[House Report 105-206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-206
_______________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2266]
July 25, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Bill Totals...................................................... 1
Committee Budget Review Process.................................. 4
Introduction................................................. 4
Quadrennial Defense Review................................... 5
Rationale for the Committee Bill............................. 6
Major Committee Recommendations.................................. 6
Addressing High Priority Unfunded Shortfalls................. 6
Ensuring a Quality, Ready Force.............................. 7
Modernization Programs....................................... 8
Reforms/Program Reductions................................... 9
U.S. Forces in Bosnia........................................ 11
NATO Expansion............................................... 12
Budget Formulation Issues.................................... 13
Abuse of Traditional Acquisition and Appropriations Practices 14
Ship Self-Defense............................................ 16
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs..................... 17
Committee Recommendations by Major Category...................... 19
Active Military Personnel.................................... 19
Guard and Reserve............................................ 19
Operation and Maintenance.................................... 19
Procurement.................................................. 20
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation................... 20
Forces to be Supported........................................... 21
Department of the Army....................................... 21
Department of the Navy....................................... 21
Department of the Air Force.................................. 22
Special Interest Items........................................... 23
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 23
Title I. Military Personnel...................................... 25
Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel
Appropriations............................................. 25
Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year
1998....................................................... 25
Overall Active End Strength.............................. 26
Overall Selected Reserve End Strength.................... 26
Adjustments to Military Personnel Account.................... 27
Overview................................................. 27
Special Pays and Allowances.............................. 27
End Strength Adjustments................................. 27
Temporary Early Retirement Authority..................... 27
Foreign Currency......................................... 27
Contingency Operations Funding........................... 27
Military Personnel Compensation.......................... 28
Personal Financial Management Training................... 28
``Aim High'' Program..................................... 28
Full-Time Support Strengths.............................. 28
Military Leave for Reservists............................ 29
Military Personnel, Army..................................... 29
Military Personnel, Navy..................................... 30
Military Personnel, Marine Corps............................. 30
Military Personnel, Air Force................................ 30
Reserve Personnel, Army...................................... 31
Reserve Personnel, Navy...................................... 31
Magic Lantern............................................ 31
Navy Reserve Forces...................................... 32
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps.............................. 32
Reserve Personnel, Air Force................................. 32
National Guard Personnel, Army............................... 33
National Guard Personnel, Air Force.......................... 33
Title II. Operation and Maintenance.............................. 35
Operation and Maintenance Overview........................... 35
Real Property Maintenance................................ 38
Flying Hour Shortfall.................................... 38
Readiness Training....................................... 38
Depot Maintenance........................................ 39
Quadrennial Defense Review Reductions.................... 39
Headquarters and Administrative Costs.................... 39
Industrial Preparedness.................................. 39
Contingency Operations Funding........................... 40
Reprogramming in Operation and Maintenance Accounts...... 40
Reporting on the Execution of Real Property Maintenance
Funding................................................ 41
Budget Justification and Execution Data.................. 41
Purchases of Foreign Made Goods.......................... 41
Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks.................. 41
Federal Firefighting Pay................................. 42
Recruiting and Advertising............................... 42
Classified Programs...................................... 42
Operation and Maintenance, Army.............................. 42
Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) for Abrams XXI........ 42
Depot Maintenance........................................ 43
National Training Center Rotations....................... 43
Army Logistics Automation................................ 43
High Risk Automation Systems............................. 43
Program Recommended...................................... 43
Operation and Maintenance, Navy.............................. 46
CNET Distance Learning................................... 46
National Oceanography Partnership Act.................... 47
Software Program Managers Network........................ 47
High Risk Automation Systems............................. 47
Asbestos Eradication..................................... 47
Electrotechnologies...................................... 47
Program Recommended...................................... 47
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps...................... 50
Program Recommended...................................... 50
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force......................... 52
Instrument Routes 102 and 141............................ 52
Air Force Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot
Program................................................ 52
Misawa Antennas.......................................... 52
Children's Association for Maximum Potential............. 53
REMIS.................................................... 53
High Risk Automation Systems............................. 53
Air Force Institute of Technology........................ 53
Malmstrom Air Force Base................................. 53
Program Recommended...................................... 53
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide...................... 56
JCS Exercises............................................ 56
Special Operations Command............................... 57
Within-Grade Increases................................... 57
Defense Finance and Accounting Service................... 57
Defense Human Resources Field Activity................... 58
White House Communications Agency........................ 58
Automated Document Conversion............................ 58
Improved Cargo Methods and Technologies.................. 58
DLA-DWCF Transfer........................................ 59
Security Locks........................................... 59
Federal Energy Management Program........................ 59
Military Personnel Information System.................... 59
Environmental Restoration................................ 59
OSD Commissions and Studies.............................. 60
Travel Reengineering..................................... 60
High Risk Automation Systems............................. 60
Quadrennial Defense Review--Defense Agency Reduction..... 60
QDR Restructuring Reserve................................ 60
Use of Re-Refined Oil.................................... 61
Nutrition................................................ 61
Vint Hill Farms.......................................... 61
Department of Defense Dependents Schools................. 61
Adjustments.......................................... 61
Family Counseling and Crisis Services................ 61
Social Work Fellowship Program....................... 62
Program Recommended...................................... 62
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve...................... 64
Program Recommended...................................... 64
Commercial Construction and Material Handling Equipment.. 66
Reserve Units in Central Florida......................... 66
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve...................... 66
Program Recommended...................................... 66
NSIPS.................................................... 68
Navy Reserve Center in Mansfield, Ohio................... 68
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.............. 68
Program Recommended...................................... 68
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve................. 70
Program Recommended...................................... 70
WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance Mission.................... 72
March Air Reserve Base................................... 72
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard............... 73
Program Recommended...................................... 73
Domestic Chemical/Biological Counter Terrorism Mission
Planning............................................... 75
Software Acquisition and Security Training............... 76
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................ 77
Program Recommended...................................... 77
159th Air National Guard Fighter Group................... 79
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund................ 79
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.......... 79
Environmental Restoration, Army.............................. 79
Rocky Mountain Arsenal................................... 79
Environmental Restoration, Navy.............................. 80
Naval Air Station Bermuda................................ 80
Environmental Restoration, Air Force......................... 80
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide...................... 80
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites....... 80
Newmark................................................. 81
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid............... 81
Humanitarian Demining................................... 81
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction......................... 81
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense........................ 82
Title III. Procurement........................................... 83
Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 83
Reduced Use of Solvent Adhesives......................... 85
Alternative Fueled Vehicles.............................. 85
Commander's Tactical Terminal/Joint Tactical Terminal.... 85
Classified Programs...................................... 85
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 85
Committee Recommendations................................ 86
Authorization Changes.................................... 86
Fixed Wing Aircraft...................................... 86
Guardrail Common Sensor.............................. 86
Rotary Wing Aircraft..................................... 86
UH-60 Blackhawk...................................... 86
Kiowa Warrior........................................ 87
EH-60 Quickfix Modifications......................... 87
ASE Modifications.................................... 87
Other Support Equipment.................................. 87
Training Devices..................................... 87
Common Ground Equipment.............................. 87
Program Recommended...................................... 87
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 89
Committee Recommendations................................ 89
Authorization Changes.................................... 89
Other Missiles........................................... 89
Patriot.............................................. 89
Hellfire............................................. 89
MLRS Rocket.......................................... 90
MLRS Launcher Systems................................ 90
BAT.................................................. 90
Modification of Missiles................................. 90
Patriot Mods......................................... 90
Program Recommended...................................... 90
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 92
Committee Recommendations................................ 92
Authorization Changes.................................... 92
Tracked Combat Vehicles.................................. 92
Bradley Base Sustainment............................. 92
Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle........... 92
Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles.................. 92
Carrier Modifications................................ 92
Howitzer, 155MM M109A6 (Mod)......................... 92
Program Recommended...................................... 92
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 94
Committee Recommendations................................ 94
Authorization Changes.................................... 94
Ammunition Shortfalls.................................... 94
Mortar Ammunition........................................ 94
120mm Full Range Practice (M931)..................... 94
Tank Ammunition.......................................... 95
120MM Heat-MP-T M830A1............................... 95
Artillery Ammunition..................................... 95
105MM DPICM XM915.................................... 95
Rockets.................................................. 95
Bunker Defeating Munition............................ 95
Ammunition Production Base Support....................... 95
Provision for Industrial Facilities.................. 95
Program Recommended...................................... 95
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 97
Committee Recommendations................................ 97
Authorization Changes.................................... 97
Tactical and Support Vehicles............................ 97
Semi-Trailer, Container Transporter.................. 97
Semi-Trailer, Tank, 5000 Gallon...................... 97
Semi-Trailer, Tank 7500 Gallon....................... 98
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles................... 98
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.................... 98
Armored Security Vehicles............................ 98
Truck, Tractor, Line Haul............................ 98
Self-Loading/Off-Loading Trailer..................... 98
Communications--Satellite Communications................. 99
Defense Satellite Communications System.............. 99
Satellite Terminals, EMUT............................ 99
NAVSTAR Global Positioning System.................... 99
SCAMP................................................ 99
Global Broadcast Service............................. 99
Communications--Combat Communications.................... 99
Army Data Distribution System........................ 99
SINCGARS Family...................................... 100
Combat Survivor Evader Locator....................... 100
Electronic Equipment, TIARA.............................. 100
All Source Analysis System........................... 100
IEW--Ground Base Common Sensors...................... 100
Electronic Equipment--Electronic Warfare................. 100
Shortshop............................................ 100
Sentinel............................................. 100
Night Vision Devices................................. 100
Electronic Equipment--Tactical C2 Systems................ 101
Maneuver Control System.............................. 101
Standard Integrated Command Post System.............. 101
Electronic Equipment--Automation......................... 101
Automated Data Processing Equipment.................. 101
Reserve Component Automation System.................. 101
Electronic Equipment--Test Measurement Equipment......... 101
Integrated Family of Test Equipment.................. 101
Maintenance Equipment.................................... 101
Items Less Than $2.0 Million......................... 101
Rail Float Containerization Equipment.................... 102
Railway Car, Flat, 100 Ton........................... 102
Training Equipment....................................... 102
SIMNET/Close Combat Tactical Trainer................. 102
Tactical Facsimile System............................ 102
Gun Laying Positioning System........................ 102
Radio Frequency Technology........................... 102
Lightweight Laser Designator/Range Finder............ 102
Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range........... 103
Airborne Command and Control System.................. 103
Avenger Slew to Cue.................................. 103
Palletized Loading System Enhanced................... 103
Program Recommended...................................... 103
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 106
Committee Recommendations................................ 106
Authorization Changes.................................... 106
Combat Aircraft.......................................... 106
F/A-18E/F Hornet..................................... 106
Modification of Aircraft................................. 107
EA-6 Series.......................................... 107
H-1 Series........................................... 107
P-3 Series........................................... 107
E-2 Series........................................... 107
Common Avionics Changes.............................. 107
Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................ 107
Common Ground Equipment.............................. 107
Program Recommended...................................... 108
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 110
Committee Recommendations................................ 110
Authorization Changes.................................... 110
Ballistic Missiles....................................... 110
Trident Advance Procurement.......................... 110
Other Missiles........................................... 110
ESSM................................................. 110
Standard Missile..................................... 111
Aerial Targets....................................... 111
Spares and Repair Parts.................................. 111
Program Recommended...................................... 111
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 113
Committee Recommendations................................ 113
Authorization Changes.................................... 113
Ammunition Shortfalls.................................... 113
Navy Ammunition.......................................... 113
Practice Bombs....................................... 113
5 Inch/ 54 Gun Ammunition............................ 113
20MM PGU-28.......................................... 114
Program Recommended...................................... 114
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 116
Committee Recommendations................................ 116
Authorization Changes.................................... 116
Other Warships........................................... 116
CVN Refueling Overhauls.............................. 116
CVN Refueling Overhauls--Advance Procurement......... 117
DDG-51............................................... 117
Cruiser Overhauls.................................... 117
Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Program Costs......... 117
LCAC Landing Craft................................... 117
ADC(X)............................................... 118
Program Recommended...................................... 118
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 120
Committee Recommendations................................ 120
Authorization Changes.................................... 120
Ships Support Equipment.................................. 120
LM-2500 Gas Turbine.................................. 120
Navigation Equipment..................................... 120
Other Navigation Equipment........................... 120
Other Shipboard Equipment................................ 120
Firefighting Equipment............................... 120
Pollution Control Equipment.......................... 121
Submarine Batteries.................................. 121
Strategic Platform Support Equipment................. 121
Communications and Electronic Equipment.................. 121
Radar Support........................................ 121
Ship Sonars.............................................. 121
AN/SQQ-89 Surface ASW Combat System.................. 121
SSN Acoustics........................................ 121
Carrier ASW Module................................... 121
Electronic Warfare Equipment............................. 122
C3 Countermeasures................................... 122
Reconnaissance Equipment................................. 122
Combat Direction Finding Equipment................... 122
Battle Group Passive Horizon Extension (BGPHES)...... 122
Other Ship Electronic Equipment.......................... 122
Navy Tactical Data System............................ 122
Advanced Tactical Data Link Systems.................. 122
Aviation Electronic Equipment............................ 122
Automatic Carrier Landing System..................... 122
ID Systems........................................... 122
Other Shore Electronic Equipment......................... 122
JMCIS Tactical/Mobile................................ 122
Submarine Communications................................. 123
Submarine Communication Equipment.................... 123
Shore Communications..................................... 123
NSIPS................................................ 123
JEDMICS.............................................. 123
Aviation Support Equipment............................... 123
Sonobouys............................................ 123
AN/SQQ-53 (DIFAR).................................... 123
AN/SQQ-62 (DICASS)................................... 123
Aircraft Support Equipment............................... 123
Aviation Life Support................................ 123
LAMPS MK III Shipboard Equipment..................... 123
Ship Missile Systems Equipment........................... 124
NATO Seasparrow...................................... 124
Ship Self-Defense System............................. 124
AEGIS Support Equipment.............................. 124
Surface Tomahawk Support Equipment................... 124
Fleet Ballistic Missile Support Equipment................ 124
Strategic Missile Systems Equipment.................. 124
Other Ordnance Support Equipment......................... 124
Unmanned Seaborne Target............................. 124
Other Expendable Ordnance................................ 124
Surface Training Device Modifications................ 124
Civil Engineering Support Equipment...................... 125
Construction and Maintenance Equipment............... 125
Amphibious Equipment................................. 125
Pollution Control Equipment.......................... 125
Command Support Equipment............................ 125
Other.................................................... 125
Spares and Repair Parts.............................. 125
Program Recommended...................................... 125
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 129
Committee Recommendations................................ 129
Authorization Changes.................................... 129
Weapons and Combat Vehicles.............................. 129
Items Under $2 Million (Tracked Vehicles)............ 129
Other Communications and Electronics Equipment........... 129
Intelligence Support Equipment....................... 129
Tactical Vehicles........................................ 129
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles......... 129
General Property......................................... 129
Field Medical Equipment.............................. 129
Program Recommended...................................... 130
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 132
Committee Recommendations................................ 132
Authorization Changes.................................... 132
Combat Aircraft.......................................... 132
Advanced Tactical Fighter (F-22) Advance Procurement. 132
F-16................................................. 133
Airlift Aircraft......................................... 133
C-17................................................. 133
C-17 Advance Procurement............................. 133
Civil Air Patrol..................................... 133
Other Aircraft........................................... 134
E-8C................................................. 134
Modification of Inservice Aircraft....................... 134
B-52 Modifications................................... 134
F-15 Modifications................................... 134
F-16 Modifications................................... 135
C-130 Modifications.................................. 135
Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................ 135
F-15 Post Production Support......................... 135
War Consumables...................................... 135
Miscellaneous Production Charges..................... 135
Program Recommended...................................... 136
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 139
Committee Recommendations................................ 139
Authorization Changes.................................... 139
Other Missiles........................................... 139
AMRAAM............................................... 139
Modification of Inservice Missiles....................... 139
Conventional ALCM.................................... 139
Space Programs........................................... 139
Global Positioning System (GPS) Space Segment........ 139
Medium Launch Vehicles............................... 140
Defense Support Program.............................. 140
Special Programs..................................... 140
Program Recommended...................................... 140
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 142
Committee Recommendations................................ 142
Authorization Changes.................................... 142
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser................... 142
Cartridges............................................... 142
20MM PGU-28.......................................... 142
Program Recommended...................................... 142
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 144
Committee Recommendations................................ 144
Authorization Changes.................................... 144
Cargo and Utility Vehicles............................... 144
Items Less than $2 Million........................... 144
Special Purpose Vehicles................................. 144
HMMWV, Armored....................................... 144
Items Less Than $2 Million........................... 144
Materials Handling Equipment............................. 145
60K A/C Loader....................................... 145
Intelligence Programs.................................... 145
Intelligence Data Handling System.................... 145
Electronic Programs...................................... 145
Strategic Command and Control........................ 145
Special Communications-Electronics Projects.............. 145
C-3 Countermeasures.................................. 145
Air Force Communications................................. 145
Base Information Infrastructure...................... 145
Air Force Satellite Control Network.................. 146
Organization and Base.................................... 146
Items Less Than $2 Million........................... 146
Personnel Safety and Rescue Equipment.................... 146
Night Vision Goggles................................. 146
Electrical Equipment..................................... 146
Floodlights Set Type NF2D............................ 146
Base Support Equipment................................... 146
Medical/Dental Equipment............................. 146
Program Recommended...................................... 146
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 149
Committee Recommendations................................ 149
Authorization Changes.................................... 149
Major Equipment...................................... 149
Automated Document Conversion........................ 149
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)........ 149
Special Operations Command............................... 149
PC, CYCLONE Class.................................... 149
SOF Intelligence Systems............................. 149
Chemical and Biological Defense Program.................. 150
Individual Protection................................ 150
Collective Protection................................ 150
Program Recommended...................................... 150
National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 152
Committee Recommendations................................ 152
MELIOS AN/PVS-6...................................... 152
T-39 Replacement Aircraft............................ 152
Program Recommended...................................... 152
Miscellaneous Equipment.................................. 154
Information Resources Management............................. 154
REMIS.................................................... 155
JEDMICS.................................................. 155
Sustaining Base Information Services..................... 155
Army Logistics Automation................................ 155
Automated Document Conversion............................ 155
Military Personnel Information Systems................... 156
Software Program Managers Network........................ 157
High Risk Automation Systems............................. 157
Title IV. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation............. 159
Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 159
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers
(FFRDCs)............................................... 161
Basic Research........................................... 161
NATO Research and Development............................ 162
Tactical Radios.......................................... 162
Special Access Programs.................................. 162
Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL) Survival Radio..... 163
Institute for Defense Analyses........................... 163
Classified Programs...................................... 163
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army............. 163
Committee Recommendations................................ 164
Authorization Changes.................................... 164
Basic Research........................................... 164
In-House Laboratory Research......................... 164
Defense Research Sciences............................ 164
University and Industry Research Centers............. 164
Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social
Sciences........................................... 164
Exploratory Development.................................. 164
Sensors and Electronic Survivability................. 164
Aviation Advanced Technology......................... 165
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology............. 165
Chemical, Smoke and Equipment Defeating Technology... 165
Joint Service Small Arms Program..................... 165
Weapons and Munitions Technology..................... 165
Electronics and Electronic Devices................... 165
Countermine System................................... 166
Human Factors Engineering Technology................. 166
Environmental Quality Technology..................... 166
Military Engineering Technology...................... 166
Medical Technology................................... 166
Neurofibromatosis.................................... 166
Prostate Disease..................................... 167
Advanced Development..................................... 167
Medical Advanced Technology.......................... 167
Aviation Advanced Technology......................... 167
Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology............ 168
Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology............... 168
Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology..... 169
Line-of-Sight Technology Demonstration............... 169
Demonstration and Validation............................. 169
Army Missile Defense Systems Integration............. 169
Aviation Advanced Development........................ 170
Artillery Systems Development........................ 170
Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 170
EW Development....................................... 170
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.................... 170
Air Traffic Control.................................. 170
Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicle....................... 171
Combat Feeding, Clothing and Equipment............... 171
Automatic Test Equipment Development................. 171
Combined Arms Tactical Trainer....................... 171
Landmine Warfare/Barrier Engineering Development..... 171
Sense and Destroy Armament Missile................... 172
RDT&E Management Support................................. 172
DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility.................. 172
Materiel Systems Analysis............................ 172
Support of Operational Testing....................... 173
Program Wide Activities.............................. 173
Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety.. 173
Environmental Compliance............................. 173
Aerostat Joint Project Office........................ 174
Combat Vehicle Improvement Program................... 174
Digitization......................................... 174
Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program...... 175
Joint Tactical Ground System......................... 175
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities.......... 175
Force XXI Initiative................................. 175
Striker.............................................. 176
Mortar Fire Control.................................. 176
Theater Precision Strike Operations.................. 177
Program Recommended...................................... 177
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy............. 181
Committee Recommendations................................ 181
Authorization Changes.................................... 181
Basic Research........................................... 181
In-House Independent Laboratory Research............. 181
Defense Research Sciences............................ 181
Exploratory Development.................................. 181
Surface/Aerospace Surveillance and Weapons Technology 181
Surface Ship Technology.............................. 182
Aircraft Technology.................................. 182
Command, Control and Communications Technology....... 182
Readiness, Training and Environmental Quality
Technology......................................... 182
Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology....... 182
Electronic Warfare Technology........................ 183
Undersea Surveillance Weapon Technology.............. 183
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology............. 183
Undersea Warfare Weaponry Technology................. 183
Advanced Development..................................... 183
Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology.......... 183
Precision Strike and Air Defense..................... 183
Advanced Electronic Warfare Technology............... 184
Ship Propulsion System............................... 184
Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration....... 184
Medical Technology................................... 184
Manpower, Personnel and Training..................... 184
Environmental Quality and Logistics.................. 184
Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology................. 185
Shallow Water MCM Demonstrations..................... 185
Advanced Technology Transition....................... 185
C3 Advanced Technology............................... 185
Demonstration and Validation............................. 185
Aviation Survivability............................... 185
Surface and Shallow Water Mine Countermeasures....... 185
Advanced Submarine System Development................ 185
Advanced Surface Machinery Systems................... 186
Conventional Munitions............................... 186
Advanced Warhead Development......................... 186
Cooperative Engagement............................... 186
Environmental Protection............................. 187
Facilities Improvement............................... 187
Land Attack Technology............................... 187
Joint Strike Fighter................................. 187
Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 187
Other Helo Development............................... 187
Aircrew Systems Development.......................... 188
Electronic Warfare................................... 188
Surface Combatant Combat System Engineering.......... 188
Arsenal Ship......................................... 188
LPD-17 Class Systems Integration..................... 189
TSSAM................................................ 189
VLA Upgrade.......................................... 189
Airborne Mine Countermeasures........................ 189
SSN-688 and Trident Modernization.................... 189
Submarine Combat System.............................. 189
New Design SSN....................................... 189
SSN-21 Developments.................................. 189
Ship Contract Design/Live Fire Testing............... 190
Navy Tactical Computer Resources..................... 190
Lightweight Torpedo Development...................... 190
Ship Self-Defense.................................... 190
Medical Development.................................. 190
Distributed Surveillance System...................... 190
RDT&E Management Support................................. 191
Target Systems Development........................... 191
Major T&E Investment................................. 191
Technical Information Services....................... 191
Studies and Analysis Support......................... 191
Management, Technical and International Support...... 191
Science and Technology Management.................... 191
Test and Evaluation Support.......................... 192
Marine Corps Program Wide Support.................... 192
Operational Systems Development.......................... 192
HARM Improvement..................................... 192
Aviation Improvements................................ 192
Marine Corps Communications Systems.................. 192
Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support Arms.............. 192
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (Space)..... 192
Manufacturing Technology............................. 193
Program Recommended...................................... 193
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........ 197
Committee Recommendations................................ 197
Authorization Changes.................................... 197
Air Force and Army Laboratory Restructuring.............. 197
Basic Research........................................... 197
Defense Research Sciences............................ 197
Exploratory Development.................................. 198
Materials............................................ 198
Aerospace Avionics................................... 198
Phillips Lab Exploratory Development................. 198
Advanced Technology Development.......................... 198
Advanced Materials for Weapons Systems............... 198
Aerospace Propulsion Subsystems Integration.......... 198
Aerospace Structures................................. 198
Crew Systems and Personnel Protection Technology..... 198
Flight Vehicle Technology Integration................ 198
Electronic Combat Technology......................... 199
Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion.................. 199
Ballistic Missile Technology......................... 199
Advanced Spacecraft Technology....................... 199
Conventional Weapons Technology...................... 199
Advanced Weapons Technology.......................... 199
Airborne Laser....................................... 199
Demonstration and Validation............................. 200
Advanced MILSATCOM................................... 200
Polar Adjunct........................................ 200
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS).......................... 200
Space Based Infrared Architecture--DEM/VAL........... 200
Warfighter-1......................................... 201
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (EELV)..... 202
Global Broadcast Service............................. 202
Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 203
Integrated Avionics Planning and Development......... 203
B-1B................................................. 203
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training............. 203
F-22................................................. 203
EW Development....................................... 203
Munitions Dispenser Development...................... 203
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).................. 204
Life Support System.................................. 204
Computer Resource Technology Transition.............. 204
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)........ 205
JSLAM................................................ 206
RDT&E Management Support................................. 206
Theater Simulator Development........................ 206
Major T&E Investment................................. 206
Test and Evaluation Support.......................... 206
Operational Systems Development.......................... 206
Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).... 206
Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program........ 206
AGM-86C Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile
System............................................. 207
Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).......... 207
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS)........................................... 207
World-Wide Military Command and Control System....... 207
Security and Investigative Services.................. 207
Air Cargo Material Handling.......................... 207
Industrial Preparedness.............................. 207
Productivity, Reliability, Availability,
Maintainability Program (PRAM)..................... 208
NATO Joint Stars..................................... 208
Program Recommended...................................... 208
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide..... 212
Committee Recommendations................................ 212
Authorization Changes.................................... 212
Basic Research........................................... 212
In-House Independent Research........................ 212
Defense Research Sciences............................ 212
University Research Sciences......................... 212
Government and Industry Cosponsorship of University
Research........................................... 213
Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 213
Exploratory Development.................................. 213
Next Generation Internet............................. 213
Support Technologies--Applied Research............... 214
Lincoln Laboratory Research Program.................. 214
Computing Systems and Communications Technology...... 214
Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 214
Tactical Technology.................................. 215
Integrated Command and Control Technology............ 215
Materials and Electronics Technology................. 215
Defense Special Weapons Agency....................... 215
Advanced Development..................................... 215
Explosives Demilitarization Technology............... 215
Counterproliferation Support......................... 215
Automatic Target Recognition......................... 215
Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 216
Special Technical Support............................ 216
Verification Technology Demonstration................ 216
Nuclear Monitoring Technologies...................... 216
Seismic Monitoring................................... 217
Generic Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations...... 217
Strategic Environmental Research Program............. 217
Advanced Electronics Technologies.................... 218
Maritime Technology.................................. 218
Electric Vehicles.................................... 218
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations........... 218
Commercial Technology Insertion Program.............. 218
Electronic Commerce Resource Centers................. 218
High Performance Computing Modernization Program..... 218
Sensor and Guidance Technology....................... 219
Marine Technology.................................... 219
Land Warfare Technology.............................. 220
Dual-Use Programs.................................... 220
Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office......... 220
Demonstration and Validation............................. 220
Physical Security Equipment.......................... 220
Joint Robotics Program............................... 220
CALS Initiative...................................... 220
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization................... 220
Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)........... 221
Navy Lower Tier...................................... 221
Navy Upper Tier...................................... 221
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and Boost
Phase Intercept (BPI).............................. 222
National Missile Defense............................. 222
Engineering and Manufacturing Development................ 222
Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 222
Technical Studies.................................... 223
Defense Support Activities........................... 223
Management Headquarters.............................. 223
Tactical UAVs........................................ 223
Endurance UAVs....................................... 223
Airborne Reconnaissance Systems...................... 224
Special Operations Advanced Technology Development... 224
Special Operations Intelligence Systems Development.. 224
SOF Operational Enhancements......................... 224
Casting Emission Reduction Program................... 224
Program Recommended...................................... 225
Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense................... 228
Committee Recommendations................................ 228
Program Recommended...................................... 228
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 230
Committee Recommendations................................ 230
Program Recommended...................................... 230
Live Fire Testing........................................ 232
Title V. Revolving and Management Funds.......................... 233
Defense Working Capital Funds................................ 233
Transition to the Working Capital Funds.................. 233
Military Commissary Fund, Defense............................ 234
National Defense Sealift Fund................................ 234
Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) Ships......... 234
Lighterage............................................... 234
Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs................... 235
Defense Health Program....................................... 235
Medical Research......................................... 235
Breast Cancer............................................ 236
Gulf War Illness......................................... 236
TRICARE.................................................. 237
Bone Marrow Research..................................... 237
Smoking Cessation........................................ 237
Diabetes................................................. 237
Minimally Invasive Research.............................. 237
Air Force Neuroscience................................... 238
Central Nervous System Injury Research................... 238
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research................... 238
Mobile Breast Care Center................................ 238
Peer Review Panels....................................... 238
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 239
Committee Recommendations................................ 239
Program Reductions................................... 239
Storage Facilities................................... 239
Program Recommended...................................... 239
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense....... 241
Committee Recommendations................................ 241
National Guard Counter-Drug Program...................... 241
LEA Support.............................................. 241
Gulf States Initiative................................... 241
HIDTA Crack House Demolition............................. 242
Civil Air Patrol......................................... 242
C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrades.............. 242
Multijurisdictional Task Force Training.................. 242
Program Recommended...................................... 242
Office of the Inspector General.............................. 243
Title VII. Related Agencies...................................... 245
National Foreign Intelligence Program........................ 245
Introduction............................................. 245
Classified Annex......................................... 245
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System
Fund....................................................... 245
Intelligence Community Management Account.................... 246
Committee Recommendation................................. 246
National Security Education Trust Fund....................... 246
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance and Environmental
Restoration Fund........................................... 246
Title VIII. General Provisions................................... 247
Definition of Program, Project and Activity.................. 247
Military Personnel Budget Justification...................... 247
Limitation on Headquarters Activities........................ 248
Warranties................................................... 248
National Imagery and Mapping Agency.......................... 248
Navigation and Safety Equipment.............................. 249
TACWAR....................................................... 249
House of Representatives Reporting Requirements.................. 251
Changes in Application of Existing Law....................... 251
Appropriations Language.................................. 251
General Provisions....................................... 253
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law......................... 256
Transfer of Funds............................................ 257
Rescissions.................................................. 258
Constitutional Authority..................................... 258
Comparison With Budget Resolution............................ 258
Five-Year Projection of Outlays.............................. 259
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments.......... 259
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-206
_______________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998
_______
July 25, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Young of Florida, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2266]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for the Department of Defense, and for other
purposes, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998.
Bill Totals
Appropriations for most military functions of the
Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill
for the fiscal year 1998. This bill does not provide
appropriations for military construction, military family
housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which
requirements are considered in connection with other
appropriations bills.
The President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for
activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations
Bill totals $243,923,541,000 in new budget (obligational)
authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the
accompanying bill total $248,335,303,000 in new budget
authority. This is $4,411,762,000 above the budget estimate and
$3,868,897,000 \1\ above the sums made available for the same
purposes for fiscal year 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This amount includes $1,846,200,000 in emergency supplemental
appropriations for the Department of Defense enacted into law in Public
Law 105-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of overall defense spending for fiscal year 1998,
when the amounts in this bill are combined with proposed
defense funding in other annual appropriations bills the
Committee's recommendations are approximately equal to the $269
billion in discretionary appropriations for the National
Defense Function (050) agreed to by the Congress and the
President in April 1997, and subsequently approved by Congress
in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Years
1998-2002. Despite the proposed increase over the President's
request, however, the Committee notes that with this
recommendation funding in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998 will still fail to keep
pace with inflation. Total funding in the bill is 0.6 percent,
or $1.5 billion, less than what would be required to freeze
funding at the fiscal year 1997 level, adjusted for inflation.
As a consequence, if enacted into law, the Committee's
recommendations would result in the thirteenth straight year of
real, inflation-adjusted reductions in defense spending.
The new budget authority enacted for the fiscal year 1997,
the President's budget estimates, and amounts recommended by
the Committee for fiscal year 1998 appear in summary form in
the following table:
Committee Budget Review Process
During its review of the fiscal year 1998 budget, the
Subcommittee on National Security held a total of 19 hearings
during the time period of February 26, 1997 to June 11, 1997.
Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,625 pages of
transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in
open session. Executive or closed sessions were held only when
the security classification of the material to be discussed
presented no alternative.
Introduction
The bill reported by the Committee reflects its obligation
to provide adequate resources for the nation's defense while
attempting to strike a balance between the many competing
challenges confronting the armed forces of the United States.
The international environment remains uncertain and
potentially explosive. Political instability remains on the
rise, as does the threat posed by the proliferation of
technology, giving even small nations or groups the ability to
threaten entire populations. Transnational issues such as
ethnic conflicts, terrorism, the international drug trade, and
``information age'' threats continue to loom while more
traditional regional threats, such as those posed by North
Korea, Iraq, and Iran still must factor prominently in U.S.
military planning.
Despite having been drawn down to the lowest force levels
since the end of World War II, U.S. armed forces remain forward
deployed and continue to sustain high rates of operation, a
condition exacerbated by the deployment of U.S. forces on non-
traditional peacekeeping missions, such as the Bosnia
deployment. These frequent deployments have led to a host of
problems including hardships for service members and their
families, disruptions in standard rotation and training
schedules, and the need to finance the substantial costs of
such operations.
The President's fiscal year 1998 budget proposal for the
Department of Defense clearly reflects the tensions inherent in
trying to cope with such existing, ongoing demands while living
within the fiscal constraints dictated by the Administration's
overall budget priorities. The combination of self-imposed
defense spending limits, the spiraling cost of overseas
contingency operations, and the need to maintain forces subject
to deployment at high rates of readiness, has resulted once
again in major funding shortfalls throughout other portions of
the defense budget proposed by the President.
The Committee notes that subsequent to transmittal of the
President's budget, the Military Services identified high
priority, unfunded shortfalls for fiscal year 1998 totaling
nearly $11 billion. In addition, the Secretary of Defense has
called to the Committee's attention nearly $1.5 billion in
additional unbudgeted fiscal year 1998 requirements involving
defense health care, missile defense and chemical/biological
defenses, and a sizable shortage in funding for flying hour
support and related spare parts. Running the gamut from quality
of life programs, medical care, training and operating budgets,
and weapons modernization and research programs, the fiscal
year 1998 defense budget submission demonstrably falls short of
meeting both the immediate and long-term requirements of the
U.S. armed forces.
Quadrennial Defense Review
These problems are not new, and were the driving force
behind Congress' mandate last year for an in-depth review of
U.S. military strategy, force structure and deployments, and
competing budget priorities. The result was the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR), which combined with the appointment of a
new Secretary of Defense resulted in a fresh look at the many
competing and difficult demands confronting U.S. military
planners.
The Committee is aware of, and in some instances
sympathetic to, the criticisms levied at the QDR since its
results were announced in May 1997. For example, the QDR has
been criticized for not being daring enough, particularly with
respect to its rejection of force structure cuts well beyond
the roughly one-third reduction already levied since the fall
of the Berlin Wall. However, the Committee does not find such
critiques persuasive in the face of continued regional threats
on both the Korean Peninsula and in the Persian Gulf region
which, of necessity, drive near-term manpower and forward
deployment requirements. The Committee does find more substance
in the claim that the QDR was a fiscally-constrained exercise.
Yet, the announcement of the QDR's findings occurred almost
simultaneously with the agreement reached between the President
and the Congressional leadership on a balanced budget
agreement. This resulted in a long-term budget plan for defense
which, from fiscal years 2000-2002, approximates that used as
the basis for QDR planning (namely, the President's proposed
defense program). While there is merit to the charge that the
Secretary of Defense should have conducted solely a strategy
and requirements driven review, in hindsight the Secretary's
decision that the QDR should reflect current fiscal realities
as well as strategic considerations must be viewed as being
both pragmatic and practical.
Nonetheless, despite giving the Department relatively high
marks on the broad aspects of its QDR recommendations, the
Committee is troubled by the many optimistic assumptions
embedded in its recommendations. The Committee is highly
skeptical, for example, about whether the military services can
successfully draw down planned force structure by an additional
60,000 active duty and 55,000 Reserve personnel, while
maintaining forward presence deployments and high OPTEMPO
rates, without sacrificing the quality of the force and
adversely affecting the combat capability of front-line units.
Of more proximate concern to the Committee in its budgetary
role is the degree to which the Department is relying on QDR
recommendations which forecast sizable budget savings. These
savings are intended to finance the Department's many unfunded
outyear requirements, especially those involving the
development and eventual production of the new generation of
major weapons systems. The Committee's concern has already been
substantiated by the admission by senior Department of Defense
officials that most of the non-personnel savings assumed in the
QDR (amounting to approximately $7-8 billion per year by the
year 2002) are premised on yet-to-be determined reductions in
headquarters, duplicative organizations, and improved business
practices.
These fiscal concerns are central in that, if not dealt
with successfully as the QDR recommendations are implemented,
they threaten to undermine one of the core objectives of the
QDR itself: Freeing up resources to enable the overdue
modernization of many components of the military's existing
weaponry and equipment.
Rationale for the Committee Bill
When considering its fiscal year 1998 recommendations, the
Committee was therefore confronted with two overriding
concerns. First, the fiscal year 1998 budget request (prepared
before the QDR), while including many noteworthy aspects, still
proposed funding levels for many activities and programs which
the Secretary of Defense has himself conceded are inadequate,
particularly in light of subsequent QDR decisions. Second, the
QDR itself has now become the basis for outyear defense
planning, and therefore presents both a guide and an
opportunity for the Committee in making its recommendations for
fiscal year 1998.
In fashioning this bill, the Committee took both these
factors into account while remaining committed to several key
objectives:
(1) Ensuring an adequate level of readiness, training
and quality of life for all service members, both in
the Active and Reserve components;
(2) Providing for a modernization program which both
meets today's requirements and the security needs of
the future;
(3) Giving special priority to redressing shortfalls
in less visible, yet mission-essential programs and
equipment; and finally,
(4) Cutting, reforming, or eliminating programs or
activities with little military utility, or which have
not shown demonstrable success or have encountered
delays in development or production, or are
duplicative, excessive or unnecessary.
In particular, given the Committee's deep concern that many
of the QDR's cost-saving assumptions may prove to be highly
optimistic, the Committee believes it cannot wait until the
fiscal year 1999 budget cycle to begin to implement QDR-
sanctioned reforms or cost-cutting. The Committee has made a
concerted effort to reduce and in some instances cancel funding
for programs or functions which, while meritorious, are simply
of lower priority, can be performed at a lower cost, are as
``nice to have'' rather than essential.
The following section of the report details major Committee
recommendations in support of these objectives.
Major Committee Recommendations
Addressing High Priority Unfunded Shortfalls
The Committee bill fully funds the unbudgeted shortfalls
identified by the Secretary of Defense with respect to defense
medical programs, National Missile Defense, and Navy and Air
Force flying hours. The Committee also recommends increases
over the budget request of $107,650,000 for improved chemical
and biological defensive technologies, equipment and training.
Finally, the Committee also recommends additions over the
budget request which address more than one-third (by dollar
amount) of the unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the military
Service Chiefs. Specific details are cited throughout this
report.
ensuring a quality, ready force
Personnel Issues: The Committee has recommended fully
funding the 2.8 percent military pay raise as requested by the
Department, and has added $60,000,000 above the budget request
for housing and family separation allowances in conformance
with House authorization action. For the Reserve components,
the Committee recommends restoral of $85,000,000 deleted in the
budget request in order to fully fund the Reserves' pay
accounts. The Committee has fully funded all child care and
family support programs. Finally, the Committee has added
$22,900,000 over the budget request for military recruiting, to
ensure new accessions are of the highest possible quality.
Military Medical Programs: The Committee has included
$274,000,000 above the amounts originally requested by the
President to fully fund unbudgeted shortfalls in the Defense
Health Program. The Committee has added $125,000,000 over the
request to continue the Army's highly successful peer-reviewed
breast cancer research program as well as the Committee's
ongoing efforts to specifically improve breast cancer detection
and treatment for both service personnel and dependents.
Training/OPTEMPO: The Committee has fully funded the
requested amounts for all the Services' training and OPTEMPO
accounts and has added $99,013,000 over the request in those
areas where the services identified shortfalls.
Emergent flying hour/spare parts shortfall: Following
submission of the budget, the Secretary of Defense notified the
Committee of significant unfunded shortfalls which had emerged
in the flying hour and associated maintenance programs of the
Navy and Air Force. The Committee recognizes the immediate
impact these shortfalls will have on readiness and therefore
recommends an increase of $622,000,000 over the budget request
to fully fund Navy and Air Force requirements.
Equipment repair/maintenance: The Committee is distressed
over the continuing existence of substantial unfunded backlogs
in the Services' depot maintenance accounts and has added
$473,300,000 over the budget request to meet the most urgent
unfunded equipment maintenance requirements.
Real property maintenance: For years the Committee has
expressed its concern over the growing backlog in real property
maintenance accounts used to support the Department's base
infrastructure, including barracks and mission-essential
facilities. The Committee recommends an increase of
$924,840,000 over the budget request for real property
maintenance, including an additional $360,000,000 for barracks
and living facilities, continuing the Committee's commitment to
revitalizing the Department's base infrastructure.
Defense Drug Interdiction: The Committee recommends an
increase over the budget request of $60,500,000 for Department
of Defense counter-drug and drug interdiction programs, nearly
a 10 percent increase over the Department's proposed fiscal
year 1998 levels.
``Contingency'' operations: The fiscal year 1997 Department
of Defense Appropriations Act created a separate appropriations
account for operation and maintenance costs resulting from
major contingency deployments. The Committee recommends similar
action this year and consolidates all requested operation and
maintenance funding for the Bosnia operation, as well as
continued sanctions enforcement around Iraq, into one single
account. The Committee has also provided military personnel
funding associated with these operations, but has funded these
requirements in the regular appropriations accounts. In all,
the Committee recommends total funding of $2,145,100,000 for
these operations ($1,467,500,000 for Bosnia, as requested by
the President; and $677,600,000 for Southwest Asia).
Modernization Programs
Department of Defense officials freely admit that the most
serious shortcoming in the budget proposal is in those accounts
providing for procurement and research and development of new
equipment and technologies. Based on extensive testimony and a
concerted effort to identify critical shortfalls in existing
requirements, the Committee is recommending increases to the
budget request specifically targeted at meeting existing
equipment/capability shortfalls as well as providing for the
projected military requirements of the future. In all, the bill
recommends increases over the budget request of $4.7 billion
for modernization programs, including net increases of over
$3.9 billion for procurement and $770 million for research and
development.
The most significant recommendations include:
Missile defense: The Committee recommends total funding of
$3,673,659,000, a net increase of $707,115,000, for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The Committee bill
includes a total of $978,090,000 ($474,000,000 over the budget
request) for national missile defense and $2,695,568,000 (a net
increase of $233,115,000 over the budget request) for theater
systems. The Committee has fully funded the budget request for
the joint U.S.-Israel ARROW missile defense program, and has
added $41,500,000 over the budget request for the joint U.S.-
Israel ``Nautilus'' Tactical High-Energy Laser program. The
Committee has also fully funded the Air Force's Airborne Laser
program at the requested amount ($157,136,000).
Ship Self-Defense/Cooperative Engagement: Mindful of the
growing threat to U.S. forces posed by both theater ballistic
and cruise missiles, the Committee has continued its long-
standing emphasis on ship self-defense and ``cooperative
engagement'' (the sharing of tracking and targeting information
among many different platforms), and has added $401,800,000
over the budget for these efforts.
Major weapons programs: The Committee recommends fully
funding the budget request for: The Army's Comanche helicopter,
Crusader next-generation artillery system, and Force XXI/
digitization initiatives (although the Committee has realigned
requested funding to more appropriate accounts); the Navy's
production of 20 new F/A-18 E/F fighters, three DDG-51
destroyers, one New Attack Submarine, the overhaul of the
U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier, and the procurement of two LMSR
sealift ships; and the Air Force's F-15 fighter and F-22
fighter programs. The Committee has also funded the requested
number of Air Force C-17 transport aircraft; provided an
additional nine C-130J variants over the budget request for the
Marine Corps, Air Force, and Air National Guard, pursuant to
House authorization action; and the budget request for the
Joint Strike Fighter.
The Committee has added funds over the request for: Army
Blackhawk helicopters (a total of $309,231,000 for 30
helicopters, $126,000,000 and 12 helicopters more than
requested) and Kiowa Warrior helicopters ($151,700,000); the
Navy E-2C airborne early warning aircraft (a total of
$304,474,000 for four aircraft, $68,000,000 and one aircraft
over the budget request); the Marine Corps V-22 tactical
transport (a total of $661,307,000 for seven aircraft,
$189,300,000 and two aircraft more than in the budget request),
and advance procurement for the second LPD-17 amphibious ship
(an increase of $185,000,000 over the budget request); and the
Air Force B-2 bomber (a total of $505,286,000, an increase over
the budget request of $331,200,000, consistent with House
authorization action), and F-16 fighter programs ($82,500,000
and three aircraft more than the budget request).
Mission-essential shortfalls: The Committee has always
emphasized less-glamorous, yet mission-essential items which
are critical to the troops in the field. The Committee bill
recommends increases over the budget request for such items as:
Additional combat communications systems ($32,000,000), night
vision devices ($14,400,000), and Bradley fighting vehicle
upgrades ($115,000,000) for the Army; new and remanufactured
trucks and HMMWV's for the Army and Marine Corps
($156,700,000); Army, Navy and Marine Corps ammunition (a net
increase of $258,900,000); modifications and upgrades for EA-6B
($83,000,000) and P-3 aircraft ($129,000,000) for the Navy;
initial issue gear ($40,700,000) and base telecommunications
for the Marine Corps ($42,600,000); and additional aging
aircraft and engine reliability enhancements ($33,000,000),
force protection measures ($27,800,000) and base information
systems protection ($51,000,000) for the Air Force. The
Committee also provided $31 million for development and
procurement of lighterage systems to support joint service
strategic sealift operations.
Guard and Reserve Components: The Committee bill for fiscal
year 1998 continues its support of the Guard and Reserve, with
a recommended increase of $274,189,000 over the budget request
for the personnel and operation and maintenance accounts. With
respect to modernization programs, the Committee has fully
funded those programs requested in the budget for Guard and
Reserve equipment ($968,500,000, requested in the active
services' accounts) and has provided an additional
$1,651,800,000 throughout the bill for additional aircraft,
tactical vehicles, and various miscellaneous equipment and
upgrades to existing equipment for the Guard and Reserve
components.
Reforms/Program Reductions
As mentioned earlier in this report, the Committee has
always sought to reduce excess or unnecessary funding when
possible. The Department of Defense is no more sacrosanct than
any other portion of the Federal government in terms of its
need to be constantly reviewed, assessed, and improved.
This year the Committee's efforts to reduce unnecessary
spending in the Department of Defense are even more important.
This is due to the need to address critical unfunded shortfalls
in the fiscal year 1998 budget submission, many directly
affecting readiness and quality of life programs, as well as
the Committee's broader concerns about whether the savings
forecast from implementation of the Quadrennial Defense Review
can realistically be expected to materialize.
Accordingly, a major priority throughout the Committee's
budget oversight process has been the identification of lower
priority programs which, although they contribute to the
military mission, can be cut or eliminated in order to fund
higher priority programs and activities. The Committee has also
recommended many budget reductions intended to reform and
streamline existing Department of Defense structure or
operations, and in so doing the Committee intends to accelerate
already-planned QDR initiatives. Finally, the Committee has
identified budget savings stemming from audits by the General
Accounting Office, the Department's audit and inspector general
functions, and the Committee's Surveys and Investigations
staff, as well as changes in program status identified by the
military departments.
Budget execution/lower-priority programs: The following
table shows selected programs in the budget request which the
Committee has eliminated or reduced funding based on its having
a relatively low priority or where the requested funding was
considered excessive.
