[House Report 104-563]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-563
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 3230
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session 104-563
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 3230
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
One Hundred Fourth Congress
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina,
Chairman
RONALD V. DELLUMS, California BOB STUMP, Arizona
G.V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY, Mississippi DUNCAN HUNTER, California
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio
IKE SKELTON, Missouri HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia
NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
OWEN PICKETT, Virginia JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
LANE EVANS, Illinois JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
JOHN TANNER, Tennessee RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
GLEN BROWDER, Alabama California
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi STEVE BUYER, Indiana
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts
CHET EDWARDS, Texas TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida
FRANK TEJEDA, Texas JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts JAMES TALENT, Missouri
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
JANE HARMAN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California
PETE GEREN, Texas RON LEWIS, Kentucky
PETE PETERSON, Florida J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma
WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MIKE WARD, Kentucky SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
Carolina
JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
RICHARD ``DOC'' HASTINGS,
Washington
Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendment........................... 1
Purpose.......................................................... 1
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill............................. 2
Summary Table of Authorizations.................................. 2
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 10
Hearings......................................................... 17
Continued Shortfalls........................................... 11
Quality of Life................................................ 12
Modernization.................................................. 13
Ballistic Missile Defense...................................... 15
Innovation..................................................... 15
Conclusion..................................................... 17
Division A--Department of Defense Authorization.................. 19
Title I--Procurement............................................. 19
Overview....................................................... 19
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 21
Overview................................................... 21
Items of Special Interest.................................. 24
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 25
Overview................................................... 25
Items of Special Interest.................................. 28
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 29
Overview................................................... 29
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
Ammunition Procurement, Army................................. 33
Overview................................................... 33
Item of Special Interest................................... 36
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 36
Overview................................................... 36
Items of Special Interest.................................. 43
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 43
Overview................................................... 43
Items of Special Interest.................................. 47
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 48
Overview................................................... 48
Item of Special Interest................................... 52
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps.................... 52
Overview................................................... 52
Item of Special Interest................................... 55
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 55
Overview................................................... 55
Items of Special Interest.................................. 57
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 60
Overview................................................... 60
Items of Special Interest.................................. 69
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 72
Overview................................................... 72
Items of Special Interest.................................. 77
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 77
Overview................................................... 77
Items of Special Interest.................................. 82
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................ 85
Overview................................................... 85
Missle Procurement, Air Force................................ 88
Overview................................................... 88
Items of Special Interest.................................. 92
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 93
Overview................................................... 93
Items of Special Interest.................................. 99
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 99
Overview................................................... 99
Items of Special Interest.................................. 105
National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 105
Overview................................................... 105
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 109
Overview................................................... 109
Items of Special Interest.................................. 111
Legislative Provisions......................................... 111
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 111
Section 101-108--Authorization of Appropriations........... 111
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 111
Section 111--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of Certain
Aircraft................................................. 111
Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army
Programs................................................. 112
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 112
Section 121--Nuclear Attack Submarine Programs............. 112
Section 122--Cost Limitations for Seawolf Submarine Program 112
Section 123--Pulse Doppler Radar Modification.............. 112
Section 124--Reduction in Number of Vessels Excluded From
Limit on Purchase of Vessels Built in Foreign Shipyards.. 112
Section 125--T-39N Trainer Aircraft for the Navy........... 112
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 112
Section 141--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of F-15E
Aircraft................................................. 112
Section 142--C-17 Aircraft Procurement..................... 113
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E).... 114
Overview....................................................... 114
Defense-Wide Programs........................................ 116
Special Considerations..................................... 116
Army RDT&E................................................... 131
Overview................................................... 131
Items of Special Interest.................................. 140
Navy RDT&E................................................... 148
Overview................................................... 148
Items of Special Interest.................................. 157
Air Force RDT&E.............................................. 177
Overview................................................... 177
Items of Special Interest.................................. 187
Defense Agencies RDT&E....................................... 194
Overview................................................... 194
Items of Special Interest.................................. 202
Legislative Provisions......................................... 217
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 217
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 217
Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research......... 217
Section 203--Dual Use Technology Programs.................. 217
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 217
Section 211--Space Launch Modernization.................... 217
Section 212--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of V-22
Aircraft................................................. 217
Section 213--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of F-22
Aircraft................................................. 218
Section 214--Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions,
Explosives, and Rockets.................................. 218
Section 215--Research Activities of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency Relating to Chemical and
Biological Warfare Defense Technology.................... 219
Section 216--Limitation on Funding for F-16 Tactical Manned
Reconnaissance Aircraft.................................. 219
Section 217--Unmanned Aerial Vehicles...................... 220
Section 218--Hydra-70 Rocket Product Improvement Program... 220
Section 219--Space-Based Infrared System Program........... 220
Section 220--Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST)
Program.................................................. 220
Section 221--Authorization of Joint United States-Israel
Nautilus Laser/Theater High Energy Laser Program......... 220
Section 222--Nonlethal Weapons Research and Development
Program.................................................. 220
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs............... 220
Section 231--Funding for Ballistic Missile Defense for
Fiscal Year 1997......................................... 220
Section 232--Certification of Capability of United States
to Defend Against Single Ballistic Missile............... 221
Section 233--Policy on Compliance With the ABM Treaty...... 221
Section 234--Requirement That Multilateralization of the
ABM Treaty be Done Only Through Treaty-Making Power...... 222
Section 235--Report on Ballistic Missile Defense and
Proliferation............................................ 222
Section 236--Revision to Annual Report on the Ballistic
Missile Defense Program.................................. 223
Section 237--ABM Treaty Defined............................ 223
Section 238--Capability of National Missile Defense System. 223
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 223
Section 241--Uniform Procedures and Criteria for
Maintenance and Repair at Air Force Installations........ 223
Section 242--Requirements Relating to Small Business
Innovative Research Program.............................. 224
Section 243--Extension of Deadline for Delivery of Enhanced
Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOG-M) System............... 224
Section 244--Amendment to the University Research
Initiative Support Program............................... 224
Section 245--Amendments to Defense Experimental Programs to
Stimulate Competitive Research........................... 224
Section 246--Elimination of Report on the Use of
Competitive Procedures for the Award of Certain Contracts
to Colleges and Universities............................. 224
Section 247--National Oceanographic Partnership Program.... 225
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 226
Overview....................................................... 226
Items of Special Interest...................................... 258
Intelligence Programs........................................ 258
Defense Mapping Agency (DMA)............................... 258
Over the Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) Radar System.......... 258
Pacer Coin................................................. 259
Senior Scout............................................... 259
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Issues........................ 259
Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare and
Recreation Programs...................................... 259
Defense Commissary Agency/Performance Based Organization... 261
Distribution of Distilled Spirits.......................... 261
Other Issues................................................. 262
Abrams Integrated Management XXI........................... 262
Ammunition Management Program.............................. 262
Army After Next............................................ 262
Base Closure Transition.................................... 263
Base Operations Support Costs.............................. 263
Concept Development Center................................. 263
Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores........ 264
Department of Defense Milk Plants.......................... 265
Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair......................... 265
Electron Scrubber Technology............................... 266
General Purpose Tents...................................... 267
Integrated Computer Framework.............................. 267
Manganese Dust Exposure Levels............................. 267
Military Traffic Management Command's Reengineering
Personnel Property Initiative Pilot Program.............. 268
Mobility Infrastructure Enhancement........................ 269
Operational Support Aircraft............................... 269
Real Property Maintenance.................................. 270
Reserve Readiness.......................................... 270
Standard Missile Maintenance............................... 271
Total Asset Visibility Program............................. 271
Unobligated Balances....................................... 271
Legislative Provisions......................................... 272
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 272
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 272
Section 302--Working Capital Funds......................... 272
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................. 272
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund......................................... 272
Subtitle B--Depot-Level Activities........................... 272
Section 311--Extension of Authority For Aviation Depots and
Naval Shipyards to Engage in Defense-Related Production
and Services............................................. 272
Section 312--Exclusion of Large Maintenance and Repair
Projects From Percentage Limitation on Contracting For
Depot-Level Maintenance.................................. 272
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions......................... 273
Section 321--Repeal of Report on Contractor Reimbursement
Costs.................................................... 273
Section 322--Payments of Stipulated Penalties Assessed
Under CERCLA............................................. 273
Section 323--Conservation and Readiness Program............ 273
Section 324--Navy Compliance With Shipboard Solid Waste
Control Requirements..................................... 274
Section 325--Authority to Develop and Implement Land Use
Plans for Defense Environmental Restoration Program...... 274
Section 326--Pilot Program to Test Alternative Technologies
for Limiting Air Emissions During Shipyard Blasting and
Coating Operations....................................... 275
Section 327--Navy Program to Monitor Ecological Effects of
Organotin................................................ 275
Subtitle D--Civilian Employees and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 276
Section 331--Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Lodging
Expenses When Adequate Government Quarters Are Available. 276
Section 332--Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay
Modification............................................. 276
Section 333--Wage-Board Compensatory Time Off.............. 276
Section 334--Simplification of Rules Relating to the
Observance of Certain Holidays........................... 277
Section 335--Phased Retirement............................. 277
Section 336--Modification of Authority for Civilian
Employees of Department of Defense to Participate
Voluntarily in Reduction In Force........................ 277
Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 278
Section 341--Contracts With Other Agencies and
Instrumentalities for Goods and Services................. 278
Section 342--Noncompetitive Procurement of Brand-Name
Commercial Items For Resale in Commissary Stores......... 278
Section 343--Prohibition of Sale or Rental of Sexually
Explicit Material........................................ 278
Subtitle F--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector
Sources.................................................... 278
Section 351--Extension of Requirement For Competitive
Procurement of Printing and Duplication Services......... 278
Section 352--Requirement Regarding Use of Private Shipyards
For Complex Naval Ship Repair Contracts.................. 279
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 279
Section 360--Termination of Defense Business Operations
Fund and Preparation of Plan Regarding Improved Operation
of Working-Capital Funds................................. 279
Section 361--Increase in Capital Asset Threshold Under
Defense Business Operations Fund......................... 280
Section 362--Transfer of Excess Personal Property to
Support Law Enforcement Activities....................... 280
Section 363--Storage of Motor Vehicles in Lieu of
Transportation........................................... 280
Section 364--Control of Transportation Systems in Time of
War...................................................... 281
Section 365--Security Protection at Department of Defense
Facilities in National Capitol Region.................... 281
Section 366--Modifications to Armed Forces Retirement Home
Act of 1991.............................................. 281
Section 367--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that
Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees................. 282
Section 368--Retention of Civilian Employee Positions at
Military Training Bases Transferred to National Guard.... 282
Section 369--Expansion of Authority to Donate Unusable Food 282
Military Personnel Overview...................................... 283
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 285
Items of Special Interest...................................... 285
Air National Guard Fighter Aircraft........................ 285
Army Military Personnel Account Shortfall for Fiscal Year
1997..................................................... 285
Army Reserve Full Time Manning Increase.................... 285
Navy Maritime Patrol Aircraft.............................. 285
Reserve Component Individual Training Funds................ 286
Legislative Provisions......................................... 286
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 286
Section 401--End Strengths For Active Forces............... 286
Section 402--Permanent End Strength Levels to Support Two
Major Regional Contingencies............................. 286
Section 403--Authorized Strengths For Commissioned Officers
on Active Duty in Grades of Major, Lieutenant Colonel,
and Colonel and Navy Grades of Lieutenant Commander,
Commander, and Captain................................... 287
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 288
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 288
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 288
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians........ 289
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 289
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations For Military
Personnel................................................ 289
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 290
Items of Special Interest...................................... 290
Collection of Comparison Data on Gender-Neutral Training... 290
Guidance to Commanders on Unexplained Absences of Personnel 290
Increased Funding for Off-Duty Education................... 291
Increased Funding for Recruiting........................... 291
Minority Representation in Special Operations Forces....... 291
New Parent Support Program................................. 292
Personnel Tempo............................................ 292
Reduction in Permanent Change of Station Moves............. 293
Report on Sentence Enhancements for Hate Crimes............ 294
Retention Standards for Permanent Medical Nondeployables... 294
Survey of Attitudes Towards Expansion of Roles of Women in
Combat and Combat Related Military Skills................ 295
Legislative Provisions......................................... 295
Subtitle A--Personnel Management............................. 295
Section 501--Authorization For Senior Enlisted Members to
Reenlist for an Indefinite Period of Time................ 295
Section 502--Authority to Extend Entry on Active Duty Under
Delayed Entry Program.................................... 296
Section 503--Permanent Authority for Navy Spot Promotions
for Certain Lieutenants.................................. 296
Section 504--Reports on Response to Recommendations
Concerning Improvements to Department of Defense Joint
Manpower Process......................................... 296
Section 505--Frequency of Reports to Congress on Joint
Officer Management Policies.............................. 296
Section 506--Repeal of Requirement that Commissioned
Officers be Initially Appointed in a Reserve Grade....... 297
Section 507--Continuation on Active Status For Certain
Reserve Officers of the Air Force........................ 297
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters........................ 297
Section 511--Individual Ready Reserve Activation Authority. 297
Section 512--Training for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 298
Section 513--Clarification to Definition of Active Status.. 298
Section 514--Appointment Above O-2 in the Naval Reserve.... 298
Section 515--Report on Number of Advisers in Active
Component Support of Reserves Pilot Program.............. 298
Section 516--Sense of Congress and Report Regarding
Reemployment Rights for Mobilized Reservists Employed in
Foreign Countries........................................ 298
Subtitle C--Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts-Martial for the
National Guard When Not in Federal Service................. 299
Section 531--Composition, Jurisdiction and Procedures of
Courts-Martial........................................... 299
Section 532--General Courts-Martial........................ 299
Section 533--Special Courts-Martial........................ 299
Section 534--Summary Courts-Martial........................ 299
Section 535--Repeal of Authority For Confinement in Lieu of
Fine..................................................... 300
Section 536--Approval of Sentence of Bad Conduct Discharge
or Confinement........................................... 300
Section 537--Authority of Military Judges.................. 300
Section 538--Statutory Reorganization...................... 300
Section 539--Effective Date................................ 300
Section 540--Conforming Amendments to Uniform Code of
Military Justice......................................... 301
Subtitle D--Education and Training Programs.................. 301
Section 551--Extension of Maximum Age for Appointment as a
Cadet or Midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps and the Service Academies................. 301
Section 552--Oversight and Management of Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps Program......................... 301
Section 553--ROTC Scholarship Student Participation in
Simultaneous Membership Program.......................... 301
Section 554--Expansion of ROTC Advanced Training Program to
Include Graduate Students................................ 301
Section 555--Reserve Credit for Members of Armed Forces
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
Program.................................................. 302
Section 556--Expansion of Eligibility for Education
Benefits to Include Certain Reserve Officers' Training
Corps (ROTC) Participants................................ 302
Section 557--Comptroller General Report on Cost and Policy
Implications of Permitting Up to Five Percent of Service
Academy Graduates to be Assigned Directly to Reserve Duty
Upon Graduation.......................................... 302
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 302
Section 561--Hate Crimes in the Military................... 302
Section 562--Authority of a Reserve Judge Advocate to Act
as a Notary Public....................................... 302
Section 563--Authority to Provide Legal Assistance to
Public Health Service Officers........................... 303
Section 564--Excepted Appointment of Certain Judicial Non-
Attorney Staff in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces......................................... 303
Section 565--Replacement of Certain American Theater
Campaign Ribbons......................................... 303
Section 566--Restoration of Regulations Prohibiting Service
of Homosexuals in the Armed Forces....................... 303
Section 567--Reenactment and Modification of Mandatory
Separation From Service For Members Diagnosed With HIV-1
Virus.................................................... 304
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 306
Items of Special Interest.................................... 306
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay........................... 306
Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Allowances During Permanent
Change of Station Moves.................................. 306
Special Duty Assignment Pay for Army Special Operating
Forces................................................... 307
Legislative Provisions......................................... 307
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 307
Section 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997....... 307
Section 602--Availability of Basic Allowance for Quarters
for Certain Members Without Dependents Who Serve on Sea
Duty..................................................... 307
Section 603--Establishment of Minimum Monthly Amount of
Variable Housing Allowance for High Housing Cost Areas... 308
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 308
Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses for Reserve
Forces................................................... 308
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and
Nurse Anesthetists....................................... 308
Section 613--Extension of Authority Relating to Payment of
Other Bonuses and Special Pays........................... 308
Section 614--Special Incentives to Recruit and Retain
Dental Officers.......................................... 308
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 309
Section 621--Temporary Lodging Expenses of Member in
Connection With First Permanent Change of Station........ 309
Section 622--Allowance in Connection With Shipping Motor
Vehicle at Government Expense............................ 309
Section 623--Dislocation Allowance at a Rate Equal to Two
and One-Half Months Basic Allowance for Quarters......... 309
Section 624--Allowance for Travel Performed in Connection
With Leave Between Consecutive Overseas Tours............ 310
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related
Matters.................................................... 310
Section 631--Increase in Annual Limit on Days of Inactive
Duty Training Creditable Towards Reserve Retirement...... 310
Section 632--Authority for Retirement in Grade in Which a
Member Has Been Selected for Promotion When a Physical
Disability Intervenes.................................... 310
Section 633--Eligibility for Reserve Disability Retirement
for Reserves Injured While Away From Home Overnight for
Inactive-Duty Training................................... 310
Section 634--Retirement of Reserve Enlisted Members Who
Qualify for Active Duty Retirement After Administrative
Reductions in Enlisted Grade............................. 311
Section 635--Clarification of Initial Computation of
Retiree COLA's After Retirement.......................... 311
Section 636--Technical Correction to Prior Authority for
Payment of Back Pay to Certain Persons................... 311
Section 637--Amendments to the Uniformed Services Former
Spouses' Protection Act.................................. 311
Section 638--Administration of Benefits for So-Called
Minimum Income Widows.................................... 311
Section 639--Nonsubstantive Restatement of Survivor Benefit
Plan Statute............................................. 312
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 312
Section 651--Technical Correction Clarifying Ability of
Certain Members to Elect Not to Occupy Government
Quarters................................................. 312
Section 652--Technical Correction Clarifying Limitation on
Furnishing Clothing or Allowances for Enlisted National
Guard Technicians........................................ 312
Title VII Health Care Provisions................................. 313
Overview....................................................... 313
Items of Special Interest...................................... 313
Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) Network--Information
Technology............................................... 313
Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program............. 314
Comptroller General Study on the Department of Defense
Family Member Dental Plan................................ 314
Congressional Budget Office Scoring of Medicare Subvention
Demonstration Program.................................... 315
Global Infectious Disease Surveillance Program............. 315
Pacific Medical Network.................................... 316
Provider Workstation....................................... 316
TRICARE Alternative Financing.............................. 316
TRICARE Prime Portability.................................. 316
Legislative Provisions......................................... 317
Subtitle A--Health Care Services............................. 317
Section 701--Medical and Dental Care for Reserve Component
Members in a Duty Status................................. 317
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program.................................. 317
Section 711--Definition of TRICARE Program................. 317
Section 712--CHAMPUS Payment Limits for TRICARE Prime
Enrollees................................................ 318
Section 713--Improved Information Exchange Between Military
Treatment Facilities and TRICARE Program Contractors..... 318
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.......... 318
Section 721--Definitions................................... 318
Section 722--Inclusion of Designated Providers in Uniformed
Services Health Care Delivery System..................... 318
Section 723--Provision of Uniform Benefit by Designated
Providers................................................ 318
Section 724--Enrollment of Covered Beneficiaries........... 319
Section 725--Application of CHAMPUS Payment Rules.......... 319
Section 726--Payment for Services.......................... 319
Section 727--Repeal of Superseded Authorities.............. 319
Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health
Care Management............................................ 319
Section 731--Authority to Waive CHAMPUS Exclusion Regarding
Nonmedically Necessary Treatment in Connection With
Certain Clinical Trials.................................. 319
Section 732--Authority to Waive or Reduce CHAMPUS
Deductible Amounts for Reservists Called to Active Duty
in Support of Contingency Operations..................... 320
Section 733--Exception to Maximum Allowable Payments to
Individual Health-Care Providers Under CHAMPUS........... 320
Section 734--Codification of Annual Authority to Credit
CHAMPUS Refunds to Current Year Appropriation............ 320
Section 735--Exception to Requirements Regarding Obtaining
Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements................ 320
Section 736--Expansion of Collection Authorities From
Third-Party Payers....................................... 321
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 321
Section 741--Alternatives to Active Duty Service Obligation
Under Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and
Financial Assistance Program and Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences........................ 321
Section 742--Exception to Strength Limitations For Public
Health Service Officers Assigned to the Department of
Defense.................................................. 322
Section 743--Continued Operation of Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences........................ 322
Section 744--Sense of Congress Regarding Tax Treatment of
Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial
Assistance Program....................................... 322
Section 745--Report Regarding Specialized Treatment
Facility Program......................................... 323
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
Related Matters................................................ 324
Items of Special Interest...................................... 324
Implementation of Acquisition Reform Legislation........... 324
Truth in Negotiations Act Audit Rights..................... 324
Tungsten Anti-Tank Penetrators............................. 325
Legislative Provisions......................................... 325
Subtitle A--Acquisition Management........................... 325
Section 801--Authority to Waive or Modify Certain
Requirements for Defense Acquisition Pilot Programs...... 325
Section 802--Exclusion From Certain Post-Education Duty
Assignments for Members of Acquisition Corps............. 325
Section 803--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain
Prototype Projects....................................... 325
Section 804--Increase in Threshold Amounts for Major
Systems.................................................. 326
Section 805--Revisions in Information Required to be
Included in Selected Acquisition Reports................. 326
Section 806--Increase in Simplified Acquisition Threshold
for Humanitarian or Peacekeeping Operations.............. 326
Section 807--Expansion of Audit Reciprocity Among Federal
Agencies to Include Post-Award Audits.................... 326
Section 808--Extension of Pilot Mentor-Protege Program..... 327
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 327
Section 821--Amendment to Definition of National Security
System Under Information Technology Management Reform Act
of 1995.................................................. 327
Section 822--Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals
Under Freedom of Information Act......................... 327
Section 823--Repeal of Annual Report by Advocate for
Competition.............................................. 327
Section 824--Repeal of Biannual Report on Procurement
Regulatory Activity...................................... 327
Section 825--Repeal of Multiyear Limitation on Contracts
for Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair.................. 327
Section 826--Streamlined Notice Requirements to Contractors
and Employees Regarding Termination or Substantial
Reduction in Contracts Under Major Defense Programs...... 328
Section 827--Repeal of Notice Requirements for
Substantially or Seriously Affected Parties in Downsizing
Efforts.................................................. 328
Section 828--Testing of Defense Acquisition Programs....... 328
Section 829--Dependency of National Technology and
Industrial Base on Supplies Available Only From Foreign
Counties................................................. 328
Section 830--Treatment of Department of Defense Cable
Television Franchise Agreements.......................... 328
Section 831--Extension of Domestic Source Limitation for
Valves and Machine Tools................................. 329
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 330
Items of Special Interest...................................... 330
Unified Command Plan....................................... 330
Legislative Provisions......................................... 330
Section 901--Additional Required Reduction in Defense
Acquisition Workforce.................................... 330
Section 902--Reduction of Personnel Assigned to Office of
the Secretary of Defense................................. 330
Section 903--Report on Military Department Headquarters
Staff.................................................... 331
Section 904--Extension of Effective Date for Charter for
Joint Requirements Oversight Council..................... 331
Section 905--Removal of Secretary of the Army From
Membership on the Foreign Trade Zone Board............... 331
Section 906--Membership of the Ammunition Storage Board.... 331
Section 907--Department of Defense Disbursing Official
Check Cashing and Exchange Transactions.................. 332
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 333
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 333
Overview................................................... 333
Items of Special Interest.................................. 333
National Guard Counter-Drug Program...................... 333
C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrades.............. 334
Gulf States Counter-Drug Initiative...................... 334
Southwest Border Fence Project........................... 334
Other Matters................................................ 334
Defense Information Systems Network (DISN)................. 334
Military Affiliate Radio System............................ 335
National Defense University Chinese Translations........... 335
Supercomputer Exports and Proliferation.................... 336
White House Communications Agency.......................... 336
Legislative Provisions......................................... 336
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 336
Section 1001--Transfer Authority........................... 336
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............ 337
Section 1003--Authority for Obligation of Certain
Unauthorized Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Appropriations..... 337
Section 1004--Authorization of Prior Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996...................... 337
Section 1005--Format for Budget Request for Navy/Marine
Corps and Air Force Ammunition Accounts.................. 337
Section 1006--Format for Budget Requests for Defense
Airborne Reconnaissance Program.......................... 337
Subtitle B--Reports and Studies.............................. 338
Section 1021--Annual Report on Operation Provide Comfort
and Operation Enhanced Southern Watch.................... 338
Section 1022--Report on Protection of National Information
Infrastructure........................................... 338
Section 1023--Report on Witness Interview Procedures for
Department of Defense Criminal Investigations............ 339
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 339
Section 1031--Information Systems Security Program......... 339
Section 1032--Aviation and Vessel War Risk Insurance....... 340
Section 1033--Aircraft Accident Investigation Boards....... 341
Section 1034--Authority for Use of Appropriated Funds for
Recruiting Functions..................................... 342
Section 1035--Authority for Award of Medal of Honor to
Certain African American Solders Who Served During World
War II................................................... 342
Section 1036--Compensation for Persons Awarded Prisoner of
War Medal Who Did Not Previously Receive Compensation as
a Prisoner of War........................................ 342
Section 1037--George C. Marshall European Center for
Strategic Security Studies............................... 342
Section 1038--Participation of Members, Dependents, and
Other Persons in Crime Prevention Efforts at
Installations............................................ 343
Section 1039--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 343
Section 1040--Prohibition on Carrying Out SR-71 Strategic
Reconnaissance Program During Fiscal Year 1997........... 343
Title XI--Cooperative Threat Reduction........................... 344
Overview....................................................... 344
Items of Special Interest...................................... 344
Lack of Updated, Multi-Year Program Plan................... 344
Chemical Weapons Destruction............................... 345
Fissle Material Storage Facility........................... 346
Program Overhead........................................... 347
Concerns Regarding Presidential Certification.............. 347
Legislative Provisions......................................... 348
Section 1101--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs................................................. 348
Section 1102--Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Allocations......... 348
Section 1103--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified
Purposes................................................. 348
Section 1104--Limitation on Funds.......................... 348
Section 1105--Availability of Funds........................ 348
Title XII--Reserve Forces Revitalization......................... 349
Legislative Provisions......................................... 349
Subtitle A--Reserve Component Structure...................... 349
Section 1211--Reserve Component Commands................... 349
Section 1212--Reserve Component Chiefs..................... 349
Section 1213--Review of Active Duty and Reserve General and
Flag Officer Authorizations.............................. 349
Section 1214--Guard and Reserve Technicians................ 349
Section 1215--Technical Amendment Reflecting Prior Revision
to National Guard Bureau Charter......................... 350
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Accessibility.................. 350
Section 1231--Report to Congress on Measures Taken to
Improve National Guard and Reserve Ability to Respond to
Emergencies.............................................. 350
Sections 1232 Through 1234--Reporting Requirements......... 350
Subtitle C--Reserve Forces Sustainment....................... 350
Sections 1251 Through 1256--Improvements to Reserve
Component Quality of Life and Benefits................... 350
Title XIII--Matters Relating To Other Nations.................... 351
Items of Special Interest...................................... 351
Arms Control Implementation................................ 351
Chemical Weapons Convention................................ 351
Comprehensive Test Ban..................................... 352
Department of Defense Activities With China................ 353
Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia......................... 353
Russian Missile Detargeting................................ 355
Russian Threat Perceptions................................. 356
Legislative Provisions......................................... 357
Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters............................ 357
Section 1301--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation
Authorities.............................................. 357
Section 1302--Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of
Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles...................... 357
Section 1303--Certification Required Before Observance of
Moratorium on Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel
Landmines................................................ 357
Section 1304--Department of Defense Demining Program....... 359
Section 1305--Report on Military Capabilities of People's
Republic of China........................................ 360
Section 1306--United States-People's Republic of China
Joint Defense Conversion Commission...................... 361
Section 1307--Authority to Accept Services From Foreign
Governments and International Organizations for Defense
Purposes................................................. 361
Section 1308--Review by Director of Central Intelligence of
National Intelligence Estimate 95-19..................... 361
Subtitle B--Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat
to the United States....................................... 363
Section 1321--Establishment of Commission.................. 363
Section 1322--Duties of Commission......................... 364
Section 1323--Report....................................... 364
Section 1324--Powers....................................... 364
Section 1325--Commission Procedures........................ 364
Section 1326--Personnel Matters............................ 365
Section 1327--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions...... 365
Section 1328--Funding...................................... 365
Section 1329--Termination of the Commission................ 365
Title XIV--Sikes Act Improvements Amendments..................... 366
Legislative Provisions......................................... 366
Section 1402--Definition of Sikes Act for Purposes of
Amendments............................................... 366
Section 1403--Codification of Short Title of Act........... 366
Section 1404--Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans. 366
Section 1405--Review for Preparation of Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans................................ 366
Section 1406--Annual Reviews and Reports................... 366
Section 1407--Transfer of Wildlife Conservation Fees From
Closed Military Installations............................ 366
Section 1408--Federal Enforcement of Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans and Enforcement of Other Laws.. 367
Section 1409--Natural Resource Management Services......... 367
Section 1410--Definitions.................................. 367
Section 1411--Cooperative Agreements....................... 367
Section 1412--Repeal of Superseded Provision............... 367
Section 1413--Clerical Amendments.......................... 367
Section 1414--Authorizations of Appropriations............. 367
Divison B--Military Construction Authorizations.................. 369
Purpose........................................................ 369
The State of Military Infrastructure......................... 369
Authorization For Military Construction........................ 387
Title XXI--Army.................................................. 396
Summary........................................................ 396
Items of Special Interest...................................... 396
Improvements of Military Family Housing.................... 396
Repair and Maintenance, Army............................... 396
Legislative Provisions......................................... 397
Section 2101--Authorized Army and Land Acquisition Projects 397
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 397
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 397
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 397
Section 2105--Correction in Authorized Uses of Funds, Fort
Irwin, California........................................ 397
Title XXII--Navy................................................. 398
Summary........................................................ 398
Items Of Special Interest...................................... 398
Improvements of Military Family Housing.................... 398
Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi.................... 398
Ordnance Storage Needs of Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma,
Arizona.................................................. 398
Planning and Design........................................ 399
Power Plant Upgrade, Public Works Center, Guam............. 399
Legislative Provisions......................................... 399
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 399
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 399
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 399
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 399
Secion 2205--Beach Replenishment, Naval Air Station, North
Island, California....................................... 400
Section 2206--Lease to Facilitate Construction of Reserve
Center, Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi......... 400
Title XXIII--Air Force........................................... 401
Summary........................................................ 401
Items of Special Interest...................................... 401
Defense Access Road, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado....... 401
Improvements of Military Family Housing.................... 401
Planning and Design........................................ 401
Legislative Provisions......................................... 402
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 402
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 402
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 402
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 402
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 403
Summary........................................................ 403
Legislative Provisions......................................... 403
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 403
Section 2402--Military Housing Planning and Design......... 403
Section 2403--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 403
Section 2404--Military Housing Improvement Program......... 403
Section 2405--Energy Conservation Projects................. 403
Section 2406--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 403
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure..... 405
Summary........................................................ 405
Legislative Provisions......................................... 405
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 405
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 405
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities.................. 406
Summary........................................................ 406
Items of Special Interest...................................... 406
Alternative Funding for Certain Guard and Reserve
Facilities............................................... 406
Armory Infrastructure Requirements......................... 406
Battle Projection Center, Fort Dix, New Jersey............. 407
Military Construction to Support the Beddown of Avenger Air
Defense System Units, Various Locations, Mississippi..... 407
Planning and Design........................................ 407
Planning and Design, Fiscal Year 1996...................... 407
Unspecified Minor Construction............................. 407
Legislative Provisions......................................... 408
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 408
Title XXVII--Expiration and Extension of Authorizations.......... 409
Legislative Provisions......................................... 409
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to be Specified by Law.......................... 409
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain
Fiscal Year 1994 Projects................................ 409
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1993 Projects....................................... 409
Section 2704--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1992 Projects....................................... 409
Section 2705--Effective Date............................... 409
Title XXVIII--General Provisions................................. 410
Items of Special Interest...................................... 410
Assessment of Certain Overhead Costs of Military
Construction............................................. 410
Efficient Utilization of Existing Facilities............... 410
Infrastructure Requirements for Depot-Level Maintenance.... 410
Modular Utility Cores in Military Housing and Other
Facilities............................................... 411
Legislative Provisions......................................... 411
Subtitle A--Military Construction and Military Family Housing 411
Section 2801--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program....................................... 411
Section 2802--Authority to Demolish Excess Facilities...... 411
Section 2803--Improvements to Family Housing Units......... 411
Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 412
Section 2811--Restoration of Authority for Certain
Intragovernmental Transfers Under 1988 Base Closure Law.. 412
Section 2812--Contracting for Certain Services at
Facilities Remaining on Closed Installations............. 412
Section 2813--Authority to Compensate Owners of
Manufactured Housing..................................... 412
Section 2814--Additional Purpose for Which Adjustment and
Diversification Assistance is Authorized................. 412
Section 2815--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed
Under CERCLA in Connection With Loring Air Force Base,
Maine.................................................... 412
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally....................... 412
Part I--Army Conveyances................................... 412
Section 2821--Transfer and Exchange of Jurisdiction,
Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia.................... 412
Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Rushville, Indiana....................................... 413
Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Anderson, South Carolina................................. 413
Part II--Navy Conveyances.................................. 413
Section 2831--Release of Condition on Reconveyance of
Transferred Land, Guam................................... 413
Section 2832--Land Exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk
Naval Shipyard, Virginia................................. 413
Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Calverton Pine Barrens,
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, New
York..................................................... 413
Part III--Air Force Conveyances............................ 414
Section 2841--Conveyance of Primate Research Complex,
Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico...................... 414
Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site,
Belle Forche, South Dakota............................... 414
Part IV--Other Conveyances................................. 414
Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Tatum Salt Dome Test Site,
Mississippi.............................................. 414
Section 2852--Land Conveyance, William Langer Jewel Bearing
Plant, Rolla, North Dakota............................... 414
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 415
Section 2861--Easements for Rights-Of-Way.................. 415
Section 2862--Authority to Enter Into Cooperative
Agreements for the Management of Cultural Resources on
Military Installations................................... 415
Section 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and
Operation of Electric Power Distribution System at
Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio..................... 415
Section 2864--Designation of Michael O'Callaghan Military
Hospital................................................. 415
Title XXIX--Military Land Withdrawals............................ 416
Subtitle A--Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands
Withdrawal................................................. 416
Section 2902--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Fort
Carson Military Reservation.............................. 416
Section 2903--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Pinon
Canyon Maneuver Site..................................... 416
Section 2904--Maps and Legal Descriptions.................. 416
Section 2905--Management of Withdrawn Lands................ 416
Section 2906--Management of Withdrawn and Acquired Mineral
Resources................................................ 416
Section 2907--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping............... 416
Section 2908--Termination of Withdrawal and Reservation.... 417
Section 2909--Determination of Presence of Contamination
and Effect of Contamination.............................. 417
Section 2910--Delegation................................... 417
Section 2911--Hold Harmless................................ 417
Section 2912--Amendment to Military Lands Withdrawal Act of
1986..................................................... 417
Section 2913--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 417
Subtitle B--El Centro Naval Air Facility Ranges Withdrawal... 417
Section 2921--Short Title and Definitions.................. 417
Section 2922--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands for El
Centro................................................... 418
Section 2923--Maps and Legal Descriptions.................. 418
Section 2924--Management of Withdrawn Lands................ 418
Section 2925--Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation....... 418
Section 2926--Continuation of Ongoing Decontamination
Activities............................................... 418
Section 2927--Requirements for Extension................... 418
Section 2928--Early Relinquishment of Withdrawal........... 418
Section 2929--Delegation of Authority...................... 418
Section 2930--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping............... 418
Section 2931--Hold Harmless................................ 419
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorizations....................................... 421
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 421
Purpose........................................................ 421
Overview....................................................... 421
Items of Special Interest...................................... 436
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management..... 436
Fissle Materials Protection, Control and Accountability.... 438
Independent Review......................................... 438
Inertial Confinement Fusion................................ 438
Intelligence............................................... 439
International Nuclear Safety............................... 439
International Security..................................... 440
Laboratory Review of Missile Defense....................... 440
Naval Reactors............................................. 440
Nuclear Emergency Search Team.............................. 440
Nuclear Smuggling.......................................... 441
Technology Transfer........................................ 441
Tritium.................................................... 441
Warhead Master Plan........................................ 442
Legislative Provisions......................................... 442
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations......... 442
Section 3101--Weapons Activities........................... 442
Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management............................................... 442
Section 3103--Defense Fixed Asset Acquisition.............. 442
Section 3104--Other Defense Activities..................... 443
Section 3105--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 443
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 443
Section 3121--Reprogramming................................ 443
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects............. 443
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects.............. 443
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority...................... 443
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
Design................................................... 444
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and
Construction Activities.................................. 444
Section 3127--Funds Available for All National Security
Programs of the Department of Energy..................... 444
Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................ 444
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 444
Section 3131--Stockpile Stewardship Program................ 444
Section 3132--Manufacturing Infrastructure for Nuclear
Weapons Stockpile........................................ 445
Section 3133--Production of High Explosives................ 446
Section 3134--Limitation on Use of Funds by Laboratories
for Laboratory-Directed Research and Development......... 446
Section 3135--Prohibition on Funding Nuclear Weapons
Activities With People's Republic of China............... 446
Section 3136--International Cooperative Stockpile
Stewardship Programs..................................... 446
Section 3137--Temporary Authority Relating to Transfers of
Defense Environmental Management Funds................... 447
Section 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons
Production Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories... 447
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 447
Section 3141--Report on Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Memorandum............................................... 447
Section 3142--Report on Plutonium Pit Production and
Remanufacturing.......................................... 447
Section 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline Environmental
Management Reports....................................... 448
Section 3144--Requirement to Develop Future Use Plans for
Environmental Management Program......................... 448
Subtitle E--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and
Management................................................. 449
Section 3151--Purpose...................................... 449
Section 3152--Covered Defense Nuclear Facilities........... 449
Section 3153--Site Manager................................. 449
Section 3154--Department of Energy Orders.................. 449
Section 3155--Deployment of Technology for Remediation of
Defense Nuclear Waste.................................... 449
Section 3156--Performance-Based Contracting................ 449
Section 3157--Designation of Defense Nuclear Facilities as
National Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Areas....... 450
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Authorization.................................................. 451
Legislative Provisions......................................... 451
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 451
Title XXXIII--National Defense Stockpile......................... 452
Legislative Provisions......................................... 452
Section 3302--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds........... 452
Section 3311--Biennial Report on Stockpile Requirements.... 452
Section 3312--Notification Requirements.................... 452
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves............................ 453
Legislative Provisions......................................... 453
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 453
Section 3402--Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum
During Fiscal Year 1997.................................. 453
Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission.............................. 454
Legislative Provisions......................................... 454
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 454
Subtitle B--Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996.............. 454
Section 3521--Short Title; References...................... 454
Section 3522--Definitions and Recommendations for
Legislation.............................................. 454
Section 3523--Administrator................................ 454
Section 3524--Deputy Administrator and Chief Engineer...... 454
Section 3525--Office of Ombudsman.......................... 455
Section 3526--Appointment and Compensation; Duties......... 455
Section 3527--Applicability of Certain Benefits............ 455
Section 3528--Travel and Transportation Expenses........... 455
Section 3529--Clarification of Definition of Agency........ 455
Section 3530--Panama Canal Employment System; Merit and
Other Employment Requirements............................ 455
Section 3531--Employment Standards......................... 455
Section 3532--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding
Interim Application of Canal Zone Merit System........... 456
Section 3533--Repeal of Provision Relating to Recruitment
and Retention Remuneration............................... 456
Section 3534--Benefits Based on Basic Pay.................. 456
Section 3535--Vesting of General Administrative Authority
of Commission............................................ 456
Section 3536--Applicability of Certain Laws................ 456
Section 3537--Repeal of Provision Relating to Transferred
or Reemployed Employees.................................. 456
Section 3538--Administration of Special Disability Benefits 456
Section 3539--Panama Canal Revolving Fund.................. 456
Section 3540--Printing..................................... 457
Section 3541--Accounting Policies.......................... 457
Section 3542--Interagency Services; Reimbursements......... 457
Section 3543--Postal Service............................... 457
Section 3544--Investigations of Accidents or Injury Giving
Rise to Claim............................................ 457
Section 3545--Operations Regulations....................... 457
Section 3546--Miscellaneous Repeals........................ 457
Section 3547--Exemption.................................... 458
Section 3548--Miscellaneous Conforming Amendments to Title
5, United States Code.................................... 458
Section 3549--Repeal of Panama Canal Code.................. 458
Section 3550--Miscellaneous Clerical and Conforming
Amendments............................................... 458
Departmental Data................................................ 459
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 459
Military Construction Authorization Request.................... 459
Committee Position............................................... 460
Communications From Other Committees............................. 460
Fiscal Data...................................................... 466
Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 466
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...................... 466
Authorization of Appropriations.............................. 469
Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 474
Inflation-Impact Statement..................................... 474
Oversight Findings............................................... 474
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 475
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 475
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 482
Additional, Supplemental, and Dissenting Views................... 705
Additional views of James V. Hansen, Glen Browder, Tillie K.
Fowler, Solomon P. Ortiz, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Walter
B. Jones, Jr., Saxby Chambliss, J.C. Watts, Jr., John N.
Hostettler, Neil Abercrombie, Robert K. Dornan, Lane Evans,
and James B. Longley, Jr..................................... 705
Additional and dissenting views of Ronald V. Dellums........... 709
Additional views of John Spratt................................ 717
Additional views of Chet Edwards............................... 718
Additional views of Jane Harman, Rosa L. DeLauro, Ronald V.
Dellums, Patricia Schroeder, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie,
Martin T. Meehan, and Patrick J. Kennedy..................... 721
Suplemental views of Patricia Schroeder........................ 724
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-563
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
_______
May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Spence, from the Committee on National Security, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3230]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on National Security, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3230) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment to the text of the bill is a complete
substitute therefor and appears in italic type in the reported
bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 3230. The remainder
of the report discusses the bill, as amended.
PURPOSE
The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1997 through 2000 for procurement and for research,
development, test and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for operation and
maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize
for fiscal year 1997: (a) the personnel strength for each
active duty component of the military departments; (b) the
personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve
component of the armed forces; (c) the military training
student loads for each of the active and reserve components of
the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of
compensation for military personnel and impose certain
requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the
defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1997 for military construction and family housing; (6)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for the
Department of Energy National Security Programs; (7) Modify
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (8)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for the operation
of the Panama Canal Commission.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The
bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts
provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following
categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement;
research, development, test and evaluation; operation and
maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and
military construction and family housing. The bill also
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The President requested budget authority of $254.3 billion
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 1997.
Of this amount, the President requested $242.5 billion for the
Department of Defense (including $9.1 billion for military
construction and family housing) and $11.1 billion for
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall level of $266.7 billion
in budget authority. This amount is an increase of
approximately $12.4 billion from the amount requested for the
national defense budget function by the President, and
represents an increase of approximately $2.0 billion from the
amount authorized for appropriation by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
Overall, the committee's recommendation is largely consistent
with the amounts the committee expects to be established in the
budget resolution for fiscal year 1997.
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
The following table provides a summary of the amounts
requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the
bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of
Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how
the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for
the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the
budget authority implications of committee action, the table
reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for
proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
HR 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997, reflects the committee's continued effort to
revitalize America's defenses in oqder to meet the security
requirements of the post-Cold War world. Now in its seventh
year, the post-Cold War world is still largely defined by what
it is not, as the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire
created shock waves that continue to ripple through the
international geopolitical system. Yet over the past year, the
sharper contours of revived and new great-power competitions
have begun to emerge from the rubble of the old bipolar, Cold
War order. While these new struggles will certainly involve new
challenges to U.S. security interests, the form of the
competition will not be fundamentally new. Neither history, nor
world politics, nor military competition ended with the Cold
War.
The primary mission of the American military establishment
in this turbulent international environment is to protect the
United States and its vital national security interests. These
fundamental interests have not changed with the end of the Cold
War. While the Soviet Union no longer exists, the United States
retains enduring interests in defending the American homeland
and in maintaining as stable and peaceful a political order as
possible in Europe, in Asia, and in the vital energy-producing
regions of the world. Yet we face a growing roster of failed
and failing states, international terrorism, proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and tribal and ethnic conflicts
fed by the emergence of a new ``warrior class,'' for whom war
too often becomes an end in itself.
The events of the past year clearly demonstrate that new
challenges to U.S. security interests are emerging on many
fronts. China has demonstrated a disturbing willingness to use
military force as a tool of coercive diplomacy, threatening
stability, prosperity and the growth of democracy in East Asia.
In turn, China's actions have caused America's allies and
adversaries alike to question the nature and endurance of
American's commitment to the region.
If the Chinese challenge is that of a newly emerging great
power, the challenge from Russia is that of a disintegrating
military superpower. Russia careens from extreme nationalism to
unreconstructed communism as it struggles to hold itself
together. As it does, it wages a bloody and bitter war in
Chechnya, brandishes nuclear threats in an attempt to thwart
NATO expansion, reintegrates its former empire in Belarus and
Central Asia and sells advanced weaponry of all kinds--
including nuclear technologies--to anyone willing to pay in
hard currency. Russia cannot protect its stockpile of nuclear
materials and Moscow continues to maintain its strategic
nuclear forces at Cold War levels of readiness as it invests
scarce resources in strategic modernization. Disturbingly,
Russia has even adopted a new military doctrine that relies
more heavily on nuclear weapons than did Soviet doctrine.
The compendium of recent U.S. peacekeeping and humanitarian
missions testifies to the rise of ethnic violence, terrorism,
and other challenges to international order and stability. In
Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, large contingents of American
troops have been sent on missions with no direct or even
apparent linkage to U.S. security interests, and with little
hope of creating lasting stability. In Kurdistan, a mission of
mercy has been transformed into a nearly permanent operation,
planned and budgeted into the indefinite future. In general,
the diffusion of power to smaller states and non-state actors,
whether measured in political, economic or military terms, has
further complicated the geopolitical transition brought on by
the end of the Cold War.
Perhaps most importantly, the threat of missile attack
against the American homeland is becoming alarmingly real. The
rest of the world recognizes the overwhelming advantage the
United States enjoys in conventional forces, and the strategic
freedom that results from that advantage. One of the lessons of
Operations Desert Storm--that U.S. forces can project power
virtually anywhere on earth--was not lost on our friends and
enemies around the world. Thus, during the recent Taiwan
crisis, a senior Chinese official threatened a nuclear attack
on Los Angeles as a way of deterring American ``interference''
in East Asia. The inability to defend our citizens against
attack by even a single ballistic or cruise missile armed with
nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction is increasingly
recognized as one of our nation's greatest vulnerabilities.
Standing in stark contrast to this troubling strategic
landscape is the Administration's underfunding of our armed
forces. The gap between the U.S. national military strategy and
the resources committed by the Administration to executing that
strategy, estimated by many analysts to be greater than $100
billion, continues to widen.
But as dangerous as the strategy-resources gap is the
strategy itself. The Administration's conduct of foreign policy
continues to elevate economic and moral concerns above security
interests. It has continued to employ American military power
in pursuit of ``peace'' operations that do little to preserve
peace among great powers or even fit into any larger American
security policy framework.
The gaps between strategy, resources and forces that
characterize the Administration's long-term defense plan are
having a detrimental effect on American national security
policy, and producing operational anomalies such as the
deployment of an armored division, designed to maneuver over
large spaces, to the hill country of Bosnia. While all
Americans should be proud of the obvious professionalism with
which Operation Joint Endeavor is being conducted, there are
limits to the adaptability of any organization, even one as
fine as the U.S. military. In sum, the Department of Defense
has been designed to carry out one set of missions, is being
called upon to execute another quite different set of missions,
and is inadequately funded for either. Today, the result is a
growing sense of confusion and disarray. The result tomorrow
could be worse.
CONTINUED SHORTFALLS
Consequently, the committee finds itself trying once again
to address the shortfalls created by the internal
contradictions of the Administration's defense program. In the
report on HR 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996, (H. Rept. 104-131) the committee described
the four pillars of a sound defense program: a decent quality
of military life, to ensure America's compact with service
members and their families and to attract and retain bright and
dedicated men and women; high core readiness, to ensure well
trained and properly equipped forces today; sufficient
modernization, to ensure the technological edge enjoyed by
American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines anywhere they
fight or operate; and a smarter and streamlined defense
bureaucracy, to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayers' dollars
and to free additional resources to address shortfalls
throughout the budget.
The committee's actions last year did much to address these
shortfalls. As a result, the readiness of U.S. forces today is
better than it was less than two years ago when the committee
uncovered troubling indications of a deepening, systemic
readiness problem. All Americans should share the committee's
pride in the meticulous care with which the U.S. armed forces
trained for the arduous mission in Bosnia, the determination
with which they deployed in the depths of winter, and their
remarkable record of operations in a complex political and
dangerous military environment. Yet, this large force will
require significant retraining to meet its primary warfighting
mission when the Bosnia operation is complete. In the
committee's judgment, continued vigilance in regard to
readiness is a ``first principle.''
Despite the funds added last year by Congress to maintain
minimum readiness levels, the President's budget request for
fiscal year 1997 reduced a variety of operations and
maintenance accounts below current spending levels. Key
readiness areas such as real property maintenance, depot
maintenance, base operations support and others remain
underfunded. Thus, the committee has recommended additional
funds above the President's request primarily to address the
growing maintenance backlogs for facilities such as barracks
and dormitories and for equipment, as well as for other
critical health, safety and operational deficiencies. -
Last year the Congress also approved a number of committee
initiatives to reform the Pentagon bureaucracy. These centered
on acquisition reform and reductions in oversized and
inefficient bureaucracies such as the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and acquisition workforce. These efforts continue in
this year's legislation, which extends reform efforts, for
example, to the military departments.
QUALITY OF LIFE-
However, two of the pillars of a sound defense are in need
of even more significant repair. One is to ensure that we
provide for a decent quality of military life. While every
Administration upholds the principle that ``people come
first,'' the quality of military life continues to erode. After
proposing to freeze military pay several years ago, this
Administration has belatedly committed itself, at least for the
next year, to addressing shortfalls in military pay. Yet by
many other measures, and particularly in regard to reducing
out-of-pocket expenses for military personnel and their
families and improving military housing, standards are still
slipping. Marine Corps Commandant General Charles Krulak told
the Committee: ``I went with my godchild to his barracks. He is
a lance corporal in the First Battalion, Third Marines, in
Hawaii. I was appalled at what he was living in. `Appalled' is
probably a mild word for it. . . . We are building some
barracks, we are building some homes, we are doing some whole-
house rehab, but it is not to the level that either I, as
Commandant, or you as a public servant, would be very pleased
about. It is simply a matter of available money.'' -
In addition, the Committee continues to be concerned about
the strains that the high pace of military operations,
particularly those related to ongoing peacekeeping and
humanitarian missions, are placing on service members and their
families. The pace of military operations being maintained by
the Administration results in added strains on a still-
shrinking active-duty military force and growing problems for
reservists being called more often to extended periods of
active service. Despite the committee's efforts to preclude
reductions in service endstrengths below the Bottom-Up Review
levels, the Administration's long-term defense plan funds Army
and Air Force end strengths at reduced levels due to budget
constraints. The effects of reducing end strengths for an
already over extended force would have devastating impacts on
personnel tempo and retention rates. Army Chief of Staff
General Reimer recounted a story from one of his visits to
troops in the field: ``I said good-bye to a young soldier at
Fort Bliss, Texas, about a year ago, and he was on his seventh
deployment since Operation Desert Shield. His family, with a
wife and two young kids, were out there [saying good-bye]. That
is tough on them.''-
The committee finds any erosion in the quality of military
life to be intolerable and believes that it is already
jeopardizing the services' ability to recruit, develop and
retain the high quality of military professional this nation
requires and has come to expect. In the committee's view,
providing a decent quality of life is simply a matter of
keeping faith with the men and women who serve the nation in
uniform.
Accordingly, the committee has approved the requested three
percent pay raise in full, and added substantially to the
Administration's request for the basic allowance for quarters
and for several initiatives to reduce out-of-pocket costs
incurred when military personnel make permanent change of
station moves under government orders. In addition, the
committee was deeply concerned with the Administration's
reduction of eighteen percent in spending on military
construction. Fully three-quarters of the construction funds
added in this bill will be spent on quality-of-life projects
such as family housing, barracks, and child care centers. Given
the continuing reports of a slipping quality of life and the
Administration's reductions in spending on these important
initiatives, the committee is compelled to take these remedial
steps.
