficient resources are provided to
        establish and maintain the system so as to allow
        reporting of changes in readiness status as required by
        this section.
  (c) Capabilities.--The readiness reporting system shall have
the capability to do the following:
          (1) Measure the capability of units (both as elements
        of their respective armed force and as elements of
        joint forces) to conduct their assigned wartime
        missions.
          (2) Measure the capability of training establishments
        to provide trained and ready forces for wartime
        missions.
          (3) Measure the capability of defense installations
        and facilities and other elements of Department of
        Defense infrastructure, both in the United States and
        abroad, to provide appropriate support to forces in the
        conduct of their wartime missions.
          (4) Measure critical warfighting deficiencies in unit
        capability, training establishments, and defense
        infrastructure.
          (5) Measure the level of current risk based upon the
        readiness reporting system relative to the capability
        of forces to carry out their wartime missions.
          (6) Measure such other factors relating to readiness
        as the Secretary prescribes.
  (d) Periodic Joint Readiness Review.--The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff shall periodically, and not less
frequently than monthly, conduct a joint readiness review. The
Chairman shall incorporate into each such review the current
information derived from the readiness reporting system and
shall assess the capability of the armed forces to execute
their wartime missions based upon their posture at the time of
the review. The Chairman shall submit to the Secretary of
Defense the results of each review, including the deficiencies
in readiness identified during that review.
  (e) Submission to Congressional Committees.--The Secretary
shall each month submit to the congressional defense committees
a report in writing containing the complete results of each
review under subsection (d) during the preceding month,
including the current information derived from the readiness
reporting system. Each such report shall be submitted in
unclassified form and may, as the Secretary determines
necessary, also be submitted in classified form.
  (f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations
to carry out this section. In those regulations, the Secretary
shall prescribe the units that are subject to reporting in the
readiness reporting system, what type of equipment is subject
to such reporting, and the elements of the training
establishment and of defense infrastructure that are subject to
such reporting.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                CHAPTER 3--GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
Sec.
121.  Regulations.
121a.  Requirement of exemplary conduct by civilians in chain of
          command.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 121a. Requirement of exemplary conduct by civilians in chain of
                    command
  The President, as Commander in Chief, and the Secretary of
Defense are required (in the same manner that commanding
officers and others in authority in the Armed Forces are
required)--
          (1) to show in themselves a good example of virtue,
        honor, and patriotism and to subordinate themselves to
        those ideals;
          (2) to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all
        persons who are placed under their command;
          (3) to guard against and to put an end to all
        dissolute and immoral practices and to correct,
        according to the laws and regulations of the armed
        forces, all persons who are guilty of them; and
          (4) to take all necessary and proper measures, under
        the laws, regulations, and customs of the armed forces,
        to promote and safeguard the morale, the physical well-
        being, and the general welfare of the officers and
        enlisted persons under their command or charge.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 4--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 134. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
  (a) There is an Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed
as Under Secretary within 10 years after relief from active
duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an
armed force.
  (b)(1) The Under Secretary shall perform such duties and
exercise such powers as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
The Under Secretary shall have responsibility for overall
supervision of activities of the Department of Defense relating
to export controls.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 8--DEFENSE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 192. Defense Agencies and Department of Defense Field Activities:
                    oversight by the Secretary of Defense
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) Special Rule for Defense Commissary Agency.--
Notwithstanding the results of the periodic review required
under subsection (c) with regard to the Defense Commissary
Agency, the Secretary of Defense may not transfer to the
Secretary of a military department the responsibility to manage
and fund the provision of services and supplies provided by the
Defense Commissary Agency unless the transfer of the management
and funding responsibility is specifically authorized by a law
enacted after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
                   CHAPTER 9--DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS
Sec.
221.  Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency
          in budgeting.
     * * * * * * *
223.  Ballistic missile defense programs.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 223. Ballistic missile defense programs
  (a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of
Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the
amount requested for activities of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization shall be set forth in accordance with the
following program elements:
          (1) The Patriot system.
          (2) The Navy Area system.
          (3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system.
          (4) The Navy Theater Wide system.
          (5) The Medium Extended Air Defense System.
          (6) Joint Theater Missile Defense.
          (7) National Missile Defense.
          (8) Support Technologies.
          (9) Family of Systems Engineering and Integration.
          (10) Ballistic Missile Defense Technical Operations.
          (11) Threat and Countermeasures.
          (12) International Cooperative Programs.
  (b) Treatment of Major Defense Acquisition Programs.--Amounts
requested for Theater Missile Defense and National Missile
Defense major defense acquisition programs shall be specified
in individual, dedicated program elements, and amounts
appropriated for those programs shall be available only for
Ballistic Missile Defense activities.
  (c) Management and Support.--The amount requested for each
program element specified in subsection (a) shall include
requests for the amounts necessary for the management and
support of the programs, projects, and activities contained in
that program element.
             CHAPTER 20--HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER ASSISTANCE
Sec.
401.  Humanitarian and civic assistance provided in conjunction with
          military operations.
     * * * * * * *
406.  Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds: limitation.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 406. Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds: limitation
  (a) In General.--In carrying out Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs during any fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may
use funds appropriated for those programs only to the extent
that those funds were appropriated for that fiscal year or for
either of the 2 preceding fiscal years.
  (b) Definition of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs.--In
this section, the term ``Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs'' means the following programs with respect to states
of the former Soviet Union:
          (1) Programs to facilitate the elimination, and the
        safe and secure transportation and storage, of nuclear,
        chemical, and other weapons of mass destruction and
        their delivery vehicles.
          (2) Programs to facilitate the safe and secure
        storage of fissile materials derived from the
        elimination of nuclear weapons.
          (3) Programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons
        of mass destruction, components, and technology and
        expertise related to such weapons.
          (4) Programs to expand military-to-military and
        defense contacts.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
             CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec.
481.  Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group activity:
          annual survey and report.
[482.  Quarterly reports: personnel and unit readiness.]
     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 482. Quarterly reports: personnel and unit readiness
  [(a) Quarterly Reports Required.--Not later than 30 days
after the end of each calendar-year quarter, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report regarding military
readiness. The report for a quarter shall contain the
information required by subsections (b), (d), and (e).
  [(b) Readiness Problems and Remedial Actions.--Each report
shall specifically describe--
          [(1) each readiness problem and deficiency identified
        using the assessments considered under subsection (c);
          [(2) planned remedial actions; and
          [(3) the key indicators and other relevant
        information related to each identified problem and
        deficiency.
  [(c) Consideration of Readiness Assessments.--The information
required under subsection (b) to be included in the report for
a quarter shall be based on readiness assessments that are
provided during that quarter--
          [(1) to any council, committee, or other body of the
        Department of Defense--
                  [(A) that has responsibility for readiness
                oversight; and
                  [(B) whose membership includes at least one
                civilian officer in the Office of the Secretary
                of Defense at the level of Assistant Secretary
                of Defense or higher;
          [(2) by senior civilian and military officers of the
        military departments and the commanders of the unified
        and specified commands; and
          [(3) as part of any regularly established process of
        periodic readiness reviews for the Department of
        Defense as a whole.
  [(d) Comprehensive Readiness Indicators for Active
Components.--Each report shall also include information
regarding each of the active components of the armed forces
(and an evaluation of such information) with respect to each of
the following readiness indicators:
          [(1) Personnel strength.--
                  [(A) Personnel status, including the extent
                to which members of the armed forces are
                serving in positions outside of their military
                occupational specialty, serving in grades other
                than the grades for which they are qualified,
                or both.
                  [(B) Historical data and projected trends in
                personnel strength and status.
          [(2) Personnel turbulence.--
                  [(A) Recruit quality.
                  [(B) Borrowed manpower.
                  [(C) Personnel stability.
          [(3) Other personnel matters.--
                  [(A) Personnel morale.
                  [(B) Recruiting status.
          [(4) Training.--
                  [(A) Training unit readiness and proficiency.
                  [(B) Operations tempo.
                  [(C) Training funding.
                  [(D) Training commitments and deployments.
          [(5) Logistics--equipment fill.--
                  [(A) Deployed equipment.
                  [(B) Equipment availability.
                  [(C) Equipment that is not mission capable.
                  [(D) Age of equipment.
                  [(E) Condition of nonpacing items.
          [(6) Logistics--equipment maintenance.--
                  [(A) Maintenance backlog.
          [(7) Logistics--supply.--
                  [(A) Availability of ordnance and spares.
                  [(B) Status of prepositioned equipment.
  [(e) Unit Readiness Indicators.--Each report shall also
include information regarding the readiness of each active
component unit of the armed forces at the battalion, squadron,
or an equivalent level (or a higher level) that received a
readiness rating of C-3 (or below) for any month of the
calendar-year quarter covered by the report. With respect to
each such unit, the report shall separately provide the
following information:
          [(1) The unit designation and level of organization.
          [(2) The overall readiness rating for the unit for
        the quarter and each month of the quarter.
          [(3) The resource area or areas (personnel, equipment
        and supplies on hand, equipment condition, or training)
        that adversely affected the unit's readiness rating for
        the quarter.
          [(4) The reasons why the unit received a readiness
        rating of C-3 (or below).
  [(f) Classification of Reports.--A report under this section
shall be submitted in unclassified form. To the extent the
Secretary of Defense determines necessary, the report may also
be submitted in classified form.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART II--PERSONNEL
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 32--OFFICER STRENGTH AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 526. Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty
  (a) * * *
  (b) Limited Exclusion for Joint Duty Requirements.--(1) * * *
  (2) This subsection shall cease to be effective on October 1,
[1998] 2001.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
   CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER I--SELECTION BOARDS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 614. Notice of convening of selection boards
  (a) * * *
  (b) An officer eligible for consideration by a selection
board convened under section 611(a) of this title may send a
written communication to the board, to arrive not later than
the date the board convenes, calling attention to any matter
concerning himself that the officer considers important to [his
case] enhancing his case for selection for promotion. The
selection board shall give consideration to any timely
communication under this subsection.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
 SUBCHAPTER III--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT FOR
YEARS OF SERVICE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 628. Special selection boards
  [(a)(1) In the case of an officer who is eligible for
promotion who the Secretary of the military department
concerned determines was not considered for selection for
promotion by a selection board because of administrative error,
the Secretary concerned, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, shall convene a special selection board
under this subsection (composed in accordance with section 612
of this title or, in the case of a warrant officer, composed in
accordance with section 573 of this title and regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the military department
concerned) to determine whether such officer should be
recommended for promotion.]
  (a) Persons Not Considered by Promotion Boards Due to
Administrative Error.--(1) If the Secretary of the military
department concerned determines that because of administrative
error a person who should have been considered for selection
for promotion by a promotion board was not so considered, the
Secretary shall convene a special selection board under this
subsection to determine whether that person (whether or not
then on active duty) should be recommended for promotion.
  (2) A special selection board convened under paragraph (1)
shall consider the record of [the officer as his record] the
person whose name was referred to it for consideration as that
record would have appeared to the board that should have
considered him. That record shall be compared with a sampling
of the records of those officers of the same competitive
category who were recommended for promotion, and those officers
who were not recommended for promotion, by the board that
should have considered him.
  (3) If a special selection board convened under paragraph (1)
does not recommend for promotion [an officer in a grade below
the grade of colonel or, in the case of an officer of the Navy,
captain whose name was referred to it for consideration, the
officer] a person whose name was referred to it for
consideration for selection for appointment to a grade other
than a general officer or flag officer grade, the person shall
be considered to have failed of selection for promotion.
  [(b)(1) In the case of an officer who is eligible for
promotion who was considered for selection for promotion by a
selection board but was not selected, the Secretary of the
military department concerned, under regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of Defense, may convene a special selection board
under this subsection (composed in accordance with section 612
of this title or, in the case of a warrant officer, composed in
accordance with section 573 of this title and regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the military department
concerned) to determine whether such officer should be
recommended for promotion if the Secretary concerned determines
that--
          [(A) the action of the board which considered the
        officer was contrary to law or involved material error
        of fact or material administrative error; or
          [(B) the board did not have before it for its
        consideration material information.]
  (b) Persons Considered by Promotion Boards in Unfair
Manner.--(1) If the Secretary of the military department
concerned determines, in the case of a person who was
considered for selection for promotion by a promotion board but
was not selected, that there was material unfairness with
respect to that person, the Secretary may convene a special
selection board under this subsection to determine whether that
person (whether or not then on active duty) should be
recommended for promotion. In order to determine that there was
material unfairness, the Secretary must determine that--
          (A) the action of the promotion board that considered
        the person was contrary to law or involved material
        error of fact or material administrative error; or
          (B) the board did not have before it for its
        consideration material information.
  (2) A special selection board convened under paragraph (1)
shall consider the record of [the officer as his record] the
person whose name was referred to it for consideration as that
record, if corrected, would have appeared to the board that
considered him. That record shall be compared with the records
of a sampling of those officers of the same competitive
category who were recommended for promotion, and those officers
who were not recommended for promotion, by the board that
considered him.
  (3) If a special selection board convened under paragraph (1)
does not recommend for promotion [an officer] a person whose
name was referred to it for consideration, the [officer] person
incurs no additional failure of selection for promotion.
  (c) Reports of Boards.--(1) Each special selection board
convened under this section shall submit to the Secretary of
the military department concerned a written report, signed by
each member of the board, containing the name of each [officer]
person it recommends for promotion and certifying that the
board has carefully considered the record of each [officer]
person whose name was referred to it.
  (2) The provisions of sections 617(b) and 618 of this title
apply to the report and proceedings of a special selection
board convened under this section in the same manner as they
apply to the report and proceedings of a selection board
convened under section 611(a) of this title. However, in the
case of a board convened under this section to consider a
warrant officer or former warrant officer, the provisions of
sections 576(d) and 576(f) of this title (rather than the
provisions of section 617(b) and 618 of this title) apply to
the report and proceedings of the board in the same manner as
they apply to the report and proceedings of a selection board
convened under section 573 of this title.
  (d) Appointment of Persons Selected by Boards.--(1) If the
report of a special selection board convened under this
section, as approved by the President, recommends for promotion
to the next higher grade [an officer] a person whose name was
referred to it for consideration, [such officer] that person
shall, as soon as practicable, be appointed to [the next higher
grade] that grade in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and
(d) of section 624 of this title. However, in the case of a
board convened under this section to consider a warrant officer
or former warrant officer, if the report of that board, as
approved by the Secretary concerned, recommends that warrant
officer or former warrant officer for promotion to the next
higher grade, that person shall, as soon as practicable, be
appointed to the next higher grade in accordance with
provisions of section 578(c) of this title (rather than
subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 624 of this title).
  (2) [An officer who is promoted] A person who is appointed to
the next higher grade as the result of the recommendation of a
special selection board convened under this section shall, upon
[such promotion] that appointment, have the same date of rank,
the same effective date for the pay and allowances of that
grade, and the same position on the active-duty list as he
would have had if he had been recommended for promotion to that
grade by the board which should have considered, or which did
consider, him. In the case of a person who is not on the
active-duty list when appointed to the next higher grade,
placement of that person on the active-duty list pursuant to
the preceding sentence shall be only for purposes of
determination of eligibility of that person for consideration
for promotion by any subsequent special selection board under
this section.
  [(e) The provisions of section 613 of this title apply to
members of special selection boards convened under this
section.]
  (e) Deceased Persons.--If a person whose name is being
considered for referral to a special selection board under this
section dies before the completion of proceedings under this
section with respect to that person, this section shall be
applied to that person posthumously.
  (f) Convening of Boards.--A board convened under this
section--
          (1) shall be convened under regulations prescribed by
        the Secretary of Defense;
          (2) shall be composed in accordance with section 612
        of this title or, in the case of board to consider a
        warrant officer or former warrant officer, in
        accordance with section 573 of this title and
        regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military
        department concerned; and
          (3) shall be subject to the provisions of section 613
        of this title.
  (g) Promotion Board Defined.--In this section, the term
``promotion board'' means a selection board convened by the
Secretary of a military department under section 573(a) or
611(a) of this title.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 633. Retirement for years of service: regular lieutenant colonels
                    and commanders
  Except an officer of the Navy designated for limited duty to
whom section 5596(e) of this title applies and an officer of
the Marine Corps designated for limited duty to whom section
5596(e) or section 6383 of this title applies and except as
provided under section 637(b) of this title, each officer of
the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps
who holds the regular grade of lieutenant colonel, and each
officer of the Regular Navy who holds the regular grade of
commander, who is not on a list of officers recommended for
promotion to the regular grade of colonel or captain,
respectively, shall, if not earlier retired, be retired on
thefirst day of the month after the month in which he completes 28
years of active commissioned service. During the period beginning on
July 1, 1993, and ending on October 1, [1999] 2000, the preceding
sentence shall not apply to an officer of the Navy designated for
limited duty to whom section 6383 of this title applies.
Sec. 634. Retirement for years of service: regular colonels and Navy
                    captains
  Except as provided under section 637(b) of this title, each
officer of the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, or Regular
Marine Corps who holds the regular grade of colonel, and each
officer of the Regular Navy who holds the regular grade of
captain, who is not on a list of officers recommended for
promotion to the regular grade of brigadier general or rear
admiral (lower half), respectively, shall, if not earlier
retired, be retired on the first day of the month after the
month in which he completes 30 years of active commissioned
service. During the period beginning on July 1, 1993, and
ending on October 1, [1999] 2000, the preceding sentence shall
not apply to an officer of the Regular Navy designated for
limited duty to whom section 6383(a)(4) of this title applies.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
    SUBCHAPTER IV--CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY AND SELECTIVE EARLY
RETIREMENT
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 638a. Modification to rules for continuation on active duty;
                    enhanced authority for selective early retirement
                    and early discharges
  (a) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a
military department, [during the nine-year period beginning on
October 1, 1990] during the period beginning on October 1,
1990, and ending on September 30, 2000, to take any of the
actions set forth in subsection (b) with respect to officers of
an armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional
                    contingencies
  (a) * * *
  (b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty
at the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the
following:
          (1) For the Army, [495,000] 484,800.
          (2) For the Navy, [390,802] 376,423.
          (3) For the Marine Corps, [174,000] 173,922.
          (4) For the Air Force, 371,577.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) For a fiscal year for which the active duty end strength
authorized by law pursuant to section 115(a)(1)(A) of this
title for any of the armed forces is identical to the number
applicable to that armed force under subsection (b), the
Secretary of Defense may reduce that number by not more than 1
percent [or, in the case of the Army, by not more than 1.5
percent].
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 40--LEAVE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 702. Cadets and midshipmen
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c)(1) The Secretary concerned may place an academy cadet or
midshipman on involuntary leave without pay if, under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, the
Superintendent of the Academy at which the cadet or midshipman
is admitted--
          (A) has recommended that the cadet or midshipman be
        dismissed or discharged;
          (B) has directed the cadet or midshipman return to
        the Academy to repeat an academic semester or year;
          (C) has otherwise recommended to the Secretary for
        good cause that the cadet or midshipman be placed on
        involuntary leave without pay.
  (2) In this subsection, the term ``academy cadet or
midshipman'' means--
          (A) a cadet of the United States Military Academy;
          (B) a midshipman of the United States Naval Academy;
          (C) a cadet of the United States Air Force Academy;
        or
          (D) a cadet of the United States Coast Guard Academy.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1034. Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory
                    personnel actions
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) Reports on Investigations.--(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  [(3) If, in the course of an investigation of an allegation
under this section, the Inspector General determines that it is
not possible to submit the report required by paragraph (1)
within 90 days after the date of receipt of the allegation
being investigated, the Inspector General shall provide to the
Secretary of Defense (or to the Secretary of Transportation in
the case of a member of the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard is
not operating as a service in the Navy) and to the member
making the allegation a notice--
          [(A) of that determination (including the reasons why
        the report may not be submitted within that time); and
          [(B) of the time when the report will be submitted.]
  [(4)] (3) The report on the results of the investigation
shall contain a thorough review of the facts and circumstances
relevant to the allegation and the complaint or disclosure and
shall include documents acquired during the course of the
investigation, including summaries of interviews conducted. The
report may include a recommendation as to the disposition of
the complaint.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  [(h) Post-Disposition Interviews.--After disposition of any
case under this section, the Inspector General shall, whenever
possible, conduct an interview with the person making the
allegation to determine the views of that person on the
disposition of the matter.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1053. Reimbursement for financial institution charges incurred
                    because of Government error in direct deposit of
                    pay
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) In this section:
          [(1) The term ``financial institution'' has the
        meaning given the term ``financial organization'' in
        section 3332(a) of title 31.]
          (1) The term ``financial institution'' means a bank,
        savings and loan association, or similar institution or
        a credit union chartered by the United States or a
        State.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
              CHAPTER 54--COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE BENEFITS
Sec.
1061.  Survivors of certain Reserve and Guard members.
1062.  Certain former spouses.
[1063.  Period for use of commissary stores: eligibility for members of
          the Ready Reserve.
[1064.  Use of commissary stores by certain members and former members.]
1063.  Use of commissary stores: members of Ready Reserve with at least
          50 creditable points.
1063a.  Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of
          National Guard serving in federally declared disaster.
1064.  Use of commissary stores: persons qualified for retired pay under
          chapter 1223 but under age 60.
     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 1063. Period for use of commissary stores: eligibility for
                    members of the Ready Reserve]
Sec. 1063. Use of commissary stores: members of Ready Reserve with at
                    least 50 creditable points
  (a) Eligibility of Members of Ready Reserve.--[(1)] A member
of the Ready Reserve who satisfactorily completes 50 or more
points creditable under section 12732(a)(2) of this title in a
calendar year shall be eligible to use commissary stores of the
Department of Defense. The Secretary concerned shall authorize
the member to have [12 days of eligibility] 24 days of
eligibility for any calendar year that the member qualifies for
eligibility under this subsection.
  [(2) Paragraph (1)] (b) Effect of Compensation or Type of
Duty.--Subsection (a) shall apply without regard to whether,
during the calendar year, the member receives compensation for
the duty or training performed by the member or performs active
duty for training.
  [(b) Limitation.--A member may not use commissary stores by
reason of this section for more than 14 days in any period of
365 days.]
Sec. 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members
                    of National Guard serving in federally declared
                    disaster
  (a) Eligibility of Members.--A member of the National Guard
who, although not in Federal service, is called or ordered to
duty in response to a federally declared disaster shall be
permitted to use commissary stores and MWR retail facilities
during the period of such duty on the same basis as members of
the armed forces on active duty.
  (b) Eligibility of Dependents.--A dependent of a member of
the National Guard who is permitted under subsection (a) to use
commissary stores and MWR retail facilities shall be permitted
to use such stores and facilities, during the same period as
the member, on the same basis as dependents of members of the
armed forces on active duty.
  (c) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Federally declared disaster.--The term
        ``federally declared disaster'' means a disaster or
        other situation for which a Presidential declaration of
        major disaster is issued under section 401 of the
        Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
        Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170).
          (2) MWR retail facilities.--The term ``MWR retail
        facilities'' means exchange stores and other revenue-
        generating facilities operated by nonappropriated fund
        activities of the Department of Defense for the morale,
        welfare, and recreation of members of the armed forces.
[Sec. 1064. Use of commissary stores by certain members and former
                    members]
Sec. 1064. Use of commissary stores: persons qualified for retired pay
                    under chapter 1223 but under age 60
  Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a
person who would be eligible for retired pay under chapter 1223
of this title but for the fact that the person is under 60
years of age shall be authorized to use commissary stores of
the Department of Defense [for 12 days each calendar year] for
24 days each calendar year.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                  CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
Sec.
1071.  Purpose of this chapter.
     * * * * * * *
1095a.   Medical care: members held as captives and their dependents.
1095b.   TRICARE program: contractor payment of certain claims.
1096.  Military-civilian health services partnership program.
1097.  Contracts for medical care for retirees, dependents, and
          survivors: alternative delivery of health care.
1097a.   Enrollment in TRICARE Prime: procedures.