Program Reduction
Civilian personnel overbudgeting........................ -$245,500,000
Consultants and advisory services....................... -$210,000,000
Defense dual use and commercialization programs......... -187,602,000
Growth in automated data processing programs............ -110,000,000
Excess inventory........................................ -100,000,000
Inappropriate budgeting/working capital funds........... -127,654,000
Joint Aerostat Program.................................. -93,193,000
Environmental fund recoupment........................... -73,000,000
Growth in FFRDC's....................................... -55,000,000
NATO RDT&E.............................................. -53,479,000
Growth in civilian employee travel...................... -51,990,000
JCS Exercises........................................... -50,000,000
OSD administrative savings.............................. -20,000,000
Reform/restructuring: The Committee notes that DoD, with a
decade of reduced budgets and downsizing behind it, has already
implemented or is well into implementing a series of management
and organizational reforms. Among other things, these
initiatives have already resulted in the defense civilian
workforce being reduced by nearly 30 percent with significant
additional reductions projected in the near future. While DoD
is to be commended for such moves, and although it intends to
make even additional reductions associated with implementation
of the QDR, the Committee believes more must and can be done.
Accordingly, it has recommended a number of budget reductions
intended to further streamline and rationalize operations.
Program Reduction
QDR-related civilian personnel reductions............. -$253,273,000
Other headquarters reductions......................... -149,443,000
Joint standoff missile program consolidation.......... -140,321,000
Defense Agencies (QDR Task Force)..................... -72,000,000
Using RDT&E funding for production.................... -70,875,000
Acquisition reform (warranties)....................... -50,000,000
Overseas disaster aid................................. -24,573,000
Program/budget execution: In addition to the reductions
cited above, the Committee proposes more than 150 other
reductions to budgeted items based on delays in program
execution, contract savings, or other events resulting in the
requested amount being clearly excessive to program needs.
These reductions have resulted in over $2.5 billion in savings
in this legislation.
U.S. Forces in Bosnia
The fiscal year 1998 budget request includes, and the
Committee recommends in this bill, a total of $1,467,500,000 in
order to finance the additional incremental military personnel
and operation and maintenance costs resulting from the
continued U.S. participation in the NATO-led Stabilization
Force in Bosnia, through June 1998. With this appropriation,
the Committee notes it will have provided roughly $6.5 billion
in either supplemental appropriations acts, approved
reprogramming actions or annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts for the additional costs associated with
U.S. military operations in and around the former Yugoslavia
since October 1995. The Committee has on numerous occasions
expressed its commendation for the professional and expert
manner in which U.S. forces involved in the Bosnia operation
have carried out their missions, and does so once again. These
forces and their commanders have performed in an exemplary
manner, as have all coalition military participants, in an
uncertain and dangerous environment.
Even before a decision was made to deploy U.S. forces to
Bosnia, the Committee had expressed its concern and
disappointment over the failure of the Administration to
adequately consult with the Congress regarding peacekeeping
operations. The mission change in Somalia, and Presidential
commitments to deploy forces to Rwanda, Haiti and Bosnia all
were undertaken after little, if any, advance consultation with
the Congress. While having repeatedly admonished the
Administration for failing to adequately seek Congressional
advice and consent, the Committee has also consistently
expressed its willingness to work constructively with the
Administration to try and find consensus over how best to carry
out these missions while addressing the Nation's overall
foreign policy objectives. And despite the political
controversy surrounding the Bosnia deployment--beginning with
the initial decision to deploy American forces, to the mission
extension announced by the President last November, and now,
concerns over a possible second mission extension as well as
possible expanded roles for U.S. forces on the ground--the
Committee observes that it has in each and every instance
provided the funds deemed necessary by the Department of
Defense to support this mission. The Committee's record of
``supporting the troops'' cannot be questioned.
Regrettably, the Administration has yet to adequately
address the key issues initially raised by the Committee and
others nearly two years ago with respect to the Bosnia
deployment. These include questions about the exact mission of
U.S. forces and other Stabilization Force participants; what,
if any exit strategy or criteria have been established for the
withdrawal of American forces; and the ultimate duration of the
U.S. deployment, the make-up of any international force in
Bosnia after June 1998, and the overall long-term commitment
which the U.S. intends to make to the region (both in terms of
military support and deployments as well as other U.S. aid and
assistance programs).
The Committee recognizes these are difficult issues, made
more complex due to the international involvement in the region
and the fragile peace within the former Yugoslavia. Yet it is
precisely because these issues are difficult that the
Administration's continued refusal to engage the Congress in
efforts to seek a consensus for future policy decisions cannot
be understood. The Committee believes it is imperative for the
Administration to address these policy questions, both through
consultation with Congress and openly with the American people.
The Committee recognizes that the course of future Bosnia
policy carries with it significant implications for NATO as
well as European security in general. In addition, the
Committee understands that using the legislative ``power of the
purse'' to prohibit or limit prospective military operations
has been and will no doubt continue to be one of the supreme
tests between the executive and legislative branches. The
Committee does not take lightly any use of this prerogative.
The Committee still expresses its willingness to work with the
Administration on seeking solutions to the immediate and longer
term issues involving policy towards Bosnia. However, in the
absence of any declared post-June 1998 plan for the NATO-led
peacekeeping and peace enforcement operation in the former
Yugoslavia, the Committee recommends for inclusion in this bill
the provision passed by the House on June 23, 1997 during
consideration of the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1119),
providing that no funds available to the Department of Defense
may be used to support the deployment of U.S. ground forces in
the Republic of Bosnia and Herzogovina after June 30, 1998 (the
current mission limit set by the President), unless
specifically prescribed by law.
NATO Expansion
With the recent Madrid Summit and through other policy
pronouncements, the Administration has clearly expressed its
intent to expand the number of nations in the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO). Unfortunately, the financial impact
of this expansion on the Department of Defense budget is not
yet clear as no funds have been requested in the fiscal year
1998 budget request. The Committee is dubious regarding current
estimates of the cost of NATO expansion, which according to the
Administration will be approximately $200 million per year. The
estimate is significantly lower than that of most observers,
and the Committee notes it is premised on only three new member
nations.
In order to gain better insight into the financial
requirements for an expanded NATO, the Committee recommends a
new general provision (Section 8101) requiring that, in future
budget requests, DoD establish a new budget subactivity in the
Operation and maintenance request that isolates incremental
costs associated with NATO expansion. The Committee directs
that this new budget entry shall display all future costs
funded through annual Department of Defense Appropriations Acts
relating to NATO expansion. To the degree such costs may be
more properly carried in other titles of the Act, such as
Military personnel or Procurement, the Committee directs that
these costs be displayed in their entirety in a separate budget
subactivity in the appropriate appropriations account, as
needed. The Committee further directs that detailed
justification materials be included in future budget requests
to support any cost estimates.
Budget Formulation Issues
The Committee is increasingly concerned about a number of
practices which have become more prevalent in both the
Department of Defense's annual budget submissions as well as
the execution of funding once it has been provided by the
Congress.
The first issue involves the underbudgeting of many
critical programs and activities, particularly those which are
known to enjoy support in Congress, in an evident attempt to
elicit the required funding through the annual defense
authorization and appropriations process. Examples include the
now routine underbudgeting of real property and depot
maintenance accounts, as well as conventional ammunition,
tactical vehicle and missile programs, equipment needs of the
Guard and Reserve components, and of particular concern to the
Committee, funding for defense medical programs. Over the past
three years, as it became apparent that Congress was inclined
to add substantial sums to the President's programmed defense
budgets, this practice has become more rampant with the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Military Departments
appearing to willfully delete or refuse to commit funding for
other high priority programs such as national and theater
missile defense programs, Navy ship self-defense initiatives,
and aircraft navigational and safety upgrades.
The Committee believes these actions are clearly
unconscionable given the direct threat to the lives of service
personnel should such programs not be adequately funded or
ultimately fielded. They are even less supportable when viewed
in the context of the Department's overall fiscal year 1998
budget request. This budget proposes that the Congress ignore
these high priority programs and, instead, approve sizable
budget increases for efforts less relevant to immediate
military requirements, such as consultants, basic research, and
generic technology demonstrations. (One such effort, the Joint
Aerostat Program discussed later in this report, is estimated
to require over $600,000,000 over the next few years yet has no
validated mission nor user requirement.) The Department has in
place processes and organizations, such as the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which were expressly
created to ensure that warfighting requirements are
rationalized and given due regard in budget deliberations.
Given this, the Committee is puzzled why it is being asked to
approve a budget which fails to adequately fund programs needed
by deployed forces, and which still falls short when it comes
to choosing among competing service programs and initiatives.
A related issue is the Department's budget proposal in each
of the past two years to transfer proceeds from asset sales
from the National Defense Stockpile to fund either operation
and maintenance or procurement programs. Under the Budget Act
such practices are not allowed unless the sales in question are
consistent with historical levels. Despite knowing this both
DoD and the Office of Management and Budget have persisted in
forwarding requests to the Congress which rely on generating
sales revenue from the National Defense Stockpile in excess of
Budget Act limits. As a consequence, over the past two years
the President's defense budgets have actually contained
$800,000,000 more in proposed spending that could actually be
made available in appropriations bills without running afoul of
Budget Act scorekeeping conventions.
The Committee wishes to serve notice to OSD, the Military
Departments, and OMB the obvious fact that such misallocation
of resources and budget gamesmanship will simply be self
defeating in the future. As a result of the recently approved
budget agreement, beginning in fiscal year 1999 the Congress
has agreed to the same defense budget topline as has the
President, and therefore deliberations over the content of
future defense bills will by definition be a zero-sum game.
This problem will only become more intense should anticipated
savings from the QDR and other reforms fall short of
expectations. Should OSD and the Services, with the knowledge
of OMB, persist in underfunding critical programs or resorting
to budget gimmicks in anticipation that the Committee and
Congress will ``fix the problem'', they should do so knowing
full well that these problems will be corrected only through
reductions to other budgeted programs.
Abuse of Traditional Acquisition and Appropriations Practices
The Committee is similarly concerned about what, from its
perspective, is a breakdown of existing and longstanding
procedures regarding the institution of multiyear contracting
for major weapons systems, as well as a fundamental breach of
appropriations discipline whereby the Department is using funds
provided for research, development, test and evaluation of
weapons programs to instead initiate production contracts, in
many instances without the knowledge of OSD or the Congress.
With respect to multiyear contracting, the Committee
remains convinced that when used appropriately, multiyear
contracts offer substantial benefits in terms of both cost
savings and program stability. However, another aspect of
multiyear contracting is that once initiated for a particular
program, funding for that program is basically committed for
several years, and unlikely to be reduced because of the
termination liability costs associated with failure to
adequately fund the multiyear program. The Committee is aware
of instances where the military services have sought multiyear
contracting authority from the Congress even though the current
defense program does not contain enough funding to actually
execute the contract, evidently in an effort to leverage
increased budget allocations from OSD.
Over the past two years the Committee has witnessed a
significant increase in efforts by the military services to
importune the Congress to grant their favored programs
multiyear contracting authority. Given the major restructuring
of Departmental spending priorities associated with
implementation of the QDR, as well as the need of OSD to
maintain at least some degree of management control over future
defense spending decisions, the Committee believes it
appropriate to require that the Secretary of Defense, approve
all major multiyear contract initiatives and therefore has
recommended amending an existing general provision (Section
8008) to require that no multiyear contracts over a certain
threshold may be requested unless that program is specifically
identified in official budget documents transmitted to the
Congress by the President, or through written communication
from the Secretary. This should not be perceived as the
Committee losing favor with multiyear contracting as a means to
achieve cost savings; rather, the Committee's intent is to give
the Secretary of Defense as well as the Congress greater
opportunities to carefully review any proposed multiyear
program acquisition.
With respect to the abuse of RDT&E appropriations, the
Committee is concerned about what appears to be an increasing
lack of discipline within the Department of Defense in
budgeting programs in the proper appropriations, especially
among acquisition programs. The Committee is aware of desires
within the DOD acquisition community to merge development and
procurement funding into a single appropriation as a
convenience to program managers. Such a change to fundamental
budget practices would severely impede oversight by both senior
managers in the Department as well as Congress. The Department
has declined to make any such formal recommendations to the
Congress; however, the Committee has become convinced the
Department has instead placated its acquisition community by
allowing program managers, under the guise of acquisition
reform, to blur distinctions between appropriations. The
Committee has identified a number of instances in this report
in which the Department has requested funding in the research
and development accounts to initiate production, and production
funding to initiate development. Most notable are the cases of
EFOG-M, LOSAT, WCMD, WRAP initiatives, and F-22 discussed at
length elsewhere in this report. The Committee is particularly
disturbed over a trend in missile programs to initiate
production to provide an ``interim warfighting capability''
using research and development funding, contrary to Committee
direction and DOD policy on the use of such funding.
The Committee takes its oversight responsibilities
seriously and will not tolerate lax observance of the long-
standing policies on the proper use of appropriations.
Accordingly, the Committee has included a general provision
(Section 8100) which prohibits the Department from using funds
provided in Title IV of the bill (funding for research,
development, test, and evaluation) to procure end-items of any
DoD system unless said items are physically utilized in test
and evaluation activities which lead to a production decision
for the system. This provision exempts programs funded in this
bill under the National Foreign Intelligence Program, and also
includes limited waiver authority should the Secretary of
Defense determine it is in the national security interest.
Ship Self Defense
In fiscal year 1992, the Committee discovered that the
Navy's ship self-defense programs were in disarray and it began
an initiative to fix the problem. In every fiscal year since
1992, the Committee has recommended significant funding
increases for ship self-defense programs. The Committee was
vindicated when former Secretary of Defense William Perry
witnessed at sea tests of the cooperative engagement
capability, a main target of the Committee's interest. He
called cooperative engagement ``the most significant
technological development since stealth'' and directed that the
program be accelerated. In the most recent tests using
cooperative engagement, 17 of 19 missile shots were direct
hits, at much farther distances than can be achieved by Aegis
ships today, and in one case the ship firing its missiles in
self-defense could not even see the target due to radar
jamming. In hearings during the past few years, the Committee
has commended Navy officials for their attention to committee
direction on ship self defense programs.
In the fiscal year 1998 budget, something went awry. The
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and
Acquisition testified to the Committee this year that the
Navy's budget continues ``an all out effort to protect our
Sailors and Marines serving aboard ships against missile
attack''. Yet, the Navy's budget is a considerable step
backward in terms of achieving this objective. Many ship
defense programs that have longstanding yet unfulfilled
warfighting requirements and which have successfully completed
R&D have no funds requested in the fiscal year 1998 budget
ostensibly due to lack of funds. Among those are installation
of cooperative engagement capability on two surface battle
groups, ship self defense upgrades on two amphibious assault
ships, and CIWS surface mode gun upgrades on 8 combatant ships
to protect them against the terrorist patrol boat threat
identified in the early 1990s. The Committee wonders how the
Navy can rationalize no production funds for a system declared
to be ``the most significant technological development since
stealth'', after the system successfully reached initial
operating capability and whose fielding was directed by the
Secretary of Defense to be accelerated. The Navy also proposes
to overhaul the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier without
including $120,000,000 of necessary equipment that directly
contributes to the ability of the ship to perform its mission
and to defend thousands of her sailors against cruise missile
attack, ostensibly due to lack of funds. The Navy also proposes
a multiyear contract for 12 new DDG-51 destroyers which would
be delivered to the fleet as late as 2006 without either
cooperative engagement or theater ballistic missile defense
capability, again ostensibly due to lack of funds.
It is apparent to the Committee that ship self-defense and
theater ballistic missile defense programs were given short
shrift in the Navy's fiscal year 1998 budget due to the
propensity of the Navy to request budget growth in (1) lower
priority programs such as basic research, NATO R&D, studies,
and (2) R&D for new platforms for every Naval community. The
Committee's bill rectifies this misallocation of resources by
providing an increase of $401,800,000 in R&D and procurement
appropriations for ship self-defense and DDG-51 theater
ballistic missile defense related programs, with attendant
reductions to lower priority programs requested by the Navy.
chemical and biological defense programs
The Committee has expressed its concern for several years
about the Department's slow response to organize more
effectively and to provide adequate resources to combat the
growing threat posed by the potential use of chemical and
biological agents--both at home and abroad. The serious nature
of this threat was well stated in the discussion of biological
weapons contained in the 1997 Strategic Assessment report
issued by the National Defense University:
Biological Weapons--the New Weapon of Choice?
Although often treated as less threatening than
nuclear weapons, increased attention is now being given
to the biological threat. Many of the Cold War
assumptions about the strategic and tactical utility of
biological weapons (BW) no longer appear valid. In
fact, given the diffusion of the dual-use technologies
involved, the pursuit of BW is now recognized as a
relatively cheap and easily available path to acquire a
weapon of mass destruction--the poor man's atomic bomb.
* * * It is possible for BW agents to inflict massive
casualties against soft targets such as cities to an
extent that rivals megaton nuclear weapons. Further,
because only small quantities of these highly lethal
agents are needed to achieve significant effects, an
aggressor can choose between multiple delivery modes
and attack options. Moreover, as the number of states
engaged in BW research has grown, the sophistication of
their work has also grown, leading to technical
advances (e.g., microencapsulation to produce more
stable agents for use over longer periods) that may
permit biological agents and toxins to be used in more
controlled fashion to advance military goals.
The threat from chemical weapons, employed by organized
militaries or by terrorist groups is also significant and
growing. According to the same 1997 Strategic Assessment
report:
Chemical weapons are currently possessed by more
states than either biological or nuclear weapons, and
are the only one of the three to be used in the post-
World War II era. * * * some experts tend to minimize
the potential consequences of CW use, arguing that CW
does not merit consideration as a weapon of mass
destruction. In fact, analysis suggests that CW use
against U.S. and allied forces and critical
infrastructure facilities can have a major impact on
the outcome of a major regional conflict.
The danger that a terrorist group could acquire the
capability to launch a CW or BW attack continues to exist.
According to the May 1997 Report to Congress on the Activities
and Programs for Countering Proliferation and NBC Terrorism, by
the multiagency Counterproliferation Program Review Committee:
U.S. Intelligence continues to assess and analyze the
threat of terrorist CW and BW attack, a threat that
remains ever present. The Aum Shinrikyo attacks in June
1994, in Matsumoto, Japan which killed seven and
injured 500, and on the Tokyo subway in March 1995,
which killed 12 and injured 5,500, were the first
instances of large scale terrorist use of CW agents,
but a variety of incidents and reports over the last
two years indicate continuing terrorist interest in
these weapons. * * * The fact that only 12 Japanese
died in the Tokyo subway attack has tended to mask the
significance of the 5,500 people who were treated or
examined at medical facilities. Such a massive influx
of injured--many critically--has the potential to
overwhelm emergency medical facilities, even in a large
metropolitan area.
The Committee realizes that providing an effective
chemical/biological defense program to combat both the military
threat and the domestic terrorist threat is highly challenging.
Effective action requires a multipronged approach that
coordinates disparate activities within the Department and
within other federal, state and local agencies in such areas as
foreign and domestic intelligence; enforcement of
counterproliferation policies and programs; medical research
into vaccines, antidotes, and treatments; development and
deployment of detection, warning and decontamination equipment;
development of individual protection suits and collective
shelters; training of military personnel and of federal, state
and local ``first responders''; and systems to find and destroy
CW and BW delivery systems.
For the last several years, the Committee has added funding
above the budget and mandated special studies to advance this
effort. While progress has been slower than the Committee would
have liked, the Committee is encouraged by the new emphasis
being given to countering the threat of chemical and biological
weapons in the Quadrennial Defense Review. The Secretary of
Defense has committed in the QDR to spending an extra $1
billion over the Future Years Defense Plan for nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons counterproliferation programs
and to task the National Guard with a new mission for chemical/
biological defense in the United States. Just as important as
these initiatives is the stated goal in the QDR of
``institutionalizing counterproliferation as an organizing
principle in every facet of military activity''. This is a key
element of improving our CBW defenses. The Committee is pleased
with the direction outlined in the QDR and will continue to
press the Department to follow through with these commitments.
In addition to fully funding the budget request on high
priority chemical/biological defense programs, the Committee
recommends increasing the budget request by $107,650,000 for
various high priority research and development, procurement,
and study requirements. This includes:
$10,000,000 for procurement of chemical/biological
detection and treatment equipment for the Marine Corps
Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force;
$1,300,000 for training and assistance to ``first
responders'', bring the total recommended in the bill for this
purpose to $50,000,000;
$8,000,000 to develop new biological defense vaccines and
antisera against botulinum toxins;
$10,000,000 to develop advanced technologies for wide area
decontamination and other decontamination priorities;
$12,850,000 to purchase additional JSLIST individual
protection suits and perform related research;
$2,000,000 for research into novel nerve agents leading to
antidotes and pretreatments.
$20,000,000 for various types of special equipment for
decontamination, collective protection, and treatment;
$10,000,000 for detailed planning and concept studies to
support a comprehensive effort to expand the National Guard
mission into the area of chemical/biological domestic defense;
$10,000,000 for high priority equipment needs identified by
the Air Force Pacific Command;
$17,700,000 for Air Force medical research into vaccines
and antidotes; and
$5,800,000 for the SAFEGUARD chemical warfare detection and
monitoring system.
Committee Recommendations By Major Category
active military personnel
The Committee recommends a total of $60,136,801,000 for
active military personnel, a reduction of $158,729,000 below
the budget request. The Committee agrees with the authorized
end strength as requested in the President's budget, and has
also fully funded the proposed pay raise of 2.8 percent. In
keeping with the emphasis on the quality of life initiatives
started in fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends an
increase of approximately $56,000,000 for certain Pays and
Allowances for active personnel, such as the Basic Allowance
for Quarters and Family Separation Allowance.
guard and reserve
The Committee recommends a total of $9,206,393,000, an
increase of $90,161,000 above the budget request for Guard and
Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end
strength as requested in the President's budget for Selected
Reserve, and has also fully funded the proposed pay raise of
2.8 percent. The Committee recommends an increase of
approximately $4,000,000 for Basic Allowance for Quarters for
Reserve personnel. In addition, the Committee restores
$85,000,000 in the Reserve accounts for pay of reservists who
are also Federal civilian employees.
operation and maintenance
The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for
the readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of
facilities and equipment, the infrastructure that supports the
combat forces and the quality of life of Service members and
their families.
The Committee recommends $82,925,753,000, an increase of
$644,813,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget request. As
described elsewhere in this report, this increase is driven
primarily by the need to address shortfalls in: readiness
training, Navy and Air Force flying hours, facility and
infrastructure maintenance and repairs, and equipment
maintenance. The Committee has also recommended budget
reductions that can be taken by the Department as a result of
the Quadrennial Defense Review and in such areas as
headquarters and administrative operating costs and by taking
advantage of fact of life changes since preparation of the
budget request.
procurement
The Committee recommends $45,515,962,000 in new
obligational authority for Procurement, an increase of
$3,930,784,000 over the fiscal year 1998 budget request. Major
programs funded in the bill include:
$309,231,000 for 30 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters
$474,832,000 for upgrades and modifications to Apache
helicopters
$228,287,000 for 1,056 Hellfire missiles
$143,112,000 for 1,080 Javelin missiles
$240,591,000 for Bradley vehicle industrial base
sustainment
$594,856,000 for upgrades to Abrams tanks
$209,446,000 for medium tactical vehicles
$302,164,000 for SINCGARS radios
$2,101,100,000 for 20 F/A-18 E/F fighter aircraft
$661,307,000 for 7 V-22 (Osprey) aircraft
$304,474,000 for 4 E-2C early warning aircraft
$243,960,000 for 12 T-45 trainer aircraft
$1,632,544,000 for the modification of naval aircraft
$181,092,000 for 127 Standard missiles
$2,314,903,000 for 1 new SSN attack submarine
$1,628,403,000 for 1 carrier refueling overhaul
$2,695,367,000 for 3 DDG-51 destroyers
$505,286,000 for B-2 aircraft
$159,000,000 for 3 F-15 fighter aircraft
$1,914,211,000 for 9 C-17 airlift aircraft
$1,464,861,000 for modification of Air Force aircraft
$107,168,000 for 173 AMRAAM missiles
$384,600,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense
research, development, test and evaluation
The Committee recommends $36,704,924,000 in new
obligational authority for Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, an increase of $770,433,000 from the fiscal year
1998 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include
the following:
$324,380,000 for artillery system development
$282,009,000 for the Comanche helicopter
$202,302,000 for the Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition
$930,807,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter
$396,500,000 for the New Attack Submarine
$2,077,234,000 for the F-22 tactical aircraft
$676,690,000 for the MILSTAR communications satellite
$3,289,059,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense
Forces to be Supported
department of the army
The fiscal year 1998 budget is designed to support active
Army forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and
reserve forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15
enhanced National Guard brigades. These forces provide the
minimum force necessary to meet enduring defense needs and
execute the National Military Strategy.
A summary of the major active forces follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions:
Airborne................................. 1 1 1
Air Assault.............................. 1 1 1
Light.................................... 2 2 2
Infantry................................. 0 0 0
Mechanized............................... 4 4 4
Armored.................................. 2 2 2
--------------------------
Total.................................. 10 10 10
--------------------------
Non-divisional Combat units:
Armored cavalry regiments................ 3 3 3
Separate brigades........................ 0 0 0
--------------------------
Total.................................. 3 3 3
--------------------------
Active duty military personnel, end strength
(thousands)................................. 495 495 495
------------------------------------------------------------------------
department of the navy
The fiscal year 1998 budget supports battle forces totaling
346 ships at the end of fiscal year 1998, a decrease from
fiscal year 1997. Forces in fiscal year 1998 include 18
strategic ships, 11 aircraft carriers; 262 other battle force
ships, 324 support ships, reserve force ships, 1,746 Navy/
Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 673 Undergraduate Training
aircraft, 443 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 480 Fleet Air
Training aircraft, 443 Reserve aircraft, 177 RDT&E aircraft and
470 aircraft in the pipeline.
A summary of the major forces follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Forces.................... 17 18 18
-----------------------------------
Submarines...................... 17 18 18
Other........................... 0 0 0
===================================
SLBM Launchers (MIR)................ 408 432 432
===================================
General Purpose..................... 301 297 297
Aircraft Carriers............... 11 11 11
Surface Combatants.............. 116 119 116
Submarines...................... 80 73 66
Amphibious Warfare Ships........ 42 43 41
Combat Logistics Ships.......... 41 40 41
Other........................... 11 11 11
===================================
Support Forces...................... 29 24 24
-----------------------------------
Mobile Logistics Ships.......... 6 4 4
Support Ships................... 23 20 20
===================================
Mobilization Category A............. 18 18 18
-----------------------------------
Aircraft Carriers............... 1 1 1
Surface Combatants.............. 10 10 10
Amphibious Warfare Ships........ 2 2 2
Mine Warfare.................... 5 5 5
===================================
Total Ships, Battle Force..... 365 357 346
===================================
Total Local Defense/Misc.
Forces....................... 159 165 167
-----------------------------------
Auxiliaries/Sealift Forces.......... 135 143 144
Surface Combatant Ships............. 5 3 2
Coastal Defense..................... 13 13 13
Research and Development........ 191 228 ..........
Mobilization Category B............. 3 6 8
Surface Combatants.............. 0 0 0
Mine Warfare Ships.............. 3 6 8
Support Ships................... 0 0 0
===================================
Naval Aircraft:
Primary Authorized (Plus-Pipe).. 4,130 4,072 4,104
-----------------------------------
Authorized Pipeline............. 464 465 470
Tactical/ASW Aircraft........... 1,756 1,730 1,746
Fleet Air Training.............. 474 475 480
Fleet Air Support............... 323 303 292
Training (Undergraduate)........ 654 654 673
Reserve......................... 459 445 443
===================================
Naval Personnel:
Active.......................... 602,000 580,900 564,082
-----------------------------------
Navy.......................... 428,000 406,900 390,082
Marine Corps.................. 174,000 174,000 174,000
===================================
Reserve:
Navy............................ 96,608 95,941 94,294
-----------------------------------
SELRES........................ 80,920 79,285 78,158
Sea/Air Mariners.............. 198 150 ..........
TARS.......................... 17,490 16,506 16,506
------------------------------------------------------------------------
department of the air force
The fiscal year 1998 Air Force budget was designed to
support a total active inventory force structure of 51 fighter
and attack squadrons, 10 Air National Guard air defense
interceptor squadrons and 9 bomber squadrons, including B-2s,
B-52s, and B-1s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will
consist of 700 active launchers.
A summary of the major forces follows:
FISCAL YEAR 1998 MAJOR FORCES
[Includes only Combat Coded Squadrons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF fighter and attack (Active)....... 51 52 51
USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC). 36 36 36
Air defense interceptor (ANG).......... 10 10 10
Strategic bomber (Active).............. 8 9 9
Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC)........ 3 3 3
ICBM launchers/silos................... 700 700 700
ICBM missile boosters.................. 580 580 580
USAF airlift squadrons (Active):
Strategic airlift.................. 15 13 13
Tactical airlift................... 11 11 9
--------------------------------
Total airlift.................... 26 24 22
--------------------------------
Total Active Inventory \1\....... 6,369 6,337 6,242
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Primary, Backup, and Attrition Reserve Aircraft for all
Purpose Identifiers for Active, Air National Guard, and Air Force
Reserve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strength 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Duty................................... 381,087 371,577
Reserve Component............................. 182,489 180,786
Air National Guard............................ 109,178 107,355
Air Force Reserve............................. 73,311 73,431
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Interest Items
Items for which funds have specifically been provided in
any appropriation in this report using the phrases ``only for''
or ``only to'' are congressional interest items for the purpose
of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these
items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount,
or a revised amount if changed during conference action on this
bill, unless the item is denied in conference or if otherwise
specifically addressed in the conference report.
Government Performance and Results Act
The Committee considers the full and effective
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act,
P.L. 103-62, to be a priority for all agencies of government.
Starting with fiscal year 1999, the Results Act requires
each agency to ``prepare an annual performance plan covering
each program activity set forth in the budget of such agency''.
Specifically, for each program activity the agency is required
to ``establish performance goals to define the level of
performance to be achieved by a program activity'' and
``performance indicators to be used in assessing the relevant
outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program
activity''.
The Committee takes this requirement of the Results Act
very seriously and plans to carefully examine agency
performance goals and measures during the appropriations
process. As a result, starting with the fiscal year 1999
appropriations cycle, the Committee will consider agencies
progress in articulating clear, definitive, and results-
oriented (outcome) goals and measures as it reviews requests
for appropriations.
The Committee suggests agencies examine their program
activities in light of their strategic goals to determine
whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more
accurate and informed presentation of budgetary information.
Agencies are encouraged to consult with the Committee as they
consider such revisions prior to finalizing any requests
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will consider any
requests with a view toward ensuring that fiscal year 1999 and
subsequent budget submissions display amounts requested against
program activity structures for which annual performance goals
and measures have been established.
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations
The President's budget request reflects a continuation in
the drawdown of military personnel and force structure. The
budget proposes a decrease of 21,000 active duty personnel, and
10,000 Reserve and Guard personnel from fiscal year 1997
levels. The Department's reductions in active end strength is
about 98.8 percent complete at the end of fiscal year 1998. The
Committee recommends to fully fund the proposed 2.8 percent pay
increase, and includes an increase of approximately $60,000,000
over the budget request for Basic Allowance for Quarters and
Family Separation Allowance.
SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
Fiscal year 1997..................................... $70,016,500,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request...................... 69,411,762,000
Fiscal year 1998 recommendation...................... 69,343,194,000
Change from budget request........................... -68,568,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$69,343,194,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The
recommendation is a decrease of $673,306,000 below the
$70,016,500,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1997. These
military personnel budget total comparisons include
appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard
accounts. The following tables include a summary of the
recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of
changes from the budget request appear later in this section.
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION
[In thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Budget Recommendation Change from budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Army............................................ $20,492,257 $20,445,381 -$46,876
Navy............................................ 16,501,118 16,504,911 +3,793
Marine Corps.................................... 6,147,599 6,141,635 -5,964
Air Force....................................... 17,154,556 17,044,874 -109,682
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Active.............................. 60,295,530 60,136,801 -158,729
Reserve Personnel:
Army............................................ 2,024,446 2,045,615 +21,169
Navy............................................ 1,375,401 1,377,249 +1,848
Marine Corps.................................... 381,070 391,953 +10,883
Air Force....................................... 814,936 814,772 -164
National Guard Personnel:
Army............................................ 3,200,667 3,245,387 +44,720
Air Force....................................... 1,319,712 1,331,417 +11,705
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Guard and Reserve................... 9,116,232 9,206,223 +90,161
===========================================================
Total, Title I................................ 69,411,762 69,343,194 -68,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 1998 budget request included a decrease of
20,721 end strength for the active forces and a decrease of
10,781 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year
1997 authorized levels.
The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted
in the tables below.
Overall Active End Strength
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................. 1,452,100
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,431,379
Fiscal year 1998 House authorization.................. 1,445,000
Fiscal year 1998 recommendation....................... 1,431,379
Compared with Fiscal year 1997.................... -20,721
Compared with Fiscal year 1998 budget request..... ................
Overall Selected Reserve End Strength
Fiscal year 1997 estimate............................. 902,399
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 891,618
Fiscal year 1998 House authorization.................. 891,618
Fiscal year 1998 recommendation....................... 891,685
Compared with Fiscal year 1997.................... -10,781
Compared with Fiscal year 1998 budget request..... +67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998
Fiscal year ----------------------------------------------------------
1997 Budget House Change from
estimate request authorization Recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):
Army............................... 495,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 ............
Navy............................... 402,013 390,802 395,000 390,802 ............
Marine Corps....................... 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 ............
Air Force.......................... 381,087 371,577 381,000 371,577 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Active Force.............. 1,452,100 1,431,379 1,445,000 1,431,379 ............
========================================================================
Guard and Reserve (end strength):
Army Reserve....................... 215,254 208,000 208,000 208,000 ............
Navy Reserve....................... 95,898 94,294 94,294 94,326 +32
Marine Corps Reserve............... 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 ............
Air Force Reserve.................. 73,311 73,431 73,431 73,466 +35
Army National Guard................ 366,758 366,516 366,516 366,516 ............
Air National Guard................. 109,178 107,377 107,377 107,377 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Guard and Reserve......... 902,399 891,618 891,618 891,685 +67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustments to Military Personnel Account
overview
special pays and allowances
The Committee recommends a total increase of $35,000,000
for Basic Allowance for Quarters, a housing allowance, to help
offset the ``out-of-pocket'' costs to service members when they
change duty stations, and for living in high-cost geographical
areas. In addition, the Committee recommends an increase of
$25,000,000 for Family Separation Allowances, an allowance paid
to members on temporary duty (TDY) status. The House-passed
Defense Authorization bill approved an increase in the monthly
rate of this allowance from $75 to $100 per month.
end strength adjustments
The Committee agrees with the fiscal year 1998 budget
request on active and Reserve end strength levels, a reduction
of approximately 31,000 over fiscal year 1997 authorized
personnel levels. In addition, based on the latest end strength
levels provided by the Department, the Services, primarily the
Army and Navy, will begin fiscal year 1998 with approximately
12,000 fewer military personnel on-board than budgeted, which
means the 1998 pay and allowances requirements are overstated.
Therefore, the Committee recommends an understrength reduction
of $214,700,000 to the budget request.
temporary early retirement authority
The Committee recommends a total reduction of $184,738,000
to the Army and Air Force budget requests as a result of the
suspension of the 15-year Temporary Early Retirement Authority
during fiscal year 1998, as proposed in the House-passed
Defense Authorization bill.
foreign currency
The President recently submitted a fiscal year 1998 budget
amendment, which reduced the active duty military personnel
accounts by a total of $62,000,000 for foreign currency
savings. This amendment to the budget was proposed in order to
cover a shortfall in the Defense Health Program. The Committee
agrees there are more savings due to favorable fluctuations in
overseas exchange rates and recommends a total reduction of
$68,000,000 for foreign currency, an additional reduction of
$6,000,000 to the Services' personnel accounts.
contingency operations funding
The budget request recommends $213,600,000 for pay and
allowances of military personnel in the ``Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund'', for cost of operations in Bosnia
during fiscal year 1998. The Committee does not agree to the
realignment of these funds, and has increased the Services
military personnel accounts by this amount.
military personnel compensation
The House-passed Defense Authorization bill has included
numerous recommendations that would affect military personnel
compensation and benefits for fiscal year 1998. The Committee
supports the intent of the House National Security Committee's
recommendations which raises rates for current allowances;
however Committee's practice has been not to appropriate funds
for pending changes to entitlements. Implementation of these
changes is usually left to the discretion of the Department,
and the precise costs during the initial year of implementation
are not known as a result. The Committee will entertain a
prior-approval reprogramming action if the Department decides
to implement any recommendations which are enacted into law.
personal financial management training
The Committee believes that an increasing number of young
men and women joining the Services have inadequate knowledge
and understanding of the skills required for personal financial
management and fiscal responsibility. Many recruits lack the
basic skills required for checkbook or credit card management
resulting in growing levels of bankruptcy and indebtedness.
This lack of knowledge can have a significant impact on the
readiness of the force when individuals leave the military or
suffer family troubles due to financial problems. The Committee
believes that the Department should develop and implement a
standardized course curriculum for all new officers and
enlisted personnel in all Services covering the basic skills of
personal financial management. The Committee directs the
Department to report by December 15, 1997 on actions taken to
correct this problem.
``aim high'' program
The ``Aim High'' program in eastern Washington state
promotes citizenship and scholarship while reducing drug use
among youths through interaction with military facilities. The
Committee believes that the military services can provide an
excellent model of self-discipline and responsibility for
students, and opportunities to visit military installations can
be an effective recruiting tool, as well as a powerful
incentive for students to refrain from illegal drug use. The
Committee urges the Department to continue to support similar
initiatives within the constraints of available resources.
full-time support strengths
There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard
and Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and
Reserve (AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component
personnel.
Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train,
maintain and administer the Reserve components. Civilian
(Military) technicians directly support units, and are very
important to help units maintain readiness and meet the wartime
mission of the Army and Air Force.
Full-time support end strength in all categories totalled
152,950 in fiscal year 1997. The fiscal year 1998 budget
request is 150,484. The following table summarizes Guard and
Reserve full-time support end strengths:
GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1997 Budget House Change from
estimate request authorization Recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:
AGR................................... 11,804 11,500 11,500 11,500 ...........
Technicians........................... 6,799 6,501 6,799 6,501 ...........
Navy Reserve TAR.......................... 16,626 16,136 16,136 16,168 +32
Marine Corps Reserve...................... 2,559 2,559 2,559 2,559 ...........
Air Force Reserve:
AGR................................... 655 963 748 963 ...........
Technicians........................... 9,802 9,622 9,802 9,638 +16
Army National Guard:
AGR................................... 22,798 22,310 22,310 22,310 ...........
Technicians........................... 25,500 25,250 25,384 25,250 ...........
Air National Guard:
AGR................................... 10,403 10,616 10,616 10,616 ...........
Technicians........................... 23,274 22,968 23,247 22,968 ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
AGR/TAR............................... 64,845 64,084 63,869 64,116 +32
Technicians........................... 65,375 64,341 65,232 64,357 +16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY LEAVE FOR RESERVISTS
The budget request recommended a reduction to the Reserve
personnel accounts pursuant to a legislative proposal placing a
limitation on military basic pay of Federal civilian employees
who are Reservists. The House-passed Defense Authorization bill
did not contain this proposal, and therefore, the Committee
recommends restoring $85,000,000 to the Reserve personnel
accounts to fully fund their basic pay.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation...................... $20,633,998,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request..................... 20,492,257,000
Committee recommendation............................ 20,445,381,000
Change from budget request.......................... -46,876,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$20,445,381,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The
recommendation is a decrease of $188,617,000 below the
$20,633,998,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The
adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as
follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +10,326
Foreign Currency Savings.............................. -4,000
Temporary Early Retirement Authority.................. -36,902
Service Academies Foreign Students.................... -1,000
Personnel Understrength Savings....................... -183,100
Family Separation Allowance........................... +9,600
Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia............... +158,200
-----------------
Total........................................... -46,876
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation...................... $16,986,976,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request..................... 16,501,118,000
Committee recommendation............................ 16,504,911,000
Change from budget request.......................... +3,793,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$16,504,911,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The
recommendation is a decrease of $482,065,000 below the
$16,986,976,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The
adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as
follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +9,393
Foreign Currency Savings.............................. -1,000
Service Academies Foreign Students.................... -1,000
Personnel Understrength Savings....................... -10,000
Unemployment Compensation Savings..................... -10,000
Family Separation Allowance........................... +9,300
Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia............... +7,100
-----------------
Total........................................... +3,793
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation...................... $6,111,728,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request..................... 6,147,599,000
Committee recommendation............................ 6,141,635,000
Change from budget request.......................... -5,964,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,141,635,000
for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an
increase of $29,907,000 above the $6,111,728,000 appropriated
for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998
budget request are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +2,736
Personnel Understrength Savings....................... -3,600
Unemployment Compensation Savings..................... -10,000
Family Separation Allowance........................... +3,600
Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia............... +1,300
-----------------
Total........................................... -5,964
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation...................... $17,069,490,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request..................... 17,154,556,000
Committee recommendation............................ 17,044,874,000
Change from budget request.......................... -109,682,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$17,044,874,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The
recommendation is a decrease of $24,616,000 below the
$17,069,490,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The
adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget request are as
follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +8,654
Foreign Currency Savings.............................. -1,000
Temporary Early Retirement Authority.................. -147,836
Service Academies Foreign Students.................... -1,000
Personnel Understrength Savings....................... -18,000
Family Separation Allowance........................... +2,500
Contingency Operations Transfer--Bosnia............... +47,000
-----------------
Total........................................... -109,682
RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $2,073,479,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,024,446,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,045,615,000
Change from budget request............................ +21,169,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,045,615,000
for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease
of $27,864,000 below the $2,073,479,000 appropriated for fiscal
year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget
request are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Unit Readiness/Training............................... +8,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +569
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +20,400
Health Scholarship Stipend............................ -7,800
-----------------
Total........................................... +21,169
RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,405,606,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,375,401,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,377,249,000
Change from budget request............................ +1,848,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,377,249,000
for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease
of $28,357,000 below the $1,405,606,000 appropriated for fiscal
year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 budget
request are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +648
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +8,500
Magic Lantern Aircraft................................ +1,700
Health Scholarship Stipend............................ -9,000
-----------------
Total........................................... +1,848
magic lantern
The Committee recommends an increase of $1,700,000 over the
request in ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', and $1,300,000 in
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' to provide additional
personnel, and operational and training costs in support of the
Magic Lantern airborne mine detection system.
NAVY RESERVE FORCES
The Committee is very concerned about possible Navy Program
Review 99 (PR-99) recommendations that would make major
reductions in Navy Reserve hardware and combat/warfare
missions. The Committee would find such recommendations
unacceptable and continues to believe the Navy Reserve and
other Reserve components should remain a viable component of
the Total Force. The Navy Reserve and other Reserve components
are able to retain force structure and equipment at lower cost
than their active counterparts. The Navy Reserve consumes only
three percent of the ``total Navy's'' budget, yet comprises
nearly 20 percent of the force structure. Elimination of or
serious reductions in the remaining Navy Reserve Air Wing, or
the reliance on ``augment'' crews with no hardware for Navy
Reserve Air Wing, or the reliance on ``augment'' crews with no
hardware for Navy Reserve P-3 squadrons, would result in
detrimental problems for active and reserve Navy forces,
seriously increase active PERSTEMPO, and result in the loss of
an experienced cadre of Reserve personnel. Reductions in the
Navy Reserve surface fleet, or denying new surface fleet
missions to the Navy Reserve, would adversely impact active
fleet manning and surface warfare capabilities.
The Committee is aware that the Navy Reserve continues to
right-size its forces in lean budget years, and urges the
Secretary of the Navy not to further reduce Navy Reserve
forces. The Navy Reserve has already downsized more and faster
than any active or Reserve component, having reduced force
structure well over 30 percent since 1990. The Committee
strongly supports the current Navy Reserve missions, and fully
expects the Secretary of the Navy to consult with Congress
prior to any final recommendations that may further reduce Navy
Reserve forces.
RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $388,643,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 381,070,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 391,953,000
Change from budget request............................ +10,883,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $391,953,000
for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an
increase of $3,310,000 above the $388,643,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998
budget request are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Annual Training/School Tours.......................... +7,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +183
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +3,700
-----------------
Total........................................... +10,883
RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $783,697,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 814,936,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 814,772,000
Change from budget request............................ -164,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $814,772,000
for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an
increase of $31,075,000 above the $783,697,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998
budget request are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +266
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +8,200
Health Scholarship Stipend............................ -8,800
WC-130 Weather Reconn................................. +170
-----------------
Total........................................... -164
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $3,266,393,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 3,200,667,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 3,245,387,000
Change from budget request............................ +44,720,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,245,387,000
for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a
decrease of $21,006,000 below the $3,266,393,000 appropriated
for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1998
budget request are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
School/Special Training............................... +10,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +1,520
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +33,200
-----------------
Total........................................... +44,720
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,296,490,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,319,712,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,331,417,000
Change from budget request............................ +11,705,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,331,417,000
for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is
an increase of $34,927,000 above the $1,296,490,000
appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The adjustments to the
fiscal year 1998 budget request are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Basic Allowance for Quarters.......................... +705
Reserve Duty Drill Pay................................ +11,000
-----------------
Total........................................... +11,705
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The fiscal year 1998 budget request for Operation and
maintenance is $82,280,940,000 in new budget authority, which
is an increase of $3,117,718,000 above the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 1997. The request also includes a $150,000,000
cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction
Fund.
The accompanying bill recommends $82,925,753,000 for fiscal
year 1998, which is an increase of $644,813,000 from the budget
request. In addition, the Committee recommends that
$150,000,000 be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund.
These appropriations finance the costs of operating and
maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components
and related support activities of the Department of Defense
(DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for
civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and
facilities, fuel, supplies and spare parts for weapons and
equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many
factors, including force levels such as the number of aircraft
squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations,
military personnel strength and deployments, rates of
operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of
equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in
operation.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW
While the Department has provided robust funding in the
Operation and maintenance accounts to maintain the combat
readiness of U.S. forces, the Committee notes that there are
critical funding shortfalls in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request. Further, the Committee is concerned that these
shortfalls may pose a serious near term risk to the
capabilities of U.S. forces. These shortfalls are evident in a
number of functions financed by the Operation and maintenance
accounts including readiness related training, operating tempo
programs, weapons system maintenance, and real property
maintenance. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee
recommends increased funding over the budget request in a
number of areas including: Navy and Air Force flying hours,
depot maintenance, real property maintenance, training
rotations, force protection, and inclement weather gear and
other initial issue equipment.
The Committee also notes that there are areas in the
Operation and maintenance accounts where substantial savings
are achievable. Given the widely recognized need to modernize
the equipment available to U.S. forces by increasing funding in
the procurement, and research and development accounts, the
Committee believes it is imperative that the Department use its
Operation and maintenance funding as efficiently as possible.
Therefore, the Committee recommends certain reductions based on
recent DoD policy changes, particularly those emphasized in the
Quadrennial Defense Review, and fact of life changes that have
occurred since preparation of the budget request.
The table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:
real property maintenance
The Committee has continuing concerns about the state of
the facilities in DoD, and the effect that such facilities have
on the quality of life of U.S. service personnel. The overview
of the DoD Operation and maintenance accounts indicates that in
fiscal year 1998, the backlog of real property maintenance and
minor construction will total over $16,000,000,000. The
overview also shows the backlog growing by over $1,600,000,000
from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. In order to arrest the growth in
the backlog of RPM and address the shortfalls identified by the
Services and the Reserve components, the Committee recommends
an increase over the budget request of $924,840,000. Of this
amount, the Committee directs that the Department obligate not
less than $360,000,000 for the maintenance and repair of
barracks, dormitories, and related facilities.
flying hour shortfall
In the letter transmitting the Quadrennial Defense Review,
the Secretary of Defense highlighted a significant shortfall in
the budget request associated with Navy and Air Force flying
hours. The Committee understands that this shortfall stems
primarily from significantly higher than anticipated failure
rates for a number of critical parts. To ensure that an
adequate supply of parts is available to support the
operational and readiness training requirements of the Navy and
Air Force, the Committee recommends an increase over the budget
request totaling $622,000,000. The Committee also directs that
the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force
each provide a report to the congressional defense committees
not later that December 1, 1997. In addition to providing the
data provided pursuant to the issues raised in the report
accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill,
this report should identify the specific causes of this
shortfall, the method used to estimate the cost of flying
hours, the measures that will be taken to correct this
situation in the fiscal year 1999 budget request and over the
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), and any proposed measures
that may be needed to improve the models used to estimate spare
and repair parts usage and flying hour costs.
readiness training
The budget request for readiness related training in both
the Army and the Marine Corps has significant shortfalls
addressed by the Committee's recommendations. The Army budget
request calls for units that are scheduled to conduct rotations
at the National Training Center (NTC) to absorb the cost of
such rotations. In the Committee's view this is a significant
policy change that has the effect of reducing funding to
maintain the readiness of the Army's combat units. To address
this situation as well as shortfalls identified by the Marine
Corps, the Committee recommends an increase totaling
$99,013,000 above the budget request. In addition, the
Committee directs that the Army fully fund rotations to the NTC
in the fiscal year 1999 and subsequent years budget requests.