MODERNIZATION
The pillar of a sound American defense policy most in need
of revitalization is the modernization of equipment,
particularly weapons procurement. Despite the committee's
concern, the Administration has done nothing to remedy the
problem. In fact, the procurement request for fiscal year 1997
was $5 billion lower than last year's Administration projection
for fiscal year 1997. Moreover, the Administration has proposed
spending amounts totaling more than fifty percent of the funds
added for modernization by Congress last year to pay for the
growing costs of the Bosnia operation, increased counter-
narcotics efforts, the transfer of F-16 aircraft to Jordan, and
other foreign policy initiatives. As a result, the
recapitalization of U.S. military forces continues to be
sacrificed and postponed.
The drop in procurement funding has been dramatic since
1990, especially during the past four years. By the
Administration's own reckoning, there has been a real decline
of 60 percent in procurement spending from fiscal year 1990 to
fiscal year 1997. This year's requested level of procurement
funding of $38.9 billion is the lowest since before the Korean
War and reflects a substantial cut from the $42.3 billion in
procurement authorized by Congress just last year.
According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this level of
procurement spending is only about two thirds of that needed to
equip the current force structure. This past fall, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, concluded
that beginning in FY 1998 the Department of Defense required
$60 billion annually to keep the force modernized. Secretary of
Defense William Perry acknowledged this problem in testimony
before the committee, admitting that he ``would like to see,
and General Shali would like to see, the increase in
modernization reached sooner than we have in this budget.''
This pattern of postponed procurement makes it difficult
for the committee to have confidence in the Administration's
future-years defense plan, which delays attainment of the $60
billion-per-year goal for procurement spending until after the
turn of the century. Moreover, the prospect of achieving this
goal even by the year 2001, as currently projected by the
Administration, is based upon optimistic assumptions of
internal Pentagon savings generated through acquisition reform
and base closings. While the committee will continue to work
aggressively on such long-term cost-saving efforts, it is
doubtful that the anticipated savings will be realized as fully
or as rapidly as assumed. Accordingly, the need for more robust
procurement spending is a pressing matter that must be
addressed sooner, rather than later, and independent of process
and overhead savings. Adequate funding for the modernization of
aging equipment cannot depend upon assumed savings that may or
may not materialize.
In sum, the committee remains deeply concerned by the
Administration's continuing lack of resource commitment to the
modernization of our forces, which, if allowed to continue,
will rapidly translate into obsolescent equipment that falls
below the standards of performance, reliability and battlefield
superiority established in the 1980s and demonstrated during
the Gulf War. In his testimony before the committee, Admiral
Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, perhaps best summarized what
modern equipment means to U.S. service members: ``Our men and
women . . . don't ask you for very much and they don't ask us
for very much. They want and require ships and weapon systems
that are effective, and they need that not only today but they
need it in the future. We talk about quality of life--that is
the ultimate quality of life if you go in harm's way . . .''
Because it is often the job of U.S. soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines to go in harm's way, the current procurement
program is untenable and indefensible. Consequently, the
majority of the committee's actions taken to reshape the
Administration's defense budget request are in the area of
procurement. The committee has devoted substantial additional
funding to modernization shortfalls, giving high priority to
those programs identified by the services themselves as
unfunded requirements. Fully ninety-five percent of the
committee's increased procurement funding is for programs
contained in the current future-years defense plan or
identified as unfunded requirements by the service chiefs of
staff.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
The most glaring shortfall in the Administration's
modernization program results from its antipathy to effective
ballistic missile defenses. In light of the increasing
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles
to deliver them over great distances, the lack of urgency in
the Administration's missile defense program is startling.
Congressional attempts to instill purpose, direction and focus
in the Administration's moribund missile defense efforts were
stymied last year by the President's veto of HR 1530, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
For the strategic reasons highlighted at the outset of this
introductory section, the committee strongly believes that
deployment of a national missile defense should be of the
highest priority. Protection of the American homeland must be
the first object of any national defense policy, as well as the
cornerstone of any broader security strategy. The
Administration's failure to aggressively pursue a national
missile defense program that will field a viable, cost-
effective missile defense system to discourage the development
of ballistic missile threats or to defeat them is a grave
concern. Consequently, the committee has added substantial
funding to the Administration's underfunded request for
ballistic missile defense programs, including national missile
defense.
The committee is equally disturbed by the Administration's
retreat from even its own efforts to develop and deploy more
robust theater missile defenses. Americans will not forget how
a crude, conventionally-armed Scud missile resulted in the
greatest single loss of American lives during the Gulf War. Yet
the Administration has chosen to scale back efforts and reduce
funding necessary to develop and deploy the most robust theater
missile defense system possible. The result will be to leave
American forces exposed to threats that are a clear and present
danger today. Consequently, in response to the Administration's
inexplicable spending reductions in several key theater missile
defense programs, the committee has provided additional funding
for the Army's THAAD system and the Navy's ``Wide Area''
theater defense concept.
INNOVATION
The committee's commitment to modernization extends beyond
bolstering inadequate levels of procurement spending. While it
is essential to maintain the marked technological advantage
enjoyed today by U.S. military forces, it is equally important
to ensure that edge in the future. In the committee's judgment,
the increasing pace and shifting pattern of technological
change may well portend parallel changes in the conduct of war.
These new technologies will not constitute a substitute for
traditional military power and tactics. Rather, they represent
an opportunity to leverage the effectiveness and adaptability
of U.S. military forces into the next century.
U.S. military forces already have begun to explore the
effects of these new technologies, especially the effects of
information technologies, on military affairs. They were
clearly visible in Operation Desert Storm, for example, when
the exploitation of the Global Positioning System of satellites
provided the precision capability to conduct the ``left hook''
that became the attack in the ground campaign. The Department
of Defense has continued this effort to develop and exploit the
military applications of information technology since the Gulf
War.
The committee recognizes both the need and the opportunity
to support efforts within the military services to pursue
innovative concepts and technologies as a hedge against an
uncertain future and a rapidly changing global security
environment. Consequently, the committee has made selected
investments in two important areas to help determine the full
promise of these new technologies and to realize their military
applications. The first is in the technologies themselves, and
particularly in those technologies that allow for the rapid
collection, processing and dissemination of information and
intelligence throughout the operational battlefield. Applied to
current military systems and organizations, the more effective
networking of available information can dramatically enhance
the effectiveness of existing systems.
A second set of initiatives will fund promising experiments
designed to understand the operational and organizational
implications of the technologies and their applications on the
battlefield. Accordingly, the committee recommends funding a
set of promising experiments designed to understand the
operational and organizational implications of new technology
and its application on the battlefield. These experiments are
highly practical, putting new technologies directly in the
hands of service members to allow them to create new tactics,
new doctrine, and new types of units in an operational setting.
The committee included substantial funding for initiatives
such as the Army's ``Force XXI,'' the Marine Corps'
Commandant's Warfighting Lab, the Navy's Arsenal Ship, an array
of joint-service programs designed to explore the possibilities
of a ``tactical internet'' for the sharing of intelligence and
targeting data among units of all services and for command and
control. Paralleling these ``internet'' technology efforts is a
complementary set of programs to develop practical techniques
and tactics for employing this information network to get the
right information to the right units at the right time.
Importantly, the committee also has recommended the creation of
a ``Concept Development Center'' under the Department's Office
of Net Assessment to conduct operational research to test new
concepts, doctrines and organizations.
The committee believes that maintaining American military
supremacy is a key to the United States' standing as the
world's sole superpower. This military supremacy rests on the
technological edge U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines
enjoy on any battlefield, and the innovative ways in which they
employ advanced technologies. As the nature of war and military
thought evolves from the influences of the industrial age to
those increasingly reflective of the information age, the
United States must continue to lead the way.-
CONCLUSION
This bill represents the second year that the committee has
reshaped and reprioritize the Administration's defense budget
in order to continue revitalizing the U.S. military following a
decade of decline. However, the long-term revitalization of the
U.S. military will be hard to sustain without a coherent
national military strategy that responds to the world as it is
rather than the world as some might wish it to be, and without
an Administration committed to devoting the resources necessary
to execute that strategy. In the interim, the committee is
restricted to the difficult challenge of preserving the core
competencies and capabilities needed to maintain U.S. military
power as a force for peace and stability in the post Cold War
World. Under the Constitution, this is the committee's and the
Congress's fundamental responsibility.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the Defense authorization bill
for fiscal year 1997 results from hearings that began on
February 28, 1996 and that were completed on April 17, 1996.
The full committee conducted 11 sessions, including markup
meetings. In addition, a total of 34 sessions were conducted by
five different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on
various titles of the bill.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The committee's deep concern for the deterioration in
defense modernization has been previously articulated in the
``Rationale for the Committee Bill'' section of this report.
Clearly, modernization continues to be the one area of the
defense budget most in need of thorough repair. This point is
appropriately emphasized by the following statements from the
Army's 1996 Modernization Plan:
Overall, the assessment of the Army Modernization
Program's ability to maintain capabilities required by
the Modernization Objectives is rated AMBER in the Near
Term, and becomes RED by the year 2000. Unless there is
an infusion of new funds, the Army is clearly
mortgaging its future technological edge, delaying
fielding of key weapon systems well into the second
decade of the twenty-first century, and placing its
capability to fight at an unacceptably high risk. If
the fiscal trends are not reversed, procurement of
modern systems will be virtually non-existent during
the current Program Objective Memorandum years.
This state-of-affairs is equally true and publicly
acknowledged by the other services. In fact, if the recent
acknowledgment by the Marine Corps that it does not have enough
ammunition to fight two major regional contingencies can be
used as a barometer for measuring modernization woes, the
situation among the other services may be even worse.
Last year, the Department's underfunding of the procurement
accounts compelled the committee to add more than $5.0 billion
in modernization funding. This year, the committee has added
more than $6.0 billion to these accounts--a robust 15 percent
increase above the budget request. More importantly, however,
is the fact that this year, like last, the committee will once
again be required to add weapons and other critically needed
items to properly address the vast inventory of unfunded
priorities identified by the Department's uniformed leaders
during testimony before the committee.
The committee strongly identifies its actions with the
admonishment of the immediate-past Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, who, in his last public testimony to the
Congress, declared that: ``We've got to stop promising
ourselves (about increasing the procurement accounts) and start
doing something.'' The committee emphatically agrees.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $970.8 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,556.6 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AH-64D longbow apache -
The budget request contained $357.0 million to modify 26
AH-64A aircraft and procure 24 fire control radars. The request
also contained $22.5 million in advance procurement.
The committee has been advised that the Army intends to
convert the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment from a light to a
heavy force. Conversion of the regimental aviation squadron
requires the procurement of 12 new AH-64Ds. The committee
recommends an additional $260.0 million for this purpose and
recommends a legislative provision (sec. 111) that would modify
current law to permit this procurement. The committee also
recommends $53.0 million for training devices to accelerate the
delivery of these devices in accordance with the updated AH-64D
fielding review.
Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)
The budget request contained $24.7 million to procure the
final ARL-M aircraft and mission equipment.
The committee understands the Army reprogrammed fiscal year
1996 funds which were authorized and appropriated for
converting ARL-I and ARL-C aircraft to the multi-disciplined
ARL-M configuration. These funds were applied to incorporate a
moving target indicator (MTI) radar into the ARL. Although the
reprogramming action was within the scope of the Department's
authority, the committee is concerned with the Army's failure
to inform the Congress of what it considers a major reorienting
of the funds. The committee does, however, support the
validated requirement for MTI on ARL, and is aware that funds
have not been budgeted to complete the MTI purchase.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.2
million for completing the MTI upgrade. The committee directs
the Army to provide the necessary funding to complete the ARL-
I/-C conversion to ARL-M from within available resources.-
CH-47D modifications-
The budget request contained $7.8 million for CH-47D
modifications.
The CH-47D Chinook, the Army's only heavy lift cargo
helicopter, will be 40 years old at the turn of the century. As
modifications have added additional weight to the baseline
configuration over its many years of service, the aircraft's
lift capability has steadily decreased.
The committee understands that upgrading the CH-47D engines
will increase the aircraft's payload-carrying capability by up
to 3,900 pounds. Additionally, aircraft safety will be enhanced
and pilot workload reduced by adding the Full Authority Digital
Electronic Fuel Control system as part of this engine upgrade.
Consequently, the committee recommends an additional $52.0
million to accelerate the CH-47D engine conversion and begin
upgrading the active component contingency corps aircraft.-
Depot maintenance plant equipment (DMPE)
The budget request did not contain any funding for DMPE.
The committee recognizes the importance of depot-level
maintenance and other logistics support to the warfighting
capability of the armed forces and is concerned about
significant deficiencies in depot maintenance plant equipment
modernization at several installations. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $5.6 million for aviation DMPE. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a
comprehensive study of depot maintenance plant equipment
modernization requirements and submit a report of his findings
and recommendations to the congressional defense committees not
later than March 1, 1997.
OH-58D armed kiowa warrior-
The budget request contained $9.1 million to fund the
fielding of Kiowa Warriors procured in prior years.
The committee notes that the current inventory of Kiowa
Warriors is still well below the requirement for 507 aircraft.
While the Army has sufficient Kiowa Warriors to equip all
active component divisional cavalry squadrons, regimental
cavalry squadrons, and light attack battalions, there are
insufficient quantities to support active component target
acquisition and reconnaissance platoons, as well as Army
National Guard units.
For these reasons, the committee supports continuation of
the Armed Kiowa Warrior upgrade and recommends $190.0 million
to fund an additional 24 aircraft. The committee also
recommends a legislative provision (sec. 111) that would modify
current law to permit this procurement.-
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $766.3 million for Missile
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,027.8 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Avenger-
The budget request did not contain any funds to procure
Avenger fire units for the Army National Guard.
The Army has procured 674 Avenger fire units, which
completes fielding of the Avenger in the active component and
fields Avenger in one battalion of the Army National Guard.
The committee notes that there are 93 Avenger fire units
remaining on the fiscal year 1996 Avenger contract option and
that most of the long lead items required for production of
these remaining fire units have been purchased under the
existing multiyear contract. Since purchasing the remaining 93
fire units for the Army National Guard will fully utilize over
$26 million of residual hardware and save $6 million in
termination costs, the committee recommends $59.4 million for
this purpose. The committee recommends a legislative provision
(sec. 112) that would grant an extension of the Avenger
multiyear procurement authority to accommodate the contract
buyout. The committee agrees to this extension with the
understanding that there will be no additional costs for
stretching the delivery schedule. Finally, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to maintain the mix of Army
National Guard Avengers at levels appropriate to support
current doctrine.--
Javelin
The budget request contained $162.1 million to procure
1,020 Javelin antitank missiles. -
The Javelin will be procured jointly by the Army and Marine
Corps to replace the Dragon, which is no longer capable of
defeating current armor threats. Although both services have
urgent requirements to field the Javelin, the committee
understands that combined procurement quantities do not support
cost efficient production rates of the missile. The committee
therefore recommends $196.0 million, an increase of $33.9
million, to procure 300 additional missiles as well as to
accelerate the production of command launch units and training
devices.
Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS)-
The budget request contained $24.4 million for MLRS rockets
and $38.0 million for MLRS launchers.
The extended range MLRS rocket, with improved lethality and
a new self-destruct fuze to minimize unintended casualties,
enters production in fiscal year 1996. However, the committee
notes that fiscal year 1997 production falls far short of an
economic rate and does not leverage planned foreign military
sales funding. Consequently, the committee recommends an
additional $17.0 million to procure 822 more rockets and thus
prevent a dip in production from fiscal year 1996 levels.
The committee also recommends an increase of $66.2 million
to complete the fielding of the MLRS to Army National Guard
units--$36.3 million to rebuild 36 MLRS launchers and $29.9
million for training equipment.
Stinger modifications-
The budget request contained $16.9 for Stinger missile
modifications.
The Stinger missile air defense weapon is deployed on a
variety of platforms in the United States and 16 allied
nations. The latest version of Stinger is the Block 1
configuration, which provides an aviation user-friendly missile
with greater lethality and improved resistance to
countermeasures against unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise
missiles, and attack helicopters operating in clutter.
The committee notes that the request for the Block 1
retrofit program does not sustain an economic production rate
and does not allow for any platform modifications.
Consequently, the committee recommends a $20.0 million increase
for Stinger modifications--$15.0 million to retrofit an
additional 1,000 missiles to the Block 1 configuration and $5.0
million to modify both ground and airborne platforms to employ
these missiles.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,102.0 million for
procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for
fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,334.8 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Bradley fighting vehicle modifications-
The budget request did not contain any funding for
procurement of advanced reactive armor tiles for the Bradley.
These tiles provide additional protection for the M2
infantry and M3 cavalry fighting vehicles against direct-fire,
chemical-energy munitions. The Army's current goal is to
procure 178 sets of armor tiles to support a brigade combat
team.
Congress added funds in fiscal year 1995 to initiate
procurement of the first 18 advanced armor tile sets from a
foreign manufacturer. Congress again added funds in fiscal year
1996 for technology transfer to and a limited production of
advanced tiles by a domestic source. However, an immediate need
for armor tiles in Bosnia necessitated an emergency, off-the-
shelf buy of 50 sets from the current off-shore producer,
leaving only enough funds to complete the technology transfer.
The committee understands that buying out the remaining
armor tile requirement will result in an estimated savings of
$50,000 per set. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $35.5 million to complete the procurement of the
178-tile set requirement and to provide a U.S. source for the
Army's future armor tile needs.
M109A6 paladin/M992A2 field artillery ammunition support vehicle
(FAASV)-
The budget request did not contain any funds to procure
Paladins/FAASVs for the Army National Guard.
Despite the fact that within the next few years 75 percent
of the Army's field artillery resources will reside in the Army
National Guard, most guard 155mm self-propelled battalions will
still be equipped with technologically obsolete howitzers and
archaic M548 ammunition carriers. The committee notes that the
National Guard Bureau and the Office of the Army's Deputy Chief
of Staff for Operations and Plans have both stated that the
Paladin is the cannon of choice for the Army National Guard.
Consequently, the committee authorizes an additional $61.0
million for the production of a battalion set of Paladins/
FAASVs (24 of each) and directs that these systems be
exclusively for the Army National Guard.
M240B medium machine gun-
The budget request did not contain any funds for the M240B
medium machine gun.
The Army recently selected and type-classified the M240B to
replace its aging inventory of 7.62mm medium machine guns. The
committee understands that the initial requirement to field the
M240B to force packages 1-4 is a minimum of 11,000 guns. In
order to provide our early deploying forces with the most
modern weapons, the committee recommends $20.0 million to
procure 2,100 M240Bs and strongly encourages the Army to
consider a multiyear procurement of this medium machine gun.
M88A1E1 improved recovery vehicle (IRV)-
The budget request contained $28.6 million to procure 12
IRVs.
The M88A1E1 program was initiated in 1985 when the Army
realized that its then-current M88A1 recovery vehicle would not
be able to recover the heavier M1 tank. As demonstrated in
subsequent operations, including Desert Storm, M1s can be
safely recovered only by using either two M88A1s or an M88A1 in
tandem with another M1 tank. This problem creates a significant
operational deficiency as well as a safety hazard.
Noting the shortage of IRVs in the field, Congress added
$33.9 million to the Army's fiscal year 1996 budget request. In
order to sustain higher production rates until force packages 1
and 2 armored units are properly equipped, the committee
recommends an increase of $27.1 million to procure an
additional 12 IRVs.-
M9 armored combat earthmover (ACE)-
The budget request did not contain any funds for the M9
ACE.
The committee notes that the M9 ACE is a highly mobile
tracked engineer vehicle designed to provide the tactical
commander with earthmoving capability to prepare fighting
positions, create tank ditches and other obstacles, defeat
enemy barriers and obstacles, and maintain roads and supply
routes. The unique ability of the M9 ACE to survive and perform
these tasks in the forward battle area while keeping pace with
the combat forces' forward momentum provides an indispensable
combat multiplier.
The committee recommends $50.7 million to procure 54
vehicles in order to accelerate fielding to active component
heavy divisions.
Ammunition Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $853.4 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,160.7 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Item of Special Interest
Sense and destroy armor (SADARM)-
The budget request contained $60.3 million to procure 322
SADARM artillery projectiles.
The committee is aware of the significant increase in
combat effectiveness SADARM, the Army's first ``smart'' 155mm
artillery munition, adds to the field artillery battalions.
Because of its continuing concern with the Army's chronic
shortage of combat ammunition, the committee recommends an
increase of $33.5 million to produce an additional 316 SADARM
rounds. The committee understands that this increased
production will achieve significant price breaks from
suppliers, as well as move the first-unit-equipped date from
fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 1998.--
Other Procurement, Army-
Overview
The budget request contained $2,627.4 million for Other
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $2,812.2 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless other
specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on
affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Army data distribution system (ADDS)-
The budget request contained $48.0 million for ADDS,
including 900 sets of the Enhanced Position Location Reporting
System (EPLRS).
The committee has consistently added funding in previous
fiscal years for the EPLRS because of its concern to eliminate
``friendly fire'' casualties on the battlefield. The committee
understands that the Marine Corps, the Air Force and the Air
Reserve forces have initiated an effort to integrate a modified
EPLRS, called the Situation Awareness Data Link (SADL), into
attack aircraft to increase the aviator's situational awareness
of forces on the ground. The committee strongly supports this
effort and recommends an additional $25.0 million for EPLRS/
SADL procurement.-
Forward area air defense ground based sensor (FAAD GBS)-
The budget request contained $51.2 million to procure 16
FAAD GBS systems.
The FAAD GBS radar system provides detection of fixed wing
aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise
missiles and provides cueing to the Stinger MANPAD teams, as
well as Avenger and Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle platforms.
The committee recommends $68.8 million, an increase of
$17.6 million, to procure an additional 12 FAAD GBS systems.
This action is consistent with the committee's actions over the
past several years to accelerate FAAD GBS production.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $5,882.0 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $6,669.0 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AV-8B remanufacture-
The budget request contained $282.0 million to procure 10
remanufactured AV-8B aircraft and $22.9 million for advance
procurement of 12 aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
The upgraded AV-8B, with its enhanced day/night, adverse
weather, survivability, and improved multi-mission
capabilities, will dramatically increase the Marine Corps'
ability to project combat power from its amphibious ready
groups. Moreover, the material improvements which result from
this remanufacture are projected to reduce the aircraft's
mishap rate dramatically. For these reasons, the committee
recommends an additional $112. 0 million to procure four more
AV-8B remanufactured aircraft in order to accelerate the
fielding of this much-needed and safety-related improvement.
EA-6B modifications -
The budget request contained $100.6 million for EA-6B
modifications.
Fleet aviation continues to require a robust electronic
warfare capability. The decision to retire the Air Force's EF-
111s and rely on the EA-6B for the Department's tactical
jamming mission makes it imperative that the EA-6B fleet be
structurally sound and modernized to meet current requirements.
The EA-6B's aluminum wing center sections have been found
to be subject to embrittlement, which has led to stress cracks
and resulted in the removal of a number of aircraft from active
service. As a result of a Congressional initiative to address
this problem, replacement wing center sections are currently
being produced. However the Navy has a requirement for twenty
more of these sections, since Congress added funds in fiscal
year 1996 to upgrade an additional 20 EA-6Bs to support the Air
Force's stand-off jamming needs. Consequently, the committee
recommends an additional $55.0 million to purchase ten of the
twenty new wing center sections in order to avoid a production
break in the manufacture of this component.
The current jamming transmitters on the EA-6B have not
changed substantially since originally designed in the 1960s.
There have been several generations of improved surface-to-air
and air-to-air missiles since then, and many of these new
systems operate at higher radio frequency signals than these
jammers. Also, the great majority of current anti-ship missiles
employ seekers in the band 9/10 frequency range. Since the EA-
6B is a key component of the Navy's Cooperative Engagement
Capability against these threats, equipping these aircraft with
Band 9/10 electronic countermeasure transmitters will provide a
potent and effective defensive screen against such missiles.
Consequently, the committee recommends an additional $40.0
million to procure 60 shipsets of these transmitters.
V-22 Osprey-
The budget request contained $500.9 million to procure the
first four V-22s and $57.8 million for advance procurement of
five aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
The committee remains concerned about the Department's
proposed 25-year V-22 production schedule. The Defense Science
Board recommended that the Department adopt a more efficient V-
22 production schedule, and the Department has stated that a
minimum of $8 billion could be saved by accelerating the
planned procurement and achieving a production rate of 36
aircraft per year by the year 2000. In order to increase
initial V-22 production rates, the committee recommends an
additional $232.0 million to produce two more aircraft and an
additional $10.0 million in advance procurement to maintain a
production rate of six aircraft in fiscal year 1998. The
committee recommends that the Department provide funds in the
Future Years Defense Program submitted with the fiscal year
1998 budget request to support V-22 accelerated production.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $1,400.4 million for Weapons
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,305.3 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Item of Special Interest
Trident II sea-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)-
The budget request contained $267.5 million for procurement
of Trident II SLBMs.
The committee continues to strongly support the Trident II
SLBM program, but recommends $259.8 million, a reduction of
$7.7 million, to be applied against the reentry body
downloading/arms control subactivity.
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request did not contain any funds for Ammunition
Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 1997. The
committee recommends authorization of $599.2 million for fiscal
year 1997 as reflected in the following table.
Item of Special Interest
Ammunition
The budget request contained $68.9 million for procurement
of ammunition.
Notwithstanding corrective action taken by the Congress
last year to address the Corps' ammunition deficiency, the
committee understands that the Marines still do not have
sufficient ammunition to support the Administration's national
military strategy of being capable to fight two nearly
simultaneous major regional contingencies (MRCs). Therefore, to
ensure that the Marine Corps has adequate combat ammunition to
meet its two-MRC requirement, the committee recommends $449.9
million, an increase of $381.0 million, to be distributed as
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
5.56mm, all types................................................. 30.0
7.62mm, all types................................................. 8.0
.50 caliber....................................................... 7.0
81mm smoke screen................................................. 20.0
81mm illumination M853............................................ 10.0
Fuze, ET, XM762................................................... 40.0
Fuze, proximity................................................... 6.0
Ctg, 25mm, all types.............................................. 7.0
Ctg, 120mm, APFSDS-T, M829A2...................................... 12.0
Ctg, 120mm, 120mm HEAT-MP......................................... 21.0
9mm, all types.................................................... 1.0
Linear chg, all types............................................. 85.0
Chg, demolition................................................... 98.0
Grenades, all types............................................... 5.0
Rockets, all types................................................ 30.0
Items less than $2 million........................................ 1.0
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $4,911.9 million for
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The
committee recommends authorization of $5,479.9 million for
fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Fast combat support ships
The budget request did not contain any funding for fast
combat support ships (AOE).
The committee is concerned that, despite a requirement for
a minimum of nine station ships to travel with and resupply the
carrier battle groups, the Navy continues to be one AOE short
of fulfilling this requirement and instead uses a combination
of several other ships for this purpose. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to re-examine the
requirement for fast combat support ships and report his
findings to the congressional defense committees by January 31,
1997. If such a requirement still exists, the Secretary should
include funding for the last AOE in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request.
Fast patrol craft
The budget request contained no funds for a fast patrol
craft.
The committee continues to support efforts to acquire an
advanced fast patrol craft for operations in littoral waters,
thus obviating the need to place cruisers and destroyers in
areas where they are vulnerable to shore-based cruise missiles,
mines, and quiet diesel submarines. A craft of this nature
would provide a highly capable, multimission adjunct to the
service's current fleet, and the committee urges the Navy to
move forward with the procurement of such a craft. However, the
committee understands that additional funding is necessary and
recommends $20.0 million for this purpose.
National defense sealift fund (NDSF)
The budget request contained $963.0 million for the NDSF,
including $90.0 million to purchase and convert existing
foreign-built, roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships for the Ready
Reserve Force (RRF). No funds were requested for the second and
third of three additional Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS)
the Marine Corps wants to add to its MPS squadrons.
The committee notes that the first four of the Army's 19
Large, Medium-Speed RO/ROs (LMSR) will enter the fleet in 1996,
allowing the return of most, if not all, of the seven RRF RO/
ROs, which have been temporarily deployed as prepositioning
ships prior to the delivery of the LMSRs, to stand-by status
for future Army surge sealift requirements. The committee
further notes that these RRF ships have the capacity to meet
the Marine Corps' requirements for MPS.
The committee recommends $1,123.0 million for the NDSF, an
increase of $160.0 million, for the purpose of procuring a
second MPS. Unlike the first of these three additional MPS
ships, which, similar to recent purchases for the RRF, will
likely be a used, foreign-built hull converted for MPS use, the
committee intends that the second and third such ships be new
vessels constructed in U.S. shipyards. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 124) repealing the statutory
authority which allows the Marine Corps to purchase and convert
two additional foreign-built hulls.
Recognizing that construction of a new ship may take longer
than conversion of a used one, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to use the RRF RO/ROs, which will be
replaced by the LMSRs, to preposition Marine Corps equipment
until the Corps takes delivery of its three additional ships.
If these RRF ships are deemed adequate for the Army, then the
committee assumes they are also adequate for the Marines.
Finally, the committee notes that the Department is
currently prohibited from using NDSF funds for the acquisition
of ships for the RRF. Since the Department has requested $90.0
million for this purpose, the committee denies the request and
directs that this amount be combined with the $160.0 million
added for a second MPS. The Department is reminded that in the
statement of managers (H. Rept. 104-450) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106) the conferees declared a willingness to revisit
this prohibition but only when the Department has established
and funded a national defense features program and the Congress
has had an opportunity to evaluate its effectiveness. -
Nuclear attack submarines
The budget request contained $699.1 million for continued
construction of the third Seawolf-class submarine (SSN-23) and
$296.2 million for advance procurement of the fiscal year 1998
New Attack Submarine (NAS). The budget request also contained
$489.4 million in Research and Development (R&D) funding to
continue detailed design of the NAS. The committee recommends
the requested amounts. In addition, the committee recommends a
legislative provision (sec. 122) which would segregate the
currently-existing cost cap on the three Seawolf-class
submarines into two components: (1) a combined cost cap on the
first two of these submarines and (2) a separate cost cap on
the SSN-23.
In its deliberations on the attack submarine program last
year, the committee was aware that former Navy officials had
originally intended to design several NAS prototypes,
emphasizing key technologies such as electric drive, before
settling on a final design for this submarine and that the
prototype program, with its plans for technological advances,
was stymied by the fact that the design of a new nuclear
reactor had already been completed. In an attempt to remedy
this situation, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the Secretary of
Defense to produce a plan, commencing in fiscal year 1998, to
begin construction of four transition nuclear attack
submarines, each of which would incorporate new technologies,
leading to the design of and culminating with the first ship of
a new class to be competed for construction in 2003. Although
the Navy's Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) also projects
commencing construction of four NASs between fiscal years 1998
and 2003, the Navy maintains that the plan Congress required
was unaffordable. Consequently, the Navy's FYDP does not fund
either the second or fourth submarines of this plan--the two
submarines that the plan required Newport News Shipbuilding
(NNS) to construct in order to introduce competition for
production of the first next-generation submarine in 2003. The
committee is disturbed by the Navy's actions, especially in
view of the fact that an LPD-17, not previously budgeted, was
added in fiscal year 1999 in lieu of a second submarine, and in
view of the fact that the LHD-7, previously budgeted in fiscal
year 2001, was moved forward and funded in fiscal year 1996,
thus making budget authority available for a fourth submarine.
The committee recommends $504.0 million for advance procurement
of the fiscal year 1999 transition submarine.
To its credit, the Navy did convene a panel of experts to
provide an independent evaluation of available and future
submarine technologies, and the committee notes that the panel
found the baseline NAS design ``lacked certain desirable
features which would probably be needed in the future and could
still be incorporated into an early NAS hull with vigorous
action.'' Again to its credit, the Navy has signed a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) with the two nuclear-capable shipyards to
lay the groundwork for having both yards produce future nuclear
attack submarines. However, the Navy has not shown any
indications of responding to its independent panel's
recommendation for a stable infusion of R&D funding for
technology maturation by reprogramming fiscal year 1996 funds,
(since the panel's report was not finished in time to include
any funds in the fiscal year 1997 budget request). Neither has
the Navy indicated that there will be any incorporation of new
technology in the pre-competitive phase submarines, since the
MOA states that ``design improvements by the shipbuilders will
be reviewed by the Navy to determine which changes will be
included in follow ships'' (i.e., those built after the
competitive phase).
The committee is perplexed by the Navy's resistance to
recognize that the lack of sustained R&D funding has inhibited
the insertion of state-of-the-art technology in current
submarines and will prevent the maturation of advanced
technology for future submarines. The committee is similarly
puzzled that the shipyards are not more involved in the early
stages of submarine technology planning and development.
Finally, the committee is displeased that no efforts will be
made to incorporate new technologies into the ``pre-
competitive'' phase submarines.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
121) which would take the following actions:
(1) Authorize $60.0 million to mature and transition
the technologies whose maturation the Navy's
independent panel recommended be addressed:
hydrodynamics, alternative sail designs, advanced
arrays, electric drive, external weapons, and active
controls and - - - - mounts. Of this amount, $10.0
million is to be provided to each of the shipyards to
ensure that they are principal participants in this
process. The committee intends that the shipyards be
allowed access to naval intelligence data and that
there be continuing interaction among the shipyards,
the Navy laboratories, and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency;
(2) Authorize $38.0 million to fund development and
testing of Category I and II - - - technologies, as
described in the Secretary of Defense's March 1996
report to the - - Congress on NAS Procurement and
Submarine Technology;
(3) Authorize $40.0 million, equally divided between
the two shipyards, to fund design - - improvements
proposed by them for incorporation into the four
transition submarines. - - - Furthermore the provision
stipulates that there will be four separately-
maintained - - configurations, rather than the single
design the Navy plans to ``update'' for the ``post-- -
competitive'' phase of its NAS program; and
(4) Authorize $50.0 million, equally divided between
the two shipyards, to initiate the - - design of a
completely new next-generation nuclear attack submarine
in order to - - - - follow the independent panel's
recommendation that the Navy overcome its aversion - -
to investigate revolutionary technology options,
despite instances in the past when it - - has been
surprised by Russian innovation and advances.
The committee has been impressed with the results of the
Air Force's acquisition streamlining efforts, the so-called
``Lightning Bolts'' initiatives begun in May 1995. In less than
a year, these initiatives have already led to approximately $13
billion in savings and cost avoidance by reducing military
specifications and standards, contract data requirements lists,
and program office manpower. These impressive results have been
achieved by, among other things, creating centralized teams of
contracting, manufacturing, logistics, engineering, finance,
test and evaluation, safety, and legal experts which are sent
to program offices to help them in their streamlining efforts.
Consequently, the committee directs a similar type of team be
constituted by the Secretary of the Navy for the purpose of
reducing costs of the nuclear attack submarine programs. With a
congressionally-imposed cost cap on the SSN-23 and the
overabiding emphasis on NAS affordability, the committee
believes the Secretary should be sufficiently induced to
embrace this undertaking.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $2,714.2 million for Other
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $2,871.5 million for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Aegis support equipment -
The budget request contained $30.4 million for Aegis
support equipment.
The committee supports the Aegis program's ongoing effort
to utilize interactive electronic technical manuals (IETMs)
that store paper manuals in electronic format. The committee is
aware that the Navy is investigating the possibility of hosting
the IETMs on flexible wearable computers. This system allows
repair technicians to perform their tasks with hands-free
access to the IETM maintenance information, while affording
them maximum mobility to operate in confined spaces. In order
to gain at-sea experience with the combined IETM/flexible
wearable computer system, the committee recommends an
additional $3.0 million to procure flexible wearable computers
for deployment on Aegis ships as well as other ships that have
IETMs available.
Airborne mine countermeasures-
The budget request contained $13.5 million for airborne
mine countermeasures.
The committee is aware of the progress and success of Magic
Lantern, a helicopter-mounted laser mine detection system.
Magic Lantern, as a prototype, was deployed in Desert Storm and
provided unparalleled airborne mine detection and
classification capability for moored and floating contact
mines. Since that time Magic Lantern test results have met or
exceeded specifications and demonstrated a greater probability
of detection and classification, higher area coverage, and
lower false alarm rate than any other mine countermeasure
system. Magic Lantern is the Navy's only proven airborne laser
mine detection system and the only effective counter against
contact mines.
Despite an urgent requirement for effective contact mine
detection, the Navy requested no funds for Magic Lantern
procurement. The committee views such action as short-sighted
and recommends $25.0 million to procure three Magic Lantern
systems and associated spares.
AN/BPS-16 submarine radar--
The budget request did not contain any funding for the AN/
BPS-16 submarine radar.
The committee recommends $16.0 million to complete the
backfit of the AN/BPS-16 commercial-off-the-shelf radar into
the SSN-688 Los Angeles-class submarine fleet. Installation of
the AN/BPS-16 will dramatically improve the operational safety
of the 688 fleet by providing a state-of-the-art, all-weather
radar for navigating into and out of ports and for performing
tactical operations at sea in adverse weather conditions.
Moreover, additional procurement of this radar in fiscal year
1997, rather than fiscal year 1998 or later, will result in
significant cost savings to the Navy by ensuring its continuous
production.
Doppler sonar velocity log-
The budget request did not contain any funding for a
Doppler Sonar Velocity Log.
The Navy has informed the committee that it has identified
a need to develop a new Doppler Sonar Velocity Log for use on
its next-generation attack submarines and warships. However,
the committee has learned that there may be commercially-
available systems that can satisfy the Navy's requirement for
accuracy and shallow water performance. Therefore, the
committee recommends an additional $1.0 million to purchase and
test a non-developmental doppler velocity log.
Integrated navigation, information, and ship control system -
The budget request did not contain any funding for
integrated navigation, information, and ship control systems.
The Navy has an urgent requirement to modernize, automate,
and fully integrate bridge and machinery monitoring and control
systems on its cruisers and other surface ships with
commercial-off-the-shelf, military-qualified systems. These
systems include an Integrated Bridge System, Integrated
Condition Assessment System, Damage Control System, and
Standard Monitoring and Control System. The procurement and
installation of these proven, demonstrated systems on surface
combatant ships will offer major improvements in performance
and reduce the size of the crew required to safely operate
them. The committee understands that 45 to 55 positions can be
eliminated from the present 370-person cruiser crew, and life
cycle cost reductions of 50 percent are estimated for the
systems replaced or augmented. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $32.0 million for procurement and
installation of four identical integrated navigation,
information, and ship control systems on CG-47 class cruisers.
Safety and survivability items-
The budget request did not contain any funds for safety and
survivability items.
Congress provided funds in fiscal year 1996 to purchase
commercial-off-the-shelf, non-developmental item (COTS/NDI)
life safety items identified for priority procurement by the
Navy's Office of Safety and Survivability (OSS) and the
operational commands. As a result, OSS initiated the retrofit
of flight data recorders (FDRs) on early model F/A-18 aircraft
that do not have these crash-survivable instruments. The
committee recognizes that additional funds are required to
complete the F/A-18 FDR retrofit and to initiate retrofit of
COTS/NDI FDRs on all Navy and Marine Corps passenger-carrying
military aircraft but believes that such COTS/NDI applications
provide a high return on investment. Consequently, the
committee recommends $14.2 million to support the continued
retrofit of FDRs on F/A-18 and other Navy and Marine Corps
aircraft lacking them, as well as to accelerate the
introduction of other life safety items identified for priority
procurement.
Shipboard stabilized platform system (SSPS)
The budget request did not contain any funds for an SSPS.
The committee understands that the Navy has not yet
conducted the demonstration of a U.S. industry-developed
shipboard gun system that was funded in fiscal year 1995.
However, the committee notes that a fiscal year 1996 SSPS
demonstration is planned, the results of which are to be
available in fiscal year 1997. The committee also notes that
both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) have stated requirements for an SSPS. Consequently, the
committee strongly urges the Navy, the Coast Guard, and SOCOM
to select and fund production start-up in fiscal year 1998 of
the non-developmental system which the planned demonstration
indicates best meets their collective needs. Selection should
be based on current and projected requirements for performance,
survivability, and applicability to additional weapons. The
selected gun mount should require no additional development
funding except to accomplish service-unique tailoring.-
Surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD) -
The budget request contained $5.7 million for SSTD.
The Navy informed the committee in 1995 of its restructured
SSTD program, whose charter is to develop and produce a torpedo
defense capability that contributes to surface ship survival.
At that time, the Department stated that both the cost and the
technical risk of the restructured effort had been
significantly reduced. Consequently, the committee is perplexed
that no funds were requested in fiscal year 1997 to move
forward on this program. Accordingly, the committee recommends
an additional $12.5 million to procure torpedo defense
equipment for combatant, amphibious, and auxiliary ships,
including towed array sensors, torpedo alertment processors,
launched expendable acoustic devices, and torpedo
countermeasure transmitting sets.
Surface tomahawk support equipment-
The budget request contained $75.6 million for surface
Tomahawk support equipment.
The Tomahawk afloat planning system (APS) successfully
underwent extensive operational test and evaluation in 1994,
and production system installations have been completed on the
USS Carl Vinson and the USS George Washington. The APS
significantly reduces Tomahawk strike planning response times.
The APS also provides the centerpiece of the Joint Service
Imagery Processing System-Navy which provides deployed planners
real-time capability to receive, process, analyze and exploit
tactical sensor imagery.
The committee notes that the Congress has previously
encouraged the Department to continue support and funding for
the APS and to consider extending the APS's targeting and
mission planning capabilities to other tactical command
echelons. The committee is pleased with the APS program's
development and production efforts, which have been on
schedule, within cost, and have met or exceeded all
specifications. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $10.0 million to support continued fielding of the
APS.
WSN-7 Ring Laser Gyro (RLG)-
The budget request contained $17.2 million for navigation
equipment.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
the procurement and installation of ten WSN-7 RLGs. This
increase will allow the Navy to accelerate the replacement of
obsolete, maintenance-intensive ship navigation systems in the
surface and submarine fleets with the WSN-7 RLG ship navigator,
which has been selected as the common RLG for all surface and
submarine fleets. According to the Atlantic and Pacific fleet
commanders, this accelerated procurement will not only improve
fleet performance but also maximize cost savings to the Navy.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $555.5 million for
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $546.7 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AN/TPQ-36 firefinder radar upgrade
The budget request contained $30.4 million to upgrade the
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar sets.
The committee understands that, due to the non-standard
configuration of these radar sets in Marine units, the program
to upgrade all Firefinders is currently underfunded. Therefore,
the committee recommends $34.2 million, an increase of $3.8
million, to fully fund this upgrade.
Javelin
The budget request contained $28.2 million to procure 148
Javelin antitank missiles and 48 command launch units (CLUs).
As noted elsewhere in this report, the Javelin will be
procured jointly by the Army and Marine Corps to replace the
Dragon, which is no longer capable of defeating current armor
threats. Although both the Army and Marine Corps have urgent
requirements to field the Javelin, the committee understands
that combined procurement quantities do not support cost
efficient production rates of the missile. The committee
therefore recommends $48.2 million, an increase of $20.0
million, to procure an additional 120 missiles and 16 CLUs.
Training devices
The budget request did not contain any funds for
procurement of the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System
(MILES) 2000.
The committee understands that the Marine Corps has a
requirement for 10 battalion sets of MILES 2000 training
devices and plans to begin procurement of these aids in fiscal
year 1998. To accelerate procurement of these systems, the
committee recommends $10.6 million to fund the first two
battalion sets.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $5,779.2 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $7,271.9 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
B-1B conventional mission upgrade program
The budget request contained $84.4 million for B-1B
modifications.
The committee is pleased with the improvements in mission
capable rates of the B-1B fleet. However, the committee is
discouraged by the slow pace of the effort to integrate
conventional precision guided munitions (PGM) with the B-1B.
Although additional funding was provided in fiscal year 1996 to
accelerate arming of the B-1B with the Joint Direct Attack
Munition (JDAM) and other PGM capabilities, the committee is
not aware of any significant progress toward this objective.
Consequently, the committee urges the Air Force to accelerate
PGM integration with the B-1B and recommends an increase of
$15.0 million for this purpose. Elsewhere in this report, the
committee has also addressed this concern by accelerating
production of the Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) and the JDAM in
order to provide increased quantities of PGMs for the bomber
force.
The committee understands that the Air Force is currently
modifying existing conventional bomb modules (CBM) to carry SFW
and other conventional submunitions dispensers. The committee
supports the CBM modification and recommends an increase of
$57.0 million to procure enough CBMs to equip two B-1B
squadrons with SFW capability.
C-17
The budget request contained $1,919.3 million for
procurement of eight C-17 aircraft.
The committee commends the Department's continued emphasis
on strategic airlift, is pleased with the current progress of
the C-17 program in reducing costs and maintaining timely
aircraft deliveries, and is supportive of the decision to
procure an all-C-17 fleet to fulfill the Department's strategic
airlift requirements.
However, the committee understands that the C-17 budget
request was prematurely reduced, based on the assumption that
the committee would authorize the Administration's
unprecedented request for a seven-year multiyear procurement of
80 C-17s. While the committee strongly supports modernization
of the strategic airlift fleet, it is disturbed by the
unorthodox approach taken by the Administration in requesting
authority to begin the largest and longest multiyear
procurement in defense acquisition history as an attachment to
a small supplemental appropriations request rather than await
completion of the normal defense authorization and
appropriations process.
The committee is aware of an alternative multiyear option
which saves at least $300 million more than the
Administration's proposal and completes the C-17 program one
year sooner. Such earlier completion not only enables faster
fielding of the aircraft to redress serious airlift
deficiencies, but also avoids the C-17 having to compete for
procurement funds at the same time the F-22 fighter is
scheduled to begin full-rate production. Therefore, the
committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 142)
authorizing a six-year multiyear procurement of 80 C-17
aircraft. The committee also recommends an increase of $380.0
million to procure two additional aircraft in fiscal year 1997
and to provide sufficient advance procurement funding for 12
aircraft in fiscal year 1998. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by February 1, 1997, specifying the actions
necessary to achieve savings of at least $300 million greater
then the amount offered in the Administration's seven-year
proposal.
Digital terrain system
The budget request did not contain any funds for the F-16
digital terrain system (DTS).
The committee notes that although the Air Force has
procured over 100 DTSs, approximately fifty have been leased to
U.S. allies and the remainder put in storage. The committee is
concerned that the Air Force has no plan to utilize this system
on its own aircraft.
The committee recommends $3.0 million to procure additional
DTSs and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by December 31,
1996, which provides a utilization plan for this system.
E-3 airborne warning and control systems (AWACS)
The budget request contained $287.9 million for
modifications to the E-3 AWACS aircraft and to ensure
operational effectiveness of the 32-aircraft fleet.
The committee notes that TF-33 engine failures currently
account for unacceptably large numbers of AWACS mission aborts,
but the budget request contained no funds for reengining
efforts to address this problem. Therefore, the committee
recommends $361.9 million for AWACS modifications, an increase
of $74.0 million, to begin procurement of replacement engine
kits.
E-8C Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (JSTARS)
The budget request contained $417.8 million to procure two
E-8C JSTARS aircraft and $111.1 million advance procurement for
two aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
The committee notes the successful deployment of JSTARS to
Bosnia and the strong endorsements provided by theater
commanders in support of accelerating the procurement of these
aircraft. Consequently, the committee recommends $642.8
million, an increase of $225.0 million, to procure an
additional JSTARS aircraft.
F-15E
The budget request contained $185.4 million to procure four
F-15E aircraft.
The committee commends the Air Force for continuing F-15E
procurement, which was re-initiated by the committee in fiscal
year 1996. The committee notes that, although the Air Force has
a stated requirement for 12 more aircraft to replace attrition
losses, only four were requested due to budget constraints.
Consistent with its actions last year, the committee recommends
$305.3 million, an increase of $119.9 million, to procure two
additional aircraft and fund advance procurement for the six
aircraft remaining to be procured in fiscal year 1998. The
committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 141) that
would modify current law to permit this procurement.
F-16 C/D
The budget request included $105.5 million to procure four
F-16 C/D aircraft.
The committee commends the Air Force for funding additional
F-16s in fiscal year 1997, thereby continuing the committee's
fiscal year 1996 initiative to restart F-16 procurement. The
committee recommends $164.9 million, an increase of $59.4
million, to procure six aircraft in fiscal year 1997 and
provide advance procurement for six more aircraft in fiscal
year 1998.
Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)
The budget request contained $67.1 million to procure 12
JPATS aircraft.
The committee notes that procurement of these aircraft has
suffered lengthy delays due to contract award protests. In
order to recover months of fielding schedule time lost because
of these delays, the committee recommends $82.2 million, an
increase of $15.1 million, to procure three additional
aircraft. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Air Force to obligate funds appropriated for JPATS prior to
fiscal year 1997 to procure three additional aircraft in fiscal
year 1996.
Pacer Coin
The budget request contained $2.6 million for the C-130
PACER COIN special mission aircraft.
The committee notes that the Department has been directed
to determine if the PACER COIN aircraft could be configured to
perform both intelligence and airdrop missions. Preliminary
indications available to the committee indicate that
modifications which would result in a multi-mission aircraft
are not only possible but cost-effective as well. However, the
budget request did not include any funds for such
modifications. Accordingly, the committee denies the request
for PACER COIN-unique mission support equipment.
RC-135
The budget request contained $66.2 million for support of
the RC-135 fleet.
The committee notes the increased emphasis placed on this
intelligence collection asset and supports continuing the
effort initiated by Congress last year to enhance existing RC-
135s and augment the fleet with additional aircraft. The
committee understands that the theater commanders-in-chief have
a high priority requirement for two additional RC-135s and that
this requirement has been validated by the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council. To address this requirement, the committee
recommends an increase of $39.3 million to accelerate the
procurement of an additional aircraft. To continue the ongoing
reengining effort, the committee also recommends an increase of
$145.0 million to reengine six aircraft.
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request did not contain any funds for Ammunition
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $303.9 million for fiscal year 1997
as reflected in the following table.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $2,733.9 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $4,341.2 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Peacekeeper
The budget request contained $8.3 million for procurement
of missile replacement equipment, $72.8 million for procurement
of Minuteman III modifications, and $44.6 million for
procurement of spares and repair parts.
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Secretary of the
Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees that outlines the Air Force's plans for retaining up
to 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
in an operational status beyond 2003, including the timing and
funding required to implement this plan. Although the committee
has not received the required report, the committee continues
to firmly believe that steps must be taken now to sustain the
Peacekeeper ICBM force in light of the fact that Russia has yet
to ratify the START II treaty. Therefore, the committee
recommends $32.0 million for Peacekeeper sustainment
activities. This includes an additional $3.4 million for
missile replacement equipment, $5.3 million for Minuteman
modifications, and $300,000 for replacement spares and repairs.
In addition, of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to Title III for Air Force operations and maintenance,
$23.0 million is to be used for sustaining Peacekeeper
operations.
Precision guided munitions (PGMs)
The budget request contained $23.0 million to procure 937
Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), $131.1 million to procure
400 Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW), and $18.4 million to procure
161 GBU-28 hard target penetrator bombs. No funds were
requested for procurement of the AGM-130 powered laser guided
bomb, the AGM-86B conventional air-launched cruise missile
(CALCM), or the AGM-142 HAVE NAP medium range tactical missile,
even though these weapons represent the only current stand-off
PGMs in the Air Force inventory.
The committee noted its concern about the lack of PGMs
during its fiscal year 1996 budget deliberations and continues
to have reservations with the Air Force's strategy for
procuring this much-needed capability. Therefore, the committee
recommends $95.0 million for procurement of 250 AGM-130 laser-
guided bombs, $15.0 million to modify 100 air-launched cruise
missiles to the CALCM configuration, and $39.0 million to
procure 50 HAVE NAP missiles. The committee also recommends an
increase of $12.0 for procurement of 100 additional GBU-28 hard
target penetrator bombs and $21.6 million for procurement of
100 additional SFWs.
Further, in order to accelerate deliveries of JDAM and
provide the earliest possible operational capability to the
bomber force, the committee also recommends an increase of
$50.0 million for procurement of up to 3,000 additional JDAM
kits. The committee notes that there is a requirement for more
than 87,000 of these munitions and the Secretary of Defense has
praised the JDAM program as one of the Department's most
successful examples of acquisition streamlining. Consequently,
the committee strongly urges the Department to consider
multiyear procurement of this PGM.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $5,998.8 million for Other
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $6,117.4 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
The budget request contained $57.8 million for procurement
of two Predator UAV systems.
The committee is pleased with the performance of the
Predator in support of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and
understands that the Department has determined that the
Predator's demonstrated military utility merits its fielding to
meet identified requirements.
The committee notes that theater commanders-in-chief
(CINCs) have requirements for 17 Predator systems, but that the
requested funding does not support production rates to meet
these requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends $107.8
million, an increase of $50.0 million, to procure up to four
additional Predator systems. Consistent with the legislative
provision recommended elsewhere in this report (sec. 217), the
committee recommends that these funds be transferred from
Procurement, Defense-Wide, to Other Procurement, Air Force.
The committee also understands that the Air Force has
identified a requirement to obtain a limited number of Predator
systems to establish a training base for its Predator
operators. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to conduct a cost analysis to determine whether leasing such
systems (in addition to those procured) constitutes a cost-
effective strategy for meeting this immediate training
requirement. A report containing the details of this analysis
and the Secretary's recommendations should be provided to the
congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after
enactment of this Act. Further, if leasing Predator systems
proves to be a cost-effective solution to this requirement and
is recommended by the Secretary, the committee urges the
Secretary to immediately pursue such a lease arrangement.