1098.  Incentives for participation in cost-effective health care plans.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 1076a. Dependents' dental program
  (a) * * *
  (b) Premiums.--(1) * * *
  (2) A member enrolled in a basic dental benefits plan shall
pay a premium of not more than $20 per month (in 1993 dollars,
as adjusted for inflation in each year thereafter) for the
member and the family of the member.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1076c. Dental insurance plan: certain retirees and their surviving
                    spouses and other dependents
  (a) * * *
  (b) Persons Eligible for Plan.--The following persons are
eligible to enroll in the dental insurance plan established
under subsection (a):
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (4) Eligible dependents of a member described in
        paragraph (1) or (2) who is not enrolled in the plan
        and who--
                  (A) is enrolled under section 1705 of title
                38 to receive dental care from the Secretary of
                Veterans Affairs;
                  (B) is enrolled in a dental plan that--
                          (i) is available to the member as a
                        result of employment by the member that
                        is separate from the military service
                        of the member; and
                          (ii) is not available to dependents
                        of the member as a result of such
                        separate employment by the member; or
                  (C) is prevented by a medical or dental
                condition from being able to obtain benefits
                under the plan.
          [(4)] (5) The unremarried surviving spouse and
        eligible child dependents of a deceased member--
                  (A) who died while in a status described in
                paragraph (1) or (2);
                  (B) who is described in section 1448(d)(1) of
                this title; or
                  (C) who died while on active duty for a
                period of more than 30 days and whose eligible
                dependents are not eligible, or no longer
                eligible, for dental benefits under section
                1076a of this title pursuant to subsection
                (i)(2) of such section.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f) Termination of Enrollment.--The Secretary shall terminate
the enrollment of any enrollee, and any eligible dependents of
the enrollee covered by the enrollment, in the dental insurance
plan established under subsection (a) upon the occurrence of
the following:
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (3) In the case of an enrollment under subsection
        [(b)(4)] (b)(5), remarriage of the surviving spouse.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1095b. TRICARE program: contractor payment of certain claims
  (a) Payment of Claims.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
authorize a contractor under the TRICARE program to pay a claim
described in paragraph (2) before seeking to recover from a
third-party payer the costs incurred by the contractor to
provide health care services that are the basis of the claim to
a beneficiary under such program.
  (2) A claim under this paragraph is a claim--
          (A) that is submitted to the contractor by a provider
        under the TRICARE program for payment for services for
        health care provided to a covered beneficiary; and
          (B) that is identified by the contractor as a claim
        for which a third-party payer may be liable.
  (b) Recovery From Third-Party Payers.--A contractor for the
provision of health care services under the TRICARE program
that pays a claim described in subsection (a)(2) shall have the
right to collect from the third-party payer the costs incurred
by such contractor on behalf of the covered beneficiary. The
contractor shall have the same right to collect such costs
under this subsection as the right of the United States to
collect costs under section 1095 of this title.
  (c) Definition of Third-Party Payer.--In this section, the
term ``third-party payer'' has the meaning given that term in
section 1095(h) of this title, except that such term excludes
primary medical insurers.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1097a. Enrollment in TRICARE Prime: procedures
  (a) Automatic Enrollment of Certain Dependents.--The
Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures under which
dependents of members of the armed forces on active duty who
reside in the catchment area of a military medical treatment
facility shall be automatically enrolled in TRICARE Prime at
the military medical treatment facility. The Secretary shall
provide notice in writing to the member regarding such
enrollment.
  (b) Automatic Continuation of Enrollment.--The Secretary of
Defense shall establish procedures under which enrollment of
coveredbeneficiaries in TRICARE Prime shall automatically
continue until such time as the covered beneficiary elects to disenroll
or is no longer eligible for enrollment.
  (c) Option for Retirees To Deduct Fee From Pay.--The
Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures under which a
retired member of the armed forces may elect to have any fees
payable by the member for enrollment in TRICARE Prime withheld
from the retired pay of the member (if pay is available to the
member).
  (d) Definition of TRICARE Prime.--In this section, the term
``TRICARE Prime'' means the managed care option of the TRICARE
program known as TRICARE Prime.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
   CHAPTER 58--BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS BEING SEPARATED OR
RECENTLY SEPARATED
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1145. Health benefits
  (a) Transitional Health Care.--(1) For the applicable time
period described in paragraph (2), a member of the armed forces
who is involuntarily separated from active duty [during the
nine-year period beginning on October 1, 1990] during the
period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September
30, 2000 (and the dependents of the member), shall be entitled
to receive--
          (A) medical and dental care under section 1076 of
        this title in the same manner as a dependent described
        in subsection (a)(2) of such section; and
          (B) health benefits contracted under the authority of
        section 1079(a) of this title and subject to the same
        rates and conditions as apply to persons covered under
        that section.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) Health Care For Certain Separated Members Not Otherwise
Eligible.--(1) Consistent with the authority of the Secretary
concerned to designate certain classes of persons as eligible
to receive health care at a military medical facility, the
Secretary concerned should consider authorizing, on an
individual basis in cases of hardship, the provision of that
care for a member who is separated from the armed forces
[during the nine-year period beginning on October 1, 1990]
during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on
September 30, 2000, and is ineligible for transitional health
care under subsection (a) or does not obtain a conversion
health policy (or a dependent of the member).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) Coast Guard.--The provisions of this section shall apply
to members of the Coast Guard (and their dependents)
involuntarily separated from active duty [during the five-year
period beginning on October 1, 1994] during the period
beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2000.
The Secretary of Transportation shall implement this section
for the Coast Guard.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1146. Commissary and exchange benefits
  The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to allow
a member of the armed forces who is involuntarily separated
from active duty [during the nine-year period beginning on
October 1, 1990] during the period beginning on October 1,
1990, and ending on September 30, 2000, to continue to use
commissary and exchange stores during the two-year period
beginning on the date of the involuntary separation of the
member in the same manner as a member on active duty. The
Secretary of Transportation shall implement this provision for
Coast Guard members involuntarily separated [during the five-
year period beginning October 1, 1994] during the period
beginning on October 1, 1994, and ending on September 30, 2000.
Sec. 1147. Use of military family housing
  (a) Transition for Involuntarily Separated Members.--(1) The
Secretary of a military department may, pursuant to regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, permit individuals who
are involuntarily separated [during the nine-year period
beginning on October 1, 1990] during the period beginning on
October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2000, to continue
for not more than 180 days after the date of such separation to
reside (along with other members of the individual's household)
in military family housing provided or leased by the Department
of Defense to such individual as a member of the armed forces.
  (2) The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe regulations
to permit members of the Coast Guard who are involuntarily
separated [during the five-year period beginning October 1,
1994] during the period beginning on October 1, 1994, and
ending on September 30, 2000, to continue for not more than 180
days after the date of such separation to reside (along with
others of the member's household) in military family housing
provided or leased by the Coast Guard to the individual as a
member of the armed forces.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1150. Affiliation with Guard and Reserve units: waiver of certain
                    limitations
  (a) Preference for Certain Persons.--A person who is
separated from the armed forces [during the nine-year period
beginning on October 1, 1990] during the period beginning on
October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2000, and who
applies to become a member of a National Guard or Reserve unit
within one year after the date of such separation shall be
given preference over other equally qualified applicants for
existing or projected vacancies within the unit to which the
member applies.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 59--SEPARATION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1174a. Special separation benefits programs
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (h) Termination of Program.--(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), the Secretary concerned may not conduct a
program pursuant to this section after September 30, [1999]
2000.
  (2) No member of the armed forces may be separated under a
program established pursuant to this section after the date of
the termination of that program.
Sec. 1175. Voluntary separation incentive
  (a) Consistent with this section and the availability of
appropriations for this purpose, the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Transportation may provide a financial
incentive to members of the armed forces described in
subsection (b) for voluntary appointment, enlistment, or
transfer to a reserve component, requested and approved under
subsection (c), for the period of time the member serves in a
reserve component, or for the period described in subsection
(e)(1) if the member becomes ineligible for retention in an
active or inactive status in a reserve component because of
age, years of service, failure to select for promotion, or
medical disqualification, so long as such ineligibility does
not result from deliberate action on the part of the member
with the intent to avoid retention in an active or inactive
status in a reserve component.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d)(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (3) After September 30, [1999] 2000, the Secretary may not
approve a request.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 60--SEPARATION OF REGULAR OFFICERS FOR SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE
                  OF DUTY OR FOR CERTAIN OTHER REASONS
Sec.
1181.  Authority to establish procedures to consider the separation of
          officers for substandard performance of duty and for certain
          other reasons.
1182.  Boards of inquiry.
[1183.  Boards of review.]
1184.  Removal of officer: action by Secretary upon recommendation of
          board [of review].
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 1182. Boards of inquiry
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) If a board of inquiry determines that the officer has
failed to establish that he should be retained on active duty,
[it shall send the record of its proceedings to a board of
review convened under section 1183 of this title] it shall
report that determination to the Secretary concerned.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[Sec. 1183. Boards of review
  [(a) The Secretary of the military department concerned shall
convene boards of review at such times as the Secretary may
prescribe to review the cases of officers who a board of
inquiry has determined have failed to establish that they
should be retained on active duty. Each board of review shall
be composed of not less than three officers having the
qualifications prescribed by section 1187 of this title.
  [(b) If, after reviewing the record of the case of any
officer, a board of review determines that the officer has
failed to establish that he should be retained on active duty,
the board of review shall recommend to the Secretary concerned
that the officer not be retained on active duty.
  [(c)(1) If, after reviewing the record of the case of any
officer, a board of review determines that the officer has
established that he should be retained on active duty, the
officer's case is closed.
  [(2) An officer who is required to show cause for retention
under subsection (a) of section 1181 of this title and who is
determined under paragraph (1) to have established that he
should be retained on active duty may not again be required to
show cause for retention under such subsection within the one-
year period beginning on the date of that determination.
  [(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), an officer who is
required to show cause for retention under subsection (b) of
section 1181 of this title and who is determined under
paragraph (1) to have established that he should be retained on
active duty may again be required to show cause for retention
at any time.
  [(B) An officer who has been required to show cause for
retention as a result of proceedings under subsection (b) of
section 1181 of this title and who is thereafter retained on
active duty may not again be required to show cause for
retention on active duty under such subsection solely because
of conduct which was the subject of the previous proceeding,
unless the findings or recommendations of the board of inquiry
or board of review that considered his case are determined to
have been obtained by fraud or collusion.]
Sec. 1184. Removal of officer: action by Secretary upon recommendation
                    of board [of review]
  The Secretary of the military department concerned may remove
an officer from active duty if the removal of such officer from
active duty is recommended by a [board of review convened under
section 1183 of this title] board of inquiry convened under
section 1182 of this title.
Sec. 1185. Rights and procedures
  (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,
each officer required under section 1181 of this title to show
cause for retention on active duty--
          (1) shall be notified in writing[, at least 30 days
        before the hearing of his case by a board of inquiry,]
        of the reasons for which he is being required to show
        cause for retention on active duty;
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 69--RETIRED GRADE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions
  (a) Rule for Retirement in Highest Grade Held
Satisfactorily.--(1) * * *
  (2)(A) In order to be eligible for voluntary retirement under
any provision of this title in a grade above major or
lieutenant commander, a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, or Marine Corps must have served on active duty in
that grade for not less than three years, except that the
Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a military
department to reduce such period to a period not less than two
years in the case of retirements effective [during the nine-
year period beginning on October 1, 1990] during the period
beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1448. Application of Plan
  (a) * * *
  (b) Insurable Interest and Former Spouse Coverage.--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (3) Former spouse coverage by persons already
        participating in plan.--
                  (A) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                  (C) Irrevocability, effective date, etc.--An
                election under this paragraph may not be
                revoked except in accordance with section
                1450(f) of this title. Such an election is
                effective as of the first day of the first
                calendar month following the month in which it
                is received by the Secretary concerned, except
                that, in the case of an election made by a
                person described in section 1450(f)(3)(B) of
                this title, such an election is effective on
                the first day of the first month which begins
                after the date of the court order or filing
                involved (in the same manner as provided under
                section 1450(f)(3)(D) of this title). This
                paragraph does not provide the authority to
                change a designation previously made under
                subsection (e).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                       CHAPTER 75--DEATH BENEFITS
Sec.
1475.  Death gratuity: death of members on active duty or inactive duty
          training and of certain other persons.
     * * * * * * *
1491.  Honor guard details at funerals of veterans.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 1481. Recovery, care, and disposition of remains: decedents
                    covered
  (a) The Secretary concerned may provide for the recovery,
care, and disposition of the remains of the following persons:
          (1) Any Regular of an armed force[, or member of an
        armed force without component,] under his jurisdiction
        who dies while on active duty.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (7) Any retired member of an armed force under his
        jurisdiction who becomes a patient in a [United States]
        hospital while he is on active duty [for a period of
        more than 30 days,] and who continues to be such a
        patient until the date of his death.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1491. Honor guard details at funerals of veterans
  (a) Availability.--The Secretary of a military department
shall, upon request, provide an honor guard detail (or ensure
that an honor guard detail is provided) for the funeral of any
veteran.
  (b) Composition of Honor Guard Details.--The Secretary of
each military department shall ensure that an honor guard
detail for the funeral of a veteran consists of not less than
three persons and (unless a bugler is part of the detail) has
the capability to play a recorded version of Taps.
  (c) Persons Forming Honor Guards.--An honor guard detail may
consist of members of the armed forces or members of veterans
organizations or other organizations approved for purposes of
this section under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense. The Secretary of a military department may provide
transportation, or reimbursement for transportation, and
expenses for a person who participates in an honor guard detail
under this section and is not a member of the armed forces or
an employee of the United States.
  (d) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall by
regulation establish a system for selection of units of the
armed forces and other organizations to provide honor guard
details. The system shall place an emphasis on balancing the
funeral detail workload among the units and organizations
providing honor guard details in an equitable manner as they
are able to respond to requests for such details in terms of
geographic proximity and available resources. The Secretary
shall provide in such regulations that the armed force inwhich
a veteran served shall not be considered to be a factor when selecting
the military unit or other organization to provide an honor guard
detail for the funeral of the veteran.
  (e) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives a report
not later than January 31 of each year beginning with 2001 and
ending with 2005 on the experience of the Department of Defense
under this section. Each such report shall provide data on the
number of funerals supported under this section, cost for that
support, shown by manpower and other cost factors, and the
number and costs of funerals supported by each participating
organization. The data in the report shall be presented in a
standard format, regardless of military department or other
organization.
  (f) Veteran Defined.--In this section, the term ``veteran''
has the meaning given that term in section 101(2) of title 38.
CHAPTER 77--POSTHUMOUS COMMISSIONS AND WARRANTS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1521. Posthumous commissions
  (a) The President may issue, or have issued, an appropriate
commission in the name of a member of the armed forces who,
after September 8, 1939--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (3) was officially recommended for appointment or
        promotion to a commissioned grade and the
        recommendation for whose appointment or promotion was
        approved by the Secretary concerned (whether before or
        after the member's death) but was unable to accept the
        promotion or appointment because of death in line of
        duty.
  (b) A commission issued under subsection (a) shall issue as
of the date of the appointment, recommendation, or approval, as
the case may be, and the member's name shall be carried on the
records of the military or executive department concerned as if
he had served in the grade, and branch if any, in which
posthumously commissioned, from the date of the appointment,
recommendation, or approval to the date of his death. In the
case of a member to whom subsection (a)(3) applies who dies
before approval by the Secretary concerned of the appointment
or promotion, the commission shall issue as of the date of
death.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
               CHAPTER 79--CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Sec.
1551.  Correction of name after separation from service under an assumed
          name.
     * * * * * * *
1555.  Professional staff.
1556.  Ex parte communications prohibited.
1557.  Timeliness standards for disposition of cases before Corrections
          Boards.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 1555. Professional staff
  (a) The Secretary of each military department shall assign to
the staff of the service review agency of that military
department at least one attorney and at least one physician.
Such assignments shall be made on a permanent, full-time basis
and may be made from members of the armed forces or civilian
employees.
  (b) Personnel assigned pursuant to subsection (a)--
          (1) shall work under the supervision of the director
        or executive director (as the case may be) of the
        service review agency; and
          (2) shall be assigned duties as advisers to the
        director or executive director or other staff members
        on legal and medical matters, respectively, that are
        being considered by the agency.
  (c) In this section, the term ``service review agency''
means--
          (1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the
        Army Review Boards Agency;
          (2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the
        Board for Correction of Naval Records; and
          (3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force,
        the Air Force Review Boards Agency.
Sec. 1556. Ex parte communications prohibited
  (a) In General.--The Secretary of each military department
shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the
Army Review Boards Agency, the Air Force Review Boards Agency,
or the Board for Correction of Naval Records, as the case may
be, is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications
(including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the
agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or
board, with an entity or person outside the agency or board
that pertain directly to the applicant's case or have a
material effect on the applicant's case.
  (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the
following:
          (1) Classified information.
          (2) Information the release of which is otherwise
        prohibited by law or regulation.
          (3) Any record previously provided to the applicant
        or known to be possessed by the applicant.
          (4) Any correspondence that is purely administrative
        in nature.
          (5) Any military record that is (or may be) provided
        to the applicant by the Secretary of the military
        department or other source.
Sec. 1557. Timeliness standards for disposition of cases before
                    Corrections Boards
  (a) Ten-Month Clearance Percentage.--Of the cases accepted
for consideration by a Corrections Board during a period
specified in the following table, the percentage on which final
action must be completed within 10 months of receipt (other
than for those cases considered suitable for administrative
correction) is as follows:
                    The percentage on which final
For cases accepted    action must be completed
  during--            within 10 months of receipt
                      is--
    the period of fiscal years 2001 and 2002..................      50
    the period of fiscal years 2003 and 2004..................      60
    the period of fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007...........      70
    the period of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010...........      80
    the period of any fiscal year after fiscal year 2010......     90.
  (b) Clearance Deadline for All Cases.--Effective October 1,
2002, final action on all cases accepted for consideration by a
Corrections Board (other than those cases considered suitable
for administrative correction) shall be completed within 18
months of receipt.
  (c) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of the military
department concerned may exclude an individual case from the
timeliness standards prescribed in subsections (a) and (b) if
the Secretary determines that the case warrants a longer period
of consideration. The authority of the Secretary of a military
department under this subsection may not be delegated.
  (d) Reports on Failure To Meet Timeliness Standards.--The
Secretary of the military department concerned shall submit to
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives a report
not later than June 1 following any fiscal year during which
the Corrections Board of that Secretary's military department
was unable to meet the timeliness standards in subsections (a)
and (b). The report shall specify the reasons why the standard
could not be met and the corrective actions initiated to ensure
compliance in the future. The report shall also specify the
number of waivers granted under subsection (c) during that
fiscal year.
  (e) Corrections Board Defined.--In this section, the term
``Corrections Board'' means--
          (1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the
        Army Board for Correction of Military Records;
          (2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the
        Board for Correction of Naval Records; and
          (3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force,
        the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.
CHAPTER 81--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1594. Reimbursement for financial institution charges incurred
                    because of Government error in direct deposit of
                    pay
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) In this section:
          [(1) The term ``financial institution'' has the
        meaning given the term ``financial organization'' in
        section 3332(a) of title 31.]
          (1) The term ``financial institution'' means a bank,
        savings and loan association, or similar institution or
        a credit union chartered by the United States or a
        State.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 87--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER III--ACQUISITION CORPS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1732. Selection criteria and procedures
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) Exceptions.--(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (3) The requirement of subsection (b)(1)(A) shall not apply
to an employee who served in an Acquisition Corps in a position
within grade GS-13 or above of the General Schedule and who is
placed in another position which is in a grade lower than GS-13
of the General Schedule, or whose position is reduced in grade
to a grade lower than GS-13 of the General Schedule, as a
result of reduction-in-force procedures, the realignment or
closure of a military installation, or another reason other
than for cause.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
              SUBCHAPTER V--GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS
Sec.
1761.  Management information system.
     * * * * * * *
1765.  Limitation on number of personnel.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 1765. Limitation on number of personnel
  (a) Limitation.--Effective October 1, 2001, the number of
defense acquisition personnel may not exceed the baseline
number reduced by 70,000.
  (b) Phased Reduction.--The number of defense acquisition
personnel--
          (1) as of October 1, 1999, may not exceed the
        baseline number reduced by 25,000; and
          (2) as of October 1, 2000, may not exceed the
        baseline number reduced by 50,000.
  (c) Baseline Number.--For purposes of this section, the
baseline number is the total number of defense acquisition
personnel as of October 1, 1998.
  (d) Defense Acquisition Personnel Defined.--In this section,
the term ``defense acquisition personnel'' means military and
civilian personnel (other than civilian personnel who are
employed at a maintenance depot) who are assigned to, or
employed in, acquisition organizations of the Department of
Defense (as specified inDepartment of Defense Instruction
numbered 5000.58 dated January 14, 1992).
CHAPTER 88--MILITARY FAMILY PROGRAMS AND MILITARY CHILD CARE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY CHILD CARE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 1792. Child care employees
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  [(d) Employment Preference Program for Military Spouses.--(1)
The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a program under which
qualified spouses of members of the armed forces shall be given
a preference in hiring for the position of child care employee
in a position paid from nonappropriated funds if the spouse is
among persons determined to be best qualified for the position.
  [(2) A spouse who is provided a preference under this
subsection at a military child development center may not be
precluded from obtaining another preference, in accordance with
section 1784 of this title, in the same geographic area as the
military child development center.]
  [(e)] (d) Competitive Service Position Defined.--In this
section, the term ``competitive service position'' means a
position in the competitive service, as defined in section
2102(a)(1) of title 5.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 101--TRAINING GENERALLY
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2011. Special operations forces: training with friendly foreign
                    forces
  (a) Authority To Pay Training Expenses.--Under regulations
prescribed pursuant to subsection (c), the commander of the
special operations command established pursuant to section 167
of this title and the commander of any other unified or
specified combatant command may pay, or authorize payment for,
any of the following expenses:
          (1) Expenses of training special operations forces
        assigned to that command in conjunction with training,
        and training with, armed forces [and other security
        forces] of a friendly foreign country.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (b) Purpose of Training.--The [primary] purpose of the
training for which payment may be made under subsection (a)
shall be to train the special operations forces of the
combatant command.
  (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations for the administration of this section. The
regulations shall require that training activities may be
carried out under this section only with the prior approval of
the Secretary of Defense. The regulations shall establish
accounting procedures to ensure that the expenditures pursuant
to this section are appropriate.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) Reports.--Not later than April 1 of each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
regarding training during the preceding fiscal year for which
expenses were paid under this section. Each report shall
specify the following:
          (1) All countries in which that training was
        conducted.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (5) A summary of the expenditures under this section
        resulting from the training for which expenses were
        paid under this section.
          (6) A discussion of the unique military training
        benefit to United States special operations forces
        derived from the training activities for which expenses
        were paid under this section.
Sec. 2012. Support and services for eligible organizations and
                    activities outside Department of Defense
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (j) Oversight and Cost Accounting.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish a program to improve the oversight and cost
accounting of training projects conducted in accordance with
this section. The program shall include measures to accomplish
the following:
          (1) Ensure that each project that is proposed to be
        conducted in accordance with this section (regardless
        of whether additional funding from the Secretary of
        Defense is sought) is requested in writing, reviewed
        for full compliance with this section, and approved in
        advance of initiation by the Secretary of the military
        department concerned and, in the case of a project that
        seeks additional funding from the Secretary of Defense,
        by the Secretary of Defense.
          (2) Ensure that each project that is conducted in
        accordance with this section is required to provide,
        within a specified period following completion of the
        project, an after-action report to the Secretary of
        Defense.
          (3) Require that each application for a project to be
        conducted in accordance with this section include an
        analysis and certification that the proposed project
        would not result in a significant increase in the cost
        of training (as determined in accordance with
        procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense).