DEPOT MAINTENANCE
The Committee continues to have concerns about DoD
practices for the funding of depot maintenance. For example, in
the fiscal year 1998 budget request, the financial backlog of
depot maintenance totals nearly $1,500,000,000, and grows by
$180,000,000 from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. Further, the
Services continue to routinely fund significantly less than the
minimum amounts needed to meet depot maintenance requirements;
for example, the Army budget request for fiscal year 1998 funds
only 58 percent of required depot maintenance. To address these
shortfalls, the Committee recommends an increase of
$473,300,000 above the budget request.
QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW REDUCTIONS
The Committee notes that the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) proposes reducing the civilian workforce by 80,000
personnel from fiscal year 1998 through 2003. The Committee
also recognizes that, due to the timing of the completion and
release of this study, the Department did not have an
opportunity to incorporate the results into the fiscal year
1998 budget request. The Committee commends the Department for
embarking on a serious effort to reduce the size of the DoD
support infrastructure and accordingly recommends a net
reduction of $307,273,000 from the budget request for the
Services and Defense-Wide activities in anticipation of several
QDR-related savings initiatives described in detail in
subsequent portions of this report. The Committee also
recommends a restructuring reserve, discussed elsewhere in this
report, to ease the burden of reducing the size of the civilian
workforce.
HEADQUARTERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
In addition to the QDR initiatives discussed elsewhere in
this report, the Committee notes that the Department of Defense
continues to maintain an excessive administrative and
headquarters infrastructure. Based on fiscal year 1998 budget
justification materials, the Department reports that it
maintains a headquarters and administrative staff totaling over
42,000 personnel and costing nearly $3 billion per year. The
Committee also observes that the number of personnel assigned
to administrative and headquarters activities is relatively
constant compared to the overall 3.5 percent reduction proposed
for DoD civilian personnel from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. To
equalize the rate of reduction in the headquarters and
administrative activities as compared to other activities in
the Department, the Committee recommends a reduction of
$149,443,000 from the budget request.
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS
The Committee observes significant growth in the industrial
preparedness subactivity in the Operation and maintenance
accounts of the Army, Navy and Air Force. Based on the
recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review to
significantly reduce the infrastructure maintained by the
Department of Defense, the growth in these subactivities
appears to be out of step with the DoD strategy. Therefore, the
Committee recommends a reduction of $52,602,000 from the budget
request.
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FUNDING
The Committee notes the Department's decision to exclude
operations in Southwest Asia from the ``Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund''. The Department realigned funding
for these operations on the grounds that they have become part
of the recurring base of DoD activity. While the Committee
recognizes that U.S. operations in Southwest Asia do not have a
definitive end date, the Committee believes that separately
identifying the cost of such operations provides valuable
insight into the amount budgeted to meet U.S. commitments.
Therefore, the Committee has realigned the Operation and
maintenance budget authority requested to support Southwest
Asia, and placed these funds in the ``Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund''. The Committee directs that DoD
budget for all future operations costs for Southwest Asia, and
all other contingency operations in the ``Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund''. Further, the Committee directs that
in all future budget requests, DoD shall support the request
for all contingency operations by detailing the amount required
in each appropriation account for each operation within each
theater of operations. In addition, the Committee directs that
in all future supplemental requests the Department provide
detailed data on the incremental funding required for each
appropriation account for each operation within each theater of
operations.
reprogramming in operation and maintenance accounts
The Committee supports the concerns on the reprogramming of
Operation and maintenance funds as expressed in the report
accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for
fiscal year 1998 (House Report 105-132). In particular, the
Committee is concerned by the mounting volume of audit
materials prepared by the General Accounting Office and other
audit organizations which highlights the annual migration of
Operation and maintenance funds from those budget activities
and subactivities that have the most direct relationship to the
readiness of U.S. forces to other accounts that are required to
fund the support infrastructure. The Committee is also
disturbed by the Department's inability to provide prior
notification to the Committee, as required by the House report
accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1997 (House Report 104-208), on the movement of
funds from the readiness related activity and subactivity
groups. Therefore, the Committee supports the provision
included in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for
fiscal year 1998 requiring DoD to follow customary
reprogramming procedures for all Operation and maintenance
subactivity groups, and directs that the Department comply with
this provision.
reporting on the execution of real property maintenance funding
The Committee reiterates the recommendations contained in
the report accompanying the Military Construction
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 on the need to develop
better information on DoD expenditures for major real property
maintenance, and the relationship of these expenditures to
major military construction projects. Therefore, the Committee
directs that the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller)
provide a report to the Committee not later than April 30,
1998, detailing all proposed major RPM projects expected to
exceed $10,000,000 to complete.
budget justification and execution data
The Committee continues to require detailed data in support
of the Department's proposed Operation and maintenance budget
such as the O-1 presentation of the Operation and maintenance
budget, including the revisions to Budget Activity 1, Operating
Forces, as reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for
the Army. However, the Committee also agrees with the
observations of the House National Security Committee in the
report accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill
that there are certain inconsistencies that should be remedied
in upcoming budget submissions. In addition, the Committee
directs the Department to continue the submission of O-1 budget
execution data for each O-1 subactivity group. The Department
shall provide such data to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 60 days of the end of each quarter of the
fiscal year.
purchases of foreign made goods
The Committee has become aware of an apparent increase in
the amount of foreign made goods acquired by the Department of
Defense through small purchase procedures at bases throughout
the U.S. Because the Department does not have in place a system
to track such small purchases, the Committee directs the DoD
Inspector General to conduct random audits of small-purchases
at U.S. military bases to determine how often foreign made
products are acquired through the use of small-purchase, local
purchase, or micro-purchase procedures. The DoD Inspector
General should report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations with its findings not later than April 30, 1998.
environmentally safe fuel storage tanks
The Committee is aware of the continuing problem of
underground fuel storage tank leakage. Therefore, the Committee
recommends that the Department of Defense proceed with the
program for above-ground, environmentally-safe fuel storage
tanks as described in the recommendations of the report
accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for
fiscal year 1998, and directs that $2,000,000 be made available
for this purpose within funds available for both the Marine
Corps and the Air Force.
federal fire fighter pay
The Committee is disturbed about the continuing lack of
progress to resolve the question of pay inequities between the
fire fighters employed by the federal government and their
counterparts employed by states and localities. The large
majority of the approximately 10,000 full-time federal fire
fighters work for the Department of Defense protecting military
installations. According to information supplied to the
Committee, a typical municipal fire fighter earns 89 percent
more per hour than a comparable federal fire fighter. The
Committee understands that the Office of Personnel Management
has undertaken staff studies of this issue substantiating the
claim that there are inequities in the pay calculation and
supporting the proposition that pay adjustments are warranted.
Proposals to rectify this situation have not moved forward due,
in part, to past opposition from the Department of Defense. The
Committee believes these inequities hinder the federal
government's ability to recruit and retain qualified fire
fighters putting the safety of our service members and billions
of dollars of investment at risk. The Department is directed to
reevaluate its position on this issue with the primary goal of
ensuring pay equity for these employees and preserving a high
quality fire fighting force. The Department shall report to
Congress no later than December 31, 1997 on the results of this
evaluation which shall include recommended legislation to
correct this situation.
recruiting and advertising
The Committee recognizes that the military's recruiting
mission is becoming increasingly difficult and recommends an
increase of $22,900,000 over the budget request to support the
Department's efforts in recruiting and advertising.
classified programs
Adjustments to classified operation and maintenance
programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this
report.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $17,519,340,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 17,049,484,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 17,078,218,000
Change from budget request............................ 28,734,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$17,078,218,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army. The
recommendation is a decrease of $441,122,000 below the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
low rate initial production (lrip) for abrams xxi
The Committee supports the action taken by the House
National Security Committee on this program in its
recommendations for the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization
bill. The Committee urges the Department to consider a plan for
the refurbishment of M1A1 tanks under the Department of the
Army's Abrams Integrated Management XXI (AIM XXI) program if
the Secretary of Defense determines that the program is cost
effective. In addition, if this program is successfully
validated, the Committee expects the Army to include adequate
funding in the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
depot maintenance
The Committee recommends increasing Army depot maintenance
funding by $169,700,000 above the budget request. The Committee
remains concerned about backlogs in the repair and maintenance
of communications and electronic equipment. Accordingly,
$53,000,000 of the total depot maintenance increase is
allocated to the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command
Battlefield Communications Review program, for performance at
Army depots, of the following workloads: $25,000,000 for
repair/maintenance of Mobile Subscriber Equipment shelters,
prime movers, and accessories or support equipment; $20,000,000
for the repair/maintenance of Non-Integrated Communications
Secure and Integrated Communications Secure SINCGARS radios and
accessories or support equipment; and $8,000,000 for the
repair, maintenance or modification of the AN/TS-85 and AN/TSC-
93 Tactical Satellite Communications Terminals, associated
antenna systems, accessories or support equipment.
national training center rotations
As expressed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is
troubled by the reduced level of funding requested by the Army
in fiscal year 1998 for rotations at the National Training
Center (NTC). In addition, the Committee is concerned that the
Army's decision to reduce the number of annual troop rotations
at the National Training Center from 12 to 10 could adversely
affect readiness. The Committee will be closely monitoring this
change for any adverse effects on the readiness of Army units.
army logistics automation
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
high risk automation systems
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Army are shown below:
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
250 Readiness Training--NTC Rotation Shortfall............ 60,213
250 Parachute Maintenance and Repair...................... 2,000
250 Flying Hour Efficiencies.............................. -17,000
650 Depot Maintenance--Other.............................. 111,000
650 Depot Maintenance--Communications and Electronics..... 53,000
650 Depot Maintenance--Aviation Depot Maintenance Plan
Equipment............................................... 5,700
750 Organizational Clothing and Equipment (Increment I)... 20,000
750 Range Safe System..................................... 2,700
750 Ft. Irwin, George AFB Airhead......................... 1,300
950 Fort Gordon Center for Total Access (Telemedicine).... 5,400
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
1300 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth.............. -19,004
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
1500 Service Academies--Foreign Students.................. -1,400
2200 Recruiting and Advertising........................... 7,000
2350 Civilian Education and Training...................... -2,852
2400 Indian University Northwest JROTC Mentoring Program.. 750
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
2850 Central Logistics--SSTS, Depot Maintenance, SDT...... 22,000
2850 Army Logistics Automation............................ 11,200
3000 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction... -48,001
3200 Eisenhower Center.................................... 2,000
3350 Laser Leveling....................................... 1,500
3350 FEMP................................................. -45,000
Other Adjustments:
3710 Classified Undistributed............................. -6,895
3715 Civilian Personnel Understrength..................... -33,300
3730 Foreign Currency Fluctuation......................... -19,000
3770 High Risk Automation Systems......................... -25,000
3785 Real Property Maintenance............................ 232,000
3790 TDY Expenses......................................... -19,930
3795 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions................... -140,347
3800 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia...... -80,300
3815 Non-BRAC Caretaker Status............................ -51,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $20,061,961,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 21,508,130,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 21,779,365,000
Change from budget request............................ 271,235,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$21,779,365,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy. The
recommendation is an increase of $1,717,404,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
cnet distance learning
The Committee directs that the Chief of Naval Education and
Training (CNET), as the Navy's organization responsible for
training technology, continue efforts that will lead to
maximizing returns on technology investment in distance
learning and computer mediated learning. This would include
developing more efficient use of the Internet for training
requirements, developing models for appropriate applications of
training technologies and developing models to assess
leadership training effectiveness. The Committee recommends
adding $2,000,000 above the budget request for this effort.
national oceanography partnership act
The Committee encourages DoD efforts to implement the goals
of the National Oceanography Act by addressing the backlog of
military hydrographic survey requirements. Accordingly, the
Committee directs that within available funds, the Navy apply
$7,500,000 for additional ship-years as directed by the House
report accompanying the House-passed Defense Authorization bill
for fiscal year 1998.
software program managers network
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
high risk automation systems
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
asbestos eradication
The Committee is concerned about the environmental
challenge associated with the disposal of large volumes of
asbestos from the Navy's surface fleet and submarine
inactivation programs. The Committee is aware of an asbestos
disposal process that offers great potential for solving this
current problem, a mineral conversion process that changes the
asbestos to a stable non-hazardous mineral. This thermochemical
conversion process has been tested on a variety of asbestos-
containing materials from actual abatement sites with great
success. A commercially viable transportable production system,
capable of processing substantial amounts of asbestos per day
has been demonstrated with the Department of Energy and
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Accordingly,
the Committee provides $2,000,000 only for the development of
an asbestos thermochemical conversion pilot plant, to be used
in conjunction with the ongoing submarine inactivation program
at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
electrotechnologies
The Committee recommends an increase of $5,500,000 in
Environmental Compliance only for evaluating and demonstrating
electrotechnologies and other environmental technologies at
Naval Station Mayport as the East Coast demonstration base for
the Navy Environmental Leadership Program.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Navy are shown below:
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
4400 Flying Hour Program Shortfalls....................... 322,000
4600 Depot Maintenance--Aviation Backlog.................. 149,000
5000 Depot Maintenance--Unfunded Ship Availabilities...... 75,000
5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators--Refurbishment.......... 500
5950 Gun Weapon Overhaul and Support, Louisville.......... 15,900
5950 Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Equipment--Wallops
Island.................................................. 6,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
6650 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth.............. -28,493
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
6900 Service Academies--Foreign Students.................. -1,400
7100 Bancroft Hall Renovation Program..................... -31,500
7300 Naval Postgraduate School--Laboratory Improvements... 2,000
7300 Professional Development Education--Nominal Growth... -5,973
7350 CNET--Distance Learning.............................. 2,000
7550 Recruiting and Advertising........................... 7,000
7650 Civilian Education and Training...................... -1,022
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
8000 Defense Computer Investigations Training Program/
Computer Forensics Lab.................................. 8,500
8000 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction... -47,580
8300 FEMP................................................. -25,000
8600 ATIS................................................. 4,000
Other Adjustments:
9360 Classified Undistributed............................. 1,902
9365 Software Program Managers Network.................... 6,000
9365 High Risk Automation Systems......................... -25,000
9390 Civilian Personnel Understrength..................... -108,300
9415 Electrotechnologies.................................. 5,500
9420 Other Contracts--Program Growth...................... -29,719
9425 Real Property Maintenance............................ 98,540
9430 TDY Expenses......................................... -12,060
9435 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions................... -34,960
9440 Asbestos Eradication................................. 2,000
9445 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia...... -84,900
9450 Magic Lantern........................................ 1,300
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $2,254,119,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,301,345,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,598,032,000
Change from budget request............................ 296,687,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,598,032,000
for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation
is an increase of $343,913,000 above the amount appropriated
for fiscal year 1997.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
10050 Readiness Training--Operating Forces Training
Support................................................. 38,800
10050 Initial Issue (Clothing/Body Armor/Bivouac gear).... 20,700
10150 Depot Maintenance Backlog Reduction................. 25,000
10200 Personnel Support Equipment......................... 25,400
10200 Base Support........................................ 10,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
10700 Base Support........................................ 10,000
11050 Base Support........................................ 10,000
11200 Recruiting and Advertising.......................... 4,400
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
11800 Base Support........................................ 10,000
11800 FEMP................................................ -10,000
Other Adjustments:
11935 Real Property Maintenance........................... 154,100
11940 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions.................. -1,713
Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks............. (2,000)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $17,263,193,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 18,817,785,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 18,740,167,000
Change from budget request............................ -77,618,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$18,740,167,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force. The
recommendation is an increase of $1,476,974,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
INSTRUMENT ROUTES 102 AND 141
The Committee recognizes the need for Air Force low
altitude training and strongly supports this requirement. The
Committee urges the Air Force to give every consideration to
public comments and community concerns in the impacted areas
when utilizing Instrument Routes 102 and 141 for such training.
The Air Force should report to the congressional defense
committees by March 31, 1998 on possible alternative routes.
air force manufacturing technology assistance pilot program
The Air Force Manufacturing Technology Assistant Pilot
Program (MTAPP) will strengthen and expand the service's
manufacturing supplier base by improving the manufacturing
skills and business practices of small to medium sized
businesses, particularly those with an established non-defense
background. Accordingly, the Committee supports the Air Force
MTAPP program and recommends that the service allocate
$2,000,000 of available funds for this program.
misawa antennas
The Committee directs the Air Force to allocate $300,000 of
the additional infrastructure funding provided in this bill to
the repair and maintenance of the antennas at the Misawa
Cryptologic Operations Center.
children's association for maximum potential
The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 above the
budget request to support completion of the CAMP facility at
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and directs that this increase
in funding be used only for the purpose of supporting this
program.
remis
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
high risk automation systems
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
air force institute of technology
The Air Force proposes eliminating new student starts at
the in-residence programs of the Air Force Institute of
Technology (AFIT) in fiscal year 1998. Although the Air Force
proposal is explained for budgetary reasons, no comprehensive
cost-benefit study has been undertaken recently. Therefore, the
Committee includes a general provision (Section 8086)
prohibiting the Air Force from sending to civilian institutions
graduate students who would otherwise attend AFIT. The
Committee further directs that the National Academy of Sciences
do a complete cost-benefit analysis including the value of
research done by faculty and graduate students, to be provided
to the Committee not later than April 1, 1998.
malmstrom air force base
The Committee believes that the Air Force should maintain
the airfield at Malmstrom AFB, Montana including the runways at
the airfield. The existing runway and facilities at Malmstrom
are in excellent condition and, for that reason, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration has identified this site
as a possible facility for future testing and program
development.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Air Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
12600 Flying Hour Program Shortfalls...................... 300,000
12600 Battle Labs......................................... 1,000
12850 Force Protection--Base Physical Security............ 12,100
12850 Force Protection--Air Base Ground Defense........... 5,800
12850 Force Protection--Antiterrorism..................... 5,300
12850 Force Protection--NBC Defense Program............... 3,100
12850 Force Protection--Contingency Operations............ 1,500
13100 SIMVAL.............................................. 2,800
13250 JFACC Situational Awareness System (JSAS)........... 3,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
13850 Depot Maintenance--KC-135 DPEM...................... 54,600
13950 Industrial Preparedness--Nominal Growth............. -5,105
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
14300 Service Academies--Foreign Students................. -1,400
14700 Professional Development Education--Nominal Growth.. -20,466
14950 Recruiting and Advertising.......................... 4,500
15100 Civilian Education and Training..................... -2,351
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
15350 Supply Asset Tracking System (SATS at ACC
Installations).......................................... 5,000
15500 FEMP................................................ -33,000
15650 Defense Computer Investigations Training Program/
Computer Forensics Lab.................................. 2,700
15650 Headquarters and Administrative Activity Reduction.. -53,862
15950 CAMP................................................ 500
16050 Civil Air Patrol.................................... 800
Other Adjustments:
16410 Classified Undistributed............................ 8,500
16415 Civilian Personnel Understrength.................... -70,000
16430 Foreign Currency Fluctuation........................ -10,000
16475 REMIS............................................... 8,900
16475 High Risk Automation Systems........................ -25,000
16490 Other Contracts--Program Growth..................... -93,981
16495 Chemical/Biological Defense--PACOM.................. 10,000
16500 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia..... -459,900
16505 Real Property Maintenance........................... 358,200
16510 TDY Expenses........................................ -20,000
16515 QDR--Civilian Personnel Reductions.................. -76,253
Environmentally Safe Fuel Storage Tanks......... (2,000)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $10,044,200,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 10,390,938,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 10,066,956,000
Change from budget request............................ -323,982,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$10,066,956,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide.
The recommendation is an increase of $22,756,000 from the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
jcs exercises
In the Quadrennial Defense Review, DoD announced its plans
to decrease the number of man-days required for joint exercises
in fiscal year 1998 to 15 percent below the level of fiscal
year 1996. Given the high demands of ongoing operations, this
reduction is a prudent step to avoid overstressing the military
forces required to perform these operations. The Committee
supports this measure and recommends a reduction of $50,000,000
to the budget request, consistent with the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill.
special operations command
The Committee recommends an increase of $43,100,000 above
the budget request for the United States Special Operations
Command. These additional funds will meet the unfunded
requirements for counterproliferation, readiness and OPTEMPO.
The Committee also recommends $3,300,000 within this amount
only to outfit Special Operations Forces aircrews with Goretex-
Nomex flight suits.
within-grade increases
In the budget request, the Defense Contract Audit Agency
requested an increase to cover ``within-grade increases''.
While individual employees are entitled to within-grade or
``step'' increases, for an agency those increases are usually
offset by employees who are promoted and go back to step one,
or retire at a high step and are replaced by new employees at
step one. Thus the average ``step'' within an agency, like the
average grade, should not be gradually increasing over time.
The DCAA request is therefore unique among all DoD activities.
The Committee denies this increase and reduces the DCAA budget
request by $2,500,000 accordingly.
defense finance and accounting service
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is
financed through the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF). The
fund is designed to capture all the relevant costs to run DFAS
and to reflect those costs in the prices that DFAS charges its
customers. The Committee is concerned that the budget request
proposes to shift out of the DWCF costs that are part of DFAS
operating costs.
DFAS developed, designed and fielded its Property
Accountability System using resources from the DWCF. The
Committee believes that any upgrade to this system should also
be paid for out of the DWCF and reduces the request accordingly
by $16,500,000.
The Executive and Professional Training program primarily
pays for the training of employees who are paid from the DWCF.
While the Committee supports having a highly trained workforce,
it believes that training is an inherent part of any
organization's operating costs and thus should be paid for from
within the DWCF. The Committee therefore reduces the request by
$30,154,000.
Finally, the budget requests $45,000,000 as the first
increment of a $117,000,000 renovation project. The Committee
notes that DoD and the General Services Administration have not
yet reached the agreement that is necessary to begin this
project. In addition, the budget proposes to pay for the
renovation using appropriated funds even though the payback on
this renovation will be directly to the DWCF. The Committee
also notes the concern expressed in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill, which denied authorization for this request
and noted that a renovation of this size is likely to be
outside the scope of a standard maintenance and repair project
and may need to be funded as a military construction project.
As a result, the budget request is reduced by $45,000,000.
defense human resources field activity
To improve operating efficiency and reduce costs, DoD
combined the former Defense Civilian Personnel Management
Service with the Defense Manpower Data Center to form the
Defense Human Resources Field Activity (DHRFA). The budget
request for the new DHRFA is $138,935,000, the sum of the two
activities' individual budgets. The Committee believes that the
budget for the new organization should reflect at least some of
the savings expected to result from the reorganization and thus
recommends a reduction of $2,000,000.
white house communications agency
The budget requested $63,945,000 for the White House
Communications Agency (WHCA), which is managed by the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA). The Committee agrees to the
realignment of $7,200,000 from Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide to Procurement, Defense-Wide as requested by the
Director, DISA. After accounting for inflation, the shift of
funds to procurement, and other program realignments, the
requested funding for this activity still shows net growth of
$4,910,000, only a portion of which WHCA has been able to
adequately justify. The Committee therefore recommends a
reduction of $8,200,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide and an increase of $7,200,000 in Procurement, Defense-
Wide.
automated document conversion
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
improved cargo methods and technologies
The Committee believes cost saving opportunities exist to
integrate the latest private sector logistics research,
transport technology, and security developments into the
practices and procedures for moving military cargo around the
United States and around the world. The bill includes
$3,000,000 only to continue work initiated in fiscal year 1997
in conjunction with a not-for-profit foundation operating
exclusively as a trucking research institute to: (1) continue
the examination of private sector practices as they may relate
to the transport of containerized ammunition, to include the
development of multi-modal standards, and ammunition
configuration requirements; (2) evaluate U.S. commercial third-
party logistics providers to determine the most efficient
public-private partnership structures to meet readiness
requirements and to identify ways to streamline the third-party
selection process by the Department; and (3) study the current
cargo security environment in the context of national defense
and assess the feasibility of implementing an efficient
information partnership between motor carriers, the Department,
and the law enforcement community to include development of a
nation-wide cargo theft reporting system modeled after the real
time database, Cargo Tips.
dla--dwcf transfer
Within the Defense Logistics Agency, the budget requests
$42,900,000 to cover the cost of transferring certain programs
from the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) to Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide. A review of these programs
indicates, however, that only those items related to hazardous
waste handling are appropriate to transfer out of the DWCF. The
Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $36,000,000.
security locks
The Committee recommends an addition to the budget request
of $25,000,000 only for the Security Lock Retrofit program. The
Committee understands that these funds are sufficient for DoD
to meet all validated requirements for this upgrade.
federal energy management program
The Committee is concerned that the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) within the Department of Defense has
been seriously eroded. Estimates show that only a fraction of
the funds provided for this function were actually used to
reduce energy use and costs.
The Department of Defense is central to the government's
efforts to reduce energy costs. Over 70 percent of the energy
consumed by the Federal Government is used to heat, light, cool
and operate Department of Defense facilities at a cost of
nearly $3 billion a year. Energy efficiency improvements can
save DoD almost $2 billion per year in utility bills and energy
system maintenance operations. The Committee believes that the
focus on energy efficiency should not be limited to FEMP
projects, but should be a consideration in every maintenance
and repair project.
The Committee therefore provides $15,000,000 to the central
FEMP account to assist DoD in reducing its energy costs.
military personnel information system
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
environmental restoration
The United States government has recently completed an
exchange of letters with the Canadian government regarding the
return of several U.S. military facilities in Canada.
Consistent with this agreement, the budget requests $10,200,000
in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the first in a
series of payments to cover the cost of environmental
restoration at those sites. Since this expense deals with
environmental restoration at what were mostly Air Force sites,
the Committee believes that it is more appropriate to pay for
it out of the Environmental Restoration, Air Force account. The
Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $10,200,000 to
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide and has adjusted the
general provision proposed in the budget request accordingly.
osd commissions and studies
The Committee is very disappointed to learn that special
studies and commissions initiated by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense are not subject to the same level of
fiscal review as normal funding requests. Although this problem
pre-dates the current DoD leadership, the Committee is
concerned that this problem will continue absent senior
management attention. The Committee therefore directs the
Department to report no later than November 30, 1997 on the
steps it is taking to correct this deficiency.
travel reengineering
The Travel Project Management Office (TPMO) was created in
fiscal year 1997 to reengineer the DoD's temporary duty (TDY)
travel process. Under the proposed reengineering concept all
temporary duty travel functions are to be processed through a
highly integrated management information system. While the
Committee supports the reengineering effort, it is concerned
that this project is moving ahead without taking the necessary
steps, such as a formal cost effectiveness study. The Committee
therefore recommends a reduction of $14,300,000 to the budget
request to continue this effort, but at its fiscal year 1997
level.
high risk automation systems
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
quadrennial defense review--defense agency reductions
In the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department proposed
reducing all defense agencies ``by 6 percent, as a down payment
until a detailed follow-up review is completed by November 30,
1997''. The Committee supports this effort, currently being
carried out by the Task Force on Defense Reform and includes a
reduction to the budget request of $72,000,000 or two percent
in fiscal year 1998 as an initial increment. The Committee
recommendation specifically excludes the National Foreign
Intelligence Program, Special Operations Command and the
Department of Defense Dependents Schools from its calculation
and directs the Department not to apply any of the $72,000,000
reduction to those activities. This does not prohibit the Task
Force from including those organizations in its study.
qdr restructuring reserve
The Committee recognizes that there is an up-front cost to
any major restructuring effort and therefore recommends an
increase of $18,000,000 to the budget request to be used only
for facilitating the downsizing of defense agencies and
headquarters' activities pursuant to the findings of the Task
Force on Defense Reform cited above. The Committee further
directs that the Department provide 30 days prior notification
to the Committee on any proposed use of these funds.
use of re-refined oil
The Committee notes that the statistics compiled by the
Federal Environmental Executive, established by Executive Order
12873, shows that during fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the
Department of Defense's re-refined oil purchases were only 1.5
percent of its total oil purchases for those years. The
Committee notes that using re-refined oil conserves valuable
natural resources, protects the environment and reduces U.S.
dependence on imported fuels. The Committee therefore
encourages the Department of Defense to increase its use of re-
refined fuels to the maximum extent practical.
nutrition
The Committee believes that proper diet and nutrition play
an important role in providing for a high quality of life in
the military. In order to enhance our military's diet, the
Committee requests the Department report on the potential
benefits of increasing the quantity of beef, lamb and chevon
meats in meals provided servicemembers.
vint hill farms
The Committee is concerned about the costs associated with
building demolition and asbestos removal at Vint Hill Farms in
Fauquier County, Virginia, an Army facility closing as a result
of the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. It is
estimated that 49 percent of the existing structures at Vint
Hill Farms do not meet current standards and require
remediation estimated at $30,000,000. The Committee urges in
the strongest possible terms that the Department of Defense
assist the community with said demolition and asbestos removal.
Department of Defense Dependents Schools
adjustments
The Committee recommends a net increase of $4,000,000 over
the budget request for the Department of Defense Dependents
Schools (DoDDS). The Committee agreed to several adjustments
based on the Committee's Survey and Investigative (S&I) staff's
survey of the fiscal year 1998 budget request. The Committee
recommends a reduction of $11,000,000 from the budget request
for an error to the fiscal year 1997 baseline, which had the
effect of increasing the fiscal year 1998 request by this
amount. In addition, the Committee recommends a reduction of
$10,000,000 for unliquidated balances. The S&I staff reported
that there has been a trend in the increase of unused
obligations from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1997,
even though the DoDDS school program has been relatively stable
over the years. Finally, the Committee recommends an increase
of $20,000,000 to be applied to the backlog of Real Property
Maintenance.
family counseling and crisis services
In addition to the adjustments above, the Committee
recommends an increase of $5,000,000 to the budget request in
the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) account
only for enhancements to Family Advocacy programs. The
Committee directs the Department to use these additional funds
for expansion of counseling and crisis services, treatment
options and solutions for children of active duty members
between the ages of 7-18 years who have emotional and
behavioral problems. The Committee recommends that these
services be provided by organizations accredited with
commendation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation Health
Care Organizations, and that have associated research centers
and offer a full continuum of care.
Social Work Fellowship Program
The Committee urges the Department to fund predoctoral or
postdoctoral fellowships for social work researchers to examine
the process, outcome, and cost-effectiveness of military family
advocacy programs, with particular attention to issues of
family violence and child maltreatment. The Department of the
Air Force's current postdoctoral initiative with the Department
of Agriculture and the Institute for the Advancement of Social
Work Research is a model for this type of cooperative
sponsorship program.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
17050 JCS Exercises....................................... -50,000
17100 SOCOM............................................... 43,100
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
17400 DAU--Continuing Acquisition Education............... -3,900
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
17800 Classified and Intelligence......................... -98,261
17900 DCAA--Within Grade Increases........................ -2,500
17950 DFAS--Property Accountability System................ -16,500
17950 DFAS--Executive and Professional Training........... -30,154
17950 DFAS--Facility Renovation........................... -45,000
18000 DHRFA--Operations................................... -2,000
18050 DISA--White House Communications Agency............. -8,200
18200 DLA--Automated Document Conversion.................. 30,000
18200 DLA--Security Locks................................. 25,000
18200 DLA--Procurement Technical Assistance Program....... 17,000
18200 DLA--DPSC Demolition................................ 15,000
18200 DLA--Cargo Methods and Technologies................. 3,000
18200 DLA--Blankets....................................... -2,400
18200 DLA--DWCF transfer.................................. -36,000
18500 DoDDS--Real Property Maintenance.................... 20,000
18500 DoDDS--Family Counseling and Crisis Services........ 5,000
18500 DoDDS--Unobligated Balances......................... -10,000
18500 DoDDS--Baseline Adjustment.......................... -11,000
18550 Federal Energy Management Program................... 15,000
18600 JCS--Travel and Administrative Costs................ -2,000
18650 Monterey Institute Counter-Proliferation Analysis... 9,000
18700 OSD--Military Personnel Information System.......... 5,000
18700 OSD--First Responder Training....................... 1,300
18700 OSD--C3I Mission and Analysis Fund.................. -10,000
18700 OSD--Environmental Restoration...................... -10,200
18700 OSD--Administrative Savings......................... -20,000
18700 OSD--Civil/Military Programs........................ -31,867
18800 OSIA--Treaty Requirements........................... -11,200
18900 WHS--Travel Reengineering........................... -14,300
Other Adjustments:
18970 Civilian Personnel Understrength.................... -33,900
18980 Impact Aid.......................................... 35,000
19010 High Risk Automation Systems........................ -15,000
19030 Pentagon Renovation Fund--Swing Space Costs......... -9,500
19045 Defense Automated Printing Service.................. -15,000
19065 Center for the Study of the Chinese Military........ 5,000
19085 Contingency Operations Transfer--Southwest Asia..... -9,500
19090 QDR Defense Agency Reductions....................... -72,000
19095 QDR Restructuring Reserve........................... 18,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,119,436,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,192,891,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,207,891,000
Change from budget request............................ +15,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,207,891,000
for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation
is an increase of $88,455,000 above the $1,119,436,000
appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
19700 Maintenance of Real Property................ +5,000
19850 Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO......... +10,000
commercial construction and material handling equipment
The Committee understands that a large amount of the
Commercial Construction and Material Handling Equipment
inventory, such as motor graders and scrapers, for the Army
Reserve is approaching the fifteen year service life threshold.
The Committee is aware of the significant cost savings and
readiness improvements that can be gained with the Extended
Service Program of older items of equipment in the inventory,
and urges the Army Reserve to continue the rebuild program.
reserve units in central florida
The Committee understands that once the Orlando Naval
Training Center is closed that several Army, Navy and Marine
Corps Reserve units residing on this base will have to be moved
to other locations in Central Florida. The Committee directs
the Department to report to the Committee, by March 1, 1998,
detailing the individual Reserve units involved, and the
possibility of constructing a joint complex. In addition, the
report should provide details on the resulting cost savings to
be achieved by co-locating units.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $886,027,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 834,711,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 924,711,000
Change from budget request............................ +90,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $924,711,000
for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation
is an increase of $38,684,000 above the $886,027,000
appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
21200 Aircraft Depot Maintenance................. +10,000
Other Adjustments:
22760 NSIPS...................................... +43,500
22765 Contingency Operations Transfer--SWA....... -500
22770 Maintenance of Real Property............... +37,000
nsips
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
navy reserve center in mansfield, ohio
The Committee understands that the Navy Reserve has
included funds in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for
remediation activities at the former Naval Reserve Center in
Mansfield, Ohio. The Committee directs the Navy to proceed with
the site-cleanup of these vacant buildings during fiscal year
1998.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $109,667,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 110,366,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 119,266,000
Change from budget request............................ +8,900,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $119,266,000
for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The
recommendation is an increase of $9,599,000 above the
$109,667,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
23450 Training, M1A1 tank........................ +3,900
23500 Operating Forces, Initial Issue............ +5,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,496,553,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,624,420,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,635,250,000
Change from budget request............................ +10,830,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,635,250,000
for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The
recommendation is an increase of $138,697,000 above the
$1,496,553,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
25050 Maintenance of Real Property............... +10,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide
Activities:
25510 WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance.............. +830
wc-130 weather reconnaissance mission
The Committee continues to strongly believe that the
weather reconnaissance mission is critical to the protection of
Defense installations and the entire population living along
the east and Gulf coasts of the United States. Section 8026 has
been included which prohibits funds to reduce or disestablish
the operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron
(Hurricane Hunters) of the Air Force Reserve if such action
would reduce the Weather Reconnaissance mission below the
levels funded in this Act. The level specifically funded in
this Act is to support a stand alone squadron with dedicated 10
PAA aircraft, 20 line assigned aircrews, evenly divided between
Air Reserve Technician (ART) and Reserve aircrews. The
Committee directs the Air Force to provide a minimum of 3,000
flying hours to perform tropical cyclone and winter storm
reconnaissance missions, aircrew training, counterdrug support,
and airland missions in support of contingency operations
during the non-hurricane season or slow periods during the
season. The Committee insists that this important mission and
flying hours be provided and funded in accordance with this
direction. The Committee has also provided an additional
$1,000,000 in the personnel and operation and maintenance
accounts, and directs that these funds be used for additional
manning for this squadron to meet maintenance shortfalls. The
Committee directs the Air Force to submit future budget
requests reflecting this year's direction.
The Committee is aware that advancements in two pilot
cockpit technology do not provide an adequate margin of safety
in the unique and dangerous hurricane reconnaissance missions
that range from tropical storms to category 5 hurricanes which
have winds in excess of 200 miles per hour. The Committee is
pleased that the Air Force agrees with user recommendations to
include a fully equipped augmented crew station to be manned by
a navigator in all WC-130J aircraft and directs that the final
operational requirements document reflect this decision.
march air reserve base
The Committee understands that an agreement was recently
signed between the Department of the Air Force and the March
Joint Powers Authority to form a joint use airport. In
addition, the community is discussing with the Air Force the
possibility of making improvements to the existing navigational
aids and construction of a commercial jet fuel project at this
airport. The Committee directs the Air Force to report to the
Committee by December 15, 1997, on the need and military
necessity for the improved navigational aids and construction
of a commercial jet fuel capability to March Air Reserve Base,
the funding required, and whether these improvements are
warranted in order to accommodate commercial aircraft at this
airport.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $2,254,477,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,258,932,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,313,632,000
Change from budget request............................ +54,700,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,313,632,000
for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The
recommendation is an increase of $59,155,000 above the
$2,254,477,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
26250 Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO........ +20,000
26250 Training Operations, Angel Gate Academy.... +4,200
26250 Training Operations, Laser Leveling........ +500
26400 Depot Maintenance.......................... +5,000
26500 Maintenance of Real Property............... +10,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide
Activities:
26910 Chemical/Biological Mission Studies........ +10,000
26915 Software Acquisition and Security Training. +5,000
domestic chemical/biological counter terrorism mission planning
The Committee strongly supports the recommendations of the
Secretary of Defense in the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review
to assign the National Guard with the new role of countering
chemical and biological terrorism in the United States. The
Committee believes this mission is a natural complement to
other current National Guard missions such as disaster
assistance and counter-drugs which have given the Guard the
ability to develop effective working relationships with state
and local officials in the law enforcement, firefighting, and
emergency medical communities. The National Guard is the ideal
organization to transfer specialized military knowledge and
expertise to the local domestic level according to long
standing norms and practices in this country.
The Committee expects this mission to be comprehensively
and aggressively pursued. This will require a detailed planning
effort to develop a comprehensive program that is fully
coordinated and integrated with other relevant organizations
within the Department of Defense, with other federal agencies,
and with state and local authorities. In this respect, the
Committee believes it is important that each state be given the
opportunity and resources to develop detailed components of
this plan relating to their own special circumstances under the
overall guidance the National Guard Bureau.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for detailed planning
and concept studies that will assist the National Guard to:
(1) define and clarify the National Guard mission
compared to the roles of other federal/state and local
authorities with similar responsibilities;
(2) develop a capability to understand the threat;
(3) train Guard personnel and state/local first
responders;
(4) evaluate and acquire new chemical/biological
defense technology; and
(5) develop appropriate response plans.
Mission Definition. Currently, many federal, state, and
local agencies have fragmented and sometimes overlapping
responsibilities for different aspects of domestic emergency
preparedness. Federal agencies with significant
responsibilities range from FEMA, to HHS, to DOE, to the FBI.
There are, of course, literally thousands of state and local
law enforcement agencies, emergency medical departments, and
fire departments with different levels of expertise and
responsibility that play the primary role in responding to
emergencies. A first critical stage for the National Guard will
be to sort out its roles and responsibilities compared to all
other relevant organizations in accordance with applicable law.
Threat Assessment. Funds should be used to develop detailed
plans to determine what information is routinely required to
understand the threat posed by different terrorist groups that
may operate in the U.S., the capabilities of different chemical
and biological weapons they may come to possess, what
vulnerability assessments on key local facilities such as
subways should be conducted, and other key data. This effort
should also catalog and identify who can provide key
information on a routine and ongoing basis, how such
information is to be collected and disseminated, and what new
capabilities are required.
Training. Funds should be used to devise a comprehensive,
long term training regimen for appropriate Guard personnel, law
enforcement personnel, firefighters, emergency medical
personnel and other federal, state and local officials on all
aspect of chemical/biological defense, including field training
exercises. Rather than creating an entirely new training
establishment for this mission, the Committee believes the
existing National Guard training structure for the counter-drug
mission in conjunction with enhanced use of the distance
learning network would be cost effective and should be used to
the maximum extent possible. This effort must also be fully
coordinated with the plans and programs of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity
Conflict, the DoD Office of Emergency Preparedness, the Army
Chemical and Biological Defense Command, and the Marine Corps'
Chemical Biological Incident Response Force.
Technology. Funds should be used to structure a continuing
National Guard program for testing and evaluating chemical/
biological defense equipment that is available to the National
Guard and to state and local authorities as well as to
determine specific requirements for new technology.
Response Plans. Funds should be used to assess the quality
of existing chemical/biological incident response plans around
the country, and devise a plan for identifying shortfalls and
taking corrective action. This effort should include
significant input from individual state authorities.
The Committee expects this comprehensive effort to leverage
existing federal assets, programs, and contract activities to
the maximum extent feasible. The Committee believes there is a
rich source of existing intelligence, research capability,
facilities, and technology at the federal level that can be
focused to meet this new mission requirement.
The Army National Guard shall submit a report to the
congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 1998
explaining in detail how these funds will be used, and setting
detailed milestones for future planning and implementation of
this mission.
software acquisition and security training
The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 above
the budget request only to use the Distance Learning Network to
deliver standardized courseware to train and certify National
Guard and Department of Defense personnel in the areas of
software acquisition management and information security.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $2,716,379,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,991,219,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,995,719,000
Change from budget request............................ +4,500,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,995,719,000
for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The
recommendation is an increase of $279,340,000 above the
$2,716,379,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1997.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:..................
27650 Aircraft Operations, 159th Fighter Group.... +1,500
27850 Depot Maintenance........................... +3,000
159th air national guard fighter group
The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 over the
budget request in Operation and Maintenance, Air National
Guard, and directs that these funds be used for the operation
of C-130H operational support aircraft of the 159th ANG Fighter
Group.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,140,157,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,467,500,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,855,400,000
Change from budget request............................ +387,900,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,855,400,000
for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. The
recommendation is an increase of $715,243,000 from the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $6,797,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 6,952,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 6,952,000
Change from budget request............................ ................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,952,000 for
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The
recommendation is an increase of $155,000 from the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $339,109,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 377,337,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 377,337,000
Change from budget request............................ ................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $377,377,000
for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an
increase of $38,228,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 1997.
rocky mountain arsenal
The Committee believes that priority should continue to be
given to the implementation of the ten-year cleanup plan for
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal property that has been agreed to by
the Army, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the State of Colorado and the Shell Oil
Company.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $287,788,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 277,500,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 277,500,000
Change from budget request............................ ................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $277,500,000
for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is a
decrease of $10,288,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 1997.
naval air station bermuda
In 1995, the U.S. Navy closed its air station on the island
of Bermuda. A study commissioned by the Government of Bermuda
conducted a comprehensive environmental assessment that found
evidence of underground storage tanks that were leaking oil, a
cave filled with abandoned industrial waste, lead and solvents
in excessive of permissible levels and asbestos. The Committee
notes that DoD policy directs DoD Components to take ``prompt
action to remedy known imminent and substantial danger to human
health and safety'' that is due to environmental contamination
caused by DoD operations, even when dealing with DoD
installations that have already been returned to a host nation.
The Committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Navy to
review the environmental study provided by the Government of
Bermuda to determine any potential responsibilities and
obligations and to provide to the Committee a report on this
review not later than October 31, 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $394,010,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 378,900,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 378,900,000
Change from budget request............................ ................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $378,900,000
for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is
a decrease of $15,110,000 from the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $36,722,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 27,900,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 27,900,000
Change from budget request............................ ................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,900,000
for Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide. The recommendation
is a decrease of $8,822,000 from the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $256,387,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 202,300,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 202,300,000
Change from budget request............................ ................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $202,300,000
for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The
recommendation is a decrease of $54,087,000 from the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
NEWMARK
The Committee understands that both the Environmental
Protection Agency and the City of San Bernardino believe that
the Newmark and Muscoy plume contamination in San Bernardino,
California is a direct result of industrial waste from a World
War II depot and maintenance facility (Camp Ono). Report
language in the conference report accompanying the fiscal year
1997 DoD Appropriations Bill highlighted the urgency of this
problem and requested prompt action by the Department of
Defense. Because the Department has not adequately responded to
last year's report language concerning this important issue,
the Committee directs the DoD, within 90 days of enactment of
this Act, to provide a report to the Committee which fully
explains the Department's current and future plans relating to
its role in the cleanup of the Newmark/Muscoy site.
OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $49,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 80,130,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 55,557,000
Change from budget request............................ -24,573,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,557,000
for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The
recommendation is an increase of $6,557,000 from the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
HUMANITARIAN DEMINING
The budget requests $80,130,000 for Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid. This is an increase of $31,130,000
over the fiscal year 1997 levels. While the Committee believes
an across the board increase of this scope is unwarranted, it
does support the Department's increased efforts in Humanitarian
Demining. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of
only $24,573,000.
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $327,900,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 382,200,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 284,700,000
Change from budget request............................ -97,500,000
The Department requested $382,200,000 for Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) programs. The Committee recommends
$284,700,000, a reduction of $97,500,000, consistent with the
House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee
recommends the following reductions:
Weapons Storage Security.............................. -$12,500,000
Reactor Core Conversion............................... -41,000,000
Chemical Weapons Destruction.......................... -41,000,000
Defense and Military Contacts (Belarus)............... -1,000,000
Other Assessments..................................... -2,000,000
These reductions are due to: availability of prior year
funds (Weapons Storage, -$12,500,000); lack of an implementing
agreement (Reactor Core Conversion, -$41,000,000); lack of
proper costing data, justification or site (Chemical Weapons
Destruction, -$41,000,000); and, lack of certification (Defense
and Military Contacts, -$1,000,000) and reduced administrative
requirements (Other, -$2,000,000).
In addition, the Committee also notes that current
unobligated balances for CTR are in excess of $600,000,000.
This slow execution rate has been a pattern throughout the
history of this program. The Committee believes that the
Department should pay closer attention to the management of
these funds and therefore recommends that fiscal year 1998 CTR
funds be available for obligation only for 3 years.
QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $600,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 0
Committee recommendation.............................. 0
Change from budget request............................ 0
Budget request did not include, and the Committee
recommends no funding for, Quality of Life Enhancements,
Defense. The recommendation is a decrease of $600,000,000 below
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee
continues its vigorous support for improvements to the quality
of life for Service personnel. The Committee has recommended an
increase of $360,000,000 above the budget request (out of a
total real property maintenance increase of $924,840,000 above
the budget requet) for improvements to barracks, dormitories
and related facilities. The Committee designates this increased
funding as a special interest item, subject to prior approval
reprogramming procedures discussed elsewhere in this report.
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
Estimates and Appropriation Summary
The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense procurement
budget requests totals $41,585,178,000. The accompanying bill
recommends $45,515,962,000. The total amount recommended is an
increase of $3,930,784,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget
estimate and is $1,700,478,000 above the total provided in
fiscal year 1997. The Committee recommendation includes
$850,000,000 for National Guard and Reserve Equipment. The
table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's
recommendations:
reduced use of solvent adhesives
With the enactment of the Pollution Prevention Act,
Congress recognized that there are significant opportunities
for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source
through cost-effective changes in manufacturing production,
operations, and raw material use. The Act states that source
reduction is more desirable than waste management or pollution
control. The Committee believes that there are many products
procured by the military which can be manufactured with a
substantial reduction of solvents used in the manufacturing
process. In particular, many materials used in products must be
joined together in the manufacturing process with multiple
coats of solvent adhesives. The Committee urges the Defense
Department to purchase products which are manufactured in a
manner that minimizes the use of solvent adhesives during
manufacturing because it reduces pollution at its source and is
cost effective.
alternative fueled vehicles
The DoD requested authorization to procure 811 passenger
vehicles in fiscal year 1998. The Committee approves the DoD
request for passenger vehicles.