Tri-band precision landing receiver
The budget request did not contain any funding for
procurement of the Tri-Band Precision Landing Receiver (PLSR).
The committee understands that the Air Force has invested
approximately $50 million to develop this all-weather,
worldwide landing capability for military aircraft but has not
yet initiated procurement of the PLSR. Elsewhere in this
report, the committee recommends $5.0 million in RDT&E funds to
complete development of the program. Therefore, the committee
recommends that the Secretary of the Air Force assess the cost
and operational effectiveness for procurement of the PLSR and
provide a report of the results of this assessment to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 1997.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $1,841.2 million for
Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,890.2 million for fiscal year
1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Automated document conversion system (ADCS)-
The budget request did not contain any funds for the ADCS.
-The committee is aware that the Department has made some
progress in following its direction to begin the purchase of
the UNIX-based software necessary to convert the Department's
more complex engineering documents from raster files to an
intelligent format. In addition, the committee is encouraged by
the initial results of the PC-based ADCS testing, which will
allow engineers to convert less complex and smaller engineering
drawings. However, as the committee has noted in the past,
significant cost savings can be achieved through the use of an
ADCS; thus, the committee is disappointed that no funds were
requested for this purpose.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $38.8 million for
ADCS, allocated as follows: $10 million for the purchase of
UNIX-based conversion software; $5 million to purchase video
tracing technology for those documents that require computer-
aided design perfect/accurate conversion; $10 million for bulk
conversion; and $3.8 million for system integration software.-
Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
The budget request contained $10.6 million for procurement
of attrition spares and support kits for the Pioneer UAV
system.
The committee understands that the Department has decided
to terminate procurement of the Hunter UAV system and use the
existing equipment for testing and maintaining a residual
capability. This decision results in the Pioneer being the only
UAV currently capable of meeting Navy and Marine Corps short-
range requirements. The committee further understands that
several initiatives necessary to ensure continued effectiveness
of the Pioneer are ongoing but have been underfunded in
anticipation of future fielding of the Tactical UAV, a new,
advanced concepts technology demonstration program.
Consequently, the committee recommends $40.6 million, an
increase of $30.0 million, to fund these initiatives and
maintain the Pioneer system at acceptable readiness levels.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Overview
The budget request did not contain any funds for National
Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends authorization of $805.0 million for fiscal year
1997.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $799.8 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends authorization of $799.8 million for
fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Item of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
The budget request contained $799.8 million for operation
and maintenance, research and development, and procurement
activities of the defense chemical agents and munitions
destruction program.
The committee is aware of concerns raised by several
citizen groups about this program and whether there are
alternative technologies that should be pursued to reduce what
they consider to be the potential hazard of the Army's baseline
incineration process. The committee notes that the Army is
proceeding with the investigation of alternative technologies
for potential use in accordance with the recommendations of the
National Research Council (NRC). The committee believes there
is potential for the implementation of these processes at
selected future demilitarization and destruction sites.
However, the committee supports the NRC's recommendation that
the Army continue its current baseline incineration program
until such time as the evaluation of these alternative
technologies is concluded. Should the results of the
alternative technologies investigation indicate that certain of
them be adopted for particular sites or configurations of the
stockpile, the committee would support inclusion of these
processes in the program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) requires the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment of the current chemical demilitarization
program and of measures that could be taken to significantly
reduce its cost, while ensuring maximum protection of the
general public, the personnel involved in the demilitarization
program, and the environment. The law requires the Secretary to
submit a final report on this assessment and recommendations
for revisions to the program with the submission of the fiscal
year Department's budget request. The committee expects that
should the Secretary recommend alternative technologies be
adopted for use at selected demilitarization sites, the
Department will submit a fiscal year 1997 reprogramming request
to immediately implement this decision. The committee intends
to review the status of the program and the Department's
recommendations for any changes to it as a part of the
committee's review of the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sections 101-108--Authorization of Appropriations
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
1997 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of Certain Aircraft
This section would repeal prohibitions on the procurement
of AH-64D Apache and OH-58D Armed Kiowa Warrior helicopters.
Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army Programs
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for procurement of
the Army Tactical Missile System. This section would also
authorize the Secretary to extend the multiyear procurement
contract for the Avenger air defense missile system through
fiscal year 1997.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Nuclear Attack Submarine Programs
This section would authorize funding for both the Seawolf-
class and the next-generation nuclear attack submarine
programs; provide certain restrictions on the obligation of
this funding; specify the basis for awarding of contracts for
the fifth and subsequent next-generation submarines; and
delineate design responsibility for the four transition
submarines--all as described elsewhere in this report.
Section 122--Cost Limitations for Seawolf Submarine Program
This section would establish a separate cost cap for the
final Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine (SSN-23).
Section 123--Pulse Doppler Radar Modification-
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
fund the SPS-48E pulse doppler radar upgrade from prior years'
unobligated balances available to him.
Section 124--Reduction in Number of Vessels Excluded From Limit on
Purchase of Vessels Built in Foreign Shipyards
This section would repeal the statutory authority which
allows the Marine Corps to purchase, using funds in the
National Defense Sealift Fund, foreign-built hulls for
conversion to maritime prepositioning ships.
Section 125--T-39N Trainer Aircraft for the Navy
This section would repeal subsection (a) of section 137 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106), thereby enabling the Secretary of the
Navy to purchase the fleet of 17 currently-leased T-39N trainer
aircraft used for naval flight officer training. However, the
committee directs that the Navy pay a fair and reasonable price
for these 17 aircraft and that such price not exceed $45.0
million.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 141--Repeal of Limitation on the Procurement of F-15E Aircraft
This section would repeal a prohibition on the procurement
of the F-15E.
Section 142--C-17 Aircraft Procurement--
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for procurement
of the C-17.-
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $34,745.7
million for research, development, test, and evaluation
(RDT&E). This represents a $396.0 million decrease from the
amount authorized for fiscal year 1996.
The committee recommends authorization of $35,537.4
million, an increase of $791.7 million from the fiscal year
1997 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major issues
are discussed following the table.
Defense-Wide Programs
Special Considerations
Ballistic missile defense
The budget request included $2,798.8 million in various
program elements (PEs) for research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and military construction
activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO). The committee-recommended changes to the request are
summarized below:
[In millions of dollars]
Corps SAM/MEADS (PE63869C).................................... ($56.2)
Navy Upper Tier (PE 63868C)................................... 246.0
National Missile Defense (PE 63871C).......................... 350.0
THAAD (PE 63861C)............................................. 140.0
Support Technology-AIT (PE 63173C)............................ 40.0
Cooperative Projects with Russia (PE 62XXXC).................. 20.0
Management (General Reduction)................................ (15.0)
A more detailed explanation is provided below.
Advanced interceptor technology
The budget request included $7.4 million in PE 63173C for
Advanced Interceptor Technology (AIT). The committee recommends
an additional $40.0 million in this PE for AIT. These
additional funds would support a more aggressive schedule for
development and testing of advanced kinetic kill vehicle
technologies with potential applicability to various future TMD
systems, such as THAAD and Boost Phase Interceptor.
Arrow
The committee continues to strongly support the U.S.-
Israeli Arrow program. The committee recommends full funding of
the Arrow and other U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense
projects contained in the budget request. The committee notes,
however, that $27.0 million in fiscal year 1996 and prior year
funding for the U.S. portion of the Arrow Deployability Project
remains unobligated as a result of the lack of a Presidential
certification that a memorandum of agreement exists with Israel
for the project, that the project provides benefits to the
United States, that the Arrow missile has completed a
successful intercept, and that the Government of Israel is
adhering to export controls pursuant to the Missile Technology
Control Regime.
Cooperative projects with Russia
The committee strongly endorses an expanded program of
cooperative BMD-related projects with Russia as a means of
building trust and confidence as both sides pursue development
and deployment of TMD and NMD systems. U.S.-Russian cooperative
BMD activities include various programmatic endeavors as well
as a series of joint TMD simulation exercises, the first of
which is to be held in June at the Joint National Test
Facility, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Russian-American
Observational Satellite (RAMOS) program is one such high-
payoff, cooperative technology development program, a point
recognized by senior Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
officials. For example, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology has written to the First Deputy
Minister of Defense in the Russian Ministry of Defense to
apprise him of U.S. government approval and support of the
program and to encourage timely final approval from the Russian
government. Other U.S.-Russian cooperative BMD activities
include the Active Geophysical Rocket Experiment (AGRE)
project, and small-scale projects such as electric thrusters
for spacecraft, photo-voltaic arrays, and energetic materials.
To promote and highlight expanded U.S.-Russian BMD
cooperation, the committee recommends establishment of a new
program element (PE) for cooperation with Russia. The committee
recommends consolidating all existing cooperation projects
within this new PE, and recommends $20.0 million be made
available within this PE.
CorpsSAM/MEADS
The budget request included $56.2 million for the Corps
surface-to-air missile/Medium Extended Air Defense System
(CorpsSAM/MEADS). The committee has in the past supported a
cooperative multinational program, but notes that: a memorandum
of understanding establishing the program has yet to be signed;
there is a high degree of uncertainty as to which U.S. European
allies will join in the project; and other programmatic changes
have significantly delayed formal initiation of the program. As
a result, the committee can no longer determine the total cost
of the program, the U.S. cost-share percentage, or the program
schedule, including key technical milestones. Furthermore, the
committee notes that senior DOD officials have thus far chosen
not to press support for the program during congressional
consideration of the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for the program.
The committee also notes that the Department has yet to submit
a report on options associated with the use of existing systems
technologies and program management mechanisms to satisfy
validated CorpsSAM/MEADS requirements, as was requested in the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
1124 (H. Rept. 104-450). Therefore, only $5.0 million of the
$20.0 million authorized in fiscal year 1996 has been obligated
for CorpsSAM/MEADS. The committee urges the expeditious
completion and submission of this report.
Joint national test facility
The budget request included $5.8 million for Joint National
Test Facility (JNTF) modernization split among program elements
63871C, 63872C, and 63173C. The committee recognizes the
importance of the BMDO-sponsored JNTF as an essential joint
missile defense modeling, simulation, and test center of
excellence. The JNTF's focus is the joint inter-service,
interoperability, and integration aspects of missile defense
system acquisition. As the only missile defense modeling and
simulation facility which is staffed by all the services and
BMDO, the JNTF provides inter-service computational
capabilities and wide area network communication networks with
service-sponsored facilities such as the Army's Advanced
Research Center, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and the Air
Force Theater Air Command and Control Facility. To adequately
satisfy the complex missile defense integration requirements
leading to successful joint tests, analysis, wargaming, CINC
exercises, and acquisition support, the committee recommends
$15.0 million be made available for modernization,
computational and wide area network capabilities in support of
the Ballistic Missile Defense Network (BMDN) within the program
elements listed above. This modernization program will also
support the JNTF's contribution to emerging international
efforts with friends and allies for interoperability and in
development of joint missile defense systems.
Management
The budget request did not contain a separate program
element for management. The committee believes that greater
management efficiencies can be achieved, and therefore
recommends a general reduction of $15.0 million for management.
National Missile Defense
The budget request included $508.4 million in PE 63871C for
National Missile Defense (NMD). The committee recommends an
additional $350.0 million for NMD in an effort to accelerate
hardware development, including a new common booster,
accelerate and increase the number of exoatmospheric kill
vehicle (EKV) flight tests, enhance systems engineering and
integration, and accelerate planning and siting activities
required for the deployment of an effective NMD system.
The committee commends the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition and Technology) for his recent decision to
establish an NMD joint-service program office (JPO), and
directs the Director, BMDO to ensure full participation by the
Army, Navy, and Air Force in the JPO. In addition, the
committee directs the Director, BMDO to ensure that the EKV and
associated booster designs are compatible with the widest
possible range of NMD system architectures and basing modes.
The committee directs that the Director, BMDO inform the
committee of his plans in this regard not later than September
15, 1996.-
The committee notes that the prototype ground-based radar
(GBR-P) is an important NMD system element, and that GBR-P is
scheduled to begin testing at U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA)
in 1998. This schedule must be maintained, or accelerated, in
order to realize cost savings associated with leveraging the
THAAD radar program and test schedule. Of the amounts
authorized in PE 63871C, the committee recommends $68.0 million
for GBR-P in order to ensure that the radar is available for
integrated system testing in fiscal year 1998.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Midcourse
Space Experiment (MSX) for collecting and analyzing background
data of use to future midcourse sensors such as the Space
Missile and Tracking System. The committee is concerned,
however, that BMDO has failed to budget funds to continue
operations through the end of the expected lifetime of the
satellite. Therefore, the committee strongly urges the
Director, BMDO to provide adequate funds in the fiscal year
1998 budget submission and over the Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP) for MSX satellite operations.
The committee understands the importance of an effective
battle management/command, control, and communications (BM/C3)
architecture to overall NMD system performance and reliability.
In this regard, the committee is aware of proposals to leverage
existing theater missile defense (TMD) BM/C3 capabilities,
including such capabilities being developed under the THAAD
program, to support an NMD system. The committee therefore
urges the Director, BMDO to study these proposals and inform
the committee not later than October 15, 1996, of his views in
this regard. -
Finally, taking into account the various architectural
options for providing a highly-effective defense of the United
States against limited missile attacks, the committee directs
the commander-in-chief, U.S. Space Command (CINCSPACE) to
ensure that the NMD concept-of-operations is flexible enough to
accommodate and support a wide range of NMD system
architectures and basing modes. CINCSPACE shall inform the
committee of his plans in this regard not later than September
15, 1996.
NATO cooperation
The committee is aware of recent progress made within the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance regarding
the threat posed to members of the Alliance by the
proliferation of ballistic missiles and response options,
including the development and deployment of effective missile
defenses. The committee strongly endorses this effort and
directs the Secretary of Defense to keep the Congressional
defense committees apprised of future activities and progress
in this area.
Navy upper tier
The budget request included $58.2 million for Navy Upper
Tier (PE 63868C). The committee recommends an additional $246.0
million this high-priority project. The additional funds shall
be used to accelerate the development, testing, and deployment
of the Navy's theater-wide TMD system.
The committee is dismayed by the Department's refusal to
include Navy Upper Tier as a ``core'' TMD program--as required
by section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)--and the Department's
proposal to reduce funding for this project in fiscal year 1997
by over $140.0 million as compared to the amount authorized by
Congress in fiscal year 1996. Furthermore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide adequate resources
in the fiscal year 1998 budget request to accelerate the
schedule for Navy Upper Tier in accordance with previous
congressional direction.
New director, BMDO
The committee was initially concerned by reports that, upon
the retirement of the current Director, BMDO, the Department
was planning to downgrade this position to a two-star billet.
The committee is pleased to note that members of the committee
expressed concern and strongly urged that the position remain a
three-star billet. The Department has now agreed with the
committee's recommendation. The committee looks forward to
establishing a frank and open dialogue with the next BMDO
Director, and expects that this individual will continue and
expand upon the current, positive working relationship between
the committee and the Director.
Targets
The committee directs the Director, BMDO to submit a report
to the Congressional defense committees by December 1, 1996,
describing BMDO target missile requirements, by number and
types, and which target missiles are U.S.-built and which have
been or will be acquired through the Foreign Military
Acquisition (FMA) program. The report shall also discuss the
issues associated with increasing reliance on missiles acquired
through the FMA program for meeting BMDO target missile
requirements.
THAAD
The budget request included $269.0 million in PE 63861C for
THAAD demonstration/validation (dem/val), and $212.7 million in
PE 64861C for THAAD engineering and manufacturing development
(EMD). The committee continues to support the development,
production, and fielding of THAAD as a matter of highest
priority, and recommends an additional $140.0 million in PE
63861C for the THAAD program.
The committee endorses the acquisition, beginning in fiscal
year 1997, of a second THAAD radar, in order to reduce risk and
support operational ground-testing. Of the $140.0 million in
additional funds authorized for THAAD, $65.0 million shall be
used for long-lead funding for a second THAAD radar.
The committee strongly objects to the Department's plan for
THAAD that emerged from the BMD Program Review. That plan,
which involves delaying the initiation of low-rate initial
production (LRIP) and hence achievement of a first unit
equipped (FUE) date of 2006, violates the letter and the spirit
of section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to include the necessary resources in
the fiscal year 1998-2003 program objective memorandum (POM) to
significantly accelerate the THAAD schedule.-
Theater missile defense of U.S. territories
The committee strongly supports fielding highly effective
TMD systems that are capable of protecting U.S. territories
from ballistic missile attack, and directs the Secretary of
Defense to review the TMD requirements for U.S. territories.
The Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this
review to the Congressional defense committees not later than
November 15, 1996.
Chemical-biological defense program
The budget request included a total of $505.0 million for
the chemical-biological defense program of the Department of
Defense, including $296.8 million in research, development,
test, and evaluation and $208.2 million in procurement.
The continuing proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, the spread of chemical and biological weapons
technology and delivery capabilities, and the threat posed to
U.S. military forces by the potential use of chemical or
biological weapons on the battlefield have resulted in repeated
expressions of concern by the Congress about the chemical and
biological defense readiness of U.S. forces. In response to the
guidance provided in title XVII of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160),
the Department has executed a number of management, research,
development and acquisition, and training initiatives which
over time and with proper emphasis and funding support should
result in significant improvements in the chemical and
biological defense readiness of U.S. armed forces. The
committee is pleased that the Department has essentially
implemented the requirements of the public law. Great strides
have been made in establishing a consolidated chemical-
biological defense program; however, much remains to be done.
At the request of the Readiness Subcommittee, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) has assessed the chemical and
biological defense preparedness of early-deploying U.S. Army
and Marine Corps ground forces. In testimony before the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee in March, 1996,
the GAO acknowledged the progress made by the Department of
Defense, but stated that the Department had not done enough to
overcome the chemical and biological defense shortcomings U.S.
forces experienced in the Gulf War. The GAO concluded that
``U.S. forces still lack the ability to defend adequately
against chemical and/or biological agents and a degrading war-
fighting capability could still result from persistent
equipment, training, and medical shortcomings.'' Many of the
problems cited were similar to those cited in the ``Department
of Defense Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) Warfare Defense
Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 1995.'' In the GAO's
view, the principal reason for these shortcomings is that
chemical and biological preparedness has a relatively low
priority on a DOD-wide basis relative to traditional
operational missions, as evidenced by the limited funding,
staffing, and mission priority that chemical and biological
defense activities receive. The committee understands that a
warfighting analysis is now underway within the Joint Staff
with input from the military services and the combatant CINCs
that will provide an assessment of chemical and biological
defense mission priorities in view of the evolving threat and
that will recommend funding levels for consideration in the
development of the fiscal year 1998 budget request and the
future years defense plan.
The committee strongly believes that some action must be
taken in the fiscal year 1997 defense budget to address
shortcomings in the current chemical and biological defense
program. The committee believes that unless the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Department of
Defense as a whole, down to individual unit commanders, all
increase their emphasis on improving the armed forces' chemical
and biological defense preparedness, many of the issues
identified in the Department's annual report and by the GAO are
likely to remain unresolved.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a continuation of
increased emphasis on chemical-biological defense training in
units, joint training of commanders and chemical-biological
defense specialists, and training of medical units and
personnel which could be involved in the treatment of chemical-
biological warfare casualties. The committee recommends an
additional $16.2 million for shortfalls in operations and
maintenance identified by the GAO as follows, and directs the
Secretary of Defense to report to the Congressional defense
committees on the plans for expenditure of these funds prior to
their obligation:
Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA)--$13.2 million
for chemical-biological equipment maintenance support.
Operations and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF)--$3.0
million for sustainment and replacement of Air Force
chemical protective equipment.
To address shortfalls in chemical-biological defense
research, development, testing, and evaluation, the committee
recommends increased authorizations to the budget request as
indicated below:
PE 62384BP-..................... Chemical/ $3.9 million
biological
defense.
Medical biological 1.7 million
defense.
PE 63884BP...................... Medical biological 2.2 million
defense.
PE 64384BP-..................... Contamination 2.0 million
avoidance.
Collective 6.6 million
Protection-.
Individual 200,000
Protection.
Medical biological 9.0 million
defense.
PE 65384BP...................... Management support 15.0 million
Dugway Proving 3.7 million
Ground.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to address
shortfalls in chemical-biological defense procurement,
identified by the GAO and to report actions taken to resolve
these shortfalls as a specific area of interest in the next
annual report to Congress on the NBC defense program.
Chemical-biological defense--counter-terror and crisis response
The Congress has repeatedly expressed its concern about
domestic readiness to respond to a terrorist attack,
particularly one that might involve the use of chemical or
biological agents. Title XVII of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160)
expressed the sense of Congress that ``. . . the President
should strengthen Federal interagency planning by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and other Federal, State, and local
agencies for development of a capability for early detection
and warning of and response to (1) potential terrorist use of
chemical or biological agents or weapons; and (2) emergencies
or natural disasters involving industrial chemicals or the
widespread outbreak of disease.''
A Military Research and Development Subcommittee hearing on
March 12, 1996, reviewed the preparedness of the United States
to respond to the use of chemical or biological agents in
domestic terrorism, or to a natural disaster involving
industrial chemicals or the widespread outbreak of disease. The
hearing also addressed the preparedness of local jurisdictions
to respond to natural disaster and to terrorism in general, and
the federal response that could be provided in such situations.
Despite the magnificent response by federal, state, and local
emergency response agencies to the terrorist bombing of the
federal building in Oklahoma City, local law enforcement and
emergency response capabilities would, in the event of a
terrorist attack or natural disaster involving chemical or
biological agents, be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the
casualties that would result. The subcommittee heard testimony
that local agencies ``are simply not prepared to deal with a
chemical or biological terrorist incident. We have neither the
training nor the resources to allow us to mitigate this sort of
incident.'' Even in the most prepared local jurisdictions,
chemical/biological incident training is limited to a very few
highly specialized response teams, as is the availability of
protective equipment and chemical agent antidotes. The
capabilities of local medical teams and hospitals to treat
chemical agent casualties are likewise severely limited.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to assess
the advisability of establishing a program for enhancing the
capability of the Department of Defense to assist domestic law
enforcement agencies response to terrorism or natural disasters
involving chemical or biological agents. The Secretary of
Defense should report to the Congressional defense committees
by September 30, 1996, the Secretary's assessment and
recommendations for such a program, including a specific
discussion on the appropriate role of the Department of Defense
in this area. To preserve the option of initiating such a
program in fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends an
increased authorization of $12.0 million in PE 65760D, and
requests the Secretary to report to the Congressional defense
committees on the plans for expenditure of these funds prior to
their obligation.
Combat casualty care
The committee continues to support technology development
to improve combat casualty care to ensure that higher quality
medical treatment can be delivered. As a matter of policy the
committee believes that the military should utilize, to the
extent practical, commercial off-the-shelf technologies that
are rapidly emerging in the commercial sector. This is
particularly applicable with medical information and
telecommunications technologies, commonly referred to as
``telemedicine'', when medical information is transmitted over
long distances.
The committee believes that telemedicine provides a unique
opportunity to deliver combat care more rapidly, accurately and
efficiently than by current methods. The challenge for the
military is to tailor commercial equipment to meet the specific
needs of the warfighter. This will require a commitment to
pursue appropriate research and development initiatives to
address the specific medical needs of the services whether it
be on the battlefield, aboard ship, at remote air bases, or in
search and rescue operations.
However, the committee is concerned by the paucity of
research and development funding and lack of insertion plans to
move more actively to make military telemedicine a reality. The
committee also notes that there appears to be no funding
planned to transition to the services those high technology
medical programs being pursued by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). Initiatives in development such as the
personal status monitor, telesurgery, and other information
based field systems offer radical change in the way medical
monitoring, trauma assistance, clinical consultation, and
medical command and control is administrated, substantially
raising the probability of saving lives and optimizing
logistics and medical assistance development. Also disturbing
is the funding profile for the DARPA program which shows future
funding ceasing after fiscal year 1999.
The committee notes that establishing an institutionalized
infrastructure in the combat telecommunications arena is
mandatory if system integration is to be achieved smoothly.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the telemedicine
effort being pursued by the Army and DARPA be an active part of
the Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWE), in both
the simulated and full scale hardware experiments. The
committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 63002A
for this purpose.
In addition to combat casualty care, the committee also
sees an opportunity to reduce costs and improve capability by
further fostering telemedicine in its overall military
composite health care system (CHCS). The committee is aware of
the ongoing support for a number of prototype programs and
centers acting as Department of Defense telemedicine testbeds
or participating in advanced patient care prototypes such as
the Center for Total Access and the Pacific Medical Network
(PACMEDNET). The committee recognizes that the integration of
telecommunications can drastically reduce the requirement for
medical evacuations as well as improve diagnostic
effectiveness. Therefore, the committee urges the completion of
the remaining phases of PACMEDNET, including the incorporation
of open standards and the testing of other evolutionary medical
information technology that can be integrated into the CHCS.
The committee is further aware of the desire on the part of
other civilian hospital facilities to participate in the
military's fledgling telemedicine effort. The committee
recognizes that trauma services delivery and management
activities account for a major component of health care cost in
the civilian sector as well as the military. In many ways,
disaster relief requires similar rapid response to high
casualty incidents as the military is geared to effectively
respond. Therefore, the Department should seize every
opportunity for technology transfer or co-development of some
facets of casualty care through the use of military-civilian
testbeds or demonstration projects.
Composite materials insertion for fielded weapons systems
The committee notes the substantial past and current
federally funded research investments in composite materials,
as well as the slow pace in which these materials are being
used in system upgrades and new systems. The committee believes
that a robust program by the Department to insert new materials
into fielded weapon systems would accelerate the potential for
advanced composites to lower the life cycle costs of weapons
systems by solving difficult and costly maintenance problems,
as well as strengthening the composite materials industrial
base. The Secretary of Defense is directed to institute a
composite materials insertion program in the military services
that includes projects that: propose lightweight metals,
intermetallics, superalloys, metal matrix composites, ceramic
and ceramics matrix composites; quantify mission benefits--
improved performance, readiness, or reduced supportability
costs; compare proposed new materials solutions with competing
component improvement or preplanned product improvement
programs; outline a design to cost approach; and incorporate
materials suppliers who are domestically based, preferably U.S.
owned, and committed to production. The technical and
programmatic management of the project should include both
laboratory technical and cognizant field authority (program
office or repair depot) personnel. Projects pursued through the
program should include design, prototype component fabrication,
testing, and technical data package preparation.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on National Security on the plan for the directed program by
April 1, 1997.
Countermine technology development and demonstration program
The budget request included $4.7 million in PE 62712A for
exploratory development of countermine technology; $15.2
million in PE 63606A for advanced development of countermine
technologies; $16.4 million in PE 63619A for development,
prototyping, and demonstration of advanced countermine systems;
and $7.7 million in PE 63120D for development and demonstration
of technologies for use in humanitarian demining. The fiscal
year 1997 budget request separates funding for the humanitarian
demining program from the Army's countermine advanced
technology development program where countermine development
for military operations other than war were previously managed.
The Congress has previously expressed concerns that the
military services lacked an effective means to address the
significant threat posed by anti-personnel land mines to future
force projection operations and military operations other than
war (H. Rept 103-499). In fiscal year 1995, $10.0 million was
added to the budget request to initiate an Army-led, integrated
mine countermeasure research program which would concentrate on
mine clearance in operations other than war. In the statement
of managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450), the conferees added $3.0 million to the fiscal
year 1996 budget request for land mine detection and clearance
technology development.-
In the wake of the President's decision to deploy U.S.
military forces to Bosnia as a part of the NATO peacekeeping
operation and heightened concerns about the threat to U.S.
forces posed by an estimated two million land mines left in
Bosnia by the opposing forces, the Military Research and
Development and Military Procurement subcommittees held a joint
hearing in January 1996. The hearing focused on the landmine
threat facing deploying U.S. forces and their capability for
dealing with that threat, and on research, development, and
acquisition programs and technologies that could improve the
capabilities of U.S. forces in Bosnia and in the future. The
hearing found that:
(1) The lessons of the Gulf War, Somalia, and Bosnia
are that the countermine problem is difficult and
improved countermine capabilities are required before
the troops deploy, not after the fact.
(2) Measures have been taken to improve the
countermine capabilities of U.S. forces deployed to
Bosnia; however, there is no single countermine system
or technology solution to the problem posed by non-
metallic anti-personnel landmines that will provide
near 100 percent detection with a near zero false alarm
rate.
(3) Historically, the U.S. tactical countermine
program has focused on ``breaching'' of landmine
barriers with little attention to technologies and
capabilities for area mine clearance. Increased
emphasis needs to be placed on the development of
countermine technologies and procedures for area
clearance.
(4) Area clearance is a problem common to tactical
countermine operations and to humanitarian demining.
The technologies and capabilities developed for one are
generally applicable to the other.
(5) Countermine, unexploded ordnance and humanitarian
demining programs within the Department of Defense are
fragmented among several different agencies. There is
no single agency representing the ``user'' that has
joint authority over policy, doctrine, or operational
requirements in these closely related areas; nor is
there a single developmental activity with authority
for oversight and coordination of the Department's
countermine program.
The committee strongly believes that increased emphasis
needs to be placed on the Department's countermine program.
There is a high probability that U.S. forces will encounter the
problem of uncleared landmines in most of the world's land
areas where U.S. forces might be employed. New technologies are
needed to detect and clear these weapons. The program must
address the development of feasible near-term improvements in
countermine capabilities and the longer term development of
advanced technologies which would promise more comprehensive
solutions to the countermine problem. Because evolving military
requirements for wide-area clearance of landmines parallel the
needs of many humanitarian demining operations, specific
emphasis needs to be placed on development of countermine
technologies that can be applied to both military wide-area
mine clearance requirements and humanitarian demining needs.
Developing solutions to the countermine problem will require
the best efforts of the military services; the Department's
countermine, unexploded ordnance clearance and explosive
ordnance disposal research and development activities;
industry; and academia. In particular, the committee encourages
the Department to use the resources of the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences in attacking this
difficult problem.
The committee reiterates the view expressed in the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
2182 (H. Rept. 103-701) that the Department of Defense should
develop a coordinated program for countermine warfare, and
believes that an executive agent should be designated to
coordinate all aspects of the countermine program. The
committee believes that the actions taken by the Department
with regard to integration and coordination of the chemical-
biological defense program may provide an example of how the
countermine efforts of the Department could be better
coordinated and managed.
The committee recommends increases of $10.0 million in PE
62712A, $15.0 million in PE 63606A, and $25.0 million in PE
63619A for the development, demonstration, and validation of
near-term and far-term improvements in the countermine
capabilities of U.S. forces for tactical countermine and
demining operations. In order to facilitate the integration of
the program, the committee directs the reassignment of
humanitarian demining development from PE 63120D to PE 63606A.
The committee directs the Department to put increased emphasis
on developing technologies that can be applied to both military
wide-area clearance requirements and demining needs, as well as
on the other elements of countermine operations, and to consult
with both the combatant commanders-in-chief and the interagency
working group for humanitarian demining to ensure that
technologies are developed and shared that meet their
countermine, wide-area clearance, and demining needs.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a
plan for a countermine program which addresses the issues
discussed above and report this plan to the Congressional
defense committees by March 1, 1997.
Cruise missile defense
The committee recommends additional funding in fiscal year
1997 for various cruise missile defense activities. The
committee's recommendation builds upon the actions taken in
section 274 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) wherein the Congress
launched the cruise missile defense initiative.
Specifically, to enhance the ability of the Airborne
Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft to detect the
launch of cruise missiles, the committee recommends an increase
of $5.0 million in PE 63226E and $5.0 million in PE 27417F. The
committee also recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
63226E and $5.0 million in program element 64770F, in order to
upgrade the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS) and an additional $20.0 million in PE 23801A for
continued development of improved cruise missile defense
capabilities of the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2)
missile.
Finally, the committee notes with concern that the
Department has yet to provide the report required by section
274(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), and strongly urges the
Department to complete and submit this report promptly.
Department of Defense justification of estimates
The committee continues to note the Department's lack of
timeliness in and the accuracy of the annual budget materials
submitted to the Congressional defense committees. Once again,
the materials were found to be less than satisfactory. Program
elements and budget activity placement continue to
miscategorize and misrepresent the content of the programs
requested. Funding data, particularly for fiscal year 1996, is
either missing or inaccurate. The committee again emphasizes to
the Department the need to provide accurate and timely
justification materials to the Congress if it expects full and
favorable consideration of the Department's request.
Department of Defense--Veterans' Administration (DOD-VA)
The committee notes with approval the beneficial research
conducted under the DOD-VA cooperative medical research program
and the benefits this program has provided our service
personnel and veterans. The committee expects the Department to
continue to fund this joint cooperative medical research
program in fiscal year 1997.
Dual-use and commercial integration programs
The budget request contained $250.0 million in PE 63805E
for dual-use, cost-shared programs managed by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In addition, the
budget request included $6,970.6 million for Department of
Defense science and technology programs, a significant portion
of which has dual-use application.
The civilian leadership in the Department of Defense has
continued to emphasize the importance of dual-use technologies.
The committee commends the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency for its leadership in this area. However, the committee
believes that to achieve its goals and objectives for dual-use
programs, the Department needs to make dual-use and dual-use,
cost-shared programs an integral part of each of the military
services' science and technology programs. This view is
supported by a recently completed report, ``Military and
Industry Panel Dual-Use Research Project,'' commissioned by
DARPA and conducted under the leadership of the Potomac
Institute. This would provide the ability to leverage billions-
of-dollars to the advantage of the Department's core
development programs instead of an independent office within
DARPA or the Office of the Secretary of Defense pursuing
relatively small, stand-alone dual-use projects that have
lesser service standing.
Various representatives of the Department have indicated
that a separate program is required to demonstrate to the
military services the advantage of dual-use technology. They
have indicated, in part, that this is the case because the
military services' ``acquisition cultures'' have been resistant
to embrace dual-use technologies and the innovative acquisition
authorities provided in title 10, United States Code.
The committee notes, however, that the Air Force has
already recognized the potential of dual-use, cost-shared
programs in leveraging its science and technology budget.
Through its leadership, the Air Force initiated an extensive
training and indoctrination program for its senior acquisition
personnel at field locations. As a consequence, the Air Force
has begun to change its acquisition culture, making relatively
extensive use of cooperative agreements and other innovative
acquisition procedures for science and technology programs.
During consideration of the fiscal year 1996 budget
request, the committee, in its report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept.
104-131), encouraged the Department to, among other steps, use
authorities provided in sections 2371, 2501, and 2511 of title
10, United States Code for specific science and technology
programs to pursue dual-use projects, to leverage funding
available for dual-use programs by making cost-sharing an
element of solicitation criteria to be considered in making
project selections, to incorporate dual-use solicitations into
the normal technology project solicitation process, and to
appoint an individual, reporting directly to the Under
Secretary for Acquisition and Technology, to oversee all of the
Department's dual-use programs, and to conduct outreach
activities for communicating to the business community those
technologies and processes associated with the Department's
program.
Instead of following the committee's recommendation, the
Department has chosen to again request additional funds over
and above the nearly $7.0 billion in its science and technology
request for a stand alone dual-use applications program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 203) that
would direct the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior
official, reporting directly to the Undersecretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology, whose sole responsibility would
be to develop policy and ensure effective execution of dual-use
programs and integration of commercial technologies into
military systems. This official would serve as the approval
authority for dual-use, cost-shared projects and would have the
authority to reprogram funds among the military services' and
defense agencys' budgets to achieve maximum leverage of
existing funds.
In addition, for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000,
the provision would require that not less than five, seven,
ten, and 15 percent, respectively, of each service's science
and technology program be available only for dual-use, cost-
shared programs. This would result in approximately $350.0
million being available only for dual-use, cost-shared programs
in fiscal year 1997 and would result in at least an equal
amount being made available from non-federal sources to benefit
the Department's science and technology programs.
The committee recommends no authorization for PE 63805E and
recommends $5.0 million for the Office of the Secretary of
Defense Dual-Use Program Office.
Federally funded research and development university affiliated
research centers
The committee has provided significant attention to the
management of federally funded research and development centers
and university affiliated research centers (UARCs). Although
the committee supports the Department's need for FFRDCs, the
committee believes the FFRDCs should be assigned work
consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation guidelines. The
committee commends the Department for its effort to meet the
requirements for competition for research work to facilitate
the acquisition and modernization process. The committee
insists on appropriate management of the centers, but agrees
not to burden the Department nor the centers with nonproductive
management ceilings and unneeded detailed reporting. The
Department is urged to recommend in its fiscal year 1998
legislative proposal more streamlined reporting procedures that
increase productivity, reduce management burdens, and provide
an assurance that work loads at the centers are essential,
defendable and definable. The committee believes that the
definition of ``core'' work for FFRDCs and UARCs may be subject
to change as work demands by the Department change. Therefore,
the committee directs that an unambiguous definitive
identification of ``core'' work for each FFRDC and UARC be
included as part of the Department's annual proposal. The
committee directs that a UARC be defined as a university
receiving more than $5.0 million in sole source non-competitive
contracts.
Intelligence data support systems
The budget request included the following amounts for
intelligence data support systems:
All Source Analysis System-..... PE 63745A......... $2.0 million
Joint Maritime Combat PE 64231N......... 11.3 million
Information System--.
Intelligence Analysis System.... PE 26313N-........ 1.2 million
Combat Information System....... PE 27431F-........ 7.7 million
These individual military service efforts provide the
specific combat users with similar, but uniquely tailored
intelligence systems, and are logical acquisitions. However,
the committee also believes there is a need to capitalize on
specific system strengths and increase service cooperation to
improve the collective capabilities of these individual
systems. Such synergies of effort could lead to better
interoperability, improved data fusion, reduced operator work
loads and possibly reduced development costs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Army to lead a joint
service intelligence system group to explore and initiate
efforts to improve such interoperability and determine the
applicability of, and where possible, implement existing
capabilities. Specifically, the committee recommends the
following increases for the Army's All Source Analysis System;
the Navy's Joint Maritime Combat Information System; the Marine
Corps' Intelligence Analysis System; the Air Force's Combat
Information System; and the Special Operations Command's
Research, Analysis, and Threat Evaluation System to examine and
integrate correlation/fusion algorithms such as the Integrated
Battlespace Server and the Generic Monitoring System
capabilities developed under the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency Warbreaker program:
[In millions of dollars]
PE 63745A......................................................... $2.0
PE 64231N......................................................... 1.0
PE 26313M......................................................... 1.0
PE 27431F......................................................... 1.0
PE 1160405BB...................................................... 1.0
Joint advanced strike technology (JAST) program
The budget request included $246.8 million in PE 63800N,
$263.8 million in PE 63800F, and $78.4 million in PE 63800E for
a total of $589.1 million for the Joint Advanced Strike
Technology (JAST) program and initiation of the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) program. An additional $71.0 million is
anticipated to be available for fiscal year 1997 from the
United Kingdom.
The committee remains concerned that the Department is
initiating a major acquisition program without adequate
consideration of other alternatives, acquisition strategy, and
roles and missions considerations. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 220) that would provide the
requested amounts only for advanced technology development,
preclude the obligation of funds for the Advanced Short Takeoff
and Vertical Landing variant of JAST, and require an analysis
of force structure alternatives and associated costs.
Army RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 included $4,320.6
million for Army RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization
of $4,670.0 million, an increase of $349.3 million, for fiscal
year 1997.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Army
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Army request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
122mm rocket/mortar threat
The committee has been apprised that the Army has a number
of opportunities to counter 122mm rocket and mortar threats for
which it now has no countermeasure. Several systems in
development could possibly be refined to meet this threat if
further development work were conducted. Among those competing
systems are the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), the Nautilus
laser and the Depressed Altitude Guided Gun Round (DAGGR)
program.
The committee believes that the potential performance of
these and other countermeasure system options should be
explored through a detailed systems analysis and a
recommendation made to the Secretary of the Army prior to any
actual evaluation.
The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE
65103A to be available for this study by the Army's Rand Arroyo
Center.
155mm XM982 projectile
As a result of the lessons learned from Operation Desert
Storm, the Congress accelerated the development of a 155mm
extended range artillery projectile, the XM982, to provide
accurate, cost effective delivery of submunitions to 40
kilometers. Since the Crusader program is likely to be delayed
due to a significant program alteration, XM982 development is
the only way to achieve the extended range requirement of 40
kilometers. The committee recommends an additional $12.0
million in PE 63004A for accelerated development and cautions
the Department that its continued delay in releasing funds
authorized and appropriated for this program from prior years
is wasteful and causing unnecessary delays in achieving program
goals.
Advanced field artillery tactical data system
The advanced field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)
is a multi-service program which will provide the fire support
command and control system for the Army and Marine Corps. The
committee is aware that the Army has a shortfall of $1.0
million to complete the common hardware porting effort which
was delayed due to fiscal year 1996 funding decreases. The
committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 23726A
for this purpose.
Advanced individual weapon anti-armor system (ALAWS)
The committee strongly supports the development of the
advanced individual weapon system for the 21st Century as
outlined in the Joint Service Small Arms Master plan. The
committee recommends that the Secretary of the Army reprogram
sufficient funds to permit the demonstration and evaluation of
advanced warhead technologies that would significantly increase
the individual soldier capability for attack of light armored
vehicles. The committee notes that these technologies have been
proposed in the ALAWS concept. The committee believes that
these warhead technologies are appropriate for inclusion in the
objective individual combat weapon (OICW) program, or in a
stand alone or crew served system.
Assault breach marking system
Operation Desert Storm revealed a significant deficiency in
the current minefield breach marking capability that has yet to
be resolved. The committee recommends an additional $1.0
million in PE 64808A for rapid acquisition and fielding of an
assault breach marking system to mark safe paths through
minefields for the following forces.
Atmospheric and hydrologic research
The committee is aware of the Army Research Laboratory's
effort in atmospheric and hydrologic research to satellite
detect, decipher and model soil and weather conditions that
influence effective performance on the battlefield. The
committee understands that Army progress in these efforts has
been successful in considering rainfall and temperature
profiles only. The committee recommends an additional $3.0
million in PE 61102A for the Army Research Laboratory to expand
the measurement and predictive work to include more complex
atmospheric conditions such as fog and haze as well as other
remote sensing devices.
Battlefield combat identification system (BCIS)
The committee continues to follow with interest the Army's
plan to field a battlefield combat identification system (BCIS)
as a means of preventing friendly fire casualties through
electronic interrogation and identification of potential
targets as ``friend or foe''. The committee notes the
successful performance reported by Army field personnel who are
using the BCIS system, but find it difficult to understand the
Army's delay in initiating procurement beyond those units
identified for the Force XXI advanced warfighting experiments
(AWE). The Army has testified that situational awareness is
valuable in tactical situations so that operational decisions
can be enhanced, noting that knowledge of the location of
friendly forces can ``change the way we fight ground combat,''
further citing a desire to accelerate and field a combat
identification system ``as soon as possible.'' The Army,
however, believes that the current cost estimates for BCIS are
prohibitive and plans to wait until after the AWE with BCIS are
complete in late 1997 to make a procurement decision.
The committee reminds the Army leadership that further
postponement of a procurement decision will keep a friendly
fire capability out of the Army inventory in any significant
number until calendar year 2000. The committee urges the
Secretary of the Army to raise the priority of procurement and
fielding of the BCIS system so that early fielding can begin in
fiscal year 1998.
CH-47 system upgrade
The Chinook helicopter is the Army's only heavy lift cargo
helicopter. The original CH-47D programs to extend the life of
the CH-47 A, B and C models for another 20 years has reached
the point where the original air frames will be nearly forty
years old at the turn of the century.
The committee is concerned that, beyond overhauls, the Army
continues to consider a modernization program unaffordable. The
committee understands that the Army is seeking a replacement
for the Chinook as part of a joint service transport rotocraft
program to field a new cargo helicopter beginning in 2015.
These plans, however, are currently unfunded.
The committee is further concerned that future budget
pressures may force postponement of any new start development
program. Therefore, the committee believes that the CH-47 must
be sustained through the year 2025 to ensure readiness. The
committee recommends an additional $22.7 million in PE 23744A
to conduct the improved cargo helicopter program concept
formulation and technology demonstrations that includes system
health monitoring and vibration reduction technologies.
Comanche
The committee understands that the Army leadership is
satisfied with the current acquisition profile of the Comanche
in spite of attempts on the part of the Congress to accelerate
development. The current program will yield full system
development with initial operational capability (IOC) by the
year 2006, and with the field deployment of six experimental
operational capability (EOC) aircraft during fiscal years 2002-
2003.
The committee continues to believe there is an opportunity
to make an early determination of the value of an accelerated
Comanche program and recommends an additional $50.0 million in
PE 64223A for early flight performance demonstrations of one or
more of the EOC aircraft. Therefore, the Secretary of the Army
is directed to provide the Congressional defense committees a
report on early performance demonstration alternatives prior to
the obligation of the additional funding.
Combat vehicle laser warning equipment
The committee recommends an additional $4.9 million in PE
23735A for the continued remanufacture of combat vehicle laser
warning equipment as a part of the suite of survivability
enhancement systems.
Countermine system improvement
The Army countermine program is designed to maintain combat
maneuver unit mobility by detecting minefields and provide a
means to breach or mark the minefields. The committee
recommends an additional $1.5 million in PE 64808A for
battalion countermine set improvements.
Crusader program
The budget request for the Crusader program was $258.8
million. The committee has been informed of the decision by the
Army to change from liquid propellant for the cannon
projectiles to an advanced solid propellant. Although the Army
made an informed decision to change the development plan for
the projectile propellant, the committee believes that cost
savings can be realized in the program by utilization of the
lower risk propellant alternative.
The committee believes that the program should be
restructured and approved by the Congressional defense
committees before proceeding further into the demonstration/
validation (dem/val) phase. The importance of fielding a
superior field artillery system for the twenty-first century
cannot be overstated. The committee recommends a reduction of
$50.0 million in PE 63854A to take advantage of the cessation
of high cost liquid propellant development and directs the
Secretary of the Army to restructure the development program
and report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on National Security by March 1, 1997 the
results of the program restructure.
Diesel engine advanced development
The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE
63005A to continue the industry cooperative agreement for the
advanced development of a four-stroke, direct injected, diesel
engine and modification of the standard 6.2 liter diesel engine
by the Army's National Automotive Center.
Diesel/gas turbine project
The committee recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE
63005A for continued development and Army testing of the
combined-cycle diesel/gas turbine engine program.
Force XXI initiatives
In testimony provided to the Military Procurement and
Military Research and Development Subcommittees, the Army
presented its program to rapidly move new technology
demonstrated in the Army's Force XXI initiative by, in effect,
streamlining the acquisition process by being able to fund
proven compelling technologies needed by the Army that result
from the program. The current time delay caused by the lead
time required in the development of the Department's Program
Objective Memorandum (POM) invites a missed opportunity in many
cases to rapidly field critical new capability to the forces.
The committee understands that the Army Systems Acquisition
Review Council (ASARC) will identify and approve for rapid
acquisition, those technologies that have warfighting impact.
The committee approves the request of the Army leadership
and recommends an additional $100.0 million in a new program
element for this purpose. The committee understands that the
Army will provide a similar funding line in its fiscal year
1998 and beyond requests. The committee directs that a report
of the fiscal year 1997 activity be provided to accompany
subsequent annual requests.
Hardened materials
The committee recognizes the work in advanced composite
materials conducted by the Army Research Laboratory that will
yield performance advantages in future Army systems. The
committee is concerned that adequate funding is not being
applied for the range of planned uses for hardened materials in
the Army's modernization plan. The committee recommends an
additional $4.0 million in PE 62105A for the hardened materials
development program and urges Army program managers to seek
opportunities for materials insertion into existing Army
systems to accelerate technical maturity and acceptance.
Heavy assault bridge
The current configuration of the Wolverine heavy assault
bridge is based on the M1A1 chassis configuration which will be
out of production for eight years before the first Wolverine
comes off the production line at the Lima Army Tank Plant.
However, the primary system that will be on that production
line at that point will be the M1A2 Abrams tank. In addition,
the primary tank system the Wolverine will support and be
fielded within the M1A2 program.
The committee understands that by aligning the
configuration of these vehicles, program efficiencies and cost
reduction can be realized.
The committee recommends an additional $12.3 million in PE
64649A to design Wolverine unique line replaceable units and to
integrate software for the new configuration.
High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber
High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber is a
critical component of the Theater High Altitude Air Defense
(THAAD) system's kill vehicle. In addition, it is a critical
material in the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) kill
vehicle which is designed to advance lightweight technologies
necessary for future hypersonic hit-to-kill vehicles. In fiscal
year 1996, $4.0 million was added to the Army's manufacturing
technology program in order to fund the first year of a multi-
year program designed to support the development of a domestic
source for this material. The committee recommends an
additional $8.0 million in PE 78045A to complete the funding
requirements for this program.
Hydra-70 product improvement program
The Department of the Army continues to place insufficient
management attention on correcting Hydra-70 rocket problems.
Non-development composite rocket motors are available for
competitive evaluation, yet the Army has failed to act.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $15.0
million in PE 23802A for testing and integration of at least
one composite motor type required to achieve an operational
capability on the Apache helicopter. The committee directs that
the Secretary of the Army provide a detailed progress report to
the committee by March 31, 1997, on its progress and to submit
additional funding requirements in the fiscal year 1998
request.
Instrument factory for gears
The committee is aware of the weapon systems being
supported by the industrial manufacturers participating in the
Army Manufacturing Technology programs through the Instrumented
Factory for Gears (INFAC) Technology Center of Excellence. The
committee is concerned that congressional support for the INFAC
and a number of other manufacturing technology programs has
been essentially ignored by the Department. The committee
believes that programs like INFAC provide a focal point for
industrial participation and a concentrated effort to solve
difficult manufacturing problems that when solved, contribute
to the control of acquisition cost of military systems. The
committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 78045A
for the INFAC program.
Line-of-sight, anti-tank (LOSAT)
The committee believes continuation of the line-of-sight,
anti-tank (LOSAT) program is unaffordable in view of other Army
priorities. The committee recommends a reduction of $18.0
million in 63654A.
Liquid propellant
The committee has been informed that the Army leadership
chose to discontinue development of projectile liquid
propellant (LP) for the Crusader advanced field artillery
system. Although the committee concurs with this decision, it
believes that there should be an orderly conclusion to the LP
program, especially while technical teams and test equipment
are in place.
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
62618A to conclude those experiments that are required to
enhance the program's orderly conclusion and documentation.
M1A2 tank compact autoloader program
The committee is aware of new technology to implement a
compact autoloader for the M1A2 Abrams tank. The committee
recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 23735A for
insertion of a compact autoloader and the conduct of firing
demonstrations.
Manufacturing technology (MANTECH)
The committee is concerned that the Army is not focusing
sufficient MANTECH resources on key manufacturing cost drivers
in the organic maintenance of weapon systems. The committee
believes that the potential exists to address manufacturing
applications that could have a significant modernization and
cost reduction impact on the maintenance of mission essential
equipment and systems in the Department's depots. The committee
urges the Secretary of the Army to continue the industrial-
academic partnerships for repair technology development and
insertion for maintenance of rotary winged aircraft that was
identified in the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450).
MK-19 modifications
The committee recommends an additional $1.6 million in PE
64802A to develop a change barrel to adapt a 50 caliber machine
gun, and to develop an adaptor for a MK-19 installation in an
up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV).
MLRS extended range enhancement
The committee supports the Army's need to accelerate the
multiple launch rocket system, extended range (MLRS-ER)
enhancement. The committee recommends an additional $12.0
million in PE 63313A to support test flights and other risk
reduction efforts leading to engineering and manufacturing
development in fiscal year 1998.
Objective individual combat weapon (OICW)
The committee supports the development of the OICW as a key
element in the Joint Service Small Arms Program which is
designed to give the 21st Century land warrior a small arms
overmatch capability well into the next century. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to continue development of
current competing technologies through phase III of the program
and to down select to a final contractor at that point. The
committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 63607A to
support this acquisition strategy.
Optical correlators
The committee is aware of the potential of optical
correlators for signal processing and anomaly detection in
military systems. The committee believes optical correlators
also have similar potential in medical research such as for the
detection of tumors. The Secretary of the Army is to provide a
report to the House Committee on National Security on potential
benefits of optical correlators in medical research. The report
shall be provided by March 1, 1997.
Precision guided mortar
The precision guided mortar is an Advanced Technology
Demonstration (ATD) within the Department of Defense's Rapid
Force Projection Initiative (RFPI). The basic purpose of the
program is to develop and demonstrate a 120mm mortar projectile
that bridges the range gap between existing mortars and field
artillery systems, and is capable of attacking with precision
important point targets in areas of high collateral damage
sensitivity.
The committee understands that the current development
schedule has been extended due to funding limitations within
the Army. The committee believes that the program can be
accelerated and recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE
63004A to provide precision munitions for testing in the RFPI
program.