          (4) Determine the total program cost for each
        project, including both those costs that are borne by
        the military departments from their own accounts and
        those costs that are borne by defense-wide accounts.
          (5) Provide for oversight of project execution to
        ensure that a training project under this section is
        carried out in accordance with the proposal for that
        project as approved.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
   CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates
  (a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and
ending on September 30, [1999] 2000, executes a written
agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept an
appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned
at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first
installment may not exceed $2,500.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 108--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2164. Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and
                    secondary schools
  (a) Authority of Secretary.--(1) If the Secretary of Defense
makes a determination that appropriate educational programs are
not available through a local educational agency for dependents
of members of the armed forces and dependents of civilian
employees of the Federal Government residing on a military
installation in the United States (including territories,
commonwealths, and possessions of the United States), the
Secretary may enter into arrangements to provide for the
elementary or secondary education of the dependents of such
members of the armed forces and, to the extent authorized in
subsection (c), the dependents of such civilian employees.
  (2) The Secretary may, at the discretion of the Secretary,
permit dependents of members of the armed forces and, to the
extent provided in subsection (c), dependents of civilian
employees of the Federal Government residing in a territory,
commonwealth, or possession of the United States but not on a
military installation, to enroll in an educational program
provided by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection. If a
member of the armed forces is assigned to a remote location or
is assigned to an unaccompanied tour of duty, a dependent of
the member who resides, on or off a militaryinstallation, in a
territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States, as
authorized by the member's orders, may be enrolled in an educational
program provided by the Secretary under this subsection.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) Eligibility of Dependents of Federal Employees.--(1) * *
*
  (2)(A) * * *
  [(B) A dependent referred to in subparagraph (A) may be
enrolled in the program for more than five consecutive school
years if the Secretary determines that, in the interest of the
dependent's educational well-being, there is good cause to
extend the enrollment for more than the five-year period
described in such subparagraph. Any such extension may be made
for only one school year at a time.]
  (B) At the discretion of the Secretary, a dependent referred
to in subparagraph (A) may be enrolled in the program for more
than five consecutive school years if the dependent is
otherwise qualified for enrollment, space is available in the
program, and the Secretary will be reimbursed for the services
provided. Any such extension shall cover only one school year
at a time.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                 CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Sec.
2201.  Apportionment of funds: authority for exemption; excepted
          expenses.
     * * * * * * *
2212.  Obligations for contract services: reporting in budget object
          classes.
     * * * * * * *
2223.  Information technology: additional responsibilities of Chief
          Information Officers.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 2212. Obligations for contract services: reporting in budget
                    object classes
  (a) Limitation on Reporting in Miscellaneous Services Object
Class.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, in
reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (pursuant to
OMB Circular A-11 (relating to preparation and submission of
budget estimates)) obligations of the Department of Defense for
any period of time for contract services, no more than 15
percent of the total amount of obligations so reported is
reported in the miscellaneous services object class.
  (b) Definition of Reporting Categories for Advisory and
Assistance Services.--In carrying out section 1105(g) of title
31 for the Department of Defense (and in determining what
services are to be reported to the Office of Management and
Budget in the advisory and assistance services object class),
the Secretary of Defense shall apply to the terms used for the
definition of ``advisory and assistance services'' in paragraph
(2)(A) of that section the following meanings:
          (1) Management and professional support services.--
        The term ``management and professional support
        services'' (used in clause (i) of section 1105(g)(2)(A)
        of title 31) means services that provide engineering or
        technical support, assistance, advice, or training for
        the efficient and effective management and operation of
        organizations, activities, or systems. Those services--
                  (A) are closely related to the basic
                responsibilities and mission of the using
                organization; and
                  (B) include efforts that support or
                contribute to improved organization or program
                management, logistics management, project
                monitoring and reporting, data collection,
                budgeting, accounting, auditing, and
                administrative or technical support for
                conferences and training programs.
          (2) Studies, analyses, and evaluations.--The term
        ``studies, analyses, and evaluations'' (used in clause
        (ii) of section 1105(g)(1)(A) of title 31) means
        services that provide organized, analytic assessments
        to understand or evaluate complex issues to improve
        policy development, decisionmaking, management, or
        administration and that result in documents containing
        data or leading to conclusions or recommendations.
        Those services may include databases, models,
        methodologies, and related software created in support
        of a study, analysis, or evaluation.
          (3) Engineering and technical services.--The term
        ``engineering and technical services'' (used in clause
        (iii) of section 1105(g)(1)(A) of title 31) means
        services that take the form of advice, assistance,
        training, or hands-on training necessary to maintain
        and operate fielded weapon systems, equipment, and
        components (including software when applicable) at
        design or required levels of effectiveness.
  (c) Proper Classification of Advisory and Assistance
Services.--Before the submission to the Office of Management
and Budget of the proposed Department of Defense budget for
inclusion in the President's budget for a fiscal year pursuant
to section 1105 of title 31, the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), shall
review all Department of Defense services expected to be
performed as contract services during the fiscal year for which
that budget is to be submitted in order to ensure that those
services that are advisory and assistance services (as defined
in accordance with subsection (b)) are in fact properly
classified, in accordance with that subsection, in the advisory
and assistance services object class.
  (d) Information on Service Contracts.--In carrying out the
annual review under subsection (c) of Department of Defense
services expected to be performed as contract services during
the next fiscal year, the Secretary (acting through the Under
Secretary (Comptroller)) shall conduct an assessment of the
total non-Federal effort that resulted from the performance of
all contracts for such services during the preceding fiscal
year and the total non-Federal effort that resulted, or that is
expected to result, from the performance ofall contracts for
such services during the current fiscal year and the next fiscal year.
The assessment shall include determination of the following for each
such year:
          (1) The amount expended or expected to be expended
        for non-Federal contract services, shown for the
        Department of Defense as a whole and displayed by
        contract services object class for each DOD
        organization.
          (2) The amount expended or expected to be expended
        for contract services competed under OMB Circular A-76
        or a similar process, shown for the Department of
        Defense as a whole and displayed by contract services
        object class for each DOD organization.
          (3) The number of private sector workyears performed
        or expected to be performed in connection with the
        performance of non-Federal contract services, shown for
        the Department of Defense as a whole and displayed by
        contract services object class for each DOD
        organization.
          (4) Any other information that the Secretary (acting
        through the Under Secretary) determines to be relevant
        and of value.
  (e) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress each year, not later than 30 days after the date on
which the budget for the next fiscal year is submitted pursuant
to section 1105 of title 31, a report containing the
information derived from the assessment under subsection (d).
  (f) Assessment by Comptroller General.--(1) The Comptroller
General shall conduct a review of the report of the Secretary
of Defense under subsection (e) each year and shall--
          (A) assess the methodology used by the Secretary in
        obtaining the information submitted to Congress in that
        report; and
          (B) assess the information submitted to Congress in
        that report.
  (2) Not later than 120 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits to Congress the report required under
subsection (e) for any year, the Comptroller General shall
submit to Congress the Comptroller General's report containing
the results of the review for that year under paragraph (1).
  (g) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``contract services'' means all services
        that are reported to the Office of Management and
        Budget pursuant to OMB Circular A-11 (relating to
        preparation and submission of budget estimates) in
        budget object classes that are designated in the Object
        Class 25 series.
          (2) The term ``advisory and assistance services
        object class'' means those contract services
        constituting the budget object class that is
        denominated ``Advisory and Assistance Service and
        designated (as the date of the enactment of this
        section) as Object Class 25.1 (or any similar object
        class established after the date of the enactment of
        this section for the reporting of obligations for
        advisory and assistance contract services).
          (3) The term ``miscellaneous services object class''
        means those contract services constituting the budget
        object class that is denominated ``Other Services
        (services not otherwise specified in the 25 series)''
        and designated (as the date of the enactment of this
        section) as Object Class 25.2 (or any similar object
        class established after the date of the enactment of
        this section for the reporting of obligations for
        miscellaneous or unspecified contract services).
          (4) The term ``DOD organization'' means--
                  (A) the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
                  (B) each military department;
                  (C) the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified
                and specified commands;
                  (D) each Defense Agency; and
                  (E) each Department of Defense Field
                Activity.
          (5) The term ``private sector workyear'' means an
        amount of labor equivalent to the total number of hours
        of labor that an individual employed on a full-time
        equivalent basis by the Federal Government performs in
        a given year.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2223. Information technology: additional responsibilities of Chief
                    Information Officers
  (a) Additional Responsibilities.--In addition to the
responsibilities provided for in chapter 35 of title 44 and in
section 5125 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C.
1425)--
          (1) the Chief Information Officer of the Department
        of Defense, with respect to the elements of the
        Department of Defense other than the military
        departments, shall--
                  (A) review and provide recommendations to the
                Secretary of Defense on Defense of Defense
                budget requests for information technology and
                national security systems;
                  (B) ensure the interoperability of
                information technology and national security
                systems throughout the Department of Defense;
                and
                  (C) ensure that information technology and
                national security systems standards that will
                apply throughout the Department of Defense are
                prescribed; and
          (2) the Chief Information Officer of each military
        department, with respect to the military department
        concerned, shall--
                  (A) review budget requests for all
                information technology and national security
                systems;
                  (B) ensure that information technology and
                national security systems are in compliance
                with standards of the Government and the
                Department of Defense;
                  (C) ensure that information technology and
                national security systems are interoperable
                with other relevant information technology and
                national security systems of the Government and
                the Department of Defense;
                  (D) provide for the elimination of duplicate
                information technology and national security
                systems within and between the military
                departments and Defense Agencies; and
                  (E) coordinate with the Joint Staff with
                respect to information technology and national
                security systems.
  (b) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the
        senior official designated by the Secretary of Defense
        or a Secretary of a military department pursuant to
        section 3506 of title 44.
          (2) The term ``information technology'' has the
        meaning given that term by section 5002 of the Clinger-
        Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
          (3) The term ``national security system'' has the
        meaning given that term by section 5142 of the Clinger-
        Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair
  (a) In General.--In this chapter, the term ``depot-level
maintenance and repair'' means (except as provided in
subsection (b)) material maintenance or repair requiring the
overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of parts, assemblies, or
subassemblies, and the testing and reclamation of equipment as
necessary, regardless of the source of funds for the
maintenance or repair or the location at which the maintenance
or repair is performed. The term includes (1) all aspects of
software maintenance classified by the Department of Defense as
of July 1, 1995, as depot-level maintenance and repair, and (2)
interim contractor support or contractor logistics support (or
any similar contractor support), to the extent that such
support is for the performance of services described in the
preceding sentence.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies
                    and reports before conversion to contractor
                    performance
  [(a) Required Notice to Congress.--A commercial or industrial
type function of the Department of Defense that on October 1,
1980, was being performed by Department of Defense civilian
employees may not be converted to performance by a private
contractor unless the Secretary of Defense provides to Congress
in a timely manner--
          [(1) notification of any decision to study such
        function for possible performance by a private
        contractor and the anticipated length and cost of the
        study;
          [(2) a detailed summary of a comparison of the cost
        of performance of such function by Department of
        Defense civilian employees and by private contractor
        which demonstrates that the performance of such
        function by a private contractor will result in a cost
        savings to the Government over the life of the contract
        and a certification that the entire cost comparison is
        available;
          [(3) a certification that the Government calculation
        for the cost of performance of such function by
        Department of Defense civilian employees is based on an
        estimate of the most efficient and cost effective
        organization for performance of such function by
        Department of Defense civilian employees; and
          [(4) a report, to be submitted with the certification
        required by paragraph (3), showing--
                  [(A) the potential economic effect on
                employees affected, and the potential economic
                effect on the local community and Federal
                Government if more than 75 employees are
                involved, of contracting for performance of
                such function;
                  [(B) the effect of contracting for
                performance of such function on the military
                mission of such function; and
                  [(C) the amount of the bid accepted for the
                performance of such function by the private
                contractor whose bid is accepted and the cost
                of performance of such function by Department
                of Defense civilian employees, together with
                costs and expenditures which the Government
                will incur because of the contract.
  [(b) Congressional Notification of Decision To Convert.--If,
after completion of the studies required for completion of the
certification and report required by paragraphs (3) and (4) of
subsection (a), a decision is made to convert the function to
contractor performance, the Secretary of Defense shall notify
Congress of such decision. The notification shall include the
timetable for completing conversion of the function to
contractor performance.]
  (a) Reporting and Study Requirements as Precondition to
Change in Performance.--A commercial or industrial type
function of the Department of Defense that, as of October 1,
1980, was being performed by Department of Defense civilian
employees may not be changed to performance by a private
contractor or changed to procurement through a private
contractor until the Secretary of Defense fully complies with
the reporting and study requirements specified in subsections
(b) and (c).
  (b) Notification and Elements of Study.--(1) Before
commencing to study a commercial or industrial type function
described in subsection (a) for possible change to performance
by a private contractor or possible change to procurement
through a private contractor, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report containing the following:
          (A) The function to be studied for possible change.
          (B) The location at which the function is performed
        by Department of Defense civilian employees.
          (C) The number of civilian employee positions
        potentially affected.
          (D) The anticipated length and cost of the study.
          (E) A certification that the performance of the
        commercial or industrial type function by civilian
        employees of the Department of Defense is not precluded
        due to any constraint or limitation in term of man
        years, end strengths, full-time equivalent positions,
        or maximum number of employees.
  (2) The responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to submit
the report required under paragraph (1) may be delegated only
to senior acquisition executives or higher officials for the
military departments and the Defense Agencies.
  (3) The study of a commercial or industrial type function for
possible change in performance shall include the following:
          (A) A comparison of the cost of performance of the
        function by Department of Defense civilian employees
        and by private contractor to demonstrate whether change
        to performance by a private contractor or change to
        procurement through a private contractor will result in
        savings to the Government over the life of the
        contract, including in the comparison--
                  (i) the amount estimated by the Secretary of
                Defense (based on bids received) to be the
                amount of a contract for performance of the
                function by a private contractor;
                  (ii) the cost to the Government of Department
                of Defense civilian employees performing the
                function; and
                  (iii) the costs and expenditures which the
                Government would incur (in addition to the
                amount of the contract) because of the award of
                such a contract.
          (B) An examination of the potential economic effect
        of performance of the function by a private
        contractor--
                  (i) on employees who would be affected by
                such a change in performance; and
                  (ii) on the local community and the
                Government, if more than 75 employees perform
                the function.
          (C) An examination of the effect of performance of
        the function by a private contractor on the military
        mission of the function.
  (4) If the commercial or industrial type function at issue
involves a working-capital fund in the Department of Defense
and the study concerns the possible procurement by a
requisitioning agency of services or supplies from a private
contractor instead of the working-capital fund, in lieu of the
comparison required by paragraph (3), the study shall include a
comparison of the sources of the services or supplies to
determine which source is more cost-effective for the
requisitioning agency.
  (5) An individual or entity at a facility where a commercial
or industrial type function is studied for possible change in
performance may raise an objection to the study on the grounds
that the report required under paragraph (1) as a precondition
for the study does not contain the certification required by
subparagraph (E) of such paragraph. The objection may be raised
at any time during the course of the study, shall be in
writing, and shall be submitted to the Secretary of Defense. If
the Secretary determines that the certification was omitted,
the commercial or industrial type function covered by the study
may not be the subject of request for proposal or award of a
contract until a certification is made that fully complies with
paragraph (1)(E) and the other requirements of this section are
satisfied.
  (c) Notification of Decision.--(1) If, as a result of the
completion of a study under subsection (b)(3), a decision is
made to change the commercial or industrial type function that
was the subject of the study to performance by a private
contractor or to procurement through a private contractor, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
describing that decision. The report shall--
          (A) indicate that the study under subsection (b)(3)
        has been completed;
          (B) certify that the Government calculation for the
        cost of performance of the function by Department of
        Defense civilian employees is based on an estimate of
        the most efficient and cost effective organization for
        performance of the function by Department of Defense
        civilian employees;
          (C) certify that the comparison required by
        subsection (b)(3)(A) (or alternatively by subsection
        (b)(4)) as part of the study demonstrates that the
        performance of the function by a private contractor or
        procurement of the function through a private
        contractor will result in savings to the Government
        over the life of the contract;
          (D) certify that the entire comparison is available
        for examination; and
          (E) contain a timetable for completing change of the
        function to contractor performance.
  (2) The actual change of the function to contractor
performance may not begin until after the submission of the
report required by this subsection.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) Waiver for the Purchase of Products and Services of the
Blind and Other Severely Handicapped Persons.--Subsections (a)
through (c) shall not apply to a commercial or industrial type
function of the Department of Defense that--
          (1) is included on the procurement list established
        pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
        (41 U.S.C. 47); or
          (2) is planned to be [converted] changed to
        performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for the
        blind or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other
        severely handicapped persons in accordance with that
        Act.
  (f) Additional Limitations.--(1) A commercial or industrial
type function of the Department of Defense that on October 1,
1980, was being performed by Department of Defense civilian
employees may not be [converted] changed to performance by a
private contractor to circumvent a civilian personnel ceiling.
  (2) In no case may a commercial or industrial type function
being performed by Department of Defense personnel be modified,
reorganized, divided, or in any way changed for the purpose of
exempting from the requirements of subsection (a) the
[conversion] change of all or any part of such function to
performance by a private contractor.
  (g) Inapplicability During War or Emergency.--The provisions
of this section shall not apply during war or during a period
of national emergency declared by the President or Congress.
  [(c)] (h) Annual Reports.--Not later than February 1 of each
fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress
a written report describing the extent to which commercial and
industrial type functions were performed by Department of
Defense contractors during the preceding fiscal year. The
Secretary shall include in each such report an estimate of the
percentage of commercial and industrial type functions of the
Department of Defense that will be performed by Department of
Defense civilian employees, and the percentage of such
functions that will be performed by private contractors, during
the fiscal year during which the report is submitted.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2464. Core logistics capabilities
  (a) Necessity for Core Logistics Capabilities.--(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (5)(A) The commercial items covered by paragraph (3) are
commercial items that have been sold or leased in substantial
quantities to the general public and are purchased without
modification in the same form that they are sold in the
commercial marketplace, or with minor modifications to meet
Federal Government requirements. The determination of whether a
modification is minor shall be based on a comparison of only
the critical systems of the version sold in the commercial
marketplace and the version purchased by the Government, and a
modification may not be considered to be minor unless at least
90 percent of the total content by component value remains
identical.
  (B) In this paragraph, the term ``substantial quantities''
means, with respect to determining whether an item is a
commercial item, that purchases and leases of the item to the
general public constitute the majority of all transactions
involving the item at the time the exception under paragraph
(3) is proposed to be exercised.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) Rule of Construction.--The requirement under subsection
(a) that the Department of Defense maintain a core logistics
capability that is Government-owned and Government-operated is
not satisfied when a core logistics workload is converted to
contractor performance even though the actual performance of
the workload will be carried out in a Government-owned,
Government-operated facility of the Department of Defense as a
subcontractor of the private contractor. Nothing in section
2474 of this title or section 337 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108
Stat. 2717) authorizes the use of subcontracts as a means to
provide workloads to Government-owned, Government-operated
facilities of the Department of Defense in order to satisfy
paragraph (4) of subsection (a).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2473. Procurements from the small arms production industrial base
  (a) [Authority] Requirement To Limit Procurements To Certain
Sources.--[To the extent that the Secretary of Defense
determines necessary to preserve the small arms production
industrial base, the Secretary may] In order to preserve the
small arms production industrial base, the Secretary of Defense
shall require that any procurement of property or services
described in subsection (b) for the Department of Defense be
made only from a firm in the small arms production industrial
base.
  (b) Covered Property and Services.--Subsection (a) applies to
the following:
          (1) Small arms end items.
          [(1)] (2) Repair parts for small arms, if those parts
        are manufactured under a contract with the Department
        of Defense to produce the end item.
          [(2)] (3) Modifications of parts to improve small
        arms used by the armed forces.
          (4) Repair parts consisting of barrels, receivers,
        and bolts for small arms, whether or not the small arms
        are in production under a contract with the Department
        of Defense at the time of production of such repair
        parts.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) Relationship to Other Provisions.--(1) If a procurement
under subsection (a) is a procurement of a commercial item, the
Secretary may, notwithstanding section 2306(b)(1)(B) of this
title, require the submission of certified cost or pricing data
under section 2306(a) of this title.
  (2) Subsection (a) is a requirement for purposes of section
2304(c)(5) of this title.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND
                         RECREATION ACTIVITIES
Sec.
2482.  Commissary stores: operation.
     * * * * * * *
2491.  Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access and purchase
          restrictions.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 2491. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access and purchase
                    restrictions
  (a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may
establish restrictions on the ability of eligible patrons of
commissary and exchange stores located outside of the United
States to purchase certain merchandise items (or the quantity
of certain merchandise items) otherwise included within an
authorized merchandise category if the Secretary determines
that such restrictions are necessary to prevent the resale of
such merchandise in violation of host nation laws or treaty
obligations of the United States. In establishing a quantity or
other restriction, the Secretary shall ensure that the
restriction is consistent with the purpose of the overseas
commissary and exchange system to provide reasonable access for
eligible patrons to purchase merchandise items made in the
United States.
  (b) Controlled Item Lists.--For each location outside the
United States that is served by the commissary system or the
exchange system, the Secretary of Defense may maintain a list
of controlled merchandise items, except that, after the date of
the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999, the Secretary may not change the list to add
a merchandise item unless, before making the change, the
Secretary submits to Congress a notice of the proposed addition
and the reasons for the addition of the item.
  (c) Special Rules for Korea.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
may not prohibit a dependent who resides in Korea, is at least
21 years of age, and is otherwise eligible to use the
commissary and exchange system, from purchasing alcoholic
beverages through the commissary and exchange system. Quantity
restrictions on the purchase of alcoholic beverages may be
imposed, and any such restriction may be enforced through the
use of an issued ration control device, but a dependent may not
be required to sign for any purchase. A quantity restriction on
malt beverages may not restrict purchases to fewer than eight
cases, of 24-units per case, per month. Daily or weekly
restrictions on malt beverage purchases may not be imposed. The
purchase of malt beverages may be recorded on a ration control
device, but eligible patrons may not be required to sign for
any purchase.
  (2) A dependent residing in Korea who is at least 18 years of
age and otherwise eligible to use the commissary and exchange
system may purchase tobacco products on the same basis as other
eligible patrons of the commissary and exchange system.
  (3) Eligible patrons of the commissary and exchange system
who are traveling through a military air terminal in Korea
shall be authorized to the purchase sundry items, including
tobacco products, on a temporary basis during the normal
operating hours of commissary and exchange stores operated in
connection with the terminal.
  (4) In applying restrictions to dependents of members of the
armed forces, the Secretary of Defense may not differentiate
between a dependent whose movement to Korea was authorized at
the expense of the United States under section 406 of title 37
and other dependents residing in Korea.
  (d) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress an annual report describing the host nation
laws and the treaty obligations of the United States, and the
conditions within host nations, that necessitate the use of
quantity or other restrictions on purchases in commissary and
exchange stores located outside the United States.
 CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
    SUBCHAPTER IV--MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY AND DUAL-USE ASSISTANCE
EXTENSION PROGRAMS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2525. Manufacturing Technology Program
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) Competition and Cost Sharing.--(1)(A) Competitive
procedures shall be used for awarding all grants and entering
into all contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
transactions under the program.
  (B) For each grant awarded and each contract, cooperative
agreement, or other transaction entered into on a cost-share
basis under the program, the ratio of contract recipient cost
to Government cost shall be determined by competitive
procedures. For a project for which the Government receives an
offer from only one offeror, the contracting officer shall
negotiate the ratio of contract recipient cost to Government
cost that represents the best value to the Government.