Public Law 102-486 (Sec. 303) directs that of the total
number of vehicles acquired in fiscal year 1998 by a federal
fleet, at least 50 percent must be alternative fueled vehicles.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to procure,
within available funds, alternative fueled vehicles to comply
with P.L 102-486 (Sec. 303). The alternative fueled vehicles
are to include, but not be limited to, natural gas and electric
vehicles.
commander's tactical terminal/joint tactical terminal
The Committee is aware that an ongoing contract protest is
preventing the Services from procuring the Joint Tactical
Terminal (JTT). The Committee understands how critical it is
for commanders to have the capability to receive data and
supports the Services in the procurement of the Commander's
Tactical Terminal (CTT) to meet their immediate requirements.
The Committee approves the budget request for CTT/JTT
procurement with the understanding that the Services continue
to use these funds and prior year funds to procure CTTs until
the JTT contract is awarded.
classified programs
Adjustments to classified procurement programs are
addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................$1,348,434,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request........................1,029,459,000
Committee recommendation...............................1,541,217,000
Change from budget request..............................+511,758,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and
utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated
electronics, electronic warfare, and communications equipment
and armament, modification of in-service aircraft; ground
support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines,
transmissions, gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It also funds
related training devices such as combat flight simulators and
production base support.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Item Budget request recommended request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short range UAV................................................. 0 20,000 +20,000
C-12 Cargo Mods................................................. 613 6,613 +6,000
Aircraft Survivability Equipment................................ 905 15,705 +14,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Wing
guardrail common sensor
The Army requested $3,388,000 for the Guardrail Common
Sensor (GRCS). The Committee recommends $13,046,000 an increase
of $9,658,000. Of this amount, $3,000,000 is to upgrade the
Communication High Accuracy Airborne Location System (CHAALS)
capability to the GRCS system in Korea; and $6,658,000 is to
complete the fielding of the GRCS program embedded training
requirement.
Rotary Wing
uh-60 blackhawk
The Army requested $183,231,000 for UH-60 Blackhawk
helicopters. The Committee recommends $309,231,000, an increase
of $126,000,000. Of the increase, $64,000,000 is only to
procure eight additional Blackhawk helicopters for the Army
National Guard (ARNG), $56,000,000 is only to procure four
Blackhawk derivatives (CH-60) for the Naval Reserve, and
$6,000,000 is only for modification kits to configure three of
the ARNG aircraft as enhanced medical evacuation models.
The Army's budget submission to the Secretary of Defense
did not include funding for Blackhawk production. The Office of
the Secretary of Defense added funding to the Army budget for
Blackhawks to maintain the current multi-year contract until
the Navy begins procuring a Blackhawk variant in fiscal year
2000. In testimony to the Committee, the Army stated that it
has satisfied the active Army's warfighting requirement for
Blackhawks and has no plans to procure additional aircraft in
the near future. In contrast, the ARNG has a pressing need to
update its utility helicopter fleet. Therefore, the Committee
directs that the 18 helicopters requested in the fiscal year
1998 budget request be provided only to the National Guard. The
Committee notes that the Army has planned for 18 aircraft in
fiscal year 1999 and directs that adequate funding for the
multi-year contract be submitted with the fiscal year 1999
budget request.
In fiscal year 1997, the Committee provided an additional 6
Blackhawk helicopters to the Army. The Committee directs that
one of the 1997 aircraft is to replace the Blackhawk loaned to
the Navy for the VERTERP Demonstration Program.
kiowa warrior
The Army requested $38,822,000 for Kiowa Warrior
helicopters. The Committee recommends $213,822,000, an increase
of $175,000,000. Of the increase, $151,700,000 is only for
Kiowa Warrior production and $23,300,000 is only for safety
enhancements. The Committee notes that fiscal year 1998 is the
second year that the Army has not funded Kiowa Warrior safety
modifications and has identified the item as an unfunded
requirement. Given the importance of the safety modification
program, the Committee directs the Army to provide sufficient
funds in the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
eh-60 quickfix modifications
The Army requested $38,140,000 for the EH-60 Quickfix mods.
The Committee recommends $44,640,000, an increase of $6,500,000
to procure Ground Based Common Sensor/AQF institutional
training devices.
ase modifications
The Army requested $4,578,000 for ASE modifications. The
Committee recommends $19,078,000, an increase of $14,500,000.
Of the additional funds, $7,000,000 is only to procure and
install AN/AVR-2A laser detecting sets and $7,500,000 is only
for the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common Missile
Warning System for the Longbow Apache helicopter.
Other Support Equipment
training devices
The Army requested no funds for training devices. The
Committee recommends $9,300,000 only for improved flight
simulators which include geographic specific data-bases.
common ground equipment
The Army requested $30,636,000 for common ground equipment.
The Committee recommends $27,636,000, a decrease of $3,000,000
which was budgeted for the Air Traffic Navigation, Integration
and Coordination System (ATNAVICS). Subsequent to the fiscal
year 1998 budget submission, the Committee learned that the
budget did not include funding to complete ATNAVICS testing.
Therefore, the Committee has transferred funds not required for
procurement to research and development.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,041,867,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,178,151,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 771,942,000
Change from budget request............................ -406,209,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-
air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems.
Also included are major components, modifications, targets,
test equipment, and production base support.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Item Budget request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stinger Mods.................................................... 12,411 21,711 +9,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Missiles
patriot
The Army requested $349,109,000 for Patriot. The Committee
recommends transferring this amount to the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization in the ``Procurement, Defense-Wide''
appropriation, as proposed in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill.
hellfire
The Army requested $279,687,000 for procurement of Hellfire
missiles. The Committee recommends $228,287,000, a decrease of
$51,400,000. This decrease includes a GAO recommended reduction
of $5,400,000 for unused prior year Hellfire II engineering
change order (ECO) funding, a GAO recommended reduction of
$38,300,000 to Longbow Hellfire for overstated missile
requirements, and a reduction of $7,700,000 for tooling. With
regard to Longbow missile quantities, a recent GAO audit report
states, ``The Army used an outdated helicopter carrying
capability of 16 missiles instead of the current 12, double
counted missiles when figuring the residual readiness portion
of the requirement, and used an unsubstantiated mix ratio
between Longbow Hellfire and Hellfire II missiles. Correcting
these mistakes would potentially reduce the current 12,722
missile requirement for Longbow Hellfire missiles by 7,145
missiles.'' The report goes on to identify limitations in
Apache carriage that could lead to reductions of another 1,184
missiles. The DoD response did not dispute any of these GAO
observations, but simply stated it will consider an updated
acquisition strategy for the fiscal year 1999 budget. Given
these circumstances, the Committee does not believe that the 50
percent ramp-up in production in fiscal year 1998 compared to
fiscal year 1997 nor procurement of additional tooling in
fiscal year 1998 is prudent until these requirement issues are
resolved.
mlrs rocket
The Army requested $2,863,000 for MLRS Extended Range
(MLRS-ER) rockets. The Committee recommends $14,863,000, an
increase of $12,000,000. While preparing its fiscal year 1998
budget, the Army shifted funds from the MLRS-ER rockets line-
item to the launcher line-item. At the time of submission of
the budget, the Army hoped that foreign military sales (FMS)
would be sufficient to maintain the rocket production line.
However, the Army has since learned that FMS has not
materialized as expected and therefore requires an additional
$12,000,000 in the rockets line-item to maintain the production
base. The Committee therefore recommends increasing MLRS rocket
funding by $12,000,000 with an equal reduction to the MLRS
launcher program.
mlrs launcher systems
The Army requested $102,649,000 for MLRS Launchers. The
Committee recommends $105,649,000, a net increase of
$3,000,000. The recommended adjustment includes a $12,000,000
decrease to finance MLRS rocket production as discussed above,
and a $15,000,000 increase only for Vehicular
Intercommunication System (VIS) upgrades to MLRS vehicles.
bat
The Army requested $85,208,000 for production of the BAT
submunition. The Committee recommends $45,208,000, a decrease
of $40,000,000 equating to a reduction of 165 BAT submunitions.
The BAT submunition will be deployed on ATACMS Block II
missiles which do not enter production until fiscal year 1999.
The Committee believes that the quantity reduction can be
accommodated with little impact to the fiscal year 1999 ATACMS
Block II production program.
Modification of Missiles
patriot mods
The budget requests $20,825,000 for modifications to the
Patriot missile. The Committee recommends $30,825,000, an
increase of $10,000,000 only for procurement of additional GEM
+/- upgrades.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,470,286,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,065,707,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,332,907,000
Change from budget request............................ +267,200,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks;
personnel and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked
recovery vehicles; self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine
guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment; initial
spares; and production base support.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
Item request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Recovery Vehicle........ 28,601 56,401 +27,800
Armor Machine Gun................ 0 20,000 +20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracked Combat Vehicles
bradley base sustainment
The Army requested $125,591,000 for Bradley base
sustainment. The Committee recommends $240,591,000, an increase
of $115,000,000 only to modify Bradley AO variants to the ODS
variant for the Army National Guard.
field artillery ammunition support vehicle
The Army requested no funds for the Field Artillery
Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV). The Committee recommends
$40,000,000 only to procure two battalion sets for the Army
National Guard.
Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles
carrier modifications
The Army requested $20,244,000 for carrier modifications.
The Committee recommends $28,644,000, an increase of $8,400,000
only to procure night vision driver viewers for the M113A3.
howitzer, 155mm m109A6 (mod)
The Army requested $18,706,000 for the modification of
M109A6 howitzers. The Committee recommends $74,706,000, an
increase of $56,000,000 only to modify two battalion sets of
Paladins for the Army National Guard.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,127,149,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 890,902,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,062,802,000
Change from budget request............................ +171,900,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition,
modification of in-service stock, and related production base
support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization
of industrial facilities and equipment.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
Item request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG, 5.56MM, All types........... 63,588 65,988 +2,400
CTG 7.62MM, All types............ 1,136 7,136 +6,000
.50 Cal, All types............... 19,977 20,177 +200
120MM HE Mortar (M934)........... 29,908 38,908 +9,000
120MM Illum (XM930).............. 0 3,000 +3,000
120MM TP-T M831/831A1............ 52,226 62,026 +9,800
120MM TPCSDS-TM865............... 111,653 124,453 +12,800
Fuze, Multi-option............... 0 20,000 +20,000
Simulators (all types)........... 4,573 5,073 +500
Conventional ammo demil.......... 106,118 96,118 -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ammunition shortfalls
The Committee has recommended an increase of $145,900,000
over the budget request to satisfy ammunition shortfalls
identified by the Army. The Committee has recommended
additional funds for the following items:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
Item request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG, 5.56MM, All types........... 63,588 65,988 +2,400
.50 Cal, All types............... 19,977 20,177 +200
120MM HE Mortar (M934)........... 29,908 38,908 +9,000
120MM TP-T M831/831A1............ 52,226 62,026 +9,800
120MM TPCSDS-T M865.............. 111,653 124,453 +12,800
155MM HE M795.................... 0 55,000 +55,000
Fuze, Multi-option............... 0 20,000 +20,000
Rocket, Hydra (all types)........ 12,067 48,267 +36,200
Simulators (all types)........... 4,573 5,073 +500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortar Ammunition
120mm full range practice (m931)
The Army requested $24,432,000 for 120MM full range
practice (M931) mortar ammunition. The Committee recommends
$34,432,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to procure M931
rounds.
Tank Ammunition
120mm heat-mp-t m830a1
The Army requested no funds for CTG 120MM HEAT M830A1
ammunition. The Committee recommends $10,000,000. Of the
increase, $1,800,000 is only for the modification of the
existing M830A1 tank ammunition to the XM908 configuration and
$8,200,000 is only to procure new M830A1 tank rounds to replace
the rounds which are modified. The Committee has learned that
the XM908 may satisfy an Army requirement to rapidly demolish
concrete obstacles and structures, especially in Korea. The
Committee directs that none of the funds appropriated for the
XM908 may be obligated until the Army develops a formal
requirements document for XM908 ammunition.
Artillery Ammunition
105mm dpicm xm915
The Army requested no funds for 105MM DPICM artillery
ammunition. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 only to
procure DPICM ammunition.
Rockets
bunker defeating munition
The Army requested no funds for the Bunker Defeating
Munition (BDM). The Committee recommends $8,000,000 only to
continue the procurement of BDM.
Ammunition Production Base Support
provision of industrial facilities
The Army requested $45,857,000 for the provision of
industrial base facilities. The Committee recommends
$24,857,000, a decrease of $21,000,000. The Committee continues
to believe that maintaining the unique capabilities of the
ammunition industrial base is vital to ensure that future
ammunition requirements are satisfied. However, historical data
indicates slow obligation and execution rates for funds
appropriated in this account. Army accounting records show
significant amounts of fiscal year 1995, 1996, and 1997
unobligated funds. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the
budget request be reduced.
Of the available funds, $3,000,000 is only for the large
caliber deep drawn cartridge case program. The Committee
directs that the Army provide adequate funding for this effort
in future budget submissions.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $3,172,485,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,455,030,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,502,886,000
Change from budget request............................ +47,856,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a)
tactical and commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-
trailers, and trailers of all types to provide mobility and
utility support to field forces and the worldwide logistical
system; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all
types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and
tactical communications equipment; and (c) other support
equipment, such as chemical defensive equipment, tactical
bridging, shop sets, and construction equipment, floating and
rail equipment, generators and power units, material handling
equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for
user testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these
activities funds are also included for modifications of in-
service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and
production base support.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
Item request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HMMWV............................ 66,233 104,933 +38,700
Items less than $2.0M (TIARA).... 0 2,800 +2,800
Training Devices, Nonsystem...... 49,688 53,688 +4,000
Depot Maintenance of Other End
Items........................... 24,819 0 -24,819
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tactical and Support Vehicles
semi-trailer, container transporter
The Army requested $9,361,000 for the procurement of semi-
trailer container transporters. The Committee recommends no
funding. Since, the Army will not complete the testing of the
semi-trailers until December 1998 and will not initiate full
procurement until fiscal year 1999, the Committee believes the
fiscal year 1998 budget request should be denied.
semi-trailer, tank, 5000 gallon
The Army requested $7,581,000 for the procurement of 5000
gallon tank semi-trailers. The Committee recommends $3,000,000,
a decrease of $4,581,000. The Committee has learned that the
program has been delayed and testing will not be completed
until December 1998. Full scale production is scheduled for
fiscal year 1999. The Committee believes that the remaining
funds are adequate to procure test articles and associated
engineering support services.
semi-trailer, tank 7500 gallon
The Army requested $10,408,000 for the procurement of 7500
gallon tank semi-trailers. The Committee recommends $2,000,000,
a reduction of $8,408,000. The Committee has learned that the
program has been delayed and full scale production is scheduled
for fiscal year 1999. The Committee believes the remaining
funds are sufficient to procure test articles and engineering
support services.
family of medium tactical vehicles
The Army requested $209,446,000 for the Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). The Committee recommends the
requested amount.
The Army has approved a dual source strategy for FMTV. The
Army believes that developing a second production source for
FMTV's will yield significant savings and expects to award a
competitive contract in fiscal year 2000. Since the current
contract will expire in 1998 and the competitive contract will
not be awarded until 2000, the Committee understands that the
Army may achieve savings in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 through
a multi-year contract for FMTV. Therefore, in section 8008 of
the General Provisions, the Committee has provided the
necessary authority for a two-year multi-year contract.
However, the Army may not enter into a multi-year contract
without prior approval from the congressional defense
committees. The Committee expects that the multi-year proposal
will be supported with the standard multi-year justification
materials. Furthermore, the Committee directs the award of a
multi-year contract is to have no impact on the current FMTV
competition strategy.
family of heavy tactical vehicles
The Army requested $9,071,000 for the Family of Heavy
Tactical Vehicles. The Committee recommends $87,071,000, an
increase of $78,000,000. Of the increase, $45,000,000 is only
to procure Heavy Equipment Transporters and $33,000,000 is only
to procure Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks.
armored security vehicles
The Army requested $9,470,000 for armored security
vehicles. The Committee recommends $10,970,000, an increase of
$1,500,000 only to procure Vehicular Intercommunications
Systems for the armored security vehicle fleet.
truck, tractor, line haul
The Army requested $36,079,000 to procure line haul tractor
trailers. The Committee recommends no funds. The line haul
trailers will be used to pull 7500 gallon tank semi-trailers.
Since the trailer program has been delayed until fiscal year
1999, the Committee believes the budget request should be
denied.
self-loading/off-loading trailer
The Committee understands that the Army is finalizing the
operational requirements document for single operator trailer
equipment. The Committee encourages the Army to consider
commercially available technologies to satisfy this tactical
trailer requirement.
Communications--Satellite Communications
defense satellite communications system
The Army requested $87,643,000 for defense satellite
communications systems. The Committee recommends $83,143,000, a
reduction of $4,500,000. The budget request includes funds to
accelerate the production of the universal modem system.
However, the required testing for the system will not be
completed until late 1999. The recommended funding will
maintain the current rate of production.
satellite terminals, emut
The Army requested $7,264,000 for Enhanced Manpack UHF
Terminal programs (EMUT). The Committee recommends $6,064,000,
a decrease of $1,200,000. As a result of a combined Army and
Air Force procurement, contract savings were achieved for the
EMUT in fiscal year 1997. Therefore, the Committee believes the
savings in fiscal year 1997 can be used to offset the fiscal
year 1998 budget request.
navstar global positioning system
The Army requested $6,796,000 for the NAVSTAR global
positioning system. The Committee recommends $5,596,000, a
decrease of $1,200,000. The Committee understands that both
quantity and price budgeted for miniaturized airborne global
positioning system receivers were reduced in fiscal year 1997.
Additionally, reductions in program management have also
resulted in program savings.
scamp
The Army requested $4,305,000 to procure Single Channel
Anti-jam manportable (SCAMP) terminals. The Committee
recommends $10,405,000, an increase of $6,100,000 only to
procure new SCAMP terminals.
global broadcast service
The Army requested $4,967,000 to procure global broadcast
service ground receive terminals. The Committee recommends no
funding. Subsequent to the budget submission, the Army decided
not to procure the terminals, but instead will use Air Force
terminals.
Communications--Combat Communications
army data distribution system
The Army requested $57,165,000 for the Army Data
Distribution System. The Committee recommends $57,065,000, a
decrease of $100,000. This includes an increase of $20,000,000
only for the Enhanced Position Locating and Report System and a
decrease of $20,100,000 for the Joint Tactical Information
System (JTIDS). The Committee recommends transfering JTIDS
funds to the Ballistic Missile Defense Office under the
Procurement, Defense-wide appropriation.
sincgars family
The Army requested $290,164,000 for the SINCGARS family.
The Committee recommends $302,164,000, an increase of
$12,000,000 only for Frequency Hopping Multiplexers.
combat survivor evader locator
The Army requested $5,677,000 for the procurement of combat
survivor evader locator systems. The Committee recommends no
funding. Since the combat survivor evader system development
program has been delayed until the end of fiscal year 1998, the
procurement funding can be delayed.
Electronic Equipment
all source analysis system
The Army requested $7,772,000 for the All Source Analysis
System. The Committee recommends $26,959,000, an increase of
$19,187,000. Of this amount, $13,500,000 is only to procure
ASAS Remote Workstation (RWS) and $5,687,000 is to procure the
CI/HUMINT Automated Tool Set (CHATS) for Echelons Corps and
Below units.
iew--ground based common sensors
The Army requested $26,817,000 for IEW-Ground Based Common
Sensor. The Committee denies this request because of the Army's
decision to reschedule the IOT&E for this program.
Electronic Equipment--Electronic Warfare
shortshop
The Army requested no funds for Shortstop Electronic
Protection System (SEPS). The Committee recommends $6,000,000
to procure Shortstop SEPS so that deployed forces have adequate
protection for artillery, mortar and rocket attacks.
sentinel
The Army requested $41,014,000 for Sentinel. The Committee
recommends $51,014,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only to
procure additional Sentinel systems.
night vision devices
The Army requested $85,312,000 for night vision devices.
The Committee recommends $99,712,000, an increase of
$14,400,000. Of the increase, $3,000,000 is only for light
weight video reconnaissance systems and $11,400,000 to only for
AN/PAS-13 thermal weapons sights.
Electronic Equipment--Tactical C2 Systems
maneuver control system
The Army requested $15,669,000 for Maneuver Control System
(MCS) hardware. The Committee recommends no funding. The MCS
software program which has been in development since the
1980's, was restructured in fiscal year 1993. MCS software
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) initially
scheduled for November 1995 has slipped three times and is
currently scheduled for March 1998. According to the GAO, MCS
failed two of four Developmental Operational Test and
Evaluation operational issues. Furthermore, a System Confidence
Demonstration (SCD), a post-SCD, and a post-post SCD,
demonstrated that the software was not ready for IOT&E. The
Army requested that it be allowed to procure training base
computers for MCS prior to Milestone III. Since the MCS system
has yet to pass an operational test, the Committee does not
believe that the Army has a critical need to acquire training
base computers prior to a Milestone III decision.
standard integrated command post system
The Army requested $26,551,000 for standard integrated
command post systems. The Committee recommends $36,551,000, an
increase of $10,000,000 only to add vehicular
intercommunications systems (AN/VIC3) to standard integrated
command post vehicles.
Electronic Equipment--Automation
automated data processing equipment
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
reserve component automation system
The Army requested $114,323,000 for the Reserve Component
Automation System. The Committee supports this request and
recommends the full $114,323,000 only for this program.
Electronic Equipment--Test Measurement Equipment
integrated family of test equipment
The Army requested no funds for the Integrated Family of
Test Equipment (IFTE). The Committee recommends $29,000,000
only for IFTE procurement.
Maintenance Equipment
items less than $2.0 million
The Army requested $1,167,000 for items less than $2.0
million (maintenance equipment). The Committee recommends
$5,167,000, an increase of $4,000,000 only for laser leveling
devices.
Rail Float Containerization Equipment
railway car, flat, 100 ton
The Army requested $17,755,000 for 100 ton, flat railway
cars. The Committee recommends no funding. Subsequent to the
budget submission, the Committee learned that the Army procured
300 used railway cars in fiscal year 1997. Since the fiscal
year 1997 buy satisfies the Army's plan to procure railway cars
in fiscal year 1997 and 1998, the Committee believes that the
fiscal year 1998 request is unnecessary.
Training Equipment
simnet/close combat tactical trainer
The Army requested $92,968,000 for the Simnet/Close Combat
Tactical Trainer (CCTT). The Committee recommends no funding.
Since the submission of the budget request, the Army has made
significant schedule changes to the CCTT acquisition plan.
Software stability problems have delayed the program by almost
one year. CCTT operational testing will begin in 1998 and a
Milestone III decision to proceed to full-scale production will
not be made until fiscal year 1999. The Committee's Survey's
and Investigations staff has learned that the Army needs 48
simulators to conduct required testing. To date, the Army has
purchased 110 simulators. Since the Army has sufficient
simulators for testing and full-rate production will not begin
until 1999, the Committee denies procurement funding. However,
the Committee recommends additional funds in research and
development for required testing which was not included in the
budget request.
tactical facsimile system
The Committee has learned that the Army is replacing aging
facsimile machines. The fielded facsimile machines provide poor
image quality and experience reliability and maintenance
problems because of their age. The Committee encourages the
Army to procure TS-21 Blackjack facsimile systems to meet Army
requirements for interoperability, speed of transmission, and
transportability.
gun laying positioning system
The Army requested no funds for the Gun Laying Positioning
System (GLPS). The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only for
GLPS. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force
XXI Initiatives.''
radio frequency technology
The Army requested no funds for the Radio Frequency
Technology. The Committee recommends $2,900,000 only for Radio
Frequency Technology. Additional details are provided under the
heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.''
lightweight laser designator/range finder
The Army requested no funds for Lightweight Laser
Designator/Range Finder. The Committee recommends $2,800,000
only for the lightweight laser designator/range finder.
Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI
Initiatives.''
combat synthetic training assessment range
The Army requested no funds for Combat Synthetic Training
Assessment Range. The Committee recommends $5,400,000 only for
the Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range. Additional
details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI
Initiatives.''
airborne command and control system
The Army requested no funds for Airborne Command and
Control System. The Committee recommends $11,100,000 only for
the Airborne Command and Control System. Additional details are
provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.''
avenger slew to cue
The Army requested no funds for Avenger Slew to Cue System.
The Committee recommends $7,400,000 only for Avenger Slew to
Cue. Additional details are provided under the heading ``Force
XXI Initiatives.''
palletized loading system enhanced
The Army requested no funds for Palletized Loading System
Enhanced. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for
Palletized Loading System Enhanced. Additional details are
provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.''
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following programs in fiscal year 1998:
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $7,027,010,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 6,085,965,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 5,951,965,000
Change from budget request............................ +801,500,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of
aircraft and related support equipment and programs; flight
simulators; equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend
their service life, eliminate safety hazards, and improve their
operational effectiveness; and spares and ground support
equipment for all end items procured by this appropriation.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommendation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV-8B......................... 277,648 310,648 +33,000
V-22.......................... 472,007 661,307 +189,300
E-2C.......................... 236,474 304,474 +68,000
KC-130J....................... 0 179,700 +179,700
Common ground equipment....... 287,114 274,114 -13,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Aircraft
F/A-18E/F Hornet
The Navy requested $2,101,100,000 to procure 20 F/A-18E/F
Hornet aircraft. The Committee recommends providing the amount
requested. The Navy has invested $4,982,000,000 in development
and $2,408,000,000 to produce F/A-18E/F aircraft through fiscal
year 1997. The F/A-18E/F offers significant warfighting
improvements for Naval aviation which will be used for decades:
the F/A-18E/F can fly 40 percent farther, remain on station 80
percent longer, carry more weapons, and is more lethal and
survivable than current generation F/A-18C/D aircraft which
have no room for modern avionics upgrades. Aircraft weight
remains well below the specification weight requirement, even
with all known potential increases considered. With funds
appropriated by Congress in prior years, production of the F/A-
18E/F is well underway. The program is considered to be a model
acquisition and it was recently endorsed in the Quadrennial
Defense Review. The Secretary of Defense recently informed the
defense committees that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program is a
cornerstone of the Defense Department's tactical air
modernization program. Recent General Accounting Office reports
on the F/A-18E/F have raised valid points about potential cost
savings from buying older generation F/A-18C/D model aircraft
rather than the new model, but they have not disclosed a single
major significant cost or technical difficulty. For these many
reasons, the Committee endorses the need to increase F/A-18E/F
production in fiscal year 1998 because of the need to attain
lower per unit costs through efficient high-rate production,
but more importantly, to field vital warfighting capability to
the fleet as soon as possible.
Modification of Aircraft
ea-6 Series
The Navy requested $86,783,000 for EA-6B modifications. The
Committee recommends $169,783,000, an increase of $83,000,000.
Within this amount, $50,000,000 is for wing center sections,
$18,000,000 is for turbine blade containment upgrades, and
$15,000,000 is for USQ-113 communications jammers.
h-1 series
The Navy requested $18,489,000 for H-1 series
modifications. The Committee recommends $16,389,000, a decrease
of $2,100,000. This amount includes an increase of $3,500,000
only for UH-1 internal rescue hoists and a transfer of
$5,600,000 to research and development for UH-1 upgrades (PE
0604245N).
P-3 series
The Navy requested $164,907,000 for P-3 modifications. The
Committee recommends $293,907,000, an increase of $129,000,000.
Within this amount, $56,600,000 is for the anti-surface warfare
improvement program, $35,100,000 is for the sustained readiness
program, $18,500,000 is only to modify AIP processors with
specific emitter identification capability, $12,800,000 is only
for the replacement data storage system, and $6,000,000 is only
for the lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly.
e-2 series
The Navy requested $49,073,000 for E-2 modifications. The
Committee recommends $50,673,000, an increase of $1,600,000
only for the oil debris detection and burnoff system. The
increased funds may also be used for C-2 and P-3 aircraft.
common avionics changes
The Navy requested $131,599,000 for common avionics
changes. The Committee recommends $130,599,000, a decrease of
$1,000,000. This includes a decrease of $10,000,000 recommended
in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill and an increase
of $9,000,000 only for the AN/AWW-13 guided weapon control
monitor set.
Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities
common ground equipment
The Navy requested $287,114,000 for common ground
equipment. The Committee recommends $274,114,000, a decrease of
$13,000,000 as recommended in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill. Within the total amount provided,
$1,000,000 is only to support the establishment and
implementation of computer based training programs for naval
air reserve aircrews.
Program Recommended
The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,389,913,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,136,293,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,175,393,000
Change from budget request............................ +39,100,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of
strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes,
guns, associated support equipment, and modification of in-
service missiles, torpedoes, and guns.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
Item request recommendation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSOW.......................... 58,665 68,665 +10,000
Hellfire...................... 0 37,500 +37,500
Standard missile.............. 35,601 68,601 +33,000
Weapons industrial facilities. 34,932 25,932 -9,000
CIWS MODS (surface mode)...... 9,990 29,990 +20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballistic Missiles
trident advance procurement
The Navy requested $47,021,000 for advance procurement of
long lead items for fiscal year 1999 Trident II missiles. The
Committee recommends $32,021,000, a decrease of $15,000,000.
The Committee notes that over $19,000,000 of fiscal year 1996
Trident II long lead funding has not been obligated based on
DOD accounting reports.In fiscal year 1997, $26,456,000 remains
unobligated. Further, Navy budget documentation indicates that fiscal
year 1998 long lead funding for the airframe and motor will not be
obligated until fiscal year 1999. Since funding is being requested
ahead of need, the Committee recommends a reduction of $15,000,000 to
the Trident II advanced procurement request.
Other Missiles
essm
The Navy requested $15,529,000 for the Evolved Seasparrow
Missile (ESSM) program. The Committee recommends $5,529,000, a
reduction of $10,000,000. The ESSM program begins low rate
production in fiscal year 1999 with 87 missiles, including
foreign military sales. Though the tooling procured in the
research and development program supports procurement rates of
up to 180 missiles per year, the Navy's fiscal year 1998 budget
nevertheless requests funding for full rate production tooling
one year prior to approval of low rate production and two years
prior to approval for full rate production. The Committee
believes that such a request is premature, and therefore
recommends a reduction of $10,000,000.
standard missile
The Navy requested $196,492,000 for Standard Missile. The
Committee recommends $181,092,000, a decrease of $15,400,000.
The funds for the Navy Lower Tier program have been transferred
to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, in the
``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' appropriation as proposed in the
House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
aerial targets
The Navy requested $72,923,000 for aerial targets. The
Committee recommends $65,923,000, a decrease of $7,000,000 due
to reduced requirements.
Spares and Repair Parts
The Navy requested $26,943,000 for spares and repair parts.
The Committee recommends $21,943,000, a reduction of $5,000,000
based on large unobligated balances in fiscal years 1995, 1996,
and 1997.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $289,695,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 336,797,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 423,797,000
Change from budget request............................ +87,000,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition,
ammunition modernization and ammunition related materiel for
the Navy and Marine Corps.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change
Item Budget Committee from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.56MM, All types.................. 33,000 36,000 +3,000
CTG 7.62MM, All types.............. 2,900 8,900 +6,000
Fuze, ET, XM762.................... 0 7,000 +7,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ammunition shortfalls
The Committee has recommended an additional $30,000,000 to
satisfy ammunition shortfalls identified by the Marine Corps.
The Committee has recommended additional funds for the
following items:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change
Item Budget Committee from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.56MM, All types.................. 33,000 36,000 +3,000
Linear charges, all types.......... 2,290 17,290 +15,000
40MM, All types.................... 5,701 10,701 +5,000
Fuze, ET, XM762.................... 0 7,000 +7,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Ammunition
practice bombs
The Navy requested $41,766,000 for practice bombs. The
Committee recommends $56,766,000, an increase of $15,000,000
only to procure laser guided training rounds.
5 inch/54 gun ammunition
The Navy requested $27,669,000 for 5 inch/54 gun
ammunition. The Committee recommends $60,169,000, an increase
of $32,500,000 only to procure DPICM ammunition.
20MM pgu-28
The Navy requested no funds for 20MM PGU-28 ammunition. The
Committee recommends $3,500,000 only to procure 20MM PGU-28
ammunition.
Program Recommended
The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $5,613,665,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 7,438,158,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 7,628,158,000
Change from budget request............................ +190,000,000
This appropriation provides funds for the construction of
new ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships,
including hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment,
electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and
communications systems.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change
Budget Committee from
Request Recommendation Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LPD-17.......................... 0 185,000 +185,000
Outfitting...................... 28,140 21,140 -7,000
Post Delivery................... 90,177 81,177 -9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Warships
cvn refueling overhauls
The Navy requested $1,615,003,000 for a complex refueling
overhaul of the U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN-68). The Committee is
disappointed that the Navy has elected to overhaul the Nimitz--
the first ship of its class--without cooperative engagement,
integrated ship self defense, the advanced combat direction
system, the rolling airframe missile, the SPQ-9 navigation
radar, a common high-band data link, the battlegroup passive
horizon extension system, an outboard weapons elevator,
conversion of nuclear magazines, emergency ordnance handling,
and improved propellers. At the same time the Navy proposes to
delete these essential warfighting improvements from a front
line combat ship, ostensibly due to lack of funds, it has
proposed a ``business-as-usual'' R&D budget with growth in
basic research, advanced technology demonstrations, and other
programs less relevant to near-term warfighting requirements.
The Committee questions these priorities and whether the
Theater CINCs agree with them. The Committee urges the
leadership of the Navy to reconsider these priorities as it
executes the fiscal year 1998 budget, and to request through
the reprogramming process sufficient funds to ensure that the
Nimitz is returned to duty with the best warfighting
improvements available, rather than with holes where modern
equipment is supposed to go. The Committee recommends
$1,628,403,000, an increase of $13,400,000. This includes a
decrease of $5,600,000 as recommended in the House-passed
Defense Authorization bill due to cancellation of the
requirement for CIWS guns and an increase of $20,000,000 only
for installation of the ship self defense system.
cvn refueling overhauls--advance procurement
The Navy requested $92,855,000 for advance procurement for
the overhaul of CVN-69, a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Given
the deficiencies on the overhaul of the lead ship of the class,
the Committee is not willing to support a second overhaul until
they are remedied for both ships. The Committee recommends
$46,855,000, a decrease of $46,000,000, as well as proposed
bill language to ensure that funds are not obligated on an
aircraft carrier overhaul that delivers CVN-69 back to the
fleet without installations of cooperative engagement and the
ship self defense system.
ddg-51
The Navy requested $2,665,767,000 to procure 3 DDG-51 Aegis
ships. The Committee is dismayed at the Navy's plan to build 12
ships between 1997 and 2001 which are planned to be delivered
to the fleet without cooperative engagement or theater
ballistic missile defense capability. This shipbuilding plan is
counter to the theater missile defense goals of the
Administration, the Navy, and the Congress and may
unnecessarily put at risk the lives of U.S. forces deployed in
hostile situations. The Committee recommends $2,695,367,000, an
increase of $29,600,000. This includes an additional
$19,400,000 to accelerate baseline 6 hardware and software
needed to incorporate theater ballistic missile defense in
these ships, $14,000,000 only to install cooperative engagement
on the third ship in 1998, and a decrease of $3,800,000 due to
savings in the program resulting from a FMS sale to Spain of
Aegis combat systems. The Committee also proposes bill language
to preclude the Navy from awarding a multiyear contract for
construction of twelve DDG-51 ships, unless at least four of
the ships will be delivered to the Navy with cooperative
engagement and theater ballistic missile capability installed.
cruiser overhauls
The Navy has indicated to the congressional defense
committees that it plans to begin an extensive overhaul program
for 27 of its Aegis cruisers. Since no funds are requested in
the budget for this purpose, the Department of Defense would
have to submit a new start reprogramming request if the Navy
planned to begin cruiser conversion prior to fiscal year 1999.
The Committee directs that all the overhauls for these ships
must be competed between U.S. shipyards and that no non-
competitive allocations be made for industrial base reasons.
The Committee understands that this direction is consistent
with the Navy's plan.
Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Programs
lcac landing craft
The Navy requested no funds for LCAC landing craft service
life extension (SLEP). The Committee recommends $24,000,000 and
directs the Navy to accelerate the SLEP, while the production
line is still warm, due to recent disclosure of corrosion and
component failures from fleet LCAC operating units. The Navy
has informed the Committee that this program can be started in
fiscal year 1998 using unique existing facilities and retaining
a trained labor force, resulting in a net savings of
$18,300,000.
adc(x)
The Navy requested no funds for ADC(X) construction, but
plans to build such a class of ships in the outyears. The
Committee directs that the construction cost of such ships, if
proposed to the Congress by the Navy, be funded in the
Shipbuilding and Conversion appropriation.
Program Recommended
The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $3,067,944,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,825,500,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 3,084,485,000
Change from budget request............................ +258,985,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of
major equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft,
missiles, and torpedoes. Such equipment range from the latest
electronic sensors for updating our naval forces to trucks,
training equipment, and spare parts.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change
Budget Committee from
Request Recommendation Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactor components.............. 193,880 180,880 -13,000
Radar Support................... 1,708 23,708 +22,000
Surface sonar windows/domes..... 0 6,000 +6,000
Cooperative engagement.......... 0 114,800 +114,800
AN/SSQ-36 sonobouy.............. 1,402 2,902 +1,500
AN/SSQ-57 sonobouy.............. 0 4,500 +4,500
Weapons range support equipment. 4,858 14,358 +9,500
Airborne mine counter-measures
(SWIMS)........................ 20,192 27,692 +7,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ships Support Equipment
LM-2500 Gas Turbine
The Navy requested $7,548,000 for the LM-2500 gas turbine
engine. The Committee recommends $5,548,000, a decrease of
$2,000,000 due to reduced requirements resulting from ship
deactivations.
Navigation Equipment
Other Navigation Equipment
The Navy requested $31,552,000 for other navigation
equipment. The Committee recommends $39,052,000, an increase of
$7,500,000. This includes an increase of $9,000,000 only for
the WSN-7 ring laser gyro and a decrease of $1,500,000 due to
contract savings in this program.
Other Shipboard Equipment
Firefighting Equipment
The Navy requested $14,081,000 for other firefighting
equipment. The Committee recommends $27,081,000, an increase of
$13,000,000 only for self contained breathing apparatus as
recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
Pollution control equipment
The Navy requested $156,775,000 for pollution control
equipment. The Committee recommends $147,775,000, a decrease of
$9,000,000 due to reduced requirements and excess prior year
funds identified by the General Accounting Office.
submarine batteries
The Navy requested $9,043,000 for submarine batteries. The
Committee recommends $8,443,000, a decrease of $600,000 due to
contract savings.
strategic platform support equipment
The Navy requested $6,435,000 for strategic platform
support equipment. The Committee recommends $21,435,000, an
increase of $15,000,000 only to install AN/UYQ-70 displays in
submarines.
Communications and Electronic Equipment
radar support
The Navy requested $1,708,000 for radar support. The
Committee recommends $23,708,000, an increase of $22,000,000 as
recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill of
which $13,000,000 is only for the SPS-73(V) radar and
$9,000,000 is only for the AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation
radar.
Ship Sonars
an/sqq-89 surface asw combat system
The Navy requested $16,628,000 for AN/SQQ-89. The Committee
recommends $16,228,000, a decrease of $400,000 due to contract
and installation savings.
ssn acoustics
The Navy requested $77,953,000 for SSN Acoustics. The
Committee recommends $46,453,000, a decrease of $31,500,000.
This consists of a decrease of $39,500,000 to the Acoustic
Rapid Commercial Off-the-Shelf Insertion (A-RCI) program and an
increase of $8,000,000 only for refurbishment of TB-23 arrays.
Concerning the A-RCI program, the Committee believes the
program is concurrent since the Navy plans to buy 14 A-RCI kits
in 1998 even though initial operational test and evaluation is
not planned until the first quarter of 1999. The Committee
recommends that A-RCI production funds be deferred one year to
reduce program risk.
carrier asw module
The Navy requested $16,000 for the carrier ASW module. The
Committee recommends $12,016,000, an increase of $12,000,000
only for procurement and installation of six AN/UQX-5(V) Fast
Time Analyzer System engineering change two acoustic intercept
processors, six CV ASW Module on-board trainers, one CV
tactical support center upgrade, and integration of a real time
sensor data link.
Electronic Warfare Equipment
C3 Countermeasures
The Navy requested $6,891,000 for C3 countermeasures. The
Committee recommends $6,591,000, a decrease of $300,000 due to
reduced requirements.
Reconnaissance Equipment
combat direction finding equipment
The Navy requested $10,473,000 for combat direction finding
equipment. The Committee recommends $5,873,000, a decrease of
$4,600,000 due to contract savings on automated digital
acquisition systems.
battle group passive horizon extension (bgphes)
The Navy requested $50,221,000 for BGPHES. The Committee
recommends $47,421,000, a decrease of $2,800,000 due to
contract savings.
Other Ship Electronic Equipment
Navy Tactical Data System
The Navy requested $14,335,000 for the Navy Tactical Data
System. The Committee recommends $24,335,000, an increase of
$10,000,000 only to install AN/UYQ-70 displays on Aegis
cruisers.
Advanced Tactical Data Link Systems
The Navy requested $16,991,000 for advanced tactical data
link systems. The Committee recommends $15,391,000, a decrease
of $1,600,000 due to contract savings in AN/VRC-107(V)
terminals.
Aviation Electronic Equipment
Automatic Carrier Landing System
The Navy requested $13,200,000 for the automatic carrier
landing system. The Committee recommends $12,200,000, a
decrease of $1,000,000 due to cancellation of the AN/SPN-46(V)
landing system.
id systems
The Navy requested $11,293,000 for identification systems.
The Committee recommends $9,193,000, a decrease of $2,100,000
for shipboard advanced radar target identification systems
which have slipped until 1999.
Other Shore Electronic Equipment
jmcis tactical/mobile
The Navy requested $2,888,000 for JMCIS Tactical/Mobile.
The Committee recommends $47,888,000, an increase of
$45,000,000 only for procurement of AN/SQR-17A(V)3 underwater
systems, including preplanned product improvement, for Mobile
Inshore Undersea Warfare operations.
Submarine Communications
Submarine communication equipment
The Navy requested $37,239,000 for submarine communication
equipment. The Committee recommends $47,239,000, an increase of
$10,000,000 only for procurement of AN/USC-42(V)V mini-Demand
Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA) UHF Fleet SATCOM communications
terminals for submarines, surface ships, and airborne
platforms.
Shore Communications
nsips
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
jedmics
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
Aviation Support Equipment
sonobouys
an/sqq-53 (difar)
The Navy requested $28,382,000 for procurement of AN/SQQ-53
sonobouys. The Committee recommends $49,382,000, an increase of
$21,000,000 identified by the Navy as a critical shortfall.
an/sqq-62 (dicass)
The Navy requested $24,291,000 for procurement of AN/SQQ-62
sonobouys. The Committee recommends $32,291,000, an increase of
$8,000,000 identified by the Navy as a critical shortfall.
Aircraft Support Equipment
aviation life support
The Navy requested $15,345,000 for aviation life support
equipment. The Committee recommends $12,645,000, a decrease of
$2,700,000 due to reduced requirements.
lamps mk iii shipboard equipment
The Navy requested $5,805,000 for LAMPS MK III Shipboard
Equipment. The Committee recommends $4,560,000, a decrease of
$1,245,000 due to excess funds identified by the General
Accounting Office.
Ship Missile Systems Equipment
nato seasparrow
The Navy requested $6,866,000 for the NATO Seasparrow
program. The Committee recommends $10,866,000, an increase of
$4,000,000 only for low-light, solid state electro-optic
cameras.
ship self-defense system
The Navy requested $5,841,000 for the ship-self defense
system. The Committee recommends $17,841,000, an increase of
$12,000,000 only for installation of the SSDS on two LSD-41
class ships with rolling airframe missile launchers to be
allocated from assets procured in 1998 or earlier fiscal years.
aegis support equipment
The Navy requested $26,813,000 for Aegis support equipment.
The Committee recommends $21,113,000, a reduction of $5,700,000
due to reduced requirements because of ship deactivations.
surface tomahawk support equipment
The Navy requested $65,502,000 for surface Tomahawk support
equipment. The Committee recommends $65,302,000, a decrease of
$200,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship
deactivations.
Fleet Ballistic Missile Support Equipment
strategic missile systems equipment
The Navy requested $231,528,000 for strategic missile
systems equipment. The Committee recommends $228,728,000, a
decrease of $2,800,000 due to excess funds identified by the
General Accounting Office.
Other Ordnance Support Equipment
unmanned seaborne target
The Navy requested $4,271,000 for unmanned seaborne target
development. The Committee recommends $2,271,000, a decrease of
$2,000,000 due to reduced requirements.
Other Expendable Ordnance
surface training device modifications
The Navy requested $4,829,000 for surface training device
modifications. The Committee recommends $13,329,000, an
increase of $8,500,000 only for procurement of Carry-on Combat
Systems Trainers (COCST) for the Battle Force Tactical Training
(BFTT) system.
Civil Engineering Support Equipment
construction and maintenance equipment
The Navy requested $3,700,000 for construction and
maintenance equipment. The Committee recommends $5,200,000, an
increase of $1,500,000 only for laser leveling devices.
amphibious equipment
The Navy requested $6,233,000 for amphibious equipment. The
Committee recommends $11,233,000, an increase of $5,000,000
only for the Elevated Causeway (Modular).
pollution control equipment
The Navy requested $28,650,000 for pollution control
equipment. The Committee recommends $25,080,000, a decrease of
$3,570,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship
deactivations.
command support equipment
The Navy requested $15,915,000 for command support
equipment. The Committee recommends $17,915,000, an increase of
$2,000,000 only for the Advanced Technical Information System.
Other
spares and repair parts
The Navy requested $248,717,000 for spares and repair
parts. The Committee recommends $228,717,000, a decrease of
$20,000,000 due to reduced requirements because of ship
deactivations.
Program Recommended
The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $569,073,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 374,306,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 491,198,000
Change from budget request............................ +116,892,000
This appropriation provides the Marine Corps with funds for
procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armament,
communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and
various support equipment.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousand of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Item Budget request recommended request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Javelin......................................................... 42,146 59,146 +17,000
Communications and Elec Infrastructure Supt..................... 41,809 84,409 +42,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons and Combat Vehicles
items under $2 million (tracked vehicles)
The Marine Corps requested $99,000 for items under $2
million (tracked vehicles). The Committee recommends
$1,999,000, an increase of $1,900,000 only for a supplemental
fuel carrying capability.
Other Communications and Electronics Equipment
intelligence support equipment
The Marine Corps requested $16,413,000 for Intelligence
Support Equipment. The Committee recommends an increase of
$5,392,000. Of this amount, $4,600,000 is only to procure CI/
HUMINT Program equipment, and $792,000 is to procure portable
satcom radios.
Tactical Vehicles
high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles
The Marine Corps requested $696,000 for High Mobility
Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). The Committee
recommends $40,696,000, an increase of $40,000,000 only to
begin the production of a HMMWV service-life extension program.
General Property
field medical equipment
The Marine Corps requested $1,081,000 for field medical
equipment. The Committee recommends $11,081,000, an increase of
$10,000,000 only to procure equipment for the Chemical
Biological Incident Response Force.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $6,404,980,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 5,684,847,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 6,386,479,000
Change from budget request............................ +701,632,000
This appropriation provides for the procurement of
aircraft, and for modification of in-service aircraft to
improve safety and enhance operational effectiveness. It also
provides for initial spares and other support equipment to
include aerospace ground equipment and industrial facilities.
In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight
training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide
for more economical training.