Projectile detection and cueing (PDCue) acoustic fire finder system
The committee supports ongoing evaluations at the Army
Research Laboratory (ARL) to detect and localize sniper
gunfire. The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in
PE 62120A for the procurement and testing of additional
projectile detection cueing systems.
Rapid battlefield visualization program
The budget request included $9.6 million in PE 63734A,
project DT 12, for the Joint Precision Strike Demonstration's
Rapid Battlefield Visualization program. The committee
recommends an increase of $4.5 million to continue the
development and evaluation of advanced large screen, automated
graphical displays; high performance computers and networks;
and terrain databases to provide enhanced situation awareness
for tactical commanders.
Starstreak missile evaluation
The budget request contained no funding for the
continuation of the air-to-air Starstreak missile evaluation on
the Apache attack helicopter. The committee is aware that the
Department is withholding $8.0 million of fiscal year 1995
funding and $4.0 million of fiscal year 1996 funding that is
planned for this evaluation. The phase one feasibility study of
the air-to-air assessment is due to be completed in May, 1996.
The committee anticipates the study results to be positive and
recommends proceeding immediately with the subsequent phase two
hardware evaluations. The committee directs the Department of
Defense to release the prior year funding to the Army for this
evaluation and recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
63003A to conduct the phase two testing.
Solid state dye lasers
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
62705A for continued research into advanced solid state dye
lasers.
Trajectory correctable munitions
The Army has been pursuing trajectory correctable munitions
(TCMs) as well as low cost competent munitions (LCMs) as
potential means of guiding artillery projectiles in flight. The
committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 63004A
for continued development.
Trichloromelamine (TCM) testing
The Secretary of the Army is directed to conduct toxicity
studies of trichloromelamine (TCM) disinfectant that include a
90 day feeding study in a non-rodent species. The purpose of
this testing is to provide appropriate Environmental Protection
Agency registration for Army future procurement from TCM
suppliers, thus ensuring competition. The committee recommends
an additional $500,000 in PE 63003A for this purpose.
Under armor auxiliary power unit
The committee understands that the Army has encountered
higher than expected development cost for the under armor
auxiliary power unit for the SEP/GEN II FLIR for the Abrams
tank. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in
PE 23735A to meet this shortfall.
Unexploded ordnance remediation
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
62720A for continuation of research, testing and analysis work
at the Army Environmental Center for unexploded ordnance
remediation programs.
X-ROD
The X-ROD is a millimeter wave guided, fire and forget,
rocket boosted, kinetic energy tank round. The committee notes
that significant progress has been made in seeker hardware,
acquisition and track, and kill round terminal velocity.
The committee believes the X-ROD can fulfill the emerging
requirement for a long range, highly accurate tank kill round
envisioned for the Tank Extended Range Munition-Kinetic Energy
(TERM-KE) advanced tank round and recommends an additional
$16.5 million in PE 63639A for continued development.
Navy RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $7,334.7
million for Navy RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization
of $8,190.0 million, an increase of $855.2 million, for fiscal
year 1997.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Navy
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV)
The budget request included $40.1 million in PE 63611M to
continue development of the advanced amphibious assault vehicle
(AAAV) for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends an
increase of $20.0 million to the authorization to accelerate
the schedule for engineering and manufacturing development, and
accelerate fielding of the AAAV. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to identify the additional funding
required to continue acceleration of the AAAV development and
insure its fielding at the earliest feasible date. The
committee directs that the program plan and funding required
for such an accelerated schedule be reported to the
Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 1998 defense budget request.
Advanced gun systems technology program
The budget request included $4.8 million in PE 62111N for
applied research in advanced gun and projectile technologies in
support of the naval surface fire support (NSFS) program. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million to accelerate
development of advanced miniaturized, gun-hardened global
positioning system/inertial navigation (GPS/INS) guidance and
control technology and development of advanced technologies for
next-generation gun systems.
Advanced lightweight influence sweep system (ALISS)
The budget request included $42.8 million in PE 63782N for
development and demonstration of mine countermeasures advanced
technology, including $6.4 million for continued development of
the advanced lightweight influence sweep system (ALISS). The
committee understands that the Navy's shallow water system
threat assessment identifies an influence-fused sea mine threat
which cannot effectively be swept without a new sweep system,
and that the ongoing ALISS program has shown that
superconducting magnet technology can emulate ships' magnetic
signatures and is an essential part of an advanced mine sweep
system. However, funding shortfalls have seriously impacted the
ALISS development program. The committee recommends
authorization of an additional $5.0 million in PE 63782N to
complete development, fabrication and testing of a full-scale
superconducting magnet that is one of the two major subsystems
of the ALISS and recommends that the Navy provide funding in
future budget requests to complete advanced technology
development and demonstration of the ALISS. The committee
understands that with higher priority, an influence sweep
system based on conductively-cooled superconducting magnetic
technology could be available to the fleet in the near-term.
Advanced submarine technology and new submarines
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H.Rept. 104-450), the conferees directed the
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for a long-term
submarine research and development program aimed at ensuring
U.S. technological superiority. On March 15, 1996, the
Submarine Technology Assessment Panel (also referred to as the
Baciocco panel, after its chairman Vice Admiral Albert J.
Baciocco, Jr., U.S. Navy (retired)) submitted to the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition an independent evaluation of available and future
submarine technologies and an assessment of their feasibility,
cost and potential benefits or drawback with respect to their
incorporation into the new submarine, and recommended a
technology insertion plan for submarines. On March 26, 1996,
the Secretary submitted a report to the Congress, entitled
``Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine
Technology,'' which identified specific emerging technologies
that could be pursued, the priority assigned to each
technology, and the estimated risk involved in accelerating the
technology. Recommended technology areas included
hydrodynamics, alternative sail designs, advanced arrays,
electric drives, external weapons, and active controls and
mounts.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE
63508N for applied research and exploratory development in
advanced submarine concepts, including Baciocco committee
recommendations, and transition of advanced ship and submarine
technologies developed under the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA). Of the additional amount provided in
PE 63508N, $8.0 million is to complete the transfer to the Navy
of the technology for actively controlled machinery platforms
demonstrated in DARPA Project ``M''.
The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million to
the budget request for demonstration and validation of core
technologies identified in the Secretary of Defense's report
including improved acoustic sensors and processing,
hydrodynamics, structural acoustics (including active controls
and mount), and propulsors (including integrated stern and
electric drive). The recommended increase shall be distributed
as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
PE 63504N, Advanced submarine combat systems development:
Advanced Acoustic Sensors-.................................... 10.0
Advanced Acoustic Signal Processing-.......................... 10.0
PE 63561N, Advanced submarine systems development:
Hydrodynamics................................................. 5.0
Structural Acoustics.......................................... 15.0
Propulsors.................................................... 20.0
Of the recommended $60.0 million increase, a total of $20.0
million shall be equally divided between the two submarine
construction shipyards, Electric Boat Division and Newport News
Shipbuilding, for the purpose of ensuring that the shipyards
are principal participants in the process of addressing the
inclusion of considering the technologies in the design and
construction of the submarines at their respective shipyards.
The Secretary of the Navy shall ensure that those shipyards
have access for such purpose to the Navy laboratories and the
Office of Naval Intelligence.
The committee recommends a further increase of $38.0
million to the budget request for demonstration and validation
of the Category I and Category II technologies described in the
Secretary's report. The recommended increase shall be
distributed as follows:
PE 63504N: $19.0 million for demonstration and
validation of passive ranging/target motion analysis,
large aperture processing, matched environmental
processing, total ship monitoring system improvements,
near-term multi-line towed array, high gain multi-line
towed array, lightweight wide aperture array fiber
optics, and high gain hull array.
PE 63561N: $19.0 million for demonstration and
validation of electro-mechanical/electro-hydraulic
actuators, advanced welding processes, power electronic
building blocks, advanced propulsor fabrication,
advanced hybrid propulsors, advanced coatings, rim
driven motors, and elastomeric ejection system.
The committee also recommends an increase of $50.0 million
in PE 63563N, Ship Concept Advanced Design, to initiate the
design of new, next-generation nuclear attack submarines. The
design should represent a ``new start'' and is not intended to
be constrained by or to be an outgrowth of the designs for the
fiscal year 1998 submarine built by Electric Boat Division and
the fiscal year 1999 submarine built by Newport News
Shipbuilding, and previously designated by the Navy as the New
Attack Submarine. The $50.0 million in increased funding shall
be equally divided between the two shipyards for this purpose.
An increase of $40.0 million is recommended in PE 64558N,
New Design SSN, to support the development of improvements in
submarine design. Each of the two shipyards involved in the
design and construction of the four submarines described in
section 131, of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), shall be allowed to
propose to the Secretary of the Navy any design improvement
that the shipyard considers appropriate for the submarines
being built at that shipyard as part of those four submarines.
The $40.0 million in increased funding shall be equally divided
between the two shipyards for this purpose.-
An increase of $2.0 million is also recommended in PE
11224N, SSBN Security and Survivability Program, for further
development and evaluation of wake trail sensors.
Advanced surface machinery program--intercooled recuperated engine
The budget request included $59.8 million in PE 63573N for
the advanced surface machinery program, including $34.1 million
to continue advanced development of the intercooled recuperated
(ICR) gas turbine engine. The ICR is the next generation marine
gas turbine for the DDG-51 destroyer and the SC-21 next
generation surface combatant. Current plans call for
introduction of the ICR into the fleet as the propulsion system
for the future DDG-51 class ships. The ICR promises 30 percent
propulsion fuel savings compared to the current Navy gas
turbine, increased range, and environmental emissions
compliance. The engine is also being considered as the
propulsion system for the multi-national European ``Horizon''
frigate. The program is a collaborative effort among United
States, British, and French navies.
The ICR has been in advanced development since December
1991, and is now undergoing development full scale system
testing at Pyestock, England. Tests to date confirm engine
design prediction and the 30 percent fuel savings benefits of
recuperation have been demonstrated. During the engine tests in
early 1995, the recuperator developed air leaks which required
its removal and return to the manufacturer. Intensive
investigation revealed both design flaws and manufacturing
process problems. A recuperator recovery plan was instituted by
the management team and full scale engine tests resumed in
January 1996 using a redesigned recuperator. A second test site
is to be established at the Navy's Ship Systems Land Based
Engineering Site (LBES) to support ICR engine endurance and
qualification testing in the United States, integration of the
ICR engine into the DDG-51, and integrated power system
development and integration for the SC-21.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.5 million to
the budget request to complete preparations for supporting ICR
engine endurance and qualification test at the LBES. The
committee is concerned that the Navy's decision to proceed with
the 500 hour endurance test and the final 1000 hour
qualification test at the LBES has not been funded adequately,
and directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that these
funds are included in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Success in the ICR program is dependent upon the successful
resolution of the recuperator design and manufacturing
problems. The committee notes the progress to date in the
recovery program. However, successful completion of the next
series of performance milestones will be key to the future of
the program. Accordingly, the committee directs that not more
than 25 percent of the fiscal year 1997 funds authorized for
the ICR program may be obligated until the Secretary of the
Navy reviews the results of the developmental testing and
progress in resolving the recuperator problem and reports the
results of this review to the Congressional defense committees.
The committee requests the Secretary's report no later than
December 31, 1996.
Advanced technology transition
The budget request included $104.4 million in PE 63792N for
the Navy's Advanced Technology Transition program, and reflects
a growth of approximately $33.0 million from the fiscal year
1995 program and $29.0 million from the fiscal year 1996
program. The purpose of the program is to demonstrate high-
risk/high payoff technologies that could significantly improve
the warfighting capabilities of the fleet and joint forces and
provides the opportunity to identify and move emerging
technologies quickly and efficiently from the laboratory to the
fleet. Demonstration projects are selected by a combined user-
laboratory team and are generally three years in duration and
cost approximately $15.0 million each. The fiscal year 1996
program includes 20 projects and 23 are proposed for fiscal
year 1997. The committee commends the leadership of the Navy's
science and technology community for this initiative and the
potential that it presents for accelerating the application of
technology base solutions to fleet and joint warfighting
requirements. The committee believes, however, that the program
should continue to be highly selective and sharply focused on a
relatively limited number of projects that are aimed at
solutions to some of the Navy's most critical problems. The
committee believes, therefore, that the growth in the program
should be capped, and recommends a reduction of $20.0 million
to the budget request.
Air deployed low frequency projector
The budget request included $5.2 million in PE 63254N for
development and demonstration of advanced anti-submarine
warfare sensors and processors, including $2.5 million for the
Advanced Deployable Low Frequency Projector (ADLFP). ADLFP is a
candidate for the active project source of the Advanced
Explosive Echo Ranging Sonobuoy. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.5 million in PE 63254N for the development and
demonstration of risk reduction technologies for the ADLFP to
insure that shallow water performance requirements are met and
system cost is minimized.
Air systems advanced technology development
The committee believes that the Advanced Anti-Radiation
Guided Missile (AARGM) that evolved from a Small Business
Innovative Research program provides the potential for a
critical capability to meet the military services suppression
of enemy air defense requirements.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to proceed
with this development program and recommends $50.0 million for
fiscal year 1997 in PE 25601N to continue seeker development,
analyses, demonstrations and test support. The committee
directs that use of these funds by the Navy be limited to
design reviews and support for test and evaluation. The
committee also encourages the Secretaries of the Navy and Air
Force to fund the fiscal year 1998 requirement for this
program.
AN/AQS-20 airborne mine countermeasures system
The budget request included $14.5 million in PE 64373N for
development of airborne mine countermeasures systems required
to counter known and projected mine threats in shallow and deep
water, including $13.2 million to continue development of the
AN/AQS-20 Sonar Mine Detecting Set for shallow and deep water
minehunting and reconnaissance for both bottom and moored
mines. The committee recommends an increase to the budget
request of $6.0 million to support completion of developmental
testing and technical evaluations.
Anti-submarine warfare technology initiative
The budget request included $49.6 million in PE 62314N for
exploratory development of advanced undersea warfare
surveillance technologies. The committee recommends an increase
of $21.0 million to the budget request to accelerate the
development of advanced anti-submarine warfare technologies,
including those leading to the development of more effective
and affordable towed arrays, long-endurance, off-board active
sources; environmentally adaptive active and passive sonars;
bi-static/multi-static active sonar systems; and anti-submarine
warfare (ASW) signal processors and algorithms for detection
and classification of submarines in high cluttered shallow
water environments. Of the amount authorized, the committee
recommends $10.0 million to accelerate the development of
bistatic/multistatic active sonar systems; $5.0 million for the
development of environmentally adaptive passive and active
sonar technology; $5.0 million for ASW data fusion and
integration; and $1.0 million for competitive research and
development of advanced low and low-low frequency active
sources. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
several measures to improve U.S. ASW capabilities and to place
higher priority on the development and demonstration of
advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities for the Navy.
The committee notes that the concerns it expressed in the
classified annex to the report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept. 104-131)
regarding the apparent decline in priority of the Navy's ASW
program have been echoed by the Chief of Naval Operations and
by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the statement
of managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450), the conferees directed the Secretary of Defense
to conduct and report to the Congressional defense committees
an assessment of the current and project United States ASW
capability in light of the continuing development of quieter
nuclear submarines, the proliferation of very capable diesel
submarines, the sale of sophisticated submarine launched
weapons, and the declining trend in budget resources associated
with ASW programs. The committee understands that the Chief of
Naval Operations has assigned responsibility for such an
assessment to the Inspector General of the Navy. The committee
further understands that the assessment, which should be
completed by July 1, 1996, may recommend changes in the staff
of the Department of the Navy and potential realignment of ASW
program priorities. The committee intends to address the
results of the assessment during the conference between the
defense authorizing committees on H.R. 3230.
Arsenal ship
The budget request included $25.0 million in PE 64310N for
the Department of the Navy to initiate a ``new start''
development for the Arsenal Ship. The budget request for the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) also included
$16.4 million in PE 63226E for development of technologies for
application to future surface warfare and fast sealift ships,
including the Arsenal Ship.
Arsenal Ship development is a joint DARPA-Navy program to
develop a ``proof-of-principle'' prototype for operational
demonstration and exercise with the fleet. In concept forward
deployed Arsenal Ships would combine the massive firepower and
virtually unsinkable characteristic of the battleship with the
relatively low cost and very small crew of modern commercial
tankers and cargo ships. The Arsenal Ship would contain 500
vertical launch system cells, accommodating weapons for strike,
anti-air warfare, and naval surface fire support. The
capability of the prototype would be limited to a small number
of vertical launch system (VLS) cells. At-sea test and trials
of the prototype would begin in fiscal year 2000. A successful
operational demonstration would be followed by refitting of the
prototype and installation of the remaining VLS cells and by
construction and deployment of up to five additional Arsenal
Ships to the fleet beginning as early as fiscal year 2001. The
estimated cost of the program for development of the prototype
Arsenal Ship is $500.0 million.
The committee commends the Navy's leadership and
development community and participating activities of the
Department of Defense for the innovative way in which the
concept for the Arsenal Ship has been developed. Maximum use of
available weapons systems, newly demonstrated command and
control capabilities, automation, best commercial practices,
advanced design and simulation tools, and the best features of
acquisition reform could lead to the development of a
significant operational capability for support of the regional
joint combatant commanders-in-chief.
The committee has a number of concerns about the concept,
however, which lead it to recommend that the budget request for
$25.0 million to begin development of the Arsenal Ship be
included in PE 63563N, Ship Concept Advanced Design, rather
than PE 64310N. The committee does not believe the Arsenal Ship
concept is ready for engineering and manufacturing development.
Although committee reviews of the fiscal year 1997 budget
request for the program indicate overall agreement of the
combat capability being sought for the Arsenal Ship, there
appears to be a lack of general agreement on how to get there.
Estimates that have been made of the cost of the Arsenal Ship
(in excess of $1.0 billion per ship, including weapons load)
indicate that the Arsenal Ship will be a major defense
acquisition program. The committee believes that there are a
number of issues that must be answered before a decision is
made to proceed into engineering and manufacturing development,
including analysis of the operational requirement, tradeoffs
against existing operational capabilities, force structure,
realism of the development schedule, system cost,
affordability, and others.
The committee strongly supports the concept of the advanced
concept technology demonstration and the desirability of early
user involvement in the development and evaluation of emerging
technologies. The committee also supports the need to break out
of bureaucratic practices, and make maximum use of best
commercial practices, streamlined acquisition procedures, and
modern design and analytical tools to develop new defense
acquisition paradigms. This, however, does not relieve the DOD
and the DON of the need to answer the issues outlined above.
Their challenge is to establish new paradigms for operational,
technical, and fiscal analysis which will provide the answers
to the continuing questions of ``what is the operational
requirement and what is the most cost-effective way of
fulfilling that operational requirement?'' The committee
expects the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy
to review these and other core acquisition management issues
identified in DOD Directive 5000.1 and DOD Regulation 5000.2
during the conduct of the Arsenal Ship program. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the initial results
of this review with the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Battle group passive horizon extension system--surface terminal
The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64721N for
continued research and development of the Battle Group Passive
Horizon Extension System--Surface Terminal (BGPHES-ST)
capabilities.
The committee is convinced of the utility of the BGPHES-ST
and is gratified that the Navy has elected to procure ground
station capabilities already developed by the Air Force to keep
costs down. However, the committee is concerned that the Navy
has not yet provided a capability to fully exploit the ability
of airborne systems to collect the class of threats known as
``PROFORMA.'' Therefore, the committee recommends an additional
$1.0 million be provided for the Navy to procure existing USAF
processing capabilities and algorithms. Specifically, this
funding will be used to integrate EPR-157 or EPR-208 functional
capabilities in existing BGPHES-ST hardware.
Blood storage research
The committee is aware that the Navy has supported
development of a process which would freeze-dry blood platelets
for the purpose of extending shelf life, destroying potential
contaminating viruses and reducing space required for storage
of blood stocks. The committee recognizes the potential of this
technology in treating combat casualties and encourages
continued funding of this research.
Commandant's warfighting laboratory
The budget request included $24.2 million in PE 63640M,
including $3.5 million for the Commandant of the Marine Corps
Warfighting Laboratory. The committee recommends an increased
authorization of $5.0 million for this initiative.
Communications technology
The budget request included $56.2 million in PE 62232N to
continue development of key communications technologies for
air, ship and submarine platforms. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million for support of wireless and satellite
communications research in the areas of integrated antenna
systems, communications hardware design, communication
algorithm development and high-frequency device modeling and
measurements.
Composite engineered materials
The committee supports research and development of new long
life, low maintenance materials to address the future needs of
naval shore facility maintenance and repair. The committee
recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 62234N to be
matched with an equal or greater level of private sector in a
dual-use partnership for material research that includes coal
and/or pitch derived carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic
engineered lumber.
Cooperative engagement capability
The budget request included $164.5 million in PE 63755N to
continue development of the cooperative engagement capability
(CEC), focusing on the development of shipboard and airborne
cooperative engagement systems (CES), initial operational test
and evaluation of shipboard CES, and development of organic
integrated logistic support for the CES. The committee
recognizes the CEC as a top priority program for the Navy and
for the Department of Defense. The committee notes the superb
results of the Mountain Top experiment and demonstration of the
ability of CEC to provide a common tactical engagement picture
to ground, sea, and air systems. The committee urges the
continued acceleration and expansion of joint service
integration efforts, including application to the Airborne
Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft; Patriot and
Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile systems;
Marine Corps TPS-59 radar and HAWK missile system; and among
other efforts planned by the Navy. The committee recommends an
increase of $27.0 million for the CEC program.
CV-22 special operations tiltrotor aircraft
The budget request included $576.8 million in PE 64262N for
development of the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft to meet the medium
lift amphibious/vertical needs of the Marine Corps and the
special operations needs of the Special Operations Command
(SOCOM). The committee understands that the Navy and the SOCOM
have reached agreement on a program that will develop an
aircraft capable of meeting the SOCOM's needs for the CV-22.
The committee also understands that this program provides for
remanufacture of a MV-22 test aircraft to CV-22 standards for
test and evaluation, rather than providing a new aircraft off
the production line. This represents a significant challenge
for the program office to complete the CV-22 program with the
agreed on capabilities by the date of the required special
operations initial operational capability. Notwithstanding the
agreement between the Department of the Navy and SOCOM
Acquisition Executives, the committee considers this to be an
unacceptable risk to CV-22 program, and recommends an increase
to the authorization of $37.0 million for development of the
special operations variant of the V-22. The committee expects
the Secretary of the Navy to include the total of $47.0 million
required to complete the CV-22 test and evaluation aircraft in
the Navy's budget requests for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
CVX-78 technology development and demonstration
The budget request included $12.7 million in PE 63512N for
carrier systems development, including $8.3 million for
development and demonstration of technologies that may be used
in the future aircraft carrier (CVX-78), now planned to begin
construction contract award in fiscal year 2006. To accelerate
development and demonstration of technologies for the CVX-78
and to establish a more reasonable ramp to ship design,
component development, and the production decision for the CVX-
78, the committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million to
the budget request. Based on information provided by the
Department of the Navy, the committee expects that the
increased authorization would be used for development of
technologies for advanced aircraft launch systems, and advanced
armor concepts, integrated topside design, initial computing
plant systems architecture analysis, and development of
advanced modeling and simulation tools for analysis of ship
alternatives.
Doppler sonar velocity log
The committee recommends an additional authorization of
$1.0 million in PE 64562N for evaluation of a commercially
available, non-developmental doppler sonar velocity log as a
potential replacement for standard Navy electromagnetic logs on
next generation submarines and surface ships.
Dredge spoil disposal
One of the elements of the Department's mobilization plan
is the assurance of the continuous availability and expeditious
use of port facilities. The Navy cites 15 port locations that
will require dredging in the next 15 years which will result in
the generation of an estimated 44 million cubic yards of dredge
material from both construction and maintenance dredging. Of
this amount, approximately eight million cubic yards are
estimated to be contaminated and require specialized disposal
or reclamation, both of which are extremely costly.
The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE
62233N to investigate potential low cost alternatives to the
current methods of disposal or reclamation of dredge spoils.
The investigation should consider a continuing program of
investigation with the Army Corps of Engineers and other
relevant agencies.
Explosive ordnance disposal
The budget request included $7.3 million in PE 64654N for
the joint services Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
development program. The program provides for the technical
development and validation of EOD render-safe procedures for
all known domestic and foreign conventional and nuclear
ordnance. The committee recommends an increase to the
authorization of $1.1 million for the accelerated development
of EOD procedures for countering high threat unexploded
ordnance found in the field.
Fixed distributed system
The budget request included $35.2 million in PE 64784N for
continued development of the Distributed Surveillance System.
The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million to the
budget request for a Fixed Distributed System commercial-off-
the-shelf/non-development initiative fiber optics upgrade.
Free electron laser
The budget for fiscal year 1996 included $8.5 million in PE
62111N to continue design, fabrication, and activation of a one
kilowatt average power free electron laser operating in the
infrared spectrum for evaluation for ship defense. The
committee recommends $9.0 million for fiscal year 1997 to
continue this effort.
Helicopter ground proximity warning systems
The budget request included $24.7 million in PE 64215N for
engineering and manufacturing systems development of joint
service and Navy standard avionics components and subsystems.
The committee is aware that helicopter ground proximity warning
system (GPWS) technology is maturing into a useable end product
which has faired well in both developmental and operational
tests. Flight tests of GPWS have demonstrated a real potential
for GPWS to warn pilots of an impending impact with the ground
during controlled flight, thus saving lives and aircraft. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.4 million in PE 64215N
to continue development of the GPWS in anticipation of its
fielding on Navy and Marine heavy and medium lift helicopters.
High speed anti-radiation missile
The committee is aware of shortfalls that exist in the
funding for the High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile program and
recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 25601N and an
additional $3.5 million in PE 27161F to accomplish risk
reduction efforts to be accomplished for the block VI program
and ensure successful fielding of the block V software.
High temperature superconductivity propulsion
The committee recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE
62121N, $2.0 million to investigate large-scale superconducting
applications for shipboard propulsion and auxiliary systems and
$1.5 million for the fabrication of proof-of-principle
cryogenic power devices.
Insensitive munitions
The budget request included $7.3 million in PE 63609N for
insensitive munitions advanced development. The committee is
concerned that this level of funding is insufficient to
ultimately provide adequate levels of safety aboard ships and
recommends an additional $3.0 million for fiscal year 1997.
Integrated surveillance system improvements
The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 24311N for
research and development support of the Integrated Undersea
Surveillance System (IUSS,) including $3.3 million for research
and development support of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System (SURTASS) and $10.7 million for the (IUSS) detection/
classification system. The committee recommends an increase of
$22.1 million to the budget request to continue development and
integration of SURTASS twin line arrays, reduction in the size
of transmit arrays, fiber optic array development; expanding
the frequency processing capability, and sea test of these
developments, for the low frequency array program and
development of more reliable low frequency active transmitters;
and for adoption of SURTASS software algorithms for submarine
sonar systems.
Joint target support system testbed
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees agreed to
an additional authorization of $4.0 million in PE 24229N to
initiate development of a joint targeting support system
testbed (JTSST) for demonstration of potential joint targeting
operations. The conferees expected that the results of the
initial JTSST study and follow-on demonstrations would
contribute to the definition of long-term objectives,
guidelines, and schedule milestones for convergence of the
Navy/Marine Corps tactical aircraft mission planning systems
and the Air Force mission support system, and lead to the
development of a joint mission planning system architecture for
the military services. The conferees directed the Secretary of
Defense to report to the Congressional defense committees, as
soon as possible (but no later that the submission of the
fiscal year 1998 budget request), the Department's plan for
implementing the recommendations that resulted from the study.
The committee has not yet received the Secretary's report, and
in the absence of that report recommends an increase of $8.0
million to the fiscal year 1997 budget request to continue
development and demonstration of the JTSST.
Link 16 integration
The budget request included $6.7 million in PE 64231N to
continue development of the Navy Tactical Command System-Afloat
(NTCS-A). The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million
for development of an integrated two-way Link 16 processing
capability in the Joint Maritime Command Information System
(JMCIS) software. Integration of two-way Link 16 with all-
source intelligence fusion will provide a common tactical
picture between weapon systems and command, control,
communications and intelligence (C3I) systems and will permit
the exchange of tactical data with the C3I systems of the other
military services and U.S. NATO allies.
The budget also included $37.3 million in PE 25604N for
development of improvements in tactical data links in
operational Navy systems. The committee recommends an increase
of $11.6 million in PE 25604N for further development of Link
16 and related tactical data link programs for surface ship
applications; $13.6 million in Other Procurement, Navy; and
$2.2 million in Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN 0205604N
4B7N) to accelerate the installation of Link 16 tactical data
links in AEGIS surface combatants. Elsewhere in this report the
committee has recommended similar measures to accelerate the
development and fielding of Link 16 capability in tactical and
bomber aircraft.
Littoral warfare advanced technology demonstration
The budget request included $43.6 million in PE 63747N for
undersea warfare advanced technology development. The committee
encourages the Navy to continue its efforts in the development
and demonstration of advanced technologies for support of joint
littoral warfare. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million to the budget request for at-sea demonstration and
evaluation of broad band, low low frequency active (LLFA)
acoustic technology for the detection of quiet, slow moving
submarines operating in the widely variable environment of the
world's littoral regions. Of the $53.6 million authorized, $3.0
million is to be used only for at-sea testing of commercial-
off-the-shelf, multipulse LLFA technology.
Maritime avionics subsystems and technology program
The budget request did not include specific funding for the
maritime avionics subsystems and technology (MAST) program.
MAST is a program which focuses on the development of
scaleable, open, fault-tolerant and common avionics
architectures, and was a fiscal year 1995 ``new start''. In the
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees authorized $10.0 million
to continue the MAST program and recommended that the Secretary
of the Navy consider requirements for continuation of the MAST
program in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The committee
believes that the Navy must continue to place emphasis on the
development of advanced avionics architectures and systems and
recommends an increased authorization of $10.0 million in PE
63217N to continue the MAST program in fiscal year 1997.
Because of the congressional interest that has been expressed
in this program and the importance of advanced avionics
architectures to future aircraft systems, the committee expects
the Secretary of the Navy to include funding for the program in
the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Medical mobile monitor
The delivery of state-of-the-art, cost effective, medical
care to deployed forces continues to be a top priority for the
committee. A key to supporting this priority is the development
and deployment of portable technologies to assist physicians
and other medical personnel in the diagnosis and treatment of
injuries and illness. The committee is aware of technologies
that can provide vital sign monitoring that can be interfaced
with portable personal computers already being acquired by the
military services, and are logistically interfaced to existing
military communications systems. The committee recommends an
additional $4.0 million in PE 63706N to develop prototypes for
mission critical deployments.
Microwave power module research
The committee notes the progress made with the tri-service
vacuum electronics research program which resulted from the
1990 Special Technology Area Review (STAR) conducted by the
Department's Advisory Group on Electron Devices. This program
has advanced the development of microwave power modules (MPMs),
which are revolutionary devices linking advances in solid-state
and vacuum-electronics radio frequency power amplification
technologies. The effective performance of our military forces
now and in the near future is irrevocably linked to the
performance and availability of microwave tubes to provide the
high frequency, high power required for radars and satellite
communications.
The committee is concerned that the Department's declining
investment in MPM design and application research is both
threatening the industry and denying the military of the wider
variety of microwave tube designs for emerging systems. The
committee recommends that the Department vigorously review its
research and industrially funded developments to ensure that an
appropriate balance of its electronics investment is made. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
on its MPM findings to the Congressional defense committees
prior to submission of the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Mobile off-shore base
The budget request included $9.2 million in PE 63238N to
continue concept development of the mobile off-shore base
(MOBS). The committee has repeatedly expressed its concern
about the potential cost of the MOBS program, which has been
based upon estimates that a single MOBS system could cost
approximately $2.0 billion and that the next step in the MOBS
program, an advanced concept technology demonstration, could
cost an estimated $700.0 million. The committee notes that the
Secretary of Defense has not reported to the Congressional
defense committees the plan and schedule for incorporating MOBS
into the defense acquisition board process and accomplishing a
Milestone O review, as was directed in the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450). The committee understands that MOBS program
funds have been identified by the Navy as a source for various
fiscal year 1996 unprogrammed funding requirements and that the
Navy is not seriously considering continuation of the MOBS
program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of
$9.2 million in the budget request.
Molecular design
The committee is aware of the initiatives of the Office of
Naval Research (ONR) in molecular synthesis and processing
research, making it possible to tailor new materials, atom by
atom, to achieve a desired set of properties. Molecular
manipulation at the atomic level into material nanostructures
requires a crosscut of biochemists, inorganic chemists,
physicists, and molecular biologists which can lead to a
``culture shift'' revolutionizing material science. The
committee commends ONR for its leadership in this nationally
important program. The committee recommends an additional $10.0
million in PE 61153N for continuation of the program in
molecular design.
Naval joint surveillance and targeting attack radar system
The budget request included no funding for providing U.S.
Naval forces the ability to receive, process, or utilize the
Joint Surveillance and Attack Radar System (JSTARS) moving
target indicator (MTI) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system.
The JSTARS MTI will soon reach initial operating
capability. However, neither the Air Force nor Navy is
adequately prepared to make efficient use of the JSTARS
product. As a result, neither will be able to effectively
utilize the advanced, standoff weapons that will soon be
fielded to attack large numbers of mobile targets. In the Air
Force, the key technical limitation is the requirement to use
low-capacity and unreliable voice communications to provide
target and threat information to attack aircraft. The Air Force
is equipping JSTARS platforms with Link 16 and appropriate
message sets, but until this year showed little interest in
procuring data links sets for its ground attack aircraft.
The Navy, in contrast, is already committed to procuring
Link 16 capabilities for all of its tactical aircraft, but has
shown no appreciation of the enormous improvements that JSTARS
could make to Navy interdiction capabilities.
Furthermore, the Navy is seeking approval for so-called
``arsenal'' ships based in large part on their presumed ability
to help halt massed attacks with missiles such as the Tomahawk.
However, the Navy has almost no ability to acquire moving
targets at long range, pass the data to Tomahawk mission
planning cells, and update the missiles in flight as target
dispositions change. While the Tomahawk program office has
proposed a program to correct these deficiencies (including
JSTARS, Link 16, and smart submunitions), the corporate Navy
has yet to define an end-to-end architecture.
The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in a
new PE 64770N to develop these capabilities aboard ship, and to
ensure that Navy attack aircraft can receive and display JSTARS
Link 16 data for use in standoff weapons targeting. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report
to the Congress on the status of this initiative by April 15,
1997, which includes an estimate of the total funding required
to equip appropriate Navy ships, aircraft, and missiles with a
JSTARS targeting capability.
Naval surface fire support program
The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 63795N for
the naval surface fire support (NSFS) program. The committee is
pleased that the Navy has addressed the overall funding
shortfall in the NSFS program that was evident in previous
budget requests, and has provided an increased level of funding
for the program through the period of the future years defense
plan. The committee notes the near-term focus of the program on
upgrading the capability of existing Mark 45 5-inch gun systems
and on the development and demonstration of an extended range
guided projectile (ERGM) which would incorporate advanced, low
cost global positioning system/inertial navigation system (GPS/
INS) guidance.
The committee is aware that some advanced gun concepts are
under consideration by the Navy's development community, but
notes little programmatic emphasis on the development and
demonstration of advanced gun propulsion and system
technologies that could be applied to next-generation gun
systems. To partially address this shortfall, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 62111N. The
committee believes that increased emphasis must be placed on
this area in future budget requests.
The committee believes that the advanced GPS/INS guidance
and control technology is absolutely key to the NSFS program.
The success of this program, especially in terms of
affordability, can be significantly enhanced by micro-electro-
mechanical systems (MEMS) technology used in the guidance unit.
MEMS technology has the potential of significantly reducing the
cost of the GPS/INS guidance unit for ERGM and for other
Department of Defense programs. The committee recommends an
increased authorization of $5.0 million in PE 63795N to build
on the Navy's guidance risk reduction program; accelerate
development and qualification of MEMS-based GPS/INS guidance
and control; and ensure the availability of that technology for
the ERGM production program and for other guided munitions,
rocket, and missile programs.
Navy manufacturing technology (MANTECH)
The committee encourages the continuation of programs
currently funded in the MANTECH account designed to demonstrate
the effectiveness of comprehensive career analysis and
retraining models for military and civilian personnel who have
been or will be terminated as a consequence of base closure
decisions.
Navy mine countermeasures research
The committee notes the significance to the Navy's mine
countermeasures program of the oceanography program that is
discussed elsewhere in this report. The committee encourages
the Secretary of the Navy to consider the establishment of a
mine warfare undersea research program at the Mine Warfare
Center of Excellence that could promote oceanographic research
in areas of significance to the mine warfare program and
capitalize on the integrated efforts of the center, industry,
and academia.
Ocean nuclear dumping monitoring program
For decades, nuclear capable countries have dumped low
level nuclear waste into the oceans as a means of disposal.
This practice has ceased in recent years with exception of the
States of the former Soviet Union (FSU) who have continued to
dispose of radioactive materials in the northern seas,
particularly in the Arctic. It was revealed in a Military
Research and Development Subcommittee hearing that the FSU had
discontinued ocean dumping in the hope that Western assistance
would provide alternative disposal technology and facilities.
However, such assistance has been slow in coming. The committee
is concerned that without sufficient international assistance,
the FSU will have no alternative other than the resumption of
open ocean disposal.
Since the effect of undersea disposal of nuclear material
is not known, the committee directs the Office of Naval
Research to continue its assessment program and employ other
agency assistance to monitor ocean dumping activity, assess
impacts on ocean health, and ice structures, and other national
security elements. The committee recommends an increase of
$10.0 million in PE 62435N and an increase of $2.5 million in
PE 63716D for these purposes.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Congressional defense committees not later than February 1,
1997 on activities to coordinate international assistance to
the FSU to find and implement an effective program for disposal
of nuclear waste stockpiled and generated during Cold War
activities.
Ocean research partnerships program
Knowledge of the ocean environment is essential for
successful military operations in both the open seas and in the
increasingly important littoral zone. Ocean acoustic paths are
strongly affected by surface and bottom characteristics,
currents, temperature, and other factors. In addition, the
effects of oceanographic phenomenon on climatology, both
diurnal and long-term, is becoming better understood and
predicted with degrees of accuracy that can impact future
military strategic planning. Many advanced weapons systems in
use today require accurate and timely environmental data to
effectively strike military targets. Therefore, by remaining on
the leading edge of oceanographic science, naval forces can
better use the ocean environment for military advantage.
Given the continued funding pressures for critical
oceanographic survey and research efforts, the committee
recognizes that non-military oceanographic capabilities exist
which, if leveraged, could also benefit or satisfy military
requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 247) that would establish a National Oceanographic
Partnership Program for the purpose of leveraging all U.S.
oceanographic efforts to the benefit of the military. For
example, under this provision, the Navy would be able to
leverage the existing university oceanographic fleet to help
reduce its ocean survey backlog requirements of 240 ship-years.
This approach would expand the Navy's survey effort and
concurrently provide much needed research by academia who could
not otherwise afford the voyages.
While the committee recognizes that knowledge and mastery
of the oceans and its littorals are fundamental to naval
operations, numerous non-defense benefits are derived from
oceanographic research. For this reason, the Oceanographic
Partnership Program would also enhance ongoing survey and
research efforts of universities and industries involved in
oceanographic survey and research.
The committee finds that it is important that the
components of the oceanographic community within the United
States (university, government, and industry) maintain a close
working relationship to meet common national goals and provide
new capabilities. Therefore, the Partnership Program would
establish the following goals and initiatives:
(1) Establish a National Oceanographic Leadership
Council to coordinate national oceanography programs,
partnerships and facilities;
(2) Identify and build partnerships to leverage
resources among government, civil, academic,
industrial, allied and international oceanographic
organizations.
(3) Coordinate policy efforts of all federal
activities involved in oceanographic surveys and
research to maximize current financial investments and
ensure the wisest use of resources;
(4) Ensure the future of oceanographic research by
focusing recruiting, educating, and training a highly
skilled military and civilian work force which
complements all aspects of oceanography education,
including at-sea training and experience on board Navy
and university oceanographic survey and research ships;
(5) Preserve a robust ``at-sea'' research and survey
capability for the expressed purpose of expediting
naval survey and research in littoral regions deemed
critical;
(6) Provide a comprehensive plan to ensure
development of oceanography science and technology, and
modeling and simulation programs throughout government,
university and industry will be available to support
military requirements in the future;
(7) Create a national ocean data and remote sensing
center to centralize all unclassified, classified and
sensitive compartmented information databases, models
and product synthesis capabilities in support of
national oceanographic requirements, and
(8) Create a national natural littoral laboratory
that would lead to a deeper fundamental understanding
of these areas and act as surrogate models of foreign
coastal zones for military and research purposes.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an authorization of
an additional $15.0 million in PE 61153N and an additional
$15.0 million in PE 62435N for the National Oceanography
Partnership Program. The committee recommends that these funds
be used for the following purposes:
(1) $5.0 million to promote partnerships between
industry, universities and government agencies in
support of the goals outlined for the program. All
partnerships are to be cost shared by participating
organizations and awarded after peer-review.
(2) $7.5 million to fund 1\1/2\ ship-years in the
university research ship fleet to supplement U.S. Navy
oceanographic survey efforts. University survey efforts
should be conducted in international waters in an area
considered high priority by the Navy.
(3) $2.0 million to create a Federal Ocean Data and
Ocean Sensing Center for centralized ocean sensor
information (unclassified, classified sources) for
analysis and modeling by all U.S. Government and
government-sponsored civilian research. On-line
connectivity to databases approved for public release
shall be provided. Site selection shall be determined
by the council.
(4) $2.0 million to create a National Natural
Littoral Laboratory to coordinate U.S. Navy's modeling
and oceanographic analysis effort in support of unique
and emerging littoral warfare requirements.
(5) $1.0 million to continue the Medea Ocean Panel to
declassify and disseminate the Navy's ocean data.
(6) $2.5 million to create educational and cross-
decking opportunities; recruit, educate, and train a
highly skilled military and civilian scientific work
force; and complement military and civilian
oceanography education with at-sea training and
experience on board Navy and university oceanographic
survey and research ships.
(7) $500,000 to establish a program office to
administer partnership activities.
(8) The balance of funding shall be utilized for
other leveraged oceanographic activity that provides
military benefits as well as a strengthened research
program as determined by the council.
The committee urges the council to explore the potential
for international partnerships in the same thesis as has been
set forth in the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
that would be established herein.
Power electronics building blocks
The budget request for the power electronics building
blocks (PEBB) program contained $6.5 million. The committee
believes that the opportunity exists to manage electric power
systems efficiently and provide reliable uninterruptible power
with a tenfold reduction in size, weight and cost of military
systems. The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in
PE 62121N for the PEBB program for the development of
prototyping tools and simulations to evaluate performance and
reconfigurable ship electric power systems.
Precision targeting and location
The committee is aware of the potential vulnerability of
the global positioning system (GPS) signals to collateral
interference and intentional jamming. The committee recommends
an additional $3.5 million in PE 64270N for the demonstration
of a flyable prototype of a currently available technology
capable of rapid, precision location of sources of GPS
interference to assess the technical feasibility and utility of
such a targeting system on operational aircraft and unmanned
aerial vehicles.
Safety and survivability
The committee recognizes the Navy's Office of Safety and
Survivability (OSS) for its high leveraged return on investment
by supporting the timely assessment and insertion of commercial
safety and survivability technology and systems into the Navy's
operational units. As an example, the OSS's non-developmental
item (NDI) program provided the leadership role in replacing
the 50-year-old oxygen breathing apparatus for shipboard
firefighting and accelerated the introduction of other critical
shipboard life safety items to the fleet at a significant cost
savings to the Navy. The committee recommends an additional
$2.0 million in PE 65864N to support ongoing NDI operational
assessments. Further, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) continues to examine high leverage technologies
for fire fighting and personnel protection. Accordingly, the
committee recommends as additional $4.0 million in PE 63226E
for the DARPA program.
SSBN security/survivability technology program
The budget request included $21.3 million in PE 11224N for
the SSBN Security and Survivability Program, a reduction of
$9.2 million from the amount authorized and appropriated for
the program in fiscal year 1996, and a two-thirds reduction in
the program since fiscal year 1993. In view of the critical
role of strategic deterrence in the U.S. national military
strategy provided by the U.S. SSBN force, the committee
considers this an imprudent reduction. The committee believes
that a sustained funding level of approximately $30.0 million
is required to maintain a credible SSBN security and
survivability program. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase to the budget request of $6.0 million, in addition to
the $2.0 million increase recommended as a part of the
committee's advanced submarine technology initiative. Further
guidance regarding the SSBN security program is contained in
the classified annex.
Standard missile ``Terrier'' target
The budget request included $1.6 million in PE 64366N for
development of improvements to the Standard missile. The
committee notes that the Navy's inventory of supersonic sea-
skimming targets (SSST) is insufficient to meet both test and
evaluation and fleet training needs. Development of a follow-on
SSST is necessary to ensure production units are available when
needed. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase to
the budget request of $8.0 million for a proof of concept
demonstration and evaluation of the potential effectiveness of
the Terrier missile as an SSST.
Submarine combat system multi-purpose processor
The budget request included $61.4 million in PE 64503N,
including $33.6 million for development of submarine sonar
improvements. The committee recommends an increase to the
budget request of $11.0 million for advanced development and
rapid introduction of Multipurpose Processor (MPP) technology
into the U.S. submarine fleet. The MPP is a clear success story
for the Small Business Innovative Research Program, for which
both the Navy and the developer should be commended. Using
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware and an open software
architecture, the MPP has capitalized on the exponential
improvement in commercial hardware and software to facilitate
rapid improvements in submarine acoustic data processing.
Fundamental to the MPP is the concept of protecting the Navy's
investment in processor software through software
transportability: the ability to transport new, advanced
software to existing hardware utilizing an open operating
system. The committee understands that the New Attack Submarine
Program and the Submarine Combat Systems Program have selected
the MPP as the cornerstone of sonar upgrades for the existing
SSN 688, 688I, and SSBN 726 class submarines.
Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures
The budget request included $87.0 million in PE 63502N for
development, demonstration, and validation of surface and
shallow water mine countermeasures. The committee recommends an
increase of $12.0 million in the budget request to accelerate
development of the integrated combat weapon system (ICWS).
Tactical electronic reconnaissance processing and evaluation system
The budget request included $2.5 million in PE 26313M for
upgrades to, and communications integration testing within the
Tactical Electronic Reconnaissance processing and evaluation
system (TERPES) system.
The committee is aware that TERPES is currently fielded to
Aviano Air Base in Italy and the Adriatic in support of multi-
service operations in Bosnia. The committee is also aware of
the unfunded and immediate need to improve TERPES
interoperability with the Global Command and Control System
(GCCS) and Tactical Air Mission Planning System (TAMPS).
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $855,000 to
provide required communications software and interoperability
upgrades.
Towed array receive system (TARS)
The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 25620N for
the surface anti-submarine warfare systems improvement program.
To address shortcomings in the Navy's capability for detecting
slow-moving diesel-electric submarines in shallow water, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to the budget
request for integration of the Navy's towed array receiving
system (TARS) upgrade in the AN/SQQ-89 surface ship sonar
suite.
Training systems development
The budget request included $36.7 million in PE 24571N for
Consolidated Training Systems Development, including $3.4
million for continued development of the Navy's Surface
Tactical Team Trainer and $6.0 million for development of
training and training devices systems. Overall, the budget
request represents a reduction of $29.2 million from the fiscal
year 1996 budget for development of Navy training systems. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to continue
integration and evaluation of the cryptologic systems trainer
in the Battle Force Tactical Training system, leading to a
decision of procurement of the trainer.
Undersea weapons advanced technology demonstration
The budget request included $43.6 million in PE 63747N for
undersea warfare advanced technology development. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million for development and
demonstration of advanced technology prototype improvements to
current undersea weapon systems, including environmentally
compliant alternative torpedo fuels and advanced broadband
homing system technologies and software algorithms to improve
the countermeasure resistance of U.S. undersea weapons.
Undersea weapons technology
The budget request recommended $33.9 million in PE 62633N
for exploratory development of undersea warfare weapon
technology. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million to accelerate the development and demonstration of
technologies applicable to quick reaction anti-submarine
weapons for close-range engagements and to defensive systems
for protecting surface ships and submarines against torpedo
attack.
Wide bandgap semiconductors
The committee recognizes the potential of wide bandgap
semiconductors, that operate at higher power, higher frequency
and temperature and have the ability to operate in high
radiation environments. The committee recommends an additional
$10.0 million in PE 62234N for a wide bandgap electronics
program that involves industry and academia and that targets
gallium nitride and silicon carbide material growth,
characterization, surface behavior and device development.
Air Force RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $14,417.5
million for Air Force RDT&E. The committee recommends
authorization of $13,271.1 million, a reduction of $1,146.4
million, for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Air
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the
table and in the classified annex to this report.
Items of Special Interest
Airborne warning and control system
The budget request includes $18.3 million of the $57.6
million in PE 27417F for the Airborne Warning and Control
System aircraft to correct deficiencies that reduce aircraft
availability. The Air Force indicates that significant
improvements could be made in aircraft availability,
performance and life cycle cost savings achieved if
reliability, maintainability and reengining initiatives
approved by the Secretary of Defense could begin in fiscal year
1997. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $64.2
million for these purposes as recommended by the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force.
Aircraft ejection seats
The committee continues to be concerned that inadequate
emphasis is being placed on aircrew protection for light-weight
crew members, ejections at higher air speeds, and low altitude-
high sink rate ejections. Leadership is also lacking within the
Department of Defense to ensure military service coordinated
programs and adequate emphasis on correcting deficiencies in
currently fielded systems. It is incredulous that the Air
Force's recently published ``New World Vistas'' report
recommended the Air Force stop ejection seat research and
development.
The committee therefore provides an additional $5.0 million
in PE 63231F and $5.0 million in 64264N for testing of
potential upgrades to current ejection seats and an additional
$3.5 million in PE 64706F to evaluate the ACES II ejection seat
with stabilization, limb restraints, and expanded crew member
accommodation. The committee directs continued tests on
existing Navy, USMC, and Air Force front-line trainer and
tactical aircraft ejection seats for the purpose of verifying
their predicted performance and identifying problems and
required corrective action. In addition, up to $2.0 million of
the additional authorization in PE 64706F is authorized for a
competitively awarded study to gain additional information
regarding the integration of tactical aircrew-worn
technologies, such as helmets with helmet mounted visual
displays, chemical biological defense equipment, and sustained
acceleration protection with upgraded ejection seats. All
testing should be conducted at the most economical and readily
available government or commercial test facility. In conducting
these tests, high priority shall continue to be given to the
sustainment of the U.S. ejection seat industrial base. Finally,
the committee strongly believes that the Air Force should
continue its ejection seat research and development.
B-1B bomber
The budget request contained $220.9 million in PE 64226F
for research and development of the B-1B bomber. The committee
continues to strongly support a modern, capable long-range
bomber force, and recognizes that the B-1B will serve as the
workhorse of such a force well into the 21st century. In order
to enhance the warfighting capabilities of the B-1B, the
committee recommends an additional $8.3 million for the
defensive system upgrade.
B-2 conventional capability enhancements
The budget request contained $528.4 million in PE 64240F
for continued engineering and conversion of existing B-2 test
aircraft to the combat configuration.
Although the Department plans to equip the current B-2
fleet with a conventional precision guided munitions (PGM)
capability, the committee is concerned with the slow pace of
this effort. Furthermore, the committee understands that the
Air Force has identified initiatives which would provide
enhanced information distribution capability and improved
conventional weapons accuracy but these efforts are not funded
in the fiscal year 1997 request. Consequently, the committee
recommends $818.4 million, an increase of $290.0 million in PE
64240F, and directs the Air Force to use funds appropriated
pursuant to this additional authorization only for acceleration
of PGM integration and enhanced conventional capability for the
existing B-2 fleet.
Cryoelectronics for tactical systems
The committee is aware of the potential payoff in
electrical circuit efficiency, size and capacity if low
temperature circuits such as precision band pass filters can be
cost-effectively developed, manufactured, and operated.
The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
62203F for cryogenic power devices.
Digital data link
The budget request includes $11.1 million in PE 64754F for
a digital data link system known as ``Link 16'' that provides
high capacity, jam resistant communications and navigation
information among aircraft that greatly improve situational
awareness of the tactical environment, mission effectiveness,
and significantly reduces the likelihood of combat fratricide.
The committee recommends an additional $55.7 million in fiscal
year 1997 to accelerate fielding of this capability in F-15E,
B-1, F-16, and RC-135 aircraft as recommended by the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force.
In addition, the committee is concerned that the Air Force
has not given adequate consideration to the significantly
increased capability potentially provided to the F-16 for
beyond visual range weapons employment through the integration
of the APX-113, already developed in the F-16 mid-life upgrade
program. The committee therefore directs that the Secretary of
the Air Force provide a report to the committee by not later
than October 1, 1996, detailing the requirement, options and
plan, to include schedule and cost, for providing advanced
identification friend or foe or similar capabilities for its
tactical aircraft.