  (2)(A) A grant may not be awarded under the program, and a
contract, cooperative agreement, or other transaction may not
be entered into under the program, on any basis other than a
cost-sharing basis unless the Secretary of Defense determines
that the grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other
transaction, as the case may be, is for a program that--
          [(A)] (i) is not likely to have any immediate and
        direct commercial application;
          [(B)] (ii) is of sufficiently high risk to discourage
        cost sharing by non-Federal Government sources; or
          [(C)] (iii) will be carried out by an institution of
        higher education.
  (B) For any grant awarded or contract, cooperative agreement,
or other transaction entered into on a basis other than a cost-
sharing basis because of a determination made under
subparagraph (A), the transaction file for the project
concerned must document the rationale for the determination.
  (C) The Secretary of Defense may delegate the authority to
make determinations under subparagraph (A) only to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology or a
service acquisition executive, as appropriate.
  (3) [At least] As a goal, at least 25 percent of the funds
available for the program each fiscal year [shall] should be
used for awarding grants and entering into contracts,
cooperative agreements, and other transactions on a cost-share
basis under which the ratio of recipient cost to Government
cost is two to one. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretaries of the military departments and upon
recommendation of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology, shall establish annual objectives
to meet such goal.
  [(4) If the requirement of paragraph (3) cannot be met by
July 15 of a fiscal year, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology may waive the requirement and
obligate the balance of the funds available for the program for
that fiscal year on a cost-share basis under which the ratio of
recipient cost to Government cost is less than two to one.
Before implementing any such waiver, the Under Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives
the reasons for the waiver.]
  (e) Five-Year Plan.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
prepare a five-year plan for the program which establishes--
          (A) the overall manufacturing technology goals,
        milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the
        program; [and]
          (B) for each of the five fiscal years covered by the
        plan, the objectives of, and funding for the program
        by, each military department and each Defense Agency
        participating in the program[.]; and
          (C) the extent of cost sharing in the manufacturing
        technology program by companies in the private sector,
        weapons system program offices and other defense
        program offices, Federal agencies other than the
        Department of Defense, nonprofit institutions and
        universities, and other sources.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods other
                    than United States goods
  (a) Limitation on Certain Procurements.--The Secretary of
Defense may procure any of the following items only if the
manufacturer of the item satisfies the requirements of
subsection (b):
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (6) Ammunition.--Ammunition or ammunition components.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2634. Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on
                    change of permanent station or extended deployment
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (g) If a motor vehicle of a member (or a dependent of the
member) that is transported at the expense of the United States
under this section does not arrive at the authorized
destination of the vehicle by the designated delivery date, the
Secretary concerned shall reimburse the member for expenses
incurred after that date to rent a motor vehicle for the
member's use, or for the use of the dependent for whom the
delayed vehicle was transported. However, the amount reimbursed
shall not exceed $30 per day, and the rental period for which
reimbursement may be provided shall expire after seven days or
on the date on which the delayed vehicle finally arrives at the
authorized destination (whichever occurs first).
  [(g)] (h) In this section:
          (1) The term ``change of permanent station'' means
        the transfer or assignment of a member of the armed
        forces from a permanent station inside the continental
        United States to a permanent station outside the
        continental United States or from a permanent station
        outside the continental United States to another
        permanent station. It also includes an authorized
        change in home port of a vessel, or a transfer
orassignment between two permanent stations in the continental United
States when the member cannot, because of injury or the conditions of
the order, drive the motor vehicle between the permanent duty stations.
          (2) The term ``continental United States'' does not
        include Alaska.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF
                           NONEXCESS PROPERTY
Sec.
2661.  Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real
          property.
     * * * * * * *
[2691.  Restoration of land used by permit or lease from other
          agencies.]
2691.  Restoration of land used by permit or lease.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[Sec. 2691. Restoration of land used by permit or lease from other
                    agencies]
Sec. 2691. Restoration of land used by permit or lease
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) As a condition of any lease, permit, license, or other
grant of access entered into by the Secretary of a military
department with another Federal agency authorizing the other
agency to use lands under the control of the Secretary, the
Secretary may require the other agency to agree to remove any
improvements and to take any other action necessary in the
judgment of the Secretary to restore the land used by the
agency to the condition the land was in before its use by the
agency. In lieu of performing the work itself, the Federal
agency may elect, with the consent of the Secretary, to
reimburse the Secretary for the costs incurred by the military
department to perform the removal and restoration work.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER IV--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
MILITARY HOUSING
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 2871. Definitions
  In this subchapter:
          (1) The term ``ancillary supporting facilities''
        means facilities related to military housing units,
        including facilities to provide or support elementary
        or secondary education, child care centers, day care
        centers, tot lots, community centers, housing offices,
        dining facilities, unit offices, and other similar
        facilities for the support of military housing.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle B--Army
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART II--PERSONNEL
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 367--RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 3911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned
                    officers
  (a) * * *
  (b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of
the Army, [during the nine-year period beginning on October 1,
1990] during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on September 30, 2000, to reduce the requirement under
subsection (a) for at least 10 years of active service as a
commissioned officer to a period (determined by the Secretary
of the Army) of not less than eight years.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART III--TRAINING
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    CHAPTER 401--TRAINING GENERALLY
Sec.
4301.  Members of Army: detail as students, observers, and investigators
          at educational institutions, industrial plants, and hospitals.
     * * * * * * *
4319.  Recruit basic training: separate platoons and separate housing
          for male and female recruits.
4320.  Recruit basic training: privacy.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 4319. Recruit basic training: separate platoons and separate
                    housing for male and female recruits
  (a) Separate Platoons.--The Secretary of the Army shall
require that during basic training--
          (1) male recruits shall be assigned to platoons
        consisting only of male recruits; and
          (2) female recruits shall be assigned to platoons
        consisting only of female recruits.
  (b) Separate Housing Facilities.--The Secretary of the Army
shall require that during basic training male and female
recruits be housed in separate barracks or other troop housing
facilities.
  (c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Army determines that it is
not feasible, during some or all of the period beginning on
April 15, 1999, and ending on October 1, 2001, to comply with
subsection (b) at any particular installation at which basic
training is conducted because facilities at that installation
are insufficient for such purpose, the Secretary may grant a
waiver of subsection (b) with respect to that installation. Any
such waiver may not be in effect after October 1, 2001, and may
only be in effect while the facilities at that installation are
insufficient for the purposes of compliance with subsection
(b).
  (2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1) with
respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require that
male and female recruits in basic training at that installation
during any period that the waiver is in effect not be housed on
the same floor of a barracks or other troop housing facility.
  (d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
``basic training'' means the initial entry training program of
the Army that constitutes the basic training of new recruits.
Sec. 4320. Recruit basic training: privacy
  The Secretary of the Army shall require that access by drill
sergeants and other training personnel to a barracks floor on
which recruits are housed during basic training shall be
limited after the end of the training day, other than in the
case of an emergency or other exigent circumstance, to drill
sergeants and other training personnel who are of the same sex
as the recruits housed on that floor.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                  CHAPTER 503--DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Sec.
5011.  Organization.
     * * * * * * *
5026.  Consultation with Commandant of the Marine Corps regarding Marine
          Corps aviation.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 5026. Consultation with Commandant of the Marine Corps regarding
                    Marine Corps aviation
  The Secretary of the Navy shall require that the views of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps be obtained before a milestone
decision or other major decision is made by an element of the
Department of the Navy outside the Marine Corps in a
procurement matter, a research, development, test, and
evaluation matter, or adepot-level maintenance matter that
concerns Marine Corps aviation.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
      Officer Procurement Programs..................................6901
      Training Generally............................................6931
     * * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 571--VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 6323. Officers: 20 years
  (a)(1) * * *
  (2) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of
the Navy, [during the nine-year period beginning on October 1,
1990] during the period through September 30, 2000, to reduce
the requirement under paragraph (1) for at least 10 years of
active service as a commissioned officer to a period
(determined by the Secretary) of not less than eight years.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 573--INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT, SEPARATION, AND FURLOUGH
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 6383. Regular Navy and Regular Marine Corps; officers designated
                    for limited duty: retirement for length of service
                    or failures of selection for promotion; discharge
                    for failures of selection for promotion; reversion
                    to prior status; retired grade; retired pay
  (a) Mandatory Retirement.--(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (5) Paragraphs (2) through (4) shall be effective only during
the period beginning on July 1, 1993, and ending on October 1,
[1999] 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (k) Selective Retention Boards for LDOs.--Under such
regulations as he may prescribe, whenever the needs of the
service require, the Secretary of the Navy may defer the
retirement under subsection (a) or (b) or the discharge under
subsection (b) or (d) of any officer designated for limited
duty upon recommendation of a board of officers convened under
section 611(b) of this title and with the consent of the
officer concerned. An officer whose retirement is deferred
under this subsection and who is not subsequently promoted may
not be continued on active duty beyond 20 years active
commissioned service, if in the grade of lieutenant or captain,
beyond 24 years active commissioned service, if in the grade of
lieutenant commander or major, or beyond 28 years active
commissioned service, if in the grade of lieutenant colonel, or
beyond age 62, whichever is earlier. During the period
beginning on July 1, 1993, and ending on October 1, [1999]
2000, an officer of the Navy in the grade of commander or
captain whose retirement is deferred under this subsection and
who is not subsequently promoted may not be continued on active
duty beyond age 62 or, if earlier, 28 years of active
commissioned service if in the grade of commander or 30 years
of active commissioned service if in the grade of captain.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Chap.                                                               Sec.
      Officer Procurement Programs..................................6901
6931Training Generally................................................
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    CHAPTER 602--TRAINING GENERALLY
Sec.
6931.  Recruit basic training: separate small units and separate housing
          for male and female recruits.
6932.  Recruit basic training: privacy.
Sec. 6931. Recruit basic training: separate small units and separate
                    housing for male and female recruits
  (a) Separate Small Unit Organization.--The Secretary of the
Navy shall require that during basic training--
          (1) male recruits in the Navy shall be assigned to
        divisions, and male recruits in the Marine Corps shall
        be assigned to platoons, consisting only of male
        recruits; and
          (2) female recruits in the Navy shall be assigned to
        divisions, and female recruits in the Marine Corps
        shall be assigned to platoons, consisting only of
        female recruits.
  (b) Separate Housing.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
require that during basic training male and female recruits be
housed in separate barracks or other troop housing facilities.
  (c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Navy determines that it is
not feasible, during some or all of the period beginning on
April 15, 1999, and ending on October 1, 2001, to comply with
subsection (b) at any particular installation at which basic
training is conducted because facilities at that installation
are insufficient for that purpose, the Secretary may grant a
waiver of subsection (b) with respect to that installation. Any
such waiver may not be in effect after October 1, 2001, and may
only be in effect while the facilities at that installation are
insufficient for the purposes of compliance with subsection
(b).
  (2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1) with
respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require that
male andfemale recruits in basic training at that installation
during any period that the waiver is in effect not be housed on the
same floor of a barracks or other troop housing facility.
  (d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
``basic training'' means the initial entry training programs of
the Navy and Marine Corps that constitute the basic training of
new recruits.
Sec. 6932. Recruit basic training: privacy
  The Secretary of the Navy shall require that access by
recruit division commanders and other training personnel to a
barracks floor on which Navy recruits are housed during basic
training shall be limited after the end of the training day,
other than in the case of an emergency or other exigent
circumstance, to recruit division commanders and other training
personnel who are of the same sex as the recruits housed on
that floor.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  CHAPTER 631--SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: MISCELLANEOUS POWERS AND DUTIES
Sec.
7204.  Schools near naval activities: financial aid.
     * * * * * * *
7233.  Auxiliary vessels: authority for long-term charter contracts.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 7233. Auxiliary vessels: authority for long-term charter contracts
  (a) Authorized Contracts.--After September 30, 1998, the
Secretary of the Navy, subject to subsection (b), may enter
into a contract for the long-term lease or charter of a newly
built surface vessel, under which the contractor agrees to
provide a crew for the vessel for the term of the long-term
lease or charter, for any of the following:
          (1) The combat logistics force of the Navy.
          (2) The strategic sealift program of the Navy.
          (3) Other auxiliary support vessels for the
        Department of Defense.
  (b) Contracts Required To Be Authorized by Law.--A contract
may be entered into under this section with respect to specific
vessels only if the Secretary is specifically authorized by law
to enter into such a contract with respect to those vessels.
  (c) Funds for Contract Payments.--The Secretary may make
payments for contracts entered into under this section using
funds available for obligation during the fiscal year for which
the payments are required to be made. Any such contract shall
provide that the United States will not be required to make a
payment under the contract (other than a termination payment,
if required) before October 1, 2000.
  (d) Term of Contract.--In this section, the term ``long-term
lease or charter'' means a lease, charter, service contract, or
conditional sale agreement with respect to a vessel the term of
which (including any option period) is for a period of 20 years
or more.
  (e) Option To Buy.--A contract entered into under the
authority of this section may contain options for the United
States to purchase one or more of the vessels covered by the
contract at any time during, or at the end of, the contract
period (including any option period) upon payment of an amount
not in excess of the unamortized portion of the cost of the
vessels plus amounts incurred in connection with the
termination of the financing arrangements associated with the
vessels.
  (f) Domestic Construction.--The Secretary shall require in
any contract entered into under this section that each vessel
to which the contract applies--
          (1) shall have been constructed in a shipyard within
        the United States; and
          (2) upon delivery, shall be documented under the laws
        of the United States.
  (g) Vessel Crewing.--The Secretary shall require in any
contract entered into under this section that the crew of any
vessel to which the contract applies be comprised of private
sector commercial mariners.
  (h) Domestic Construction Requirement for Certain Leases of
Vessels.--(1) Notwithstanding section 2400 or 2401a of this
title or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense
may not enter into a contract for the lease or charter of a
vessel described in paragraph (2) for a contract period in
excess of 17 months (inclusive of any option periods) unless
the vessel is constructed in a shipyard in the United States.
  (2) Paragraph (1) applies to vessels of the following types:
          (A) Auxiliary support vessel.
          (B) Strategic sealift vessel.
          (C) Tank vessel.
          (D) Combat logistics force vessel.
  (i) Contingent Waiver of Other Provisions of Law.--A contract
authorized by this section may be entered into without regard
to section 2401 or 2401a of this title if the Secretary of
Defense makes the following findings with respect to that
contract:
          (1) The need for the vessels or services to be
        provided under the contract is expected to remain
        substantially unchanged during the contemplated
        contract or option period.
          (2) There is a reasonable expectation that throughout
        the contemplated contract or option period the
        Secretary of the Navy (or, if the contract is for
        services to be provided to, and funded by, another
        military department, the Secretary of that military
        department) will request funding for the contract at
        the level required to avoid contract cancellation.
          (3) The use of such contract or the exercise of such
        option is in the interest of the national defense.
  (j) Source of Funds for Termination Liability.--If a contract
entered into under this section is terminated, the costs of
such termination may be paid from--
          (1) amounts originally made available for performance
        of the contract;
          (2) amounts currently available for operation and
        maintenance of the type of vessels or services
        concerned and not otherwise obligated; or
          (3) funds appropriated for those costs.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    CHAPTER 643--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
7472.   Physical examination: employees engaged in hazardous
          occupations.
     * * * * * * *
7479.  Civil service mariners of Military Sealift Command: release of
          drug test results to Coast Guard.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 7479. Civil service mariners of Military Sealift Command: release
                    of drug test results to Coast Guard
  (a) Release of Drug Test Results to Coast Guard.--The
Secretary of the Navy may release to the Commandant of the
Coast Guard the results of a drug test of any employee of the
Department of the Navy who is employed in any capacity on board
a vessel of the Military Sealift Command. Any such release
shall be in accordance with the standards and procedures
applicable to the disclosure and reporting to the Coast Guard
of drug tests results and drug test records of individuals
employed on vessels documented under the laws of the United
States.
  (b) Waiver.--The results of a drug test of an employee may be
released under subsection (a) without the prior written consent
of the employee that is otherwise required under section 503(e)
of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1987 (5 U.S.C. 7301
note).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle D--Air Force
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 807--THE AIR FORCE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 8069. Air Force nurses: Chief and assistant chief; appointment;
                    grade
  (a) Positions of Chief and Assistant Chief.--There are a
Chief and assistant chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps.
  Section 8069(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``, but not for more than three years, and may
not be reappointed to the same position'' in the last sentence.
  (b) Chief.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall appoint the
Chief from the officers of the Regular Air Force designated as
Air Force nurses whose regular grade is above lieutenant
colonel and who are recommended by the Surgeon General. An
appointee who holds a lower regular grade shall be appointed in
the regular grade of brigadier general. The Chief serves during
the pleasure of the Secretary[, but not for more than three
years, and may not be reappointed to the same position].
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 867--RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 8911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned
                    officers
  (a) * * *
  (b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of
the Air Force, [during the nine-year period beginning on
October 1, 1990] during the period through September 30, 2000,
to reduce the requirement under subsection (a) for at least 10
years of active service as a commissioned officer to a period
(determined by the Secretary of the Air Force) of not less than
eight years.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART III--TRAINING
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    CHAPTER 901--TRAINING GENERALLY
Sec.
9301.  Members of Air Force: detail as students, observers, and
          investigators at educational institutions, industrial plants,
          and hospitals.
     * * * * * * *
9319.  Recruit basic training: separate flights and separate housing for
          male and female recruits.
9320.  Recruit basic training: privacy.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 9319. Recruit basic training: separate flights and separate
                    housing for male and female recruits
  (a) Separate Flights.--The Secretary of the Air Fore shall
require that during basic training--
          (1) male recruits shall be assigned to flights
        consisting only of male recruits; and
          (2) female recruits shall be assigned to flights
        consisting only of female recruits.
  (b) Separate Housing.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall
require that during basic training male and female recruits be
housed in separate dormitories or other troop housing
facilities.
  (c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Air Force determines that
it is not feasible, during some or all of the period beginning
on April 15,1999, and ending on October 1, 2001, to comply with
subsection (b) at any particular installation at which basic training
is conducted because facilities at that installation are insufficient
for such purpose, the Secretary may grant a waiver of subsection (b)
with respect to that installation. Any such waiver may not be in effect
after October 1, 2001, and may only be in effect while the facilities
at that installation are insufficient for the purposes of compliance
with subsection (b).
  (2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1) with
respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require that
male and female recruits in basic training at that installation
during any period that the waiver is in effect not be housed on
the same floor of a dormitory or other troop housing facility.
  (d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
``basic training'' means the initial entry training program of
the Air Force that constitutes the basic training of new
recruits.
Sec. 9320. Recruit basic training: privacy
  The Secretary of the Air Force shall require that access by
drill sergeants and other training personnel to a dormitory
floor on which recruits are housed during basic training shall
be limited after the end of the training day, other than in the
case of an emergency or other exigent circumstance, to drill
sergeants and other training personnel who are of the same sex
as the recruits housed on that floor.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
               CHAPTER 939--SALE OF SERVICEABLE MATERIAL
Sec.
9621.  Subsistence and other supplies: members of armed forces;
          veterans; executive or military departments and employees;
          prices.
9622.  Rations: commissioned officers in field.
[9623.  Tobacco: enlisted members of Air Force.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[Sec. 9623. Tobacco: enlisted members of Air Force
  [The Air Force shall sell not more than 16 ounces of tobacco
a month to an enlisted member of the Air Force on active duty
who requests it.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle E--Reserve Components
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 1201--AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty or on
                    full-time National Guard duty for administration of
                    the reserves or the National Guard
  (a) The number of reserve officers of the Army, Air Force,
and Marine Corps who may be on active duty or full-time
National Guard duty in each of the grades of major, lieutenant
colonel, and colonel, and of the Navy who may be on active duty
in each of the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and
captain, as of the end of any fiscal year for duty described in
subclauses (B) and (C) of section 523(b)(1) of this title or
full-time National Guard duty (other than for training) under
section 502(f) of title 32 may not exceed the number for that
grade and armed force in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air     Marine
               [Grade                   Army     Navy    Force    Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander.......    3,219   1,071     643      140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander.....    1,524     520     672       90
Colonel or Navy Captain.............      412     188     274       30]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air     Marine
                Grade                   Army     Navy    Force    Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander.......    3,219   1,071     776      140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander.....    1,524     520     672       90
Colonel or Navy Captain.............      438     188     274       30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on active
                    duty or on full-time National Guard duty for
                    administration of the reserves or the National
                    Guard
  (a) The number of enlisted members in pay grades E-8 and E-9
who may be on active duty (other than for training) or on full-
time National Guard duty under the authority of section 502(f)
of title 32 (other than for training) as of the end of any
fiscal year in connection with organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components or
the National Guard may not exceed the number for that grade and
armed force in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air     Marine
               [Grade                   Army     Navy    Force    Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9.................................     603     202      366       20
E-8.................................   2,585     429      890      94]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Air     Marine
                Grade                   Army     Navy    Force    Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9.................................     623     202      388       20
E-8.................................   2,585     429      979       94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 1205--APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 12205. Commissioned officers: appointment; educational requirement
  (a) * * *
  (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the
following:
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (4) The appointment to or recognition in a higher
        grade of any person who was appointed to, or federally
        recognized in, the grade of captain or, in the case of
        the Navy, lieutenant before October 1, 1995, or in the
        case of an officer commissioned through the Army
        Officer Candidate School, October 1, 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
         CHAPTER 1215--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
Sec.
12551.  Prohibition of use of Air Force Reserve AGR personnel for Air
          Force base security functions.
12552.  Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of treatment as drill
          or training.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 12552. Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of treatment as
                    drill or training
  Performance by a Reserve of honor guard functions at the
funeral of a veteran may not be considered to be a period of
drill or training otherwise required.
            CHAPTER 1217--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
Sec.
12601.  Compensation: Reserve on active duty accepting from any person.
12602.  Members of Army National Guard of United States and Air National
          Guard of United States: credit for service as members of
          National Guard.
12603.  Travel: use of carriers under contract with General Services
          Administration.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 12603. Travel: use of carriers under contract with General
                    Services Administration
  A member of a reserve component who requires transportation
in order to perform inactive duty training may use a carrier
under contract with the General Services Administration to
provide the transportation. The transportation shall be
provided by the carrier in the same manner as transportation is
provided to members of the armed forces and civilian employees
who are traveling at Government expense, except that the
Reserve is responsible for the cost of the travel at the
contract rate. The Secretary concerned may require the Reserve
to use a Government approved travel card to ensure that the
transportation is procured for the purpose of performing
inactive duty training.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 1223--RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 12731. Age and service requirements
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f) In the case of a person who completes the service
requirements of subsection (a)(2) during the period beginning
on October 5, 1994, and ending on September 30, [1999] 2000,
the provisions of subsection (a)(3) shall be applied by
substituting ``the last six years'' for ``the last eight
years''.
Sec. 12731a. Temporary special retirement qualification authority
  (a) Retirement With At Least 15 Years of Service.--For the
purposes of section 12731 of this title, the Secretary
concerned may--
          (1) during the period described in subsection (b),
        determine to treat a member of the Selected Reserve of
        a reserve component of the armed force under the
        jurisdiction of that Secretary as having met the
        service requirements of subsection (a)(2) of that
        section and provide the member with the notification
        required by subsection (d) of that section if the
        member--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) after that date and before October 1,
                [1999] 2000, completes 15 years of service
                computed under that section; and
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (b) Period of Authority.--The period referred to in
subsection (a)(1) is the period beginning on October 23, 1992,
and ending on October 1, [1999] 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
STATUS LIST
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 1405--PROMOTIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 14301. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: general rules
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (g) A reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the
Air Force who is in an inactive status is eligible
(notwithstanding subsection (a)) for consideration for
promotion to major general by a promotion board convened under
section 14101(a) of this title if the officer--
          (1) has been in an inactive status for less than one
        year as of the date of the convening of the promotion
        board; and
          (2) had continuously served for at least one year on
        the reserve active status list or the active duty list
        (or a combination of both) immediately before the
        officer's most recent transfer to an inactive status.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  CHAPTER 1409--CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS
LIST AND SELECTIVE EARLY REMOVAL
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 14705. Selective early retirement: reserve general and flag
                    officers of the Navy and Marine Corps
  (a) * * *
  [(b) Boards.--If the Secretary of the Navy determines that
consideration for early retirement under this section is
necessary, the Secretary shall convene a board under section
14101(b) of this title to recommend an appropriate number of
officers for early retirement.]