Committee Recommendations
Authorization Changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Item Budget request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-2............................................................. 174,086 505,286 +331,200
EC-130J......................................................... 0 49,900 +49,900
JPATS........................................................... 65,415 77,615 +12,200
Predator UAV.................................................... 116,506 146,506 +30,000
B-1B Mods....................................................... 114,245 138,245 +24,000
H-1 Mods........................................................ 2,778 3,578 +800
DARP Mods....................................................... 67,136 139,136 +72,000
DARP............................................................ 141,493 146,493 +5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat Aircraft
advanced tactical fighter (F-22)
advance procurement
The Air Force requested $80,864,000 for advance procurement
for the F-22 aircraft. The Committee recommends $74,864,000, a
decrease of $6,000,000. The Air Force has indicated that these
funds will be used for redesign efforts associated with Out of
Production Parts (OPPs). Since such redesign efforts are
properly funded in the research and development account, the
Committee has reduced F-22 procurement by $6,000,000 and has
increased F-22 research and development by a like amount. The
Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to budget for
these redesign efforts in the research and development accounts
in future budgets.
In addition to OPP redesign efforts, the Air Force has
requested authority to use procurement funds to purchase OPPs
for more than one aircraft lot. The Committee understands that
these parts are defined as electro/mechanical components or
electronic piece parts. Electro/mechanical components include
parts below the Line Replaceable Units/Line Replaceable Module
(LRU/LRM) level, such as actuators, fuel pumps, or hydraulic
pumps; however such components do not include structural parts
such as wings, bulkheads, flaps, ailerons, doors, or landing
gear struts; or subsystems at or above the LRU/LRM level such
as an auxiliary power unit. Electronic piece parts include
parts below the LRU/LRM level such as multi-chip modules,
Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs),
microprocessors, integrated circuits, microcircuits, diodes,
and transistors. OPPs are parts that are currently unavailable
or projected to be unavailable from the original equipment
supplier or any alternative source. Often these parts become
unavailable because industry has moved to the next generation
of technology and no longer finds it cost effective to maintain
the capability to produce the older technology, or the supplier
elects to end business with the government, or the supplier
goes out of business.
The Committee approves the Air Force request to use
procurement funds to purchase OPPs for multiple aircraft lots
based on the following criteria: (1) the OPPs must meet the
definition of parts described above; (2) the OPPs must meet the
definition of ``out of production'' as described above; (3)
OPPs can only be purchased in cases in which a redesign of the
parts cannot be accomplished in time to prevent an impact to
the production schedule; (4) the Air Force shall not procure
more parts than required to bridge the gap between the end of
availability of the parts and the availability of the
redesigned part; and (5) no more than five aircraft lots of
parts can be procured. Any purchases beyond the scope of the
criteria above require prior notification to the congressional
defense committees. Finally, the Committee is aware that the
Air Force needs to procure a video tape deck because of
diminishing manufacturing sources. Since such an item would not
otherwise meet the criteria above, the Committee provides
separate and specific approval for this item.
f-16
The Air Force requested no funding for the F-16 program.
The Committee recommends $82,500,000 for 3 additional aircraft.
Airlift Aircraft
C-17
The Air Force requested $1,923,311,000 for the C-17
aircraft. The Committee recommends $1,914,211,000, a decrease
of $9,100,000. This GAO recommended reduction is based on C-17
program office financial execution forecasts that show that
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 funds will not be
obligated prior to funds expiration.
c-17 advance procurement
The Air Force requested $278,200,000 for C-17 advance
procurement in support of fiscal year 1999 aircraft. The
Committee recommends $265,600,000, a decrease of $12,600,000.
This GAO recommended reduction is based on contract savings
associated with prior year advance procurement contracts.
civil air patrol
The Air Force requested $2,645,000 for the Civil Air
Patrol. The Committee recommends $4,498,000, an increase of
$1,853,000.
Other Aircraft
E-8C
The Air Force requested $313,991,000 for the E-8C (JSTARS)
aircraft. The Committee recommends $317,991,000, a net increase
of $4,000,000. The adjustment includes an additional
$16,000,000 to address funding requirements rephased from
fiscal year 1996 and an additional $1,000,000 only for
integration of an Improved Data Modem on the JSTARS aircraft.
The adjustment also includes a $13,000,000 reduction based on
unjustified growth in the Engineering Change Order (ECO) line.
The Committee notes that the Air Force is requesting
$21,400,000 for ECOs in fiscal year 1998 to support one
aircraft, compared to $3.6 million in fiscal year 1997 for two
aircraft. The Air Force has indicated that the JSTARS airframe
estimates have already been increased in the fiscal year 1998
budget to reflect recent experience of increased costs
associated with refurbishing used airframes. Since these higher
costs are already built into the airframe estimate, the level
of growth in ECO funding is unwarranted.
Modification of Inservice Aircraft
B-52 modifications
The Air Force requested $28,907,000 for B-52 modifications.
The Committee recommends $31,807,000, an increase of $2,900,000
only for B-52 Electro-optical Viewing System Reliability and
Maintainability upgrade, identified by the Air Force as a high
priority unfunded requirement.
F-15 modifications
The Air Force requested $169,568,000 for F-15
modifications. The Committee recommends $157,068,000, a net
decrease of $12,500,000. The adjustment includes an increase of
$22,800,000 only for additional PW-220E engine modifications, a
decrease of $11,800,000 based on two recently terminated
modifications in fiscal year 1997, a decrease of $13,500,000
for APG-63 radar upgrade pricing, and a decrease of $10,000,000
for radar support equipment. The $11,800,000 reduction for the
terminated modifications is based on a $21,200,000 GAO
recommended reduction adjusted for amounts already reprogrammed
to support an Air Traffic Control and Landing System
initiative. With regard to the radar upgrade modification, the
Committee notes that the Air Force has not adequately justified
the unusually high cost of the radar in fiscal year 1998 as
compared to the budget last year and as compared to other
fiscal years in the current budget. The Committee reduction
brings the fiscal year 1998 program in line with the fiscal
year 1997 column of the current budget. The Air Force has also
indicated that funds are no longer required for radar equipment
as displayed in the current budget, but needed instead for
support equipment. No justification for this latter requirement
has been provided to the Committee.
The Committee is concerned with the new cost estimates
appearing in the budget this year; the average unit cost of the
radar over the life of the program has approximately doubled.
To date, the Air Force has not provided a satisfactory
explanation of this change. Further, this $600,000,000 program
has been justified as a reliability and maintainability (R&M)
upgrade, not a performance upgrade. Given the doubling in cost,
the original cost/benefit assumptions for the program may no
longer be valid. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees including an explanation of
the average unit cost growth compared to the budget last year
and a revised cost/benefit analysis, including break even
point, justifying continued pursuit of the program. The
Committee directs that this report be provided at least 15 days
prior to award of the first production contract.
F-16 modifications
The Air Force requested $216,158,000 for F-16
modifications. The Committee recommends $199,358,000, a
decrease of $16,800,000. The decrease includes a $13,000,000
reduction to GPS and a $3,800,000 reduction to Block 40 CAS
Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS). The Air Force budget
requests 330 GPS kits in fiscal year 1998, up from 150 in
fiscal year 1997 and higher than the outyears. The rate of
production resulting from the fiscal year 1998 buy exceeds the
rate in which the kits can be installed, resulting in kits
unnecessarily sitting on the shelf for up to five months. A
reduction of 94 kits will bring the production rate in line
with the installation rate. The budget also includes $3,800,000
for NVIS integration. However, the Air Force has indicated no
further integration is required.
C-130 modifications
The Air Force requested $94,511,000 for C-130
modifications. The Committee recommends $119,211,000, an
increase of $24,700,000 only for the electronic suite
modifications associated with the new production EC-130 funded
separately in this account.
Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities
F-15 post production support
The Air Force requested $8,089,000 for F-15 Post Production
Support. The Committee recommends $6,289,000, a decrease of
$1,800,000. This GAO recommended adjustment is based on
prematurely budgeting for F-15 tooling disposition given
continued production of F-15 attrition aircraft.
war consumables
The Air Force requested $67,565,000 for war consumables.
The Committee recommends $60,165,000, a decrease of $7,400,000.
The GAO has identified excess engineering change order (ECO)
funding in the towed decoy program.
miscellaneous production charges
The Air Force requested $275,805,000 for miscellaneous
production charges. The Committee denies the budget request of
$6,221,000 to procure podded electro-optical camera systems.
The Committee disagrees with the Air Force's acquisition
strategy to sole-source the second Theater Airborne
Reconnaissance System (TARS) sensor and Advanced TARS Medium
Altitude Electro-optical (MAEO) sensor.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation....................... $2,297,145,000
Fiscal Year 1998 budget request...................... 2,557,741,000
Committee recommendation............................. 2,320,741,000
Change from budget request........................... -237,000,000
The appropriation provides for the procurement,
installation, and checkout of strategic ballistic and other
missiles, modification of in-service missiles, and initial
spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational
space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground
equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities,
machine tool modernization, and special program support.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Item Budget request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSOW............................................................ 1,139 30,139 +29,000
AGM-130......................................................... 1,539 42,539 +41,000
MAVERICK........................................................ 0 11,000 +11,000
Titan Space Boosters............................................ 555,304 473,304 -82,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Missiles
amraam
The Air Force requested $117,768,000 for continued
production of AMRAAM. The Committee recommends $107,168,000, a
reduction of $10,600,000. This GAO-recommended reduction is
based on unneeded funds for engineering change orders (ECOs).
The Committee also notes that the AMRAAM program has
inappropriately budgeted recurring efforts such as program
management, technical services, production support, and
acceptance testing in its nonrecurring budget line. Such
budgeting practices are misleading and should be corrected in
future budget submissions.
Modification of Inservice Missiles
conventional alcm
The Air Force requested no funding for the Conventional Air
Launched Cruise Missile program. The Committee recommends
$15,300,000 to continue conversions of nuclear Air Launched
Cruise Missiles. The Committee notes that this effort has been
identified as a high priority by the Air Force.
Space Programs
global positioning system (gps) space segment
The Air Force requested $163,837,000 for the acquisition of
3 GPS Block IIF satellites. The Committee recommends
$122,137,000, a decrease of $41,700,000. The funds provided by
the Committee will enable the Air Force to acquire 2 Block IIF
satellites in fiscal year 1998.
In making this recommendation the Committee notes that the
present GPS constellation contains 24 satellites consisting of
21 operational spacecraft and three on-orbit spares. If present
delivery schedules are maintained one to five spacecraft will
be in storage available for launch within 60 days of an on-
orbit failure as called for by present department policy. The
Committee believes that the probability is extremely low that
three GPS satellites will ever fail simultaneously or in rapid
succession. Even in the highly unlikely event that such a
failure should occur, the Air Force does not have enough medium
class launch vehicles available to replenish the constellation
as swiftly as called for by present DoD policy. In essence, by
requesting GPS satellites for acquisition before they are
needed or could ever be launched, the Air Force is attempting
to underwrite an ``insurance policy'' that, in practical terms,
it could never implement.
The Committee recognizes the importance of the total GPS
system to the Department of Defense and remains totally
supportive of the program. The Committee also feels that as a
cost savings measure and a more realistic phasing of program
funding to requirements, the acquisition of one GPS Block IIF
satellite can be deferred until the next multi-year block buy.
Accordingly, the Committee makes this recommendation without
prejudice.
medium launch vehicles
The Air Force requested $165,783,000 for the medium launch
vehicle program. The Committee recommends $147,783,000, a
decrease of $18,000,000. According to the General Accounting
Office lower than expected cost growth in fiscal year 1997, and
the overstatement of funds requested for Delta launch failure
recovery efforts in fiscal year 1998 makes this reduction
possible. The Committee makes this recommendation without
prejudice to the program.
defense support program
The Air Force requested $113,708,000 for the Defense
Support Program. The Committee recommends $108,708,000, a
decrease of $5,000,000. The Committee has reduced the budget
request due to the availability of prior year program funds and
the Air Force's recent decision not to pursue research studies
to identify modifications needed to launch the DSP satellite on
the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. Funds for these studies
were requested as part of this year's budget.
special programs
Details of this adjustment are discussed fully in the
classified annex to this report.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE
Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation....................... $293,153,000
Fiscal Year 1998 budget request...................... 403,984,000
Committee recommendation............................. 414,884,000
Change from budget request........................... +10,900,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition,
modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related
items for the Air Force.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
Item request recommendation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator. 0 16,800 +16,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
wind corrected munitions dispenser
The Air Force requested $19,871,000 for the Wind Corrected
Munitions Dispenser. The Committee recommends $10,471,000, a
decrease of $9,400,000 based on contract savings identified by
the GAO.
Cartridges
20mm pgu-28
The Air Force requested no funds for 20MM PGU-28
ammunition. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 only to procure
20MM PGU-28 ammunition
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $5,944,680,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 6,561,253,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 6,588,939,000
Change from budget request............................ +27,686,000
This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapons
systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles.
Included are vehicles, electronic and telecommunications
systems for command and control of operational forces, and
ground support equipment for weapon systems and supporting
structure.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Item Budget request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather observ/forecast......................................... 18,013 22,013 +4,000
TAC SIGINT support.............................................. 4,114 9,114 +5,000
Radio Equipment................................................. 12,844 19,344 +6,500
DARP RC-135..................................................... 12,778 47,778 +35,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo and Utility Vehicles
items less than $2,000,000
The Air Force requested $5,025,000 for items less than
$2,000,000. The Committee recommends $3,625,000, a reduction of
$1,400,000. The budget request included $1.4 million for minor
replacement items. However, Air Force officials advised that
there are no known requirements for these items.
Special Purpose Vehicles
hmmwv, armored
The Air Force requested $24,181,000 for armored HMMWVs. The
Committee recommends $7,781,000, a reduction of $16,400,000.
The fiscal year 1998 budget requested additional funds for the
Force Protection/Anti-Terrorism initiative. However, these
vehicles are already budgeted in the Force Protection/Anti-
terrorism line of the budget.
items less than $2,000,000
The Air Force requested $6,738,000 for items less than
$2,000,000. The Committee recommends $6,194,000, a reduction of
$544,000 based on fiscal year 1997 contract savings and
unrequired contingency funding.
Materials Handling Equipment
60K A/C loader
The Air Force requested $83,143,000 for the 60K A/C leader
program. The Committee recommends $51,143,000, a reduction of
$32,000,000. This program has been troubled by producibility
and reliability problems which have led to testing delays and a
production stop. Independent Operational Test and Evaluation
will now occur in December 1997, with the first contract award
after the production break to follow in April 1998. The
Committee notes that the Air Force has budgeted a full rate lot
in fiscal year 1998 of 60 units, and has scheduled delivery of
the first units in just nine months, even though the loader's
normal manufacturing lead-time is 16 months. Given the
production problems in this program, the Committee views this
recovery plan to be overly aggressive. Accordingly, the
Committee recommends reducing the fiscal year 1998 buy from 60
to 45 loaders, the level that had been planned in fiscal year
1997.
Intelligence Programs
intelligence data handling system
The Air Force requested $20,739,000 for intelligence data
handling. The Committee recommends $24,339,000, an increase of
$3,600,000 only to provide JSAS to Air Force battlelabs.
Electronic Programs
strategic command and control
The Air Force requested $20,505,000 for Strategic Command
and Control. The Committee recommends $19,005,000 a net
decrease of $1,500,000. The adjusted amount includes a decrease
of $10,000,000 for the terminated Improved Technical Data
System (ITDS) and an increase of $8,500,000 only for the DIRECT
program. The Committee notes that the Air Force has identified
DIRECT as a high priority unfunded requirement.
Special Communications-Electronics Projects
C3 COUNTERMEASURES
The Air Force requested $14,904,000 for Command, Control,
and Communications Countermeasures. The Committee recommends
$13,004,000, a reduction of $1,900,000 based on excess funds
available in fiscal year 1997.
Air Force Communications
base information infrastructure
The Air Force requested $88,945,000 for Base Information
Infrastructure enhancements. The Committee recommends
$136,945,000, an increase of $48,000,000 only for security
enhancements to Air Force base information systems.
air force satellite control network
The Air Force requested $32,197,000 for satellite control
network activities. The Committee recommends $23,097,000, a
reduction of $9,100,000 based on cancellation of the fiscal
year 1997 Military Satellite Communications system.
Organization and Base
items less than $2,000,000
The Air Force requested $8,960,000 for items less than
$2,000,000. The Committee recommends $6,160,000, a reduction of
$2,800,000 based on contract award problems and delayed
obligation of funds for the Power Conditioning and Continuation
Interface Equipment (PCCIE) program.
Personnel Safety and Rescue Equipment
night vision goggles
The Air Force requested $2,371,000 for night vision
goggles. The Committee recommends $13,271,000, an increase of
$10,900,000 only for accelerated procurement of night vision
goggles and test sets.
Electrical Equipment
floodlights set type nf2d
The Air Force requested $7,696,000 for floodlights. The
Committee recommends $4,696,000, a reduction of $3,000,000
based on production contract award delays associated with the
FL-1D floodlight.
Base Support Equipment
medical/dental equipment
The Air Force requested $13,295,000 for medical and dental
equipment. The Committee recommends $8,095,000, a reduction of
$5,200,000 based on prior year contract savings in several
programs.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,978,005,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,695,085,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,186,669,000
Change from budget request............................ +491,584,000
This appropriation provides funds for the Procurement
activities of centrally managed programs and the Defense
Agencies.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Equipment, DSPO........................................... 19,334 14,334 -5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
major equipment
The Department requested $104,601,000 for Major Equipment.
The Committee recommends $114,601,000, an increase of
$10,000,000 only for the Mentor-Protege program.
automated document conversion
Information on this project can be found in the Information
Resources Management section of this report.
ballistic missile defense organization (BMDO)
The Department requested no funds in Procurement, Defense-
wide for Patriot PAC-3, Navy Lower Tier and Battle Management
and Control. The Committee recommends that funds provided for
these programs in other Service accounts be transferred to
BMDO, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization
bill.
Special Operations Command
pc, cyclone class
The Department requested no funds for Cyclone Class, Patrol
Coastal craft. The Committee recommends $10,700,000 only for
the completion of the fourteenth CYCLONE Patrol Coastal craft.
sof intelligence systems
The Department requested $21,175,000 for SOF intelligence
systems. The Committee recommends $25,475,000, an increase of
$4,300,000. Of this amount, $800,000 is to procure additional
data collection systems to support the Integrated Survey
Program; $1,500,000 is to purchase eight B-Multi-Mission
Advanced Tactical Terminals; and $2,000,000 is only for the
development of training capabilities for the Joint Threat
Warning System (JTWS). Additional O&M and RDT&E funds are also
provided for JTWS.
Chemical and Biological Defense Program
individual protection
The Department requested $64,855,000 for Chemical and
Biological Individual Protection. The Committee recommends
$74,855,000, an increase of $10,000,000 only for 5,000 chemical
biological (JSLIST) suits.
collective protection
The Department requested $17,316,000 for Chemical and
Biological Collective Protection. The Committee recommends
$37,316,000, an increase of $20,000,000. Within this increase,
$10,000,000 is only for Collective Protection Equipment
shortfalls in Korea, $4,000,000 is only for 300 additional M-
17LDS water sprayers for decontamination of airfields, and
$6,000,000 is only for 14 HMVV medical shelters.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $780,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... ................
Committee recommendation.............................. 850,000,000
Change from budget request............................ +850,000,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of
tactical aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard
and Reserve.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $850,000,000 to meet high priority
requirements of the National Guard and Reserve. This is in
addition to $1,770,300,000 provided elsewhere in Title III of
the Committee bill for equipment which the Committee intends to
be provided to the National Guard and the Reserve Components.
melios an/pvs-6
The Committee is aware that the Army National Guard has a
requirement for an improved eye-safe laser range finder that is
compatible with the devices fielded in the Active Army. The
Mini-Eye-safe Laser Infrared Observation Set (MELIOS) provides
an improved capability and is being fielded to the active Army.
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for procurement of
MELIOS for the Army National Guard.
t-39 replacement aircraft
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to procure T-39
replacement aircraft for the Marine Corps Reserve. The
Committee directs that these aircraft should meet the speed,
range, payload, and cost per passenger mile requirements as
identified by the Commanding General, Marine Forces Reserve.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
miscellaneous equipment
The Committee has provided $143,000,000 for miscellaneous
equipment and believes that the Chiefs of the Reserve and
National Guard components should exercise control of funds
provided for miscellaneous equipment. The Committee directs
that separate, detailed submissions of its modernization
priorities by each of the Guard and Reserve component
commanders be submitted to the congressional defense committees
and recommends including bill language carried in previous
years requiring this submission. The Committee expects the
component commanders to give priority consideration to the
following items: all-terrain cranes, modular airborne fire
fighting system units, CH-47 internal crash worthy fuel cells,
back scatter truck inspection systems, ALR-56M radar warning
receivers, theater deployable communication packages, AN/TQM-41
MMS, M1A2s, M2A2s, night vision equipment, CH-47 ICH aircraft,
litening target and navigation pods, commercial industrial
equipment, high speed dirt compactors, AH-64 combat mission
simulators, heavy equipment transporter vehicles, MLRS
launchers, high mobility trailers for HMMWV, palletized loading
systems, heavy expanded mobility tactical truck wreckers,
avengers, M109A6, automatic building machines, air defense
alerting device systems, interactive simulators, master cranes,
deployable universal combat earth movers, palletized loading
systems, and HEMTT wreckers.
INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
The Defense Department requested $10,273,037,000 for
information resources management. The Committee recommends
$10,387,937,000, an increase of $114,900,000 as explained
below:
Operation and Maintenance, Army:sands of dollars]
High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -25,000
Army Logistics Automation................................. 11,200
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -25,000
Software Program Managers Network......................... 6,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -25,000
REMIS..................................................... 8,900
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -15,000
Automated Document Conversion............................. 30,000
Military Personnel Information System..................... 5,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve:
NSIPS..................................................... 43,500
Operation and Maintenance, Defense Health Program:
High Risk Automation Systems.............................. -20,000
PACMEDNET................................................. 10,000
Other Procurement, Army:
Army Logistics Automation................................. 13,800
SBIS...................................................... 13,000
Other Procurement, Navy:
NSIPS..................................................... 20,500
JEDMICS................................................... 5,000
Other Procurement, Air Force:
Base Information Infrastructure........................... 48,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
Automated Document Conversion............................. 10,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................. 114,900
remis
The Air Force requested $32,647,000 for the Reliability and
Maintainability Information System (REMIS). The Committee
recommends an increase of $8,900,000 in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force to be used only for REMIS projects
related to IMDS conversion.
jedmics
The Navy requested $35,528,000 for the Joint Engineering
Data Management Information and Control System (JEDMICS). The
Committee is concerned that the unprotected transmittal of
sensitive but unclassified data to remote users via the
Internet subjects JEDMICS data to potential unauthorized
access. The Department of Defense has made a substantial
investment in JEDMICS. Without the incorporation of required
security precautions, the system cannot be used with assurance.
To maximize the utility of JEDMICS and to protect the
information as required by law and regulation, the Committee
provides $5,000,000 in the Other Procurement, Navy account to
be used only to acquire and integrate an information security
solution.
sustaining base information services
The Army requested $18,459,000 to maintain Sustaining Base
Information Services, which consists of 13 applications fielded
to 33 installations. To take maximum advantage of the
substantial investment already made in software development,
the Committee recommends adding $13,000,000 to the Other
Procurement, Army account only to field these existing
applications to another 15 installations.
army logistics automation
The Army requested $37,521,000 for its Total Distribution
Program. The Committee recommends $62,521,000 an increase of
$11,200,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army and an increase
of $13,800,000 in Other Procurement, Army. One of the
deficiencies the Army identified during Operation Desert
Shield/Desert Storm was an inability to track shipments and
quickly locate particular supplies as they moved through the
distribution system. The Army has begun acquiring technology
that will automatically record when supplies move past each
major checkpoint as well as allowing personnel to
electronically query the contents of a container without having
to open it. The Committee strongly supports this high priority
effort.
automated document conversion
The Committee supports the Department of Defense goal of
digitizing all weapons engineering drawings by the year 2000
and all other drawings by the year 2002. The Committee agrees
to provide a total of $40,000,000 over the budget request only
for this effort, of which $30,000,000 is in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide for outsourcing bulk conversion
services and $10,000,000 is in Procurement, Defense-Wide for
data conversion products. These funds are to be directly
managed by the Computer Aided Logistics System executive within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
military personnel information systems
The Committee continues to strongly support the fiscal year
1997 appropriation conference report direction regarding DoD-
wide military personnel information systems and the Navy
Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) program management
and implementation. The Department of Defense has officially
designated the Navy as the executive agent and program manager
for the DoD-wide or objective military personnel information
system. The Committee commends this action. After an
administrative delay, DoD and the Navy have begun work again
and the Committee directs both to provide the necessary
resources to put this critical program back on schedule and
accelerate it if possible. The Committee directs the Department
of the Navy to maintain project and program management and
executive agent responsibilities for the objective or DoD-wide
system under the operational control and command of the
Commander, Naval Reserve Forces.
The Committee has provided $69,000,000 for NSIPS and DoD
objective system shortfalls and related Navy Reserve and Navy
personnel information management system functions and needs. Of
this total amount, the Committee directs that $30,500,000 in
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve and $18,000,000 in
Other Procurement, Navy be allocated only to the Commander,
Naval Reserve Forces, to: (1) address NSIPS and Navy objective
system program management funding shortfalls; (2) continue and
escalate Navy central design activity (CDA) consolidations and
the consolidation of all Navy manpower and personnel
information systems with the Naval Reserve Information Systems
Office; (3) evaluate and maintain current personnel/manpower
legacy systems for migration to NSIPS and the DoD objective
systems; (4) establish requirements data bases and development
platforms as well as develop pilot projects with industry and
academia to attract, train and retain needed skilled software
personnel for software incentive projects within the Navy and
DoD; and (5) provide initial outfitting equipment,
communications, local area network (LAN) equipment, software,
hardware and related infrastructure support requirements for
information system facilities.
Of the total amount, the Committee directs that $13,000,000
in Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve and $2,500,000 in
Other Procurement, Navy be allocated only to the Commander,
Naval Reserve Forces for the Naval Reserve Information Systems
Office for Naval Reserve information management systems and
related contractor support, COTS integration efforts, and
continuing electronic medium, communications and LAN
improvements to existing Naval Support Activity and Naval Air
Station facilities.
Of the total amount, the Committee has also provided an
additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide, only for the DoD-wide objective military personnel system
to be used by the Joint Requirements and Integration Office.
software program managers network
The Committee continues to support service programs and
related activities provided by the Software Program Managers
Network (SPMN). Despite support for this program at the DoD
level and previous Committee direction, the budget requested no
funds. The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only for this effort
in Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The Committee directs that
these funds and operational control of the SPMN effort be
transferred to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research
and Development to: (1) continue original SPMN efforts to
improve acquisition and management of software development and
maintenance within all the services and DoD; (2) assist the
Navy and Naval Reserve in their program management efforts
regarding DoD-wide and Naval military manpower personnel
information systems; and (3) assist the Navy and Naval Reserve
in the development of industry and academia pilot projects to
attract, train and retain skilled software personnel for
software intensive projects within the Navy and DoD. It is the
Committee's intent that SPMN reflect the needs of program
managers at the ``grass roots'' level and that it not become an
OSD top-down directed program.
high risk automation systems
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has identified a number
of major DoD automation systems as ``high risk''. The central
weakness in these automation systems is that the development
effort is moving ahead without a completed economic analysis,
proper milestones, measurable goals or a reengineering study of
the process being automated. The Committee believes that it is
preferable to limit development until these steps have been
taken than to risk a major program failure after significant
funds have been spent.
The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of
$110,000,000 to be allocated as follows:
Operation and Maintenance, Army....................... -$25,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy....................... -25,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.................. -25,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide............... -15,000,000
Defense Health Program (CHCSII)....................... -20,000,000
The Committee directs that DoD provide a report to the
congressional defense committees on how these reductions are
being applied no later than March 1, 1998. In addition, the
Committee directs that none of these reductions are to be
applied against Year 2000 conversion efforts, automation
programs to which the Committee has recommended increased
funding over the budget request, the Reserve Component
Automation System or to any item of special interest.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Estimates and Appropriation Summary
The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation budget requests totals
$35,934,491,000. The accompanying bill recommends
$36,704,924,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of
$770,433,000 above the fiscal year 1998 budget estimate, and is
$736,197,000 less than the total provided in fiscal year 1997.
The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the
Committee's recommendations.
federally funded research and development centers (ffrdcs)
The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 plan for
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) is
well above the level of effort for the prior year. The planned
increase of 231 staff technical years of effort (STE)
represents almost a seven percent increase in level of effort
over the limitation set by Congress in 1996. Also, given the
prior year limitation of $1,161,000,000 and the reduction of
$52,000,000 taken against FFRDCs in 1997, the Committee fails
to understand why the Department is reporting an increase in
actual fiscal year 1997 spending.
Moreover, it appears the Department now plans to increase
fiscal year 1998 FFRDC expenditures by $49,520,953 over 1997
levels. These trends and increases are not consistent with
prior Congressional direction nor the recommendation of the
Defense Science Board (DSB) in January 1997. The DSB report
challenged the Department's use of FFRDCs and concluded that
the current FFRDC system ``does not provide the best available
service at the most reasonable cost.'' The DSB Task Force
recommended that: (1) work done by FFRDCs be ``more carefully
defined and limited'' (2) that competition be introduced and,
(3) that management practices be changed at the beginning of
1998 to incorporate these changes. The Committee therefore
recommends a funding level that is consistent with the DSB
report and prior Congressional direction on FFRDCs and
recommends a reduction of $55,000,000 to bring FFRDC spending
back in line with the established Congressional funding
limitation of $1,100,000,000.
BASIC RESEARCH
The Department of Defense requested over $1.1 billion for
basic research in fiscal year 1998, an increase of over ten
percent compared to the current fiscal year 1997 level. While
the Committee supports the need for the Defense Department to
conduct a robust basic university research program, in the
context of the overall fiscal year 1998 defense budget such
funding growth is unwarranted. In each of the services there
are many programs that have long-standing yet unfulfilled
warfighting requirements and which have successfully completed
R&D, yet no production funds are requested in the budget
ostensibly due to lack of funds.
In addition, as in past years this year's budget submission
included large, unfunded shortfalls in defense medical
programs, training and readiness accounts, and other programs
such as munitions which have direct and immediate relevance to
warfighting needs and the provision of an adequate quality of
life for service members and their families. The Committee has
provided additional funds in this bill to address these and
other critical shortfalls. However the Committee questions
whether never-ending budget growth in basic research is wise,
particularly in the context of the Administration's failure to
adequately address the Defense Department's weapon system
modernization needs. In light of the Department's proposed
misallocation of resources, the Committee recommends reductions
to basic research funding to maintain this program at the 1997
level.
NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Department requested $53,479,000 for NATO Research and
Development across Service accounts. The Committee recommends
no appropriation.
The Committee remains concerned that the NATO Research and
Development program is an example of a well intentioned federal
program which, once begun, never ends. This program, which
provides initial funding for international cooperative research
and development projects, began in fiscal year 1986 at the
height of the Cold War. Since that time, over $800,000,000 has
been spent to start cooperative projects, very few of which
have actually resulted in systems being fielded to U.S. troops,
and all of which require the military departments to find ways
to finance outyear costs. The Committee believes that this type
of program is not a priority program and is no longer
affordable, particularly as the Department and Services are
trying to find ways of financing higher priority requirements
in areas such as readiness and modernization. Therefore, the
Committee recommends no appropriation.
tactical radios
The Committee commends the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASDC3I)
for establishing an overall policy and providing planning,
programming, and budgetary guidance to the Services, CINC's,
and DoD agencies for the acquisition of tactical radios. Given
the annual budget for tactical radios, the Committee endorses
the ASDC3I's efforts to ensure that diverse Service and CINC
communications requirements are satisfied, while at the same
time, ensuring that the acquisitions are cost effective. The
Committee is pleased that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology USD(A&T) and the ASDC3I are
currently reviewing Service communications programs and will
make recommendations for the establishment of a joint program
to consolidate existing and planned Service efforts. Since the
review is currently on-going, the Committee directs that no
more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for the research
and development of a tactical radio may be obligated until the
ASDC3I certifies that the development program meets
interoperability requirements, is not duplicative of other
developmental efforts, and is fully funded in the budget.
SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS
The Committee is concerned about the apparent reluctance of
the military services to respond to Committee requests for
budgetary data on Special Access Programs (SAPs). In several
instances, most notably with the Army, the services failed to
provide the Committee with requested information in a timely
manner. In each case, the data was eventually provided, but
only after repeated requests. This situation is unacceptable.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
take necessary actions to ensure the services respond fully and
expeditiously to Committee requests to the military departments
for information on Special Access Programs.
The Committee, during the course of its review, has
discovered a number of programs in the Department that have
been treated in a SAP-like manner, but have not been formally
identified to the Committee as SAPs. Such practices do not
conform with agreements between the Congress and the Department
on handling such information, and severely complicate
Congressional oversight of Departmental activities. The
Committee has resolved one such problem with the Air Force
already. However, the Committee is aware of a problem with a
Navy program that has not been adequately resolved.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the Committee no later than September 30,
1997 that includes (1) a description of the program, (2) the
amount of funding for the program, past and future, by year,
with account and line-item detail, and (3) the steps the
Department is taking to avoid such problems in the future.
Further details are provided separately in the classified annex
of this report.
COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR (CSEL) SURVIVAL RADIO
The Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL) survival radio
system was developed to satisfy a requirement for a
communication capability to be used in the search and rescue of
downed airman and crew. Although the CSEL was designed and
developed to include a secure airborne interrogator, this
capability was not included in the current program. The
Committee understands that this deficiency increases the risk
to an airborne rescue force because the downed crew can not
provide secure, real-time position location data and
situational awareness to the rescue force. Therefore, the
Committee recommends that the Department of Defense provide the
necessary funding in future budgets for a secure, airborne
interrogator in CSEL.
institute for defense analyses
The Committee directs that not more than one-third of the
funds (100 staff technical years of effort) in all
appropriations in the bill for the Institute for Defense
Analyses (IDA) may be obligated until the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology provides the Committee
with the results of any and every recent IDA study dealing with
tactical aircraft modernization or technical performance
issues, at any level of classification. The Committee
designates funds for IDA to be an item of special interest, and
this prior approval restriction shall be so noted on DD Form
1414 (Base for Reprogramming Actions) for fiscal year 1998.
classified programs
Adjustments to classified RDT&E programs are addressed in
the classified annex accompanying this report.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation....................... $5,062,763,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request...................... 4,510,843,000
Committee recommendation............................. 4,686,427,000
Change from budget request........................... +175,584,000
This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation Activities of the Department of the Army.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Item Budget request recommended request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballistics Technology........................................... 33,317 38,317 +5,000
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Adv Tech.......................... 32,685 35,685 +3,000
Joint Service Small Arms Program................................ 4,754 11,754 +7,000
Armament Enhancement Initiative................................. 40,313 60,313 +20,000
All Source Analysis System...................................... 24,045 27,545 +3,500
Aircraft Mod/Prod Improvements.................................. 2,609 22,609 +20,000
Information Systems Security.................................... 9,647 12,147 +2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Research
IN-HOUSE LABORATORY RESEARCH
The Army requested $15,113,000 for in-house laboratory
research. The Committee recommends $14,113,000, a decrease of
$1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.
defense research sciences
The Army requested $138,165,000 for defense research
sciences. The Committee recommends $120,165,000 a decrease of
$18,000,000 to limit program growth. Of the available funds,
$1,000,000 is only to accelerate Intelligent Software Agent
Research at the Army Research Laboratory.
university and industry research centers
The Committee recognizes the importance of electric gun
research and directs that adequate funds be provided in future
budget submissions.
army research institute for behavioral and social sciences
The Army requested $16,000,000 for the Army Research
Institute (ARI) for Behavioral and Social Sciences. The
Committee recommends the budget request. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the ARI's research activities
related to personnel recruitment and training, as well as
issues related to gender and racial integration. The Committee
encourages the Army to adequately fund ARI research activities
in future budget submissions.
Exploratory Development
sensors and electronic survivability
The Army requested $19,294,000 for sensors and electronic
survivability. The Committee recommends $24,294,000, an
increase of $5,000,000 only for the continued development of
the passive millimeter wave camera.
aviation advanced technology
The Army requested $27,282,000 for aviation advanced
technology. The Committee recommends $22,282,000 a decrease of
$5,000,000 which maintains funding at the fiscal year 1997
appropriated level.
combat vehicle and automotive technology
The Army requested $33,112,000 for combat vehicle and
automotive technology. The Committee recommends $40,112,000 an
increase of $7,000,000. This includes an increase of $6,000,000
only to modernize the Army's Tank and Vehicle Simulation
Laboratory, an increase of $3,000,000 only for the continued
development of a Voice Instructional Device for use on the
National Automotive Center's Smart Truck program, and a
decrease of $2,000,000 for program termination.
The Committee directs that of the available funds,
$1,000,000 is only to develop the High Output Diesel Engine at
the National Automotive Center.
chemical, smoke, and equipment defeating technology
The Army requested $4,739,000 for chemical, smoke and
equipment defeating technology. The Committee recommends
$2,739,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 to limit program growth.
joint service small arms program
The Army requested $4,786,000 for the joint service small
arms program. The Committee recommends $9,286,000, an increase
of $4,500,000 only for the accelerated development of the
Objective Crew Served Weapon.
weapons and munitions technology
The joint Army and Defense Special Weapons Agency program
for Electro-Thermal Chemical technology development (ETC) is
evaluating ETC for direct fire applications. The Committee
believes that ETC technology may also have indirect fire
applications. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to conduct a study which explores the benefits of ETC
for Army indirect fire applications. The study is to address
the issues associated with propellant and ETC ignitor
development, as well as system issues associated with platform
integration. The study is to be completed by March 1998. If the
study proves that ETC has indirect fire applications, the
Committee encourages the Army to include this program in the
fiscal year 1999 budget request.
electronics and electronic devices
The Army requested $20,192,000 for electronics and
electronic devices. The Committee recommends $22,692,000, an
increase of $2,500,000 only for the development of standard-
combustion, fuel driven, man-portable, thermophotovoltaic
generators.
COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS
The Committee encourages the Army to examine potential
funding for the Charged Particle Beam Countermine System (CPB-
CMS), which the Committee believes has the potential to detect
and detonate all types of suface or buried mines at a safe
stand-off distance through the use of a high current electron
beam.
human factors engineering technology
The Army requested $14,256,000 for Human Factors
Engineering. The Committee recommends $18,256,000, an increase
of $4,000,000 only for Medical Teams.
environmental quality technology
The Army requested $17,519,000 for Environmental Quality
Technology. The Committee recommends $42,219,000, an increase
of $24,700,000. Of this amount, $5,000,000 is only for support
of life-cycle environmental and manufacturing technologies
research related to weapons systems and munitions technology
assessment and analysis at the Gallo Center, Picatinny Arsenal.
In addition, $2,000,000 is only for the U.S. Army Construction
and Engineering Research Laboratory to conduct an industry
cost-shared demonstration of emerging high-efficiency natural
gas boiler technology. This increase also provides $5,000,000
only for the implementation of the Commercialization of
Technologies to Lower Defense Costs Initiative. Finally, the
Committee provides $4,000,000 only for Bioremediation
Education, Science and Technology and $8,700,000 only for the
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System as provided for in the House-
passed Defense authorization bill.
MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
The Army requested $36,422,000 for military engineering
technology. The Committee recommends $43,922,000, an increase
of $7,500,000 only for further technology development to
enhance the military capabilities and economic efficiency of
climate change fuel cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories.
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
The Army requested $74,684,000 for Medical Technology. The
Committee recommends $142,484,000, an increase of $67,800,000.
Within this increase, $25,000,000 is only for the continuation
of the Army-managed Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research
Program, $9,800,000 is only for neurofibromatosis, $3,500,000
is only for Army nutrition research, $3,500,000 is only for
orthopedic implant research, $6,000,000 is only for the LSTAT,
$10,000,000 is only for prostate cancer research, and
$10,000,000 is only for ovarian cancer research.
neurofibromatosis
The Committee recommends $9,800,000 to continue the Army
neurofibromatosis medical research program which has produced
important advances in the understanding of NF. This work
includes important investigations into genetic mechanisms
governing peripheral nerve regeneration after injury from such
things as missile wounds and chemical toxins, and is important
to gaining better understandings of wound healing. The
Committee compliments the Army Medical Research and Material
Command for structuring a highly regarded, peer-reviewed
program that is well coordinated with other research conducted
at the National Institutes of Health. The Committee urges the
Army to focus these funds on research leading to clinical
trials of promising treatments and therapies for NF.
prostate disease
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue the
Department's nationally-recognized program to conduct basic and
clinical research studies to combat diseases of the prostate.
The goal of this program is to develop more effective, more
specific and less toxic forms of therapy for patients in all
stages of prostate disease. The Center for Prostate Disease
Research established under this program uses the large network
of military hospitals around the country as a resource for
information on the improved detection and treatment of prostate
disease. The Department should continue to give the highest
priority to funding research that is multi-institutional,
multi-disciplinary and regionally focused.
Advanced Development
MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
The Department requested $10,677,000 for Medical Advanced
Technology. The Committee recommends $142,177,000, an increase
of $131,500,000. Within this increase, $100,000,000 is only for
the Army peer-reviewed breast cancer program, $8,000,000 is
only for the National Medical Testbed, $6,000,000 is only for
catheterization lab upgrades at Walter Reed, $3,500,000 is only
for advanced cancer detection, $3,000,000 is only for
cooperative teleradiology, $6,000,000 is only for advanced
trauma care, $1,500,000 is only for artificial lung research,
and $3,500,000 is only for emergency telemedicine, as proposed
in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
aviation advanced technology
The Army requested $31,330,000 for aviation advanced
technology. The Committee recommends $53,830,000, an increase
of $22,500,000. Within this increase, $5,000,000 is only to
begin development of a short-range unmanned aerial vehicle,
$2,500,000 is only to define the potential operational value
and key technical issues related to an integrated manned and
unmanned aerial vehicle scout team, $11,600,000 is only for
development of the Stinger Universal Launcher (SUL), and
$3,400,000 is only for the Starstreak missile. The Committee
provides the additional funds for the SUL and Starstreak
missile to ensure the Army maintains the schedule for a fiscal
year 1999 side-by-side test of both the Stinger and the
Starstreak missile on the Apache helicopter. The Committee
directs the Army to take all necessary steps, including
budgeting adequate fiscal year 1999 funds, to ensure such a
side-by-side test will take place in fiscal year 1999.
weapons and munitions advanced technology
The Army requested $18,255,000 for weapons and munitions
advanced technology. The Committee recommends $25,255,000, an
increase of $7,000,000. Of the increase, $5,000,000 is only to
accelerate trajectory correctable munitions development and
$2,000,000 is only for precision guided mortar munitions
development.
missile and rocket advanced technology
The Army requested $117,139,000 for missile and rocket
advanced technology development. The Committee recommends
$59,439,000, a reduction of $57,700,000 based on the
termination of the Army's Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile
(EFOG-M). The Committee notes that EFOG-M was not recommended
for authorization this year based on technical and testing
concerns.
This program, as currently structured, is essentially a
multiyear procurement program incrementally funded in the
Army's science and technology (S&T) research budget. Using
funds normally associated with fundamental research and
technology demonstrations, the Army plans to procure and field
256 missiles, 12 launch vehicles, and 4 command vehicles to the
82nd Airborne for a ``limited go to war capability.'' The Army
plans to field the weapon system without independent
operational testing and evaluation (IOT&E), formal milestone
reviews, or many of the other fundamental acquisition
requirements in place to ensure DoD only procures safe, cost
effective, operationally suitable, and supportable weapon
systems.
The EFOG-M program is part of a larger Rapid Force
Projection Initiative (RFPI) Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstration (ACTD). A ``principle'' of ACTDs is that after a
technology is demonstrated, it can be left behind to
operational units for further use and evaluation. The Army is
abusing this ``principle'' by procuring missiles and vehicles
far in excess of those required for the ACTD. The ACTD requires
only 44 missiles, 8 launch vehicles, and 2 command vehicles.
The Army is using S&T funds to buy an additional 256 missiles
that will not be consumed in ACTD testing as well as additional
launchers and command vehicles to field an entire company in
the 82nd Airborne.
Since the program's funding is buried within a larger R&D
line-item, neither Congress nor OSD has visibility into the
yearly quantities and costs that would normally appear in a
missile procurement budget that complies with the ``full
funding'' policy. The Committee also notes that the 256
missiles are being produced under a multiyear contract that has
never been explicitly approved by Congress as would be required
had the missiles been funded in a procurement account. Abuse of
so many basic acquisition and financial policies jeopardizes
the Committee's support of the ACTD ``leave behind'' principle.
The Committee expects DoD to review its ACTD programs to ensure
the minimum amount of equipment is being developed to support
only the ACTD. The Committee has also included a general
provision that addresses this overall growing problem within
DoD by prohibiting the use of R&D funds to buy end-items that
will not be used in support of testing.
landmine warfare and barrier advanced technology
The Army requested $19,332,000 for landmine warfare and
barrier advanced technology. The Committee recommends
$25,932,000, an increase of $6,600,000. Of the increase,
$3,900,000 is only to continue the development of the Vehicular
Mounted Mine Detection (VMMD) system and $2,700,000 is only to
test the Ground Stand-off Mine detection system as part of the
VMMD advanced technology demonstration.
line-of-sight technology demonstration
The Army requested $13,000,000 for the Line-Of-Sight
Advanced Technology anti-tank missile system. The Committee
recommends no funding for this program, a decrease of
$13,000,000. Starting with the fiscal year 1998 President's
Budget, the Army has restructured the LOSAT program as an ACTD
using an acquisition model very similar to the EFOG-M program
(discussed elsewhere in this report). Like EFOG-M, the Army is
using the ``leave behind'' principle of ACTDs to develop,
procure, and field 13 fire units and 178 missiles to the 82nd
Airborne using science and technology research funding. The 178
missiles will not be consumed in testing and Army documentation
shows a FY 2003 ``fielding'' date with a note that states,
``funded [R&D] program provides initial operating capability.''
The Committee strongly objects to this kind of R&D funded
procurement scheme and states its intent to deny or realign
funding for any programs in the future where such abuse of
fundamental and traditional acquisition program and budget
procedure is discovered.
The Committee is also concerned with the number of ``tank
killers'' the Army is trying to field in the 82nd Airborne. In
the coming years, the 82nd Airborne's anti-tank capabilities
will include Hellfire, Javelin, and Follow-On To Tow (FOTT)
weapon systems. Each of these will be by far the most advanced
anti-tank weapons of their kind on the battlefield. LOSAT would
provide the 82nd Airborne with a capability that will be, in
many ways, duplicative to FOTT. Both weapon systems are
employed on HMMWVs and have similar ranges. While LOSAT has the
advantage of extreme lethality, FOTT has the advantage of
having greater targeting flexibility and being a fire and
forget weapon. Also, FOTT is an objective system for the entire
Army and will be proliferated throughout the Service using the
existing Tow infrastructure. Given these considerations, the
Committee views the LOSAT acquisition program as both
inappropriately structured and wasteful and therefore
recommends its termination.
Demonstration and Validation
army missile defense systems integration
The Army requested $24,138,000 for Army missile defense
systems integration. The Committee recommends $55,638,000, an
increase of $31,500,000 only to test the Tactical High Energy
Laser (THEL) demonstrator. Subsequent to the budget submission,
the Secretary of Defense and Israel agreed the THEL
demonstrator should undergo U.S. government developmental
testing. The government developmental test would be the first
opportunity to validate the capability of the demonstrator to
shoot down rockets in flight before it is given to Israel. The
Secretary of Defense proposed that the U.S. provide two-thirds
and the Israeli government one-third of the funds required to
complete the government developmental test. However, no funds
are included in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the
government developmental test. The recommended increase will
pay the two-thirds share for THEL testing as proposed by the
Secretary of Defense. The Committee notes that the fiscal year
1998 budget includes $16,500,000 for THEL development and
contractor testing. The Committee has also recommended an
additional $10,000,000 in program element 0605605A, High Energy
Laser Systems Test Facility, for test site preparation.
aviation advanced development
The Army requested $7,132,000 for aviation advanced
development. The Committee recommends $15,132,000, an increase
of $8,000,000. Of the amount, $3,000,000 is only to continue
the development of the aircrew integrated common helmet
development and $5,000,000 is only to develop retinal display
technologies for the aircrew integrated common helmet.
artillery systems development
The Army requested $324,380,000 for artillery systems
development (Crusader). The Committee recommends the amount
requested. The Committee expresses its continued support for
the Crusader development program and believes that the Crusader
artillery system has the potential to increase future artillery
and maneuver force effectiveness. The Committee encourages the
Army to provide adequate funding program in future budget
submissions to ensure that the Crusader acquisition plan
remains on schedule.