Electronic countermeasures
The budget request provided no funding for the F-15E ALQ-
135 electronic countermeasures system, lower band, because of
fiscal constraints even though the development is 90 percent
complete. The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million
in PE 27134F for completion of RDT&E for the system, to include
integration, developmental flight test, and modification of
intermediate level test equipment as recommended by the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force.
Global positioning system sensor
The budget request included $13.6 million in program
element 35913F for nuclear proliferation and detection sensors
aboard the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite system.
The committee recommends an additional $13.9 million to be used
for electromagnetic pulse (EMP) sensor and ground system
development. This added capability will assist in detecting
foreign nuclear tests and, therefore, in monitoring a
comprehensive test ban treaty. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to include sufficient resources in
the fiscal year 1998 budget submission to continue this
important project.
Helmet mounted displays
The budget request included $19.7 million for the Air Force
and Navy for the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System.
Integration of weapon systems and situational awareness data
into a pilot's helmet gives significant leverage to operational
capability. With a relatively small amount of additional
funding the program schedule can be advanced by nearly two
years. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
million for PE 64201F.
Joint air-to-surface stand-off missile
The budget request included $198.6 million in PE 27325F for
development of the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile
(JASSM). The committee supports the budget request. The
committee also shares the belief expressed in the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept
104-450) that JASSM could evolve from an existing, or planned
interim weapons systems. If the Department of Defense believes
that a new weapon development is appropriate, the new
development program should be based on technologies that have
already been developed in the Tri-Service Standoff Attack
Missile (TSSAM) program, or in other existing or planned stand-
off weapons systems, including technologies relating to low and
very low observability and stealth.
The committee believes that while affordability is a
central consideration in the development of JASSM, it expects
the program to yield a superior capability which includes a
highly maneuverable, low- or very low-observable airframe,
highly lethal warhead, and precision guidance. The committee
believes that this capability is necessary for Air Force bomber
and Navy carrier strike aircraft now and well into the 21st
Century. The JASSM development must be a truly joint program,
in which the Air Force and the Navy work closely together to
meet the requirements of the two services.
Joint situational awareness system
The committee is aware of the significant progress being
made in providing theater-wide situational awareness to joint
force decision-makers through fusion systems like the Joint
Situational Awareness System (JSAS). However, the committee is
concerned about the possible duplication of effort in other
programs. Accordingly, the committee directs that no funds be
obligated for the Battlefield Awareness System (BAS) until JSAS
has been fielded and evaluated to determine whether further
development of the BAS is required.
Landing systems
The budget request included $3.9 million in PE 35114F for
air traffic control, approach, and landing systems. The Air
Force and Navy are currently studying alternatives to determine
the best option for future precision landing systems using
commercial off the shelf technology or systems that would offer
minimal development cost for military use. The committee
recommends an additional $5.0 million to complete the
development of the precision landing systems receiver and
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the results
of the Joint Precision Approach Alternatives Study to the
Congressional defense committees upon its completion, currently
scheduled for September 1997.
Measurement and signal intelligence
The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
31315F for developing an integrated measurement and signature
intelligence (MASINT) software maintenance and training
facility.
Metal fatigue monitoring
The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE
63112F for the metal fatigue monitoring program.
Milstar automated communication management system
The budget request included $700.3 million for the Milstar
satellite communications system. The committee recommends an
additional $20.0 million in PE 64479F for the automated
communication management system (ACMS), which will perform
essential network planning and management of Milstar
communications resources for a wide range of users. The Army's
tactical terminal field operators and planners, in particular,
will benefit from a capability to directly task the satellite
constellation, move antennae, and change network
configurations. ACMS will enable all users to fully utilize the
flexibility and responsiveness of the Milstar system.
Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle
The budget request included $198.6 million in PE 64851F for
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD). The budget request did not
include funds for the safety enhanced reentry vehicle (SERV)
program, however.
The Minuteman guidance replacement program (GRP) currently
preserves the option of incorporating the Mark-21 safety
enhanced reentry vehicle on Minuteman III if Peacekeeper
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are retired.
However, no hardware or software prototyping has been
accomplished to date for this purpose as part of GRP. In fact,
integrating this effort with current design and development
work in GRP would save money and provide greater confidence in
the overall system design and performance. Therefore, the
committee recommends an additional $13.7 million in PE 64851F
to perform hardware and software prototyping and testing
associated with incorporation of the Mark-21 reentry vehicle on
the Minuteman III ICBM. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to submit a report to the committee not later
than September 15, 1996, on the Air Force's plan to deploy the
Mark 21 reentry vehicle on Minuteman and on the status of
funding for this effort.
Missile conversion
The National Space Transportation Policy requires Secretary
of Defense approval for the use of excess ballistic missiles
for the launch of U.S. Government research and development
payloads into orbit. The converted excess ballistic missiles
would provide relatively low cost flight opportunities for
research and scientific payloads as well as training and
readiness opportunities for military personnel.
The committee views with concern the significant delay that
has occurred in the Secretary of Defense's approval of a pilot
program requested by the Secretary of the Air Force that would
convert five excess ballistic missiles for such purposes. This
delay has imposed an unnecessary planning burden on potential
users.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
immediately approve, as a pilot case, the use of five excess
Minuteman missiles to launch small government research and
development satellites and encourages the Secretary to delegate
future approval authority for all similar uses to the Commander
of the Space and Missile Systems Center.
Munitions adaptor kit
The Air Force is currently conducting tests as the result
of a competitive evaluation, of a promising non-developmental
adaptor kit for in-inventory munitions that could provide low
cost increased stand-off employment and accurate guidance
capability to current unguided direct attack munitions. There
is no budget request for fiscal year 1997 to conduct
developmental or operational testing should these tests prove
successful and the Air Force concludes further development is
warranted. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional
$28.5 million in PE 64602F, for further developmental and
operational testing of 90 adaptor kits with in-inventory
munitions on F-16, F-15, B-1, and/or B-52 aircraft. Testing
should provide full envelope aircraft certification,
statistical verification accuracy, operational validation of
weapon use and mission planning verification.
National polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system
The budget request included $34.0 million in PE 63434F for
the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS). As a result of significant delays in the
schedule for this converged national weather satellite program,
the committee recommends $19.0 million for NPOESS, a reduction
of $15.0 million.
Reusable launch vehicles
The committee is committed to supporting the potential of
``triple-use'' reusable launch vehicle technologies that
demonstrate the potential of high payoff benefits to military,
civil, and commercial space launch capability and associated
sectors of the U.S. industrial base. The committee supports the
NASA-DOD-industry team effort for a reusable launch vehicle
program by recommending an additional $50.0 million in PE
63401F for fiscal year 1997.
Sensor fuzed weapon
The committee recommends an additional $19.1 million in PE
27320F for the sensor fuzed weapon as recommended by the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force to accelerate pre-planned product
improvement.
Space and missile rocket propulsion technology
The budget request included $46.0 million for rocket
propulsion technology, including the Integrated High Payoff
Rocket Technology (IHPRT) initiative. The committee commends
the Department for its leadership in establishing a government-
industry cost shared program for rocket and missile
technologies similar of the successful Integrated High Payoff
Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program. However, if the
IHPRT initiative is to be successful, all government agencies
as well as private contractors that expect to benefit from
government programs must be willing to be active participants
in the program. The committee notes that the Army is the only
military service not actively participating in the program and
cautions that in the future the committee will not accept
military services conducting totally independent rocket
technology development efforts. The committee also notes the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's interest in
integrating elements of its rocket technology program with
IHPRT and supports this initiative. The committee recommends an
additional $19.0 million for launch vehicle and tactical
missile rocket technology programs to be authorized as follows:
$7.0 million for PE 62601F, project 1011; $5.0 million for PE
63302F, projects 4373, 6339, and 6340; $2.0 million in PE
63302F for disposal of highly toxic obsolete pentaborane rocket
fuel; $3.0 million for PE 62111N and $2.0 million for PE
63217N, project R0447. The additional authorization shall only
be used for direct support costs of these technology projects.
Space architect
The budget request included $15.0 million in PE 63855F for
the space architect's office. The committee is disappointed
that the Secretary of Defense would create yet another office
to do studies on space architecture without consolidating the
responsibility for military and intelligence space requirements
in one office. The committee finds the justification material
inadequate to justify the request and recommends a reduction of
$4.0 million to include any ``pass-through'' funding intended
for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for which there was
no request.
Further, the committee is following with interest the DOD
Space Architect's on-going reviews of the appropriate military
satellite communications (milsatcom) architecture and the
architecture for space control. The committee expects to be
kept apprised of progress during the conduct of these important
reviews. The committee also strongly urges the Architect to
consult closely with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command
during these reviews.
Space-based infrared system program
The budget request included $113.2 million for the low
component of the space-based infrared system (SBIRS) program
and $6.9 million for Cobra Brass in PE 63441F, and $173.3
million in PE 64441F for the high component. The committee
recommends $247.2 million, an increase of $134.0 million, for
SBIRS low (the Space and Missile Tracking System), $180.3
million, an increase of $7.0 million, for the high component,
and the requested amount for Cobra Brass.
The committee reaffirms support for the Space and Missile
Tracking System (SMTS) program baseline established in section
216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106). However, the committee is dismayed
by the Department's continued withholding of $51.0 million of
the total amount authorized and appropriated by Congress in
fiscal year 1996 for SMTS. These funds are needed to support
and implement the Department's own strategy of increasing
competition within the program. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to release these funds immediately.
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450) endorsed giving the Block
I SMTS a missile defense focus. The committee is interested in
learning more about how the Department has interpreted this
guidance. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report to the Congressional defense
committees on the functional allocation of requirements among
the highly-elliptical orbit (HEO), geosynchronous (GEO), and
low earth orbit (LEO) components of SBIRS. The report shall
describe the planned design configuration of the SMTS Block I
satellite constellation, and the HEO and GEO components,
including the extent to which each component will be capable of
performing portions of the missile warning, missile defense,
technical intelligence, and battlespace characterization
missions, and the assumed lifetime of these satellites. The
report shall be submitted not later than October 30, 1996.
Finally, the committee understands that the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council is reviewing the appropriate
level of system survivability and nuclear hardness for the
elements of the SBIRS program. The committee believes that
adequate nuclear hardness should be a design feature of the
SBIRS program, given the critical importance of assured
tactical warning/attack assessment for national decision
making. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
inform the committee promptly of the Department's plan for
providing a sufficient amount of nuclear hardness for the SBIRS
program. The Secretary is strongly urged to consult closely
with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command and the
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Strategic Command before rendering a
decision on this matter.
Test and evaluation investments
The committee recommends an additional $7.0 million in PE
64759F for wind tunnel and air induction system improvements
and engine test facility data acquisition and processing
systems.
Further, the committee is aware that the Air Force uses
different procedures and criteria for funding real property
maintenance (RPM) for its test and evaluation bases and
facilities than that used for those installations which receive
RPM funds through the operation and maintenance accounts. This
practice results in these bases getting significantly less in
RPM funding, as a percent of the facility present value,
annually for maintenance and repair of these facilities. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to fund the
RPM requirements of its test and evaluation facilities, using
the same procedures and criteria as that used for all other
bases. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
241) that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to use
the same procedures and criteria for allocating RPM to test and
evaluation installations as it does for its other non-test and
evaluation installations.
Variable stability in-flight simulator test aircraft
The committee recommends an additional $1.4 million in PE
64237F for the Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test
Aircraft program to complete and test phase I of the program.
Defense Agencies RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $8,672.8
million for Defense Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends
authorization of $9,406.4 million, an increase of $733.5
million, for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997
Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are
discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Common imagery ground/surface system
The budget request included $47.0 million in PE 35154D for
continued migration of the numerous ground stations to the
Common Imagery Ground/Surface System (CIGSS) compliant
standards.
The committee strongly supports both the technical
solutions and the management approach for migrating the various
imagery ground stations to the CIGSS configuration and
standards as outlined in the published handbook. The committee
is aware that insufficient funds are available in fiscal year
1997 to modify core components to ensure the CIGSS common,
interoperable baseline is achieved by fiscal year 1998. The
committee therefore recommends an additional $11.0 million for
this purpose. The committee directs the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office (DARO) to provide a report to the
Congressional defense and intelligence committees on
specifically how this funding would be used, and on how and
when the CIGSS baseline will be realized. The committee further
directs the DARO to ensure full funding for this program is
provided in future requests.
Command intelligence architecture program
The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 35898L for
the Command Intelligence Architecture Program (CIAP) program to
provide the unified commands with an intelligence planning
process that documents and links requirements, intelligence
operations and future intelligence capabilities.
The committee is pleased with the success of this effort
and, more so, by the fact that the Command and Control,
Communications and Computers Integration (C4I) Support Activity
(CISA) has expanded CIAP to include C4I, surveillance and
reconnaissance (C4ISR) programs. The committee endorses this
broader CIAP focus designed to maximize joint service
operations and intelligence support. In view of the expanded
role of the CIAP, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million to ensure the CIAP effort is fully expanded to all DOD
services and agencies.
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
(DEPSCoR)
The committee recommends continuation of the DEPSCoR
program to strengthen infrastructure, enhance research, and
develop human resources to assist the EPSCoR states to become
more competitive for regular research and training grants. The
committee recommends an additional $20.0 million in PE 61103D.
Defense mapping agency
The budget request included $100.0 million in PE 35139B for
continued research and development of Defense Mapping Agency
(DMA) production systems and capabilities.
The committee is aware of a recent Defense Science Board
(DSB) recommendation that DMA re-engineer its production
processes to focus on creating and maintaining digital
geospatial databases vice its current primary production of
paper maps. One of the DSB's most critical findings was that
DMA should focus its development funding on a course that
continues to provide for the near-term paper products, but that
provides an evolutionary path that moves the DMA to becoming a
center for maintaining digital products. While the committee
understands that DMA cannot discontinue map production in the
near-term, it does believe DMA must pursue a course for the
digital future. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission appears
to continue research and development focus on improved
production of government developed products, therefore the
committee recommends a $10.0 million reduction in new mapping,
charting and geodesy products. Of this reduction, none is to be
applied to the alternate source development effort. The
committee stresses its belief that DMA, as the DSB recommended,
should evolve to a digital geospatial product server vice a
paper product developer.
Defense modeling and simulation program
The budget request included $60.0 million in PE 63832D for
the Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office. The committee
recommends the budget request.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
continues to improve its management of modeling and simulation.
Establishment of service headquarters' modeling and simulation
management offices and their cooperation in inter-service
initiatives are commendable. Adoption of a common DOD-wide,
high level modeling and simulation architecture should
facilitate interoperability among the services and reduce the
proliferation of service-unique models. Efforts by the
Department to ensure that individual modeling and simulation
programs work cooperatively and support joint needs should
contribute to the establishment of a common modeling and
simulation framework for the evaluation and development of new
weapons systems concepts and force structure assessments, to
more effective intra-service and joint training, and to
operational planning. The interlinking of these new service
models and simulations, which are funded separately in the
service and joint budgets, means that the potential impact on
other service's efforts must be considered and coordinated
among the proponent activities when changes are considered in
individual service programs. The committee also notes that the
Department has designated modeling and simulation executive
agents in the Defense Mapping Agency, the Air Force, and the
Navy to support the common needs of the community in
coordinating and standardizing terrain, aerospace, and ocean
data bases.
Just as in the acquisition of materiel systems, the
committee considers modeling and simulation to be an area to
which acquisition reform initiatives may be applied. The
committee encourages the Department to adopt methods used
successfully within the commercial sector to keep pace with
rapidly evolving software technology. The committee believes
that the Department has made considerable strides in its
modeling and simulation management and will continue to monitor
the Department's program.
Defense nuclear agency
The budget request included $195.1 million in PE 62715H and
$26.2 million in PE 63711H for a total of $221.3 million for
the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA). The committee recommends a
total of $192.1 million in PE 62715H, a reduction of $3.0
million from the requested amount, and $26.2 million, the
requested amount, in PE 63711H.
The budget request included $6.0 million in PE 62715H for
the electrothermal (ETC) gun technology program, which supports
Navy and Army applied research in next-generation gun
technologies. During consideration of the fiscal year 1996
budget request for DNA, all four of the Congressional defense
committees recommended an increase of $4.0 million to the
agency's request of approximately $10.5 million for the ETC gun
technology program. The committee notes that DNA's fiscal year
1996 program plan for the ETC gun technology program fails to
reflect the $4.0 million in additional funding for the program
that was authorized and appropriated. The committee expects DNA
to use these funds for the purpose for which they were
authorized and appropriated and to sustain the ETC gun
technology program at a funding level of approximately $10.0
million per year through fiscal year 1998.
Section 217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) also provided $4.0
million to initiate a counterterrorist explosives research
program. The objective of this program was to make available to
U.S. law enforcement authorities DNA technology and expertise
in the prediction and analysis of explosive effects. The fiscal
year 1997 budget request did not include funds to continue the
program. The committee believes that the extensive data base
and expertise on nuclear and conventional weapons effects
acquired by the agency over the last fifty years constitute a
unique foundation for predicting explosive and blast effects
and for assisting forensic investigations of terrorist
incidents. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increased
authorization of $4.0 million in PE 62715H to continue the DNA
program. The committee further directs the Secretary to submit,
no later than February 28, 1997, a report to the Congressional
defense committees which provides recommendations for
continuation of the program and appropriate levels of funding
for the period covered by fiscal year 1998 budget request and
the future years defense plan.
The committee recommends that the Department take
additional steps to sustain nuclear expertise within the
military and civilian personnel of the Department. Archival of
data, manufacturing processes, and test procedures, while
important, cannot in themselves assure future nuclear
expertise. Immediate action should be taken by the Department
to establish attractive career paths, including formal
education and training, in the services and DOD civilian
workforce to ensure that the future nuclear deterrent can be
responsibly supported. Whereas DOE's stockpile stewardship and
management program focuses on the nuclear device itself, the
DOD effort should focus on the remaining components of the
nuclear weapon system and should be complementary rather than
duplicative of the DOE effort. The committee is encouraged by
and strongly supports the Alliance for Nuclear-Related Defense
Technologies in its efforts to sustain the scientific and
engineering skills underlying the nation's nuclear deterrent.
DNA, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and Phillips
Laboratory are commended for their initiative in creating the
Alliance to ensure that the nation retains its core
competencies in the nuclear-related defense technologies and
successfully passes this knowledge base and critical skills to
future nuclear defense-oriented scientists, engineers, and
weapon system developers. This effort is a timely response to
both an aging nuclear workforce and an aging nuclear deterrent.
The Alliance is encouraged to find ways of introducing relevant
science and technology to appropriate undergraduate and
graduate educational institutions, including making use of
scholarships and fellowships. Training programs for service and
industry personnel at DNA's Defense Nuclear Weapons School and
other Alliance organizations should also be explored. The
Departments of Defense and Energy are expected to build upon
the progress made to date by the Alliance.
Finally, the committee remains unconvinced of any technical
or ``defense conversion'' benefits that would accrue to the
United States from the Topaz International Program (project
AX). Therefore, the committee denies the $7.0 million request
for this project.
Digital battlefield medical x-ray system
The committee believes that current commercial development
of direct digital x-ray detection for mammography combined with
current telemedicine initiatives, offers a ``spin on''
opportunity to direct digital battlefield imaging to reduce
combat mortality through timely and accurate diagnosis and
earlier, more efficient treatment. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63226E to build a compact,
portable direct detection digital x-ray system with
telemedicine access, and to conduct evaluations of this
filmless technology.
Direct fuel cells
The committee recognizes the potential of carbonate-based
direct fuel cells for high efficiency power plants for future
naval ships. The committee recommends an additional $2.4
million in PE 63226E to complete the fixed base power plant
development and an additional $4.0 million in PE 63573N for
competing conceptual ship service power plant design studies.
Electric drive for combat vehicles
The committee believes that the next generation of military
vehicles will contain electric prime power and drive mechanism
for a number of reasons; among them arrangements, weight
savings, stealth and supportability. The committee believes
that there is a broader range of electric power applications
for military uses than have been requested in this budget. The
committee hopes to see this technology addressed in the fiscal
year 1998 budget request.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to seek
immediate release of fiscal year 1996 funding for these
technologies, which is being withheld by the Comptroller of the
Department of Defense and apply them to the continued
development of military electric vehicle technologies.
Electronic commerce resource centers
The budget request for electronic commerce resource centers
(ECRC) in PE 63739E is $20.7 million. The ECRC program has been
directed by the Department to support implementation of the
electronic commerce component of the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355). The committee
understands that the ECRC program has been very successful in
fostering innovative acquisition processes with industry,
especially small businesses, and the Department. The committee
believes that the ECRC concept should be expanded to facilitate
access to a broader range of industrial suppliers. The
committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE 63739E
for the creation of five new centers.
Electronic materials research
The committee understands the importance of advanced
materials for microchip modules that enhance miniaturization,
dissipate heat and reduce the cost of microcircuit
manufacturing. The committee recommends an additional $8.0
million in PE 62712E for Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) and
Chemical Vapor Composite (CVC) synthetic diamond.
Electro-optic camera framing technology
The committee believes there is demonstrated potential for
electro-optical (EO) framing technology with on-chip forward
motion compensation (FMC) for providing precision point target
imaging and location. The committee strongly supports the
continuation of this technology and the earliest application of
these sensors on manned and unmanned tactical reconnaissance
platforms.
The committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE
35154D for continuation of the EO framing technologies with on-
chip FMC. Specifically, $3.0 million is provided for the
operational insertion and testing of the medium altitude wide
area coverage ``step frame'' sensor, $2.2 million is provided
to develop enhanced data compression algorithms that provide
higher compression ratios and provide equal or better video/
image fidelity and at equal or higher throughput rates than
currently fielded technologies to support the ultra high
resolution EO framing reconnaissance sensors, $5.8 million is
to fund an initial study and device development of a high
quantum efficiency large area EO framing infrared charge
coupled device with on-chip FMC, and $4.0 million is for multi-
spectral EO framing technologies with on-chip FMC.
Flat panel displays
The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 62708E for
flat panel displays. The committee believes that opportunities
exist for acceleration of development of display devices that
focus on cost and performance goals. The committee endorses the
work of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency industry
teams and recommends an additional $20.0 million in PE 63739E.
Joint Airborne Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) System (JASS)
The budget request included $51.8 million for the
continuation of the Joint Airborne SIGINT System (JASS).
The committee is concerned about the current and long-term
capability of airborne SIGINT reconnaissance assets. These
platforms provide not only direct tactical support, but also
provide valuable products used by the national intelligence
community. These systems require continuous sensor and system
improvements to maintain pace with the constantly evolving
threats against which they are tasked.
Past SIGINT upgrades have been inadequately coordinated
between the military services and defense agencies. The costs
of independent upgrades, even when similar capabilities were
being developed, were borne individually by each service and
platform. The intent of the statements of managers accompanying
the conference report on H.R. 2401 (H. Rept. 103-357) and S.
1124 (H. Rept. 104-450) was that the architecture of existing
SIGINT platforms be evolved to a common architecture and that
the Department of Defense develop a testbed aircraft which
could be used to evaluate commercial and evolving SIGINT
architectures, standards and interface protocols such that all
airborne SIGINT systems could benefit from the sensor upgrades
developed by any service or agency. The statements of managers
also endorsed ``maximum commonality'' of equipment to minimize
duplication and enhance interoperability. There was no
congressional intent for the Department to choose, or exclude,
any architecture, including those already fielded, for
application on the existing operational platforms.
The Department's current development approach for JASS has
been controversial, appears to be extremely costly and has not
been well supported by the military services primarily due to
cost concerns. Concern also exists that the current approach
does not satisfy near-term operational needs, and the technical
approach does not appear to fully capitalize on commercial
standards and developments. The committee believes the current
JASS acquisition strategy could benefit from the early
establishment of commercial standards, thereby allowing rapid
evolution of capability through the use of commercial
components to satisfy changing requirements. Additionally, the
committee understands that even under the current schedule,
JASS will not provide new functional capabilities until after
the turn of the century. The committee believes this does not
constitute an effective upgrade program for the resources being
spent, nor does it believe there is sufficient use of
commercial, off-the-shelf technologies. Finally, the committee
understands that JASS is better defined as a sensor function or
subsystem that could be applicable to the various SIGINT
systems as all the functional subsystems including the sensors,
the antennas, the radio frequency distribution systems, the
recorders, and the operator consoles. JASS does not include
these other functions, and therefore should be appropriately
defined as such, particularly in terms of budget requests and
total system costs submitted to the Congress.
The committee fully supports the tenets of a Joint Airborne
SIGINT Architecture (JASA) and believes there is a need to
develop a formal set of standards and interface protocols that
allow the platform program offices to build open architecture
systems. The committee also believes that, as capabilities are
developed or procured off-the-shelf that meet the established
platform requirements, these functions must comply with
established architectural and technical guidelines. This would
allow these capabilities or functions to be portable from one
platform to the next without separate development efforts and
associated costs. Finally, the committee also believes there
must be a central authority to enforce such commonalities.
There is a need for a centralized architecture standards
vision and joint development of new capabilities, with
decentralized procurement and system integration. Fiscal
constraints and threat phasing suggest an evolutionary upgrade
approach to systems, based on specific and enforced interface
standards. The approach should build on the strengths of each
of the fielded systems and should be focused on the individual
mission requirements. The committee is committed to ensuring
the services and agencies share these sensor developments and
believes this approach will increase industry competition by
focusing on commercial products, decrease risk, and most
importantly, effectively ensure near and mid-term requirements
satisfaction and decrease costs.
Finally, due to the amounts of money already expended on
the JASS high band prototype (HBP) and its predecessor, the
committee does not believe terminating this prototype effort
prior to test would be appropriate.
Therefore, the committee authorizes up to $25.1 million of
the request to continue and conclude JASS HBP functional
development and testing. The committee does not authorize the
obligation and expenditure of any funding for a follow-on JASS
high band effort until the HBP has completed flight test, and
has effectively proven its utility. The Department of Defense
is authorized to obligate and expend fiscal year 1997
appropriated funds for airborne SIGINT functional or subsystem
developments provided they are coordinated through, and for use
by, multiple services and agencies. However, the committee
directs the Secretary not to obligate or expend any fiscal year
1997 funds for such airborne SIGINT system research and
development upgrades until the Secretary provides the defense
and intelligence authorization committees a report which:
(1) clearly identifies the airborne SIGINT system
standards and protocols which the platform offices will
use to build their architectures and functional
capabilities;
(2) provides a plan for ensuring the operational and
intelligence requirements communities have the final
authority for expending intelligence funds;
(3) provides a plan for maximizing use of commercial
off-the-shelf technologies;
(4) provides a plan for ensuring the services
collaborate on sensor improvements;
(5) provides an upgrade plan which satisfies both the
near-term and long-term operational requirements in a
coordinated architectural approach;
(6) provides a plan for the National Security Agency
(NSA), under its Executive Order 12333 tasking, to
review and approve platform sensor developments to
ensure technical standards compliance;
(7) provides a ``level of effort'' funding necessary
to ensure continuous upgrades to the existing
platforms; and
(8) provides a detailed description of those
functional capabilities, resulting from the HBP efforts
which could be effectively used by the various platform
offices.
An interim copy of this report should be provided to the
Congressional defense committees before June 10, 1996 and a
final report will be provided not later than April 1, 1997.
Joint and commercial technology insertion
The budget request included $14.5 million in PE 63726D and
$48.4 million in PE 63752D for the Department of Defense to
make greater application of commercial technology in its
military systems. The committee fully supports programs
designed to reduce life cycle costs as well as enhance system
reliability, maintainability, and capability. The committee
views this type of activity as integral to the acquisition
process for individual programs and projects and not as a
distinct type of activity. However, as with dual use technology
programs, personnel from the Office of the Secretary of Defense
cite the need for these additional funds because the
``acquisition culture'' within the military services refuses to
adequately embrace what is in its own best interests. The
committee recommends a provision (sec. 203) that would require
the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official,
reporting directly to the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology whose sole responsibilities would be
to develop policy and ensure effective execution of dual-use
programs and integration of commercial technologies into
military systems to the maximum extent practicable. The
committee further recommends that the civilian and military
leadership in the Department consider personnel promotion,
bonus, and pay incentives to further the use of commercial
technologies in weapon system development and modernization
programs. No authorization is provided for either PE 63726D or
PE 63752D.
Joint command, control, communications, and computers/intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE
33149K for development of improved capabilities for concept
development, analysis, and evaluation of advanced technologies
and concepts for joint command, control, communications, and
computers/intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(C4ISR). Of this amount $10.0 million is recommended for the
establishment of a C4ISR Battle Laboratory and $5.0 million for
the development of advanced C4ISR modeling and simulation.
These programs are designed to investigate improvements in
collection and distribution of targeting and intelligence data
among commanders and weapons systems of all the military
services, with the goal of permitting joint commanders to
conduct operations as swiftly and effectively as possible.
Joint surveillance targeting attack radar system
The committee is committed to properly classifying those
systems which are logically classified as tactical, joint or
national intelligence systems. The Joint Surveillance Targeting
Attack Radar System (JSTARS) platform and associated ground
stations are currently contained in the Tactical Intelligence
and Related Applications (TIARA) aggregation. While the
committee realizes there are direct intelligence applications
of the JSTARS associated Ground Support Modules (GSM) and the
follow on Common Ground Stations (CGS), the committee believes
the JSTARS aircraft is a direct battle management and targeting
applications weapon system, and not an intelligence system.
While it is true the JSTARS moving target indicator (MTI) radar
system provides critical data to the operational and
intelligence communities, the committee believes the primary
mission is direct weapon system targeting and should,
therefore, not be contained within the TIARA aggregation.
Conversely, since the associated ground stations are direct
multi-source intelligence support applications with a
definitive need to remain part of the entire intelligence
support architecture, the committee believes these must
continue to be funded within TIARA aggregation.
Lithography
The budget request included $51.4 million for
microelectronic lithography. The committee recommends an
additional $10.0 million in PE 63739E for the support of
ongoing nanofabrication and extreme ultraviolet (EUV)
lithography activities aimed at the fabrication of 100
nanometer design rule device structures. Key to these
developments are support for nanowriters, nanofabrication
prototypes, and the facilities for short wavelength
metrologies, calibrations and standards.
In addition, the committee believes there are benefits to
pursuing ion beam research related to its potential as a future
technology for advanced lithography. The committee believes
that there are several technical challenges that include mask
and reticle systems, overlay accuracy and scattering effects
that should be addressed by industry in collaboration with
university researchers. The committee recommends an additional
$1.0 million in PE 61101E for this purpose.
Materials nanostructures
The committee recognizes the potential of the emerging
field of material nanostructures. This regime of science offers
the opportunity to integrate inorganic and organic chemistry
and physics at a material formative dimension that will have
impact in micro-electronics, micromachines, molecular level
controllers and switches, among many other applications, and
that have the potential to revolutionize military technological
superiority in the future.
The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE
61101E to accelerate the Defense Advanced Research Agency's
nanostructures program.
Metal castings
The budget request for metal castings was $1.0 million. The
committee has been apprised of the return on the military's
investment in metal casting technology as a replacement for
many machined and welded parts. Metal casting provides an
opportunity to realize cost and weight savings in military
component fabrication. The committee recommends an additional
$2.0 million in PE 78011S for the Defense Logistics Agency to
continue its program at prior year levels.
Mobile detection assessment response systems--exterior
The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE
63709D for the advanced robotics program to continue
development of the mobile detection assessment response system
(MDARS).
Multifunction self aligned gate technology
A total of $18.0 million dollars has been authorized and
appropriated in prior years to develop active array ``smart
skins'' for unmanned aerial vehicles that permit high density
packaging of multi-function communications and radar antennae.
The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE
35154D to demonstrate multifunction self aligned gate
technology on unmanned aerial vehicles and to complete this
program.
Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare
The budget request included $24.0 million in PE 63714D for
the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP), the
independent non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare (NAASW) research
program managed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
committee has repeatedly expressed its views of the need for
two viable, independent, and coordinated NAASW programs, one in
the Navy and one in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
committee notes that the funding level requested for the ASAP
program is approximately $6.0 million or 20 percent less than
the level appropriated for fiscal year 1996 and approximately
10 percent of the level originally programmed in the fiscal
year 1996 future years defense plan for fiscal year 1997. In
view of the increased capabilities of advanced nuclear
submarines, the proliferation of modern, quiet diesel
submarines and advanced non-nuclear submarine technology, and
significant strides in submarine operational proficiency being
made by several Third World submarine navies, the committee
believes these reductions are imprudent. Increased emphasis
needs to be placed on improving the anti-submarine warfare
capabilities of U.S. forces in general, and on the NAASW
program in particular. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $6.0 million to the budget request for the ASAP
program. Of this increase, $1.0 million shall be used for
additional investigations of foreign technology and systems
relevant to the missions of the ASAP program. The committee
directs that plans for expenditure of the increased
authorization be reported to the Congressional defense
committees before the additional funds are obligated.
The committee believes that the ASAP program office should
begin transitioning the more mature technology it has developed
to the Navy. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy
and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence) to develop plans for such
transition and report the plans to the Congressional defense
committees with the submission of the fiscal year 1998 Defense
budget request.
Passive millimeter wave camera
The committee recognizes the early development by the Army
of the passive millimeter wave camera and recommends an
additional $12.0 million in PE 63226E for integration on an
aircraft with specific application to airborne wide-area
surveillance.
Quiet Knight advanced technology demonstration
The budget request did not include any funding for
continuation of the Quiet Knight advanced avionics technology
demonstration program. In its consideration of the fiscal year
1996 budget request for Special Operations Tactical Systems
Development, the committee expressed strong support in the
committee report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept 104-131) for a Phase I
(component development and demonstration) of an advanced
concept technology demonstration of Quiet Knight low
probability of intercept/low probability of detection (LPI/D)
avionics for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft and
continuation to a Phase II full scale demonstration and flight
test of the Quiet Knight capability. In the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450), the conferees supported completion of the Quiet
Knight technology demonstration, and encouraged the Department
of Defense to validate the requirements for advanced LPI/D
avionics for special operations aircraft.
The committee understands that initial studies on
requirements for low-level penetration aids have been completed
which recommend reducing aircraft electronic emissions and that
further LPI/D studies will be completed by December 1996.
Flight demonstrations will follow in the Summer of 1997. The
committee understands that sufficient funds are available from
prior years to support the completion of the advanced
technology demonstration and that no additional funds are
required for the program through fiscal year 1997. The
committee understands that the program will compete for funding
in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts
The Rapid Acquisition of Manufactured Parts (RAMP) program
is being transferred from the Department of the Navy to the
Defense Logistics Agency. As a consequence, the Department
failed to request funding for fiscal year 1997. Accordingly,
the committee recommends an additional $12.0 million in PE
63736D for fiscal year 1997 to provide transition funding to
support the program until fiscal year 1998.
Rigid hull inflatable boat
The budget request included $5.0 million for procurement of
special warfare equipment, including $4.1 million for
procurement of the Naval Special Warfare 10 meter Rigid Hull
Inflatable Boat (RHIB). The committee recommends an increase of
$2.75 million in PE 1160404BB to complete development and
operational testing of competing prototype RHIBs, a downselect
decision to a single contractor, and other activities relative
to a Milestone III decision in fiscal year 1997. To offset the
increase, the committee recommends a corresponding reduction in
the procurement account for special warfare equipment.
Special operations M4A1 carbine modifications
The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 1160404BB
for Special Operations Weapons and Support Systems Advanced
Development, including $1.7 million for development of the
integrated night/day/observation/fire control device (INOD) for
the M4A1 carbine. The committee recommends an increase of $1.9
million to the budget request to accelerate the development of
the INODS and provide integrated day/night target acquisition
and fire control out to a range of 500 meters for the special
operations version of the M4 carbine.
Specialty metals
For several years the committee has provided both guidance
and funding for specialty metals development such as alloys of
beryllium and titanium to ensure that the unique properties of
these metals could enhance the effectiveness of military
systems and strengthen the industrial base as a by-product. The
committee has relied on the programs of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency in its advanced material partnerships
program which has been very successful in achieving those
objectives.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to continue
these partnerships in its fiscal year 1997 materials program
and to effectively transition the specialty metals program to
an appropriate military service applied science program element
in fiscal year 1998.
Tactical fiber optic communications
The committee recommends an increase to the budget request
of $3.0 million in PE 32019K to investigate the military
applications of the planned world wide commercial fiber optic
grid. This increase is intended to support the Defense
Information Systems Agency proof of concept demonstration of
the ability to establish Department of Defense ``splices'' into
the planned worldwide fiber optic grid before it is fully
deployed. The committee also recommends an increase $1.75
million in PE 63640M for the Navy and the Marine Corps to
exploit commercial advances in lightweight fiber optics for
communications purposes and demonstrate the use of lightweight
tactical fiber optics for communications in a littoral
scenario.
U-2 aircraft
The budget request included $28.3 million in PE 35154D for
sensor upgrades to the U-2 aircraft.
The committee is deeply concerned about the technical
health of the various sensors carried on the U-2. The special
sensors, for example, have not been upgraded since 1991 and are
currently in several different configurations. Also, the multi-
sensor role of the aircraft is limited because the Advanced
Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS) and Senior Year
Electro-optical Reconnaissance Systems (SYERS) sensors cannot
operate simultaneously. Finally, because of older technologies
and implementations, geolocation accuracy for precision strike
targeting is insufficient for required operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $57.0
million for critical U-2 sensor upgrades. Of this amount, $10.0
million is specifically for improving and downsizing the SYERS
sensor such that SYERS and ASARS can be flown simultaneously.
These funds should also be used to improve geolocational
accuracies. The committee directs that up to $7.0 million be
used for the ASARS Improvement Program (AIP) to ensure this
upgrade can be fielded by fiscal year 1998. The remainder of
the funding is to be applied to SENIOR RUBY, SENIOR SPEAR, and
SENIOR GLASS commonality upgrades. Specifically, the committee
directs that the Air Force upgrade the SPEAR/RUBY sensors to
the GLASS configuration, and upgrade the SENIOR GLASS systems
to an open architecture configuration consistent with an
architectural approach approved by the Defense Cryptologic
Program manager.
Further, the committee directs the Department to determine,
and program for, the necessary future years level-of-effort
funding to continue evolutionary U-2 sensor upgrades.
Unmanned aerial vehicles
The committee has been and continues to be concerned about
the Department's UAV program because of the lack of validated
requirements and the frequency with which ``requirements''
change; lack of substantive analysis or the failure to provide
the analysis, if it exists, to the Congress; affordability of
the UAV program within the context of the Department's overall
reconnaissance program; the ineptness and lack of preparation
of the Department in preparing for the transition of the
Predator UAV from an advanced concepts technology demonstration
(ACTD) to a procurement program; and the claims made by the
Department regarding ``joint'' programs versus the reality of
very different requirements for those programs.
Major changes were made to the Department's priority for
UAV programs in 1995. Following what became the final change in
the Fall of 1995 as a result of a Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC) meeting, the committee twice requested and was
refused the analysis from which the JROC recommendations were
based.
The committee understands that what at one point was the
first priority for the UAV program, the Hunter UAV, was
canceled by the Department. The Maneuver Variant UAV and Hunter
UAV requirements were merged to become the JTUAV, and
notwithstanding the claim of jointness, the Army and Marine
Corps requirements for this system are significantly different.
In an attempt to incorporate the Navy requirement, the range
has been increased four-fold. The acquisition strategy calls
for a down-select from nine to one contractor with no apparent
concern over maintaining competitiveness in the program. The
committee has to question that, if the Department's contention
is correct that the payload and not the vehicle is what is
important, if there is to be a JTUAV, why would it not be
prudent to select two contractors to proceed to procurement? A
heavy fuel engine for the tactical UAV's has been a continuing
requirement for several years, yet the Department appears
several years away from achieving this requirement. Close to
$1.0 billion was expended on the Hunter UAV before it was
canceled. The budget for the JTUAV is $900.0 million. Yet,
there is uncertainty with regard to the requirement and its
affordability.
The Predator UAV ACTD has been relatively successful, but
has become a symbol of bureaucratic ineptness as a procurement
program. Fiscal year 1995 funding for procurement of additional
vehicles has yet to be put on contract and the Department
indicates it will be August 1996, before contract negotiations
can be concluded. Further, the Department has requested funding
for ``marinization'' of Predator. Other than ensuring that
Predator UAV data is made available to ships in an area of
operation, the committee opposes any modification of Predator
for the purpose of operating the vehicle from ships.
The committee also notes that the UAV program has been
limited solely to reconnaissance payloads and questions whether
adequate consideration has been given to operational
applications such as laser target designators for UAV's for use
with stand-off delivery of precision guided munitions. Such use
would provide significant advantages to the operational users
in high threat environments.
Because of these numerous concerns with regard to the
Department's UAV program, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 217) that would prohibit the obligation of funds for the
Joint Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle until the Secretary of
Defense meets several certification requirements to the
Congress, prohibit the obligation of funds for marinization of
the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, require an advanced
concept technology demonstration of a laser technology
designator with a Pioneer, Predator, or Hunter unmanned aerial
vehicle with air-to-surface precision guided munitions,
transfer the management and resources for the Predator UAV to
the Department of the Air Force, and for fiscal year 1998,
transfer the responsibility for UAV procurement to the military
departments.
Dark Star unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request included $17.4 million in PE 35154D for
the ``Dark Star'' unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
Notwithstanding the recent loss of the first Dark Star
vehicle, the committee continues to support the objectives of
the Dark Star program. The committee remains convinced that the
Dark Star UAV holds significant promise for providing unique
UAV support to the operational users.
The committee is aware that the current linear scanning
array sensor does not provide the integrated multi-disciplined
imagery capabilities nor geolocation accuracies that an
integrated electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) framing camera
could provide. The committee therefore recommends an additional
$3.5 million for integrating existing EO framing with on-chip
forward motion compensation technology into the aircraft and
associated ground processing equipment. Further, the committee
is aware of the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) coverage problem
due to the use of a non-developmental antenna. The committee
understands the required design is completed, but no funds to
implement the correction are available. Because the committee
believes there is a need to ensure full ground coverage within
the radar's field of view, it recommends an additional $10.0
million be provided to develop and install the necessary radar
antenna.
Finally, in the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees
directed the Department to assess user needs against a more
capable Dark Star air vehicle. The Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office (DARO) responded specifically to this
directed action by stating that major improvements could be
realized. However, the DARO has shown no further interest in
pursuing such improvements. As representatives from several
committees were told, the DARO wanted to fly and test this
aircraft before they would consider any improvements. Yet, this
same philosophy does not seem to pertain to the Global Hawk
UAV, as the DARO is pursuing many upgrades to this vehicle's
capabilities--long before its first scheduled flight in
December 1996.
The committee authorizes an additional $4.0 million for
developing a concept of operations and design of an improved
Dark Star UAV. This funding is to be specifically used to
pursue the designs necessary to develop a Dark Star aircraft
with a unit fly away cost of $20.0 million. The intent of this
additional authorization is to provide the option for a more
capable aircraft to potential users that satisfies the
survivable long dwell reconnaissance need in a high threat
environment.
Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle
The committee directs that no funds authorized for
appropriation for the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
be used to develop, procure, integrate or install a signals
intelligence UAV until the vehicle has completed Phase III of
the advanced concepts technology demonstration (ACTD) and a
system procurement decision has been made. Accordingly, all
funds for such sensor development and procurement should be
applied to the upgrade of U-2 sensors. All U-2 upgrades are to
be fully designed and built for compatibility with the Global
Hawk vehicle.
Further, the committee is aware of existing state-of-the-
art imagery technologies which provide both electro-optic (EO)
and infrared imagery within the same camera. The committee is
concerned by the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office's
(DARO) decision to allow the Global Hawk contractor to develop
a new EO-only camera for the UAV rather than using off-the-
shelf technologies. The committee directs the DARO to provide a
report to the Congressional defense and intelligence committees
that details the analysis that went into this decision, and
furthermore, provides the rationale establishing why existing
camera(s) could not be more cost effectively procured. This
report should be transmitted to the Congress no later than July
1, 1996.
Joint tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request included $51.4 million for the Joint
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (JTUAV). As previously noted,
the program has evolved from the close range UAV and maneuver
UAV to the current program. It is one of at least six UAV's
under development or operational use.
The Department has issued requests for proposals and
intends to make an award in May 1996, for the joint tactical
unmanned aerial vehicle--a program for which there has been no
authorization or appropriation.
The committee recommends $33.4 million for this project, a
reduction of $18.0 million, because of the availability of
prior year funds.
Vectored thrust technology development
The committee is aware of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency's outyear interests in the Vectored Thrust
project. The committee understands that the DP-2, as part of
this project, requires additional funding to complete testing
and demonstration. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
additional $12.0 million in PE 62702E to complete testing of
the DP-2 project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization Of Appropriations
This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing
and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 1997.
Section 202--Amount For Basic And Applied Research
This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal
year 1997 for technology base programs.
Section 203--Dual Use Technology Programs
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
designate a senior official, reporting directly to the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, whose
sole responsibility would be to develop policy and ensure
effective execution of dual use programs and integration of
commercial technologies into military systems. Further, the
provision would require that not less than five, seven, ten,
and fifteen percent, respectively for fiscal years 1997-2000,
of each service's science and technology program be available
only for dual-use cost-shared programs.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Space Launch Modernization
This section would authorize $50.0 million for a
competitive reusable space launch vehicle (RLV) program and
permit obligation of the authorized funds only to the extent
that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
current operating plan allocates at least an equal amount for
the RLV program.
Section 212--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of V-22 Aircraft
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to waive
the survivability testing requirements of section 2366, title
10, United States Code, notwithstanding the fact that the V-22
tilt-rotor aircraft program has already entered engineering and
manufacturing development. The section would also require the
Secretary to the report to the Congress on how the Secretary
plans to evaluate the survivability of the V-22 aircraft, his
assessment of possible alternatives to realistic survivability
testing of the aircraft, and alternative survivability test
requirements for the conduct of any alternative live-fire test
program.
Section 213--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of F-22 Aircraft
This section would amend section 2366(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to
exercise the waiver authority in such section, with respect to
the application of survivability tests for the F-22 aircraft,
notwithstanding that such program has entered full-scale
engineering development.
Section 214--Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions, Rockets, and
Explosives
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a five-year program for the development and
demonstration of environmentally compliant technologies for the
disposal and demilitarization of conventional munitions,
explosives, and rockets, and would authorize an appropriation
of $15.0 million in fiscal year 1997 for that purpose.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) made available $15.0 million to establish
an integrated program for the development and demonstration of
environmentally compliant technologies for the demilitarization
and disposal of conventional munitions, explosives, and
rockets. In the statement of managers accompanying the
conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-150), the conferees
expressed their concern about requirements for disposal of
growing numbers of unserviceable, obsolete, or non-treaty
compliant munitions, rocket motors and explosives. As
environmental constraints increasingly restrict the traditional
disposal methods of open burning or open detonation,
development and demonstration of environmentally compliant
technologies for this purpose become even more urgent. The
conferees directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the Congressional defense committees of the DOD plan for
establishment of such a program. That report has not yet been
received, nor have the funds for this program that were
authorized and appropriated by the Congress been released by
the DOD Comptroller.
The committee notes that the report ``Joint
Demilitarization Study'', September 1995, prepared by the Joint
Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG), forecasts growth in the
current U.S. inventory of excess, obsolete, and unserviceable
conventional munitions, tactical missiles and large solid
propellant rocket motors from 449,308 tons (as of March 31,
1995) to 730,420 tons by the end of fiscal year 2001, if the
then current demilitarization funding trends were maintained.
This obsolete stockpile occupies 4.1 million square feet of
storage space in 27 states and costs an estimated $12.0 million
per year to store.
The committee is aware that procurement funding for
conventional munitions demilitarization has decreased annually
since fiscal year 1995. The committee notes that with the
exception of funding provided for the Joint Service Large
Rocket Motor Demilitarization Program and congressionally
directed activities, less than $5.0 million has been available
annually since fiscal year 1992 for research and development of
technologies for the demilitarization of conventional munitions
and explosives. The committee is also aware that in response to
direction from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG) developed a five-year
plan for conventional ammunition demilitarization research and
development and recommended a $15.0 million annual program,
although the annual requirement was $30.0 million. The JOCG
proposal was approved but was not funded.
The committee believes that procurement funding must be
provided to support ongoing demilitarization programs; however,
a sustained and adequately funded demilitarization technology
development and demonstration program must be established as a
matter of urgency in the Department of Defense. In such a
program, the committee encourages the consideration of a range
of competitively selected potential resource recovery and
alternative demilitarization technologies, including (but not
limited to) cryogenic washout, supercritical water oxidation,
molten metal pyrolysis, plasma arc, catalytic fluid bed
oxidation, molten salt pyrolysis, incineration, critical fluid
extraction and ingredient recovery, and underground contained
burning. The committee believes that an annual funding level of
approximately $15.0 million is required for the duration of
such a program.-
Section 215--Research Activities of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency Relating to Chemical and Biological Warfare Defense
Technology
This section would amend the provisions of section 1701 of
the National Defense Authorization Action for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160) and clarify the role of the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency in the Department of Defense
chemical and biological warfare defense technology research and
development program. The intent of the amendment is to
capitalize on the traditional function and flexibility of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in research,
development, and exploitation of advanced technologies for the
most difficult defense problems, while insuring that the DARPA
program is coordinated and integrated with the overall defense
chemical and biological warfare defense research and
development program.
Section 216--Limitation on Funding for F-16 Tactical Manned
Reconnaissance Aircraft
This section would limit total obligations for research,
development, test, and evaluation; procurement; and
modifications for the F-16 Tactical Manned Reconnaissance
aircraft to $50.0 million, plus the amounts required for
incorporating the Common Data Link into the system.
Section 217--Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
This section would prohibit the authorization of
appropriations for the Joint Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,
prohibit the authorization of appropriations for marinization
of the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, and require an
advanced concept technology demonstration of a laser technology
designator with a Pioneer, Predator, or Hunter unmanned aerial
vehicle with air-to surface precision guided munitions.
Section 218--Hydra-70 Rocket Product Improvement Program
This section would authorize $15.0 million for completion
of the Hydra 70 rocket product improvement program.
Section 219--Space-Based Infrared System Program
This section would authorize funds for the Space-Based
Infrared System (SBIRS) program, prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of funds until the Secretary of Defense issues a
certification to Congress, and direct the Secretary to consider
the appropriate management responsibilities for the Space and
Missile Tracking System program.
Section 220--Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program
This section would authorize funding for the Joint Advanced
Strike Technology program only for advanced technology
development, preclude obligation of any development funding for
the Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing derivative
aircraft, and require an analysis of alternative force
structures and program costs.
Section 221--Authorization for Joint United States-Israeli Nautilus
Laser/Theater High Energy Laser Program
This section would state that the Congress strongly
supports the Joint U.S.-Israeli Nautilus Laser/Theater High
Energy Laser programs and encourages the Secretary of Defense
to request authorization to develop these programs as agreed to
April 28, 1996, in the statement of intent signed by the
Secretary of Defense and the Prime Minister of the State of
Israel.
Section 222--Nonlethal Weapons Research and Development Program
This section would authorize $3.0 million of the funds
requested in PE 63640M to be used only for nonlethal weapons
research and development.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
Section 231--Funding for Ballistic Missile Defense for Fiscal Year 1997
This section would authorize funding for ballistic missile
defense research and development activities in fiscal year
1997.
Section 232--Certification of Capability of United States to Defend
Against Single Ballistic Missile
This section would require the President to submit to the
Congress a certification stating whether the United States has
the military capability to intercept and destroy a single
ballistic missile launched at the territory of the United
States.
Section 233--Policy on Compliance With the ABM Treaty
The current dispute between the Congress and the President
over theater missile defense (TMD) ``demarcation'' hinges
largely on the issue of whether U.S. obligations under the
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty as a whole and under
article VI(a) of the Treaty in particular are sufficiently
clear such that the Secretary of Defense, who is charged by the
President with the responsibility, can certify in good faith
that the TMD systems currently under development by the United
States can be tested and deployed in compliance with those
obligations. In Article VI(a), each party undertakes not to
give non-ABM systems ABM capabilities and not to test non-ABM
systems in an ABM mode.
The Secretary of Defense in the previous Administration
took the position that the obligations of the parties under
article VI(a) of the Treaty were sufficiently well understood
that a standard of compliance could be developed unilaterally
so as to enable the development and deployment of TMD systems
then under development by the United States, including the
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and Navy
Upper Tier. Furthermore, this approach would have allowed full
exploitation of data derived from space-based sensors, such as
the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), for TMD purposes.
The current Administration has rejected adopting on a
unilateral basis the compliance standard recommended by the
Secretary of Defense from the previous Administration. Instead,
it chose to revise the standard and then seek Russian agreement
to that revised standard in order to permit the development and
deployment of U.S. TMD systems such as THAAD and Navy Upper
Tier. By choosing to seek Russian concurrence in what should
have been a unilateral decision, the Administration has
effectively granted Russia a veto over the technical
capabilities of U.S. TMD systems. Further, pending the outcome
of the negotiations, the Administration has artificially
constrained the design and performance of THAAD and Navy Upper
Tier, in effect ``dumbing down'' these systems in order to
comply with alleged, perceived obligations under article VI(a)
that do not exist.