  (b) Boards.--(1) If the Secretary of the Navy determines that
consideration of officers for early retirement under this
section is necessary, the Secretary shall convene a
continuation board under section 14101(b) of this title to
recommend an appropriate number of officers for early
retirement.
  (2) In the case of such a board convened to consider officers
in the grade of rear admiral or major general--
          (A) the Secretary may appoint the board without
        regard to section 14102(b) of this title; and
          (B) each member of the board must be serving in a
        grade higher than the grade of rear admiral or major
        general.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
   CHAPTER 1606--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED
RESERVE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 16133. Time limitation for use of entitlement
  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) In the case of a person--
          (A) * * *
          (B) who, on or after the date on which such person
        became entitled to educational assistance under this
        chapter ceases to be a member of the Selected Reserve
        during the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and
        ending on September 30, [1999] 2000, by reason of the
        inactivation of the person's unit of assignment or by
        reason of involuntarily ceasing to be designated as a
        member of the Selected Reserve pursuant to section
        10143(a) of this title,
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions
                    officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime
                    critical medical skill shortages
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c)(1) * * *
  (2) Subject to paragraph (3), the amount of a loan that may
be repaid under this section on behalf of any person may not
exceed [$3,000] $10,000 for each year of service described in
paragraph (1).
  (3) The total amount that may be repaid on behalf of any
person under this section may not exceed [$20,000] $50,000.
  (d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned
officer before October 1, [1999] 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
         Subtitle D--Other Ballistic Missile Defense Provisions
[SEC. 251. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM ELEMENTS.
  [(a) Elements Specified.--In the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of
Defense budget for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 (as
submitted with the budget of the President under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code), the amount requested
for activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
shall be set forth in accordance with the following program
elements:
          [(1) The Patriot system.
          [(2) The Navy Lower Tier (Area) system.
          [(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
        system.
          [(4) The Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide) system.
          [(5) The Corps Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) system.
          [(6) Other Theater Missile Defense Activities.
          [(7) National Missile Defense.
          [(8) Follow-On and Support Technologies.
  [(b) Treatment of Core Theater Missile Defense Programs.--
Amounts requested for core theater missile defense programs
specified in section 234 shall be specified in individual,
dedicated program elements, and amounts appropriated for such
programs shall be available only for activities covered by
those program elements.
  [(c) BM/C<SUP>3</SUP>I Programs.--Amounts requested for
programs, projects, and activities involving battle management,
command, control, communications, and intelligence (BM/
C<SUP>3</SUP>I) shall be included in the ``Other Theater
Missile Defense Activities'' program element or the ``National
Missile Defense'' program element, as determined on the basis
of the primary objectives involved.
  [(d) Management and Support.--Each program element shall
include requests for the amounts necessary for the management
and support of the programs, projects, and activities contained
in that program element.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 335. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR UNIFORM FUNDING OF MORALE, WELFARE,
                    AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES AT CERTAIN MILITARY
                    INSTALLATIONS.
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) Period of Demonstration Project.--The demonstration
project shall terminate [not later than September 30, 1998] on
September 30, 1999.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) Reports.--(1) Not later than six months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress an interim report on the implementation of this
section.
  (2) Not later than December 31, 1998, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress [a final report on the results] an
additional report on the progress of the demonstration project.
The report shall include a comparison of--
          (A) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                 Subtitle D--Land Conveyances Generally
PART I--ARMY CONVEYANCES
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2858. LAND CONVEYANCE, INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT, CHARLESTOWN,
                    INDIANA.
  (a) Conveyance Authorized.--(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (3) The Secretary may also convey to the State, without
consideration, another parcel of real property at the Indiana
Army Ammunition Plant consisting of approximately 2,000 acres
of additional riverfront property in order to connect the
parcel conveyed under paragraph (2) with the parcels of
Charlestown State Park conveyed to the State under paragraph
(1) and title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle F--Other Matters
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 392. PROGRAM TO INVESTIGATE FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE WITHIN
                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
  The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a specific
coordinated program for the investigation of evidence of fraud,
waste, and abuse within the Department of Defense, particularly
fraud, waste, and abuse regarding finance and accounting
matters and any fraud, waste, and abuse occurring in connection
with overpayments made to vendors by the Department of Defense,
including overpayments identified under section 354 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2461 note).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle F--Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 562. DUTIES.
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) Reports.--(1) Not later than [April] October 15, 1998,
the commission shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report setting forth a strategic
plan for the work of the commission and the activities and
initial findings of the commission.
  (2) Not later than [September 16, 1998] March 15, 1999, the
commission shall submit a final report to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives. The final report
shall set forth the activities, findings, and recommendations
of the commission, including any recommendations for
congressional action and administrative action that the
commission considers appropriate. The report shall specifically
set forth the views of the Secretaries of the military
departments regarding the matters described in subparagraphs
(O) and (P) of subsection (b)(2).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 602. REFORM OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE.
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) Transitional Entitlement to Allowance.--
          (1) Enlisted members.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (D) Special rule for certain enlisted reserve
                members.--Unless entitled to basic pay under
                section 204 of title 37, United States Code, an
                enlisted member of a reserve component (as
                defined in section 101(24) of such title) may
                receive, at the discretion of the Secretary
                concerned (as defined in section 101(5) of such
                title), rations in kind, or a part thereof,
                when the member's instruction or duty periods
                (as described in section 206(a) of such title)
                total at least eight hours in a calendar day.
                The Secretary concerned may provide an enlisted
                member who could be provided rations in kind
                under the preceding sentence with a commutation
                when rations in kind are not available..
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[SEC. 615. INCREASE IN AVIATION CAREER INCENTIVE PAY.
  [(a) Amounts.--The table in subsection (b)(1) of section 301a
of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
          [(1) by inserting at the end of phase I of the table
        the following:
    [``Over 14....................................................840'';
        and
          [(2) by striking out phase II of the table and
        inserting in lieu thereof the following:
                               [``Phase II
                                                               ``Monthly
``Years of service as an officer:                                   rate
    ``Over 22..................................................... $585
    ``Over 23.....................................................  495
    ``Over 24.....................................................  385
    ``Over 25.....................................................250''.
  [(b) Conforming Amendments.--Such subsection is further
amended in the matter after the table by striking out ``18
years'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
``22 years''.
  [(c) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made
by subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 1999, and
shall apply with respect to months beginning on or after that
date.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2826. PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN CONVEYANCES OF PROPERTY AT NAVAL
                    STATION, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  [(e) Waiver Authority.--(1) The President may waive the
prohibitions contained in this section with respect to a
conveyanceof property described in subsection (a) to COSCO if
the President determines that--
          [(A) appropriate action has been taken to address any
        increased national security risk identified in the
        reports required by subsection (d); and
          [(B) the conveyance would not adversely affect
        national security or significantly increase the
        counter-intelligence burden on the intelligence
        community.
  [(2) Any waiver under paragraph (1) shall take effect 30 days
after the date on which the President notifies the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of
the President's determination to use the waiver authority
provided under this subsection.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 3132. DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION PROJECTS.
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (g) Prohibition on Loan Guarantees.--The Secretary of Energy
may not guarantee any loan made by a private sector entity to a
contractor to pay for any costs (including costs described in
subsection (a)(3)) borne by the contractor to carry out a
contract entered into under this section.
SEC. 3133. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP.
  (a) Funding Prohibition.--No funds authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Energy
[for fiscal year 1998] for any fiscal year may be obligated or
expended to conduct any activities associated with
international cooperative stockpile stewardship.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
      SECTION 1518 OF THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME ACT OF 1991
[SEC. 1518. INSPECTION BY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
                    DEFENSE
  [The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall--
          [(1) conduct, not later than three years after the
        effective date specified in section 1541(a) (and at
        six-year intervals thereafter), an inspection of the
        Retirement Home and the records of the Retirement Home;
          [(2) cause the Inspector Generals of the military
        departments to conduct an inspection of the Retirement
        Home and its records at six-year intervals alternating
        with the inspections by the Inspector General of the
        Department of Defense so that each home is inspected
        every three years; and
          [(3) submit to the Retirement Home Board, the
        Secretary of Defense, and Congress a report describing
        the results of the inspection and containing such
        recommendations as the Inspector General considers
        appropriate.]
SEC. 1518. INSPECTION OF RETIREMENT HOME.
  (a) Periodic Inspection.--The Inspector Generals of the
military departments shall conduct, at three-year intervals, an
inspection of the Retirement Home and the records of the
Retirement Home. Each inspection under this subsection shall be
performed by a single Inspector General on an alternating
basis.
  (b) Report.--The Inspector General of a military department
who performs an inspection of the Retirement Home under
subsection (a) shall submit to the Retirement Home Board, the
Secretary of Defense, and Congress a report describing the
results of the inspection and containing such recommendations
as the Inspector General considers appropriate.
                              ----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                  Subtitle E--Defense Nuclear Workers
[SEC. 3161. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES WORK FORCE
                    RESTRUCTURING PLAN.
  [(a) In General.--Upon determination that a change in the
workforce at a defense nuclear facility is necessary, the
Secretary of Energy (hereinafter in this subtitle referred to
as the ``Secretary'') shall develop a plan for restructuring
the work force for the defense nuclear facility that takes into
account--
          [(1) the reconfiguration of the defense nuclear
        facility; and
          [(2) the plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile that
        is the most recently prepared plan at the time of the
        development of the plan referred to in this subsection.
  [(b) Consultation.--(1) In developing a plan referred to in
subsection (a) and any updates of the plan under subsection
(e), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Labor,
appropriate representatives of local and national collective-
bargaining units of individuals employed at Department of
Energy defense nuclear facilities, appropriate representatives
of departments and agencies of State and local governments,
appropriate representatives of State and local institutions of
higher education, and appropriate representatives of community
groups in communities affected by the restructuring plan.
  [(2) The Secretary shall determine appropriate
representatives of the units, governments, institutions, and
groups referred to in paragraph (1).
  [(c) Objectives.--In preparing the plan required under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall be guided by the following
objectives:
          [(1) Changes in the work force at a Department of
        Energy defense nuclear facility--
                  [(A) should be accomplished so as to minimize
                social and economic impacts;
                  [(B) should be made only after the provision
                of notice of such changes not later than 120
                days before the commencement of such changes to
                such employees and the communities in which
                such facilities are located; and
                  [(C) should be accomplished, when possible,
                through the use of retraining, early
                retirement, attrition, and other options that
                minimize layoffs.
          [(2) Employees whose employment in positions at such
        facilities is terminated shall, to the extent
        practicable, receive preference in any hiring of the
        Department of Energy (consistent with applicable
        employment seniority plans or practices of the
        Department of Energy and with section 3152 of the
        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
        1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat. 1682)).
          [(3) Employees shall, to the extent practicable, be
        retrained for work in environmental restoration and
        waste management activities at such facilities or other
        facilities of the Department of Energy.
          [(4) The Department of Energy should provide
        relocation assistance to employees who are transferred
        to other Department of Energy facilities as a result of
        the plan.
          [(5) The Department of Energy should assist
        terminated employees in obtaining appropriate
        retraining, education, and reemployment assistance
        (including employment placement assistance).
          [(6) The Department of Energy should provide local
        impact assistance to communities that are affected by
        the restructuring plan and coordinate the provision of
        such assistance with--
                  [(A) programs carried out by the Department
                of Labor pursuant to the Job Training
                Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);
                  [(B) programs carried out pursuant to the
                Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification,
                Conversion, and Stabilization Act of 1990 (Part
                D of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2391 note);
                and
                  [(C) programs carried out by the Department
                of Commerce pursuant to title IX of the Public
                Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42
                U.S.C. 3241 et seq.).
  [(d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall, subject to the
availability of appropriations for such purpose, work on an
ongoing basis with representatives of the Department of Labor,
work force bargaining units, and States and local communities
in carrying out a plan required under subsection (a).
  [(e) Plan Updates.--Not later than one year after issuing a
plan referred to in subsection (a) and on an annual basis
thereafter, the Secretary shall issue an update of the plan.
Each updated plan under this subsection shall--
          [(1) be guided by the objectives referred to in
        subsection (c), taking into account any changes in the
        function or mission of the Department of Energy defense
        nuclear facilities and any other changes in
        circumstances that the Secretary determines to be
        relevant;
          [(2) contain an evaluation by the Secretary of the
        implementation of the plan during the year preceding
        the report; and
          [(3) contain such other information and provide for
        such other matters as the Secretary determines to be
        relevant.
  [(f) Submittal to Congress.--(1) The Secretary shall submit
to Congress a plan referred to in subsection (a) with respect
to a defense nuclear facility within 90 days after the date on
which a notice of changes described in subsection (c)(1)(B) is
provided to employees of the facility, or 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
  [(2) The Secretary shall submit to Congress any updates of
the plan under subsection (e) immediately upon completion of
any such update.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
DIVISION D--DEFENSE CONVERSION, REINVESTMENT, AND TRANSITION ASSISTANCE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
   TITLE XLIV--PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--Active Forces Transition Enhancements
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 4403. TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (i) Active Force Drawdown Period.--For purposes of this
section, the active force drawdown period is the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on October 1, [1999] 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          Subtitle B--Guard and Reserve Transition Initiatives
SEC. 4411. FORCE REDUCTION TRANSITION PERIOD DEFINED.
  In this subtitle, the term ``force reduction transition
period'' means the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and
ending on September 30, [1999] 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 4416. FORCE REDUCTION PERIOD RETIREMENTS.
  (a) * * *
  (b) Temporary Special Authority.--During the period referred
to in subsection (c), the Secretary concerned may grant a
member of the Selected Reserve under the age of 60 years the
annual payments provided for under this section if--
          (1) as of October 1, [1999] 2000, that member has
        completed at least 20 years of service computed under
        section 1332 of title 10, United States Code, or after
        that date and before October 1, 1995, such member
        completes 20 years of service computed under that
        section;
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle F--Job Training and Employment and Educational Opportunities
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 4463. PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL LEAVE RELATING TO CONTINUING PUBLIC
                    AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f) Expiration.--The authority to grant a leave of absence
under subsection (a) shall expire on September 30, [1999] 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
              SECTION 3015 OF TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 3015. Amount of basic educational assistance
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) In the case of an individual who has a skill or specialty
designated by the Secretary concerned as a skill or specialty
in which there is a critical shortage of personnel or for which
it is difficult to recruit, the Secretary concerned, pursuant
to regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,
may, at the time the individual first becomes a member of the
Armed Forces, increase the rate of the basic educational
assistance allowance applicable to such individual to such rate
in excess of the rate prescribed under subsections (a), (b),
and (c) of this section as the Secretary of Defense considers
appropriate, but the amount of any such increase may not exceed
[$400 per month, in the case of an individual who first became
a member of the Armed Forces before November 29, 1989, or $700
per month, in the case of an individual who first became a
member of the Armed Forces on or after that date] $950 per
month.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 1--DEFINITIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 101. Definitions
  In addition to the definitions in sections 1-5 of title 1,
the following definitions apply in this title:
          (1) * * *
          (2) The term ``possessions'' includes [the Canal
        Zone,] Guam, American Samoa, and the guano islands.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 301a. Incentive pay: aviation career
    (a)(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (4) To be entitled to continuous monthly incentive pay, an
officer must perform the prescribed operational flying duties
(including flight training but excluding proficiency flying)
for 8 of the first 12, and 12 of the first 18 years of the
aviation service of the officer. However, if an officer
performs the prescribed operational flying duties (including
flight training but excluding proficiency flying) for at least
10 but less than 12 of the first 18 years of the aviation
service of the officer, the officer will be entitled to
continuous monthly incentive pay for the first [22 years of the
officer's service as an officer] 22 years of aviation service
of the officer. Entitlement to continuous monthly incentive pay
ceases for an officer (other than a warrant officer) upon
completion of [25 years of service as an officer (as computed
under section 205 of this title)] 25 years of aviation service,
but such an officer in a pay grade below pay grade O-7 remains
entitled to monthly incentive pay under subsection (b)(1) for
the performance of operational flying duty.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (6) In this section:
          (A) The term ``aviation service'' means service
        performed by an officer (except a flight surgeon or
        other medical officer) while holding an aeronautical
        rating or designation or while in training to receive
        an aeronautical rating or designation.
          [(A)] (B) The term ``operational flying duty'' means
        flying performed under competent orders by rated or
        designated members while serving in assignments in
        which basic flying skills normally are maintained in
        the performance of assigned duties as determined by the
        Secretary concerned, and flying performed by members in
        training that leads to the award of an aeronautical
        rating or designation.
          [(B)] (C) The term ``proficiency flying duty'' means
        flying performed under competent orders by rated or
        designated members while serving in assignments in
        which such skills would normally not be maintained in
        the performance of assigned duties.
          [(C)] (D) The term ``officer'' includes an individual
        enlisted, and designated, as an aviation cadet under
        section 6911 of title 10.
  [(b) A member who satisfies the requirements described in
subsection (a) is entitled to monthly incentive pay as follows:
          [(1) For a member who is qualified under subsection
        (a):
                                [Phase I
Years of aviation service (including                             Monthly
  flight training) as an officer:                                   rate
    2 or less.....................................................  $125
    Over 2........................................................   156
    Over 3........................................................   188
    Over 4........................................................   206
    Over 6........................................................   650
                                [Phase II
                                                                 Monthly
Years of service as an officer:                                     rate
    Over 18.......................................................  $585
    Over 20.......................................................   495
    Over 22.......................................................   385
    Over 25.......................................................   250
        An officer is entitled to the rates in phase I of this
        table until he has completed 22 years of service as an
        officer, after which his entitlement is as prescribed
        by the rates in phase II, if he has completed at least
        6 years of aviation service as an officer. However, if
        he has over 22 years of service as an officer, but not
        at least 6 years of aviation service as an officer, he
        continues to be subject to the rates set forth in phase
        I of the table that apply to an officer who has less
        than 6 years of aviation service as an officer. An
        officer in a pay grade above O-6 is entitled, until he
        completes 25 years of service as an officer, to be paid
        at the rates set forth in this table, except that an
        officer in pay grade O-7 may not be paid at a rate
        greater than $200 a month, and an officer in pay grade
        O-8, or above, may not be paid at a rate greater than
        $206 a month.]
  (b)(1) A member who satisfies the requirements described in
subsection (a) is entitled to monthly incentive pay as follows:
Years of aviation service (including                             Monthly
  flight training) as an officer:                                   rate
    2 or less.....................................................  $125
    Over 2........................................................  $156
    Over 3........................................................  $188
    Over 4........................................................  $206
    Over 6........................................................  $650
    Over 14.......................................................  $840
    Over 22.......................................................  $585
    Over 23.......................................................  $495
    Over 24.......................................................  $385
    Over 25.......................................................  $250
  (2) An officer in a pay grade above O-6 is entitled, until
the officer completes 25 years of aviation service, to be paid
at the rates set forth in the table in paragraph (1), except
that--
          (A) an officer in pay grade O-7 may not be paid at a
        rate greater than $200 a month; and
          (B) an officer in pay grade O-8 or above may not be
        paid at a rate greater than $206 a month.
  (3) For a warrant officer with over 22, 23, 24, or 25 years
of aviation service who is qualified under subsection (a), the
rate prescribed in the table in paragraph (1) for officers with
over 14 years of aviation service shall continue to apply to
the warrant officer.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) Under regulations prescribed by the President and to the
extent provided for by appropriations, when a member of a
reserve component of a uniformed service, or of the National
Guard, who is entitled to compensation under section 206 of
this title, performs, under orders, duty described in
subsection (a) for members entitled to basic pay, he is
entitled to an increase in compensation equal to \1/30\ of the
monthly incentive pay authorized by [subsection (b)(1) or (2),
as the case may be, for the performance of that duty by a
member of corresponding years of aviation or officer service,
as appropriate,] subsection (b) for the performance of that
duty by a member with corresponding years of aviation service
who is entitledto basic pay. Such member is entitled to the
increase for as long as he is qualified for it, for each regular period
of instruction, or period of appropriate duty, at which he is engaged
for at least two hours, including that performed on a Sunday or
holiday, or for the performance of such other equivalent training,
instruction, duty or appropriate duties, as the Secretary may prescribe
under section 206(a) of this title. This subsection does not apply to a
member who is entitled to basic pay under section 204 of this title.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of
                    active duty
    (a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1,
1989, and ending on September 30, [1999] 2000, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as
provided in this section.
    (b) Covered Officers.--An aviation officer referred to in
subsection (a) is an officer of a uniformed service who--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (5) has completed at least six but less than 13 years
        of [active duty] aviation service; and
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
    (j) Definitions.--In this section:
          [(1) The term ``aviation service'' means the service
        performed by an officer holding an aeronautical rating
        or designation (except a flight surgeon or other
        medical officer).]
          (1) The term ``aviation service'' means service
        performed by an officer (except a flight surgeon or
        other medical officer) while holding an aeronautical
        rating or designation or while in training to receive
        an aeronautical rating or designation.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses
    (a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on
November 29, 1989, and ending on September 30, [1999] 2000,
executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to
accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for
a period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance
of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an
accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary
concerned.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists
    (a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November
29, 1989, and ending on September 30, [1999] 2000, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one
year or more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the
Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount
not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in
                    critically short wartime specialties
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under
this section may be entered into after September 30, [1999]
2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 304. Special pay: diving duty
  (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
a member of a uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay is
entitled to special pay, in the amount set forth in subsection
(b), for periods during which the member--
          (1) is assigned by orders to the duty of diving; or
          (2) is required to maintain proficiency as a diver
        [by frequent and regular dives; and].
          [(3) actually performs diving duty.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus
  (a)(1) A member of a uniformed service who--
          (A) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          [(D) reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment
        in a regular component of the service concerned for a
        period of at least three years;]
          (D) reenlists or voluntarily extends the member's
        enlistment for a period of at least three years in a
        regular component, or in a reserve component if the
        member is performing active Guard and Reserve duty (as
        defined in section 101(d)(6) of title 10), of the
        service concerned;
may be paid a bonus as provided in paragraph (2).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (b)[(1)] Bonus payments authorized under this section may be
paid in either a lump sum or in installments. If the bonus is
paid in installments, the initial payment shall be not less
than 50 percent of the total bonus amount.
  [(2) Of the bonuses paid under this section to members of a
uniformed service during a fiscal year, not more than 10
percent may exceed $20,000.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty
reenlistment,in the armed forces entered into after September
30, [1999] 2000.
Sec. 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any enlistment or extension of an initial period of active duty
in the armed forces made after September 30, [1999] 2000.
Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected
                    Reserve
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under
this section to any enlisted member who, after September 30,
[1999] 2000, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in
a reserve component.
Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve
    (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted
member who, after September 30, [1999] 2000, enlists in the
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.
Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve
                    assigned to certain high priority units
    (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
    (c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this
section for inactive duty performed after September 30, [1999]
2000.
Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after September 30,
[1999] 2000.
Sec. 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army
  (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Army, a person--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
may be paid a bonus in an amount prescribed by the Secretary of
the Army not to exceed [$4,000] $6,000. The bonus may be paid
in a lump sum or in equal periodic installments, as determined
by the Secretary of the Army.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to
an enlistment in the Army after September 30, [1999] 2000.
Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or
                    voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of
                    the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person
for a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an
enlistment after September 30, [1999] 2000.
Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under
this section to any person for an enlistment after September
30, [1999] 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 310. Special pay: duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger
    (a) * * *
  (b)(1) A member may not be paid more than one special pay
under this section for any month. A member may be paid special
pay under this section in addition to any other pay and
allowances to which he may be entitled.