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
ew development
The Army requested $66,212,000 for EW Development. The
Committee recommends $86,524,000, an increase of $20,312,000 to
integrate lessons learned in the Force XXI Advanced Warfighting
Experiment and meet the goal of IOT&E in fiscal year 1998.
family of heavy tactical vehicles
The Army requested no funding for the family of heavy
tactical vehicles. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to
design, develop, and integrate state-of-the-art technologies
into future tactical trailers.
air traffic control
The Army requested $1,705,000 for air traffic control. The
Committee recommends $4,705,000, an increase of $3,000,000. The
Committee has learned that inadequate funds were budgeted to
complete testing of the Air Traffic Navigation Integration and
Coordination System (ATNAVICS). Therefore, the Committee has
transferred funds from ATNAVICS procurement to research and
development to complete testing.
light tactical wheeled vehicle
The Army requested $9,909,000 for light tactical wheeled
vehicle development. The Committee recommends no funding for
this program. The Army is currently developing a light tactical
wheeled vehicle strategy based on future requirements and
budgets and is considering four alternatives: continue to
procure the current vehicle; modify the current vehicle;
procure a new commercial vehicle; or develop a new light
tactical wheeled vehicle. The Committee has requested that the
Army provide detailed cost and requirement analysis of the
light tactical wheeled vehicle strategy; however, the study
will not be complete until fiscal year 1998. Although the Army
has not completed its evaluation of various alternatives for
light weight tactical vehicles, the Army's budget request
essentially is predetermining the outcome of the study. The
Committee directs that the Army provide by September 15, 1997 a
report outlining the light weight tactical vehicle alternatives
which the Army is currently evaluating. The report is to
include the requirements, estimated development and acquisition
costs, and estimated operation and support costs for each
alternative.
combat feeding, clothing, and equipment
The Army requested $55,964,000 for combat feeding, clothing
and equipment development. The Committee recommends $65,264,000
an increase of $9,300,000 only for the continued testing and
development of the Force XXI Landwarrior system.
automatic test equipment development
The Army requested $2,582,000 for automatic test equipment
development. The Committee recommends $11,582,000, an increase
of $9,000,000 only for Integrated Family of Test Equipment
development.
combined arms tactical trainer
The Army requested $2,823,000 for the development of the
Combined Arms Tactical Trainer. The Committee recommends
$13,323,000, an increase of $10,500,000 only for the
development and testing of the Close Combat Tactical Trainer
(CCTT). After the fiscal year 1998 budget was submitted to the
Congress, the Army made significant changes to the CCTT
acquisition schedule because of problems associated with system
reliability. The new acquisition schedule delays operational
testing until April 1998 and the delivery of an operational
system by at least one year. Since the fiscal year 1998 budget
does not reflect the revised acquisition schedule, the
Committee has recommended additional funding to resolve
reliability issues associated with the development of the CCTT.
landmine warfare/barrier engineering development
The Army requested $22,605,000 for landmine warfare/barrier
engineering development. The Committee recommends $8,905,000, a
decrease of $13,700,000. The Committee has deleted the funds
for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the
Airborne Standoff Minefield Detection System (ASTAMIDS). The
Committee has and continues to be a strong supporter of
countermine systems and has added funding for the development
of such systems. Last year, the Congress believed that the
ASTAMIDS system was not ready to enter EMD until results from a
Bosnia qualification test were available. Therefore, the
Congress provided an additional $12,000,000 to complete
advanced development work required on the two competing systems
in anticipation of a Bosnia qualification test. Since the
budget submission, the Committee has learned that neither
system met the exit criteria for the Bosnia qualification test
and that both ASTAMIDS systems are encountering technical
difficulties. Once again, the Committee believes that it is
premature to enter EMD and appropriates no funds.
sense and destroy armament missile
The Army requested $22,372,000 the Sense and Destroy
Armanent Missile (SADARM). The Committee recommends $5,494,000,
a decrease of $16,878,000 to delay the development of the
product improvement program of SADARM. The Committee is a
strong supporter of the SADARM program and has provided funding
to procure SADARM. However, the baseline SADARM development
program was plagued with technical difficulties. Until
scheduled testing is completed on the baseline system in fiscal
year 1998, the Committee believes that the product improvement
program can be delayed.
RDT&E Management Support
dod high energy laser test facility
The Army requested $14,952,000 for the DoD High Energy
Laser Test Facility (HELSTF). The Committee recommends
$30,952,000, an increase of $16,000,000 of which $10,000,000 is
only to conduct live fire tests of the Tactical High Energy
Laser System at HELSTF and $6,000,000 is only for the solid
state laser development program.
materiel systems analysis
The Army requested $29,707,000 for material systems
analysis. The Committee recommends $14,707,000, a decrease of
$15,000,000. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998
budget request includes the transfer of funds from operation
and maintenance. However, the Committee does not believe that
the Army's budget submission adequately justifies the costs
associated with material systems analysis. The budget
submission does not provide cost data for salaries, travel, and
number of personnel. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned
with the level of operational testing resources dedicated for
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations, Advanced Technology
Demonstrations, and the Advanced Warfighting Experiments. The
Committee believes that since these activities are
demonstrations and not formal acquisition programs, testing
costs should be included in the budget lines funding the
individual demonstrations and experiments. Additionally, given
the decrease in Major Defense Acquisition Programs, the
Committee believes that the management and support cost
associated with the operational test of such systems should
also decrease.
support of operational testing
The Army requested $81,672,000 for support of operational
testing. The Committee recommends $51,672,000, a decrease of
$30,000,000. The Committee is aware that the budget request for
this activity increased in fiscal year 1998 because funding was
transferred from operation and maintenance to research and
development. Based on the Army budget materials, the Committee
believes the majority of the fiscal year 1998 funding is to
conduct operational testing associated with the Advanced
Warfighting Experiments. Furthermore, the Army's budget
justification materials do not provide cost data for the number
of personnel, salaries, travel and associated operational costs
for test and evaluation support activities. The Committee notes
that some of the systems scheduled to undergo operational
testing in fiscal year 1997 have been delayed, such as the
ASTAMIDS, Close Combat Tactical Trainer, and the ATNAVICS
system. Therefore, fiscal year 1997 funds should be available
to address any fiscal year 1998 shortfalls.
programwide activities
The Army requested $86,208,000 for programwide activities.
The Committee recommends $66,208,000, a decrease of
$20,000,000. The fiscal year 1998 budget request is 30 percent
higher than last year's appropriated amount. The Committee
notes that the majority of the increase was to fund the federal
workforce restructure. However, the Committee believes that the
Army budget justification materials do not provide sufficient
rationale to warrant such an increase in fiscal year 1998.
munitions standardization, effectiveness and safety
The Army requested $6,317,000 for munitions
standardization, effectiveness, and safety. The Committee
recommends $9,317,000, an increase of $3,000,000 only to
develop a blast chamber for demilitarizing excess and obsolete
ammunition at the Blue Grass Army Depot.
environmental compliance
The Army requested $51,378,000 for environmental
compliance. The Committee recommends $56,378,000, an increase
of $5,000,000 only for the U.S. Army Construction and
Engineering Research Laboratory for further technology
development to enhance the military applications and economic
efficiency of fuel cells.
In the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act, the
Congress provided an increase of $2,700,000 in this program
element for an environmental remediation project that was
authorized in the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act.
The Committee is disappointed to note that the Department
redirected $1,700,000 of this funding to another project. The
Committee understands that work has already begun in
coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers, but it cannot be
completed as planned without the restoration of the funds. The
Committee therefore directs the Department to provide
$1,700,000 from within available funds to complete this effort
and to expand the project area accordingly.
aerostat joint project office
The Army requested $86,193,000 for the Aerostat Joint
Program Office. The Committee recommends no funding for this
activity. The Aerostat Joint Program Office has been conducting
concept of operation studies and developing an operational
requirements document. Since fiscal year 1996, the Army has
spent over $30,000,000 for concept studies; however, there is
still not a validated requirement or a completed vulnerability
assessment for the Aerostat system. According to the joint
program office, the total cost of the concept development and
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration phase of the Aerostat
program will be over $600,000,000 after which the Army will
have one operational Aerostat. The Committee is also aware that
the Army five year budget plan for this program is underfunded
by $120,000,000.
The Committee is, frankly, taken aback by the Army
development community's grandiose plans for this program in
light of the well-documented and understood shortfalls in not
only other Army modernization programs, but in all Army
accounts. Absent any firm program requirements, validated
mission or user need, vulnerability assessment, or plans to
ultimately procure Aerostats, the Committee recommends
termination of this program, as well as rescission of available
prior year appropriations.
combat vehicle improvement program
The Army requested $136,520,000 for the combat vehicle
improvement program. The Committee recommends $152,520,000, an
increase of $16,000,000 of which $12,000,000 is only to
integrate field emission flat panel displays on the Abrams tank
and $4,000,000 is only to continue the development of the AN/
VVR-1 laser warning receiver.
digitization
The Army requested $156,960,000 for digitization. The
Committee recommends $75,560,000, a decrease of $81,400,000. Of
the amount, $38,900,000 has been transferred to the Force XXI
Initiative appropriation and $52,500,000 has been transferred
to fund Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP)
initiatives not included in the fiscal year 1998 budget
submission. Further details are provided under the heading
Force XXI Initiatives. An additional $10,000,000 is only to
procure Tactical Personnel Communications Services for
experimentation at the next Advanced Warfighting Experiment at
Fort Hood.
The Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has
played an important role in the digitization program; however,
the Committee believes that TRADOC's dominant role should not
continue into the system acquisition phase. TRADOC represents
the ``user'' and the Committee believes that digitization
development, operational tests, and evaluation should be under
the management of an acquisition executive. Therefore, the
Committee directs that the Army designate a Program Manager and
establish a Battlefield System Acquisition Program Office prior
to the Milestone I/II decision to initiate the system
acquisition phase. The Committee is concerned that without the
establishment of an acquisition program office, that major
technical, cost, and schedule issues can not be adequately
managed.
During the March 1997 Advanced Warfighting Experiment, the
Army found that voice-data contention on SINCGARS nets
seriously limited the Commander's ability to command and
control his forces. The Army has plans to replace SINCGARS with
an interim Near Term Digital Radio (NTDR) followed by Future
Digital Radio (FDR). The NTDR is currently in development. FDR
development is scheduled for fiscal year 1999; fielding would
begin in fiscal year 2004. The Army wants to field its interim
digitized division in fiscal year 2000; however, until the FDR
is fielded, the division will have a very limited capability to
transmit data. The Committee believes that the digital tactical
radio acquisition program is not in sync with the overall
digitization of the battlefield plan and directs the Army to
submit with the fiscal year 1999 budget a tactical radio plan
which would meet the requirements of the interim digitized
division. The plan is to include requirements, cost, and
acquisition schedule. Furthermore, the Committee directs that
the Army coordinate the plan with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence.
missile/air defense product improvement program
The Army requested $17,412,000 for air defense missile
improvements. The Committee recommends $27,412,000, an increase
of $10,000,000 only for the Patriot Anti-Cruise Missile
program.
joint tactical ground system
The Army requested $3,195,000 for the Joint Tactical Ground
System. The Committee recommends $6,195,000, an increase of
$3,000,000 to continue the upgrades under Phase I of the JTAGS
P3I program.
end item industrial preparedness activities
The Army requested $44,326,000 for end item industrial
preparedness activities. The Committee recommends $54,326,000,
an increase of $10,000,000. Of that amount $5,000,000 is only
for the development of the M829E3 munitions production
capability and $5,000,000 only to accelerate munitions
manufacturing technology.
force xxi initiative
The Army requested no funds for Force XXI initiatives. The
Committee recommends $38,900,000 only for the Warfighting Rapid
Acquisition Program (WRAP). The budget request includes
$100,000,000 for WRAP initiatives in the Army's digitization
appropriation. Last year, the Congress established a separate
program element for WRAP initiatives. In accordance with last
year's Act, the Committee recommends the transfer of WRAP
funding from the Digitization to the Force XXI Initiative
program element. The Army has identified fiscal year 1998 WRAP
funding to continue initiatives which were approved in fiscal
year 1997. The Committee has established new program elements
for the fiscal year 1997 initiatives and transferred the fiscal
year 1998 WRAP funding as identified by the Army to continue
each initiative. The Committee has provided funding for the
following WRAP initiatives in fiscal year 1998:
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
Striker............................................... $3,900,000
Mortar Fire Control................................... 10,000,000
Applique (funded in Digitization)..................... 2,600,000
Tactical Internet (funded in Digitization)............ 6,000,000
Other Procurement, Army
Gun Laying Positioning System......................... 6,000,000
Radio Frequency Technology............................ 2,900,000
Lightweight Laser Designator/Range Finder............. 2,800,000
Combat Synthetic Training Assessment Range............ 5,400,000
Airborne Command and Control System................... 11,100,000
Avenger Slew to Cue................................... 7,400,000
Palletized Loading System Enhanced.................... 3,000,000
The Committee has recommended a new general provision which
prohibits the DoD from using research and development funds to
procure end-items for delivery to military forces. To comply
with the general provision, the Committee has recommended that
the funding budgeted for the procurement of WRAP items be
transferred to Other Procurement, Army.
As in fiscal year 1997, the Congress directs that no funds
may be obligated from the Force XXI Initiative appropriation
without prior notification to the congressional defense
committees. Notification is to include the supporting criteria
outlining the technical merit and maturity; criticality and
priority to warfighting requirements; affordability;
effectiveness; and sustainability in future budget submissions
for the items under consideration. Once again, the Committee
directs that none of the Force XXI funds may be used for
technologies included in the budget request, such as applique,
night vision equipment, and radios. Instead, Force XXI funds
are to be reprogrammed, with prior notification, to the
appropriate account for obligation.
The Committee notes that the Army's unfunded requirements
list included approximately $90,000,000 for digitization
efforts. The Committee believes that those shortfalls, which
ensure interoperability and systems architecture development,
should be funded before Force XXI initiatives.
striker
The Army requested no funds for Striker. The Committee
recommends $3,900,000 only for Striker. Additional details are
provided under the heading ``Force XXI Initiatives.''
mortar fire control
The Army requested no funds for Mortar Fire Control (MFC).
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 only for MFC. Additional
details are provided under the heading ``Force XXI
Initiatives.''
theater precision strike operations
The Army requested no funds for Theater Precision Strike
Operations (TSPO). The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for
TSPO.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $8,208,946,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 7,611,022,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 7,907,837,000
Change from budget request............................ +296,815,000
This appropriation provides funds for the Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department
of the Navy and the Marine Corps.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommendation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW systems development
(ADLFP)...................... 22,869 26,669 +3,800
Advanced submarine combat
systems development.......... 61,122 62,422 +1,300
Carrier systems development... 98,587 10,187 -88,400
Shipboard system component
development.................. 19,194 22,694 +3,500
Advanced submarine system
development.................. 59,067 162,067 +103,000
Marine Corps assault vehicles. 60,134 70,134 +10,000
Marine Corps ground combat
support system............... 36,464 40,064 +3,600
Standards development......... 36,297 40,297 +4,000
Tactical command system....... 31,518 41,518 +10,000
H-1 Upgrades.................. 80,735 86,335 +5,600
Acoustic search sensors (AEER) 16,947 20,947 +4,000
Arsenal ship.................. 102,994 0 -102,994
Distributed surveillance...... 33,048 43,448 +10,400
F/A-18 squadrons.............. 316,976 207,776 -109,200
Tomahawk and Tomahawk mission
planning center.............. 93,359 91,500 -1,859
Consolidated training systems
development.................. 58,956 36,456 -22,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Research
in-house independent laboratory research
The Navy requested $15,834,000 for in-house independent
laboratory research. The Committee recommends $14,683,000, a
decrease of $1,151,000 due to fiscal constraints.
defense research sciences
The Navy requested $366,283,000 for defense research
sciences. The Committee recommends $336,463,000, a decrease of
$29,820,000. This includes a decrease of $39,820,000 to hold
the program to the 1997 level and an increase of $10,000,000
only for molecular design research as recommended in the House-
passed Authorization bill.
Exploratory Development
surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons technology
The Navy requested $32,273,000 for surface/aerospace
surveillance and weapons technology. The Committee recommends
$29,273,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 due to fiscal
constraints.
surface ship technology
The Navy requested $46,859,000 for surface ship technology.
The Committee recommends $53,859,000, an increase of
$7,000,000. This includes increases recommended in the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill: $6,000,000 only for power
electronic building blocks, $1,500,000 only for power node
control centers, and $2,500,000 only for micromechanical
systems technology for damage tolerant networks. An additional
$2,000,000 is only to enhance on-going Navy collaborative
efforts for the application for underwater vehicle derived
component level intelligent distributed control technology to
Navy surface ship automation. A decrease of $5,000,000 is also
recommended due to fiscal constraints.
aircraft technology
The Navy requested $23,590,000 for aircraft technology. The
Committee recommends $25,390,000, an increase of $1,800,000.
Within this amount, $2,800,000 is only to continue the
technical evaluation and integration of advanced high
resolution and brightness pixel flat panel displays into Navy
integrated day/night all-weather helmet mounted displays. A
decrease of $1,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal
constraints.
command, control, and communications technology
The Navy requested $65,566,000, for C3 technology. The
Committee recommends $59,566,000, a decrease of $6,000,000 due
to fiscal constraints.
readiness, training, and environmental quality technology
The Navy requested $31,762,000 for readiness, training, and
environmental quality technology. The Committee recommends
$47,362,000, an increase of $15,600,000. Within this amount,
$16,000,000 is only for development of sea-state 3 lighterage
systems and $2,600,000 is only for the Smart Aircrew Integrated
Life Support System and psycho-physiological assessment. A
decrease of $3,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal
constraints. Concerning lighterage, the Committee recommends
that the Navy test extensively the capabilities of the current
ELCAS(M) style pontoons and potential upgrades to perform sea
state 3 missions.
materials, electronics, and computer technology
The Navy requested $76,653,000 for materials, electronics,
and computer technology. The Committee recommends $73,653,000,
a decrease of $3,000,000. Within this amount $2,000,000 is only
for qualification of new processes such as resin transfer
molding and second source materials such as carbon fibers and
$2,000,000 is only to develop a composite storage capsule for
laboratory and at-sea testing for use by Navy SEALs on
submarines. A decrease of $7,000,000 is also recommended due to
fiscal constraints.
electronic warfare technology
The Navy requested $22,810,000 for electronic warfare
technology. The Committee recommends $21,810,000, a decrease of
$1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.
undersea surveillance weapon technology
The Navy requested $51,033,000 for undersea surveillance
weapon technology. The Committee recommends $46,033,000, a
decrease of $5,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.
oceanographic and atmospheric technology
The Navy requested $48,211,000 for oceanographic and
atmospheric technology. The Committee recommends $77,711,000,
an increase of $29,500,000 as recommended in the House-passed
Defense Authorization bill. Within this amount, $10,000,000 is
only to continue autonomous underwater vehicle and sensor
development, $16,000,000 is only for ocean partnerships,
$2,750,000 is only to implement the consolidation of the Naval
Surface Warfare Center South Florida Test Facility through
continuation of collaborative marine vehicle research efforts,
and $750,000 is only for PM-10. In addition, $2,000,000 from
available funds is available only for arctic research as
recommended by the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
undersea warfare weaponry technology
The Navy requested $35,736,000 for undersea warfare
weaponry technology. The Committee recommends $31,736,000, a
decrease of $4,000,000 due to fiscal constraints. Of the amount
provided, $5,000,000 is only for continued development of COTS
airgun technology as an acoustic surveillance source as
recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
Advanced Development
air systems and weapons advanced technology
The Navy requested $35,093,000 for air systems and weapons
advanced technology. The Committee recommends $41,193,00, an
increase of $6,100,000. Within that amount, $11,500,000 is only
for Maritime Avionics Subsystems and Technology (MAST) and
$2,000,000 is only for Integrated High Payoff Rocket
Technology. A decrease of $7,400,000 is also recommended due to
fiscal constraints.
precision strike and air defense
The Navy requested $43,320,000 for precision strike and air
defense. The Committee recommends $44,320,000, an increase of
$1,000,000. This includes an increase of $5,000,000 only for
mobile off-shore basing and a decrease of $4,000,000 due to
fiscal constraints.
advanced electronic warfare technology
The Navy requested $18,144,000 for advanced electronic
warfare technology. The Committee recommends $17,144,000, a
decrease of $1,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.
ship propulsion system
The Navy requested $39,737,000 for ship propulsion
technology. The Committee recommends $34,737,000, a decrease of
$5,000,000. Within this amount, $5,000,000 is only for active
control of machinery rafts (Project M) which shall be applied
to both surface ship and submarine applications. A decrease of
$10,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal constraints.
marine corps advanced technology demonstration
The Marine Corps requested $34,178,000 for the Marine Corps
advanced technology demonstration. The Committee recommends
$63,478,000, an increase of $29,300,000. Within the increase,
$20,300,000 is only for the Commandant's Warfighting
Laboratory, $5,000,000 is only to continue the SMAW product
improvement program and $4,000,000 is only for two kilowatt
proton exchange membrane fuel cell development.
Medical Technology
The Navy requested $18,332,000 for Medical Technology. The
Committee recommends $72,732,000, an increase of $54,400,000.
Within this increase, $34,000,000 is available only for bone
marrow, $2,600,000 is only for the naval biodynamics lab,
$5,500,000 is only for biocide materials research, $2,500,000
is only for freeze-dried blood, $4,000,000 is only for dental
research, $4,000,000 is only for the mobile medical monitor and
$3,000,000 is only for rural health. In addition, the Committee
recommends a reduction of $1,200,000 for fleet health.
Manpower, Personnel and Training
The Navy requested $18,812,000 for manpower, personnel, and
training technology. The Committee recommends $20,502,000, an
increase of $1,690,000. Within this amount, $3,690,000 is only
for virtual reality environment research for training for
military and non-combat operations. The goal of this research
is to develop virtual reality training capability for the
Department of Defense, including safe mission rehearsal and
realistic battlefield scenario depiction, and flexible training
simulations to provide three dimensional tactical pictures. A
decrease of $2,000,000 is also recommended due to fiscal
constraints.
Environmental Quality and Logistics
The Navy requested $18,249,000 for environmental quality
and logistics technology. The Committee recommends $18,999,999,
an increase of $750,000. Within this amount, $1,750,000 is only
for a 250 kilowatt proton exchange membrane fuel cell
demonstration recommended in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill and $1,000,000 is only for visualization of
technical information. A decrease of $2,000,000 is also
recommended due to fiscal constraints.
Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology
The Navy requested $54,785,000 for undersea warfare. The
Committee recommends $46,385,000, a decrease of $8,400,000 due
to fiscal constraints.
Shallow Water MCM Demonstrations
The Navy requested $41,602,000 for shallow water mine
countermeasure demonstrations. The Committee recommends
$38,352,000, a decrease of $3,250,000. This includes an
increase of $750,000 only for obstacle destruction through
mounting a GPU-5 gunpod on LCAC craft and a decrease of
$4,000,000 due to fiscal constraints.
Advanced Technology Transition
The Navy requested $87,285,000 for advanced technology
transition. The Committee recommends $73,052,000, a decrease of
$14,233,000. This includes a decrease of $18,233,000 to hold
the program to the 1997 level and an increase of $4,000,000
only for the high frequency surface wave radar. The Committee
directs that none of the reduction be applied to the RAMICS or
affordable array technology projects.
c3 advanced technology
The Navy requested $23,768,000 for C3 advanced technology.
The Committee recommends $22,368,000, a reduction of $1,400,000
due to fiscal constraints.
Demonstration and Validation
aviation survivability
The Navy requested $7,859,000 for aviation survivability.
The Committee recommends $16,959,000, an increase of $9,100,000
only for development of the Navy Integrated day/night all-
weather display helmet into the AV-8B, F/A-18, and Advance
Strike Fighter aircraft and $3,000,000 is only for
visualization architecture and technology at the Naval Aircraft
Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River.
surface and shallow water mine countermeasures
The Navy requested $58,231,000 for surface and shallow
water mine countermeasures. The Committee recommends
$71,131,000, an increase of $12,900,000, of which $7,900,000 is
for the remote minehunting system and $5,000,000 is only for
the Integrated Combat Weapon System on MCM and MHC mine hunting
ships. Both projects are recommended in the House-passed
Defense Authorization bill.
advanced submarine system development
The Navy requested $59,067,000 for advanced submarine
system development. The Committee recommends $162,067,000, an
increase of $103,000,000 as recommended in the House-passed
Defense Authorization bill. The Committee directs that none of
these funds may be used for a technology demonstrator program
until the Navy submits a program plan to the Appropriations
Committees at least 30 days prior to obligation of funds that
provides a plan, acquisition strategy, costs, and schedule.
advanced surface machinery systems
The Navy requested $49,741,000 for advanced surface
machinery systems. The Committee recommends $44,741,000, a
decrease of $5,000,000 to the Intercooled Recuperative gas
turbine engine. The Intercooled Gas Turbine engine program is
an international cooperative development program to develop a
more fuel efficient powerplant for surface combatant ships.
During hearings this year the Committee discovered that the
program requires an additional $100 million to complete
development. After that, there remains an unfunded requirement
for an additional $100 million for at-sea testing of the
engine. Without at-sea testing, the engine could never be a
candidate for installation in U.S. warships even after
expenditure of over $400 million. The Navy testified this year
that it would recommended termination of the ICR program if the
United Kingdom and France do not pay at least half of the
shortfall for full engine qualification as well as make
suitable arrangements for sharing future cost growth in the
development program. The Committee makes this reduction in
anticipation of savings to the United States due to successful
negotiation of an international cost-sharing agreement.
Conventional munitions
The Navy requested $34,190,000 for conventional munitions
technologies. The Committee recommends $38,190,000, an increase
of $4,000,000 only for development of optical correlator
technology.
advanced warhead development
The budget requested $2,012,000 in the MK-50 torpedo line-
item. The Committee recommends no appropriations since the
effort planned is unrelated to the MK-50 torpedo. The Committee
has instead moved these funds to the lightweight torpedo
development line-item, and expects the Navy to budget for the
effort in the appropriate line-item in the future.
cooperative engagement
The Navy requested $139,229,000 for development of
cooperative engagement capability. The Committee recommends
$223,229,000, an increase of $84,000,000. Within this amount
$20,000,000 is for E-2/CEC integration, $15,000,000 is for CEC/
TBMD development efforts, $15,000,000 is for development of a
low cost common equipment set, $13,000,000 is for reduced
schedule risk and integrated logistics support, $5,000,000 is
for CEC/SSDS integration, $5,000,000 is for Hawk/CEC
integration, $5,000,000 is for design agent transfer,
$3,000,000 is for fleet CEC exercises, and $3,000,000 is for
LAMPS data link interference. The Navy may allocate these funds
within the CEC program to best meet overall program objectives.
environmental protection
The Navy requested $52,401,000 for Environmental
Protection. The Committee recommends $56,401,000, an increase
of $4,000,000 only for the Resource Recovery Technology Center.
facilities improvement
The Navy requested $1,720,000 for facilities improvement.
The Committee recommends $6,720,000, an increase of $5,000,000
only for wood composite research.
land attack technology
The Navy requested $37,809,000 for land attack technology.
The Committee recommends $81,909,000, an increase of
$44,100,000. Within this amount, the following increases are
recommended in accordance with the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill: $20,000,000 only for Navy TACMS,
$15,100,000 for the Extended Range Guided Munition, and
$5,000,000 for microelectromechanical systems guidance and
control. An additional $4,000,000 is only for the Land Attack
Standard Missile (LASM). The Navy should not assume Committee
approval of the LASM program until and unless funds are
provided in the final Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Appropriations
Act. The Committee strongly supports the next-generation Naval
gun system and directs the Navy to keep this initiative on
schedule for program definition and risk reduction
demonstrations leading to the fielding of an advanced Naval
155mm gun system.
joint strike fighter
The Navy requested $448,855,000 for the Joint Strike
Fighter. The Committee has approved the budget request for this
program in full in Navy, Air Force, and DARPA accounts. Within
this amount, $6,000,000 is only to develop and test a high
temperature version of the eddy current sensor and an eddy
current array sensor for use on the propulsive lift system and
the engine turbo-machinery. Developing these sensors now will
allow their inclusion in the Joint Strike Fighter baseline
design, as well as make them available for other aircraft
engine diagnostics. An additional $1,000,000 is available only
for engine turbine fan improvement.
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
other helo development
The Navy requested $73,354,000 for other helicopter
development. The Committee recommends $85,354,000, an increase
of $12,000,000 of which $7,000,000 is only to maintain the
schedule of the block II upgrade and support the insertion of
ruggedized, scalable commercial off-the-shelf avionics
technology for the SH-60R helicopter program and $5,000,000 is
only for the air interoperability center fiber optic backbone
at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent
River.
aircrew systems development
The Navy requested $12,111,000 for aircrew systems
development. The Committee recommends $18,111,000, an increase
of $6,000,000 only to continue phase two of the NACES II
ejection seat product improvement program.
electronic warfare
The Navy requested $101,803,000 for electronic warfare. The
Committee requested $104,603,000, an increase of $2,800,000
only for precision targeting as recommended in the House-passed
Defense Authorization bill.
surface combatant combat system engineering
The Navy requested $87,934,000 for surface combatant combat
system engineering. The Committee recommends $142,134,000, an
increase of $54,200,000. This includes $43,000,000 only for
TBMD/UYQ-70 architecture development and $14,000,000 for
program shortfalls. A reduction of $2,800,000 is recommended by
the General Accounting Office since a joint tactical control
sea test has been postponed until 1999.
arsenal ship
The Navy requested $102,994,000 and DARPA requested
$47,200,000 for development of an Arsenal Ship demonstrator.
The Committee agrees with the House National Security Committee
that a delay in the program is appropriate, given the great
number of changes the Navy proposes to make in purpose and
scope of the demonstrator ship. The Committee questions the
acquisition strategy of continuing with arsenal ship contracts
to construct a $500 million ship which is twice the size of the
surface combatant application to be demonstrated, and which
includes contract options for arsenal ships that differ from a
land attack combatant demonstrator. The Navy should first
define its requirements, and then award contracts; the current
acquisition strategy is the reverse. The Committee is also
concerned that CINC's have not requested such a ship. In the
context of the fiscal year 1998 budget, where the Navy proposes
no funding for installation of critical warfighting
improvements such as cooperative engagement, ship self defense,
CIWS surface mode, and TBMD capabilities for DDG-51 ships, the
Arsenal ship is clearly of much lower priority. As noted in the
Committee's hearings with Navy witnesses this year, converting
Trident submarines to a conventional land attack configuration
after START II is probably a more effective and affordable
solution to meeting warfighting requirements. Finally, as
discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is disturbed
about the Administration's plan to field 12 new production DDG-
51 destroyers to the fleet without cooperative engagement and
theater ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Committee
notes that if the Navy were to cancel the Arsenal Ship
Demonstrator, sufficient funds would be available to fix the
destroyer problem as well as many other pressing surface
warfare issues.
lpd-17 class systems integration
The Navy requested $471,000 for LPD-17 class systems
integration. The Committee recommends $13,471,000, an increase
of $13,000,000 only for initial design studies and ship
development efforts for command ship replacement, land attack
weapons integration, shipboard personnel reduction technology
and work process improvements for LPD-17 class ships.
tssam
The Navy requested $9,644,000 for the Navy's participation
in the Air Force JASSM program. The Committee recommends no
funds for this program. The Committee has recommended
termination of the JASSM program discussed elsewhere in this
report since the Navy's SLAM-ER+ missile, in production in
fiscal year 1998, meets the JASSM threshold requirements.
vla upgrade
The Navy requested no funds for VLA Upgrades. The Committee
recommends $12,000,000 only for integration of the lightweight
hybrid torpedo on the VLA rocket.
airborne mine countermeasures
The Navy requested $16,503,000 for airborne mine
countermeasures. The Committee recommends $19,503,000, an
increase of $3,000,000 only for SWIMS projector development.
ssn-688 and trident modernization
The Navy requested $42,294,000 for SSN-688 and Trident
submarine modernization. The Committee recommends $52,294,000,
an increase of $10,000,000 for multi-purpose processors as
recommended in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
submarine combat system
The Navy requested $23,701,000 for development of submarine
combat systems. The Committee recommends $2,366,000, a decrease
of $21,335,000 as recommended by the General Accounting Office
due to postponement of the SSN-21 submarines' AN/BSY-2 combat
system technical evaluation and operational evaluations beyond
fiscal year 1998.
new design ssn
The Navy requested $311,076,000 for development of the New
Attack Submarine. The Committee recommends $331,076,000, an
increase of $20,000,000 of which $17,000,000 is recommended in
the House-passed Defense Authorization bill for the Advanced
Submarine Tactical Electronic Combat System/Integrated Mast and
$3,000,000 is only for glass reinforced plastic and rubber
sandwich sonar domes.
ssn-21 developments
The Navy requested $49,542,000 for SSN-21 developments. The
Committee recommends $12,332,000, a decrease of $37,210,000
recommended by the General Accounting Office due to a delay in
installation of an advanced special hull treatment and system
qualification/inspection during SSN-21 post shakedown
availability.
ship contract design/live fire testing
The Navy requested $75,713,000 for ship contract design and
live fire testing. The Committee recommends $64,713,000, a
decrease of $11,000,000. This includes an increase of
$17,000,000 to accelerate advanced technology development for
the next aircraft carrier (CVN-77) as recommended in the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill and a decrease of $28,000,000
to slow the pace of development of the next generation
destroyer (DD-21). These funds have been applied to more urgent
requirements for CIWS surface mode and infrared search and
track development.
navy tactical computer resources
The Navy requested $4,794,000 for tactical computer
resources. The Committee recommends $39,294,000, an increase of
$34,500,000 of which $17,500,000 is only for integration of AN/
UYQ-70 displays into submarines, $10,000,000 is only for
virtual prototyping of electronic circuits, and $7,000,000 is
only to integrate the AN/UYQ-70 Advanced Display System into
existing Marine Expeditionary Force command elements.
lightweight torpedo development
The Navy requested $17,290,000 for development of the
lightweight hybrid torpedo. The Committee recommends
$19,302,000, an increase of $2,012,000 only for lightweight
hybrid torpedo software development.
ship self-defense
The Navy requested $132,270,000 for ship self-defense. The
Committee recommends $190,870,000, an increase of $58,600,000.
Within this amount, $19,000,000 is for the Quick Reaction
Combat Capability, $12,000,000 is for the ship self-defense
test ship, $8,600,000 is only to refurbish an AN/SPS-48E for
the Wallops Island ship defense test facility, $9,000,000 is
only for the development of the SPQ-9B radar, and $10,000,000
is only for Infrared Search and Track.
Medical Development
The Navy requested $3,620,000 for Medical Development. The
Committee recommends $16,920,000, an increase of $13,300,000.
Within this increase, $8,500,000 is only for casualty
monitoring and $4,800,000 is only for Navy Telemedicine.
distributed surveillance system
The Navy requested $33,048,000 for the Distributed
Surveillance System program. The Committee recommends
$43,448,000, an increase of $10,400,000. Of this amount,
$7,800,000 is only to package the all-optical deployable system
(AODS) into an advanced deployable system (ADS) and to test the
deployment of this system at sea. The remaining $2,600,000 is
for the development of signal processing and detection
algorithms for the ADS.
RDT&E Management Support
target systems development
The Navy requested $48,308,000 for target systems
development. The Committee recommends $45,408,000, a reduction
of $2,900,000 due to cancellation of the Non-Cooperative
Airborne Vector Scorer after the budget was submitted.
major t&e investment
The Navy requested $33,236,000 for major test and
evaluation investment. The Committee recommends $39,236,000, an
increase of $6,000,000 only for development of an East Coast
Communications Network at the Naval Aircraft Warfare Center
Aircraft Division, Patuxent River.
studies and analysis support
The Navy requested $8,755,000 for studies and analysis
support. The Committee recommends $6,679,000, a decrease of
$2,076,000 to hold the program at the 1997 level.
technical information services
The Navy requested $8,763,000 for technical information
services. Included in that amount is $8,000,000 proposed for
the Acquisition Center of Excellence. When the Committee agreed
to a Navy proposal last year to provide funds for the center
($500,000 was provided in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998), the Committee did not
know that an additional $16,000,000 is required in fiscal years
1998 and 1999, and an undetermined amount thereafter. This
amount of funding is inappropriate for a simple support
activity to the acquisition community. The Committee notes that
this amount of funding in fiscal year 1998 could equip two
amphibious assault ships with ship self-defense suites, or six
combatant ships with CIWS surface mode, or six LMSR sealift
ships with lighterage, or funded the baseline 6/7 shortfall in
the DDG-51 program to provide theater ballistic missile defense
capability to three ships in 1998. The Committee questions the
Navy preference for funding acquisition laboratories in the
National Capital Region at the expense of theater CINC critical
warfighting requirements. The Committee recommends $763,000, a
reduction of $8,000,000 with prejudice.
management, technical, and international support
The Navy requested $24,305,000 for management, technical,
and international support. The Committee recommends
$19,305,000, a decrease of $5,000,000 to hold the program at
the 1997 level.
science and technology management
The Navy requested $57,591,000 for science and technology
management. The Committee recommends $55,961,000, a decrease of
$1,630,000 due to fiscal constraints.
test and evaluation support
The Navy requested $263,934,000 for test and evaluation
support. The Committee recommends $235,908,000, a decrease of
$28,026,000. This includes a decrease of $30,026,000 to hold
the program to the fiscal year 1997 level and an increase of
$2,000,000 only for safety items as recommended in the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill.
marine corps program wide support
The Marine Corps requested $8,207,000 for Marine Corps
program wide support. The Committee recommends $12,707,000, an
increase of $4,500,000 only for the development of a small unit
biological detector.
Operational Systems Development
HARM improvement
The Navy requested $6,169,000 for anti-radiation missile
development activities. The Committee recommends $41,169,000,
an increase of $35,000,000 only for continued development of
AARGM.
aviation improvements
The Navy requested $60,025,000 for aviation improvements.
The Committee recommends $51,025,000, a decrease of $9,000,000
to defer proposed engine component improvement new start
initiatives until next year when the production programs are
more mature.
marine corps communications system
The Marine Corps requested $38,296,000 for Marine Corps
Communications Systems. The Committee recommends $45,296,000,
an increase of $7,000,000. Of the increase, $2,000,000 is only
for the development of a tactical hand-held radio and
$5,000,000 is only to develop a secure digital data link
capability for UAV systems.
marine corps ground combat/supporting arms
The Marine Corps requested $12,568,000 for Marine Corps
Ground Combat and Supporting Arms. The Committee recommends
$14,668,000, an increase of $2,100,000 only for the development
of the AN/VVR-1 laser warning receiver.
defense meteorological satellite program (space)
The Navy requested $3,165,000 for the Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program. The Committee recommends
$1,198,000, a decrease of $1,967,000. The Committee has deleted
funds for sensor development for the next generation weather
satellite as this effort is premature at this time. The
Committee's recommendation concerning this program is discussed
more fully in the ``Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Air Force'' section of this report.
manufacturing technology
The Navy requested no funds for manufacturing technology.
The Committee recommends $55,000,000. The Committee makes this
recommendation because Navy witnesses testified that the Navy
has identified over $100,000,000 of manufacturing technology
proposals which are deemed by the Navy to have a significant
return on investment by lowering the risk of acquisition and to
make weapon systems more affordable.
Program Recommended
The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation....................... $14,499,606,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request...................... 14,451,379,000
Committee recommendation............................. 14,315,456,000
Change from budget request........................... -135,923,000
This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with House authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
Item request recommendation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command, Control,
Communications............... 86,067 89,067 +3,000
ICBM DEMVAL................... 32,837 49,337 +16,500
ICBM EMD...................... 137,944 152,944 +15,000
TITAN......................... 82,384 67,384 -15,000
DARP.......................... 0 14,990 +14,990
RSLP.......................... 8,013 33,013 +25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force and Army Laboratory Restructuring
The Committee understands the need to streamline research
and development activities in view of budgetary constraints.
However, the Committee is concerned about plans to combine
runway R&D conducted by the Air Force with R&D the Army is
pursuing on pavement repair. The Committee understands the
importance of the airbase deployment and sustainment work
currently being conducted by the Air Force and urges the
Department to ensure that this capability is not lost due to
consolidation of activities at its existing laboratories.
Basic Research
defense research sciences
The Air Force requested $226,832,000 for defense research
sciences. The Committee recommends $183,332,000, a net decrease
of $43,500,000. The Committee has recommended a reduction of
$48,500,000 and an increase of $5,000,000 only for the Center
for Adaptive Optics.
The Committee's recommendation includes the requested
amount of $650,000 for support to the Sacramento Peak
Observatory. The Committee directs that the full amount be
provided to Sacramento Peak and designates this project to be
of specific Committee interest.
Exploratory Development
materials
The Air Force requested $70,224,000 for materials
exploratory development. The Committee recommends $73,224,000,
an increase of $3,000,000 only for development of composite
shelters.
aerospace avionics
The Air Force requested $69,401,000 for aerospace avionics.
The Committee recommends $68,061,000, a decrease of $1,340,000
which brings the program more in line with the fiscal year 1997
level.
phillips lab exploratory development
The Air Force requested $111,136,000 for Phillips Lab
exploratory development. The Committee recommends $131,636,000,
an increase of $20,500,000. Within this amount $8,000,000 is
only for Phase III of the Terabit fiber optic technology
program, $10,000,000 is only for the MightySat program, and
$7,500,000 is only for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion
technology applications.
Advanced Technology Development
advanced material for weapons systems
The Air Force requested $20,596,000 for advanced material
for weapons systems. The Committee recommends $26,596,000, an
increase of $6,000,000 only for developing enhanced
manufacturing capabilities for infrared absorbing aircraft
coatings.
aerospace propulsion subsystems integration
The Air Force requested $30,564,000 for aerospace
propulsion subsystems integration. The Committee recommends
$28,318,000, a reduction of $2,246,000 which brings the program
more in line with the fiscal year 1997 level.
aerospace structures
The Air Force requested $15,032,000 for aerospace
structures. The Committee recommends $10,423,000, a reduction
of $4,609,000 which brings the program more in line with the
fiscal year 1997 level.
crew systems and personnel protection technology
The Air Force requested $17,204,000 for crew systems and
personnel protection technology. The Committee recommends
$26,204,000, an increase of $9,000,000 which includes
$5,000,000 only for ejection seat technology, $3,000,000 only
for helmet display technology and $1,000,000 only for laser eye
protection.
flight vehicle technology integration
The Air Force requested $7,795,000 for flight vehicle
technology integration activities. The Committee recommends
$6,423,000, a reduction of $1,372,000 which brings the program
more in line with the fiscal year 1997 level.
electronic combat technology
The Air Force requested $25,621,000 for electronic combat
technology. The Committee recommends $30,871,000, an increase
of $5,250,000 only for the closed loop infrared countermeasure
(CLIRCM) technology program.
space and missile rocket propulsion
The Air Force requested $16,247,000 for space and missile
rocket propulsion. The Committee recommends $30,047,000, an
increase of $13,800,000. Within this amount $3,800,000 is only
for the high payoff rocket propulsion technology initiative,
and $10,000,000 is only for the continuation of rocket testing
efforts for the Scorpius low cost expendable launch vehicle
technology project.
ballistic missile technology
The Air Force requested no funding for the ballistic
missile technology program. The Committee recommends $8,000,000
to continue this program.
advanced spacecraft technology
The Air Force requested $40,846,000 for advanced spacecraft
technology. The Committee recommends $72,846,000, an increase
of $32,000,000. Within this amount $15,000,000 is only for the
military spaceplane program, $10,000,000 is only for the solar
thermionics orbital transfer vehicle, and $7,000,000 is only
for the miniature threat satellite reporting system.
conventional weapons technology
The Air Force requested $26,227,000 for conventional
weapons technology. The Committee recommends $28,227,000, an
increase of $2,000,000 only for development of optical
correlator technology.
advanced weapons technology
The Air Force requested $41,238,000 for advanced weapons
technology. The Committee recommends $56,238,000, an increase
of $15,000,000. Of the amount added, $10,000,000 is only for
Geo Space Object Imaging and $5,000,000 is only for the Special
Laser Technology Program (LIME).
airborne laser
Though the core mission of the Airborne Laser (ABL) is
ballistic missile defense, the program is being funded in the
Air Force rather than the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO). The Committee believes that ballistic
missile defense funding should be centrally managed to ensure
all such programs are properly integrated into a common
architecture and to ensure resources are applied to programs
based on overall ballistic missile defense priorities.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than November 15, 1997 discussing whether the ABL program
is or is not more properly budgeted within BMDO.
Demonstration and Validation
advanced milsatcom
The Air Force requested $41,448,000 for Advanced Milsatcom.
The Committee recommends $41,000,000, a decrease of $448,000.
The Committee notes that program management costs for the
Advanced Milsatcom program are requested to grow at a rate in
excess of forecast inflation in fiscal year 1998.
polar adjunct
The Air Force requested $29,585,000 for the Polar Adjunct
program. The Committee recommends no funding, a decrease of
$29,585,000. The Committee's recommendation concerning this
program is discussed more fully in the classified annex to this
report.
national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system
(npoess)
The Air Force requested $51,504,000 for the National Polar-
Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS).
The Committee recommends $26,504,000, a decrease of
$25,000,000. The Committee notes that the launch date of the
first NPOESS satellite has been delayed until 2007 versus 2004
as presented in the fiscal year 1997 budget justification
material. Despite this launch delay of three years, the Air
Force has decided not to substantially alter the near term
funding profile for the NPOESS system. In fact, the Air Force
has requested funds to begin sensor design and development work
in fiscal year 1998, ten years prior to the scheduled first
launch. The Committee judges this approach to be overly
conservative even for the satellite community.
The Committee remains fully supportive of the NPOESS
program and the ultimate convergence of the meteorological
satellite systems of the Departments of Defense and Commerce.
In making this reduction the Committee has still provided
adequate funding to continue risk reduction and planning
efforts for the system in fiscal year 1998.
The Committee believes that the present program schedule
provides an opportunity for the Department of Defense Space
Architect to conduct a review of the defense space-based
meteorological mission area. The space architect has already
conducted reviews in the areas of military satellite
communications and space control which have proven to be very
beneficial to department planning in these areas. The Committee
therefore directs the Space Architect to conduct an
architectural review of the NPOESS program as part of its
fiscal year 1998 program plan. The Office of the Space
Architect is further directed to submit to the Committee a
report detailing its plans to conduct the review no later than
January 15, 1998.
space based infrared architecture-dem/val
The Air Force requested $222,401,000 for the demonstration/
validation phase of the space-based infrared system (SBIRS).
The Committee recommends $217,401,000, a decrease of
$5,000,000. The Committee recommends this reduction due to
unwarranted cost growth in the areas of program management and
FFRDC support.
The Committee also shares the concern of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on the Space and Missile Tracking
System (SMTS) which found in its August 1996 report that the
current lack of an overall system design plan for both SBIRS
high and low segments has added ``confusion, time and risk to
the program.'' The Committee is also disturbed that the Air
Force has retained the present developer of the SBIRS high
component as the overall system of systems engineer for the
entire program. As a potential competitor on the SMTS, this
arrangement places the SBIRS high component developer in a
potential conflict of interest. The Committee, consistent with
the recommendations of the Defense Science Board, directs the
Department of the Air Force to appoint an independent third
party systems engineer for the entire SBIRS system. The
Committee believes that by doing so, an objective party will be
in a position to assess the crucial technical trade-offs needed
for a robust SBIRS constellation and ensure deployment at the
earliest possible date. The Committee further directs that none
of the funds appropriated for the SBIRS program may be used to
fund the SBIRS high component developer as the overall system
engineer. The Committee also directs the Air Force to report to
the Committee on its efforts to establish the independent
system engineer no later than January 15, 1998.
warfighter-1
Warfighter-1 is a joint government and industry funded
venture which will provide hyperspectral imaging data to both
warfighters and commercial users at 25 percent of the cost of a
conventional DoD funded satellite system. An integrated product
team (IPT) initiated by the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E) recently recommended that the Warfighter-1
program be terminated just days before the Air Force was to
make the contract award. The IPT concerns with the program
centered around the belief that the Warfighter program did not
adequately stress pure technology goals for the processing and
exploitation of hyperspectral imaging data. The Committee does
not concur with the recommendation of the IPT.