Therefore, the committee once again endorses the approach
to a compliance standard recommended by the Secretary of
Defense in the previous Administration, and which was adopted
by the 103rd Congress in section 234(a)(7) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
160) and reaffirmed by the 104th Congress in section 235 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
Law 103-337). The committee recommends a provision (sec. 233)
that would codify this standard for assessing compliance of
systems with the ABM Treaty, state certain prohibitions, and
define an ABM-qualifying flight test. The committee notes that
this standard is entirely consistent with U.S. obligations
under the Treaty. Finally, the committee finds that
continuation of negotiations with the Russians on this subject
is both unnecessary and potentially deleterious to U.S.
national security interests.
Section 234--Requirement That Multilateralization of the ABM Treaty Be
Done Only Through Treaty-Making Power
The committee remains deeply concerned by the
Administration's proposal to multilateralize the Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty by adding a dozen or more signatories from
the states of the former Soviet Union. To date, the
Administration has failed to provide a compelling case for why
multilateralization is necessary or in the security interests
of the United States.
Among the republics of the former Soviet Union, only the
Russian Federation has fielded an ABM system or possesses the
technological capacity to develop and deploy such a system. The
remaining former Soviet republics have no equities in the
Treaty. In addition, multilateralizing the Treaty would
increase the probability that a single former Soviet republic
could block any amendment, modification, or clarification to
the Treaty, including agreements that the United States and
Russia might find in their interest to adopt. The
Administration's proposal to multilateralize the ABM Treaty
would grant to Russia and other former Soviet republics a right
of veto over any Treaty modifications needed to permit
deployment of a highly-effective NMD system.
For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 234) that would state that any addition of a new
signatory party to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (in
addition to the United States and the Russian Federation)
constitutes an amendment to the treaty that can only be agreed
to by the United States through the treaty-making power of the
United States. This section would prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of funds for any fiscal year for the purpose of
implementing or making binding upon the United States the
participation of any additional nation as a party to the ABM
Treaty unless that nation is made a party to the treaty by an
amendment to the Treaty that is made in the same manner as the
manner by which a treaty is made. Finally, the committee notes
that this section is fully consistent with section 232 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
Law 103-337).
Section 235--Report on Ballistic Missile Defense and Proliferation
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to Congress by December 31, 1996, on ballistic
missile defense and proliferation. In requiring the report, the
committee directs the Director, Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization to address the various relationships between
theater ballistic missile defense, national ballistic missile
defense, and U.S. counterproliferation objectives.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and the missiles
that can be used to deliver them, constitutes a serious and
growing threat to the security of the United States and U.S.
allies. To date, traditional arms control and nonproliferation
measures to prevent proliferation have met with limited
success. The committee believes that insufficient attention is
being given by the Administration to the role that ballistic
missile defense can play in preventing proliferation. The
ability to counter ballistic missiles once launched devalues
the political and military utility of these weapons as
instruments of terror or military significance. This was
recognized by former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, who noted
that ``effective missile defenses can reduce incentives for
proliferators to develop, acquire, or use ballistic missiles
and weapons of mass destruction.'' In the committee's view, it
is reasonable to assume that nations with scarce resources may
think twice about investing in expensive military means that
can be easily countered.
In addition to its role as a preventive, ballistic missile
defense can also protect against the effects of proliferation
should efforts to prevent it fail. However, the
Administration's Defense Counterproliferation Initiative,
announced in December 1993, failed to consider the role that a
national missile defense can play in achieving the
counterproliferation mission. In addition, the Administration's
recent report on ``Proliferation: Threat and Response'' notes
that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
missile that can deliver them ``presents a grave and urgent
risk to the United States and our citizens * * *.'' However,
the report makes no mention of national missile defense.
Section 236--Revision to Annual Report on the Ballistic Missile Defense
Program
Section 224(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189) established
a reporting requirement for the Strategic Defense Initiative
program. With the changed focus of the program, several of the
reporting requirements are no longer valid. This provision
would update the requirement for the annual ballistic missile
defense report to Congress.
Section 237--ABM Treaty Defined
This section would define the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty for the purposes of this subtitle.
Section 238--Capability of National Missile Defense System
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that any national missile defense system deployed by the
United States is capable of defeating the threat posed by the
Taepo Dong II missile of North Korea.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 241--Uniform Procedures and Criteria for Maintenance and Repair
at Air Force Installations
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to allocate real property maintenance and repair funds for all
of its bases and facilities using the same procedures and
criteria. Under current procedures and criteria the test and
evaluation bases and facilities within the Air Force are at a
significant disadvantage in the allocation of resources for
this purpose.
Section 242--Requirements Relating to Small Business Innovation
Research Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the Small Business Innovation Research program be
managed and executed, for each program element for research and
development for which $20.0 million or more is authorized, by
the program manager for the program element.
Section 243--Extension of Deadline for Delivery of Enhanced Fiber Optic
Guided Missile (EFOG-M) System
This section would extend the time for the conduct of the
EFOG-M program to include critical field evaluation testing
that occurs after September 1998.
Section 244--Amendment to the University Research Initiative Support
Program
This section would propose changes in the data base for
calculation of university eligibility for the University
Research Initiative Support Program. Current law requires the
Department of Defense to use prior fiscal year data in
determining eligibility. Since complete data is not available
until the second quarter of the current fiscal year, the
program is forced to expend funds in the next fiscal year. The
proposed change would remove this restriction and allow the
Department of Defense to use the most recent complete fiscal
year data in determining eligibility. In practice, the two
years to be used would be the third and second years prior to
appropriations. This would allow ample time for a competitive
award cycle with expenditures in the year of appropriations.
Section 245--Amendments to Defense Experimental Programs to Stimulate
Competitive Research
This section would allow the Department more flexibility to
customize the defense experimental program to stimulate
competitive research (DEPSCoR) program for defense needs and
help to improve the administration of the program. The
eligibility analysis can be performed within the Office of the
Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) using the
same data as the National Science Foundation, thus allowing for
more timely execution of the program.
Section 246--Elimination of Report on the Use of Competitive Procedures
for the Award of Certain Contracts to Colleges and Universities
This section would eliminate the annual reporting
requirement on the use of competitive procedures for award of
research and development contracts, and the award of
construction contracts, to colleges and universities. This
report is of limited value and duplicates action required on
the part of the Department to inform the Congress of contracts
and awards made to those entities non-competitively prior to
the award.
Section 247--National Oceanographic Partnership Program
This section would establish a mechanism whereby federal
agencies and the Department of the Navy can leverage all U.S.
oceanographic efforts to the benefit of the Department of
Defense, other federal agencies, and non-federal organizations.
This section would also establish a National Oceanographic
Leadership Council to coordinate national oceanography
programs, partnerships and facilities; establish an Oceans
Research Partnership Coordinating Group; and an Ocean Research
Advisory Panel to conduct the program management activities of
the partnership program.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW-
Less than two years ago, members of the committee uncovered
troubling indications that defense budget cuts, force structure
reductions, increased operating tempo, and the diversion of
readiness funds to pay for unplanned and unbudgeted
contingencies, were resulting in what could only be described
as the early stages of a downward readiness spiral. Routine
training was being canceled, maintenance of weapons, equipment
and facilities was being deferred, spare parts were not being
bought, and overall readiness levels were suffering.
Readiness is a perishable commodity and sustaining it
demands constant attention. Consequently, the committee
embarked on a multifaceted strategy for maintaining readiness
which included addressing funding shortfalls in key readiness
accounts, improving internal Pentagon readiness reporting,
crafting mechanisms for funding contingency operations in order
to preclude the diversion of funds from readiness accounts, and
pushing for reform of the defense support infrastructure
necessary to free additional resources for readiness and
modernization efforts.
The committee's actions have helped to address the
unacceptable trends in short-term readiness. Nevertheless, the
committee notes that the underlying root causes that led to
recent readiness problems still exist today. The Administration
continues to reduce defense spending while it struggles with a
severely underfunded defense program. Force structure is still
declining and for the first time, the President's budget
envisions reducing endstrength below the Bottom-Up Review
levels. The pace of military operations has not slowed and is,
in fact, higher than during the Cold War. The result is a shell
game where modernization of the forces--future readiness--is
sacrificed to protect near-term readiness. The committee does
not believe that funding near and long-term readiness can be
mutually exclusive propositions.
While intended to shore up near term readiness, this shell
game strategy has a debilitating effect on key readiness
accounts. In response, for fiscal year 1996 the Congress added
approximately $1.1 billion in the areas of real property
maintenance, depot maintenance, base operations support,
mobility enhancements and reserve readiness. However, the
President's request reduces funding in these accounts by over
$1.5 billion from fiscal year 1996 levels. The committee is
disturbed by the degree to which Congress' attempts to bolster
readiness funding in key accounts last year was ignored in the
budget request.
The committee believes that continued underfunding of these
key readiness accounts will only perpetuate the degradation of
force readiness. Therefore, to address these and other
shortfalls, the committee recommends a funding increase of $1.9
billion above the operation and maintenance budget request of
$88.9 billion for a total of $90.7 billion. In key readiness
accounts, the committee has added $1 billion for real property
maintenance, $190 million for depot maintenance, $190 million
for base operations support, $100 million for mobility
enhancements, and $90 million for reserve component training.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Intelligence Programs
Defense Mapping Agency (DMA)
The budget request included $698.9 million for continued
operations of the DMA. Of this amount approximately $30 million
was designated for funding a future National Aeronautics and
Space Agency (NASA) Space Shuttle (STS) to conduct earth
imaging operations for mapping purposes.
The committee supports this STS mission effort, but is not
aware of a firm availability of a shuttle flight to carry the
mapping payload. Therefore, the committee fences $30 million of
DMA operations and maintenance funding until DMA has a firm
commitment and date for the STS mapping mission from NASA.
Additionally, the Defense Science Board (DSB) recently
provided some study recommendations for improving DMA business
practices and operations. Specifically, the DSB recommended DMA
production processes be reengineered to move away from making
maps and toward maintaining multi-source digital geospatial
information data bases--this includes incorporating commercial
products. While the committee recognizes that DMA cannot
terminate its paper map products in the short-term, it does
recognize the fact that the DSB stressed that DMA needs to move
in this direction. Therefore, the committee directs DMA to
provide the Congressional defense and intelligence committees
with a detailed evaluation of the DSB report, and a plan for
implementing those DSB recommendations it considers
appropriate. An interim report of this plan should be provided
to the Congressional defense and intelligence committees prior
to the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization conference, with
a final report provided no later than April 1, 1997.
Finally, the committee notes the budget request for DMA did
not include funding for the lease of the DMA Reston Center
which had, prior to fiscal year 1997, been included in the
National Reconnaissance Program (NRP).
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Rept 104-450), directed that costs for
this facility should not be maintained in the NRP, and directed
that these funds be moved from the NRP into the Joint Military
Intelligence Program (JMIP) DMA accounts. Therefore, the
committee recommends this program be increased by $27.1 million
from funds transferred from the NRP.
Over The Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) Radar System
The budget request included $5.693 million for continued
``warm storage'' maintenance of the two OTH-B radars. These
radars are being maintained as part of NORAD's ``reconstitution
assets.''
The committee understands that it will require at least 24
months to bring these first generation OTH-B radars out of
caretaker status and into an operational status--if such a
decision were made. The committee also understands that major
upgrades, costing millions of dollars, will be necessary to
bring out-dated technology up to modern standards.
When considered with the totality of terrestrial and space
based warning systems, the committee is not convinced the
projected threat, or the technical capabilities of these older
systems, warrants continued caretaker maintenance. The
committee does, however, understand the potentially high costs
to the U.S. Government of closing these systems down and
returning the lands to the individual states.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a study that determines the viability of retaining
or terminating these radars. This study should include fully
identified costs for all recommendations. The Secretary is to
provide an interim report on the results of this study before
the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization conference, with a
completed report no later than April 1, 1997.
Pacer Coin
The budget request included $8 million for operations of
the PACER COIN special missions C-130.
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on S. 1124 (H. Rept 104-450), the conferees directed the
Department of Defense to determine if PACER COIN could be
configured to perform multiple missions including the PACER
COIN, SENIOR SCOUT and airdrop missions. This direction was
based on the condition that a PACER COIN-only mission would not
be supported by the House.
Preliminary indications are that such modifications are not
only possible, but cost effective and would provide a viable
and unique multi-role aircraft. However, the President's
request included no funds for such modifications, and this
committee has received no indication from the National Guard
Bureau that this was an effort they wished to pursue.
Therefore, the committee denies the PACER COIN funding request.
Senior Scout
The budget request included $1.3 million for operations of
the SENIOR SCOUT intelligence support system.
The committee recognizes the capability provided by the
SENIOR SCOUT system, and also recognizes that this system could
be effectively used to backfill systems such as the RC-135 and
EP-3 that are being pressed into crisis and contingency areas.
The committee therefore recommends an additional $600,000 be
provided for the National Guard CINC's ``initiative fund'' to
pay for C-130 transport flying hours to carry the SENIOR SCOUT
package.
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Issues
Appropriated Fund Support For Morale, Welfare And
Recreation Programs.
The military services' morale, welfare and recreation (MWR)
programs are a vital part of the overall quality of life
offered our servicemen and women. These programs are also
fundamental to force readiness.
In reviewing the MWR program for the coming fiscal year,
the committee received testimony from the military services'
MWR managers and noted a disparity in the degree of
appropriated fund support afforded these programs by each of
the services, particularly in the area of Category A, mission
sustaining, and Category B, community support programs. While
MWR programs are funded through a combination of appropriated
and nonappropriated funds, the committee understands that it is
Department of Defense (DOD) policy guidance to use appropriated
funds for 100 percent of Category A requirements and 65 percent
for Category B requirements. While the committee notes that the
services all increased appropriated fund (APF) support in the
budget request over the fiscal year 1996 level, only the Air
Force comes close to meeting the DOD goals, funding 98.6
percent of Category A and 57.3 percent of Category B.
Shortfalls in APF support for MWR programs authorized to
use APF requires the use of nonappropriated funds (NAF) to meet
requirements. It is the committee's view that the use of NAF
resources--soldier, sailor, airmen and Marine money--to
subsidize APF activities should be minimized, and encourages
the services to meet the DOD policy goals. To address these
quality of life shortfalls, the committee recommends an
increase of $60 million for the military services to help
offset APF shortfalls in the budget request for Category A and
B MWR programs. These funds may only be used for those programs
for which appropriated fund support is authorized, and are not
to be used to replace already budgeted funds thereby releasing
those funds for other purposes. The committee recommends that
these additional funds be used, in part, to address shortfalls
in the areas of fitness centers, libraries, child development
and other service priorities and directs the military service
secretaries to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and House Committee on National Security no later than March
31, 1997 on how these additional funds have been allocated. The
committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report
annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on National Security, no later than when the
budget is submitted to the Congress, describing how each
military service is progressing with maximizing APF support to
Category A and B programs.
On a related matter, the Defense Science Board's Task Force
on Quality of Life, in its October 1995 report, recommended
reinstatement of appropriated fund reimbursement of non
appropriated fund services performed in support of activities
authorized to receive APF support, such as staffing for fitness
and day care centers. This recommendation was viewed as a means
to maximize quality of life services. This practice was
terminated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456) based on concerns about improper
reimbursements and fund accountability and a lack of
definitive, uniform guidance by the Secretary of Defense to the
military services.
The committee is sensitive to the challenges that exist in
managing MWR programs in a budget constrained environment and
wants to provide the necessary tools to facilitate the delivery
of these critical programs. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security no
later than June 15, 1996, on a policy for how the Department of
Defense would implement reinstatement of appropriated fund
reimbursement, including the circumstances under which such a
practice would be appropriate and the necessary procedures to
ensure adequate oversight, control and accountability of
appropriated funds.
Defense Commissary Agency/Performance Based Organization
The committee notes the nomination of the Defense
Commissary Agency (DeCA) to be a Performance Based Organization
(PBO) as part of the Vice President's National Performance
Review government-wide reinvention program. The committee
understands that PBO's are designed to generate efficiencies
through the removal of restrictive regulations and statutes and
the facilitation of best business practices.
The committee has long recognized the imperative to
generate efficiencies in the delivery of the commissary,
exchange, and morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) benefits.
Streamlining operations, improving business practices, gaining
efficiencies, and reducing the need for taxpayer support are
goals which the committee not only strongly supports, but has
acted upon to provide the tools to accomplish. The committee
believes that if there are options for delivering these
benefits that require less appropriated fund support, then they
should be identified, investigated, validated and implemented.
The PBO model for DeCA may be such an option.
As important as the imperative is to generate efficiencies
in the delivery of these benefits, a more important imperative
is the protection of these benefits for our servicepeople and
their families. As the Department of Defense continues to
pursue the DeCA/PBO concept, the committee expects to be a full
partner in the decision-making and implementation process. As
such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on National Security on any action to implement any
aspect of the DeCA/PBO concept prior to its implementation.
Distribution Of Distilled Spirits
Section 333 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the computation
of the full cost to the military exchanges for the distribution
of distilled spirits, including the costs associated with
management, logistics, administration, depreciation and
utilities. The purpose of this provision was to ensure that
distilled spirits are distributed in the most economical
manner. The committee is interested in the extent to which this
requirement has resulted in a change in distribution methods.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report by December 31, 1996, on the extent to which distilled
spirits sold on military installations are distributed through
the exchange distribution system or through private
distributors, and any costs savings which have resulted from
this requirement. Additionally, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in the same report, to discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of requiring purchases and
delivery of distilled spirits, for resale on a military
installation located in the United States, to be made from a
source within the state in which the military installation is
located.
Other Issues
Abrams Integrated Management XXI
The committee notes with interest that the Army has adopted
a comprehensive strategy for M1A1 tank fleet sustainment. To
address the possibility of latent deficiencies in M1A1 tanks
that are not detected during readiness inspections, but, due to
the age of these tanks, could affect their operational
capabilities during a conflict, the Abrams Integrated
Management XXI (AIM XXI) proof of principle test program was
begun in fiscal year 1996. This program would bring 17 M1A1
tanks to a public depot which, in a partnership with the
private sector, would completely rebuild and update them with
the latest modifications. The Army intends to place these re-
built tanks at the National Training Center along with other
tanks that have not received any depot level maintenance for a
test and evaluation period of approximately nine months. On the
basis of this test, the Army would decide whether to continue
with this program.
The committee commends the Army for providing the funding
in the fiscal year 1996 operation and maintenance account to
begin this innovative and potentially cost effective
initiative. If the proof of principle tests are successful, the
committee expects the Army to provide adequate funding in
fiscal year 1998 and beyond to continue the AIM XXI program.
Ammunition Management Program
The budget request funds the Army's Ammunition Management
Program at only 74 percent of the requirement, down from the 96
percent of the requirement funded in fiscal year 1996. The
impact of this funding shortfall, if not addressed, will be
increased backlogs of inspections and maintenance which will
degrade the confidence of ammunition stockpile managers in the
readiness of the war reserve stockpile. This situation will
also preclude efforts to improve the efficient management of
the ammunition stockpile. Therefore, to address this shortfall
the committee recommends an increase of $50 million.
Army After Next
The committee is concerned about long-term direction of the
Army's future modernization and innovation efforts. While it is
generally supportive of the Army's ``Force XXI'' program, the
committee notes that the process of fielding the Force XXI Army
is a long and laborious one. Current Army plans will not result
in the fielding of any substantial units--even for the Army's
``Force Package One'' rapid-response units--under the current
Force XXI program until the year 2012, just at the point when
major systems will be in danger of block obsolescence. Moving
``Force Package Two''--the rest of the active-duty Army--to the
Force XXI design would not occur until 2023.
These projections conflict with the Army's estimates on the
emergence of potential ``peer competitor'' threats capable of
challenging the position of the United States as global leader.
Thus, around the year 2010, the Army foresees the possibility
of a fundamental shift in the nature of land combat, yet its
modernization program allows only for the partial fielding of
Force XXI initiatives throughout the service.
Therefore, the committee directs the Army that, of the
amounts authorized for Operations and Maintenance, Army, Force-
Related Training/Special Activities under Budget Authority 1,
$5 million be made available to conduct an analysis for ``The
Army After Next.'' This will allow Army Training and Doctrine
Command to investigate the possibilities of more radical
change, both in strategic and operational requirements for land
combat, than envisioned under Force XXI. The committee
considers the small amount of funding required to conduct
wargame analysis of potential concepts a wise investment to
ensure that the Army's modernization program is fully
responsive to future threats.
Base Closure Transition
The committee supports a study to determine the need for a
pilot project to evaluate the personnel implications of
transitioning Department of Defense employees at facilities
directed to be privatized by the 1995 Base Realignment and
Closure Commission. These installations include the Naval
Surface Warfare Center, Louisville, Kentucky and the Naval Air
Warfare Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. The Base Realignment and
Closure Commission recommended that highly skilled employees be
retained to facilitate the successful transition of these
facilities to commercial enterprise. The committee believes
that a pilot project may be useful in addressing personnel
issues involved with the privatization of highly specialized
military facilities.
Base Operations Support Costs
The committee is aware that, subsequent to the closure of
the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and Naval Station, the Navy has
not adequately budgeted for the base operations support (BOS)
costs of the remaining tenant commands at the Philadelphia
Naval Base. The committee is concerned that the Navy has failed
to identify adequate financial resources to properly fund the
BOS costs at the Philadelphia Naval Base and urges the Navy to
act expeditiously to resolve these BOS shortfalls and to ensure
adequate funds are available in the future to support common
base services.
Concept Development Center
The committee is concerned about the manner in which the
Department of Defense, specifically the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, will manage and evaluate the process of innovation
tied to new technologies, operational concepts and military
organizations, especially those innovations linked to
information processing and ``information warfare.'' The
committee has learned that initial, experimental efforts
conducted by the services are being judged by traditional
measures of effectiveness. The committee is concerned that
these measures may not be appropriate for evaluating what may
be a fundamental shift in the paradigm of warfare.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Department make
available $10 million of the amounts authorized for Operations
and Maintenance, Defense Wide, for Washington Headquarters
Services in Budget Authority 4, to establish a ``Concept
Development Center'' (CDC) under the Office of Net Assessment.
Like the RAND Corporation of the early 1950s, the CDC would
facilitate the intellectual breakthroughs in operational
concepts, military systems and organizations needed for future
warfare. Such an office is a necessary bureaucratic device both
to foster innovation and to contest established bureaucratic
mechanisms which will seek to tailor revolutionary ideas to
meet current paradigms of strategy, analysis, testing and
evaluation. The CDC staff also would be charged with assessing
the impact of innovation on Pentagon restructuring, service
roles and missions, alliance relationships, defense structures
and budgeting processes, and will report to the Secretary of
Defense.
Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores
The Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores
(COCESS) program was initiated in 1970 to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of material management, and
relieve the military from maintaining large inventories of
parts and supplies needed for repair and maintenance of
facilities. The COCESS contractors maintain centralized stores
located on military installations to provide off-the-shelf
parts and supplies, similar to the commercial equivalent of a
hardware store, needed for the day-to-day operations and
maintenance of real property primarily on Air Force
installations. The committee is concerned that after many years
of successful and less costly operation of these stores by
commercial contractors, the Air Force intends to return these
stores to government operation without competition. The
committee understands the existing contracts for these stores
have been competitively awarded through the OMB Circular A-76
process with the commercial contractor consistently providing
this service at a savings to the government of 10 percent or
higher. At a time when there is great emphasis on outsourcing
functions that are not inherently a governmental function, the
committee questions the wisdom of returning these stores to
government operation. Further, given the apparent and proven
cost savings of this program, the committee questions the
failure of the Air Force to initiate a COCESS or other similar
cost savings programs at all of its U.S. installations, and
also questions the failure of the other military departments to
consider COCESS or other cost reduction programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on National Security not later
than January 30, 1997, that details the current and future
plans, to include economic analyses, for the operation of civil
engineering supply stores on Air Force installations. Further,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to not
change the current operation of these stores, or to permit any
alternative procurement methods in violation or circumvention
of the tenets of any COCESS contractual agreement. In addition,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Navy to consider the application of the COCESS
program as a means to further reduce the cost of essentially
non-governmental functions.
Department Of Defense Milk Plants
Since the end of World War II, the Department of Defense
(DOD) has operated government-owned, contractor operated milk
plants in Okinawa, Japan, mainland Japan, and Korea. Operation
of these milk plants was deemed necessary because fresh milk
and other dairy products, being highly perishable, could not be
economically shipped from the United States without spoiling,
and local dairy sources did not meet U.S. health standards.
Recent technological advances have led to the development of
extended-shelf-life milk, with a shelf-life of more than 60
days. This development provided the DOD with a viable
alternative to operating the Pacific milk plants.
The Air Force, which is responsible for managing the
Okinawa milk plant, decided to close the plant when the current
contract expired. The Air Force decision was based on the
availability of the extended-life fresh milk from the United
States and was viewed as a quality of life issue. The DOD
Inspector General (IG) conducted an audit and validated the Air
Force decision. On March 31, 1996, the milk plant on Okinawa
closed.
The committee is concerned that U.S. military personnel and
their families serving in Korea and mainland Japan receive
equal consideration with respect to their quality of life as it
relates to access to fresh milk. The committee understands that
the DOD IG is currently reviewing the requirement to operate
the remaining DOD milk plant operations in Korea and Japan.
Given the ability to provide U.S. produced fresh milk in an
economical manner to U.S. forces on Okinawa, the committee
questions the need for the remaining milk plants. Therefore,
the Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National
Security, no later than December 31, 1996, on the requirement
for further operation of milk plants in Korea and Japan and
plans to provide military personnel and their families the same
quality of life considerations with respect to access to fresh
milk and dairy products being afforded to U.S. personnel in
Okinawa.
Depot-Level Maintenance And Repair
While the committee supports privatization of some depot
maintenance and repair activities, it does not support the
wholesale privatization of those functions. Current law
(sections 2466 and 2469 of Title 10, United States Code)
requires that not more than 40 percent of all funds provided to
a military department for depot-level maintenance and repair
may be expended in the private sector, and that prior to the
movement of any workload valued at $3 million or more presently
being accomplished by a public depot, competitive procedures
must be used.
After significant debate, Congress laid the groundwork for
the repeal of these provisions with the enactment of section
311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106), pending the Department of Defense
(DOD) providing Congress with a new depot maintenance policy.
The primary objective of this provision was to provide the DOD
with increased flexibility to manage its depot-level
maintenance and repair requirements while ensuring the
readiness of military forces.
The requirements of section 311 included a comprehensive
policy on depot maintenance activities which met certain
criteria. These included a clear definition of the core
workload that must be performed in public depots, providing for
sufficient public depot workload to ensure cost-efficiency and
technical proficiency, providing for competition for above core
workloads between public and private entities to achieve cost
savings, and providing for the maintenance and repair for new
weapons systems defined as core in public facilities. The
committee is disappointed that the DOD failed to address these
and other issues. Additionally, the committee regrets that the
DOD failed to provide the Congress with information regarding
the detailed methodology used to determine core requirements
and specific weapons systems and equipment which support
mobilization, contingency and emergency scenarios under the
National Military Strategy, and failed to provide mandated data
on workload as measured by direct labor hours. The committee
believes that the DOD response to section 311 appears to have
been developed without proper consideration of future readiness
implications.
Further, DOD has assumed cost savings will be achieved by
privatization and outsourcing of depot-level maintenance, but
has offered no concrete data to support that assertion. The
only data provided to Congress on this matter shows that costs
savings are achieved when there is competition between the
public and private sector. In fact, in those competitions, more
than 50 percent were won by the public sector. Yet, the DOD
policy does not provide for such competitions. The committee
believes that competition rather than direct privatization may
achieve the greatest degree of potential savings.
Accordingly, the committee will consider changes to
existing limitations when the DOD provides Congress with an
acceptable policy for the future accomplishment of depot-level
repair and maintenance.-
Electron Scrubber Technology
The Department of Defense (DOD) has developed electron
scrubbing technology, which may be used to eliminate or reduce
pollutants causing acid rain, air toxins, and volatile organic
compounds from off gas generated by incinerators, including
those employed in the chemical demilitarization process. This
technology may also be a cost effective treatment for waste
water, such as red/pink water found in trinitrotoluene (TNT)
manufacturing, storage and disposal facilities. The technology
involves combining electron beam flue gas scrubbing treatment
with high average electron beam technology. Developmentally,
electron scrubbing technology has met its technical milestones
and is now ready for prototyping and demonstrations at major
DOD maintenance and operations facilities, most of which face
significant air and water pollution problems as a result of
military operations. The committee directs the Department to
spend up to $10 million for the purpose of demonstrating the
validity of electron scrubbing technology and its utility for
large scale application at military installations. The
committee expects that any contracts awarded pursuant to this
direction would be made on a fully competitive basis.
General Purpose Tents
During the initial deployment of forces to Bosnia in
support of Operation Joint Endeavor, U.S. troops experienced a
leaking problem with the general purpose tents being used. The
apparent cause of the leakage was a design flaw that
incorporated seam construction intended for cotton fabric,
rather than for polyester, which has been in use since 1990 and
does not have the same self-sealing properties that cotton has
when exposed to moisture. The approximately 3,000 tents
deployed to Bosnia were field-repaired with heat-sealed tape
and enhanced with weather resistant fly covers. However, there
are approximately 20,000 of these general purpose tents in the
Department of Defense inventory which require a permanent fix
to avoid the problems experienced by U.S forces in Bosnia.
When deployed to the field, tents become a fundamental
quality of life issue for our forces. The committee understands
that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is reviewing several
options for addressing this leakage problem. The committee
urges DLA to utilize the method that best achieves the repair
of these tents in the most economical and effective manner and
recommends an increase of $5 million for this purpose.
Integrated Computer Framework
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
may not be taking advantage of currently available computer
software technology that could be useful in coordinating its
environmental activities. Therefore, the committee directs the
Department to spend up to $5 million for the acquisition and
installation of a computer software framework for defense
environmental activities that has the capability to integrate,
analyze and communicate cleanup cost, risk and other related
information to site managers, regulatory agency personnel, the
public and others involved in the cleanup decision making
process. The committee expects that any contract for such a
system would be awarded on a competitive basis.
Manganese Dust Exposure Levels
The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
initiative to utilize commercial specifications and standards
whenever possible. The committee is also aware of the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist's
recommendation to lower the Permissible Exposure Level (PEL)
for all forms of airborne manganese dust and fumes. Manganese
is a key alloying ingredient in nearly all grades of steel and
stainless steel as well as most grades of aluminum and
magnesium, and as such, is used in aircraft, ship and vehicle
construction, as well as providing power systems for computers
and communications equipment.
The committee is concerned that a significant lowering of
the manganese dust standard may have a serious impact on DOD in
the area of cost, material availability, flexibility, and
productivity. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to consult with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) as it proceeds with its rulemaking
process to reduce the current PEL for manganese. The Department
should make efforts to avoid costly mandates where they may not
be necessary. In addition, the committee recommends that the
DOD provide OSHA with any existing manganese studies to include
current worker exposure and protective measures currently
employed, and to begin discussions with industry
representatives to ascertain how industry can be helpful in
determining the cost of compliance should a lower PEL be
adopted by OSHA.
Military Traffic Management Command's Reengineering Personnel Property
Initiative Pilot Program
The statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), directed the Secretary of
Defense to initiate a pilot program to reengineer household
goods moves. Congress, the Department of Defense and the
household goods moving industry recognized the requirement to
take action to reform the current system in order to improve
the quality of service to military personnel and their
families, and, therefore, their quality of life. The conferees
further directed the Secretary of Defense to report on the
pilot program and to include comments from industry prior to
implementation of any aspect of the pilot program.
After reviewing the required report on this matter, the
committee is concerned that the Military Traffic Management
Command's (MTMC) Reengineering Personnel Property Initiative
Pilot Program does not satisfactorily address concerns raised
by the small moving companies which comprise much of this
industry. The committee understands the Department's desire to
proceed with its pilot program, and remains committed to the
reengineering effort. However, the committee also believes that
the concerns of small businesses need to be addressed.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to establish a working group of military and industry
representatives from all facets of the industry to develop an
alternative pilot program. The working group shall be chaired
by the MTMC commander, and shall include those Department of
Defense representatives he deems necessary, not to exceed six
in number. Industry shall be represented by no more than six
people, including one each from the American Movers Conference
and the Household Goods Forwarders Association of America. The
working group shall submit the alternative program, along with
the current pilot program proposed by MTMC, to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) by June 15, 1996 for review. The
committee directs the GAO to report to the Congressional
defense committees by July 15, 1996 the results of its review.
The Department of Defense may not proceed with the formal
solicitation for, or implementation of, any pilot program prior
to August 1, 1996.
The committee further directs that the working group
established by the Secretary of Defense review the execution of
the pilot program as it proceeds and recommend solutions to
problems that might emerge. The committee directs GAO to
monitor implementation of the pilot program, and any
recommendations or alternative approaches identified by the
working group, industry or others, and analyze its
effectiveness in improving service to military personnel and
its impact on components of the industry providing moving
services to military personnel. The committee directs GAO to
report to the Congressional defense committees the results of
its analysis as soon as feasible.
Mobility Infrastructure Enhancement
The committee recommends authorization of $100 million to
improve deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies
through investment in en-route infrastructure, including
ammunition loading areas, cargo staging areas, pier and port
facilities, railheads, aerial port facilities, fuel systems
repairs, runway, taxiway, ramp repairs, and automated
information systems and automatic identification technology
equipment, such as radio frequency tags and bar codes, to
improve intransit visibility. The funding is authorized in the
operation and maintenance defense-wide accounts for high
priority projects with the potential for multiple mobility
improvements. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report on the expenditure of these funds to the Congressional
defense committees prior to the allocation of these funds, and
should seek the views of the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command, in determining how these funds should
be applied.
Operational Support Aircraft
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
(DOD) is prematurely rushing to implement a reduction of
operational support aircraft (OSA) as recommended by the
Commission on Roles and Missions (CORM) and reviewed by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee continues to support the
overall reduction in OSA aircraft and the need to establish OSA
needs based on war time requirements. However, the Army appears
to be making significant program cancellations and re-
alignments of its aircraft without a clear understanding of the
impact caused by these actions. The committee is concerned that
insufficient attention has been given to current missions that
are cost effective and provide significant flexibility. It also
appears to the committee that the Army is retiring, replacing,
or cannibalizing OSA aircraft that have just completed
significant and expensive upgrades and modernization and
replacing them with less capable aircraft in need of
modernization.
To insure there is no premature and costly loss of
government assets and capabilities due to the changes currently
under consideration by the DOD, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide to the Congressional defense
committees, a detailed plan for the reduction and re-
distribution of all OSA aircraft to include a cost analysis and
rationale for each action to be taken. Further, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to make no changes in the
Army OSA program, in existence on March 31, 1996, until the
submission of the report by the Secretary of Defense.
Real Property Maintenance
The committee is disappointed in the President's request
for real property maintenance (RPM). As the backlog of
maintenance and repair of facilities has grown to nearly $13
billion, the budget request for RPM continues to decrease. The
RPM budget request for each military service is lower than that
requested for fiscal year 1996 and ignores the priority
Congress placed on RPM in adding $700 million in additional
funding last year. The committee views this situation as a
serious quality of life issue which demands increased resources
to reduce the backlog of maintenance and repair of facilities
that are critical to force readiness and the safety of military
and civilian personnel.
The budget request contained $4.6 billion for RPM. The
committee recommends an increase of $1.0 billion, for a total
of $5.6 billion. The committee further recommends that the
increase be distributed as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.......................................................... 320.0
Navy.......................................................... 200.0
Marine Corps.................................................. 180.0
Air Force..................................................... 200.0
Army Reserve.................................................. 20.0
Navy Reserve.................................................. 15.0
Marine Corps Reserve.......................................... 2.0
Air Force Reserve............................................. 16.0
Army National Guard........................................... 29.0
Air National Guard............................................ 18.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Increase.......................................... 1,000.0
The committee directs the military services to apply the
recommended increase in funding for RPM to required repair and
maintenance of barracks and dormitories, critical health and
safety deficiencies, and mission critical operational
deficiencies.
Reserve Readiness
Reserve forces are increasingly and successfully being used
to augment active duty units experiencing high operational
tempo. These forces also provide critical support capabilities
needed for mission accomplishment. The importance of these
forces, however, is not reflected in the budget request where
funding for training falls short. For example, the budget
request funds Army Reserve and Army National Guard ground
OPTEMPO at 61 percent and 63 percent respectively, compared to
92 percent and 80 percent respectively, in fiscal year 1996.
Therefore, to alleviate these shortfalls, the committee
recommends an increase of $40 million for the Army Reserve and
$50 million for the Army National Guard.
Standard Missile Maintenance
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not requested
sufficient funds for Standard missile intermediate level
maintenance to meet peacetime operational requirements.
Additionally, the committee understands that the Navy is
considering abandoning its current practice of maintaining a
facility on each coast and consolidating all Standard missile
maintenance activities at a single site . In order to ensure
that the Navy has a sufficient number of Standard missiles
available for deploying ships in peacetime and that adequate
capacity is maintained on both coasts to support surge
requirements in time of war or mobilization, the committee
directs that $8.5 million of the additional funds provided for
weapons maintenance shall only be available for Standard
missile intermediate level maintenance processing to be
performed at both facilities.
Total Asset Visibility Program
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in
Operations and Maintenance, Army for the development of joint
applications of commercial standards and practices to service
logistics systems and improve the tracking of personnel,
materiel, and other shipments. The committee notes the progress
made in the Army's Total Asset Visibility Program and believes
this initiative should be extended throughout the Department of
Defense. Commercial firms such as Federal Express have
pioneered the electronic tracking of parcels both to improve
service and cut cost. The committee believes that adoption of
similar practices and technologies throughout the Department of
Defense can lead to personnel and logistics efficiency, reduced
costs, and greater operational effectiveness.
Unobligated Balances
The committee notes that the level of unobligated balances
from prior year operations and maintenance appropriations
continues to increase, totaling $2.2 billion for all three
military departments, as of September 30, 1995. The committee
believes that most of the unobligated funds emanate from
liquidation of prior years' contracts for which the amount
initially obligated was in excess of requirements. For this
reason, the committee recommends a reduction in operations and
maintenance funding of $50.0 million for the Army, $ 37.5
million for the Navy, and $37.5 million for the Air Force, to
be applied to the services' contracts and services budget
request. The committee expects that this reduction will result
in the services focusing more attention on the estimating of
their contract and services needs so that their budget requests
more accurately reflect requirements.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize $90.7 billion in operation and
maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other activities
and agencies of the Department of Defense.
Section 302--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize $947.9 million for the Defense
Business Operations Fund (for DeCA) and $1.1 billion for the
National Defense Sealift Fund.
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would authorize $57.3 million from the Armed
Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer not more than $250 million from the amounts received
from sales in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military
services.
Subtitle B--Depot-Level Activities
Section 311--Extension of Authority for Aviation Depots and Naval
Shipyards to Engage in Defense-Related Production and Services
This section would extend through fiscal year 1997 the
authority provided by section 1425 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for 1991 (Public 101-510) for naval shipyards
and aviation depots of all the services to bid on defense-
related production and services.
Section 312--Exclusion of Large Maintenance and Repair Projects From
Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Depot-Level Maintenance
This section would exclude from the restrictions contained
in section 2466 title 10, United States Code, a single
maintenance or repair project that represents five percent or
more of the total amounts made available to a military service
for depot-level maintenance and repair. When there is a large
single maintenance project, such as the complex overhaul of a
nuclear aircraft carrier, the size of the project alone can
cause an unintended imbalance in the mix of workload between
the public and private sector. Under current law, not more than
40 percent of the total funds allocated to a military service
for depot-level repair and maintenance may be expended for work
in the private sector. The committee is concerned that a large
single project should not cause inadvertent disruptions in the
mandated percentages.
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions
Section 321--Repeal of Report on Contractor Reimbursement Costs
This section would repeal subsection (c) of section 2706 of
title 10, United States Code. That section requires an annual
report to Congress on the environmental restoration activities
of the Department of Defense. Subsection (c) requires the
submission of a report detailing payments made by the Secretary
of Defense to contractors for the costs of environmental
response actions. Compiling the data has proved unduly
burdensome and costly for both contractors and the Department
of Defense. Moreover, the data provided has not proved
particularly useful in assessing the Department's management of
its contracting process or the extent to which contractors may
be seeking exorbitant or inappropriate reimbursement for
response action costs.
Section 322--Payments of Stipulated Penalties Assessed Under CERCLA
This section would authorize the payment from the Defense
Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) of stipulated civil
penalties assessed under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
(Public Law 96-510) at five military installations--Fort Riley,
Kansas ($34,000), the Massachusetts Military Reservations
($55,000), F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming ($10,000), the
Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island
($30,000), and the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Missouri
($37,500). This section would also allow the Department of
Defense (DOD) to complete environmental restoration projects in
lieu of stipulated penalties at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation. Civil penalties are assessed upon a failure to
achieve cleanup milestones that have been established in
agreements between DOD, the state, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Pursuant to these agreements, separate
legislation authorizing the payment of such penalties is
required.
Section 323--Conservation and Readiness Program
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
establish and execute a ``Conservation and Readiness Program''
in order to address natural resources and cultural issues
affecting military installations or operations on a regional or
national scale. With the disestablishment of the Legacy
Resource Management Program, each military service inherited
the responsibility to manage the natural and cultural resources
under its jurisdiction. However, many such conservation-related
activities cut across services lines and have Department of
Defense-wide significance or are necessary to support joint
military requirements. For example, assessing bird migratory
patterns so that operational flights may avoid high bird volume
transit areas at certain times of the year enhances the safety
of flight operations for all the services, and it would not
make sense for each service to perform its own separate study
of such migratory patterns. Section 323 would allow the
Department of Defense to conduct regionally significant, multi-
component, operationally or legally compelled natural and
cultural activities in a coordinated and uniform and efficient
fashion.
Section 324--Navy Compliance With Shipboard Solid Waste Control
Requirements
The MARPOL Convention (an international treaty) requires
countries who are parties to that agreement to adopt measures
requiring their warships to comply with certain garbage
discharge restrictions to the extent reasonable and practical.
However, in the United States, the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (Public Law 96-478) requires Navy surface ships to
comply with MARPOL special area (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea,
and the Antarctic Ocean) discharge requirements by the end of
2000. These special area discharge requirements prohibit all
but food waste discharges from surface vessels. The Navy is
required to submit to Congress a plan for achieving compliance
with this law by the end of 1996.
Analysis shows that cost of achieving full compliance with
MARPOL and U.S. standards creates significant problems of
expense, weight and space aboard ships. For example, the fleet-
wide cost of installing incinerators would approach $1.2
billion. Installing compactors would cost approximately $1.1
billion and could hinder naval operations because of the need
to rely on garbage collection ships. The Navy has identified
the use of pulpers and shredders as the preferred alternative
for special area shipboard solid waste management. This
approach has the advantages of affordability ($300 million
fleet-wide) and the preservation of operational capability. In
addition, this approach is consistent with American obligations
under international law.
Section 324 would amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships to authorize discharges resulting from the use of pulpers
and shredders, consistent with the MARPOL Convention. Pulpers
and shredders would be used by U.S. naval vessels in non-
special areas, as well as special areas, rather than discharge
unprocessed trash. All plastics and hazardous garbage materials
would be returned to shore.
Section 325--Authority to Develop and Implement Land Use Plans for
Defense Environmental Restoration Program
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a limited pilot program to develop and implement, as a
part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, a land
use plan for up to ten defense sites where the Secretary is
planning or implementing environmental restoration activities.
In developing these plans, the Secretary would be required to
consult with technical review committees, restoration advisory
boards, local land use redevelopment authorities or other
appropriate agencies knowledgeable about the site and land use
planning. The committee expects that reaching agreement with
local authorities about the anticipated future land use
associated with contaminated sites once they are remediated
should result in cleanup activities that are appropriate to
that future land use and more expeditious transfer of the
property upon completion of the remediation. This section would
require the submission of a report to Congress on the success
of this program by December 31, 1998.
Section 326--Pilot Program to Test Alternative Technologies for
Limiting Air Emissions During Shipyard Blasting and Coating Operations
The committee is aware of the development of a new
technology that would allow the control of pollutant by-
products of abrasive blasting and coating of Navy ships during
periodic overhaul work. This section would direct the Secretary
of the Navy to establish a pilot program to test this
alternative technology, which is designed to capture, destroy
or remove particulate emissions and volatile air pollutants
that occur during abrasive blasting and coating operations at
naval shipyards. The Secretary would be required to test the
validity of this technology, assess its cost effectiveness and
the extent to which its use would facilitate compliance with
environmental laws and regulations, and report back to Congress
with a recommendation about whether the technology can or
should be implemented at naval shipyards on a large scale.
Section 327--Navy Program to Monitor Ecological Effects of Organotin
The Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988 (OAPCA)
(Public Law 100-333) was enacted by Congress to protect marine
life by reducing the quantities of organotin, a highly toxic
ingredient in antifouling paints used on Navy and other
vessels, entering the waters of the United States. Despite the
fact that the Act imposed a March 30, 1989 deadline on the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the certification of
organotin release rates and water quality criteria, such
criteria have yet to be established. As a result, states and
the military are left without uniform national guidance about
water quality standards for organotin.
OAPCA also directed the EPA to implement a 10 year
organotin monitoring program and to submit to Congress annual
reports on that program. Only one report has ever been
submitted. The committee is concerned with the lack of progress
in meeting the requirements of the law.
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, in
consultation with the EPA, to develop and implement a program
to monitor the concentrations of organotin in the water column,
sediments, and aquatic organisms of representative estuaries
and near-coastal waters of the United States, as described in
OAPCA. The program would be designed to produce high quality
data to enable the EPA to develop water quality criteria
concerning organotin compounds. In addition, the Secretary of
the Navy would be required to submit to Congress, no later than
June 1, 1997, a report explaining the monitoring program and
describing the results of the analysis performed pursuant to
that program.
Subtitle D--Civilian Employees and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities
Section 331--Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Lodging Expenses When
Adequate Government Quarters Are Available
This section would provide Department of Defense civilian
personnel with the flexibility to make more efficient lodging
decisions based on overall mission requirements by considering
overall travel costs. Under current law, the DOD is prohibited
from paying lodging expenses to a civilian employee who does
not use adequate available government quarters while on
temporary duty. The committee believes that this prohibition
can actually increase DOD costs because consideration is only
given to lodging costs rather than overall travel costs. There
are instances when temporary duty requirements involve business
on and off-base. In those instances, the cost-effective
business decision, when other factors such as rental car costs
are considered, may be to use commercial lodging
accommodations. Additionally, in those instances where there is
a mix of military and civilian personnel and group integrity is
deemed important, the use of commercial lodging accommodations
may be required. The provision would repeal the current
restrictions and allow civilian personnel to make cost
efficient decisions when on official travel.
Section 332--Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay Modification
This section would allow civilian employees who have
previously received separation or incentive pay to leave
federal employment to volunteer for government service without
the loss of their separation or incentive pay. Under the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act (Public Law 103-226),
civilian employees who receive separation or incentive pay must
return these payments if they return to government employment
within five years after separation. There are instances,
however, where employees are asked to return to government
service, on a voluntary basis, to serve as advisors or as
participants on special boards or councils. These employees
serve without compensation (salary) but do receive
reimbursement for travel expenses and for per diem. The
provision would allow such appointments and provide for the
waiver of the repayment of incentive pay previously received.
Section 333--Wage-Board Compensatory Time Off
This section would provide federal managers of wage-board
employees the same flexibility to use compensatory time off
afforded federal managers of general schedule employees. Under
current law, federal employees who are paid wages determined by
prevailing rates in a particular geographical area are
prohibited from receiving compensatory time off in lieu of
overtime pay. Such compensatory time off has been a cost
effective method for compensating federal employees paid under
the general schedule. The committee believes that the provision
would assist in meeting work demands while reducing costs and
increasing the morale and safety of employees.
Section 334--Simplification of Rules Relating to the Observance of
Certain Holidays
This section would allow the head of an agency within the
Department of Defense to change the federal day off from Monday
to an alternate day for those employees who would normally have
Monday off under a compressed work schedule. Under compressed
work schedules, some federal employees have Monday or Friday as
a normal day off. When a federal holiday falls on a Monday,
those employees who would normally have the Monday off are
required to take the previous Friday off resulting in a
manpower shortage on Fridays. The Department of Defense has
reported that the current statutory requirements governing the
observance of holidays that fall on nonworkdays of employees on
compressed work schedules has seriously disrupted the operation
of depots and other industrially-funded organizations. With
this change, the Secretary of Defense would be able to
promulgate regulations or policies to deal with such problems
in all or any individual components of the Department. Other
agency heads would have similar authority, but those who have
experienced no problems with the status quo would not be
required to alter existing procedures.
Section 335--Phased Retirement
This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
establish a pilot program to encourage some civilians to retire
in stages by changing current annuity offset rules. Under
current law, financial penalties are imposed on federal
civilians who wish to mix retirement with part-time federal
employment. This section would allow an employee to continue to
receive his or her full annuity while working 20 to 30 hours
per week. The re-employed annuitant would also receive a salary
without offset until reaching a maximum total income, salary
plus annuity, equal to what the annuitant would have made
before full-time without retiring. The pilot program would
allow the period of phased retirement to be limited to no more
than two years, would be limited to 50 participants at any one
time, and would terminate on September 30, 2001.
Section 336--Modification of Authority for Civilian Employees of
Department of Defense To Participate Voluntarily in Reduction in Force
This section would allow employees who are not affected by
a reduction-in-force (RIF) action to volunteer to be separated
in place of other employees who are scheduled for RIF
separation. The provision is designed to determine whether
providing employees with the opportunity to volunteer to be
part of a RIF action would be an effective downsizing tool.
Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) provided this authority
for a period of one year. The provision would extend this
authority through September 30, 2001.
Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
Section 341--Contracts With Other Agencies and Instrumentalities for
Goods and Services
This section would provide authority for exchanges and
morale, welfare and recreation systems (MWR) to enter into
contracts or other agreements with another department, agency
or instrumentality of the Department of Defense or another
federal agency to provide goods and services beneficial to the
efficient management and operation of exchange and MWR systems.
Greater efficiencies in the operation of the military exchanges
and other morale, welfare and recreation activities are
required. These activities engage in commercial activities that
can be more efficiently conducted if contracts and agreements
are permitted among all the activities and with other federal
agencies. Current law allows contracts with other agencies and
instrumentalities for the benefit of the commissary system.
This section would remove impediments to methods for gaining
efficiencies in the exchange and MWR systems.
Section 342--Noncompetitive Procurement of Brand-Name Commercial Items
for Resale in Commissary Stores
Brand-name, commercial items are excepted from competition
in contracting requirements when their procurement is for
resale in the commissary system. This section would clarify
that, in order to receive the exception, the commercial item
has to be regularly sold outside the commissary store under the
same brand-name as it would be sold in the commissary store.
Section 343--Prohibition of Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit
Material
This section would prohibit the sale or rental of sexually
explicit written or videotaped material on property under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Defense to include
commissaries, all facilities operated by the Army and Air Force
Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, the Navy
Resale and Services Support Office, Marine Corps exchanges, and
ship stores.
Subtitle F--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources
Section 351--Extension of Requirement for Competitive Procurement of
Printing and Duplication Services
Section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Defense
Printing Service (DPS) to competitively procure from private
sector sources at least 70 percent of its printing and
duplication work. The late enactment of Public Law 104-106
precluded full implementation of section 351. The section would
extend section 351 for one additional year and would require a
report on DPS compliance.
Section 352--Requirement Regarding Use of Private Shipyards for Complex
Naval Ship Repair Contracts
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
award complex ship repairs and overhauls only to qualified
shipyard contractors. This section would not apply to repairs
and overhauls performed on the Pacific Coast of the United
States. Currently, the Navy has a policy for the complex repair
and overhaul of ships based on a Master Ship Repair Agreement
(MSRA) system whereby private sector shipyards wanting to
compete for these repairs are inspected and certified by the
Navy as being qualified to accomplish the intended ship
repairs. This pre-qualification of ship repair contractors has
saved the Navy the expense of having to qualify private
contractors each time it needs repairs or overhauls for its
ships. The committee is supportive of this program as it has
incentivised many private shipyards to make the necessary
investments in infrastructure and facilities, such as dry-
docks, additional pier space to accommodate large ships, and
crew support facilities. The committee believes these upgraded
shipyards will ensure a ready access to capable and qualified
repair facilities during times of emergency.
The committee is concerned that the Navy will soon revise
its requirements for MSRA shipyards, allowing private shipyards
who do not have the extensive facilities and capabilities to
compete for complex overhauls. The committee believes that
legislatively establishing the current Navy policy for the
establishment of MSRA requirements will provide stability to
the Navy ship repair and overhaul program.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 360--Termination of Defense Business Operations Fund and
Preparation of Plan Regarding Improved Operation of Working-Capital
Funds
This section would terminate the operations of the Defense
Business Operations Fund (DBOF) effective October 1, 1998. It
also would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
Congress a plan to improve the management and performance of
the industrial, commercial, and support activities currently
managed by the DBOF not later than September 30, 1997.