  (2) A member of a reserve component who is eligible for
special pay under this section for a month shall receive the
full amount authorized in subsection (a) for that month
regardless of the number of days during that month on which the
member satisfies the eligibility criteria specified in such
subsection.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of
                    active duty
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before September 30, [1999]
2000, execute the required written agreement to remain in
active service.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before September 30, [1999]
2000, have been accepted for training for duty in connection
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval
nuclear propulsion plants.
Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before October 1, [1999]
2000.
                         CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES
Sec.
401.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
[411c.   Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in
          connection with leave from certain stations in foreign
          countries.]
411c.   Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in
          connection with rest and recuperative leave from certain
          stations in foreign countries.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 402. Basic allowance for subsistence
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) Special Rule for Certain Enlisted Reserve Members.--
Unless entitled to basic pay under section 204 of this title,
an enlisted member of a reserve component may receive, at the
discretion of the Secretary concerned, rations in kind, or a
part thereof, when the member's instruction or duty periods, as
described in section 206(a) of this title, total at least eight
hours in a calendar day. The Secretary concerned may provide an
enlisted member who could be provided rations in kind under the
preceding sentence with a commutation when rations in kind are
not available.
  [(e)] (f) Policies on Use of Dining and Messing Facilities.--
The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries
concerned, shall prescribe policies regarding use of dining and
field messing facilities of the uniformed services.
  [(f)] (g) Regulations.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations for the administration of this section.
Before prescribing the regulations, the Secretary shall consult
with each Secretary concerned.
  (2) The regulations shall include the specific rates of basic
allowance for subsistence required by subsection (b).
Sec. 403. Basic allowance for housing
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) Basic Allowance for Housing Outside the United States.--
(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (3)(A) In the case of a member of the uniformed services
authorized to receive an allowance under paragraph (1), the
Secretary concerned may make a lump-sum payment to the member
for required deposits and advance rent, and for expenses
relating thereto, that are--
          (i) incurred by the member in occupying private
        housing outside of the United States; and
          (ii) authorized or approved under regulations
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned.
  (B) Expenses for which a member may be reimbursed under this
paragraph may include losses relating to housing that are
sustained by the member as a result of fluctuations in the
relative value of the currencies of the United States and the
foreign country in which the housing is located.
  (C) The Secretary concerned shall recoup the full amount of
any deposit or advance rent payments made by the Secretary
under subparagraph (A), including any gain resulting from
currency fluctuations between the time of payment and the time
of recoupment.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the
Secretaries concerned and as provided in paragraph (2), a
member who--
          (A) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (C) is involuntarily separated from active duty
        [during the nine-year period beginning on October 1,
        1990] during the period beginning on October 1, 1990,
        and ending on September 30, 2000,
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f)(1) The travel and transportation allowances authorized
under this section for a member who is separated from the
service or released from active duty may be paid or provided
only for travel actually performed.
  (2)(A) * * *
  (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member--
          (i) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty
        [during the nine-year period beginning on October 1,
        1990] during the period beginning on October 1, 1990,
        and ending on September 30, 2000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while on duty
                    outside the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  [(c)(1) In the case of a member of the uniformed services
authorized to receive a per diem allowance under subsection
(a), the Secretary concerned may make a lump-sum payment for
nonrecurring expenses--
          [(A) incurred by the member in occupying private
        housing outside of the United States; and
          [(B) authorized or approved under regulations
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned.
  [(2) Nonrecurring expenses for which a member may be
reimbursed under paragraph (1) may include losses sustained by
the member on the refund of a rental deposit (or other deposit
made by the member to secure housing) as a result of
fluctuations in the relative value of the currencies of the
United States and the foreign country in which such housing is
located.
  [(3) The Secretary concerned shall recoup the full amount of
a refunded deposit referred to in paragraph (2) that was paid
by the United States, including any gain resulting from a
fluctuation in currency values referred to in that paragraph.
  [(4) Expenses for which payments are made under this
subsection may not be considered for purposes of determining
the per diem allowance of the member under subsection (a).]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 405a. Travel and transportation allowances: departure allowances
  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries
concerned, each member whose dependents are covered by
subsection (a) is entitled to have one motor vehicle that is
owned by the member (or a dependent of the member) and is for
the personal use of the member or his dependents transported at
the expense of the United States to a designated place for the
use of the dependents. When the dependents are permitted to
rejoin the member, the vehicle may be transported at the
expense of the United States to his permanent duty station.
  (2) If a motor vehicle of a member (or a dependent of the
member) that is transported at the expense of the United States
under paragraph (1) does not arrive at the authorized
destination of the vehicle by the designated delivery date, the
Secretary concerned shall reimburse the member for expenses
incurred after that date to rent a motor vehicle for the
dependent's use. However, the amount reimbursed shall not
exceed $30 per day, and the rental period for which
reimbursement may be provided shall expire after seven days or
on the date on which the delayed vehicle finally arrives at the
authorized destination (whichever occurs first).
Sec. 406. Travel and transportation allowances: dependents; baggage and
                    household effects
  (a)(1) * * *
  (2)(A) * * *
  (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member--
          (i) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty
        [during the nine-year period beginning on October 1,
        1990] during the period beginning on October 1, 1990,
        and ending on September 30, 2000.
  (b)(1)(A) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
    (D) In connection with the change of temporary or permanent
station of a member in a pay grade below pay grade O-6, the
Secretary concerned may authorize a higher weight allowance
than the weight allowance determined under subparagraph (C) for
the member if the Secretary concerned determines that the
application of the weight allowance determined under such
subparagraph would result in significant hardship to the member
or the dependents of the member. An increase in weight
allowance under this subparagraph may not result in a weight
allowance exceeding the weight allowance specified in
subparagraph (C) for pay grades O-6 to O-10, unless the
additional weight allowance in excess of such maximum is
intended to permit the shipping of consumables that cannot be
reasonably obtained at the new station of the member. The
Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out
this subparagraph.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (g)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the
Secretaries concerned, a member who--
          (A) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (C) is involuntarily separated from active duty
        [during the nine-year period beginning on October 1,
        1990] during the period beginning on October 1, 1990,
        and ending on September 30, 2000,
is, not later than one year from the date he is so retired,
placed on that list, involuntarily separated, discharged, or
released, except as prescribed in regulations by the
Secretaries concerned, entitled to transportation for his
dependents, baggage, and household effects to the home selected
under section 404(c) of this title, and to a per diem for his
dependents. In addition, baggage and household effects may be
shipped to a location other than the home selected by the
member.
  (h)(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (3) If a motor vehicle of a member (or a dependent of the
member) that is transported at the expense of the United States
under this subsection does not arrive at the authorized
destination of the vehicle by the designated delivery date, the
Secretary concernedshall reimburse the member for expenses
incurred after that date to rent a motor vehicle for the dependent's
use. However, the amount reimbursed shall not exceed $30 per day, and
the rental period for which reimbursement may be provided shall expire
after seven days or on the date on which the delayed vehicle finally
arrives at the authorized destination (whichever occurs first).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[Sec. 411c. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in
                    connection with leave from certain stations in
                    foreign countries]
Sec. 411c. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in
                    connection with rest and recuperative leave from
                    certain stations in foreign countries
  (a) * * *
  [(b) The transportation authorized by this section is limited
to transportation of the member, and of each dependent of the
member, for one round-trip during any tour of at least 24, but
less than 36, consecutive months or two round-trips during any
tour of at least 36 consecutive months.]
  (b) When the transportation authorized by subsection (a) is
provided by the Secretary concerned, the Secretary may use
Government or commercial carriers. The Secretary concerned may
limit the amount of payments made to members under subsection
(a).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of members
                    stationed overseas
  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) A member described in subsection (a) may be paid a
transportation allowance for each unmarried dependent child,
who is under 23 years of age and is attending a school in the
continental United States for the purpose of obtaining a
secondary or undergraduate college education, of one annual
trip between the school being attended and the member's duty
station outside the continental United States and return. The
allowance authorized by this section may be transportation in
kind or reimbursement therefor, as prescribed by the
Secretaries concerned. However, the transportation authorized
by this section may not be paid a member for a child attending
a school in the continental United States for the purpose of
obtaining a secondary education if the child is eligible to
attend a secondary school for dependents that is located at or
in the vicinity of the duty station of the member and is
operated under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978
(20 U.S.C. 921 et seq.).
  (2) At the option of the member, in lieu of the
transportation of baggage of a dependent child under paragraph
(1) from the dependent's school in the continental United
States, the Secretary concerned may pay or reimburse the member
for costs incurred to store the baggage at or in the vicinity
of the school during the dependent's annual trip between the
school and the member's duty station. The amount of the payment
or reimbursement may not exceed the cost that the Government
would incur to transport the baggage.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 10--PAYMENTS TO MISSING PERSONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 554. Travel and transportation: dependents; household and personal
                    effects; trailers; additional movements; motor
                    vehicles; sale of bulky items; claims for proceeds;
                    appropriation chargeable
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (i) If a motor vehicle of a member (or a dependent of the
member) that is transported at the expense of the United States
under this section does not arrive at the authorized
destination of the vehicle by the designated delivery date, the
Secretary concerned shall reimburse the dependent for expenses
incurred after that date to rent a motor vehicle for the
dependent's use. However, the amount reimbursed shall not
exceed $30 per day, and the rental period for which
reimbursement may be provided shall expire after seven days or
on the date on which the delayed vehicle finally arrives at the
authorized destination (whichever occurs first).
  [(i)] (j) This section does not amend or repeal--
          (1) sections 2575, 2733, 4712, 6522, or 9712 of title
        10;
          (2) section 507 of title 14; or
          (3) chapter 171 of title 28.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                       CHAPTER 19--ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 1006. Advance payments
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e)(1) As far as practicable, regulations for the
administration of subsections (a)-(d) shall be uniform for all
of the uniformed services.
  (2) Obligations and expenditures incurred for an advance
payment under this section may not be included in any
determination of amounts available for obligation or
expenditure except in the fiscal year in which the advance
payment is ultimately earned and such obligations and
expenditures shall be accounted for only in such fiscal year.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATON ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                      TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL
Part A--Personnel Readjustment Benefits
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 503. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES RELATING TO MEMBERS
                    INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) Storage of Household Effects.--(1) The Secretary of a
military department shall exercise the authority provided by
section 406 of title 37, United States Code, to provide
nontemporary storage of baggage and household effects for a
period not longer than one year in the case of individuals who
are involuntarily separated [during the nine-year period
beginning on October 1, 1990] during the period beginning on
October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2000.
  (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``involuntarily
separated'' has the meaning given that term in section 1141 of
title 10, United States Code.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE X--DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 1004. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
  (a) Support to Other Agencies.--During fiscal years 1991
through [1999] 2000, the Secretary of Defense may provide
support for the counter-drug activities of any other department
or agency of the Federal Government or of any State, local, or
foreign law enforcement agency for any of the purposes set
forth in subsection (b) if such support is requested--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (b) Types of Support.--The purposes for which the Secretary
may provide support under subsection (a) are the following:
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (4) The establishment (including unspecified minor
        construction) and operation of bases of operations or
        training facilities for the purpose of facilitating
        counter-drug activities within or outside the United
        States conducted by the Department of Defense or a
        Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, or a
        foreign law enforcement agency in the case of counter-
        drug activities outside the United States.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (h) Unspecified Minor Military Construction Projects.--
Section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, shall apply with
respect to any unspecified minor military construction project
carried out using the authority provided under this section.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XIV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Part C--Guard and Reserve Initiative
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[SEC. 1438. TACTICAL AIRLIFT MISSION
  [(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall assign
the tactical airlift mission of the Air Force to the Air Force
Reserve and the Air National Guard of the United States.
  [(b) Requirement for Transfer Plan.--The Secretary of the Air
Force shall develop a plan for the transfer of all tactical
airlift transport aircraft to the Air Force Reserve and the Air
National Guard of the United States at the earliest practical
date and shall complete the transfer in accordance with such
plan not later than September 30, 1992.
  [(c) Deadline for Submission of Plan.--The Secretary of the
Air Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a copy of the plan referred to in subsection (b) not later than
June 1, 1991.
  [(d) The Secretary of the Air Force may waive subsection (a)
for any fiscal year if, not later than May 1 of the year in
which that fiscal year begins, the Secretary certifies to the
congressional defense committees that--
          [(1) the requirements for tactical airlift capability
        of the commanders of the unified commands during that
        fiscal year require continued operation of tactical
        airlift aircraft by active duty Air Force units; and
          [(2) the budget submitted to Congress pursuant to
        section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for
        that fiscal year and the multiyear defense program
        submitted to Congress in connection with that budget
        pursuant to section 114a of title 10, United States
        Code, propose sufficient funding to procure tactical
        airlift aircraft of the type required by the commanders
        of the unified commands for active Air Force tactical
        airlift squadrons.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
     SECTION 1407 OF THE DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION ACT OF 1978
             school system for dependents in overseas areas
  Sec. 1407. (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) Continuation of Enrollment for Certain Dependents of
Members of the Armed Forces Involuntarily Separated.--(1) A
member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty on September
30, 1990, who is involuntarily separated [during the nine-year
period beginning on October 1, 1990] during the period
beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2000,
and who has a dependent described in paragraph (2) who is
enrolled in a school of the defense dependents' education
system (or a school for which tuition is provided under
subsection (b)) on the date of that separation shall be
eligible to enroll or continue the enrollment of that dependent
at that school (or another school serving the same community)
for the final year of secondary education of that dependent in
the same manner as if the member were still on active duty.
  (2) A dependent referred to in paragraph (1) is a dependent
who on the date of the separation of the member has completed
the eleventh grade and is likely to complete secondary
education within the one-year period beginning on that date.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
              SECTION 114 OF TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 114. Honor guard functions at funerals for veterans
  [(a)] Subject to such regulations and restrictions as may be
prescribed by the Secretary concerned, the performance of honor
guard functions by members of the National Guard at funerals
for veterans of the armed forces may be treated by the
Secretary concerned as a Federal function for which
appropriated funds may be used. Any such performance of honor
guard functions at such a funeral may not be considered to be a
period of drill or training otherwise required.
  [(b) This section does not authorize additional
appropriations for any fiscal year. Any expense of the National
Guard that is incurred by reason of this section shall be paid
from appropriations otherwise available for the National
Guard.]
                              ----------
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle B--Force Structure Review
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 1053. DISPOSAL OF TRACT OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF
                    COLUMBIA.
  (a) Disposal Authorized.--Notwithstanding title II the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 481 et seq.), title VIII of such Act (40 U.S.C. 531 et
seq.), section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), or any other provision of law
relating to the management and disposal of real property by the
United States, the Armed Forces Retirement Home Board may
convey[, by sale or otherwise,] all right, title, and interest
of the United States in a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 49 acres
located in Washington, District of Columbia, east of North
Capitol Street, and recorded as District Parcel 121/19. The
conveyance of the real property shall be made by sale to the
highest bidder, except that the purchase price may not be less
than the fair market value of the parcel.
  (b) Manner, Terms, and Conditions of Disposal.--The Armed
Forces Retirement Home Board may determine--
          (1) the manner for [the disposal] the sale of the
        real property under subsection (a); and
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle B--Amendments to Panama Canal Act of 1979
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 3548. CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
  (a) * * *
  (b) Cross References in Panama Canal Act.--
          (1) * * *
          (3) Section 1341(f) (22 U.S.C. 3751(f)) is amended by
        striking out ``[section] sections 1302(c)'' and
        inserting in lieu thereof ``[section] sections
        1302(b)''.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subpart D--Pay and Allowances
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER I--PAY COMPARABILITY SYSTEM
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 5302. Definitions
  For the purpose of this subchapter--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (8) the term ``rates of pay under the General
        Schedule'', ``rates of pay for the General Schedule'',
        or ``scheduled rates of basic pay'' means--
                  (A) the rates of basic pay set forth in the
                General Schedule; and
                  (B) in the case of an employee receiving a
                retained rate of basic pay under section 5363
                (except a rate retained under subsection (a)(2)
                of that section), the rate of basic pay payable
                under such section; and
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 55--PAY ADMINISTRATION
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER IX--SEVERANCE PAY AND BACK PAY
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 5596. Back pay due to unjustified personnel action
  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (4) The pay, allowances, or differentials granted under this
section for the period for which an unjustified or unwarranted
personnel action was in effect shall not exceed that authorized
by the applicable law, rule, regulations, or collective
bargaining agreement under which the unjustified or unwarranted
personnel action is found, except that in no case may pay,
allowances, or differentials be granted under this section for
a period beginning more than 6 years before the date of the
filing of a timely appeal or, absent such filing, the date of
the administrative determination.
  [(4)] (5) For the purpose of this subsection, ``grievance''
and ``collective bargaining agreement'' have the meanings set
forth in section 7103 of this title and (with respect to
members of the Foreign Service) in sections 1101 and 1002 of
the Foreign Service Act of 1980, ``unfair labor practice''
means an unfair labor practice described in section 7116 of
this title and (with respect to members of the Foreign Service)
in section 1015 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, and
``personnel action'' includes the omission or failure to take
an action or confer a benefit.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    Subpart E--Attendance and Leave
CHAPTER 61--HOURS OF WORK
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 6103. Holidays
  (a) * * *
  (b) For the purpose of statutes relating to pay and leave of
employees, with respect to a legal public holiday and any other
day declared to be a holiday by Federal statute or Executive
order, the following rules apply:
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (3) Instead of a holiday that is designated under
        subsection (a) to occur on a Monday, for an employee at
        a duty post outside the United States whose basic
        workweek is other than Monday through Friday, and for
        whom Monday is a regularly scheduled workday, the legal
        public holiday is the first workday of the workweek in
        which the Monday designated for the observance of such
        holiday under subsection (a) occurs.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 63--LEAVE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBCHAPTER I--ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 6304. Annual leave; accumulation
  (a) Except as provided by subsections (b), (d), (e), (f), and
(g) of this section, annual leave provided by section 6303 of
this title, which is not used by an employee, accumulates for
use in succeeding years until it totals not more than 30 days
at the beginning of the first full bi-weekly pay period, or
corresponding period for an employee who is not paid on the
basis of biweekly pay periods, occurring in a year.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d)(1) Annual leave which is lost by operation of this
section because of--
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (3)(A) For the purpose of this subsection, the closure of,
and any realignment with respect to, an installation of the
Department of Defense pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) during any period, the closure of
an installation of the Department of Defense in the Republic of
Panama in accordance with the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, and
the closure of any other installation of the Department of
Defense, during the period beginning on October 1, 1992, and
ending on December 31, 1997, shall be deemed to create an
exigency of the public business and any leave that is lost by
an employee of such installation by operation of this section
(regardless of whether such leave was scheduled) shall be
restored to the employee and shall be credited and available in
accordance with paragraph (2).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subpart F--Labor-Management and Employee Relations
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
CHAPTER 71--LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
            SUBCHAPTER III--GRIEVANCES, APPEALS, AND REVIEW
Sec. 7121. Grievance procedures
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (h) Settlements and awards under this chapter shall be
subject to the limitations in section 5596(b)(4) of this title.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
  SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992
SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.
  (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates
at the close of fiscal year [1998] 1999.
                              ----------
     SECTION 580 OF THE FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
             [moratorium on use of antipersonnel landmines
  [Sec. 580. (a) United States Moratorium.--For a period of one
year beginning three years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the United States shall not use antipersonnel landmines
except along internationally recognized national borders or in
demilitarized zones within a perimeter marked area that is
monitored by military personnel and protected by adequate means
to ensure the exclusion of civilians.
  [(b) Definition and Exemptions.--For the purposes of this
section:
          [(1) Antipersonnel landmine.--The term
        ``antipersonnel landmine'' means any munition placed
        under, on, or near the ground or other surface area,
        delivered by artillery, rocket, mortar, or similar
        means, or dropped from an aircraft and which is
        designed, constructed or adapted to be detonated or
        exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a
        person.
          [(2) Exemptions.--The term ``antipersonnel landmine''
        does not include command detonated Claymore munitions.]
                              ----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.
  This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998''.
TITLE XXI--ARMY
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
  (a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property
and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
                     Army: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Installation or
             State                      Location              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................  Redstone Arsenal......      $27,000,000
      *         *         *         *         *         *         *
New York.......................  Fort Drum.............    [$24,400,000]
                                                             $24,900,000
North Carolina.................  Fort Bragg............      $17,700,000
Oklahoma.......................  Fort Sill.............    [$25,000,000]
                                                             $28,500,000
      *         *         *         *         *         *         *
                                                        ----------------
                                     Total.............   [$598,750,000]
                                                            $602,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.
  (a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1997, for military construction, land acquisition, and military
family housing functions of the Department of the Army in the
total amount of [$2,010,466,000] $2,013,966,000 as follows:
          (1) For military construction projects inside the
        United States authorized by section 2101(a),
        [$435,350,000] $438,850,000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2101 of this Act may not exceed--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          (8) [$8,500,000] $9,000,000 (the balance of the
        amount authorized under section 2101(a) for the
        construction of an aerial gunnery range at Fort Drum,
        New York).
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2601. AUTHORIZED GUARD AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
                    ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
  (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1997, for the costs
of acquisition, architectural and engineering services, and
construction of facilities for the Guard and Reserve Forces,
and for contributions therefor, under chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code (including the cost of acquisition of land
for those facilities), the following amounts:
          (1) For the Department of the Army--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) for the Army Reserve, [$66,267,000]
                $53,553,000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
[SEC. 2603. ARMY RESERVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CAMP WILLIAMS, UTAH.
  [With regard to the military construction project for the
Army Reserve concerning construction of a reserve center and
organizational maintenance shop at Camp Williams, Utah, to be
carried out using funds appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 2601(a)(1)(B), the
Secretary of the Army shall enter into an agreement with the
State of Utah under which the State agrees to provide financial
or in-kind contributions toward land acquisition, site
preparation, and relocation costs in connection with the
project.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
 SECTION 816 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                  1995
SEC. 816. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON PURCHASE OF FIRE, SECURITY, POLICE,
                    PUBLIC WORKS, AND UTILITY SERVICES FROM LOCAL
                    GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
  (a) * * *
  (b) Evaluation of Project.--Not later than December 31 of
each of the years 1997 [and 1998] through 2000, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the
results of the project and making any recommendations the
Secretary considers appropriate, including recommendations on
whether the purchase authorities used in conducting the project
could be used to provide similar services at other locations.
                              ----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
SECTION 2001. SHORT TITLE.
  This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995''.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
                    ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
  Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 2405(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense
may acquire real property and carry out military construction
projects for the installations and locations inside the United
States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
                                   Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Agency                                 Installation or location                 Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction......  Anniston Army Depot, Alabama.................        $5,000,000
                                                 Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas.................    [$134,000,000]
                                                                                                    $154,400,000
                                                 Tooele Army Depot, Utah......................        $4,000,000
                                                 Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon..................    [$187,000,000]
                                                                                                    $193,377,000
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE
  This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991''.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
                        Part A--Fiscal Year 1990
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
                    ACQUISITION PROJECTS
  (a) Inside the United States.--The Secretary of Defense may
acquire real property and may carry out military construction
projects in the amounts shown for each of the following
installations and locations inside the United States:
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                   defense medical facilities office
          Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, $1,600,000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia, [$330,000,000]
        $351,354,000.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES
  (a) * * *
  (b) Limitation of Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2401 may not exceed--
          (1) * * *
          (2) [$321,500,000] $342,854,000 (the balance of the
        amount authorized under section 2401(a) for the
        construction of a medical facility at Portsmouth Naval
        Hospital, Virginia); and
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
                     THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1960
  AN ACT To promote effectual planning, development, maintenance, and
       coordination of wildlife, fish, and game conservation and
                rehabilitation in military reservations.
  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the ``Sikes Act''.
TITLE I--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  [Sec. 103.]
SEC. 103. PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC OUTDOOR RECREATION.