It is the Committee's belief that the Warfighter program
will benefit operational users in the field in a timely and
cost-effective manner. It is strongly supported by the Air
Force, the CINC United States Space Command, the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Central MASINT Office. All
of these organizations would be operational users of the data
collected by Warfighter-1.
The Committee also believes that the Department should take
advantage of the unique leveraging opportunity offered by
Warfighter which stands to benefit both operational DoD and
commercial users. The conclusion of the IPT does not adequately
consider the views and requirements of this community.
The Committee therefore directs the Department of the Air
Force to immediately award the contract for the original
Warfighter-1 program and also directs the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) to release all fiscal year 1997 funds
appropriated for the program. Should the IPT's subsequent
deliberations on the Warfighter program lead to a
recommendation for a restructured technology approach to
hyperspectral imaging, the results can be provided to the Air
Force for incorporation into the Warfighter-1 system design.
The Committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Reserach, Development, and Acquisition to submit
a report to the Committee no later than September 15, 1997
detailing his plans to follow this direction.
evolved expendable launch vehicle program (eelv)
In December of 1996, the Air Force selected two competitors
to develop a new $2 billion, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
(EELV). EELV is important not only to reducing the launch costs
of the Department of Defense, but also to the continued world-
wide competitiveness of the U.S. commercial launch industry.
However, the Committee is concerned that the Department is
focusing too narrowly on its national security requirements and
not adequately reflecting the needs of the U.S. commercial
space launch industry. For example, in order to meet its
projected reductions in life cycle costs, the EELV needs to
capture at least 15 percent of the commercial market. This will
be difficult to achieve since recent projections show that the
EELV will not be able to meet the requirements of as much as 42
percent of the estimated commercial market. If that is the
case, then the Air Force will have developed a new family of
launch vehicles that will be primarily used only for national
security payloads, resulting in higher overhead costs to DoD,
while missing an opportunity to maximize the competitive
posture of U.S. industry.
The EELV program is a partnership between the government
and industry. In return for its $2 billion investment, the
Department will obtain a family of launch vehicles with reduced
recurring costs of 25 to 50 percent per launch. The ultimate
EELV developer will have its competitive posture enhanced and
be relieved of internal investment requirements to remain
viable in the worldwide launch market.
The Committee would note that while partners share
benefits, they also share costs. The Committee believes that
the Air Force should aggressively pursue commercial cost
sharing and recoupment contractual mechanisms as part of the
EELV EMD contract. Accordingly the Committee directs the Air
Force to include as significant factors in the EELV acquisition
the degree to which the competitive proposals include the
commercial needs of the U.S. launch vehicle industry as well as
government compensation and cost recoupment offers from the
EELV competitors. The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology is directed to provide to the
Committee not later than January 1, 1998, a revised EELV Single
Acquisition and Management Plan (SAMP) that addresses these
concerns.
global broadcast service
The Air Force requested $56,977,000 for the Global
Broadcast System (GBS). The Committee recommends $46,977,000, a
decrease of $10,000,000. The Committee recommends this
reduction due to the delay in the release of proposal requests
for systems engineering and ground terminal development
efforts. The Committee is also concerned that under the present
program schedule GBS space segment payloads will be on orbit 8
to 12 months prior to the availability of the ground control
segment and terminals. The Committee makes this recommendation
without prejudice to the GBS program. Funding provided by the
Committee in fiscal year 1998 will still allow the GBS program
to proceed to its next phase and allow the program office to
incorporate greater user input into GBS requirements
definition.
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
integrated avionics planning and development
The Air Force requested $16,494,000 for integrated avionics
planning and development. The Committee recommends $12,994,000,
a reduction of $3,500,000 based on a 4 month delay in the JHMCS
EMD contract award.
b-1b
The Air Force requested $216,886,000 for B-1B upgrade
activities. The Committee recommends $222,886,000, a net
increase of $6,000,000. This adjustment includes a reduction of
$7,000,000 to CMUP engineering change orders (ECOs) and an
increase of $13,000,000 only for acceleration of JSOW and JSLAM
integration.
specialized undergraduate pilot training
The Air Force requested $80,238,000 for specialized
undergraduate pilot training improvements. The Committee
recommends $77,238,000, a decrease of $3,000,000 based on a 3
month delay in T-38 upgrade activities caused by a contract
protest.
f-22
The Air Force requested $2,071,234,000 for the F-22
program. The Committee recommends $2,077,234,000, an increase
of $6,000,000 transferred from F-22 procurement to this line-
item for redesign work associated with out of production parts
(OPP).
ew development
The Air Force requested $78,465,000 for electronic warfare
system development. The Committee recommends $65,965,000, a
decrease of $12,500,000. This adjustment includes a $6,000,000
decrease associated with contract award delays on the F-15
IDECM program and a $6,500,000 decrease based on the
cancellation of the F-15 CMWS program. The Committee notes that
the Air Force canceled the F-15 CMWS program for fiscal year
1998 and out, but fiscal year 1997 funds are still identified
in the budget for the program and these funds are therefore
available to finance other fiscal year 1998 EW requirements.
munitions dispenser development
The Air Force requested $18,076,000 for munitions dispenser
development. The Committee recommends $15,900,000, a decrease
of $2,176,000. Of this decrease, $1,300,000 is for Wind
Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD) contract savings, and
$862,000 is for 20 WCMD assets inappropriately budgeted in the
research and development (R&D) account.
Fiscal year 1998 is the first year the Air Force has
requested production funding for the WCMD program and
ostensibly the Congress must, for the first time, assess the
readiness of the program to enter production. However, the
Committee was dismayed to learn that the decision to initiate
production was made not by the Congress but by the Air Force
when it signed a contract to produce 200 WCMD units using
fiscal year 1997 R&D funding. The Committee has learned that
150 of these weapons are not required for development or test
of the WCMD at all, but will instead be fielded with B-52
squadrons as an ``interim operational capability.'' Though the
fiscal year 1997 R&D budget requested 200 WCMDs, these were
described in the budget backup documents as ``EMD'' assets with
no mention of an intent to field the weapons in operational
units. Procuring assets solely for the purpose of operational
use is clearly a production expense and should be funded in the
production account. The Committee is concerned with what
appears to be a growing trend to get the production ``camel's
nose under the tent'' by using R&D funds to initiate
procurement. The Committee has included a general provision in
the bill that is intended to end such practices.
The Committee further notes that though the Air Force
signed a contract for 200 WCMD units in fiscal year 1997, these
units were not all fully funded in that year as a consequence
of the R&D incremental funding policy. In fiscal year 1998, the
Air Force is requesting funds to complete assembly on 130 units
initiated in fiscal year 1997 and to buy an additional 20 units
for a total of 150 intended for the early B-52 capability. The
Committee notes that the 20 all-up-rounds funded in fiscal year
1998 R&D cost $43,000 each whereas in the same fiscal year
(1998), the Air Force intends to buy production units for
$13,000 each. The Committee sees no reason to pay a 300 percent
premium to buy a weapon in the wrong appropriation.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $862,000
for the 20 R&D funded WCMD units.
joint direct attack munition (jdam)
The Air Force requested $19,553,000 for development of the
JDAM weapon. The Committee recommends $15,353,000, a decrease
of $4,200,000 based on the availability of funds beyond that
required to finance the contractor's revised estimate at
completion (EAC).
life support system
The Air Force requested $3,726,000 for life support system
development. The Committee recommends $5,726,000, an increase
of $2,000,000 only for ejection seats.
computer resource technology transition
The Air Force requested $1,459,000 for computer resource
technology transition. The Committee recommends $6,459,000, an
increase of $5,000,000 only for the National Product Line Asset
Center (NPLACE) Program/Product Line Asset Support (PLAS).
joint air-to-surface standoff missile (jassm)
The Air Force requested $203,321,000 for the JASSM program.
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the program, and
instead proposes a new joint program based on the Navy's SLAM-
ER+ missile. JASSM is a follow-on to the very troubled and now
terminated TSSAM program. The Air Force invested $4.3 billion
in the missile until the program was terminated in response to
severe technical problems, massive cost overruns, and numerous
schedule delays. In creating the follow-on JASSM program, the
Air Force has not only applied lessons learned from the TSSAM
program, but has also applied lessons from recently successful
acquisition programs like JDAM. Therefore, in making its
recommendation, the Committee does not fault the Air Force's
management of the JASSM program. In fact, it is too early even
to assess the JASSM program given that the missile is still
``on the drawing board'' with at least four years of
development remaining.
The SLAM-ER program, on the other hand, is already in
production with an automatic target acquisition (ATA) upgrade
entering production in fiscal year 1998. According to the Navy,
this SLAM-ER ``+'' variant meets or exceeds every threshold
requirement for the JASSM program, including the key
performance parameters of range, missile mission effectiveness,
and carrier suitability. The Navy believes that modifications
required to deploy the missile on Air Force aircraft (including
bombers) are minor.
The Committee notes that cancellation of JASSM and pursuit
of a joint SLAM-ER+ program could save taxpayers anywhere from
$450 to $800 million while fielding the required capability to
the Air Force sooner. The Department of Defense must break the
habit of spending hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing the
last few ounces of performance when an existing weapon with
minor modifications can meet its requirements. Even while faced
with severely constrained outyear modernization budgets, the
Department failed to seriously consider this alternative to
JASSM in either of its recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
or Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) deliberations.
Both forums were formed to make recommendations on just these
types of issues. The Committee is dismayed that the JROC, in
particular, would postpone consideration of the Navy's SLAM-ER+
proposal 6 times before deciding the matter was best addressed
by the acquisition community in a process that will take
another year. The Committee does not believe that taxpayers or
warfighters should have to wait another year and spend another
$200 million on JASSM before considering whether SLAM-ER+
already meets the JASSM requirements. The Committee has
carefully reviewed data provided by the Air Force, Navy, and
industry on each of the various proposals. The Committee finds
the merits of a Joint SLAM-ER+ program compelling and in the
absence of a joint, requirements-based analysis conducted
expeditiously by the Department, recommends termination of the
JASSM program.
jslam
The Air Force requested no funds for the JSLAM program. The
Committee recommends $63,000,000 only for Air Force
participation in a joint SLAM-ER+ program. Though the Navy has
offered to provide the Air Force excess Harpoon missiles for
JSLAM conversions, the Committee notes that Air Force inventory
requirements will ultimately require production of new build
missiles. To take efficient advantage of the existing engine
manufacturing capability, the Committee believes that the Air
Force program should include new build missiles at the front-
end of Air Force JSLAM production.
RDT&E Management Support
threat simulator development
The Air Force requested $51,846,000 for threat simulator
development. The Committee recommends $50,346,000, a decrease
of $1,500,000. The Committee notes that the budget funds the
entire SADS-2b/f effort in fiscal year 1998 though the program
is projected to extend well into fiscal year 1999. Since
research and development is incrementally funded, the fiscal
year 1999 effort should be funded in that year.
major t&e investment
The Air Force requested $47,336,000 for investment in major
test and evaluation facilities. The Committee recommends
$62,136,000, an increase of $14,800,000 only for
instrumentation required to modernize range C4I capabilities at
Eglin Air Force Base.
test and evaluation support
The Air Force requested $389,348,000 for test and
evaluation support. The Committee recommends $386,348,000, a
net decrease of $3,000,000. The Committee recommendation
includes a $3,000,000 reduction based on unjustified growth in
aircraft support, an $8,000,000 reduction based on unobligated
fiscal year 1996 funds, and an $8,000,000 increase only for
enhancements to the South Base Birk Flight Test Facility
(BFTF).
Operational Systems Development
advanced medium range air-to-air missile (amraam)
The Air Force requested $50,781,000 for the AMRAAM program.
The Committee recommends $33,781,000, a decrease of
$17,000,000. This decrease includes a $14,000,000 GAO
recommended reduction based on rephased missile upgrade
efforts, and a $3,000,000 reduction to delay initiation of
AMRAAM P3I Phase III until fiscal year 1999.
aircraft engine component improvement program
The Air Force requested $93,122,000 for the engine
component improvement program. The Committee recommends
$115,122,000, an increase of $22,000,000. The Committee is
concerned about the growing costs in the Air Force flying hour
program attributable to engine reliability and maintainability
issues. Therefore, the Committee recommends additional funds
for the CIP program to help reduce these operating costs.
agm-86c conventional air-launched cruise missile system
The Air Force requested no funds for CALCM research and
development. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 only for
development of a hard target penetrator variant.
airborne warning and control system (awacs)
The Air Force requested $46,807,000 for AWACS. The
Committee recommends $47,807,000, an increase of $1,000,000.
The Committee notes the availability of $12,500,000 in fiscal
year 1997 funds from the terminated AWACS reengine program. The
Committee recommends the Air Force use these prior year funds,
in addition to the additional funds provided in fiscal year
1998, for the AWACS Extend Sentry program identified by the Air
Force as a high priority unfunded requirement.
JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS)
The Air Force requested $119,189,000 for the JSTARS
program. The Committee recommends $123,189,000, an increase of
$4,000,000 only for integration of an Improved Data Modem on
the JSTARS platform.
WORLD-WIDE MILITARY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM
The Air Force requested $6,820,000 for the Global Command
and Control System (GCCS). The Committee recommends $7,820,000,
an increase of $1,000,000 only for integration of JSAS into
GCCS.
SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES
The Air Force requested $530,000 for security and
investigative services. The Committee recommends $1,530,000, an
increase of $1,000,000 only for the AFOSI Computer Crime
Investigations Program.
AIR CARGO MATERIAL HANDLING
The Air Force requested $7,947,000 for air cargo material
handling equipment. The Committee recommends $3,447,000, a
decrease of $4,500,000. The Committee notes that the fiscal
year 1998 budget includes $4,500,000 for testing of the Next
Generation Small Loader that is not scheduled to take place
until fiscal year 1999.
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS
The Air Force requested $48,429,000 for industrial
preparedness. The Committee recommends $48,429,000 and directs
that of this amount, $1,000,000 is available only to allow the
National Technology Transfer Center to compile, analyze, value
and license technologies available for commercialization from
Air Force research labs.
PRODUCTIVITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY PROGRAM (PRAM)
The Air Force requested $1,032,000 for the PRAM program.
The Committee recommends $12,032,000, an increase of
$11,000,000 only for efforts to develop structural fatigue
repairs, corrosion prevention and control techniques, and
reliability and maintainability improvement opportunities for
aging aircraft fleets. The Committee notes that the Air Force
has identified this effort as a high priority unfunded
requirement.
NATO JOINT STARS
The Air Force requested $36,061,000 for the NATO JOINT
STARS program. The Committee recommends $18,061,000, a
reduction of $18,000,000 based on the lack of any NATO decision
to proceed with JSTARS acquisition. The Committee directs that
none of the funds can be obligated until such obligations meet
the requirements of current law. The Committee further directs
that none of the funds may be reprogrammed out of the NATO
JOINT STARS program element without the prior approval of the
congressional defense committees.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $9,362,800,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 9,069,680,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 9,494,337,000
Change from budget request............................ +424,657,000
This appropriation provides funds for the Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation activities of centrally
managed programs and the Defense Agencies.
Committee Recommendations
authorization changes
The Committee recommends the following changes in
accordance with authorization action:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Budget request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Technical Support....................................... 11,750 9,750 -2,000
Verification Technology......................................... 83,370 69,070 -14,300
Commerical Insertion Technology................................. 47,889 .............. -47,889
Boost Phase Intercept........................................... 12,885 .............. -12,885
National Missile Defense........................................ 504,091 978,091 +474,000
Navy Lower Tier................................................. 267,822 289,822 +22,000
Defense Imagery and Mapping..................................... 109,430 134,430 +25,000
Defense Reconnaissance Support.................................. 49,403 41,003 -8,400
Manned Reconnaissance........................................... 27,784 51,784 +24,000
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Mgt............................. 21,543 7,543 -14,000
Counter drug.................................................... .............. 2,500 +2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Research
in-house independent research
The Department requested $2,169,000 for In-House
Independent Research. The Committee notes that there are ample
funds available from fiscal year 1997 for this activity because
of poor obligation rates. Therefore, the Committee recommends
no appropriation.
defense research sciences
The Department requested $76,009,000 for Defense Research
Sciences. The Committee recommends $70,000,000, a decrease of
$6,009,000. The Committee notes that the Department has used
this activity as a source for reprogramming funds in prior
fiscal years and therefore recommends a reduction of $6,009,000
to reflect an appropriate level of funding.
university research sciences
The Department requested $237,788,000 for University
Research Sciences. The Committee recommends $215,212,000. This
amount includes an increase of $10,000,000 only for the Defense
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(DEPSCOR) and a net reduction of $22,576,000 due to program
growth and poor execution. The Committee directs that funds
available within the University Research Initiatives account
for Gulf War Illness related research may be used only for that
purpose. The Committee also directs that $3,000,000 be
available only for Clinical Assessment Recording Environment
(CARE), as authorized. The Committee notes that while the 1997
total program funds were lower than in 1996 (ostensibly due to
a change in award dates not a reduction in the level of effort)
in fact, on a monthly basis, the Department spent 41 percent
more per month in 1997 on university graduate fellowships,
traineeships and research instrumentation than in 1996. The
Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $32,576,000 due
to program growth.
government and industry cosponsorship of university research
The Department requested $14,713,000 for Government and
Industry Cosponsorship of University Research (GICUR). The
Committee notes that this proposed new activity is aimed at
encouraging cooperation and collaboration between government
and industry on semiconductor electronics issues. The Committee
agrees that semiconductors are a critical priority for the
Department. However, the Committee also believes that the
Department's prior year investment of $840,000,000 was adequate
to meet the challenges that were presented to the semiconductor
industry over the past decade and therefore, the Committee
recommends no appropriation.
chemical and biological defense program
The Department requested $25,190,000 for Chemical and
Biological Defense basic research. The Committee recommends
$28,690,000, an increase of $3,500,000. The Committee
recommends an increase of $1,500,000 only for basic medical
research to develop non-antibiotic therapies for anthrax and
$2,000,000 only for novel agent research.
Exploratory Development
next generation internet
The Department requested $40,000,000 for the Next
Generation Internet (NGI) program. The Committee recommends
$50,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to support the DARPA
component of the multi-agency Next Generation Internet program.
The goal of the NGI program is to develop and demonstrate the
technologies, protocols, and standards for a very high speed,
broad bandwidth Next Generation Internet that will offer
reliable, affordable, secure information delivery at rates
thousands of times faster than today. This should enable the
use of a wide variety of new nationally important applications
that cannot be accommodated on today's Internet. The additional
$10,000,000 is to be used to support specific connectivity,
functionality, services, and software among the applications
communities and regional consortia that will maximize the value
of the infrastructure connectivity and services deployed by the
NGI. The Committee recognizes the large potential benefit that
Next Generation Internet technology will have for many
important sectors of our economy as well as for national
defense. The Committee also recognizes the value of including
technical contributions from as many sources of innovation as
possible in developing future Internet technology. Accordingly,
the Committee directs that all geographic regions and all
qualified concentrations of technical expertise (including
government, university, and commercial) be afforded the
opportunity and the access necessary to have comparable
connectivity to current ``very-high speed backbone network
service point of presence'' (VBNS-POP) on the Internet.
support technologies--applied research
The Department requested $101,932,000 for Support
Technologies. The Committee recommends $141,932,000, an
increase of $40,000,000. Within this increase, $30,000,000 is
only for Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) to develop
new capabilities for current theater missile defense
interceptors. In addition, the Committee recommends $10,000,000
only for wide band gap technologies, as proposed in the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill.
lincoln laboratory research program
The Department requested $20,474,000 for Lincoln Laboratory
innovative research and development (IR&D). The Committee
recommends $13,730,000, a reduction of $6,744,000. The
Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 plan for Federally
Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) is well above
the level of effort for the prior year. The planned increase of
200 staff technical years of effort (STE) for Lincoln
Laboratory represents a 7 percent increase in level of effort
and a potential $41,000,000 increase in funding. Furthermore,
this increase is not consistent with prior Congressional
direction, the Department's FFRDC management plan, nor the
recommendation of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Report of
January 1997. The DSB report challenged the Department's use of
FFRDCs and concluded that the current FFRDC system ``does not
provide the best available service at the most reasonable
cost.'' The DSB Task Force recommended that: (1) work done by
FFRDCs be ``more carefully defined and limited'' (2) that
competition be introduced and, (3) that management practices be
changed at the beginning of 1998 to incorporate these changes.
The Committee therefore recommends a funding level that is
consistent with the DSB report and prior Congressional
direction on FFRDCs.
computing systems and communications technology
The Department requested $341,752,000 for Computing Systems
and Communications Technology. The Committee recommends
$325,057,000, a reduction of $16,695,000 due to program growth.
Within the amounts provided, $7,500,000 is available only for
the Reuse Technology Adoption Program (RTAP), a technology
program that enhances the reuse of information technology and
complex event sequences or software algorithms.
chemical and biological defense program
The Department requested $60,023,000 for Chemical and
Biological Defense exploratory development. The Committee
recommends $75,323,000, an increase of $15,300,000. Within this
increase, $9,500,000 is available only for medical biological
research and $5,800,000 is only for Safeguard.
tactical technology
The Department requested $157,329,000 for Tactical
Technology. The Committee recommends $126,244,000, a reduction
of $31,085,000 for program growth. This amount includes an
increase of $3,000,000 only for the continuation of simulation
based design and virtual reality efforts, in a collaborative
program with private industry, for the Gulf Coast Region
Maritime Technology Center. The Committee notes that the
request for Tactical Technology has increased by 28 percent
without substantial justification. Therefore the Committee
recommends a reduction of $31,085,000, as proposed in the
House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
integrated command and control technology
The Department requested $37,000,000 for Integrated Command
and Control Technology. The Committee recommends $39,000,000,
an increase of $2,000,000 only for the high definition camera.
Within this amount, $4,000,000 shall be made available only for
high definition display systems technology.
materials and electronics technology
The Department requested $192,192,000 for Materials and
Electronics technology. The Committee recommends $208,192,000,
an increase of $16,000,000. Within this increase, $10,000,000
is only for the Defense Microelectronics Activity and
$6,000,000 is only for the Nanofabrication Laboratory as
proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
defense special weapons agency
The Department requested $211,971,000 for the Defense
Special Weapons Agency. The Committee recommends $200,593,000,
a net reduction of $11,378,000 to maintain the program at the
1997 funding level. The amount includes an increase of
$5,000,000 only to continue ongoing bioenvironmental research.
Advanced Development
explosives demilitarization technology
The Department requested $12,259,000 for Explosives
Demilitarization Technology. Within this amount, the Committee
recommends $2,000,000 only for the cryogenic washout program.
counterproliferation support
The Department requested $58,264,000 for
Counterproliferation Support. The Committee recommends
$67,264,000, an increase of $9,000,000 only for the
Counterproliferation Analysis and Planning System (CAPS).
automatic target recognition
The Department requested $4,789,000 for Automatic Target
Recognition. The Committee recommends $5,989,000, an increase
of $1,200,000 only for optical correlators. The Committee
encourages the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to
provide assistance to the services in their development of
miniature ruggedized optical correlators for use on the Navy
Standard missile and the Air Force's AGM 130 missile.
chemical and biological defense program
The Department requested $41,223,000 for Chemical and
Biological Defense advanced development. The Committee
recommends $50,773,000, an increase of $9,550,000. Within this
increase, $6,700,000 is available only for medical biological
programs, and $2,850,000 is only for Joint Service Integrated
Suit (JSLIST) industrial production.
special technical support
The Department requested $11,750,000 for Special Technical
Support. The Committee recommends $9,750,000, a reduction of
$2,000,000, as proposed in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill.
verification technology
The Department requested $83,370,000 for Verification
Technology Demonstration. The Committee recommends $69,070,000,
a net reduction of $14,300,000, as proposed in the House-passed
Defense Authorization bill. Within this amount, the Committee
recommends an increase of $5,000,000 only for the continuation
of an industry-based program begun by DARPA to accelerate
development of nuclear detection systems, including specialized
cryocoolers for portable and remote operations and
optoelectronics for portal monitoring for detection of nuclear
materials, $3,000,000 is only for the continuation of an
industry-based program begun by DARPA for enhanced segregated-
surface solid state detectors, forensics, and analysis
techniques in support of nuclear non proliferation and counter
terrorism, and $3,000,000 is only for the continuation of the
Russian Monitoring Technologies Project begun by DARPA and for
a system to provide early warning of the hazards posed by
Russian nuclear reactors in Cuba.
Nuclear Monitoring Technologies
In addition, of the amount available for Nuclear Arms
Control Technology $8,800,000 shall be available only for
competitive, peer-reviewed basic research in nuclear monitoring
technologies--$7,100,000 for explosion seismology only, and
$700,000 available only for hydroacoustics, infrasound and
radionuclide analysis.
To ensure the peer review process works properly, the
Committee directs that the program be moved from the Defense
Special Weapons Agency to the Nuclear Treaty Programs Office
and a program manager position be established within the
Nuclear Treaty Programs Office to oversee the program.
Contracting for the program and associated operation and
maintenance funds should be transferred to the U.S. Army Space
and Strategic Defense Command. The Committee directs that the
program be managed in accordance with the National Research
Council recommendations provided to the Department on the
research needed to meet nuclear treaty monitoring goals. The
Committee requests that the Department provide a report to
Congress responding to the National Research Council
recommendations and explaining how this program meets
congressionally mandated objectives.
Seismic Monitoring
The Committee concurs with the concerns expressed in the
House-passed Defense Authorization bill on seismic monitoring
and directs that no funds be available to create redundant
capability to that of the U.S. Geological Survey for
monitoring, analyzing and reporting on domestic seismic events.
generic logistics r&d technology demonstrations
The Department of Defense requested $17,267,000 for Generic
Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations. The Committee
recommends $23,867,000, an increase of $6,600,000 only for the
Computer Assisted Technology Transfer Program (CATT). The
Committee notes that there can be a high percentage of ``no-
bids'' when the military seeks to purchase spare parts in small
quantities, as was the case with the KC-135. CATT, designated
by the Defense Logistics Agency as a National Reinvention
Laboratory, seeks to increase the industrial base available to
support DoD spare parts procurement by enhancing the
competitiveness of small and medium sized firms.
strategic environmental research program
The Department requested $54,874,000 for the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The
Committee recommends $61,874,000, an increase of $7,000,000
above the budget request. Of these funds $3,000,000 is to be
used only to develop new environmentally insensitive energetic
materials as provided for in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill.
In addition, the Committee directs the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security to continue the
research, development and demonstration program devoted to
health and safety issues of environmental cleanup workers as it
relates to the development and introduction of environmental
remediation technologies. The program shall continue to develop
and evaluate protection and safety methods and techniques
necessary for the safe use and application of environmental
remediation technology and to transfer such methods and
techniques to field use. The Committee recommends an increase
of $2,000,000 to the Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program only for this purpose.
Finally, the Committee provides $2,000,000 only for a risk-
based approach to research the effects of toxic chemicals on
human health and the environment. This research should address
questions needed to establish cleanup criteria related to toxic
chemicals associated with base operations and remediation of
waste sites. This research should improve DoD capabilities for
site specific remediation of toxic chemicals.
advanced electronics technologies
The Department requested $277,044,000 for Advanced
Electronics Technologies. The Committee recommends
$285,044,000, an increase of $8,000,000. Within this increase,
the Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for the Center for
Microstructures and $5,000,000 only for cryoelectronics. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends $18,000,000 for Flat
Panel Displays.
maritime technology
The Committee supports the idea that of the funds provided
for Maritime Technology (MARITECH) approximately 15 percent
should be made available to small businesses which have the
technical expertise and that DARPA should have the flexibility
to waive or reduce the matching requirement.
electric vehicles
The Department requested no appropriation for electric
vehicles. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Electric
Vehicles to continue ongoing programs in this area.
advanced concept technology demonstrations
The Department requested $121,076,000 for Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs). The Committee recommends
$61,076,000, a reduction of $60,000,000 due to unsubstantiated
program growth. The Committee notes that the ACTD budget
request has doubled since last year.
commercial technology insertion program
The Department requested $47,889,000 for the Commercial
Technology Insertion Program. The Committee recommends no
appropriation as proposed in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill. The Committee believes that many commercial
technologies may have promise and should be considered by the
Service program managers and acquisition executives as viable
alternatives to military-unique equipment. However, the
Committee believes this approach should be embedded in the
development and procurement plans of the Services.
electronic commerce resource centers
The Department requested $14,972,000 for Electronic
Commerce Resource Centers (ECRCs). The Committee recommends
$47,972,000, an increase of $33,000,000.
high performance computing modernization program
The Department requested $126,211,000. The Committee
recommends $124,880,000, a reduction of $1,331,000 for program
growth.
The Committee is concerned that the High Performance
Computing Modernization Program future budget plans de-
emphasize the purchase of new supercomputers for DoD, as
evidenced by a reduction in planned procurement account funds,
yet the plans provide for increasing RDT&E account budgets for
the sustainment of operations and related services. According
to the DoD HPC Modernization Plan, dated June 1994, ``. . . the
mission of this program is to modernize the high performance
computational capability of DoD laboratories . . .'' Because of
this, the Committee believes that a more equal balance between
Procurement and RDT&E funds is appropriate and that sustainment
of operations and related services should not dominate the
program budgets. The Committee directs therefore, that DoD
provide it verification that the future procurement budgets are
adequate to ensure that the high performance computing needs of
the DoD-wide user community can be met at the levels planned.
The Committee also notes that DoD, despite a previous
request, has not published an updated High Performance
Computing Modernization Program Plan or Program Implementation
Plan since June 1994. The Committee, therefore, directs again
that such plans be published annually no later than March 15.
sensor and guidance technology
The Department requested $166,855,000 for Sensor and
Guidance technology. The Committee recommends $154,855,000, a
net reduction of $12,000,000. Within this amount, $13,000,000
is available only for GEOSAR technology and $6,000,000 is
available only for the GPS Guidance Package (GGP). The
Committee also recommends a reduction of $25,000,000 as
proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
The Committee understands DARPA is developing a very
promising inertial navigation technology under the Sensor and
Guidance Technology Program. The GPS Guidance Package (GGP) is
a Fiber Optic Gyro System which has the potential to
significantly lower the cost, size and weight of military
inertial navigation systems. If the objectives of the program
are met, this activity could drastically reduce the cost and
size of inertial navigation systems, making precise inertial
navigation and positioning available to a much greater number
of platforms, both airborne and ground vehicles.
The Committee understands that due to the aggressive
program goals and the difference in technology between the two
original competitors, DARPA, the Army and the Navy felt
strongly that competition should be maintained at least through
the remaining development program. The Committee strongly
agrees that competition should be maintained and directs DoD to
provide not less than $6,000,000 under the Sensor and Guidance
Technology Program to maintain GGP as a competitive program.
marine technology
The Department requested $69,143,000 for Marine Technology.
The Committee recommends $21,943,000, a reduction of
$47,200,000 for Arsenal Ship, as proposed in the House-passed
Defense Authorization bill. Within amounts available,
$6,000,000 is available only for smart anti-submarine warfare
(ASW) and Sonar STP technology.
land warfare technology
The Department requested $82,580,000 for Land Warfare
Technology. The Committee recommends $89,180,000, an increase
of $6,600,000 only for Active Structural Control. Active
Structural Control technology reduces aircraft noise and
vibrations.
dual use programs
The Department requested $225,000,000 for Dual Use
programs. The Committee recommends $100,000,000, a reduction of
$125,000,000.
joint wargaming simulation management office
The Department requested $71,338,000 for the Joint
Wargaming Simulation Management Office. The Committee
recommends $59,968,000, a reduction of $11,370,000 due to
program growth in conformance with authorization action.
Demonstration and Validation
physical security equipment
The Department requested $31,553,000 for Physical Security
Equipment. The Committee recommends $18,676,000, a reduction of
$12,877,000 due to program growth. The Committee notes the
substantial increase in the physical security account and
reduces the account to prior year levels.
joint robotics program
The Committee encourages the department to pursue a Joint
Robotic Vehicle Technology Development Program for manned and
unmanned ground vehicle systems, and make funds available to
the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Research,
Development and Engineering Center to improve the situational
awareness, crew safety, and autonomous control of current and
future Army ground vehicle systems that operate in hazardous
and hostile environments.
cals initiative
The Department requested $1,916,000 for the CALS
Initiative. The Committee recommends $5,916,000, an increase of
$4,000,000 only for the CALS Integrated Data Environment (IDE).
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
The Department requested $2,581,944,000 for Ballistic
Missile Defense in the Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation title of the bill. The Committee recommends
$3,289,059,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's
(BMDO) research and development programs, an increase of
$707,115,000. The Committee recommends specific changes in
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs as detailed in
the table below.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Budget request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Missile Defense........................................ 504,091 978,091 +474,000
Navy Upper Tier................................................. 194,898 444,898 +250,000
MEADS (Corps SAM)............................................... 47,956 47,956 ..............
Boost Phase Intercept........................................... 12,885 0 -12,885
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense
Dem/Val..................................................... 294,647 238,647 -56,000
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense
EMD......................................................... 261,480 261,480 ..............
AIT............................................................. .............. .............. +30,000
Navy Lower Tier EMD............................................. 267,822 289,822 +22,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
The Department requested $294,647,000 for Theater High
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Demonstration and Validation and
$261,480,000 for Theater High Altitude Area Defense Engineering
and Manufacturing. The Committee recommends $238,647,000 for
Demonstration and Validation, a reduction of $56,000,000.
Due to the slip in the THAAD schedule, associated with
flight test failures, fiscal year 1998 funds that were budgeted
as the second increment for a contract to acquire 40 User
Operational Evaluation System (UOES) missiles are no longer
required. The Committee understands that the flight test
schedule for THAAD has been restructured and that should an
intercept occur in 1998, prior year funds would be available
for the UOES contract.
The Committee is very concerned about the Theater High
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program and the four consecutive
test failures which did not achieve an intercept. This type of
error points to the need for greater quality control on the
part of the contractor and tighter management on the part of
the program manager. Despite these concerns, the Committee
supports the objectives of the THAAD program and believes the
system should be deployed at the soonest possible date.
Navy Lower Tier
The Department requested $267,822,000 for the Navy Lower
Tier program. The Committee recommends $289,822,000, an
increase of $22,000,000 as proposed in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill. The Committee was pleased with the recent
successful test of the Navy Lower Tier system and has provided
funds for additional targets to reduce program risk.
navy upper tier
The Department requested $194,898,000 for Navy Upper Tier.
The Committee recommends $444,898,000, an increase of
$250,000,000. The Committee believes that the Navy Upper Tier
program will provide a substantial defense capability and is
concerned that the Administration's proposed plan does not
include deployment of the Navy Upper Tier system. Additional
funds will enable the Navy to plan for 12 flight tests, to
include an intercept in 1999 using the Lightweight
Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) and a modified SM-3 Standard
Missile. In addition, additional funds will permit engineering
and kinetic kill vehicle work needed for system deployment. The
current plan only provides for a flight demonstration program
and does not plan for deployment.
medium extended air defense system (meads) and boost phase intercept
(bpi)
The Committee is concerned about the lack of focus in the
Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) program, formerly
Corps SAM, and the Boost Phase Interceptor (BPI) program. While
the Committee supports the general concept underlying both
programs, it believes that neither program is affordable. Due
to the international commitment involved with the MEADS
program, the Committee recommends a completion of the
Preliminary Design and Review program but remains concerned
about the future funding of this expensive program.
Furthermore, the Committee sees the Air Force Airborne Laser
(ABL) program as the prime program for pursuing a boost phase
capability. Therefore, the Committee recommends no
appropriation for BPI as proposed in the House-passed Defense
Authorization bill.
national missile defense
The Committee believes that National Missile Defense (NMD)
is one of the highest national security priorities. The
Committee is concerned about the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and the possible emergence of a ballistic
missile threat from a rogue nation.
The Department requested $504,091,000 for National Missile
Defense (NMD). The Committee recommends $978,091,000, an
increase of $474,000,000, as proposed in both the House and
Senate Authorization bills. The Committee concurs with the
recommendations of the Quadrennnial Defense Review and
recommends additional funds to significantly reduce the cost,
schedule and technical risk associated with the current NMD
program. The Committee is pleased with the recent successful
NMD flight test which demonstrated the ability of an
Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) optical seeker to identify
and track a set of threat targets and discriminate between
warheads and decoys. However, the Committee remains concerned
about the six month delay in the program which was caused
because of an earlier flight test malfunction that was
attributed to human error. The Committee believes, as with the
THAAD program, that quality control and close management are
critical to timely deployment of this system.
Engineering and Manufacturing
chemical and biological defense program
The Department requested $120,535,000 for Chemical and
Biological Defense. The Committee recommends $138,535,000, an
increase of $18,000,000. Within this increase, $8,000,000 is
only for the Joint Vaccine Program and $10,000,000 is only for
decontamination technologies.
technical studies
The Department requested $38,376,000 for technical studies.
The Committee recommends $31,248,000, a reduction of $7,128,000
due to program growth.
defense support activities
The Department requested $5,992,000 for Defense Support
Activities. The Committee recommends $7,492,000, an increase of
$1,500,000 only for the Commodity Management System
Consolidation.
management headquarters
The Department requested $39,193,000 for management
headquarters. The Committee recommends $34,469,000, a reduction
of $4,724,000. The recommended amount funds management
headquarters at the prior year level.
tactical uavs
The Department requested $122,004,000 for tactical unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Committee recommends $60,007,000, a
reduction of $61,997,000.
The Committee agrees with the recommendations set forth in
the House-passed fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill
regarding the Outrider UAV and therefore denies the funding
request of $87,497,000 for this program. The Committee strongly
urges the Department to immediately pursue the recommendation
to procure a tactical UAV for the Army.
The Committee provides an additional $11,500,000 to develop
the Tactical Control System (TCS) for the Predator UAV system.
The Committee understands that a memorandum of agreement is
being developed between the TCS program office and the Naval
Strike Warfare Center to coordinate the use of the Predator
system in support of CONOPS development. Additionally, the
Department should consider integrating the TCS in the Pioneer
UAV system, especially since the Navy has decided to extend the
service life of the Pioneer UAV.
The Committee also recommends $4,000,000 to continue the
UAV multi-function self-aligned gate array technology
development and demonstration program.
An additional $10,000,000 is recommended to support a
vertical takeoff and landing UAV competition.
endurance uavs
The Department requested $216,712,000 for the High Altitude
Endurance (HAE) UAV program. The Committee recommends
$192,812,000, a reduction of $23,900,000. Of this amount,
$14,990,000 is a transfer from this account to an Air Force
RDT&E account, PE 0305154F. The request included $9,000,000 for
testing the common ground segment. The Committee understands
that there has been considerable delay in both HAE advanced
technologies demonstrations and that prior year funds are
available for continued testing. Therefore, the Committee
denies the request of $9,000,000.
airborne reconnaissance systems
The Department requested $212,961,000 for airborne
reconnaissance systems. The Committee recommends $193,961,000,
a reduction of $19,000,000. The adjustments to this account are
described below.
The following are recommended changes in accordance with
authorization action:
JMTE Advanced Technology Demonstration................ +$8,000,000
E-O Framing Technology................................ +15,000,000
ABIT System Test & Evaluation......................... +3,000,000
JASA Standards........................................ -3,000,000
HFE Development....................................... -3,000,000
Global Hawk SIGINT Design............................. -16,200,000
The Committee recommends the following additional
adjustments:
The Department requested $25,800,000 for the development
and testing of the JSAF Highband Prototype. The Committee is
concerned about the significant amount of funds that have been
used to develop a joint SIGINT system. The Committee does not
understand why there continues to be multiple efforts to
develop a SIGINT system to satisfy U-2 requirements: the high
band sub-system (HBSS), high band prototype (HBP), and the U-2
Senior Glass upgrade. Because of these reasons, the Committee
denies the $25,800,000 budget request. The Committee recommends
an additional $3,000,000 to continue the development of the
long range, high data rate airborne lasercom system.
special operations advanced technology development
The Department requested $8,009,000 for Special Operations
advanced technology development. The Committee recommends
$9,009,000, an increase of $1,000,000 to continue the
development of the PRIVATEER II electronic suite.
special operations intelligence systems development
The Department requested $4,914,000 for Special Operations
Intelligence Systems Development. The Committee recommends
$13,914,000, an increase of $9,000,000. Of this amount
$5,000,000 is to provide enhancements to the Special Operations
Intelligence Vehicle, and $4,000,000 for the Joint Threat
Warning System (JTWS).
sof operational enhancements
The Department requested $26,357,000 for SOF operational
enhancements. The Committee recommends $32,937,000, an increase
of $6,580,000. Of this amount, $5,800,000 is for the Special
Technology Assault Craft, and $780,000 for a classified program
which is explained in the classified annex to this report.
casting emission reduction program
The Department of Defense requested no funds for the
Casting Emission Reduction Program. The Committee recommends
$12,000,000 only to continue this five-year research and
development initiative between DoD and the private sector to
develop a cleaner and more efficient metal casting process in
order to meet Clean Air Act requirements.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $282,038,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 268,183,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 268,183,000
Change from budget request............................ ................
This appropriation funds Developmental Test and Evaluation,
Defense activities, for direction and supervision of test and
evaluation, joint testing, improvement of the effectiveness and
efficiency of the DoD major ranges and test facilities, and
technical and/or operational evaluation of foreign nations'
weapons systems, equipment, and technologies.
Committee Recommendations
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $24,968,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 23,384,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 32,684,000
Change from budget request............................ +9,300,000
This appropriation funds the activities of the Office of
the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation.
Committee Recommendations
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
Live Fire Testing
The Department requested $10,197,000 for Live Fire Testing.
The Committee recommends $19,497,000, an increase of $9,300,000
only for simulation and modeling.
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $947,900,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 33,400,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 971,952,000
Change from budget request............................ 938,552,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $971,952,000
for the Defense Working Capital Fund. The recommendation is an
increase of $24,052,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 1997. As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee
supports the recommendations in the House-passed fiscal year
1998 Defense Authorization bill to incorporate the Commissaries
into the Defense Working Capital Fund rather than establishing
a separate account as proposed in the budget request.
transition to the working capital funds
The Committee notes that, in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request, DoD proposed revising the title and structure of the
Defense Business Operations Fund and replacing it with the Army
Working Capital Fund, the Navy Working Capital Fund, the Air
Force Working Capital Fund, and the Defense Working Capital
Fund. Despite the change in name, the Committee recognizes that
the financial management improvements brought about by the
Defense Business Operations Fund such as capital budgeting and
recognition of total costs will continue under the Working
Capital Funds. However, the Committee is also aware that the
problems that confronted DoD during its use of the Defense
Business Operations Fund have not changed with the inception of
the Working Capital Funds.
In particular, the cash management problems that the
Committee has noted in the past continue under the Working
Capital Funds. The Committee has repeatedly expressed its
concern about the problems DoD has experienced in maintaining
adequate cash balances, and DoD's consequent need to use
advance billing. The Committee is encouraged by the steps DoD
has taken in the fiscal year 1998 budget request to establish
rates that more accurately reflect the costs of the Working
Capital Fund activity groups. However, the Committee believes
there is room for further improvement, especially in the area
of collections. The Committee is aware that the Department has
just over $5 billion of aging accounts receivable due to
Working Capital Fund activity groups. Of this amount, the
Committee understands that $1.5 billion are 90 days old or
older, and over $1 billion are over 120 days old. It seems
clear that this performance can, and should be improved, and
that such improvement would aid DoD's overall efforts to
improve cash management in the Working Capital Fund activities.
Therefore, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense
submit a report, not later than April 30, 1998, detailing
measures to improve cash management by reducing the amount of
aging accounts receivable.
MILITARY COMMISSARY FUND, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ 0
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... $938,552,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 0
Change from budget request............................ -938,552,000
The Committee supports the recommendation in the House-
passed fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill to
incorporate the Commissaries into the Defense Working Capital
Fund rather than establishing a separate account as proposed by
the budget request. The Committee believes that this
realignment should improve the management flexibility for the
operation of the Defense Commissary Agency.
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $1,428,002,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 1,191,426,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,199,926,000
Change from budget request............................ +8,500,000
This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation,
and supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready
Reserve Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military
Sealift Command, the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.
large medium speed roll-on/roll-off (lmsr) ships
The Navy budgeted $812,900,000 for acquisition of LMSR
ships. The Committee recommends $806,400,000, a reduction of
$6,500,000 due to excess advanced procurement funds.
lighterage
The Defense Department requested no funds for lighterage,
equipment which is vital for off-loading sealift ships to get
equipment and supplies to shore. Lighterage consists of
floating platforms known as RO/RO discharge facilities,
floating piers, or causeway ferries. The first LMSR ship went
to sea this year without any lighterage. The Committee is
disturbed that the Department of Defense is buying 19 LMSR
sealift ships for over $6,000,000,000 for which the proper
support equipment is not planned nor budgeted. The Committee
recommends $15,000,000 only for procurement of sea-state two
lighterage to meet theater CINC requirements.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation....................... $10,207,308,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request (as amended)......... 10,301,650,000
Committee Recommendation............................. 10,309,750,000
Change from budget request........................... 8,100,000
The Department requested $10,301,650,000 for the Defense
Health Program. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998
President's Budget request submitted to Congress in February
underfunded the Defense Health Program by $274,000,000.
Subsequent to the submission of the budget, the Administration
submitted a budget amendment to correct this shortfall. The
Committee strongly agrees with this action and fully funds the
Defense Health Program to include the shortfall of
$274,000,000. The Committee recommends $10,309,750,000 a net
increase of $8,100,000 over the amended budget request in
operations and maintenance only for the following:
Breast Cancer........................................... $25,000,000
Head Injury............................................. 1,000,000
Air Force Neuroscience.................................. 4,900,000
Diabetes Research....................................... 4,000,000
Epidermolysis Bullosa................................... 1,000,000
Medical Imaging......................................... 4,700,000
Tissue Engineering...................................... 4,700,000
HIV..................................................... 15,000,000
Minimally Invasive Research............................. 13,000,000
Lab Upgrades............................................ 8,000,000
Nervous System Studies.................................. 4,500,000
Gulf War Illness........................................ 4,500,000
PACMEDNET............................................... 10,000,000
High Risk Automation Systems (CHCSII)................... -20,000,000
Tax Liability........................................... -70,800,000
Economic Adjustment..................................... -1,400,000
Medical Research
The Committee recommends increases to research and
development accounts only for the following programs:
602716A:
Med Teams........................................... $4,000,000
602787A:
Nutrition........................................... 3,500,000
LSTAT............................................... 6,000,000
Orthopedic implants................................. 3,500,000
Neurotoxin Exposure................................. 25,000,000
Ovarian Cancer...................................... 10,000,000
Neurofibromatosis................................... 9,800,000
Prostate Cancer..................................... 10,000,000
603002A:
Breast Cancer....................................... 100,000,000
National Medical Testbed............................ 8,000,000
Lab Upgrades........................................ 6,000,000
Advanced Cancer Detection........................... 3,500,000
Teleradiology....................................... 3,000,000
Advanced Trauma Care................................ 6,000,000
Artificial Lung Research............................ 1,500,000
Emergency Telemedicine.............................. 3,500,000
603706N:
Bone Marrow......................................... 34,000,000
Naval Biodynamics................................... 2,600,000
Biocide Materials................................... 5,500,000
Freeze-Dried Blood.................................. 2,500,000
Dental Research..................................... 4,000,000
Mobile Medical Monitor.............................. 4,000,000
Rural Health........................................ 3,000,000
Fleet Health Technology............................. -1,200,000
604771N:
Casualty Monitoring................................. 8,500,000
Navy Telemedicine................................... 4,800,000
breast cancer
The Committee has provided an increase of $125,000,000 only
for breast cancer-related research and treatment. The Committee
is pleased that funds appropriated to the Army in prior years
for breast cancer research have been well used. This year the
Committee has again provided funding for valuable research and
to help improve access to care and improve treatment for
military members and their dependents with breast cancer. The
Committee recommends an increase of $100,000,000 for peer-
reviewed research and $25,000,000 to improve access to care for
military members and their families.
gulf war illness
The Department estimates that it will spend $74,100,000 for
various Gulf War Illness programs in fiscal year 1998. The
Committee recommends fully funding these programs. In addition,
the Committee recommends an increase of $4,500,000 in
conformance with authorization action, only for Gulf War
Clinical Trials to be established by the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a total program of
$78,600,000. This represents an increase of $15,500,000, or 25
percent, over the fiscal year 1997 program for Gulf War Illness
initiatives.