The committee takes this strong action in order to focus
the attention of the Department of Defense (DOD) upon serious
problems created for operational commanders and government
owned DBOF service providers by the current system. While the
committee is fully supportive of the concept of providing full
visibility of the total costs of industrial and support
services, some consistent level of activity by service
providers must be maintained in order to provide stability to
both providers and customers. The committee strongly urges DOD
to develop a plan which replaces the DBOF with a successor
activity to provide such stability while protecting unique
capabilities critical during war or mobilization.
Section 361--Increase in Capital Asset Threshold Under Defense Business
Operations Fund
This section would raise the capital asset threshold in a
Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF) activity from $50,000
to $100,000. Currently, there is a difference in the capital
asset threshold between DBOF funded activities and operation
and maintenance funded activities. Historically, these
thresholds have been standardized in order to simplify training
and management requirements. The Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-61)
established the capital asset threshold, the maximum unit cost
of an item that can be purchased using operation and
maintenance appropriations, at $100,000. The higher threshold
reflects the impact of inflation upon equipment and software
purchases. The provision would standardizes the capital asset
threshold for DBOF and operations and maintenance activities at
$100,000.
Section 362--Transfer of Excess Personal Property To Support Law
Enforcement Activities
This section would provide permanent authority for the
Department of Defense (DOD) to provide excess personal property
to state level law enforcement agencies. This property includes
vehicles, helicopters, weapons, ammunition and other property
that is needed by law enforcement agencies. Section 1208 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1990 and
1991, (Public Law 101-189) established a one year program to
provide excess personal property to law enforcement agencies
for use in drug enforcement activities. This provision was
extended until September 30, 1997 by section 1005 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
(Public Law 101-510).
The committee believes that this program has been
successful and notes that the overall program responsibility
was recently moved from the DOD Drug Policy Office to the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The committee is pleased to
note that several programmatic changes have been made by DLA
that appear to strengthen the overall program. As this programs
appears to be beneficial to many law enforcement agencies, the
committee recommends that the program be made permanent and
that it be expanded to include all law enforcement activities
with a priority for drug enforcement activities.
Section 363--Storage of Motor Vehicles in Lieu of Transportation-
This section would provide storage, at government expense,
of privately-owned vehicles for service members when there are
restrictions on the normal shipment of these vehicles, and
would also provide storage of vehicles for service members who
are deployed between 30 and 180 consecutive days. When a
service member is transferred to an overseas location and is
authorized to ship his privately-owned vehicle to that
location, there are times when the location the service member
is being transferred to prohibits the entry of the particular
vehicle, or requires extensive modifications be made to the
vehicle. In these cases, the government does not pay for the
storage of the service members vehicle if he elects not to ship
or modify the vehicle. Additionally, when a service member is
deployed for an extended period of time, usually more than one
month and less than six months, there currently are no
provisions for the storage of privately-owned vehicles. The
committee is aware that frequently, especially for single
service members, privately-owned vehicles have been vandalized
and/or stolen while they are on these extended deployments.
Section 364--Control of Transportation Systems in Time of War
This section would shift the responsibility for all systems
of transportation during the time of war from the Secretaries
of the Army and the Air Force to the Secretary of Defense.
Current law provides that during times of war, the Army and the
Air Force assume control independently of transportation
systems for its service members, munitions, and equipment,
exclusive of the other services. For efficiency purposes, the
Department of Defense has established the United States
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) as the single manager for
transportation. The committee believes that the provision is in
keeping with the single manager for transportation concept.
Section 365--Security Protection at Department of Defense Facilities in
National Capital Region
This section would permit the Defense Protection Service
(DPS) to provide emergency protection and security services to
sensitive defense activities in the National Capital Region
(NCR). Currently, the DPS provides security services for the
Pentagon. If emergency protection and security services are
required at any of the other sensitive defense activities in
the NCR, the Department of Defense is required to meet these
needs on a case-by-case, patchwork basis by a variety of legal
methods. One of these methods is obtaining special deputation
of DPS officers by the US Marshal Service. Another is by
requesting delegation of authority for specific functions from
the Administrator of General Services. Each time these services
are required, substantial administrative expenses and process
are involved. The committee is concerned that the present
situation is not conducive to emergency responses and urgently
required security requests by NCR defense activities. The
provision is revenue neutral and would improve responsiveness
in providing emergency security assistance in the NCR.
Section 366--Modifications to Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
This section would amend the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Act of 1991 (Pubic Law 101-510) to update the terms of office
for members of the armed forces or federal civilians who are
appointed as members of the Retirement Home Board, authorize
the disposal of real property, and establish annual evaluation
procedures for the directors of the individual retirement
homes.
Section 367--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees
This section recommends the authorization of $58 million
for educational assistance to local education agencies where
the standard for the minimum level of education within the
state could not be maintained because of the large number of
military connected students or the effects of base realignments
and closures.
The Department of Education impact aid program provides
supplementary funds to school districts nationwide to support
the education of over 540,000 military dependents. The quality
of the education within the school districts that receive
impact aid is directly dependent on the payments from the
program. The committee notes that the level of impact aid
benefits has been eroded by inflation and that school districts
impacted by military connected students receive only 40 percent
of the impact aid that would be paid if the program were fully
funded.
The committee supports the recent effort by the Secretary
of Defense to seek greater support for the impact aid program
by the Department of Education. The committee believes that the
ultimate responsibility for providing support for the education
of the nation's children rests with the Department of
Education. The committee recognizes there are unique problems
within the military impact aid program and this section would
address those concerns. However, the committee does not support
an increased level of support for the program beyond that
already addressed in this section.
Section 368--Retention of Civilian Employee Positions at Military
Training Bases Transferred to National Guard
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
retain civilian employee positions at installations being
transferred to the National Guard during fiscal year 1997 to
provide transitional support to active and reserve component
training missions on the installations. The maximum number of
employees retained at each installation would not exceed 20
percent of the federal civilian workforce employed at the
installation as of September 8, 1995. The requirement to
maintain a civilian employee position would terminate upon
departure or retirement of the employee filling the retained
position, or upon certification by the Secretary of Defense
that the position is no longer required to support a training
mission on the installation.
Section 369--Expansion of Authority To Donate Unusable Food
This section would expand the list of eligible recipients
for donations of unusable food items from the Department of
Defense to include state and local governments, many of whom
operate their own shelters and food kitchens to assist local
efforts to feed homeless citizens. The section would also allow
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to participate in this
program. Currently, section 2485 of title 10, United States
Code, does not include state and local governments among the
entities eligible to receive donations of unusable and surplus
food items such as meals-ready-to-eat (MREs), and only allows
the individual military departments to donate unusable food.
This section would allow DLA to donate MREs and other excess
food items from various Defense agencies to cities and states
who, in turn, could distribute them to homeless individuals and
families.
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
The committee believes that the military personnel budget
submitted by the President reflects the growing stress of
attempting to fund a military strategy to fight and win two
Major Regional Contingencies (MRCs) without the commitment to
provide the funding necessary to implement it. As a result, the
Administration's budget request shortchanges the military
personnel accounts and denies, delays or diminishes manpower,
compensation, and quality of life initiatives known by the
administration to be so critical to promoting and protecting
the quality force needed for a smaller military to win
decisively on the battlefield. The overall effect of an
underfunded defense budget is a repeated inability by the
Administration's military and civilian leaders to keep the
promises they have made.
The most glaring example of this can be found in the
statements of numerous Administration witnesses before the
committee. While touting that the nine-year military personnel
drawdown was nearly over, these witnesses also acknowledged
that the President's budgets for 1998 and 1999 were likely to
require Army manpower reductions of at least 20,000, and Air
Force reductions of at least 6,000 below the end-strength
floors required by law and recommended by the Administration's
Bottom Up Review (BUR).
Other trends also illustrate the committee's concern
regarding the inadequacy of the overall military personnel
budget request. For example, while the committee is gratified
that the President, for the first time, is requesting a
military pay raise that keeps pace with inflation, the
committee is disappointed that the proposed pay raise appears
to be funded at the expense of one of the Administration's most
visible and enlightened 1996 quality of life initiatives: The
much touted Secretary of Defense commitment to a six-year
effort to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses by at least one
per cent annually. Unfortunately for the 70 percent of military
members and their families who reside off base in local
communities and depend on their basic allowance for quarters to
at least keep pace with housing cost increases, the fiscal year
1997 defense budget request largely reneges on that commitment.
Similarly, despite a vocal commitment to improving quality
of life, the Department remains unable due to lack of funds to
relieve the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by service members
who are reimbursed for only two of the three dollars they
expend during permanent change of station (PCS) moves.
An inadequate fiscal year 1997 budget request also
undercuts the Department's oft-stated commitment to quality
health care. The internal Department struggle to find
modernization funding resulted in nearly a $500 million
shortfall in the Defense Health Program. Such a shortfall, if
left unchanged, would guarantee that most space-available care
for military retirees at military treatment facilities would
disappear.
In contrast to public claims by the Department that the
fiscal year 1997 budget preserves readiness, the Army personnel
budget, for example, is underfunded for the second year in a
row by more than $100 million. To find internal savings to make
up the difference, the Army, as it did in 1996, proposes to
delay non-commissioned officer (NCO ) promotions causing
readiness levels in Army divisions to drop. Also, the Army
would increase the rate of officer separations and delay
promotions, thereby exacerbating a 30% officer shortage that
Congress identified last year. In addition, the Army would also
delay paying 1996 Congressional initiatives in housing and
special pays for recruiters.
Another indicator of the Administration's inadequately
funded personnel accounts is the absence of initiatives to
address long-standing major problems confronting personnel
managers within the Pentagon. For example, even as the United
States increases the use of the reserve components to augment
and supplement the active forces in a range of operations, the
level of full-time manning in the reserve components remains
insufficient to provide adequately for reserve readiness.
The committee fears that the ``robbing peter to pay paul''
budget philosophy pursued by the Administration will ultimately
destroy the morale of service members and their families, lead
to a hemorrhage of quality career members and a decline in the
quality of recruits. In the end, without Congressional action
to intercede, the committee is concerned that the
Administration unwillingness to adequately fund military
personnel needs will ultimately undermine readiness by setting
the military on the same course to a hollow force as was
experienced in the late 1970s.
The committee has acted to reverse the major shortfalls in
the Administration's fiscal year 1997 military personnel budget
request. Among the committee initiatives are:
(1) A 4.6% increase in the Basic Allowance for
Quarters in lieu of the 3% increase sought in the
President's budget, and the establishment of a floor on
variable housing allowance payments to protect the
adequacy of housing for junior enlisted families in
high cost areas.
(2) Restrictions on end-strength reductions below
the floors set in 1996.
(3) A package of enhanced reimbursements for
permanent change of station moves that reduce out of
pocket expenses.
(4) Restoration of the nearly $500 million shortfall
in the Defense Health Fund.
Details of these and other initiatives are contained in the
report that follows related to the military personnel titles of
the bill.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Air National Guard Fighter Aircraft
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
increase the Air National Guard personnel end strength
authorizations (576 part-time personnel, 249 active guard/
reserves, 343 military technicians) above the budget request
and recommends an increase of $9 million to the personnel
authorization to provide Air National Guard fighter squadrons
with 15 primary authorized aircraft (PAA) per squadron vice the
requested 12.
Army Military Personnel Account Shortfall for Fiscal Year 1997
To help rectify a nearly $500 million shortfall, the
Congress approved an $130 million addition to the Army military
personnel accounts in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). Much to its dismay,
the committee again finds itself confronted with serious
underfunding in the Army. Despite efforts to find internal
savings and efficiencies, the Army's fiscal year 1997 military
personnel budget request is approximately $190 million short of
required levels. As a result, the Army declined to fund a range
of quality of life and recruiting initiatives authorized by
Congress last year, and has opted for reduced readiness in a
number of active duty divisions because of an inability to
promote sufficient non-commissioned officers. Moreover, the
Army chose to accelerate officer reductions and slow the pace
of promotions, thereby exacerbating officer manning shortages
that the committee identified during fiscal year 1996 as being
as high as 30 percent across the Army.
In order to minimize the readiness impact of continued Army
military personnel account shortfalls, and to provide the Army
the ability to fund key quality of life and recruiting
initiatives, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
increase the Army military personnel account and recommends an
increase of $148 million over the President's budget request.
Army Reserve Full Time Manning Increase
In recognition of the expanded role of the Army Reserve in
the early-deploying contingency forces and the chronically low
levels of full time support within the Army Reserve, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to increase the
number of Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) by 254 personnel and
recommends an increase of $8 million above the President's
request for reserves on active duty to support the reserves.
With this increase, the committee believes that the Army
Reserve will better be able to support increased operations
tempo and readiness requirements.
Navy Maritime Patrol Aircraft
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to increase
the number of Navy P3C maritime patrol aircraft squadrons by
two (1 active, 1 reserve) above the 12 active and 8 reserve
squadrons requested in the President's budget. As a
consequence, the committee directs the following increases:
Navy active personnel accounts (End Strength: 418 personnel,
and $7 million); Naval Reserve personnel accounts (End
Strength: 97 Training and Administration of the Reserves (TAR)
personnel, 266 part-time personnel, and $3 million).
Reserve Component Individual Training Funds
One of the overriding lessons learned from the experience
of reserve components during Operation Desert Storm was the
fundamental requirement that individuals be properly trained in
their particular military occupations, and that non-
commissioned officers (NCO) receive the required professional
development. Reserve component individual training remains
significantly underfunded in the President's budget request.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
increase funding by $31 million over the President's budget
request for national guard personnel account to fund schools
and special training for military occupational skill training,
new equipment training for the Multiple Launch Rocket System
and Bradley Fighting Vehicle training, as well as NCO
professional development. In addition, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to increase funding within the Army
Reserve personnel account to provide troop program unit
professional development training, as well as individual skills
training, by $30 million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize end strengths for active
forces as indicated in the table below:
Section 402--Permanent End Strength Levels to Support Two Major
Regional Contingencies
The committee was disturbed to learn that the Secretary of
Defense is now planning end strength levels for active forces
in fiscal year 1998 and beyond that are well below the floors
mandated by
Congress in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act
(Public Law 104-106). In mandating these floors at the end
strengths developed as a result of the Administration's Bottom
Up Review (BUR), Congress sought to ensure that the military
manpower levels remained at the absolute minimums necessary to
implement national military strategy. In addition, Congress
sought to retain sufficient manpower so that the military
services could more adequately manage the negative effects of
high operations and personnel tempos. Finally, the Congress
sought to ratify the message that the Administration and the
military services had repeatedly conveyed to service members
and their families: The nine-year drawdown that had eliminated
more than 600,000 active duty personnel was over. Without that
ratification, Congress believed that a continuing, open-ended
free-fall of active end strength would exacerbate tensions and
uncertainties within the force and lead to serious negative
consequences for recruiting and retention.
For these reasons, the committee finds it difficult to
understand why the Secretary of Defense has consented to allow
the Air Force, beginning in fiscal year 1998, to drop 6,000
below the mandated BUR end strength level. Equally mystifying
to the committee is the Secretary of Defense's plan to
underfund the Army manpower accounts by nearly $300 million in
fiscal year 1998 and $230 million in fiscal year 1999. Such
underfunding would require the Army to reduce end strength by
at least 20,000, unless the Army can find internal savings and
efficiencies to buy back the manpower. The committee finds such
a strategy as unrealistic because it would require, by
Congressional Budget Office estimates, the Army to find savings
in excess of $770 million over two years. Therefore, in an
effort to provide Congress a full opportunity to examine the
rationale for any end strength reductions below the BUR levels,
this section would require that annual defense budget requests
submitted to Congress must provide at least enough funding to
maintain the minimum active end strengths prescribed in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106). In addition, no funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense could be used to implement a reduction in
the mandated end strengths unless specifically authorized by
law.
Section 403--Authorized Strengths for Commissioned Officers on
ActiveDuty in Grades of Major, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel and Navy
Grades of Lieutenant Commander, Commander, and Captain
The President's budget request included a provision that
would modify section 523 of title 10, United States Code to
raise the grade ceilings of active duty Army, Air Force, and
Marine Corps majors and lieutenant colonels and active duty
Navy lieutenant commanders, commanders, and captains relative
to the total number of commissioned officers on active duty.
The committee recognizes that there has been an increase in
requirements for officers in grades 0-4, 0-5, and 0-6 since the
tables were implemented in 1980. Further, the committee notes
that the increase in officer requirements, when coupled with
the force reductions since 1990, has limited the ability of
services to comply with statutory requirements for promotion
timing and opportunity rates.
Sections 402 and 403 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) authorized the
Army and the Marine Corps, respectively, to temporarily vary
from end strength limitations for majors and lieutenant
colonels. Similarly, section 402 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
authorized the Navy and the Air Force to vary from end strength
limitations for lieutenant commanders, commanders, and
captains, in the case of the Navy, and majors and lieutenant
colonels, in the case of the Air Force.
This section would permanently raise the grade ceilings of
active duty Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps majors and
lieutenant colonels and active duty Navy lieutenant commanders,
commanders, and captains relative to the total number of
commissioned officers on active duty, as requested by the
President.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize selected reserve end strengths
as indicated in the table below:
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the end strengths of reserves
on active duty in support of the reserves as indicated in the
table below. These end strengths are included within the total
end strengths authorized for the selected reserve above.
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians
This section would authorize military technician end
strength as indicated in the table below:
The committee notes that the above authorizations include
both dual-status and single-status technicians. As redefined in
section 1214 of this act, only those federal civilian employees
hired under title 5 or 32, United States Code, who are required
to maintain a dual status as drilling reserve component members
as a condition of their federal employment shall henceforward
be considered military technicians for the purpose of annual
authorizations. Thus, this section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to provide in subsequent annual budget
requests military technician end strengths that delineate the
numbers of both single- and dual-status technicians. Subsequent
military technician authorizations and floors shall only be
based on the number of dual status technicians.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel
This section would authorize $70,206 million to be
appropriated for military personnel, an increase of $423.2
million from the budget request.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Collection of Comparison Data on Gender-Neutral Training
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160) required the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that entrance into any military occupational career open
to both men and women be evaluated on the basis of common,
relevant performance standards without different standards or
evaluation on the basis of gender. Congressional concern
focused then, and continues to focus, on the question of
whether standards are being reduced in order to move women into
roles that traditionally have been closed to them.
In response to growing Congressional concerns about
maintaining adequate performance standards to ensure the safe
and effective accomplishment of demanding combat or combat-
related missions only recently opened to women, the committee
requested the Comptroller General of the United States to
assist in determining how the increasing role of women is being
managed by each of the services. Unfortunately, efforts to
evaluate the services' use of gender-neutral performance
standards and the effectiveness of coed basic training have
been hindered by the Department of Defense and each of the
services' substantial lack of comparison data. The dearth of
information is so significant it almost implies an intention to
dissuade comparison of the performance of integrated units with
those of non-integrated units.
In response to the concerns raised by the services'
apparent lack of efforts to collect effective data to support
their contentions that training standards have not been
compromised, the committee directs Secretary of Defense to
establish uniform requirements for collecting and evaluating
data on the performance of recently integrated units, coed
basic training and aviation training. To facilitate comparison
between integrated and non-integrated units, the information
collected shall include performance data on non-integrated
training and operational units.
Guidance to Commanders on Unexplained Absences of Personnel
The committee is concerned that unit commanders are not
routinely seeking the assistance of professional criminal
investigators when evaluating the circumstances surrounding
unexplained absences of service members under their command.
Particularly in cases in which reliable individuals with
exemplary service records disappear without explanation, common
sense would seem to dictate that commanders should do more than
handle the case administratively as though it were a routine
unauthorized absence. The committee's investigation suggests
that unit commanders who fail to involve criminal investigators
at the beginning of cases in which the circumstances
surrounding an unexplained disappearance are suspicious run the
risk of losing important investigative leads and of not
discovering or preventing criminal activity that could result
in harm to their subordinates. The committee notes that
existing regulatory guidance for commanders does not even
mention the option of enlisting professional investigative help
for cases of this nature.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the regulations of the Department of Defense and the military
departments applicable to this problem. The committee further
directs that the Secretary require, as necessary, amendments to
those regulations urging commanders to seek the assistance of
professional criminal investigators when the commander's
preliminary investigation suggests that a service member's
absence is inconsistent with the member's prior record or
behavior, or when the commander does not develop sufficient
information upon which to make an informed judgment about the
nature of the absence. Additionally, the committee directs the
secretaries of the military departments to modify the curricula
of unit commander training programs to ensure that commanders
and those selected to become commanders understand the
importance of seeking professional investigative assistance in
appropriate cases.
Increased Funding for Off-Duty Education
The committee, responding to letters from both the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force and the Commandant of the Marine Corps
which identified service funding needs, recommends the addition
of $4.5 million in off-duty education funds for the U.S. Marine
Corps, and $9.5 million in tuition assistance for the U.S. Air
Force.
Increased Funding for Recruiting
For the last several years, the committee has taken a range
of action, including substantial increases over the requested
amounts for recruiting advertising funds, to improve the
ability of the military services to recruit quality people in
sufficient numbers. The committee attributes the ability of the
services to meet recruiting goals in a very difficult market in
no small part to increased advertising that has helped to
mitigate the public perception that the military was no longer
hiring. Nevertheless, the committee believes a targeted effort
is required to address areas of concern conveyed to the
committee by the services. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy to increase
funding for recruiting and advertising above the amount
requested in the President's budget by $11 million for the U.S.
Army Reserve and by $4.7 million for the U.S. Marine Corps,
respectively.
Minority Representation in Special Operations Forces
The committee is aware that there may be a significant
under-representation of minorities in certain areas of the
special operations forces of the Department of Defense. The
committee desires to understand better the reasons for and
implications of any under-representation. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the racial
representation, both officer and enlisted, in the special
operations forces of each of the military departments. In
addition, if the Secretary determines that a significant racial
imbalance exists, the committee directs the Secretary to report
the reasons for the imbalance to the Congress, together with a
plan to correct the imbalance.
New Parent Support Program
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) added $25.6 million to fund the New Parent
Support Program (NPSP). The statement of managers accompanying
the conference report (H. Rept. 104-450) on the act explained
that the conferees took this action because they ``consider the
. . . NPSP critical to the readiness and retention of quality
people.'' The statement of mangers also stated that, ``if the
Department or a service attempt to reduce, divert, or reprogram
the . . . NPSP funding for some other purpose, the conferees
would consider such an action to be in direct contravention of
congressional intent.'' Despite this unequivocal guidance, the
committee understands that the Secretary of Defense reduced
NPSP funding as part of internal Department reprogramming
efforts. Moreover, the fiscal year 1997 budget request
contained no funding for the NPSP.
Both these actions show contempt for Congressional intent,
and help to highlight the inability of the Department
leadership, in the face of inadequate defense budgets, to
fulfill promises to protect the quality of life of service
members and their families. To correct the funding shortfall,
the committee authorizes an increase of $20 million for NPSP,
and directs that it be allocated as follows: Army, $7.8
million; Navy, $5.5 million; Marine Corps, $2.9 million; Air
Force, $3.8 million. In addition, the committee unequivocally
restates its previous position that the NPSP funds shall not be
diverted, reduced or reprogrammed and strongly urges the
Department not to allow another violation of Congressional
intent.
Personnel Tempo
The committee is concerned that marked increases in the
time key units are spending away from home on deployments--
commonly called PERSTEMPO--is undermining morale and readiness.
In testimony before the committee, General Dennis J. Reimer,
Chief of Staff, United States Army, stated ``Excessive time
away from home is often cited by quality professionals as the
reason for their decision to leave the military. . . .'' Yet,
recent reports by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the
Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life found that
Department of Defense (DOD) systems are not adequate to measure
PERSTEMPO's full scope and impact, and DOD does not have a
clear policy to provide the guidance needed for its long term
management.
For example, unit officials and combatant commanders in
chief told GAO that while many personnel were coping with the
divorces, missed birthdays and holidays, and other hardships,
some may have reached their saturation point. Any further
increases in PERSTEMPO could create significant retention,
substance abuse, and family problems. In addition, DOD
officials acknowledged that many commanders believed that
turning down deployments would reflect negatively on their
units and/or their own careers, and others may have been
competing for deployments to underscore the value of their
units during the current drawdown. However, these concerns
generally did not manifest themselves in the statistics GAO
reviewed. Many of the statistics DOD compiles are not useful
for analyzing the impact of PERSTEMPO on high-deploying units
because they are not collected consistently across the services
or are compiled only at major command levels. Similarly, while
DOD has taken a number of actions to study and mitigate the
impact of high PERSTEMPO, it has not directed the services to
have goals or policies to limit PERSTEMPO, and the services--
with the exception of the Navy--have no clear regulations on
this issue. There is also no DOD-wide definition of a
deployment, and credit for deployments is granted
inconsistently across the services.
These reports provided a variety of recommendations. For
example, the Defense Science Board recommended that DOD issue a
single, simple formula for counting deployed time: one day away
equals one day away. GAO recommended that DOD develop the data
needed to improve its research on the effects of PERSTEMPO, and
issue regulations to guide service management of PERSTEMPO,
including whether each service should have goals or policies
stipulating the maximum amount of time units and/or personnel
may be deployed. DOD's position on many of these issues is not
clear to the committee. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on National Security on the
policies DOD plans to establish to better monitor and manage
high PERSTEMPO, no later than December 31, 1996.
Reduction in Permanent Change of Station Moves
The committee is encouraged that each of services has
conducted in-depth analyses of their respective permanent
change of station (PCS) programs and launched independent
initiatives to reduce the number of PCS moves. The committee
believes that a reduction in PCS moves will not only reduce
military personnel costs, but will also enhance morale by
increasing stability in the force that would be much welcome to
service members and their families. The committee was most
impressed with the Navy's program to encourage sailors to
homestead at locations where the service member can serve more
than one tour of duty. The committee also believes that the
Secretary of Defense should take action to develop and manage a
joint service program to share information about initiatives
that successfully reduce the number of PCS moves.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to consolidate military service data on efforts to reduce the
number of PCS moves and to study the feasibility of developing
a joint system to share information about initiatives that
successfully reduce the number of PCS moves. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to report the consolidated
data and the findings of the feasibility study to the Congress
not later than September 30, 1997.
The Secretary is also directed to include in the report
information on locations within the contiguous United States
where service members are mandatorily moved after a specified
maximum tour. The committee is concerned that such maximum
tours detract from efforts to reduce the number of PCS moves
and stabilize the force. For example, the committee is aware of
service policies that require members to leave the Washington
D.C. region after a specified tour has been served. The report
should identify locations and units with maximum tours and
provide the rationale to support such tours.
Report on Sentence Enhancements for Hate Crimes
The committee has concerns regarding crimes against persons
or property committed in the military motivated by the victim's
status as categorized by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (Public
Law 101-275). The U.S. Supreme Court, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell,
ruled that in the case of a crime where the person or property
was intentionally selected because of the victim's status or
the status of the owner or occupant of a property, the sentence
for the underlying crime may be enhanced.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
efficacy of sentence enhancement as it would apply to service
members if such enhancements as allowed under Wisconsin v.
Mitchell were incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, and to submit to Congress the results of this study no
later than February 1, 1997.
Retention Standards for Permanent Medical Nondeployables
The committee notes that there are considerable differences
in the retention standards for permanent medical nondeployables
employed by the military departments for medical conditions
other than HIV-positive status. Of the 5,734 permanent medical
nondeployables currently serving on active duty (other than
HIV) reported to the committee in June 1995, only 237 (4
percent) were assigned to the Navy and Marine Corps. Of the
remaining 5,497, 1,883 (33 percent) were on active duty in the
Air Force and 3,614 (63 percent) were on active duty in the
Army. The committee is very concerned that the differences in
retention standards demonstrated by these statistics is
creating inequities as to the treatment of similarly situated
service members and their families.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military
departments, to study the retention standards being employed by
the military departments and report the results of the study to
the Congress not later than March 31, 1997. The report shall,
at a minimum, address the differences in retention standards,
the reasons given by the military departments to justify the
differences, an assessment of the scope of inequitable
treatment of service members by the military departments, and
the position of the Secretary of Defense regarding his
willingness to continue to allow the services to employ
different retention standards for permanent medical
nondeployables.
Survey of Attitudes Towards Expansion of Roles of Women in Combat and
Combat Related Military Skills
The committee believes that before the Secretary of Defense
undertakes any further attempts to move women into new direct
ground combat specialties, to which they have not heretofore
been permitted, the impact of such an effort should be
thoroughly evaluated. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to obtain an independent study on this
impact by a federally funded research and development center
(FFRDC) and to report the results of this study to Congress by
March 1, 1997.
The study shall include, but not be limited to, a written,
anonymous survey based on a statistically-valid sample of all
military personnel, including company grade officers, field
grade officers and senior non-commissioned officers in both
direct ground combat units such as infantry, armor, artillery,
special operations and combat engineering, and combat support
units to assess the potential impact of assigning women to
combat and other specialties traditionally closed to them. The
study should address the impact of such an effort on unit
readiness, cohesion, morale, recruiting and retention.
Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report to the Congressional defense committees by January 1,
1997, on the Department's plans to advance the assignment of
women in direct-combat and direct-combat support roles, and
report on the rationale of excluding ``risk of capture'' as a
criteria for determining assignment of women to both combat and
non-combat positions.
The committee also directs the Secretary to obtain an
independent study by an FFRDC evaluating the performance of
each military service in integrating women into military
occupations previously closed until the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 (Public
Law 102-190), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), and the Secretary's January
1994 action rescinding the Department's ``risk rules''
governing the assignment of women to non-combat military
positions.
As part of the study, the FFRDC shall evaluate the effect
on defense readiness and morale of integrating women into
newly-opened occupations and positions as well as factors
affecting the pace at which the military services are
integrating women.
The Secretary shall report to the Congressional defense
committees on the finding of this study no later than March 1,
1997.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Personnel Management
Section 501--Authorization for Senior Enlisted Members to Reenlistfor
an Indefinite Period of Time
Currently, title 10, United States Code, authorizes the
service secretaries to periodically reenlist military
personnel, including senior non-commissioned officers (NCO) for
periods of at least two but not more than six years. Thus,
several reenlistments are necessary to complete a 20-year or
longer career. This section would permit the secretaries of the
military departments to reenlist NCOs with 10 or more years of
service for indefinite periods of time.
Section 502--Authority to Extend Entry on Active Duty Under Delayed
Entry Program
At present, the secretaries of the military departments can
the delay for up to a year the entry to active duty of a person
who has signed an enlistment contract. Thus, the Delayed Entry
Program typically permits high school students to be contracted
at the end of their junior year and to enter active duty upon
graduation from high school. If for some reason (delay in
graduation, for example) active duty entry is delayed beyond
one year, the enlistment contract must be renegotiated. This
section would permit the secretaries of the military
departments, on a case-by-case basis, to extend to 18 months
the maximum period that a person can remain in the Delayed
Entry Program.
Section 503--Permanent Authority for Navy Spot Promotions for Certain
Lieutenants
This section would make permanent the authority for the
Navy to temporarily promote certain lieutenants in skills for
which there is a shortage of qualified officers.
Section 504--Reports on Response to Recommendations Concerning
Improvements to Department of Defense Joint Manpower Process
In November 1995, the Department of Defense Inspector
General issued a highly critical report as a result of its
inspection of the Department of Defense joint manpower process.
The report raised serious questions regarding the department's
ability to effectively determine, validate, approve and manage
military and civilian manpower requirements and resources in
joint organizations. The section would require the Secretary of
Defense to provide a semi-annual report to Congress on the
status of actions taken to implement the Inspector General
recommendations. The section would also require that the
General Accounting Office assess the adequacy and completeness
of the Department's corrective actions and report to Congress
not later than one year after enactment of this act.
Section 505--Frequency of Reports to Congress on Joint Officer
Management Policies
The current provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Department
of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433),
require the Secretary of Defense to make semi-annual reports to
Congress on promotion rates of officers who are serving in, or
have served in, joint duty assignments. This section would
amend the requirement so as to provide for an annual report.
The committee notes that this change implements a
recommendation of the Department of Defense Inspector General
contained in a November 1995 report on the joint officer
management process. That report also found that the Secretary
of Defense, starting with the fiscal year 1993 report on joint
officer promotions, had discontinued providing complete
promotion statistics for all categories of officers as required
by the law. The committee directs that, beginning with the
first annual report under the revised requirement, the
Secretary of Defense report the full range of data required by
law.
Section 506--Repeal of Requirement That Commissioned Officers Be
Initially Appointed in a Reserve Grade
This section would remove the barrier to officers receiving
initial appointments in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular
Air Force and Regular Marine Corps by repealing subsection (e)
of section 532 of title 10, United States Code as added by
section 501 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993.
Section 507--Continuation on Active Status for Certain Reserve Officers
of the Air Force
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to retain beyond dates of mandatory retirement for years of
service up to 50 reserve officers who are designated judge
advocates. This authority would expire on September 30, 2003.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters
Section 511--Individual Ready Reserve Activation Authority
Under current law the President may involuntarily recall to
active duty, at times other than during war or national
emergency, up to 200,000 reservists for up to 270 days from
units of the Selected Reserve. This authority is known as the
Presidential Selective Reserve Call-up (PSRC). However, under
PSRC, individuals who are members of the Individual Ready
Reserve (IRR) cannot be recalled to active duty.
During Operation Desert Storm, the lack of authority to
recall members of the IRR as part of the PSRC compelled the
mobilization of portions of late-deploying selected reserve
units in order to fill manpower shortfalls in early deploying
units. This strategy had two major disadvantages. First, unit
cohesion of the later deploying units was damaged. Second, the
military services, particularly the Army, faced the significant
challenge of having to rebuild the late deploying units upon
their mobilization.
This section would build on the lessons learned from
Operation Desert Storm by authorizing the President, under
PSRC, to recall up to 30,000 members of a new category of the
IRR that would be created by this section. The new category of
the IRR would consist of those personnel, in the military
skills and occupations designated by the Secretary of Defense,
who had volunteered prior to leaving active duty to become part
of this new IRR category. Such volunteers could remain in the
new IRR category for no longer than 24 months and could be
provided such benefits (less pay and training) as the Secretary
of Defense deemed appropriate.
Section 512--Training for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of the
Reserves
This section would clarify that a reservist on active duty
in support of the reserves may receive training and
professional development in the same manner as any other member
on active duty. Current law limits such a reservist to only
receiving periodic refresher training.
Section 513--Clarification to Definition of Active Status
This section would expand the definition of the term
``active status'' in section 101(d)(4) of title 10, United
States Code to include both officers and enlisted members of
the reserve components.
Section 514--Appointment Above O-2 in the Naval Reserve
This section would permit members of the Naval Reserve who
are selected for commissioned service as part of the Seaman to
Admiral Program to be promoted above the grade of lieutenant
(junior grade) even though they have not completed the
baccalaureate degree requirements which normally must be met by
the time Naval Reserve officers are considered for promotion to
lieutenant (O-3).
Section 515--Report on Number of Advisers in Active Component Support
of Reserves Pilot Program
Section 414 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190), as amended,
requires the Secretary of the Army, after September 30, 1996,
to assign no fewer than 5,000 active component advisors to the
reserve components. This section would require the Secretary of
Defense to determine the appropriate number of active component
advisors and recommend changes to Congress.
Section 516--Sense of Congress and Report Regarding Reemployment Rights
for Mobilized Reservists Employed in Foreign Countries
Approximately 2,000 members of the U.S. reserve components
now live in foreign countries and work for U.S. or foreign
companies. If mobilized, these people would not qualify for the
reemployment rights extended to other mobilized reservists by
chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, known as the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. This
section would express the sense of Congress about the lack of
reemployment rights facing these reservists and direct the
Secretary of Defense, together with the Secretaries of State
and Labor, to provide the Congress with recommendations to
alleviate the reemployment problems of this group of
reservists.
Subtitle C--Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts-Martial for the National
Guard When Not in Federal Service
Section 531--Composition, Jurisdiction and Procedures of Courts-martial
This section would amend section 326 of title 32, United
States Code, to clarify the composition, jurisdiction and
procedures of courts-martial for the National Guard when those
components are not in federal service. This section would
clarify that such courts-martial do not have jurisdiction over
service members who may be tried pursuant to section 802 of
title 10, United States Code. National Guard courts-martial
would be required to substantially follow the forms and
procedures required in courts-martial in the active components.
Finally, this section would clarify that the jurisdiction and
powers of National Guard courts-martial not in federal service
are established by state law.
Section 532--General Courts-martial
This section would amend section 327 of title 32, United
States Code, to provide for the convening of a general court-
martial for the National Guard not in federal service in a
manner more like courts-martial conducted in the active
components. State adjutants-general, in addition to the
President and state and territorial governors, would be
authorized to convene general courts-martial. In addition,
punishments that could be imposed by such courts-martial would
be modernized to increase authorized fines, allow bad conduct
discharges to be adjudged, clarify that all enlisted personnel
may be reduced in rank by a general court-martial, and allow
confinement for not more than 180 days to be adjudged. Finally,
this section would authorize the adjudication of punitive
discharge only in cases in which counsel was detailed to
represent the accused and a military judge was detailed to the
trial. As is the case in courts-martial conducted pursuant to
title 10, United States Code, a verbatim record of trial would
be required in cases in which the adjudged sentence includes a
punitive discharge.
Section 533--Special Courts-Martial
This section would amend section 328 of title 32, United
States Code, to modernize the punishments that may be imposed
by National Guard special courts-martial conducted when those
components are not in federal service. In addition, this
section would clarify that these special courts-martial may try
a commissioned officer. Finally, this section would incorporate
the same requirements for the imposition of a National Guard
bad conduct discharge as is the case for those adjudicated by
active component special courts-martial.
Section 534--Summary Courts-Martial
This section would amend section 329 of title 32, United
States Code, to modernize the punishment authority of summary
courts-martial conducted by the National Guard when those
components are not in federal service. The limit on fines that
may be imposed by these courts-martial would be increased. In
addition, this section would clarify that all enlisted members,
not just noncommissioned officers, may be reduced in rank and
that a summary court-martial may not try a commissioned
officer. As is the case with respect to summary courts-martial
convened under title 10, United States Code, an accused would
have the right to object to trial by summary court-martial. In
that event, a special or general court-martial could be
convened.
Section 535--Repeal of Authority for Confinement in Lieu of Fine
This section would repeal section 330 of title 32, United
States Code. That section permits a court-martial to sentence
an accused to confinement in lieu of a fine at the rate of one
day for each dollar of the authorized fine. This procedure is
obsolete and does not comport with modern court-martial
practice.
Section 536--Approval of Sentence of Bad Conduct Discharge or
Confinement
Section 536 would amend section 331 of title 32, United
States Code, by adding a requirement that the governor of a
state or territory approve a sentence that includes a bad
conduct discharge or confinement of three months or more before
that sentence may be executed. Under current law, governors
approve only sentences that include a dismissal or dishonorable
discharge.
Section 537--Authority of Military Judges
This section would amend section 332 of title 32, United
States Code, to authorize military judges to compel the
attendance of the accused, witnesses, or the production of
documents at National Guard courts-martial. Current law vests
this authority only in the president of a court-martial or a
summary court officer. The inclusion of military judges is
consistent with modern court-martial practice.
Section 538--Statutory Reorganization
This section would administratively reorganize title 32,
United States Code, by creating a new Chapter 4 of that title.
Chapter 4, titled Courts-Martial for the National Guard when
not in Federal Service, would consolidate all those sections of
title 32 related to the military justice process for the
National Guard into a single chapter, making reference and use
by practitioners easier.
Section 539--Effective Date
This section would cause the amendments made by this
subtitle to be effective upon the date of enactment of this
Act, except that for an offense committed before that date, the
maximum punishment would be the maximum punishment in effect at
the time of the commission of the offense.
Section 540--Conforming Amendments to Uniform Code of Military Justice
This section would make a clarifying amendment to sections
820 and 854 of title 10, United States Code.
Subtitle D--Education and Training Programs
Section 551--Extension of Maximum Age for Appointment as a Cadet or
Midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps and the
Service Academies
This section would increase the maximum age for appointment
in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC),
permitting the appointment of persons under 27 years of age
(vice under-25 years of age). The section would also permit
former enlisted members who had served on active duty to be
appointed in the Senior ROTC program even though they were
older than 27, so long as on the date of their commissioning
they would be under 30 years of age. Current law requires such
persons to be under 29 when commissioned.
With regard to the service academies, this section would
increase the maximum allowable age at entry from 22 to 23.
Section 552--Oversight and Management of Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps Program
This section would clarify existing law with regard to the
operation of Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)
programs. It would give priority for enrollment in ROTC to
students who were qualified for advanced training, and would
prohibit anyone who was ineligible for advanced training from
participating in practical military training, field training,
or practice cruises, unless the ineligibility was waived by the
service secretary. The section would also permit civilians
attending ROTC or other course of military instruction to wear
military uniforms only when the individual service regulations
specifically authorize such wear.
Section 553--ROTC Scholarship Student Participation in Simultaneous
Membership Program
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish a program to permit ROTC scholarship cadets to serve
simultaneously as a member of a Selected Reserve unit. At
present, such simultaneous membership is precluded by
Department policy.
Section 554--Expansion of ROTC Advanced Training Program to Include
Graduate Students
This section would modify section 2107, title 10, United
States Code, to permit the initial award of Reserve Officers'
Training Corps (ROTC) scholarships to people who already have
received a baccalaureate degree, provided the recipient
executes the required contractual commitments, including
enrollment in the ROTC advanced course.
Section 555--Reserve Credit for Members of Armed Forces Health
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide discretionary authority to the secretaries of the
military departments to award service credit toward a non-
regular retirement for certain members of the armed forces
health professions scholarship and financial assistance
programs.
Section 556--Expansion of Eligibility for Education Benefits to Include
Certain Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Participants
This section would expand the eligibility for the
Montgomery GI Bill education benefits to include ROTC
scholarship students who received scholarships with values of
less than $2,000 annually.
Section 557--Comptroller General Report on Cost and Policy Implications
of Permitting up to Five Percent of Service Academy Graduates To Be
Assigned Directly to Reserve Duty Upon Graduation
This section would require the Comptroller General to
analyze and report to Congress the cost and policy implications
of requiring that up to five percent of the graduating class of
each of the service academies to serve in the reserve
components, and that there be a corresponding increase in the
number of ROTC graduates each year placed on active duty.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 561--Hate Crimes in the Military
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
require each of the military services to conduct human
relations training designed to promote a thorough awareness of
equal opportunity issues, as well as a sensitivity to ``hate
group'' activity. It would also require the Secretary to ensure
that prospective recruits, both officer and enlisted,
understand the full implications of the oath of office or oath
of enlistment in terms of the equal protection and civil
liberties protection of the Constitution. Finally, this section
would require the Secretary to conduct an annual survey on race
relations, gender discrimination and hate group activity.
Section 562--Authority of a Reserve Judge Advocate To Act as a Notary
Public
This section would amend section 1044a of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize all judge advocates of the military
services, adjutants, assistant adjutants, and other service
members designated by regulation to act as notaries public,
without regard to whether they are on active duty or are
performing inactive duty for training. Under current law,
reserve component judge advocates and other authorized
personnel such as adjutants do not have the general powers of a
notary public unless they are on active duty or are performing
inactive duty for training. However, National Guard and reserve
judge advocates frequently are asked to perform notarial acts,
both on and off duty, in preparing other reserve component
service members for mobilization or deployment. If civilian
authorities question a notary's authority or duty status in
order to assure compliance with section 1044a before accepting
a power of attorney, will or other notarized document, service
members often have no way of learning the whereabouts of the
individual who notarized a document and cannot provide
information on that person's duty status, resulting in
rejection of the document. This section would authorize
appropriate personnel to have the general powers of a notary
public regardless of duty status, resulting in greater
uniformity and flexibility among the services and eliminating
litigation, particularly in cases involving will contests.
Section 563--Authority to Provide Legal Assistance to Public Health
Service Officers
This section would amend section 1044 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize active duty or retired officers of
the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and their
dependents to be eligible for legal assistance at military
installations. These individuals perform valuable public
service and often serve in remote localities such as Indian
reservations where legal advice on personal affairs may not be
readily obtained. This section would allow these persons to
receive legal advice at military bases, subject to the
availability of legal staff resources.
Section 564--Excepted Appointment of Certain Judicial Non-Attorney
Staff in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
This section would amend Article 143(c) of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (section 943(c) of title 10, United States
Code) to allow judges of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces to make excepted service appointments to non-
attorney positions on the personal staff of a judge. Under
current law, only attorney positions with the court are
excepted from the competitive service. Non-attorney positions
established on a judge's personal staff would include such
positions as confidential assistant, secretary, paralegal, and
law student intern.
Section 565--Replacement of Certain American Theater Campaign Ribbons
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
replace upon request the American Theater Campaign Ribbon
awarded to certain veterans of World War II
Section 566--Restoration of Regulations Prohibiting Service of
Homosexuals in the Armed Forces
This section would rescind the current Department of
Defense policy and relative directives and regulations
concerning homosexuality in the armed forces and related
Department of Defense and military department regulations and
would reinstate the regulations that were in effect on January
19, 1993. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to resume the questioning of potential new entrants
into the armed forces about homosexuality and would repeal a
provision included in section 571 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160)
that expressed the Sense of Congress that the questioning of
potential new entrants about homosexuality could be resumed
upon the decision of the Secretary of Defense. The provision
would also clarify that in the event of a perceived conflict
between the reinstated regulations and section 654 of title 10,
United States Code, the provision of law, including application
of well-settled rules of statutory construction, shall be given
effect.
The committee notes that an April 5, 1996 decision by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the
case of Paul G. Thomasson, Lieutenant, United States Navy,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense;
John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, Defendants-Appellees,
included a concurring opinion written by Judge Luttig (Five of
the remaining twelve judges joined Judge Luttig in his
opinion). The following quotes are taken from Judge Luttig's
opinion.
``Despite Congress' clear mandate requiring the
discharge of all known homosexuals, the Department of
Defense has, by it regulatory redefinition of the
statutory term `propensity,' created what is in effect
a sanctuary for known homosexuals whom the military
determines are not likely to engage in homosexual
acts.''
``The requirement that, in order to be discharged,
one must at least demonstrate a likelihood to engage in
homosexual acts exists only in a regulation promulgated
by the Administration, ostensibly in implementation of
the statute.''
``Through this regulation the Administration has
effectively secured the very policy regarding military
service by homosexuals that it was denied by the
Congress.''
``Rather than continue to indulge the politically
expedient fiction that the congressionally-mandated
policy bars from service only those known homosexuals
who are likely to engage in homosexual acts--a fiction
that both parties urge upon us because it serves their
mutual interest in creating a sanctuary for homosexuals
within the military--I would simply invalidate the
Administration's regulation as in excess of its
statutory authority.''
The committee believes that Judge Luttig has presented a
compelling argument to reinstate the regulations that were in
effect on January 19, 1993. The committee considers the failure
to reinstate the January 19, 1993 regulations as a betrayal of
the policy and principles that were so clearly specified by the
Congress in section 654 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 567--Reenactment and Modification of Mandatory Separation From
Service for Members Diagnosed With HIV-1 Virus
This section would restate, with modifications, section 567
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) to require the separation of members
determined to be HIV-positive. The modifications include the
following:
(1) In lieu of requiring separation of HIV-positive
service members not later than the last day of the
sixth month following determination that the service
member is HIV-positive, they would be required to
separate not later than the last day of the second
month following determination that the service member
is HIV-positive.
(2) In lieu of requiring separation of previously
identified HIV-positive service members not later than
the last day of the sixth month following the date of
enactment of the provision, they would be required to
separate not later than the last day of the second
month following the date of enactment of the provision.
(3) In lieu of authorizing the retention of HIV-
positive service members within two years of retirement
eligibility, this provision would require separation of
HIV-positive service members with less than 15 years of
service as of the date the service member is determined
to be HIV-positive.This provision would not address the
authority to provide the service member the same
medical benefits as would be provided to a member
granted a disability retirement.
The committee recommends separation within 60 days of the
determination that the service member is HIV-positive because
such period is more consistent with the separation notice
provided to many service members who are involuntarily
separated for other reasons. The committee recommends that
service members with 15 or more years of service be excluded
from the requirement to be separated because it would maximize
the training and experience that these service members possess
at a point in their careers when the need to deploy is
generally diminished.
The committee believes that it is important to provide
separating HIV-positive service members with the full
complement of benefits associated with disability retirement.
In particular, the committee is concerned that separating HIV-
positive service members receive monthly incomes and individual
and family medical benefits to assist in their transition from
active duty. The committee believes that the most appropriate
method for achieving these objectives is to mandate disability
retirement for separating HIV-positive service members under
sections 1201 and 1204 of title 10, United States Code.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
designate a disability rating of 30 percent for separating HIV-
positive service members, unless the service member is
otherwise entitled to a higher rating. The committee also
directs the Secretary of Defense to deem separating service
members determined to be HIV-positive as meeting all other
requirements for disability retirement under section 1201 or
1204 of title 10, United States Code, as applicable to the
member.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay
The committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence both believe in the importance of recruiting and
maintaining qualified linguists in the military services. The
committees understand that proficiency pay, tied to achievement
of agreed upon standards of competence, is an important
ingredient in the linguistic readiness of both the active and
reserve components.
Three years ago, the committee considered, but did not
adopt, a proposal to increase the maximum monthly amount of
foreign language proficiency pay to $450 from $150. If
implemented today, such an increase would cost the Department
of Defense between $18 million and $24 million, according to
the Congressional Budget Office. With such a price tag, the
committee believes that any proficiency pay initiative must be
incorporated into a comprehensive language program that has the
necessary recruiting, training, and career development
infrastructure, as well as the management oversight, to ensure
any new financial incentives accomplish the intended effect.
Although there have been positive developments in the
Department of Defense language programs, the committee believes
that the programs are not yet mature.
Should progress continue and should the Secretary of
Defense propose a comprehensive plan for an increase, including
credible cost estimates and objective data, the committee will
be prepared to give it fair consideration. -
Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Allowances During Permanent Change of
Station Moves
The committee is concerned that the mileage allowances set
by the Administrator of General Services for reimbursement of
federal civilian employees and military personnel for use of
privately owned vehicles during permanent change of station
moves cause most employees to personally absorb a portion of
the cost of transporting their own vehicle. The committee
recommends that the rates be increased to more appropriate
levels such as the rates for use of privately owned vehicles
accepted by the Internal Revenue Service.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Administrator of General
Services, to study the appropriateness of increasing the rate
per mile allowance for use of privately owned vehicles in lieu
of actual expenses during permanent change of station moves.
The study shall also address the requirement to provide a
mechanism for the annual increase in the rate to compensate for
increases in costs caused by inflation. The Secretary of
Defense shall report the results of the study to the Congress
not later than the September 30, 1997.
Special Duty Assignment Pay for Army Special Operating Forces
The committee understands that the Secretary of the Army
and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, have
reached an agreement that will permit, for the first time,
payment of special duty assignment pay (SDAP) to certain
enlisted members of U.S. Army Special Operations Command
beginning in fiscal year 1998. The agreement is contingent upon
U.S. Army Special Operating Command providing all funding for
the new payments in fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
The committee strongly endorses this agreement, believing
that the Army special operating forces, like the special
operating forces of the other services, should receive the
SDAP. Therefore, the committee authorizes a $6.4 million
increase in the Army's military personnel authorization, and
directs that the Army begin paying SDAP in fiscal year 1997.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997
This section would provide a 3.0 percent military pay raise
as proposed in the President's budget. The committee welcomes
the Administration's first request in four years for a pay
raise that keeps pace with inflation as measured by the
Employment Cost index. The committee hopes that this request is
motivated by a genuine concern for the welfare of military
members and their families and not the enhancement of the
Administration's image in an election year.
This committee notes that the President's budget request
did not include an increase in the Basic Allowance for Quarters
above the level of the pay raise as was included in the
President's fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee is
disappointed that the Secretary of Defense has elected to defer
his promise to continue a six year program to incrementally
reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for members and families
from the 20.6 in 1995 to the Congressionally established
objective of 15 percent. Accordingly, this section would
provide a 4.6 percent increase in the basic allowance for
quarters to fully fund a one percent reduction in out-of-pocket
housing expenses to 18.2 percent in fiscal year 1997.
Section 602--Availability of Basic Allowance for Quarters for Certain
Members Without Dependents Who Serve on Sea Duty
This section would include the following actions:
(1) A repeal of the current prohibition against
authorizing a single service member continuous basic
allowance for quarters and variable housing allowance
when they execute a permanent change of station to a
unit already deployed at sea.
(2) An authorization for quarters ashore or basic
allowance for quarters for service members in the grade
of E-5 without dependents while they are assigned to
sea duty.
(3) An authorization for the senior member of a
married couple comprised of two military members to
receive basic allowance for quarters at the without
dependents rate when both service members are assigned
to sea duty.
Section 603--Establishment of Minimum Monthly Amount of Variable
Housing Allowance for High Housing Cost Areas
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a minimum amount of variable housing allowance to
ensure all members are compensated at a level that is
sufficient to acquire safe and adequate housing in high cost
areas.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority for the selected
reserve reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment
bonus, the selected reserve affiliation bonus, the ready
reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the prior
service enlistment bonus until September 30, 1998.