  (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense is also
authorized to carry out a program for the development,
enhancement, operation, and maintenance of public outdoor
recreation resources at military installations in accordance
with an integrated natural resources management plan mutually
agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with the appropriate State agency
designated by the State in which the installations are located.
  (b) Access for Disabled Veterans, Military Dependents With
Disabilities, and Other Persons With Disabilities.--(1) In
developing facilities and conducting programs for public
outdoor recreation at military installations, consistent with
the primary military mission of the installations, the
Secretary of Defense shall ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that outdoor recreation opportunities (including
fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife viewing, boating, and
camping) made available to the public also provide equal access
for persons described in paragraph (2) when topographic,
vegetative, and water resources allow equal access without
substantial modification to the natural environment.
  (2) Persons referred to in paragraph (1) are disabled
veterans, military dependents with disabilities, and other
persons with disabilities.
  (3) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out this subsection
in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
national service, military, and veterans organizations, and
sporting organizations in the private sector that participate
in outdoor recreation projects for persons described in
paragraph (2).
  (c) Acceptance of Donations.--In connection with the
facilities and programs for public outdoor recreation at
military installations, in particular the requirement under
subsection (b) to provide equal access for persons described in
paragraph (2) of such subsection, the Secretary of Defense may
accept--
          (1) the voluntary services of individuals and
        organizations; and
          (2) donations of money or property, whether real,
        personal, mixed, tangible, or intangible.
  (d) Treatment of Volunteers.--A volunteer under subsection
(c) shall not be considered to be a Federal employee and shall
not be subject to the provisions of law relating to Federal
employment, including those relating to hours of work, rates of
compensation, leave, unemployment compensation, and Federal
employee benefits, except that--
          (1) for the purposes of the tort claims provisions of
        chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the
        volunteer shall be considered to be a Federal employee;
        and
          (2) for the purposes of subchapter I of chapter 81 of
        title 5, United States Code, relating to compensation
        to Federal employees for work injuries, the volunteer
        shall be considered to be an employee, as defined in
        section 8101(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, and
        the provisions of such subchapter shall apply.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
 SECTION 319 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                  1987
[SEC. 319. PROHIBITION ON JOINT USE OF GRAY ARMY AIRFIELD WITH CIVIL
                    AVIATION
  [The Secretary of the Army may not enter into an agreement to
allow joint use of the Robert Gray Army Airfield at Fort Hood,
Texas, with civil aviation.]
                              ----------
               SECTION 3110 OF THE USEC PRIVATIZATION ACT
SEC. 3110. EMPLOYEE PROTECTIONS.
  (a) Contractor Employees.--(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (5) In the event of a plant closing or mass layoff (as such
terms are defined in section 2101(a) (2) and (3) of title 29,
United States Code) at either of the gaseous diffusion plants,
the Secretary of Energy shall treat any adversely affected
employee of an operating contractor at either plant who was an
employee at such plant on July 1, 1993, as a Department of
Energy employee for purposes of sections 3161 and 3162 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (42
U.S.C. 7274h-7274i). With respect to such section 3161, the
Secretary shall, on and after the effective date of the repeal
of such section, provide assistance to any such employee in
accordance with the terms of such section as in effect on the
day before the effective date of its repeal.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                              ----------
PANAMA CANAL ACT OF 1979
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                TITLE I--ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATIONS
Chapter 1--Panama Canal Commission
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                     specific powers of commission
  Sec. 1102b. (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (f)(1) The Commission may seek and accept donations of funds,
property, and services from individuals, foundations,
corporations, and other private and public entities for the
purpose of carrying out its promotional activities.
  (2) The Commission shall establish written guidelines setting
forth the criteria to be used in determining whether the
acceptance of funds, property, or services authorized by
paragraph (1) would reflect unfavorably upon the ability of the
Commission (or any employee of the Commission) to carry out its
responsibilities or official duties in a fair and objective
manner or would compromise the integrity or the appearance of
the integrity of its programs or of any official in those
programs.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                          Chapter 2--Employees
Subchapter I--Panama Canal Commission Personnel
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                  appointment and compensation; duties
  Sec. 1202. (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (c) In the case of an individual who is an officer or
employee of the Commission on [the day before the date of the
enactment of the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of
1997] November 17, 1997, and who has not had a break in service
with the Commission since that date, the rate of basic pay for
that officer or employee [on or after that date] may not be
less than the rate in effect for that officer or employee on
[the day before that date of enactment] that date except--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                       [cost of living allowance
  [Sec. 1206. Effective beginning October 1, 1984, each officer
and employee of the Commission who is a citizen of the United
States and was employed by the Panama Canal Company or the
Canal Zone Government on September 30, 1979, or who is an
individual of any nationality recruited outside the Republic of
Panama after September 30, 1979, may be paid an allowance to
offset any increased cost of living which may result from the
termination of the eligibility of the officer or employee and
his dependents to use military postal services, sales stores,
and exchanges. The amount of the allowance may be determined by
the Commission.
                      [educational travel benefits
  [Sec. 1207. (a) The Commission shall provide by regulation
for round-trip transportation between the Republic of Panama
and the United States or, in the case of an employee described
in paragraph (2) of this subsection, between the Republic of
Panama and the country in which such employee is recruited, for
undergraduatecollege education for dependents of employees of
the Commission who--
          [(1) are United States citizens who were employed by
        the Panama Canal Company or the Canal Zone Government
        on September 30, 1979, or
          [(2) are recruited outside the Republic of Panama
        after that date.
  [(b) The regulations prescribed by the Commission under this
section shall--
          [(1) provide eligibility requirements which must be
        met by such dependents to qualify for transportation
        under this section, including a requirement that all
        eligible dependents must be under 23 years of age; and
          [(2) limit the transportation provided to two round
        trips during any one-year period.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subchapter II--Wage and Employment Practices
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
panama canal employment system; merit and other employment requirements
  Sec. 1212. (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996 (subtitle B of title XXXV
of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2860), or [the Panama Canal
Transition Facilitation Act of 1997] the Panama Canal
Transition Facilitation Act of 1997 (subtitle B of title XXXV
of Public Law 105-85; 110 Stat. 2062), or the Panama Canal
Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, this
subchapter, as in effect on September 22, 1996, shall continue
to apply to an Executive agency or the Smithsonian Institution
to the extent of an election under paragraph (1) by the head of
the agency or the Institution, respectively.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                 recruitment and retention remuneration
  Sec. 1217. [(a) In addition to basic pay, additional
compensation may be paid, in such amounts as the head of the
agency concerned determines, as an overseas recruitment or
retention differential to any individual who--
          [(1) before October 1, 1979, was employed by the
        Panama Canal Company, by the Canal Zone Government, or
        by any other agency in the area then known as the Canal
        Zone;
          [(2) is an employee who was recruited on or after
        October 1, 1979, outside of the Republic of Panama for
        placement in the Republic of Panama; or
          [(3) is a medical doctor employed by the Department
        of Defense in the Republic of Panama or by the
        Commission;
if, in the judgment of the head of the agency concerned, the
recruitment or retention of the individual is essential.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                       [central examining office
  [Sec. 1223. The Commission shall establish a Central
Examining Office. The purpose of the office shall be to
implement the provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and
related agreements with respect to recruitment, examination,
determination of qualification standards, and similar matters
relating to employment of the Commission.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
              applicability of title 5, united states code
  Sec. 1224. The following provisions of title 5, United States
Code, apply to the Panama Canal Commission:
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          [(11) Chapter 59 (relating to allowances).]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
         Subchapter III--Conditions of Employment and Placement
                  transferred or reemployed employees
  Sec. 1231. (a)(1) * * *
  (2) The terms and conditions of employment referred to in
paragraph (1) of this subsection are the following:
          [(A) rates of basic pay;
          [(B) tropical differential;]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          [(F) leave and travel;
          [(G) transportation and repatriation benefits;
          [(H) group health and life insurance;]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Chapter 3--Funds and Accounts
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subchapter II--Accounting Policies and Audits
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                                 audits
  Sec. 1313. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
and subject to [subsection (d)] subsection (c), financial
transactions of the Commission shall be audited by the
Comptroller General of the United States (hereinafter in this
Act referred to as the ``Comptroller General''). In conducting
any such audit, the appropriate representatives of the
Comptroller General shall have access to all books, accounts,
financial records, reports, files, and other papers,items, or
property in use by the Commission and necessary to facilitate such
audit, and such representative shall be afforded full facilities for
verifying transactions with the balances or securities held by
depositories, fiscal agents, and custodians. Any such audit shall first
be conducted with respect to the fiscal year in which this Act becomes
effective. An audit performed under this section is subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of section 9105(a) of
title 31, United States Code.
  (b) Subject to [subsection (d)] subsection (c), the
Comptroller General shall, not later than six months after the
end of each fiscal year, submit to the Congress a report of the
audit conducted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section with
respect to such fiscal year. Such report shall set forth the
scope of the audit and shall include--
          (1) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (d) In addition to auditing the financial statements of the
Commission, the Comptroller General (or the independent auditor
if one is employed pursuant to [subsection (d)] subsection (c))
shall, in accordance with standards for an examination of a
financial forecast established by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, examine and report on the
Commission's financial forecast that it will be in a position
to meet its financial liabilities on December 31, 1999.
                  Subchapter III--Interagency Accounts
                  interagency services; reimbursements
  Sec. 1321. (a) * * *
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  [(e) The appropriations or funds of the Commission, or of any
other department or agency of the United States conducting
operations in the Republic of Panama, shall be available to
defray the cost of--
          [(1) health care services provided by medical
        facilities licensed and approved by the Republic of
        Panama (and not operated by the United States) to
        elderly or disabled persons who were eligible to
        receive such services before the effective date of this
        Act, less amounts payable by such persons, and
          [(2) educational services provided by schools in the
        Republic of Panama or the United States, which are not
        operated by the United States, to employees of the
        Commission who are citizens of the United States, to
        other Commission employees when determined by the
        Commission to be necessary for their recruitment or
        retention, and to other persons who were receiving such
        services at the expense of the Canal Zone Government
        before the effective date of this Act.
Notwithstanding the provisions relating to the availability of
adequate schools contained in section 5924(4)(A) of title 5,
United States Code, the Commission shall by regulation
determine the extent to which costs of educational services may
be defrayed under this subsection.]
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Chapter 4--Claims for Injuries to Persons or Property
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                      Subchapter II--Vessel Damage
                       injuries in locks of canal
  Sec. 1411. (a) Subject to section 1419(b) of this Act and to
subsection (b) of this section, the Commission shall promptly
adjust and pay damages for injuries to vessels, or to the
cargo, crew, or passengers of vessels, which may arise by
reason of their passage through the locks of the Panama Canal
when the injury was proximately caused by negligence or fault
on the part of an officer or employee of the United States
acting within the scope of his employment and in the line of
his duties in connection with the operation of the Canal. If
the negligence or fault of the vessel, master, crew, or
passengers proximately contributed to the injury, the award of
damages shall be diminished in proportion to the negligence to
fault attributable to the vessel, master, crew, or passengers.
Damages may not be allowed and paid for injuries to any
protrusion beyond any portion of the hull of a vessel, whether
it is permanent or temporary in character. A vessel is
considered to be passing through the locks of the Canal, under
the control of officers or employees of the United States, from
the time the first towing line is made fast on board before
entrance into the locks and until the towing lines are cast off
upon, or immediately prior to, departure from the lock chamber.
No payment for damages on a claim may be made under this
section unless the claim is filed with the Commission within
one year after the date of the injury or [the date of the
enactment of the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of
1997] by November 18, 1998, whichever is later.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                         injuries outside locks
  Sec. 1412. [The Commission] Subject to section 1419(b) of
this Act, the Commission shall promptly adjust and pay damages
for injuries to vessels, or to the cargo, crew, or passengers
of vessels which may arise by reason of their presence in the
Panama Canal, or waters adjacent thereto, other than the locks,
when the injury was proximately caused by negligence or fault
on the part of an officer or employee of the United States
acting within the scope of his employment and in the line of
his duties in connection with the operation of the Canal. If
the negligence or fault of the vessel, master, crew, or
passengers proximately contributed to the injury, the award of
damages shall be diminished in proportion to the negligence or
fault attributable to the vessel, master, crew, or passengers.
In the case of a vessel which is required by or pursuant to
regulations prescribed pursuant to section 1801 of this Act to
have a Panama Canal pilot on duty aboard, damages may not
beadjusted and paid for injuries to the vessel, or its cargo, crew, or
passengers, incurred while the vessel was underway and in motion,
unless at the time the injuries were incurred the navigation or
movement of the vessel was under the control of a Panama Canal pilot.
No payment for damages on a claim may be made under this section unless
the claim is filed with the Commission within one year after the date
of the injury or [the date of the enactment of the Panama Canal
Transition Facilitation Act of 1997] by November 18, 1998, whichever is
later.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                           actions on claims
  Sec. 1416. [A claimant] Subject to section 1419(b) of this
Act, a claimant for damages pursuant to section 1411(a) or 1412
of this Act who considers himself aggrieved by the findings,
determination, or award of the Commission in reference to his
claim may bring an action on the claim against the Commission
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. Subject to the provisions of this chapter and of
applicable regulations issued pursuant to section 1801 of this
Act relative to navigation of the Panama Canal and adjacent
waters, such actions shall proceed and be heard by the court
without a jury according to the principles of law and rules of
practice obtaining generally in like cases between a private
party and a department or agency of the United States. Any
judgment obtained against the Commission in an action under
this subchapter may be paid out of money allotted for the
maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal. An action for
damages cognizable under this section shall not otherwise lie
against the United States or the Commission, nor in any other
court, than as provided in this section; nor may it lie against
any officer or employee of the United States or of the
Commission. Any action on a claim under this section shall be
barred unless the action is brought within 180 days after the
date on which the Commission mails to the claimant written
notification of the Commission's final determination with
respect to the claim or the date of the enactment of the Panama
Canal Transition Facilitation Act of 1997, whichever is later.
Attorneys appointed by the Commission shall represent the
Commission in any action arising under this subchapter.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                               insurance
  Sec. 1419. (a) The Commission is authorized to purchase
insurance to protect the Commission against major and
unpredictable revenue losses or expenses arising from
catastrophic marine accidents or other unpredictable events.
  (b) The Commission may not consider or pay any claim under
section 1411 or 1412 of this Act, nor may an action for damages
lie thereon, unless the claimant is covered by one or more
valid policies of insurance totalling at least $1,000,000
against the injuries specified in those sections. The
Commission's liability on any such claim shall be limited to
damages in excess of all amounts recovered or recoverable by
the claimant from its insurers. The Commission may not consider
or pay any claim by an insurer or subrogee of a claimant under
section 1411 or 1412 of this Act.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 1--Procurement
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                 panama canal board of contract appeals
  Sec. 3102. (a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Commission, [shall] may establish a
board of contract appeals, to be known as the Panama Canal
Board of Contract Appeals, in accordance with section 8 of the
Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607). Except as
otherwise provided by this section, the Panama Canal Board of
Contract Appeals (in this section referred to as the ``Board'')
shall be subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) in the same manner as any other agency
board of contract appeals established under that Act.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (3) Compensation for members of the Board of Contract Appeals
shall be established by the Commission's supervisory board,
except that such compensation may not be reduced during a
member's term of office from the level established at the time
of the appointment.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  (e) Commencement.--The Board shall begin to function as soon
as it has been established and has prescribed procedures under
subsection (d)[, but not later than January 1, 1999].
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF LANE EVANS, MARTIN T. MEEHAN, ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD,
   JANE HARMAN, THOMAS H. ALLEN, LORETTA SANCHEZ AND CYNTHIA McKINNEY
    We strongly disagree with the Committee's inclusion of
legislation to repeal the Antipersonnel (AP) Landmine
moratorium. We believe this move sends the wrong signal to the
international community at an important time in the movement to
ban these weapons.
    Congressional leadership has gone far to spur worldwide
action to end the horrific toll mines exact on innocent men,
women, and children. The passage and extension of legislation
to ban US exports of AP landmines as well as the successful
enactment of the landmine moratorium legislation sent strong
signals to the nations of the world that there was serious
support in the United States for aggressive measures to tackle
this problem.
    Despite the strong leadership shown by the Congress on this
issue, the Clinton Administrations decided not sign the Ottawa
Treaty to ban these weapons. We were troubled by this decision,
which we believe was strongly at odds with past Administration
commitments to tackle the problems caused by the proliferation
of AP mines abroad. However, the President has made a
commitment for our nation to eventually sign the treaty. The
President has also made commitments to stop our use of AP mines
by 2003, and to ban the use of AP mines in Korea by 2006 if
alternatives to AP mines can be developed. While we believes
these steps could be taken much sooner, we believe the
underlying commitment to our nation joining the Ottawa treaty
must not be undermined. The repeal of the AP landmine
moratorium would do just that.
    While our nation stands on the sidelines, over 120 nations
have agreed to sign the Ottawa treaty to ban AP landmine. Over
120 nations that believe that their militaries can live without
these weapons. And over 120 nations that do not have near the
strength of our military or our technological expertise. Yet,
these nations, whose militaries have more to supposedly lose by
banning these weapon than to gain are moving ahead.
    We believe that the Committee and DOD most examine more
closely how the employment of our own landmines can negatively
affect our own soldiers. Too often, our own mine use, even
including the deployment of ``technically advanced'' self-
destruct/self deactivating mines, hurt our own forces. A recent
computer war game at the National Training Center showed that
the highest cause of friendly fire casualties among our own
soldiers were scatterable, self destruct/self-deactivating
landmine. And a number or retired generals, including two
commanders of US forces in Korea and General John Galvin, the
highly respected former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,
support a ban because of these problems. These factors make it
clear that there are legitimate and serious concerns about the
``blowback'' effect of these weapons.
    We would also hope that the Committee and the Department of
Defense would make a significant commitment to funding research
into alternatives to landmines. Currently, little funding is
budgeted to pursue alternatives. And a specific commitment to
seek alternatives to anti-tank mine packages containing AP
mines has been hard to confirm. This neither indicates a
serious commitment to finding a solution nor a serious belief
on the part of our military that the loss of AP landmines will
actually hurt our servicemen and women. A substantial
allocation of resources to address technological advances or
doctrinal changes would go far in helping our nation achieve
the President's goal of signing the Ottawa Treaty in the near
future. At this time, that commitment is sorely lacking.
    In conclusion, we regret that the committee has taken
action to repeal the AP mine moratorium. We hope that Committee
members will consider the ramifications of this action to our
own service personnel as well as to the prestige of U.S.
leadership abroad as we continue consideration of the FY1999
Department of Defense Authorization Act.
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Marty Meehan.
                                   Robert A. Underwood.
                                   Jane Harman.
                                   Tom Allen.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Cynthia McKinney.
                ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
                             CIRCULAR A-76
    I am deeply concerned with the Department of Defense's
continuing utilization of the A-76 process in its quest to mete
out savings and increase productivity. While I recognize that
the Department can no longer conduct business the way it had
during the Cold War, it seems shortsighted and thankless to
potentially lay-off thousands of government employees who have
served for so long. Although, the A-76 process at least
provides a chance for Government employees to compete, we must
recognize that this is an inglorious method to show our
gratitude for all their years of service.
    An additional concern is that the Department of Defense is
relying too heavily on A-76, privatization and other
outsourcing initiatives to provide sorely needed savings for
their programs. I remain skeptical over the estimates that DOD
claims they will reap from these processes.
    Finally, I am concerned that the retirement benefit
packages of federal employees is penalized severely for early
retirement. Currently, there is no provision to protect the
full receipt of benefits if the employee is displaced by a
private sector worker as a result of A-76. The devastating
inequity of A-76 is that a federal worker who is 2 to 3 years
away from retirement will lose out on a full pension through no
fault of their own. In conclusion, it is my hope that the
Department will seriously review the process to protect its
loyal employees and the retirement benefits that they were
promised.
                                               Robert A. Underwood.
  SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF TILLIE FOWLER, JANE HARMAN, MARTIN T. MEEHAN,
   LANE EVANS, NEIL ABERCROMBIE, LORETTA SANCHEZ, CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ,
      PATRICK J. KENNEDY, JAMES H. MALONEY AND CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY
    We are disappointed that the Committee has opted to
prejudge the work of its own Commission on Military Training
and Gender-Related Issues by directing our Armed Services to
segregate basic training by gender. In our view, such a
requirement is, at minimum, premature and, notwithstanding the
arguments of the provision's proponents, may affect unit
cohesion and readiness, and will not address serious problems
of sexual misconduct and harassment confronting the Services.
    The provision is premature: Last year, Congress enacted as
part of the FY98 National Defense Authorization Act a provision
establishing the aforementioned independent commission to study
a comprehensive range of issues related to the effectiveness of
the military's basic training. These issues specifically
included the rationale, validity and effects of gender-
integrated and gender-segregated training. The commission was
tasked--at a cost of $2.2 million--with developing objective
standards to evaluate gender-integrated and gender-segregated
training, as well as other factors affecting attrition, morale,
and unit readiness. Among other things, it will compare the
experiences of other nations and look at how military training
compares with industry standards and concepts.
    To underscore the importance given to the commission's
work, last year's law specifically states that ``after receipt
of the report of the commission . . . Congress shall consider
the report and, based upon the results of the review (and such
other matters as Congress considers appropriate), consider
whether to require by law that the Secretaries of the military
departments conduct basic training on a gender-segregated or
gender-integrated basis.''
    Unfortunately, rather than waiting for our commission's
findings, so as to afford Congress the opportunity to act on
what may well be a full range of recommendations designed to
improve basic training, the Committee has elected, with its
approval of section 521 of the bill, to require the Army, Navy
and Air Force to train men and women separately.
    This change is based on the recommendations of a panel,
chaired last year by former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker,
which focused on a much narrower set of concerns related to
basic training. Moreover, we would observe that a General
Accounting Office review of the Kassebaum Baker study raised
serious questions about that panel's conclusions because the
panel did not: (1) systematically collect the same information
from all groups; (2) document information generated in each of
the interviews and focus groups; and (3) explain how what was
heard led to the panel's conclusions and recommendations.
    Most notably, the recommendations of the Kassebaum Baker
panel are at variance with all previous studies of basic
training, including those of similarly independent panels of
experts and laymen. This, alone, does not undermine the value
of the Kassebaum Baker panel, but it does raise important
questions. We believe the best way to address these questions
is to let the commission mandated by Congress undertake one of
the most important aspects of its charter--to review basic
training in light of the broader goals of operational
readiness, unit cohesiveness, and the physical conditioning and
military socialization of recruits.
    The provision may affect unit cohesion and readiness and
will not address problems of sexual misconduct and harassment:
Proponents of the provision included in the Committee's bill
believe re-segregating basic training will help solve a very
serious problem--sexual misconduct and harassment in the
military services. However, the most serious problems have
occurred in Advanced Individual Training (AIT), which the
provision does not even address.
    Most importantly, we note that the Army, Navy and Air Force
strongly oppose Section 521. In their words, the best way to
train soldiers, sailors and airmen is to ``train the way we
fight.'' For Army, Navy, and Air Force recruits, that means in
integrated units.
    If the provisions of H.R. 3616 as reported by the HNSC are
enacted, we would ask, where will male and female recruits
learn how to work together? We note that the Vice Chief of
Naval Operations, Admiral Donald L. Pilling, testified in March
to the Military Personnel Subcommittee that 40% of the basic
trainees report directly to the fleet. If male and female
recruits do not learn how to live and work together during
basic training, are the confined quarters aboard ships the
next-best place? We don't think so.
    Finally, according to Gen. Norman Lezy, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy,
section 521 would require the Army alone to spend $159 million
in fiscal year 2000 for additional barracks--whether to meet
the provision's interim requirement to house male and female
troops on separate floors, or to meet its longer term
requirement that separate barracks must be built for men and
women by the end of fiscal year 2001. We find it deeply
troubling that the Committee would opt for such an expensive
course of action when other construction priorities have
already been identified.