The Committee is concerned that the Departments of Defense
and Veterans Affairs do not currently have a systematic
approach to monitoring the health of Gulf War veterans after
their initial examination and are unable to provide information
on the effectiveness of treatment or whether veterans are
better or worse than when first examined.
The Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs should
develop and implement a plan to address the concerns raised in
the June 1997 GAO report on this subject providing: (1) data on
the effectiveness of the treatments received by these veterans;
and (2) data on the long-term progress of veterans who have
reported illnesses after the war to identify health conditions
which are resistant to current therapies. The application of
validated severity indices may be appropriate, but the
departments may suggest other methods.
tricare
The Committee is pleased with the progress that has been
made in implementing TRICARE. However, the Committee believes
that there are several areas that deserve further study
including: the feasibility of adopting the APR-DRG system;
standards relating to quality and access for children with
special needs; and corrective measures for outlier payments.
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide a
report on these matters by May 1, 1998.
bone marrow research
The Committee recommends an increase of $34,000,000 only
for the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research
Program, which is administered by the Naval Medical Research
Institute.
The Committee believes that the C.W. Bill Young Marrow
Donor Recruitment and Research Program is uniquely qualified to
provide support to the Metropolitan Emergency Medical Response
teams established by the Defense Against Mass Destruction Act
of 1996 (P.L. 104-201). The Committee recommends that
procedures be established to make available to these teams the
infrastructure and medical expertise of the DoD marrow donor
program in the event of an emergency covered by the Act.
smoking cessation
Tobacco smoking in the military is estimated to cost the
Department of Defense an estimated $930 million in health
expenses and lost productivity. It is the stated goal of the
Department of Defense to reduce smoking prevalance among active
duty personnel from the current level of 32 percent to 20
percent of all service personnel. Nicotine replacement therapy,
such as nicotine patches or gum, may offer a cost-effective
means of significantly increasing success rates among service
personnel attempting to quit smoking. The Committee urges the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to implement
an effective smoking reduction plan that meets the objectives
of Healthy People 2000. Furthermore, the Committee urges the
Department to make replacement therapy available to military
members and their families.
diabetes
The Committee has included $4,000,000 only for improved
methods of diabetes detection, prevention, and care. The
Committee recommends that the Department of Defense consider
opportunities to conduct this research in conjunction with the
Veterans Administration. The Committee directs the Department
of Defense to provide a report on the status of this project by
February 15, 1998.
minimally invasive research
The Committee recommends $13,000,000 to support a
collaborative effort of industry, medical research
institutions, and the Department's health care organizations to
identify and evaluate technologies to permit the extensive
surgical treatment of patients while minimizing the requirement
to open the body with long, deep incisions. Technologies and
techniques under development employing lasers, computers,
special optics, and robotics hold promise for advancing
minimally invasive surgical capabilities. This could have
direct and useful application for battlefield medicine and
could reduce the pain, danger, and cost of surgery provided to
the military healthcare population.
Air Force Neuroscience
The Committee recommends $4,900,000 to fund a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) at Wright Patterson
Air Force Base for neuroscience technology.
Central Nervous System Injury Research
The Committee recommends $4,500,000 to continue active
research programs under Cooperative Agreement DAMD17-93-V-3018
relating to the mechanism and treatment of central nervous
system injury (brain trauma, spinal cord injury, stroke) and
cognitive dysfunction. It is expected that these funds will
support multi-institutional research and training programs in
the areas of brain imaging, cognitive science, central nervous
system injury/plasticity, and telemedicine with the Walter Reed
Institute of Research, the National Institutes of Health, and
other Army medical organizations.
walter reed army institute of research
The Committee recommends $8,000,000 to acquire essential
equipment for the new Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
(WRAIR). Because the planned occupancy date for the new
replacement laboratory has recently been accelerated from April
1999 to August 1998, funds to equip the facility were not
included in this year's budget request.
Mobile Breast Care Center
The Committee believes the Mobile Breast Care Center is
absolutely essential to effectively addressing the basic and
clinical research needs of at-risk underserved rural and urban
communities, and encourages the Department to provide support
for this effort from within available funds.
Peer Review Panels
The Committee is pleased with the level of diversity of the
DoD prostate cancer initiative's program medical review panel
and encourages that it be sustained. In conjunction with the
Institute of Medicine's fiscal year 1993 report on strategies
for managing the breast cancer research program, the Committee
recognizes the critical importance of the participation of
minorities on the program management team, advisory council,
and peer review group of the DoD breast cancer research
program. Thus, the Committee recommends that the DoD breast
cancer research program medical review panel maintain equitable
representation of minorities.
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriated amount.................. $758,447,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 620,700,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 595,700,000
Change from budget request............................ -25,000,000
Committee Recommendations
Program Reductions
The DoD requested $620,700,000 for the destruction of
chemical agents and munitions. The Committee recommends
$595,700,000, a decrease of $25,000,000 due poor obligation
rates.
storage facilities
In June 1997, the GAO issued a report which stated that
communities surrounding the Umatilla Depot lack a number of
safety measures, including decontamination equipment, sirens,
and tone alert radios. The GAO report, if accurate, causes the
Committee concern for the citizens in the towns surrounding the
storage facility. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to
ensure the integrity of the nerve gas storage facilities and to
minimize the degree of risk to the surrounding communities.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1997:
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $807,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 652,582,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 713,082,000
Change from budget request............................ +60,500,000
This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel;
Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and, Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, for drug interdiction and
counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense.
Committee Recommendation
The Department of Defense requested $652,582,000 for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, a reduction of
$154,418,000 from the fiscal year 1997 appropriated level. The
Committee recommends $713,082,000, an increase of $60,500,000.
national guard counter-drug program
Once again the Department of Defense has not adequately
provided funds for the National Guard Counter-Drug Support
Program. The budget request would fund less than half the state
and local law enforcement requests for National Guard Counter-
Drug Support. The Committee has provided additional funds for
specific National Guard activities and directs the Department
to follow proper reprogramming procedures for each program in
this account.
lea support
The Committee provided additional funds in fiscal year 1997
for operation Laser Strike and other projects in the Southern
Command area of responsibility. These additional resources, in
combination with the programs requested in the budget, have led
to recent success achieved by participating nations in stemming
the production and transfer of illegal drugs. Among the more
immediate effects of this effort is the dramatic reduction in
traffic along the air bridge in the Andean region which had
been used as the chief means of transport for raw coca to
processing sites. The Committee compliments the Commander-in-
Chief of the Southern Command and the Department for their
contribution and leadership in this area. The Committee
recommends an additional $15,000,000 over the budget request in
the LEA Support program to be used to continue and build on
this effort in the Source Nations and directs the Department to
present a detailed plan on how it will utilize this additional
funding to the congressional defense committees within 60 days
of enactment of this act.
gulf states initiative
The Committee recommends $16,166,000 for the Gulf States
Initiative (GSI), an addition of $12,800,000 over the budget
request. The Committee believes that the infrastructure and
capabilities developed by the participants in the GSI have
direct application to counter-terrorism activities.
Accordingly, the Committee directs that funds for the GSI shall
be used for sustainment costs for the C4 of GSI, improvements
to existing processing and analysis centers for the four GSI
states, and for broadening the GSI focus to include counter-
terrorism. The Committee directs that $3,031,000, an addition
of $800,000 over the budget request, be provided to the
Regional Counter-drug Training Academy (RCTA).
The Committee is disappointed in the Department's lack of
budgetary and management support for the GSI, and in its
proposal to shift management responsibility to the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA). The Committee believes such
action is unwise and instead directs the Department to submit a
plan to the Committee prior to conference committee action on
the fiscal year 1998 bill to transfer all program funding
responsibility and program management of the GSI, except those
dealing with the RCTA, to the Joint Military Intelligence
program.
hidta crack house demolition
The Committee is aware that various Guard units have been
used to demolish crack houses in Texas, in a manner which
enhances readiness. The Committee is also aware of an urgent
need to expand this activity to the state of Indiana.
Therefore, the Committee recommends $2,300,000 above the budget
request for Guard State plans only for Crack House Demolition
and related missions for the National Guard in the Indiana High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA).
civil air patrol
The Committee recommends $2,800,000 above the budget
request, for the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). Funds made available
to the CAP for the Department of Defense Drug Interdiction
activities may be used for CAP's demand reduction program
involving youth programs as well as operational and training
drug reconnaissance missions for federal, state, and local
government agencies; for administrative costs, including the
hiring of CAP employees; for travel and per diem expenses of
CAP personnel in support of those missions; and for equipment
needed for mission support performance. The Department of the
Air Force should waive reimbursement from the federal, state
and local government agencies for use of these funds.
c-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance upgrades
The Committee recommends $11,000,000 only to form fit
upgrade the KS-87 sensors on Air National Guard C-26 counter-
drug aircraft to electro optical framing capability to include
image processing equipment and spares support.
multijurisdictional task force training
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 above the budget
request for multijurisdictional task force training and
Military Police School training at the Criminal Justice
Institute.
Program Recommended
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 1998:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change
Budget Committee from
request recommended budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dismantling Cartels.................... 54,306 54,306 ........
Source Nation Support.................. 166,763 180,963 +14,200
National Imagery & Mapping Agency.. 8,374 7,574 -800
LEA Support (1004)................. 3,585 18,585 +15,000
Detection & Monitoring................. 124,686 124,686 ........
Law Enforcement Agency Support......... 223,589 269,389 +45,800
Gulf States Initiative............. 3,366 16,166 +12,800
Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force.... 2,047 6,047 +4,000
Southwest Border Information System ........ 5,000 +5,000
Civil Air Patrol................... 1,175 3,975 +2,800
National Interagency Counterdrug
Institute......................... ........ 3,000 +3,000
Southwest Border Fence............. ........ 7,000 +7,000
Optionally Piloted Air Vehicle..... ........ 2,500 +2,500
HIDTA Crack House Demolition....... ........ 2,300 +2,300
C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance
Upgrade........................... ........ 11,000 +11,000
Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems
RDT&E............................. 16,013 11,413 -4,600
Demand Reduction....................... 83,238 83,738 +500
Young Marines Programs............. 500 1,000 +500
Total, Drug Interdiction and
Counter-drug Activities, Defense 652,582 713,082 +60,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $139,157,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 138,380,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 142,980,000
Change from budget request............................ +4,600,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $142,980,000
for the Office of the Inspector General. The recommendation is
an increase of $3,823,000 from the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 1997.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM
Introduction
The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those
intelligence activities of the Government which provide the
President, other officers of the Executive Branch, and the
Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic
concerns bearing on U.S. National security. These concerns are
stated by the National Security Council in the form of long-
range and short-range requirements for the principal users of
intelligence, and include political and support to military
theater commanders.
The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily
of resources of the Central Intelligence Agency; the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the
National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping
Agency, the intelligence services of the Department of the
Army, Navy and the Air Force; the Intelligence Community
Management Staff; and the CIA Retirement and Disability System
Fund.
classified annex
Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence
programs, the results of the Committee's budget review are
published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified
annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and
other organizations are expected to comply fully with the
recommendations and directives in the classified annex
accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Defense Approprations bill.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $196,400,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 196,900,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 196,900,000
Change from budget request............................ 0
This appropriation provides payments of benefits to
qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain
Employees (P.L. 88-643). This statue authorized the
establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System
(CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees, and authorized
the establishment and maintenance of a Fund from which benefits
would be paid to those beneficiaries.
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $129,164,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 122,580,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 125,580,000
Change from budget request............................ +3,000,000
This appropriation provides funds for the activities that
support the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the
Intelligence Community.
Committee recommendation
The budget requested $122,580,000 for the Intelligence
Community Management Account. The Committee recommends
$125,580,000, an increase of $3,000,000. Details of adjustments
to this account are included in the classified annex
accompanying this report.
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $5,100,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 2,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,000,000
Change from budget request............................ 0
The National Security Education Trust Fund was established
to provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to
pursue higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S.
institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and
languages. The budget requested $2,000,000. The Committee
recommends funding the budget request.
PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION FUND
Fiscal year 1997 appropriation........................ $10,000,000
Fiscal year 1998 budget request....................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 10,000,000
Change from budget request............................ 0
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and
Environmental Restoration Fund. The Committee recommendation
does not change from the amount appropriated in fiscal year
1997.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The accompanying bill includes 102 general provisions. Most
of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997 and many have been
included in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of
years.
Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's
provisions or new provisions recommended by the Committee are
discussed below or in the applicable section of the report.
Definition of Program, Project and Activity
For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act
of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information
provides the definitions of the term ``program, project, and
activity'' for appropriations contained in the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items, identified in the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 1997, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports,
the conference report and accompanying joint explanatory
statement of the managers of the Committee on Conference, the
related classified reports, and the P-1 and R-1 budget
justification documents as subsequently modified by
Congressional action.
In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the
Department of Defense and agencies shall conform to the
definition for ``program, project, and activity'' set forth
above with the following exception:
For Military Personnel and the Operation and Maintenance
accounts the term ``program, project, and activity'' is defined
as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act.
The Department and agencies should carry forth the
Presidential sequestration order in a manner that would not
adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities
established for the Department of Defense and the related
agencies and no program, project, and activity should be
eliminated or be reduced to a level of funding which would
adversely affect the Department's ability to effectively
continue any program, project and activity.
Military Personnel Budget Justification
The Committee has included Section 8092 in the General
Provisions, which directs the Department to forward to the
congressional defense committees a budget justification
document for the active and reserve personnel accounts with the
fiscal year 1999 budget submission. The Committee directs this
``M-1'' document to identify at the budget activity, activity
group, and subactivity group level, the amounts requested by
the President for fiscal year 1999.
Limitation on Field Operating Agencies and Headquarters Activities
The Committee supports efforts to reduce personnel in
headquarters activities, but is concerned some organizations
may reassign their personnel to other organizations while those
personnel continue to perform the same headquarters mission.
The Committee therefore recommends amending a previously-
enacted General Provision (Section 8052) to place additional
limits on the manner in which personnel shifts can take place.
The provision does not affect personnel assigned to a non-
headquarters activity who take a rotational assignment at a
headquarters for career development purposes.
Warranties
The Committee has included a new general provision, Section
8095, which reduces $50,000,000 of the funds in the Procurement
title of the bill due to the proposed elimination of the
requirement in Title X of United States Code mandating
warranties for the acquisition of defense weapon systems. A
recent General Accounting Office report indicates that the
Department of Defense spends $271,000,000 annually on
warranties as required by Title X even though most warranties
under this legislation have proven to be not cost-effective.
The Defense Department has proposed on numerous occasions that
the warranty legislation be repealed, and the General
Accounting Office now also makes the same recommendation. The
House National Security Committee proposes to repeal the
warranty legislation in Title X (Section 2403 of Title 10,
United States Code) in the House Defense Authorization Bill for
fiscal year 1998, while the Senate Armed Services Committee
proposes to modify the warranty legislation in the Senate
Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1998 to make it
optional rather than mandatory. Thus, there is broad consensus
that the warranty requirements of Title X will be removed and
the Department of Defense will be able to eliminate cost
ineffective warranty provisions from defense weapon system
acquisition contracts. The Committee recommends a reduction of
$50,000,000 in anticipation of savings from these actions.
National Imagery and Mapping Agency
The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) has not
complied with previous directives regarding the use of the
qualifications based selection process for its contracts for
mapping production services. Therefore, a General Provision
(Section 8096) is included which requires NIMA to use this
selection process, commonly referred to as the Brooks Act, for
mapping related services. The Committee has provided an
exception to this requirement only for purposes that are
critical to national security and after the Deputy Secretary of
Defense has submitted a notification report to the Committee on
Appropriations explaining the reasons for exceptions to this
contracting out provision.
Navigation and Safety Equipment
Last year, in the wake of the fatal air crash in Croatia
involving the Secretary of Commerce, Congress appropriated $96
million in support of Department of Defense initiative to
upgrade its military passenger-carrying aircraft with modern,
safety related equipment such as global positioning system
receivers, flight data recorders, cockpit voice recorders,
ground proximity warning systems, and traffic collision
avoidance systems. This was intended to be a high priority
effort spanning several years. The Committee is disappointed
that, despite the Department's stated commitment to make this
program a matter of the highest priority, the Air Force failed
to request funds in its fiscal year 1998 budget to fully fund
the second phase of this program for troops and passenger
aircraft. Instead, the Air Force has identified this program as
an unfunded requirement. Accordingly, the Committee has
designated in the bill $20 million only for this program to be
derived from funds in the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
account. The Committee directs that these modifications may not
be funded from any other programs in this bill for which funds
have been added over the budget request, or from the phase I
navigational safety modifications contained in the fiscal year
1998 President's Budget. The Committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to report to the congressional defense committees
on sources of the funds 30 days prior to phase II obligations.
The Committee has further included a general provision (Section
8098) that directs the Department to submit an aviation safety
program plan specifying the appropriate level of safety
upgrades required for all DoD aircraft and the associated
funding profile no later than November 15, 1997.
TACWAR
The Committee recognizes the importance of theater combat
simulations for the purpose of acquiring insight into future
force structure decisions and funding choices. However, the
Committee is concerned over the adequacy of the models being
used by the Department to evaluate and determine these
significant future decisions. The Committee is particularly
concerned over the outdated nature of the TACWAR model which
played a key role in supporting the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR), and its inability to meaningfully assess asymmetrical
U.S. advantages such as stealth, communications and airpower.
The committee notes that in testimony before the Congress, all
four service chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have
testified to the inadequacy of the current DOD models.
The Committee believes it is necessary to direct a
thorough, independent review of the current models and modeling
structure. As such, in Section 8099 of the bill, the Committee
directs the Defense Science Board (DSB) to review the current
models used by Department of Defense and report back to the
Committee as to 1) the DSB's evaluation of the current models
utilized by DOD with particular emphasis on the TACWAR model
and its ability to adequately measure airpower, stealth and
other asymmetrical U.S. advantages and, 2) DSB recommendations
for improvements to current models and modeling techniques. The
Committee directs the Department to advise the Congress no
later than April 15, 1998 of the best alternatives for theater
combat simulations.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Changes in Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted
describing the effect of provisions which directly or
indirectly change the application of existing law.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to
continue on-going activities which require annual authorization
or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be
construed as changing the application of existing law.
The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been
virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically
considered legislation.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain
available for more than one year for some programs for which
the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize
such extended availability.
In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked
funds within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific
programs and has adjusted some existing earmarkings.
The bill includes a number of provisions which make
portions of the appropriations subject to enactment of
authorizing legislation.
Those additional changes in the fiscal year 1998 bill,
which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as
follows:
appropriations language
Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'' which makes funds available to the Department of the
Interior to support the Memorial Day and Fourth of July
ceremonies in the National Capital Region.
Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'' which changes the amount available for emergency and
extraordinary expenses.
Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'' which earmarked funds for federally owned
education facilities located on military facilities, and which
transferred funds to the Harnett County School Board,
Lillington, North Carolina. Language has also been amended to
change the amount available for emergency and extraordinary
expenses.
Language has been included in the ``Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund'' to allow the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds from this account to operation and maintenance
and working capital funds.
Language has been amended in ``United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces'' to change the amount available
for official representation purposes.
Language has been deleted in ``Environmental Restoration,
Army'' which restricted the amount of funds which could be used
by the Corps of Engineers for total environmental remediation
contracts.
Language has been included in ``Former Soviet Union Threat
Reduction'' which limits the obligational availability of funds
in this account.
Language has been deleted for the ``Quality of Life
Enhancements, Defense'' appropriation account.
Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement,
Army'' which earmarks funds for UH-60 helicopters for the Army
National Guard and for the Navy Reserve.
Language has been deleted in ``Procurement of Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' which allowed funds to be
obligated for future year V903 diesel engine requirements.
Language has been deleted in ``Other Procurement, Army''
which allowed funds to be obligated for future year V903 diesel
engine requirements and which authorized the procurement of
passenger replacement vehicles.
Language has been deleted in ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' which earmarked funds for certain ship programs and
includes language which restricts the availability of funds for
the overhaul of the CVN-69 and the production of DDG-51
destroyers..
Language has been included in ``Other Procurement, Navy''
concerning the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement.
Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Marine Corps''
which changes the number of passenger vehicles to be procured.
Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force'' which earmarks funds for navigational safety
modifications for Air Force troop and passenger aircraft.
Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'' which changes the number of passenger vehicles to be
procured and the price limitation per vehicle.
Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide''
to change the number of passenger vehicles to be procured.
Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Air Force'' which earmarked funds for the F-22
two seat variant study and for development of reusable launch
vehicle technologies.
Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Air Force'' which earmarked funds for coal-
derived jet fuel technologies.
Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' concerning the Dual-Use
Application Program. Language has also been amended to change
the amount of funds earmarked for the Navy Upper Tier program.
Language has been amended in ``Revolving and Management
Funds'' to change the name of the ``Defense Business Operations
Fund'' to ``Defense Working Capital Funds''.
Language has been deleted from ``Defense Health Program''
which earmarks funds for obtaining emergency communications
funds from the Red Cross and which allows the Secretary of
Defense to obligate funds for private physicians to work with
the U.S. Army on Desert Storm Syndrome research.
Language has been deleted in ``Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction, Defense'' which earmarks funds for the
Johnston Atoll off-island leave program and which provides
authority for service secretaries to grant travel allowances
for participants in the program.
Language has been amended in ``Office of the Inspector
General'' to change the amount available for emergency and
extraordinary expenses.
Language has been added to the ``Intelligence Community
Management Account'' which restricts obligational availability
of funds for the Advanced Research and Development Committee,
the Environmental Intelligence and Applications program, and
the National Drug Intelligence Center.
General Provisions
Section 8006 has been amended to allow transfers to be made
between working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation.
Section 8008 has been amended to require formal submission
of multiyear contract proposals and to authorize the multiyear
procurement of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.
Section 8022 has been amended to change a citation with
respect to title 10 of the United States Code.
Section 8030 has been amended to change the amount of
overall funding made available to the Civil Air Patrol and the
amount available for operation and maintenance.
Section 8031 has been amended to delete language which
limits the number of staff years of technical effort which may
be funded for defense FFRDCs and amends language directing the
Secretary of Defense to reduce the number of staff years to be
performed by defense FFRDCs and reduces funds for FFRDCs and
consultants by $141,300,000 in fiscal year 1998.
Section 8044 has been amended to change the title of the
appropriation from the ``Defense Business Operations Fund'' to
``Working Capital Funds''.
Section 8045 has been amended to make permanent the
prohibition on the use of appropriated funds to modify
aircraft, weapons, ships or other end-items of the Military
Departments that are planned to be retired or disposed of
within five years of the completion of the modification.
Section 8052 has been amended concerning the increase or
transfer of DoD personnel assigned to headquarters activities
and field operating agencies.
Section 8055 has been included to rescind funds from the
following programs:
FISCAL YEAR 1996............................
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy:
AFS ship conversion............................... $35,600,000
Other Procurement, Navy:
Shipboard Tactical Communications................. 3,300,000
FISCAL YEAR 1997............................
Aircraft Procurement, Army:
Blackhawk Advance Procurement..................... 10,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army:
Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support...... 5,000,000
Other Procurement, Army:
20-ton Dump Trucks................................ 40,000,000
Maneuver Control System........................... 6,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy:
F/A-18E/F Advance Procurement..................... 24,000,000
Other Procurement, Navy:
Shipboard Tactical Communications................. 2,200,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force:
Small VCX......................................... 27,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
Aerostat.......................................... 7,000,000
Section 8062 has been amended to change the amount of the
Pentagon Reservation renovation total cost cap.
Section 8076 has been amended to extend the obligational
availability of funds for the B-2 program.
Section 8078 has been amended concerning the transfer of
funds for the ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' account,
and for the ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air
Force'' account for the F-22 project.
Section 8079 has been amended to require a specific date
for the Defense Department Comptroller to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees detailing programs whose
budget request was reduced because Congress appropriated funds
above the budget request in the previous fiscal year.
Section 8082 has been amended concerning the National Guard
Distance Learning project.
Section 8084 has been added which makes a technical
correction extending the availability of funds appropriated to
the Army in the fiscal year 1992 Defense Appropriations Act.
Section 8085 has been added which makes a technical
correction extending the availability of funds made available
in the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act for certain
activities at Homestead Air Force Base.
Section 8086 has been added which provides for continuation
of the graduate education program at the Air Force Institute of
Technology.
Section 8087 has been added concerning the deposit of funds
to the Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund for credit to the
Canadian Government.
Section 8088 has been added concerning the Fisher House
Trust Fund.
Section 8089 has been added which grants authority for
refunds from Government travel cards to be credited to
operation and maintenance accounts.
Section 8090 has been added which grants authority for
withdrawal credits for military customers of the Marine Corps
supply activity group.
Section 8091 has been added which allows DoD to pay
interest penalties associated with the purchase of supplies,
materials, services, and other contractual obligations from the
appropriation account which made the purchase.
Section 8092 has been added requiring the Department of
Defense to submit budget justification documents for the active
and reserve Military Personnel accounts which identifies all
requested amounts at the budget activity, activity group, and
subactivity levels.
Section 8093 has been added which reduces the ``Operation
and Maintenance, Army'' budget request by $15,000,000 and the
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' budget request by
$85,000,000 to compensate for excess inventory held by these
services.
Section 8094 has been added which reduces the
``Environmental Restoration, Army'' budget request by
$73,000,000 to reflect funds carried by the Army as a result of
shared cleanup costs.
Section 8095 has been added which reduces the budget
request by $50,000,000 to reflect savings from the proposed
repeal of Section 2403 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 8096 has been added restricting the use of
appropriated funds for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency
for mapping, charting, and geodesy activities unless contracts
for these services are awarded in accordance with the selection
process in 40 U.S.C. 541 et seq. and 10 U.S.C. 2855.
Section 8097 has been added which provides for the use of
contract authority in Working Capital Funds of the Department
of Defense to support the practice of capital budgeting.
Section 8098 has been added requiring the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report on an aviation safety plan.
Section 8099 has been added requiring the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report on alternatives for current theater
combat simulations.
Section 8100 has been added which restricts the use of
Research and Development funding for the procurement of end-
items.
Section 8101 has been added which requires the Department
of Defense to establish new budget subactivities in the
applicable appropriations accounts to separately identify all
costs associated with NATO expansion. This section also
requires that DoD provide detailed budget justification
estimates for the cost of such expansion.
Section 8102 has been added which restricts the
obligational availability of funds for the deployment of U.S.
ground forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after
June 30, 1998 or a later date as specifically proscribed by
law. The section also prohibits the use of appropriated funds
for support of law enforcement activities in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and directs the President to submit a
report no later than December 15, 1997 on the political and
military conditions in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and restricts the availability of funds for the operation of
United States ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina to 60 percent
of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation before the report is
submitted.
Appropriations not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
Military Personnel, Army
Military Personnel, Navy
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
Military Personnel, Air Force
Reserve Personnel, Army
Reserve Personnel, Navy
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
National Guard Personnel, Army
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Army
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Environmental Restoration, Army
Environmental Restoration, Navy
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Missile Procurement, Army
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Other Procurement, Army
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Other Procurement, Navy
Procurement, Marine Corps
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Other Procurement, Air Force
Procurement, Defense-Wide
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Defense Capital Working Fund
National Defense Sealift Fund
Defense Health Program
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
Office of the Inspector General
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System
Fund
Intelligence Community Management Account
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation and
Environmental Restoration Fund
National Security Education Trust Fund
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of
Representatives the following is submitted describing the
transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations from which
Appropriations to which transfer is made Amount transfer is made Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance, Army............... $50,000,000 National Defense Stockpile $150,000,000
Transaction Fund.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy............... 50,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.......... 50,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language has been included in ``Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund'' which provides for the transfer of
funds out of this account to other appropriation accounts of
the Department of Defense.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration,
Army'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into
this account.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration,
Navy'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into
this account.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration,
Air Force'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and
into this account.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration,
Defense-Wide'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of
an into this account.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration,
Formerly Used Defense Sites'' which provides for the transfer
of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to
other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.
Language has been included in the ``Intelligence Community
Management Account'' which transfers funds to the Department of
Justice.
Section 8078 contains language which transfers funds as
follows:
Amount
Appropriations to which transfer is made:
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1989/2000....... $21,572,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1991/2001....... 24,633,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000....... 5,592,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1997/2001....... 24,160,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air
Force 1997/98........................................ 73,531,000
-----------------
Total........................................... 149,488,000
=================
Appropriations from which transfer is made:
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1989/2000....... 21,572,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1991/2000....... 24,633,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1994/1998....... 1,454,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1995/1999....... 715,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000....... 23,983,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1997/2001....... 3,600,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1997/1999......... 73,531,000
-----------------
Total........................................... 149,488,000
Six provisions (Sections 8006, 8014, 8037, 8062, 8064,
8078) contain language which allows transfer of funds between
accounts.
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause (b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, the following table is submitted describing
the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill.
Aircraft Procurement, Army 1997/1999.................. $10,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 1997/1999............. 5,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 1997/1999..................... 46,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 1997/1999.................. 24,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 1997/1999..................... 2,200,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1997/1999............. 27,000,000
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1996/2000........... 35,600,000
Other Procurement, Navy 1996/1998..................... 3,300,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 1997/
1999................................................. 7,000,000
Constitutional Authority
Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that: ``Each report of a committee on a
bill or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the joint
resolution.''
The Committee on Appropriations based its authority to
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .''
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Comparision With Budget Resolution
Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), requires
that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget
authority contain a statement detailing how the authority
compares with the reports submitted under section 602(b) of the
Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on
the budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602(b) Allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary............................................... 248,140 244,574 248,138 244,563
Mandatory................................................... 197 197 197 197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill provides no new spending authority as described in
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended.
Five-Year Projection of Outlays
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, the following table contains five-year projections
associated with the budget provided in the accompanying bill.
[In millions of dollars]
Budget authority in the bill.......................... $248,335
1998.............................................. 165,067
1999.............................................. 49,031
2000.............................................. 18,369
2001.............................................. 8,002
2002.............................................. 6,132
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the
accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local
governments.
DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. DAVE OBEY
Our former Chairman Jamie Whitten used to insist on
referring to this bill as a ``military spending'' bill as
opposed to a ``defense'' bill. The point being that the
``spending'' inserted in this bill didn't always coincide with
our country's highest ``defense'' priorities. I certainly
agreed with him back then, and I think his point is magnified
many times by what is happening in today's era.
Today, despite the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and an
80% drop in Russian military spending; despite the dissipation
of other serious conventional military threats from places like
Iraq and the slow motion disintegration of the North Korean
military; despite Defense Secretary Cohen's studied conclusion
that the United States will have no ``global peer competitor''
between now and at least the year 2015; and despite clear
warnings that we should be paying more attention to new, more
insidious threats such as:
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
especially chemical and biological weapons, to rogue
states and even to terrorist organizations;
the proliferation of sophisticated conventional
weapons capabilities throughout East Asia, the Middle
East and now possibly Latin America;
the ability of international drug lords to corrupt
entire countries and even regions of the world,
the growing capability of some nations and other
groups to conduct ``cyber warfare'' attacks to disrupt
critical computer systems that control our banking
system, electric grids, telephone systems, air traffic
control system, Wall Street, as well as many
battlefield information systems;
despite all of these realities, this Congress continues to plow
billions of dollars into systems like the F-22 fighter, the B-2
bomber, and the Seawolf submarine that were literally justified
and designed to fight the old Soviet Empire at the height of
its military power.
One of the Navy personnel assigned to serve on the brand
new $2.4 billion Seawolf submarine summed up this situation
pretty well according to an article in the July 19, 1997
Washington Post. In describing the new Seawolf submarine he
said:
This is an incredible system, and although a lot of
people complain about the cost of the Seawolf, I think
it's worth every penny * * * Now if we could just find
somebody to fight with it.
This couldn't be more poignant. This submarine is a $2.4
billion anti-ship weapon that lost its military rationale the
day the Berlin Wall fell. It is being built and put into
service at the same time we are retiring scores of Los Angeles
class attack submarines years earlier than planned because the
threat has evaporated and they don't have a bona fide mission.
The Seawolf can't be justified on a military basis, yet
Congress simply can't kick the military spending habit with the
result that billions of taxpayers' money is wasted.
Getting Ready for the Wrong War?
But the problem is much deeper than the issue of simply
wasting billions of tax dollars on unneeded military systems.
The pattern of Congressional military spending since the end of
the Cold War raises serious questions as to whether backward-
looking Congressional defense policies are causing us to get
ready for the wrong war.
This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it unique to the
United States. The status quo ethos among military decision
makers around the world seems to be one of preparing to re-
fight the last war instead of preparing for the next. There are
countless examples of this throughout history, including such
recent examples as the continued emphasis of the U.S. Navy on
battleshipsprior to World War II instead of moving to air power
and aircraft carriers, or the stubborn insistence of the French
military to continue to rely on the Maginot Line and outdated tactics
in the face of changed German Blitzkrieg tactics.
But this problem extends beyond the halls of Congress.
History shows that Congress has rarely taken meaningful,
comprehensive defense policy initiatives on its own. There is
no question that Congress depends on the Pentagon and the
Administration to lead the way, with Congress making changes
mainly on the margins.
Unfortunately, recent leadership from the Pentagon has been
disappointing as well. Service turf battles, bureaucratic
momentum, and defense industry politics appear to have
hamstrung the Pentagon in the critical task of modernizing its
overall defense strategy to meet our new post-Cold War defense
challenges. The recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review
is a case in point. It missed the opportunity to push us
forward. Months of work on the QDR by Pentagon strategists
culminated in a familiar ``Cold War'' vision: a force built
around carriers, jets, tanks, and other traditional big ticket
items.
Former Reagan Administration official Richard Perle said
this about the Quadrennial Defense Review:
the QDR is an extremely important missed opportunity.
It is, by and large business as usual * * * I wish we
had some radical document but we don't. It nibbled at
the edges.
An analyst within the Office of the Secretary of Defense
put it more clearly:
the QDR put the profits of defense contractors and the
interests of the congressional pork barrel before the
welfare of the soldier or the taxpayer. [Defense Week,
6-30-97]
A good question is whether our potential adversaries of the
future are also standing pat. For instance, many observers have
expressed concern about the future direction of China. Although
we should resist the notion of creating a self-fulfilling
prophecy about Chinese foreign and military aspirations, there
is also no doubt that Chinese military and foreign policy
actions must be watched. In this respect, the Pentagon's Office
of Net Assessment says the lessons of Desert Storm were not
lost on Chinese military planners. Here is what one press
report said about a recent Pentagon study of Chinese military
doctrine:
Rather than gird for the open land and air battles at
which the United States excels, potential foes can
invest in cheap but sophisticated sea mines, jamming
gear, and missiles. * * * Instead of tanks, ships, and
jets, the Chinese theorists list anti-satellite
devices, defenses against stealthy aircraft, lasers,
and electronic sabotage equipment as key weapons of the
future. [U.S. News, 5-12-97]
Pentagon military planners have made similar assessments.
The ``Joint Strategy Review'' issued by the Joint Staff at the
Pentagon was summarized as follows:
[the Joint Strategy Review] projected that potential
enemies cannot hope to challenge U.S. forces in head-
to-head engagements, and instead would seek to strike
at potential U.S. vulnerabilities in protecting its
vast information infrastructure, engage in acts of
terrorism and develop chemical or biological weapons
and the long range launchers to use them. * * *
Moreover, the assessment found most combat will take
place in urban areas where enemies can easily mix with
the population. This reduces the advantages of
precision weapons * * *'' [Defense News, March 30,
1997]
One has to ask why we continue to pour billions into Cold
War weapons systems designed to fight a huge Soviet Army on the
plains of central Europe when our experts tell us the threats
of the future will likely come from a different direction.
Continuing these expensive, unnecessary Cold War systems
squeezes important programs that do have relevance for our
future national security, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program and, more importantly, exacts a price
from our other non-defense programs to pay for these
extravagances.
Pell Grants/Cancer Research/Highways
I for one, think we should take the billions we are wasting
in this bill for more B-2 bombers the Air Force doesn't want,
for more submarines wedon't need, for the F-22 fighter that is
being brought into service years earlier than it needs to be, and for
many other programs the Pentagon doesn't even have in its five-year
spending plan and apply it to Pell Grants to give more of our kids an
education.
If we cut out the $4.7 billion in this bill for redundant
Cold War weapons like the F-22 fighter, the new attack
submarine, and the B-2 bomber and instead applied it to
education and cancer research, we could help over 400,000 more
kids go to college under the Pell Grant program, raise their
maximum grant from $3,000 to $3,900, and, as an added bonus,
more than double the NIH cancer research program. This could
all be done starting next fiscal year.
If we used the $20 billion ``rainy day'' reserve fund that
is buried in the five-year DoD procurement budget to fix up our
roads and bridges, we could increase national highway
investments by 20% a year--creating 200,000 additional jobs and
helping the local economy in all 50 states.
That is what the American People would like to spend their
money on, and that is what this Committee could decide today if
it had the will.
Follow the Money
Why can't we find savings in the military and apply it to
these worthy areas?
Why is it that all the rhetoric we hear from our Republican
friends about cutting the waste out of government programs and
making sure that we are spending only for essential items just
seems to melt away when this bill, the single largest spending
bill we vote on each year, moves forward?
The answer becomes clearer when you look a little deeper as
to where the hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill are
spent, and who it benefits. How this bill is put together has
much more to do with where the spending occurs and who it is
spent on, than what it is for.
There is enormous pressure in Congress to keep the dollars
and jobs flowing to the same areas, to the same corporations,
for the same systems.
There is also a strong incentive to keep the revolving door
going between the Pentagon and the military contractors they
have come to know so well.
There is pressure to keep military spending up in vote-rich
states like California and Texas.
That all adds up to maintaining the status quo and mis-
allocating literally billions of dollars that could be better
used for a host of more important national purposes.
I had the GAO pull together some information on where the
Defense Department spends its money. They produced an extensive
report put out by the DoD Directorate for Information entitled
``Atlas/Data Abstract for the United States and Selected
Areas'' that lists where over $215 billion in DoD spending for
FY 1996 for operating costs like military and civilian
payrolls, retired pay, and for military procurement/R&D prime
contracts over $25,000 were spent by state and even within the
states. These data aren't perfect, but the report as a whole
gives as complete a picture of the geographic distribution of
military spending as there is. I would suggest every Member
take a look at this report. It explains much about why budget
priorities are as they are.
It probably won't surprise anyone that the Southern states
and California come out the winners and the Midwest, Mountain,
and small New England states come out the losers. But what some
may not know is how lopsided the military spending geography is
between California and the South on the one hand, and the rest
of the country on the other.
Top 4 States Get More Than 38 States Combined
For instance, according to this report, the top four states
receiving DoD funds in FY 1996--California, Virginia, Texas,
and Florida--received nearly 40% of the total spent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount received
State (in billions) Percent of total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. California..................... $31.0 14.5
2. Virginia....................... 21.0 9.8
3. Texas.......................... 17.4 8.1
4. Florida........................ 12.6 5.9
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 82.0 38.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These four states received more military funds than the sum
total of 39 other states (including the District of Columbia):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount received
State (in billions) Percent of total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Vermont....................... $0.3 0.1
50. Wyoming....................... 0.3 0.1
49. South Dakota.................. 0.4 0.2
48. Montana....................... 0.4 0.2
47. Delaware...................... 0.4 0.2
46. West Virginia................. 0.5 0.2
45. Idaho......................... 0.5 0.2
44. North Dakota.................. 0.6 0.2
43. Iowa.......................... 0.6 0.3
42. Oregon........................ 0.7 0.3
41. Rhode Island.................. 0.8 0.4
40. New Hampshire................. 0.8 0.4
39. Arkansas...................... 1.0 0.5
38. Wisconsin..................... 1.0 0.5
37. Nebraska...................... 1.0 0.5
36. Nevada........................ 1.1 0.5
35. Utah.......................... 1.3 0.6
34. Maine......................... 1.3 0.6
33. Minnesota..................... 1.4 0.7
32. Alaska........................ 1.5 0.7
31. Kansas........................ 1.9 0.9
30. New Mexico.................... 1.9 0.9
29. Michigan...................... 2.1 1.0
28. Tennessee..................... 2.2 1.1
27. Louisiana..................... 2.4 1.2
26. Indiana....................... 2.6 1.2
25. Kentucky...................... 2.6 1.2
24. District of Columbia.......... 2.8 1.3
23. Oklahoma...................... 3.0 1.4
22. Mississippi................... 3.3 1.5
21. Connecticut................... 3.3 1.5
20. South Carolina................ 3.3 1.6
19. Hawaii........................ 3.3 1.6
18. Illinois...................... 3.3 1.6
17. New Jersey.................... 4.0 1.9
16. Alabama....................... 4.1 1.9
15. Colorado...................... 4.2 2.0
14. Arizona....................... 4.8 2.3
13. Ohio.......................... 5.1 2.4
-------------------------------------
Total....................... \1\ 79.1 \1\ 36.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not add due to rounding.
Nine Southern States Plus California Get 51%
Split another way, these data are even more striking. The
DoD spends over half of its funds (51%) in nine Southern states
and California.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount received
State (in billions) Percent of total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California........................ $31.0 14.5
Virginia.......................... 21.0 9.8
Texas............................. 17.4 8.1
Florida........................... 12.6 5.9
Georgia........................... 8.4 3.9
North Carolina.................... 5.7 2.7
Alabama........................... 4.1 1.9
South Carolina.................... 3.3 1.5
Mississippi....................... 3.3 1.5
Louisiana......................... 2.4 1.1
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 109.2 50.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten states received about $109 billion in military spending
for FY 1996 and the other 40 states and the District of
Columbia received about $106 billion. Four military dollars are
spent in these 10 states for every one dollar spent in the 40
other states.
California alone received more DoD dollars than 26 other
states combined.
Virginia alone received more DoD dollars than 22 states
combined.
Texas alone received more DoD dollars than 20 states
combined.
Florida alone received more DoD dollars than 14 states
combined.
Georgia alone received more DoD dollars than 13 states
combined.
Military Spending--GOP Leadership Connection
When we see this geographic disparity in the distribution
of funds and then compare it to a list of the home states of
the persons who sit in the top leadership positions in the
Congress, and the states represented by those who control the
major military spending committees, it becomes crystal clear
why we see the distorted and lopsided spending priorities
coming out of this Body.
Many people in the rest of the country are being denied
educational opportunities, are not getting their roads and
bridges fixed, are drinking contaminated water and worrying
about the safety of their food supply because the current House
leadership won't cut the billions in pork out of this bill--
pork that is headed straight home. Billions that can be cut
without hurting our national security.
Even though poll after poll shows the American People want
to invest more in education, in the environment, in
transportation, and in the National Parks, this Congressional
leadership is more than willing to give these national
priorities short shrift in order to keep pumping money into
this military spending machine.
And, for the same reason, this Congressional leadership
will continue its heavy resistance to cutting systems designed
for yesterday's military threats to pay for meeting the real
threats of tomorrow.
These lopsided military spending patterns combined with the
geographic representation of the current House leadership all
but ensure that we will continue to see larger than necessary
military budgets and status quo military policy guidance from
Congress.
The following table depicts key state-by-state data on
Department of Defense spending for FY 1996 derived from the
Department of Defense report Atlas/Data Abstract for the United
States and Selected Areas, Fiscal Year 1996.
DOD EST. PAYROLL, CONTRACTS, AND GRANTS BY STATE--FISCAL YEAR 1996
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State Total Total Grants \3\ Grand total percent
compensation \1\ contracts \2\ of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. California......................... $12,331,651 $18,229,724 $480,332 $31,041,707 14.46
2. Virginia........................... 11,355,738 9,562,978 73,442 20,992,138 9.78
3. Texas.............................. 8,382,520 8,819,096 161,353 17,362,969 8.09
4. Florida............................ 6,669,595 5,862,639 116,062 12,648,296 5.89
5. Missouri........................... 1,630,373 7,093,009 38,523 8,761,905 4.08
6. Georgia............................ 4,332,083 3,965,723 52,833 8,350,639 3.89
7. Maryland........................... 3,264,795 4,136,785 98,039 7,499,619 3.49
8. Washington......................... 3,812,840 2,382,417 48,132 6,243,389 2.91
9. Pennsylvania....................... 2,218,245 3,687,357 89,035 5,994,637 2.79
10. North Carolina..................... 4,259,461 1,421,071 44,667 5,725,199 2.67
11. Massachusetts...................... 842,895 4,674,647 123,102 5,640,644 2.63
12. New York........................... 1,687,611 3,501,013 110,062 5,298,686 2.47
13. Ohio............................... 2,336,540 2,732,748 48,924 5,118,212 2.38
14. Arizona............................ 1,864,504 2,910,935 45,937 4,821,376 2.25
15. Colorado........................... 2,157,396 2,045,076 27,742 4,230,214 1.97
16. Alabama............................ 2,182,770 1,838,276 33,918 4,054,964 1.89
17. New Jersey......................... 1,418,681 2,564,266 44,777 4,027,724 1.88
18. Nebraska........................... 711,294 3,220,337 9,317 3,940,948 1.84
19. Illinois........................... 1,988,147 1,256,010 65,983 3,310,140 1.54
20. Hawaii............................. 2,330,507 928,480 49,911 3,308,898 1.54
21. South Carolina..................... 2,262,837 1,012,497 32,781 3,308,115 1.54
22. Connecticut........................ 613,098 2,638,260 30,492 3,281,850 1.53
23. Mississippi........................ 1,300,819 1,912,106 46,468 3,259,393 1.52
24. Oklahoma........................... 2,171,991 771,232 11,940 2,955,163 1.38
25. District of Columbia............... 1,236,791 1,482,673 39,589 2,759,053 1.29
26. Kentucky........................... 1,723,007 874,094 14,886 2,611,987 1.22
27. Indiana............................ 1,021,635 1,552,012 31,085 2,604,732 1.21
28. Louisiana.......................... 1,333,057 1,077,869 28,537 2,439,463 1.14
29. Tennessee.......................... 1,071,609 1,137,232 26,537 2,235,378 1.04
30. Michigan........................... 763,592 1,241,336 108,379 2,113,307 0.98
31. New Mexico......................... 1,168,071 676,391 20,408 1,864,870 0.87
32. Kansas............................. 1,079,437 762,593 12,300 1,854,330 0.86
33. Alaska............................. 878,995 564,890 15,893 1,459,778 0.68
34. Minnesota.......................... 393,418 960,361 72,548 1,426,327 0.66
35. Maine.............................. 524,536 797,224 10,216 1,331,976 0.62
36. Utah............................... 915,508 394,678 15,570 1,325,756 0.62
37. Nevada............................. 776,969 285,262 4,732 1,066,963 0.50
38. Wisconsin.......................... 412,549 551,276 44,655 1,008,480 0.47
39. Arkansas........................... 730,388 249,281 27,155 1,006,824 0.47
40. New Hampshire...................... 239,909 567,892 28,243 836,044 0.39
41. Rhode Island....................... 437,243 333,969 13,163 784,375 0.37
42. Oregon............................. 481,196 202,863 40,326 724,385 0.34
43. Iowa............................... 244,354 370,617 21,547 636,518 0.30
44. North Dakota....................... 438,501 106,089 10,176 554,766 0.26
45. Idaho.............................. 346,324 132,517 9,073 487,914 0.23
46. West Virginia...................... 241,691 199,324 20,920 461,935 0.22
47. Delaware........................... 331,551 101,554 12,303 445,408 0.21
48. Montana............................ 297,566 90,611 8,904 397,081 0.18
49. South Dakato....................... 257,727 109,969 5,075 372,771 0.17
50. Wyoming............................ 232,534 91,513 5,314 329,361 0.15
51. Vermont............................ 89,800 225,426 6,818 322,044 0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ ................ ............. ........... 214,638,651 100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes funds for civilian pay, military active duty pay, reserve and National Guard pay, retired military
pay.
\2\ Prime contract awards over $25,000 for civil functions contracts and military functions contracts. Prime
contracts are generally reported at the location where the work is performed. For example, if a contractor is
located in Nevada and wins a construction job in Utah, the contract will be listed for Utah.
\3\ Funds obligated by grants, cooperative agreements, or other non-procurement instruments reported at the
location where the work is performed.
Dave Obey.