    Two year's ago, the Defense Science Board's Quality of Life
Task Force found that 64 percent of the Department's family
housing units are unsuitable. Other areas of our military
infrastructure also cry out for replacement and renovation. We
should be working to meet these real needs with our scarce
military construction resources instead of requiring the Army
to build additional barracks space to replace barracks that are
currently adequate.
    The success of our volunteer military requires us to
recruit from the widest and most talented pool available--and
that pool necessarily includes women. Section 521 presumes that
the individuals recruited from that pool cannot be trained
together. In reality, leadership and accountability are the
principal keys to resolving sexual harassment and misconduct
problems in the military and in training troops prepared for
tomorrow's conflicts.
    We thus deeply regret the Committee's action on such a
consequential issue.
                                   Tillie Fowler.
                                   Marty Meehan.
                                   Neil Abercrombie.
                                   Ciro D. Rodriguez.
                                   Jim Maloney.
                                   Jane Harman
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Patrick J. Kennedy.
                                   Cynthia McKinney.
     ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON FY 99 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL, HR 3616
    We regret the Committee's rejection once again this year of
an amendment to repeal the ban on abortions at military
hospitals overseas. The amendment would have reinstated a
policy--in effect from 1973 until 1988, and again from 1993 to
1996--that permits servicewomen and female dependents to use
their own funds to obtain abortion services at overseas U.S.
hospitals.
    We believe the ban on abortions at U.S. military hospitals
overseas is fundamentally unfair to our women in uniform and to
the dependents of our service members. Military men and women
and their families stationed abroad already make many
sacrifices. We should be able to guarantee them the same
constitutional right they would have here in the United States,
where women have the ability to obtain this service under Roe
v. Wade. This is what the amendment would have done--no more.
    The amendment specified that no federal funds would be used
to provide this service, and health care professionals
objecting to performing this procedure on moral grounds or as a
matter of conscience would not be compelled to do so.
    Barring women from obtaining this service at our hospitals
overseas places their health in unnecessary danger. Medical
facilities in many foreign nations do not provide the same
standards of care as hospitals in the United States. Some
countries do not allow the procedure altogether. But, by
denying our women in uniform and military dependents the
ability to obtain this medical procedure in military hospitals,
this Committee forces them either to risk an unsafe or illegal
procedure or delay it until they can return to the United
States.
    Many national health care associations, public health
organizations and civil rights groups are opposed to the
current policy of denying abortions at U.S. military hospitals
abroad. They include:
          American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
          American Association of University Women
          American Civil Liberties Union
          American Medical Women's Association
          American Public Health Association
          Center for Reproductive Law & Policy
          National Abortion Federation
          National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action
        League
          National Council of Jewish Women
          National Family Planning and Reproductive Health
        Association
          National Organization for Women
          NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
          National Partnership for Women and Families
          Planned Parenthood Federation of America
    By its action, rejecting the amendment to overturn the
current ban, this Committee is sacrificing the constitutional
rights and the health care of female service members and female
dependents to a policy with no military merit. Indeed, there is
no justifiable basis for this restriction on those who serve
our country.
                                   Jane Harman.
                                   Marty Meehan.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Jim Maloney.
                                   Tillie Fowler.
                                   Patrick J. Kennedy.
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Ciro D. Rodriguez.
                                   Cynthia McKinney.
                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JAMES M. TALENT
    I write to express my disappointment that the Committee
mark included 27 F/A-18E/Fs Super Hornets rather than the 30
aircraft as requested by the Navy for FY 1999. I am confident,
however, especially given the outstanding success of this
program, that these three aircraft will be restored as we
progress through the legislative process.
    Over the winter, a handful of print articles attempted to
make the case that ``wing drop'' was a major problem for the E/
F. This phenomenon, inherent in swept-wing, high-performance
fighter aircraft, occurred at a limited number of known points
in the flight envelop. It was caused by an imbalance in lift
generated across one wing relative to the other. Software
modifications eliminated most, but not all, of this undesirable
flight characteristic.
    From last fall through early April, the Navy's flight test
team at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland, followed a
systematic, structured test plan that developed a final
software/hardware fix to wing drop. During testing as far back
as mid December, the Navy was able to report that over a two
day period involving 421 attempts to actually induce wing drop
with hardware applications in place, test pilots noted only two
incidents.
    During testimony before the House National Security
Committee earlier this spring, Secretary Cohen stated that he
would not release FY 1998 funding until he was satisfied that
wing drop was solved. Leading up to the Secretary's own review,
the Navy's solution to wing drop was scrutinized by (1) the
Overarching Integrated Product Test Team chaired by George
Schneiter in his capacity as Director, Strategic and Tactical
Systems; (2) Phil Coyle III, OSD's Director of Operational
Testing and Evaluation; (3) John Douglass, Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Acquisition; (4) Admiral Jay Johnson, Chief of
Naval Operations; (5) John Dalton, Secretary of the Navy; (6)
Jacques Gansler, Under Secretary for Acquisition; and (7) Dr.
John Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    On April 3, Secretary Cohen endorsed the Test Team's
solution for wing drop, and on April 15 released funds for the
20 Super Hornets authorized and funded in FY 1998. Despite the
attention paid the issue, the solution to wing drop is nothing
more than a piece of sheet stainless steel with thousands of
little holes drilled in it to energize airflow over that
portion of the wing. The production solution, a simple bolt-on
composite panel, simply replaces the old one, and involves no
hydraulics, electronics, nor structural modifications.
    Having said this, it is important to note the significance
of the Navy's request for 30 aircraft. This issue must be, from
the warfighter's perspective, the program's key operational
milestone. Specifically the FY 1999 Navy request procures the
first Super Hornets destined for operational use in fleet
operations, currently scheduled for deployment aboard Harry S.
Truman (CVN-75) in the spring of 2002. These aircraft are meant
to replace two aging squadrons of 1970s-vintage F-14A Tomcats.
Not merely a question of replacing Tomcats with Super Hornets,
in 2002 the average age of these A-model F-14s will exceed 21
years.
    There are a number of very good reasons why Secretary
Dalton and Admiral Johnson identify the Super Hornet as the
Navy's top priority, and why the Navy's leadership has done so
for three consecutive years. The E/F's operational capabilities
are well know. The CNO has summed up the matter quite well: The
Super Hornet ``will dominate every known and anticipated threat
for the next 20 years.'' More than any other single weapons
program, the Super mance, or acquisition costs. Rather, the
issue is one of how best to economically procure E/Fs
consistent QDR recommendations and deploy them to the fleet.
Given the outstanding success of the program and the close
scrutiny--and endorsement--it has received from the Department,
we should authorize the Service to begin negotiations towards a
multi-year contract--and the approximately two-thirds of a
billion dollars this action will save. One need only look at
the difficulties involved in other multi-year contract
negotiations to understand that we should support this action
now.
                                                        Jim Talent.
                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF PATRICK KENNEDY
    The defense authorization bill as reported out by the House
National Security Committee contains a number of significant
measures, ranging from substantive quality of life to research
and development investment, that will serve to further our
national security objectives. While I was proud to vote in
support of the legislation, there remain a number of provisions
with which I have serious concern.
    I am pleased that the committee understands the importance
of undersea warfare as a priority for our future defense and
has worked to ensure a strong focus on anti-submarine warfare
(ASW). However, I would like to express my disappointment that
the committee did not include report language for the
conversion of four Trident ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs)
to platforms for the launch of conventional guided missiles
against land targets (SSGNs). In December 1997, the National
Defense Panel (NDP) outlined the kinds of actions that should
be taken to transform the nation's military forces to meet
challenges of the future. With respect to ``Sea Forces'' the
NDP recommended a ``Move toward small-signature ships capable
of providing sustained long-range, precision fire power.'' The
Panel also stated that ``the Navy should look closely at * * *
converting one or more of the four Trident SSBNs coming out of
strategic service to alternative missions.'' I respectfully
request that the committee agree with these recommendations
based on the merit in converting these very capable submarines,
with at least twenty years of life remaining, into stealthy,
versatile platforms for reconnaissance and surveillance, covert
precision strike, covert insertion and recovery of Special
Forces, as well as traditional SSN missions.
    These converted Trident submarines would be ideal for Joint
Force operations and experimentation across the spectrum of
joint littoral warfare. These large submarines offer the space
to test new concepts without compromising their military
effectiveness; concepts such as: dense-packed strike/fire
support munitions, modular payloads, UAVs, UUVs, Special Forces
vehicles, offboard sensors, etc. The first two conversions
would replace U.S.S. Polk and U.S.S. Kamehameha which now
provide unique operational capabilities to the Special Forces
and are scheduled for inactivation in 1999 and 2001,
respectively.
    As you may know, the Navy is in the early stages of
developing a Trident submarine conversion program. The
Secretary of Defense is developing a program to convert two or
more Trident SSBNs to a Strike/Special Forces configuration,
including a plan to accommodate any strategic arms control
restrictions. Design work should begin in FY00 in order to
minimize the gap in Special Forces capabilities created by the
inactivation of U.S.S. Polk and U.S.S. Kamehameha. The
Secretary of Defense shall report the status of this effort to
the Congressional Defense Committees by December 15, 1998.
    In addition, I would like to express my disappointment that
the committee sought to gender-segregate basic training within
the military services. Our committee heard time and time again
that military leaders find it important to their mission to be
able to train as they fight. We should seek to try and fix the
system rather than dismantle it. I regret that we have not
allowed our leaders in the services adequate time to resolve
the problems as they sought to do. The committee has undermined
the study currently underway on this issue by moving forward
with actions to gender-segregate during basic training.
    Finally, I would like to express my disappointment that the
committee did not address the issue of sexual orientation and
service in the military. Theoretically, current policy permits
gay and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they do
not disclose their sexual orientation nor engage in homosexual
activity. I remain steadfast in my belief that servicemembers
should be assessed on their ability to perform the duties their
country asks of them. If anything, the instances of sexual
misconduct and harassment at Aberdeen are indicative that our
military has many more pressing concerns than the presence of
patriotic gays and lesbians among its ranks. Although we are
not yet there, I believe we will someday have a military which
recognizes and values the contributions of all serving in
uniform regardless of sexual orientation.
                                                Patrick J. Kennedy.
                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF ROSCOE G. BARTLETT
    Last year when the Army experienced a sex scandal that
reached from its basic training posts at Fort Leonard Wood and
Fort Jackson into the ranks of AIT at Aberdeen Proving Grounds
many of us on the committee were concerned that the Army method
of training its soldiers in an integrated fashion during basic
training was a prescription for disaster. Except for a brief
experiment from 1977-82, the United States Army had conducted
gender separate training for its 200 year history. Then without
any study or concern for cost, the Clinton administration
changed this policy which had served us well for so long.
    The recent incidents at Fort Leonard Wood and Fort Jackson
have proven that mixed-gender training is not in women's, men's
or the country's best interests. It was during this time that
we witnessed widespread abuses of power by Drill Sergeants, a
rampage of consensual sex between recruits and a system of
rewards for recruits who succumbed to the sexual desires of
their male drill instructors.
    After learning of these problems, I visited the training
bases of each of the services and determined without a doubt
that the method used by the Marine Corps (separating recruits
by sex and requiring same-sex drill instructors) is the only
way to eliminate the attraction and distractions associated
with sex during this critical period of basic training. I then
introduced legislation to require the other Services to adopt
the Marines' method into their basic training. This legislation
received 121 cosponsors and had a great deal of outside
support. Unfortunately, however, attempts to include this
legislation in last year's authorization bill were not
successful. Instead, we opted for a Congressional Commission to
study the issue.
    Fortunately, Secretary of Defense William Cohen also
appointed a commission to study this issue and their results
were delivered last December. Cohen's commission, which was
headed by former Senator Nancy Kassabaum and made up of members
from varied backgrounds unanimously endorsed the heart of my
legislation, requiring separate training at the platoon,
division and flight level as well as separate barracks for male
and female recruits.
    I applaud Chairman Steve Buyer for holding a hearing on the
Kassabaum Commission's report and for taking the necessary step
of including their recommendations in the Personnel
Subcommittee's mark. At the time of this writing, the Navy is
experiencing a sex scandal similar to that of Leonard Wood and
Aberdeen. Recruits Division Commanders are being accused of
having consensual sex with recruits, having improper sexual
harassment, fraternization and socialization with recruits and
even one recruit is claiming to have been impregnated by an
RDC.
    We need to stop worshipping at the alter of political
correctness and do what is right for our country. If the
services are unwilling to take the necessary steps, the
Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to do so. The
House must ensure that this provision is maintained in
Conference.
                                                   Roscoe Bartlett.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF TOM ALLEN, PAUL McHALE, MIKE PAPPAS, JIM SAXTON AND
                              GENE TAYLOR
    We disagree with the Committee's actions regarding the DD-
21 land attack destroyer. The hearing record of this Committee
is replete with testimony from the Navy, the senior civilian
and military leadership at the Pentagon, and outside experts,
that warns of the effects of continued low shipbuilding rates
on the fleet and the industrial base. Members of the Committee,
on a bipartisan basis, have expressed concerns about the
ability of our armed forces to carry out their mission in the
future if the Navy is not sufficiently able to recapitalize and
modernize.
    We are concerned that the Committee has chosen, for the
second year in a row, to cut funding for a promising ship
program that would incorporate new technologies, innovative
designs and warfighting concepts into a platform that would
ensure the superiority of our sea-based forces into the 21st
Century. The Committee's means of expressing its
dissatisfaction with the Navy's progress in developing new
program concepts risks the Navy's ability to meet new
warfighting requirements of the next century.
    Last year, the Committee's action to eliminate funding for
the Maritime Fire Support Demonstrator (MFSD, also known as
Arsenal Ship) ultimately led to its cancellation, which
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and
Acquisition John Douglass recently called ``the dumbest,
stupidest mistake we've made in a long time.'' Acknowledging
the MFSD's role as a technology test bed and natural transition
to the next-generation land attack destroyer, Secretary
Douglass noted that its cancellation has slowed competition in
the DD-21 program, even though the lessons learned from MFSD
have been integral to industry DD-21 designs.
    As a justification for its $25 million cut in the $84
million DD-21 request, the Committee's report language cites
the potential for delay in the program created by the Navy's
review of competition in the concept phase. Thus, it appears
that the Committee's undercutting of the MFSD a year ago
created the conditions that provided a rationalization for
undercutting the DD-21 this year. The Committee, while offering
rhetorical support for increased shipbuilding rates and a
modernized fleet, has taken actions that do the opposite.
    Shipbuilding programs are unlike any other within military
procurement. Because of the long period of time between concept
and construction, decisions regarding ship programs are not
based on the current environment, but on the situation five,
ten or twenty years hence. What Congress does on DD-21 today is
not a FY1999 decision, but really a FY2004 decision, the year
the first ship is to go into production.
    The delay endorsed by the Committee could have a major
impact in FY2004 on the surface combatant industrial base, as
production of the DDG-51 AEGIS Destroyer is slated to end the
year before. It could also greatly affect the size and
capability of our naval forces, if older frigates and
destroyers planned for retirement are not replaced with
technologically advanced surface ships. In this light, we feel
the Committee needs to take the long view into account.
    The out-year effect is no less of a concern for the
warfighter. The United States Marine Corps has adopted a 21st
century warfighting concept called Operational Maneuver from
the Sea (OMFTS), which places unprecedented emphasis on the
littorals and will demand greater cohesiveness between naval
warfare and maneuver warfare. The over-the-horizon operations
that result from OMFTS will place increased importance on Naval
Surface Fire Support, as Marine forces are most vulnerable in
the initial stages of an amphibious landing. The ability of a
Marine Lance Corporal to call in massive, precision strikes
from off-shore will be vital to ensuring mission success and
the survival of the Marine force.
    The Navy has not possessed effective surface fire support
capability since the decommissioning of the last remaining
active battleships earlier this decade. The Navy has identified
a requirement for a new combatant emphasizing capabilities to
conduct land attacks and provide fire support to ground combat
forces. This combatant has been identified as the DD-21
maritime fire support ship.
    The DD-21 will perform multiple missions in support of
theater, joint and maneuver force commanders. The design
parameters proposed by the Navy call for dramatically reduced
life-cycle cost and manning requirements, made possible by new
technologies and a revolutionary acquisition approach
representing close government-industry cooperation.
Complementing the DDG-51, today's most advanced surface
combatant, the DD-21 will have significant warfighting
capabilities, especially in the littoral environment, with
operating cost and personnel reductions of 70 percent, as well
as the capability of extended deployments up to 36 months. As
the Navy moves toward new modes of operations and combat, based
on linked networks rather than steel platforms, the DD-21 will
serve as a key node in such a network-centric force, with
interoperable C\4\I, signature reduction, enhanced firepower,
robust self-defense, speed and endurance.
    As the Committee was in the process of crafting the FY99
bill, the Navy and DOD were engaged in a decision-making
process regarding the question of competition in the DD-21
program. These decisions were being made in an environment of
dramatic industry consolidation, forced by reductions in the
military budget and encouraged by DOD policy. Competition in
the classic sense may be problematic given the realities of the
shipbuilding industrial base.
    Even with this in mind, DOD had not altered its acquisition
plan for the DD-21 by the date the Committee met to mark up the
bill, meaning that the plan already in place was the operative
one. We believe the Committee should have authorized $84
million in FY99, the funding level required under the current
plan. If indeed the acquisition plan is altered at a later
date, Congress still has the opportunity in the next few months
to evaluate the DD-21 budget before the conference on the FY99
defense authorization bill is concluded.
    While we disagree with the Committee's action on the DD-21
program, we look forward to working with Members of the
Committee to find an outcome in conference that does not result
in a delay for the program.
                                   Tom Allen.
                                   Paul McHale.
                                   Michael Pappas.
                                   Jim Saxton.
                                   Gene Taylor.
   ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF LORETTA SANCHEZ, LANE EVANS, VIC SNYDER, JANE
                HARMAN, ADAM SMITH, AND CYNTHIA McKINNEY
    We are pleased that the Committee approved an amendment
this year to recognize and honor the former South Vietnamese
Commandos for their heroism, sacrifice and service in
connection with United States armed forces during the Vietnam
War.
    This legislation officially recognizes these heroic men who
fought side by side with American soldiers in Vietnam. We would
like the record to show that the State of California American
Legion strongly endorses this amendment and requests that the
letter from the Department Commander Frank Larson be included
in the record.
    In Commander Larson's letter dated May 1, 1998, he states,
          Ms. Sanchez: I'm sure if history were unfolded for
        all to see it would show that the South Vietnamese
        commandos, who aided the United States government in
        covert actions against the North Vietnamese, were
        responsible for saving many American lives. To that
        end, the same recognition due our soldiers, sailors,
        marines and airmen involved in the Vietnamese Conflict
        should be afforded to the former South Vietnamese
        commandos, who so gallantly served and endured.
    Today, the members of this Committee had an opportunity to
properly honor these brave men and we are proud that the
committee unanimously voted to recognize them.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Cynthia McKinney.
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Adam Smith.
                                   Jane Harman.
                                   Vic Snyder.
 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JIM RYUN, DUNCAN HUNTER, JOEL HEFLEY, JIM SAXTON,
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, RON LEWIS, J.C. WATTS, JR., JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, VAN
                      HILLEARY, AND MICHAEL PAPPAS
    There have been recent disturbing reports regarding the
transfer of sensitive missile technology to the People's
Republic of China. In 1996, after the failed launch of the
Chinese-made Long March missile, engineers from two United
States aerospace firms traveled to China to lend their
expertise to Great Wall Industries, the manufacturer of the
missile. The technology that these companies turned over to
China while analyzing the rocket launch failure is, in essence,
missile guidance technology and is applicable to the
development of strategic missiles. A May 1997 classified
Department of Defense report determined that this transfer
damaged national security.
    Next month, President Clinton will visit Beijing. During
this visit, he is expected to announce a new U.S.-China space
cooperation agreement, and possibly discuss lifting Tiananmen
Square-related sanctions on the transfer of military
technology. The reported purpose of this agreement is to
increase the sharing of commercial satellite and space
technology. We are concerned, however, that this technology
will be used for the development of China's strategic missile
program.
    A recent Central Intelligence Agency report stated that
China has 13 CSS-4 nuclear missiles aimed at the United States.
Several years ago, a Chinese official indicated to an American
general that China would be willing to launch nuclear missiles
against the United States. As long as China remains a communist
country, transfers technology to regimes such as Iran and
Pakistan, and refuses to join the Missile Technology Control
Regime, the United States should not share any commercial
technology which could aid the development of China's strategic
missile program.
    Additionally, it is troubling that while the Administration
seeks to increase technology transfers to the People's Republic
of China, it continues to block or veto any attempt to
construct a National Missile Defense system. We find it
reprehensible that the President seeks to advance the military
capabilities of a foreign communist country while refusing to
provide the resources necessary to defend the American people.
    As members of the National Security Committee, we believe
that the committee should seek ways to limit the transfer of
sensitive missile technology, to include eliminating
preferential treatment of Hong Kong, currently a backdoor for
sensitive dual use technology to China, and continue to pursue
a National Missile Defense system.
                                   Jim Ryun.
                                   Duncan Hunter.
                                   Joel Hefley.
                                   Jim Saxton.
                                   Roscoe G. Bartlett.
                                   Ron Lewis.
                                   J.C. Watts, Jr.
                                   John H. Hostettler.
                                   Van Hilleary.
                                   Michael Pappas.
                  DISSENTING VIEWS OF CYNTHIA McKINNEY
    While I recognize the hard work of my colleagues on the
committee and the sincerest efforts to oversee the Pentagon in
order to provide for the common defense, I could not support
reporting the bill out of committee. Aside from the budgetary
implications, I believe our national security depends equally
on our domestic programs and our foreign policy and its
constructive initiatives.
    It appears that the Committee was successful in producing a
budget in line with last year's balanced budget agreement.
However, this authorization is only part of the defense
spending. The Congress just passed the Supplemental Emergency
Appropriation which provided for additional spending for our
forces in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf. As well, the emergency
appropriation bill became vehicle by which a new ballistic
missile system was paid for. This additional spending of $2.9
billion not only falls out of the budget agreement, but
important domestic programs were cut to pay for it. I am deeply
disturbed that this might become our practice for supporting
our military activities. Clearly, the Committee and the
Congress must ensure that we are more prepared to deal with
these small scale engagements which seem to be the norm in this
post-Cold War era. Therefore, it becomes evermore necessary for
us to leave behind the military structure and its devices which
we depended on to win the Cold War.
    The committee's recommendations still reflect a Cold War
era mentality by finding ways to finance a too-large military
force structure; an overly aggressive, and in many cases
misguided, weapons modernization program; and overly programmed
requirements to maintain short-term readiness, rather than
planning successfully to pay for our involvement in
peacekeeping and humanitarian ventures. I believe the budget
should be realigned to plan for our involvement in the kinds of
conflicts and dangers we see emerging in the post-Cold War era:
conflicts that require smaller scale peacekeeping, humanitarian
relief, conflict prevention, and activities arising from the
irresponsible proliferation and potential use of weapons of
mass destruction.
    We will be shortchanging our national security if we
continue to shortchange our investment in the domestic programs
that make for real national security--a healthy, well educated,
properly housed citizenry. We will also continue to shortchange
the effectiveness of our armed forces if we fail to make the
investments in education and health that are required by the
technological demands of the modern military.
    Above all, I believe the committee's recommendation deters,
rather than enhances, the evolution of a foreign policy that
would protect human rights and the growth of democracy. The
committee must strive to meet its obligations to support
humanitarian operations with a properly trained and equipped
military.
    I believe investing in democracy building and protection of
human rights, along with nation building, economic development,
and conflict prevention and peacekeeping operations are wise
investments in building a world that is secure and one that
will minimize the need for us to continue to deploy our brave
men and women in uniform to foreign shores.
    Unfortunately, I believe that the committee's
recommendations still remain out of line with the many facets
of our nation's national security interests. We no longer live
in the Cold War era.
                                                  Cynthia McKinney.
                                  <all>