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay for Nurse
Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists until September 30, 1998.
Section 613--Extension of Authority Relating to Payment of Other
Bonuses and Special Pays
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, special pay for health care
professionals who serve in the selected reserve in critically
short wartime specialties, reenlistment bonus for active
members, enlistment bonuses for critical skills, special pay
for enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to
certain high priority units, special pay for nuclear qualified
officers extending the period of active service, and nuclear
career accession bonus. The provision would also extend the
authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health
professionals who serve in the selected reserve and the nuclear
career annual incentive bonus until October 1, 1998.
Section 614--Special Incentives to Recruit and Retain Dental Officers
This section would amend title 37, United States Code, to
increase the amount of special pay for dental officers, to
establish an entitlement to special pay for reserve dental
officers consistent with special pay entitlements for
physicians, and to establish an accession bonus for dental
officers. Additionally, this section would require the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the feasibility
of increasing dental participation in the Armed Forces Health
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program.
The military services continue to have severe problems with
retention and recruitment of dentists. The significant decrease
in retention, especially in the first 10 years of service, has
occurred due to the steady decline in their military
compensation relative to civilian earnings. In 1986, dentist
earnings ratio (military/civilian) was 68 percent and retention
through the first 10 years was 42 percent. By 1994, the ratio
decline to 49 percent and retention is now 32 percent.
Concurrently, recruitment has dropped from 75 percent to 38
percent attainment.
Furthermore, prior to 1980, dentists serving in the
military reserves received a prorated portion of ``special
pay'' when performing annual training (AT), active duty for
training (ADT), or active duty for special work (ADSW).
However, at the present time, reserve dentists can only receive
special pay if called to active duty for more than 30
consecutive days. Reserve physicians currently receive special
pay when on AT, ADT or ADSW. Without this provision, authorized
billets for reserve dentists will continue to be unfilled.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Section 621--Temporary Lodging Expenses of Member in Connection With
First Permanent Change of Station
The temporary lodging expense allowance partially offsets
the cost of temporary lodging, meals, and incidental expenses
for members and their families arriving at a new duty station.
Currently, service members traveling to their first permanent
duty station are not authorized to receive temporary lodging
expense allowance. This section would authorize service members
traveling to their first permanent duty station to receive a
temporary lodging expense allowance.
Section 622--Allowance in Connection With Shipping Motor Vehicle at
Government Expense
Current law only authorizes service members an allowance to
reimburse the cost for one leg of a trip to either deliver a
privately owned vehicle for transportation at a port of
embarkation or to pick up a vehicle at a port of debarkation.
This section would authorize an allowance to reimburse members
for round-trip costs that are incurred in delivering a vehicle
for transportation or picking up a vehicle after
transportation.
Section 623--Dislocation Allowance at a Rate Equal to Two and One-Half
Months Basic Allowance for Quarters
This section would increase the amount of dislocation
allowance paid to service members to partially offset otherwise
non-reimbursable costs incurred during permanent change of
station moves from two months of basic allowance for quarters
to two and one half months basic allowance for quarters.
Section 624--Allowance for Travel Performed in Connection With Leave
Between Consecutive Overseas Tours
This section would authorize service members assigned to
critical operational missions, as determined by the secretary
concerned, to defer government funded travel between
consecutive overseas assignments until one year after their
assignment to the critical operational mission is terminated.
The committee is concerned that this provision apply to service
members serving in the Former Yugoslavia during Operation Joint
Endeavor. Accordingly, the provision would apply to members of
the uniformed services participating, on or after November 1,
1995, in critical operational missions designated by the
Secretary of Defense.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
Section 631--Increase in Annual Limit on Days of Inactive Duty Training
Creditable Towards Reserve Retirement
Current law now limits the annual amount of retirement
points that a reservist can earn as a result of inactive
training to 60. In 1988, the Department of Defense's Sixth
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) determined
that at least 95 percent of the members in the selected reserve
lose at least three points per year because of the 60 point
limit. The sixth QRMC recommended that the annual limit be
increased to 75. This section would implement that
recommendation. In addition, it would direct the Secretary of
Defense to evaluate the other recommendations of the sixth QRMC
and to report to Congress with regard to their adoption.
Section 632--Authority for Retirement in Grade in Which a Member Has
Been Selected for Promotion When a Physical Disability Intervenes
This section would permit service members who have been
selected for promotion to the next higher grade to be retired
at that higher grade if a physical disability that intervenes
between selection for promotion and retirement is the only
reason preventing eventual promotion.
Section 633--Eligibility for Reserve Disability Retirement for Reserves
Injured While Away From Home Overnight for Inactive-Duty Training
Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) authorized for reservists
the same death and disability benefits as active duty members
during off-duty periods between successive inactive duty
training periods performed at locations outside the reasonable
commuting distance from the member's residence. This section
would authorize disability retirement benefits to reservists
serving under the same conditions as those defined in the
section cited above.
Section 634--Retirement of Reserve Enlisted Members Who Qualify for
Active Duty Retirement After Administrative Reductions in Enlisted
Grade
This section would permit a reserve enlisted member who
qualifies for an active duty retirement and who is reduced in
grade for reasons other than misconduct to retire in the
highest enlisted grade held. Such a person's retired pay would
be based on the highest grade held, rather than the base pay of
the lower grade held at retirement.
Section 635--Clarification of Initial Computation of Retiree Colas
After Retirement
This section would make a technical correction to the
method used to calculate the initial cost-of-living adjustment
for new retirees whose retirement pay was calculated using the
average of the highest 36 months of basic pay.
Section 636--Technical Correction to Prior Authority for Payment of
Back Pay to Certain Persons
This section would make a technical correction to section
634 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106) to clarify the level of compensation
to be paid to certain veterans.
Section 637--Amendments to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses'
Protection Act
This section would amend the Uniformed Services Former
Spouses' Protection Act (Public Law 97-252) to simplify the
processing of court orders related to retirement pay by
allowing court orders to be delivered by facsimile, electronic
transmission, or by mail instead of only by certified mail or
registered letter, or in person. The section would also clarify
that the Secretary of Defense could not accept a court order
from a state that modifies a previous court order from another
state unless the court issuing the modifying court order has
jurisdiction over both the military member and the spouse or
former spouse.
Section 638--Administration of Benefits for So-Called Minimum Income
Widows
The committee has noted that payments to widows of military
retirees under the minimum income widows program have been
disrupted because of difficulty in coordinating minimum income
widows program payments from the Department of Defense with
payments from pension programs for widows of veterans paid by
the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
This section would transfer the responsibility for making
payments under the minimum income widows program to the
Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Department of Defense
would reimburse the Department of Veterans' Affairs for all
costs associated with assuming responsibility for making such
payments, including increased administrative costs. The
committee believes that moving all related widows pension
programs under a single agency will eliminate inter-agency
coordination problems.
Section 639--Nonsubstantive Restatement of Survivor Benefit Plan
Statute
This section would restate the Military Survivor Benefit
Plan statute (subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United
States Code) in its entirety. This restatement is
nonsubstantive and is intended to provide greater readability,
clarity and organizational sense in the statute. The
restatement would include amendments to the statute through the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106). Changes to current law that would be made by this
section are technical in nature and consist principally of the
use of headings, indentations, and the subdivision of existing
sections. In order not to disturb or render inaccurate
statutory references and citations in existing regulations,
court decisions, and legal opinions, the order and numerical
distribution of sections would not change. However, the order
of paragraphs in the definition section (section 1447 of title
10, United States Code) would be altered to put the definitions
in a more logical order.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 651--Technical Correction Clarifying Ability of Certain Members
To Elect Not To Occupy Government Quarters
This section would clarify the authority for the
Secretaries of the military departments to deny the election
not to occupy inadequate government quarters made by a service
member in the grade of E-6.
Section 652--Technical Correction Clarifying Limitation on Furnishing
Clothing or Allowances for Enlisted National Guard Technicians
This section would correct an erroneous reference included
in section 1038 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee has determined that the President's request
for fiscal year 1997 did not provide adequate funding for the
Defense Health Program (DHP)--it left it under-funded by nearly
a half billion dollars. Without relief, there will be a serious
degradation in the Department's ability to meet the medical
needs of military beneficiaries, particularly military retirees
who faithfully served their government with the understanding
that their medical requirements would be adequately met.
The committee understands that in an effort to identify
additional funding for a decimated Army modernization program,
unrealistic ``savings'' from the implementation of utilization
management were factored into the DHP budget. This short-
sighted, ill-conceived action seriously shortchanges the DHP
and ultimately military personnel and their families, both
active and retired. This disingenuous effort will result in
disastrous consequences to the military health services system
and it's ability to meet the medical needs of all those
entitled to care if not addressed by this Congress.
The significant shortfall in the Defense Health Program
reflects not only a serious lack of commitment to important
quality of life issues--service members consistently rank
medical care as a top quality of life issue--but rather, it is
indicative of a budget request not fully supportive of national
defense needs. The need for this ``steal from the healthy to
heal the weak'' approach to budgeting clearly emphasizes the
Administration's poor support of modernization efforts in
recent years. If adequate efforts had been made to address the
Department's modernization needs, the DHP would not have to be
robbed to fill in the substantial gaps being experienced in
military modernization.
The committee is very concerned that the DHP not be viewed
by the Department's leadership as a potential source of funding
for programs under-funded in the President's budget. The DHP
provides a critical benefit to millions of men and women who
devotedly serve or have served our country. Therefore, the
committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure
that the DHP is fully funded in fiscal year 1998 and the future
year defense plan.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) Network--Information Technology
The committee recognizes the potential benefits that better
information technology can provide to the delivery of effective
health care. The core thrust of the MEDCOM network is to ensure
24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week support to the users of the
health information system and to support network enhancements,
network security and disaster recovery efforts. The committee
supports the Department's execution of the program in fiscal
year 1997 to overcome the noted shortfalls and to serve as a
model for DOD and other federal agencies.
Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
establishing the Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program
(CHCDP) at 10 military installations, and for the work of the
Oversight Advisory Committee in ensuring that the demonstration
has been well designed and implemented. Twenty chiropractors
and 20 chiropractic assistants are providing treatment for
those eligible beneficiaries who select chiropractic care for
spine-related neuromusculoskeletal complaints. Early
indications are that chiropractic care is proving to be a
popular option for beneficiaries at the demonstration sites. A
comprehensive evaluation plan has been developed to assess the
feasibility and advisability of providing chiropractic care
within the military health services system. The demonstration
will continue through fiscal year 1998. The committee strongly
encourages the Department of Defense to continue its positive
work with the CHCDP and the Oversight Advisory Committee.
Comptroller General Study on the Department of Defense Family Member
Dental Plan
The Department of Defense Family Member Dental Plan, which
provides comprehensive dental benefits to family members of
active-duty military personnel, has been a very popular and
successful plan. However, the contract for the program recently
was awarded to a new provider who began administering this
benefit on February 1, 1996.
Since the change in contractors occurred, the committee has
heard concerns from military beneficiaries and dental providers
about the ability of the new contractor to effectively
establish a network adequate to support the needs of military
active-duty dependents. Additionally, concerns have been raised
about the manner in which the program is being administered.
In response to these concerns, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the family
member dental plan and to report its findings to the committee
by February 1, 1997. The evaluation should:
(1) assess the ability of the contract provider to
establish an adequate dental provider network;
(2) evaluate the administration of the plan to
include the claims processing systems and its
effectiveness, marketing efforts and the accuracy of
dental provider lists;
(3) review the Department's oversight
responsibilities and ability to ensure contract
requirements are being sufficiently met.
(4) analyze the appropriateness of the provider
reimbursement rate structure.-
The family member dental plan is a well-received, much-
needed quality of life benefit. The committee remains committed
to ensuring its successful continuation.
Congressional Budget Office Scoring of Medicare Subvention
Demonstration Program
The committee believes that legislation introduced in the
House to conduct a demonstration of the concept of Medicare
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for care provided to
military Medicare-eligible beneficiaries is a critical step
toward ensuring that the health care promised to our military
retirees is available when they need it. This legislation would
require the demonstration to be budget neutral and has been
coordinated with the Department of Defense and the Health Care
Financing Administration.
However, despite provisions in the legislation designed to
ensure the demonstration is budget neutral, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) continues to score it with substantial
direct-spending implications. The committee understands that
these direct spending estimates are based upon the scoring of a
demonstration ``concept'' using unsubstantiated assumptions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Congressional Budget
Office to:
(1) score the specific Medicare subvention
demonstration bills introduced by Mr. Hefley (H.R.
3142) and Mr. Watts (H.R. 3151);
(2) provide specific justification for any direct-
spending implications identified in the score;
(3) evaluate the impact that ``fencing'' the Medicare
dollars to ensure the Department cannot use the money
for other purposes would have on the scoring of the
demonstration program;
(4) assess the impact on scoring the legislation, of
a provision that would direct the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct an independent audit of
the demonstration.
(5) provide recommendations to the Congress regarding
the specific measures required in the proposed
legislation to alleviate the direct-spending
implications.
Making sure the medical needs of the millions of men and
women who have served and who continue to serve are adequately
met is of tremendous importance to this committee. The
committee believes Medicare subvention may be a cost-effective
method for meeting this need and therefore strongly supports a
demonstration program to test this concept.
Global Infectious Disease Surveillance Program
The committee recognizes the need to minimize the negative
effect that infectious diseases have on the combat readiness of
the military force. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Department of the Army to develop a global infectious disease
surveillance and response program. This type of program could
minimize the impact of disease on operational readiness by
rapid communication of systematically gathered information and
prompt intervention through a coordinated response program.
Pacific Medical Network
The committee urges the immediate completion of the Pacific
Medical Network (PACMEDNET) telecommunications test-bed program
to develop an inclusive transportable computerized patient
records and a network to transmit medical information which are
indispensable capabilities of the Composite Health Care System
(CHCS). Testing of evolutionary medical information technology
which can be usefully integrated into CHCS should continue and
work should be done to achieve the capability to transmit
computer-based medical information between the systems of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs
which will facilitate the resource sharing encouraged by the
committee.
Provider Workstation
The committee recognizes the importance of implementing a
computer-based patient record (CPR) in the Department of
Defense. Data derived from the CPR is critical to the success
of TRICARE by assuring the delivery of the highest quality care
at the lowest possible operational cost. The committee is aware
of and encouraged by the prototype development of the Provider
Workstation (PWS) at the Air Force Medical Center located at
Scott Air Force Base (AFB), Illinois. The committee strongly
urges the Department to build quickly on the successes at Scott
AFB and rapidly incorporate the concepts validated under PWS
into military health services system information systems.
TRICARE Alternative Financing
The committee believes that the alternative financing
concept for the TRICARE program should be fully developed and
tested in one TRICARE region prior to being implemented
program-wide. While the concept potentially offers a more
appropriate and cost-effective approach to financing the
TRICARE program in each of the sizable managed-care regions,
there are many questions about the concept that remain
unanswered. The committee believes the concept needs to be
fully developed into an effective operational plan before
attempting to implement it nationwide. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to further develop and test
the concept in one yet-to-be-procured TRICARE region, as
originally planned, and for lessons learned to be incorporated
prior to implementing alternative financing in additional
TRICARE regions.
Congressional concerns about the TRICARE program have
centered around the pace under which the program is being
implemented. Many have expressed concern that the Department is
implementing the program so fast that lessons learned are not
being incorporated into successive TRICARE regional contracts.
The committee is concerned that rushing to refit any TRICARE
contract with an untested, under-developed concept could
adversely affect the success of the entire TRICARE program.
TRICARE Prime Portability
The committee strongly believes that as the TRICARE program
is implemented nationwide, beneficiaries should have seamless
enrollment in the health maintenance organization (HMO) option,
TRICARE Prime, of the program. Currently, active-duty
beneficiaries who accompany their sponsor on a permanent change
of station from one TRICARE region to another must disenroll
from their current region and may not enroll in the new region
until the sponsor has reported at the new duty station. Such
beneficiaries are liable for the high deductibles and
copayments of the TRICARE Standard (fee-for-service) option
while in transit or on leave status.
Further, retirees are unable to enroll family members
residing in a different region than the retiree under the
family enrollment fee. Retirees with college student dependents
or dependent children from a prior marriage may actually have
to pay two family enrollment fees to cover their dependents.
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary
of Defense to publish policies to ensure that TRICARE Prime
enrollees may transfer their enrollment from one TRICARE region
to another in any area where the TRICARE program has been
implemented. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary
to modify the TRICARE program to ensure that a sponsor with
dependents who reside in one or more TRICARE regions different
from the TRICARE region of the sponsor, shall pay no more than
a single family enrollment fee to secure TRICARE coverage of
the sponsor's entire family.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS-
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
Section 701--Medical and Dental Care for Reserve Component Members in a
Duty Status
This section would amend section 1074(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to clarify the medical and dental care
members of the reserve are entitled to while in a duty status
or traveling directly to and from their duty location. The
amendment defines the entitlement to medical and dental care
for reserve component members in a specific military duty
status and the authority to continue such care until the member
is returned to full military duty, or if unable to return to
military duty, the member is processed for disability
separation. It clarifies that members on active duty, active
duty for training, annual training, full-time National Guard
duty or traveling directly to or from such duty may request
continuation on active duty while hospitalized, and that all
members receiving care are eligible to apply to receive pay and
allowances.
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
Section 711--Definition of TRICARE Program
This section would define the Department's managed-care
TRICARE program.
Section 712--CHAMPUS Payment Limits for TRICARE Prime Enrollees
This section would permit health care providers who are not
participating in the TRICARE network to be paid higher amounts
than now permitted in the limited circumstances in which they
might provide care to TRICARE Prime, the health maintenance
organization (HMO) option, enrollees. This section would
protect TRICARE Prime enrollees from ``balance billing'' by
such providers. As is standard for HMOs, enrollees receive most
care from network providers, but in limited circumstances
receive covered services from non-participating providers. This
section also would apply in cases where enrollees are referred
to a non-network provider because no network provider is
available.
Section 713--Improved Information Exchange Between Military Treatment
Facilities and TRICARE Program Contractors
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
field a uniform version of the Composite Health Care System
(CHCS) throughout the military health services system. It also
would require the Department to amend one TRICARE regional
contract to require the TRICARE contractor to use government
furnished CHCS software for military treatment facility (MTF)
provider appointments and to record TRICARE MTF enrollment. The
committee believes that a successful TRICARE program must fully
incorporate the successful features of CHCS to ensure an
effective two-way exchange of information between the MTF and
TRICARE civilian care contractors.
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
Section 721--Definitions
This section would define various terms pertaining to the
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.
Section 722--Inclusion of Designated Providers in Uniformed Services
Health Care Delivery System
This section would provide for the inclusion of the
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTFs) in the health
care delivery system of the uniformed services. It would
establish the terms under which the USTFs would become
designated providers of managed health care services to
military beneficiaries and would require the USTFs to comply
with the administrative requirements established by the
Secretary of Defense for health care providers.-
Section 723--Provision of Uniform Benefit by Designated Providers
This section would require the designated providers that
would be established under section 722 of this act to implement
the TRICARE uniform benefit, including the uniform cost-sharing
requirements, upon implementation of TRICARE in the designated
provider's region or October 1, 1996, whichever date is later.
Section 724--Enrollment of Covered Beneficiaries
This section would limit the number of beneficiaries
enrolled in managed care programs of the designated provider in
fiscal year 1997 to the number enrolled as of October 1, 1995.
It also would provide the Secretary of Defense with the
authority to waive the enrollment limit to accommodate
enrollment of active-duty dependents. Additionally, this
section would establish a permanent limitation on the number of
enrollees in the programs of the designated providers, would
prohibit the disenrollment of current participants except in
certain, specified cases and would establish additional
enrollment criteria for designated providers.
Section 725--Application of CHAMPUS Payment Rules
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
clarify a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to ensure that it
applies to military beneficiaries, rather than active-duty
members. It would also clarify that the Civilian Health and
Medical Care Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) rules
may apply even in situations when the health care provided to
military beneficiaries is not provided outside the Uniformed
Services Treatment Facility's catchment area.
Section 726--Payment for Services
This section would require the payments made to the
designated provider to be full-risk capitation based on the
utilization experience of enrollees and competitive market
rates for equivalent health care services. It also would limit
payments to a designated provider to no more than the
government would pay if enrollees received their care through
the TRICARE program or through Medicare.
Section 727--Repeal of Superseded Authorities
This section would repeal previous Uniformed Services
Treatment Facilities (USTFs) legislative provisions effective
October 1, 1997, the date on which the USTFs would become
``designated providers'' under the TRICARE program.
Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health Care
Management
Section 731--Authority To Waive CHAMPUS Exclusion Regarding
Nonmedically Necessary Treatment in Connection With Certain Clinical
Trials
This section would amend section 1079(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to permit the Secretary of Defense,
pursuant to an agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, to waive the exclusion of non-medically necessary
treatment with respect to clinical trials sponsored or approved
by the National Institutes of Health. Participation in these
clinical trials will improve access to promising therapies for
CHAMPUS-eligible beneficiaries when their conditions meet
protocol eligibility criteria.
Section 732--Authority To Waive or Reduce CHAMPUS Deductible Amounts
for Reservists Called to Active Duty in Support of Contingency
Operations
This section would amend section 1079(b) of title 10,
United States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the
authority to waive or reduce CHAMPUS deductible amounts in the
case of the dependents of a member of a reserve component of
the uniformed services who is on active duty under a call or
order to active duty of less than one year. This provision
would eliminate an existing inequity in the treatment of
reserve component personnel and avoid unusual out-of-pocket
costs, disruption of continuity in care, impaired access and
problems with beneficiary satisfaction for activated
reservists.
Section 733--Exception to Maximum Allowable Payments to Individual
Health-Care Providers Under CHAMPUS
This section would amend section 1079 of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the authority
to authorize the commander of a military treatment facility, a
TRICARE lead agent, or a civilian, at-risk health care
contractor to modify the CHAMPUS payment limitations to ensure
the availability of care for military beneficiaries.
In many rural or semi-rural communities, limited managed
care providers limit the application principles. The CHAMPUS
Maximum Allowable Calculation (CMAC) level, which frequently is
viewed as too low, becomes a major stumbling block to securing
contract providers for TRICARE Prime, the HMO option, and
TRICARE Extra, the preferred provider organization. For those
providers who refuse participation in TRICARE, reimbursement
then reverts to the standard CHAMPUS rate which can be higher
than the CMAC level for some services. Given the limited
availability of certain providers in selected rural and semi-
rural regions, some flexibility in paying more than CMAC within
the TRICARE system would facilitate the availability and
accessibility of health care services, while at the same time
implementing managed-care utilization and quality assurance
measures.-
Section 734--Codification of Annual Authority to Credit CHAMPUS Refunds
to Current Year Appropriation
This section would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, to make permanent the authority outlined in
section 8144 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-335), which allows the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS) to credit refunds and similar collections to the
current-year appropriations and thus be available to pay
current-year obligations.
Section 735--Exceptions to Requirements Regarding Obtaining
Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
prohibit the requirement for non-availability statements for
outpatient services for military beneficiaries who chose the
TRICARE Standard (fee-for-service) option. The committee
believes that beneficiaries who decline enrollment in the HMO
option of the TRICARE program do so in order to retain their
freedom of providers, at a much greater cost to them in the
form of deductibles and copayments. The requirement for
obtaining non-availability statements may compromise these
beneficiaries' freedom of choice, as well as their continuity
of care when an extensive outpatient procedure is required.
Additionally, beneficiaries unable to enroll in the HMO option
of TRICARE, either because of space limitations or non-
availability in an area, should not have their choices further
limited by the requirement for a non-availability statement.
Section 736--Expansion of Collection Authorities From Third-Party
Payers
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
adopt several refinements to the Third Party Collection Program
under which military medical facilities collect from third-
party payers for health care services provided to beneficiaries
who are also covered by the third-party payers' plans, and to
the related CHAMPUS Double Coverage Program, under which
CHAMPUS is secondary payer to other health plans that also
cover CHAMPUS beneficiaries. These refinements are consistent
with the long-standing Congressional policy of containing
health care spending by assuring that third-party payers, who
generally have collected full premiums for coverage of insured
persons who are also DOD beneficiaries, do not shift their
costs to the federal taxpayers.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 741--Alternatives to Active Duty Service Obligation Under Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program
and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
establish new alternatives in cases of members of the Health
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program who do
not, or cannot, complete their active-duty service obligations.
Currently, the only alternative, assignment to a health
professional shortage area designated by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, has never been used because neither
the Department of Defense nor the Department of Health and
Human Services has an effective mechanism to administer such an
alternative obligation.
This section would establish four options for alternative
obligations for the member:
(1) a reserve component assignment of a duration
twice as long as the remaining active-duty obligation;
(2) service as a health professional civil service
employee in a facility of the uniformed services;
(3) transfer of the active-duty service obligation to
an equal obligation under the National Health Services
Corps;
(4) repayment of a percentage of the total cost
incurred by the Department under the program equal to
the percentage of the member's total active-duty
service obligation being relieved, plus interest.
Section 742--Exception to Strength Limitations for Public Health
Service Officers Assigned to the Department of Defense
This section would amend section 207, title 42, United
States Code to exclude commissioned officers of the Public
Health Service (PHS) assigned to duty in the Department of
Defense from being counted when computing the maximum number of
commissioned PHS officers authorized by law. This would
facilitate a continuation of the long-standing practice of
assigning a number of PHS officers to duty with the Department
of Defense.
Section 743--Continued Operation of Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) directed the Secretary of Defense to
budget for ongoing operations at the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This section
restates that directive.
The service surgeons general have consistently reported on
the importance of USUHS in effectively training military
physicians to meet both peacetime and wartime medical readiness
requirements. The committee believes USUHS is vital to the
medical readiness training of a substantial number of military
health-care providers and therefore strongly supports the
continued operation of USUHS. Congress clearly stated its
support of USUHS through actions taken in both the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-61).
However, the committee recently learned that the Department
of Defense has been directed to not budget for the continued
operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences after fiscal year 1997. The Administration's decision
to not budget for USUHS is yet another example of its
inadequate commitment to ensuring the total readiness of the
U.S. armed forces.
Section 744--Sense of Congress Regarding Tax Treatment of Armed Forces
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program
The Department of Defense has approximately 4,000 medical,
dental, optometric, psychology and nurse anesthesia students
enrolled in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship
Program. Prior to 1986, DOD payments for tuition and related
expense to and on behalf of program participants were tax
exempt. Only the monthly stipend was, and continues to be,
treated as taxable income subject to withholdings and student
payment of individual tax liability. However, as a result of
section 117, title 26, United States Code, which was amended by
the Tax Reform Act of 1986, DOD payments for tuition and
related expenses became taxable income subject to withholdings.
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of Defense should continue to work with the Secretary
of the Treasury to seek relief from this problem from the
Internal Revenue Service. The decision to tax health
professions scholarships seems to be based on a selective
interpretation of the law.
Section 745--Report Regarding Specialized Treatment Facility Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide Congress with a report on the impact of reducing the
catchment areas for specialized treatment facilities from 200
miles to 100 miles.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Implementation of Acquisition Reform Legislation
In a span of two legislative years, Congress has enacted
three major acquisition reform initiatives: the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355), the
Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (Division D of Public
Law 104-106) and the Information Technology Management Reform
Act of 1996 (Division E of Public Law 104-106). This assertive
legislative effort reflects a recognition by the Congress of
the urgent need to simplify, streamline and reduce the cost
associated with the federal acquisition process. The Committee
on National Security and the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, in particular, have aggressively pursued such
reforms to maximize the return on each taxpayer dollar used to
procure the billions in goods and services the federal
government procures annually.
The committee strongly believes that the burden for
continuing this effort has now shifted to the executive branch
as it begins the lengthy and complex process of implementing
the many statutory changes contained in the aforementioned
legislation. The committee notes that this legislation, in
general, intentionally refrained from prescriptive statutory
direction in order to maximize flexibility and effective
regulatory implementation. Therefore, the committee strongly
urges the appropriate agencies of government to take maximum
advantage of the flexibility and opportunity provided by this
legislation during the process of developing and implementing
the necessary regulations and guidance.
Truth in Negotiations Act Audit Rights
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) eliminated certain rights by the
government to audit information to be supplied by commercial
suppliers in lieu of certified cost or pricing data. In taking
this action, Congress clearly and willfully did not intend that
this statutory change permit federal agencies to subsequently
determine through agency supplements to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation whether and to what extent post award audit access
is appropriate on commercial item contracts. The committee
strongly reiterates previously stated congressional intent that
the only remaining authority for the government to pursue such
information is the authority of the General Accounting Office
to audit contractor records.
Tungsten Anti-Tank Penetrators
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
entered into an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany
in 1979 concerning requirements for the next generation combat
tanks. This agreement has led to the manufacture by Germany of
tungsten anti-tank penetrator components for use in M1 Abrams
anti-tank munitions manufactured in the United States. The
committee is concerned with the potential impact that this
arrangement could have on an important segment of the North
American munitions industrial base. Therefore, the committee
strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to review this
situation and reconsider whether U.S. manufactured tungsten
anti-tank penetrators should be used once the agreement between
the United States and Germany expires in 1997.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Management
Section 801--Authority to Waive or Modify Certain Requirements for
Defense Acquisition Pilot Programs
This section would expand existing authorities provided to
the Secretary of Defense to waive or modify certain acquisition
laws in executing programs designated under the defense
acquisition pilot program. The committee is aware of the
initial results realized through the streamlined acquisition
procedures utilized for those programs designated under the
defense acquisition pilot program. The committee is pleased
with the reported cost savings and urges the Department to
continue aggressively pursuing this pilot effort to validate
further reform concepts for possible broader application to the
defense acquisition process.
Section 802--Exclusion From Certain Post-Education Duty Assignments for
Members of Acquisition Corps
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
exclude from the mandatory joint duty requirement military
members of the acquisition corps who have graduated from the
senior acquisition course at the Industrial College of the
Armed Forces (ICAF). Such exemption would be permitted if these
officers are assigned to critical acquisition positions upon
graduation. The committee recognizes the conflict that exists
between the dual imperatives of the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law
99-433) and the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act
(title XII of Public Law 101-510) in how ICAF graduates should
be assigned. The committee's action, however, should in no way
be interpreted as a reduction of commitment to the joint
officer management provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
Section 803--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain Prototype
Projects
This section would reauthorize and expand to the military
services the authority provided by section 845 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
160) to allow additional flexibility in the acquisition of
prototype technologies and systems.
Section 804--Increase in Threshold Amounts for Major Systems
This section would update the existing statutory threshold
for the definition of ``major systems'' to fiscal year 1990
constant dollars from fiscal year 1980 dollars. It would also
allow the Secretary of Defense to further adjust this
definition threshold to reflect inflation after notification to
the Congressional defense committees. These changes would
conform the definition for ``major systems'' to that used for
``major defense acquisition program'' in title 10, United
States Code.
Section 805--Revisions in Information Required to be Included in
Selected Acquisition Reports
This section would adjust and improve the terminology and
references used in the acquisition reporting process of major
defense acquisition programs. The provision would add
``procurement unit cost'' as an additional reporting element of
the selected acquisition report to provide a more meaningful
measure of recurring unit cost. The provision would also
eliminate the reporting element for completion status for a
program since, as presently defined, it provides statistical
measures of marginal utility for program oversight.
Section 806--Increase in Simplified Acquisition Threshold for
Humanitarian or Peacekeeping Operations
This section would expand the current authority that
doubles the simplified acquisition threshold for purchases made
outside of the United States in support of a contingency
operation to humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. The
committee takes this action not as an endorsement of the
expansion of these kind of operations by the Department of
Defense, but as a recognition of the utility and benefit of
allowing the Department additional contracting flexibility when
engaged in such operations abroad.
Section 807--Expansion of Audit Reciprocity Among Federal Agencies to
Include Post-Award Audits
The committee recognizes the need to avoid duplicative
contract audit requirements arising from federal, state, and
local government agencies. In order to reduce administrative
burdens and duplication of efforts by different governmental
entities, this section would expand upon current statutory
authorities in two ways. First, it would extend audit
reciprocity considerations to post-award audit to expedite the
contract close out process and the issuance of final contract
payments. Secondly, it would require the Office of Management
and Budget to issue guidance to ensure that state and local
entities accept cognizant federal agency audits in order to
minimize duplication of effort and reduce cost for contractors
engaged in contracting at various levels of government.
Section 808--Extension of Pilot Mentor-Protege Program
This section would extend the authority for the Department
of Defense to conduct the Pilot Mentor-Protege program through
fiscal year 1997.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 821--Amendment to Definition of National Security System Under
Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1995
This section would expand the definition of national
security systems items waived for the purposes of application
of the centralized management provisions of the Information
Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Division E of Public
Law 104-106) to include all classified systems.
Section 822--Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals Under
Freedom of Information Act
This section would exempt contractor proposals provided to
the federal government from release under the Freedom of
Information Act (Public Law 89-554). The committee is aware
that the current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process
imposes a significant administrative burden on federal agencies
receiving requests for release of contractor proposals even
though most if not all of the information is exempt under the
FOIA process. This provision is intended to allow federal
agencies to dispense with the lengthy line-by-line reviews
which are presently required to arrive at the non-disclosure
determination for this material. The committee does not intend
for this provision to affect information available to be placed
under a General Accounting Office protective order pursuant to
section 3553(f) of title 31, United States Code.
Section 823--Repeal of Annual Report by Advocate for Competition
This section would repeal the requirement for agency
competition advocates to submit an annual report to agency
senior procurement executives.
Section 824--Repeal of Biannual Report on Procurement Regulatory
Activity
This section would repeal the requirement for the
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to publish a
semiannual regulatory activity report on procurement
regulations. The committee recognizes that much of the
information contained in this report can already be found in
the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations published
semiannually in the Federal Register by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Section 825--Repeal of Multiyear Limitation on Contracts for
Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair
This section would repeal the current statutory limitation
on multiyear contracts for inspection, maintenance, and repair
functions allowing the multiyear policy provisions of the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
355) to govern such contracts.
Section 826--Streamlined Notice Requirements to Contractors and
Employees Regarding Termination or Substantial Reduction in Contracts
Under Major Defense Programs
This section would streamline and simplify the notification
process resulting from termination or substantial reduction in
defense contract funding required by the Defense Conversion,
Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992 (Division D
of Public Law 102-484). The committee understands that the
current process is unnecessarily cumbersome and complex. This
provision would modify the notification process to occur upon
actual contract termination or substantial reduction rather
than prematurely during the budget process as currently
required.
Section 827--Repeal of Notice Requirements for Substantially or
Seriously Affected Parties in Downsizing Efforts
This section would repeal the requirement for the Secretary
of Defense to notify federal, state, county, local and labor
officials if the annual budget of the President submitted to
Congress, or long-term guidance documents, or public
announcements of base or facility closures or realignments, or
cancellation or curtailment of a major contract will have a
serious and substantial effect. The committee concurs with the
Administration's assessment that this statutory requirement is
overly prescriptive, confusing, and unnecessary.
Section 828--Testing of Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would modify existing statutes governing live
fire testing of major defense systems to provide additional
flexibility without compromising the benefits accrued through a
responsible testing program.
Section 829--Dependency of National Technology and Industrial Base on
Supplies Available Only From Foreign Countries
This section would direct the Department of Defense to
conduct an assessment of the degree of dependency on foreign
sources for key components of defense systems.
Section 830--Sense of Congress Regarding Treatment of Department of
Defense Cable Television Franchise Agreements
Section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Chief Judge
of the United States Court of Federal Claims to transmit to
Congress a report answering certain questions concerning the
treatment of cable television franchise agreements under part
49 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the
Communications Act of 1934. The report is to be submitted no
later than August 10, 1996.
Section 831--Extension of Domestic Source Limitation for Valves and
Machine Tools
This section would delay the expiration of the current
statutory domestic source restriction for valves and machine
tools from October 1, 1996 to October 1, 2001.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Unified Command Plan
The committee is aware of the recent changes to the Unified
Command Plan (UCP) which resulted in changes in the geographic
area of responsibility for the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)
and the U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM). In particular, the
committee notes that the proposed UCP changes would shift the
responsibility for the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and
the island nations within these regions from USACOM to
SOUTHCOM. The committee considers these proposed changes to be
significant and wishes to have a better understanding of all
possible implications. Therefore, the committee directs that
the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a review of the
issues reported by USACOM to the Secretary of Defense and to
the Committee on National Security at its hearing of March 28,
1996 regarding the proposed UCP changes. A report on the GAO's
findings and conclusions should be provided to the committee no
later than January 1, 1997.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 901--Additional Required Reduction in Defense Acquisition
Workforce
This section would require a reduction in the number of
personnel assigned to defense acquisition organizations of
25,000 during fiscal year 1997. This provision results from the
committee's ongoing effort to reduce the size and cost
associated with the Department's significant administrative
overhead. The committee is disturbed that the Department has
failed to produce the report required by section 906 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106) regarding downsizing and restructuring options for
the defense acquisition infrastructure. The committee strongly
believes that the Department must aggressively pursue such
structural changes in order to reduce the significant overhead
cost associated with the procurement of defense goods and
services.
Section 902--Reduction of Personnel Assigned to Office of the Secretary
of Defense
This section would clarify that the 25 percent, five year
reduction in personnel assigned to the Office of the Secretary
of Defense required by section 901 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
must be implemented on an annual basis. The committee notes
with concern that the Department has yet to submit the report
and recommendations required by section 901 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) regarding the downsizing and restructuring of the Office
of the Secretary of Defense.
Section 903--Report on Military Department Headquarters Staffs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a comprehensive assessment on the management and
functional responsibilities of the offices of the military
department secretaries and chiefs of staff. This provision also
results from the committee's ongoing effort to reduce the size
and cost associated with the Department's significant
administrative overhead.
Section 904--Extension of Effective Date for Charter for Joint
Requirements Oversight Council
This section would delay the effective date of the
statutory charter for the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(JROC) from January 1, 1997 to January 1, 1998. The committee
notes with concern the difficulties it has encountered in
receiving the most cursory information associated with analysis
performed by the JROC resulting in decisions to terminate or
rephase military programs. Repeated attempts by the committee
to conduct legitimate program oversight have been frustrated by
consistent refusal by the Joint Staff to provide the committee
with supporting rationale for recent decisions on theater
missile defense and unmanned aerial vehicle programs. While the
committee recognizes that direct involvement in acquisition
program decisions is a relatively new role for the Joint Staff,
the committee is nevertheless committed to pursuing all
necessary information to carry out its constitutional oversight
responsibilities. As such, the committee urges the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to promptly revisit this matter and
engage the committee in a dialogue to avoid similar occurrences
in the future.
Section 905--Removal of Secretary of the Army From Membership on the
Foreign Trade Zone Board
This section would repeal the requirement for membership by
the Secretary of the Army on the Foreign Trade Zone Board.
Participation on the Board is no longer necessary as a result
of the changing nature of foreign trade zones and the fact that
current issues facing the Board rarely involve engineering or
construction issues of interest to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Section 906--Membership of the Ammunition Storage Board-
This section would amend section 172(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to permit qualified civilian employees of the
Federal Government to serve as board members on the ammunition
storage board which is currently named the Department of
Defense Explosives Safety Board. Section 172(a) limits the
board membership to ``officers'' who, in accordance with the
definition set forth in section 101(b)(1), must be commissioned
or warrant officers and not civilian employees. This limitation
restricts the secretaries of the military departments from
selecting the most qualified person available to represent
their departments. To ensure the secretaries have the
flexibility to be represented by the most qualified
professional, the option to select civilian board members must
be available to them.
Section 907--Department of Defense Disbursing Official Check Cashing
and Exchange Transactions
This section would permit Department of Defense disbursing
officials to provide check cashing services and exchange
services to U.S. chartered federal credit unions serving U.S.
military personnel and their dependents in foreign countries
where military banking facilities are not available.
TITLE X
Counter-Drug Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $782.0 million for Department
of Defense counter-drug activities. This represents a net
decrease of $32.3 million from the fiscal year 1996
appropriated level of $814.3 million. To ensure that the
Department of Defense effort in this important national
priority is not diminished, the committee recommends an
increase of $40.0 million for fiscal year 1997 counter-drug
activities for a total authorization of $822.0 million
allocated as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
FY97 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request................. $782,019
Source Nation Support..................................... 153,961
Dismantling Cartels....................................... 57,055
Detection and Monitoring.................................. 232,129
Law Enforcement Agency Support............................ 254,979
Demand Reduction.......................................... 83,895
Recommended Increases:
Laser Strike (Project #9497).............................. 10,000
Riverine Operations (Project #9201)....................... 4,900
Southwest border support (Project #9499).................. 2,500
Signal intelligence equipment (Project #1313)............. 3,000
SOUTHCOM support (Project #9497).......................... 1,500
Enhanced JTF-6 DLEA support (Project #2435)............... 5,000
Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative (Project #7406)........ 4,800
Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force (Project #7408)........... 1,000
Spare TARS (Project #4110)................................ 3,800
C-26 reconnaissance upgrade (Project #7403)............... 3,500
Recommendation................................................ 822,019
Items of Special Interest
National guard counter-drug program
The committee continues to strongly endorse the
contributions of the National Guard to the defense counter drug
program. The unique role and status of the National Guard in
the war on drugs makes the men and women of the National Guard
an invaluable asset to the overall effort. National Guard
counter drug activities take place in every state and virtually
every community of the United States. Accordingly, with the
exception of the increases noted above, the committee
recommends the requested authorization for the fiscal year 1997
National Guard counter drug program and fully expects the
Department to execute the program at this level of
authorization. The committee strongly believes that the
National Guard component of the defense counter drug program
should be properly resourced to ensure the continued successful
contribution of the National Guard to this national priority.
C-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance upgrades
The committee is aware of a shortfall in funding for the
National Guard C-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance and infrared
surveillance upgrade program. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $3.5 million to restore the number of
aircraft involved in the C-26 photo reconnaissance upgrade
program to its previous level.
Gulf states counterdrug initiative
The committee continues to support the Gulf States
Counterdrug Initiative (GSCI) and is pleased to note that the
budget request contains $3.2 million for this initiative.
However, the committee is concerned that this funding level
does not adequately cover the required costs for the Regional
Counterdrug Training Academy, integrating the state of Georgia
into the program and other priority initiatives. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million over the
requested amount. The committee notes that none of these funds
should be utilized for construction or other infrastructure
related costs. The committee strongly believes that funds
provided for this program should remain focused on training and
improving command, control, communications and computer (C4)
capabilities.
Southwest border fence project
The committee continues to have a strong interest in
facilitating support for the border fence project along the San
Diego-Tijuana border area in Southern California. The committee
is aware of the efforts of JTF-6 and the California National
Guard in sustaining an adequate level of support to enhance
this important barrier. The committee notes the growing support
in Congress and within the Administration for upgrading the
existing fence to a more capable design and endorses the
decision to fund this effort from within the immigration
control budget. However, to ensure that the existing program to
extend the length of fence coverage is not unnecessarily
interrupted, the committee recommends that, of the amounts
authorized for Law Enforcement Agency Support, $5.0 million be
made available for continued support of this national project.
Further, the committee believes that improvements to the San
Diego fence should receive priority consideration as Congress
entertains Administration proposals to utilize up to $250
million in fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense funds for the
national counternarcotics effort.
Other Matters
Defense Information Systems Network (DISN)
The committee continues to strongly support the
Department's efforts to upgrade its information technology
infrastructure by rapidly transitioning to the Defense
Information Systems Network (DISN). While the committee had
hoped that the Department would have had the full DISN program
in place and operational by now, the committee expects
implementation of the DISN program to move forward
expeditiously to ensure widespread availability of state-of-
the-art telecommunications for military users. Accordingly, the
committee expects that the fifteen month extension of the
current Defense Commercial Telecommunications Network (DCTN)
end no later than the planned date of May, 1997.
To facilitate the rapid migration of the Department's vast
collection of telecommunication systems into DISN, the
committee directs the military services to finalize plans to
extend DISN operational concepts within their base
infrastructure and within operationally deployed forces. The
committee notes that DISN implementation must reflect the end-
to-end nature of the program and elimination and migration of
legacy systems in order to for the program to attain its full
potential. Further, the committee believes that the aggressive
integration of land, space, and deployable assets is essential
to this strategy and should receive priority consideration
during future budgeting and implementation decisions.
Military Affiliate Radio System
The committee notes that the Military Affiliate Radio
System (MARS) provides the Department of Defense and U.S. armed
forces with an auxiliary and emergency communications
capability on a local, national, and international basis as an
adjunct to normal communications. It has also been used to
handle morale and quasi-official record and voice
communications traffic for the armed forces and authorized U.S.
government civilian personnel stationed throughout the world.
The MARS program operates at little cost to the government and
has provided the U.S. armed forces with a reserve of qualified
and well-trained radio communications personnel, including
civilian ``affiliates'' who volunteer their time to provide a
valuable service to U.S. troops and their families at home or
overseas. The committee further notes that the Army MARS
support plan for Operation Joint Endeavor was held in abeyance
due to the use of other communications means to meet morale
support requirements for U.S. armed forces deployed in Bosnia.
However, these other means may take time to establish, may not
always be reliable or available, or may result in out-of-pocket
costs to U.S. service personnel. Because of this, the committee
supports the continuation and expanded use by all services of
an active MARS program.
National Defense University Chinese Translations
The committee understands that the Director, Office of Net
Assessment has acquired and translated open source articles and
journals written by People's Liberation Army (PLA) military
officers and officials. These articles provide important
insights into the PLA's vision of the future of warfare,
including the meaning of the revolution in military affairs.
The committee further understands that the National Defense
University (NDU) Press is planning to publish one or more books
containing these articles, in the interest of broadening
understanding of Chinese military thinking. The committee
strongly supports this initiative, and directs the President,
National Defense University to ensure that these important
papers are published in a timely manner.
Supercomputer Exports and Proliferation
The committee continues to be troubled by the
Administration's relaxation of export controls on sensitive
items with military application and reiterates the directive
contained in the statement of managers accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106) directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report on the Administration's relaxation of export
restrictions on supercomputers. The conferees expressed concern
regarding the potential impact of the Administration's decision
on United States nonproliferation efforts and the ability of
the United States to maintain its military technological edge.
Specifically, the Secretary was directed to submit a report
that ``describes the impact of the export decision on the
ability of nations to acquire and use high-performance
computing capabilities to develop advanced conventional
weaponry, weapons of mass destruction, and delivery vehicles.''
This report has not been submitted and is now overdue. The
committee calls on the Secretary to submit the required report
as soon as possible.
White House Communications Agency
The committee is aware of ongoing work by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, the Department of Defense
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office to review
the operations of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA).
The committee is concerned that although funded exclusively
through DOD appropriations of over $100 million a year, WHCA
has functioned outside DOD operational control and with little
or no Defense Department oversight.
Operating under the direction of the White House, WHCA's
budget requests have gone largely unreviewed, its annual
performance plan has failed to meet DOD requirements, its
acquisition planning has fallen short of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation standards resulting in wasteful
purchases, and the agency's staffing needs have not been
adequately supported or justified. In addition, the agency's
functions and activities appear to have expanded greatly beyond
its initial mission of providing communications support to the
President in his role as commander-in-chief.
While the need for reform is clear, the committee is
encouraged by the recent indications by the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence, the Director of the Defense Information Systems
Agency, and the Commander of WHCA of a willingness to undertake
corrective actions. Together with the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, the committee will pursue a further
review of the agency's operations in the coming year to ensure
that necessary reforms are adopted.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--Transfer Authority
This section would permit the transfer of amounts of
authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any
fiscal year to any other authorization made available in
Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that
such a transfer would be in the national interest. The
provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming
involving the transfer of authorization between amounts
authorized as set out in bill language.
The authority to transfer could only be used to provide
authorization for higher priority items than the items from
which authorization was transferred and could not be used to
provide authorization for an item that was denied authorization
by the Congress. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
notify Congress promptly of transfers. The total amount of
transfers would be limited to $2 billion. Historically, the
transfer authority authorized has changed as follows:
Billions
Fiscal year:
85-88......................................................... $2.00
89-91......................................................... 3.00
92............................................................ 2.25
93............................................................ 1.50
94-96......................................................... 2.00
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex
This section would incorporate the classified annex
prepared by the Committee on National Security into the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
Section 1003--Authority for Obligation of Certain Unauthorized Fiscal
Year 1996 Defense Appropriations
This section would authorize certain fiscal year 1996
programs that received appropriations but no authorization.
Section 1004--Authorization of Prior Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996
This section would extend authorization to those items
appropriated by the fiscal year 1996 emergency supplemental
appropriations legislation.
Section 1005--Format for Budget Request for Navy/Marine Corps and Air
Force Ammunition Accounts
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
request funding for Navy/Marine Corps and Air Force ammunition
in separate appropriation accounts.
Section 1006--Format for Budget Requests for Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Program
The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program (DARP) budget
currently consolidates all research and development projects
within one program element and all procurement programs within
four generic procurement line item numbers in the Air Force and
Defense-wide procurement accounts. Therefore, to overcome this
lack of budget justification presentation detail and provide
the Congressional defense committees sufficient information to
conduct appropriate oversight, the committee recommends a
legislative provision (sec. 1006) that directs the Secretary of
Defense to identify all DARP research and development projects
and procurement programs by unique program element numbers and
procurement line items, respectively, in all future budget
requests beginning with fiscal year 1998.
Subtitle B--Reports and Studies
Section 1021--Annual Report on Operation Provide Comfort and Operation
Enhanced Southern Watch
This section would require an annual report on the conduct
of Operations Provide Comfort and Enhanced Southern Watch over
and within Iraq. Sections 1004 and 1005 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
conditionally authorized funding operations Provide Comfort and
Enhanced Southern Watch over and in Iraq pending a report by
the Department of Defense establishing the fundamental
objectives and parameters of these ongoing operations. Despite
this requirement and the fact that funding for these operations
is being diverted from military service operational readiness
accounts, the Department has not yet provided these reports.
In response to the Department's casual response to the
preparation and release of these reports and the enlarged scope
of the operations in question, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1021) that would require the Department to
provide Congress with a consolidated annual report on Operation
Provide Comfort and Operation Enhanced Southern Watch, for as
long as the operations continue.
Section 1022--Report on Protection of National Information
Infrastructure
Section 1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) established a requirement
for a report from the President on national policy concerning
protection of the national information infrastructure (NII)
from strategic attack, and on the future role of the National
Communications System (NCS) in implementing a strategy to
protect the NII.
To date, Congress has not received the required report and
overall it is clear that the Administration's response to this
statutory requirement has been lackluster at best. One
encouraging development is the recent creation of a White House
task force to establish policies for indications and warning,
protection, assessment, and reconstitution with respect to a
strategic attack on key sectors of the U.S. infrastructure
through the nation's networked information systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1022)
that would define what Congress expects from the President out
of this task force process. The committee stresses that this
effort cannot be regarded narrowly as a problem of counter-
terrorism, law enforcement, emergency preparedness,
intelligence, or national defense. Rather, it is a problem in
all of those domains, requiring central direction and
coordination. The committee also believes that the mandated NCS
assessment has concluded correctly that the focus for analysis
and corrective action should be on the telecommunications,
transportation, finance, power, and energy sectors of the U.S.
national infrastructure.
Section 1023--Report on Witness Interview Procedures for Department of
Defense Criminal Investigations
The committee continues to receive allegations of illegal,
unnecessary and inappropriate harassment and intimidation of
individuals by the criminal investigative agencies of the
Department of Defense. Such allegations deeply concern the
committee. Therefore, this section would require the
Comptroller General to survey and report on the policies and
practices of the military criminal investigative agencies with
respect to the manner in which interviews of witnesses and
suspects are conducted, the views of persons who were subjects
and witnesses in military investigations, as well as the degree
to which actual practice deviates from Department policy.
Furthermore, the section would require the Comptroller General
to report on a range of potential corrective actions that have
been suggested to the committee.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 1031--Information Systems Security Program
Judging by the results of the large and steadily growing
volume of studies originating within the Department of Defense
and its various scientific advisory boards, and by the
recommendations and testimony of DOD's functional managers for
information systems and information security, the Department is
devoting woefully insufficient resources to protecting the
Department's information systems.
The problem is a familiar one. Despite widespread
recognition of a problem, there are no volunteers to provide
funds to correct it. The senior DOD leadership is reluctant to
impose a solution to a non-traditional threat, particularly
when functional managers and information systems developers
present plans that would require funding from outside their own
budgets, and therefore entail difficult tradeoffs. In other
words, the military services, and the managers of the
logistics, medical, personnel, transportation, finance, and
other functions within DOD have thus far chosen to maximize
capabilities rather than sacrifice capabilities slightly in
order to ensure minimum critical requirements are met in
wartime conditions.
As a result, over the last two years, the DOD leadership
has added only modest resources for information security. The
level of funding was not based on a rigorous analysis of
requirements, nor were funds limited because advocates failed
to make a strong case for additional resources. Rather, the
allocation appears to have been determined by the amount of
funds that could be easily extracted from the overall budget
for command, control, and communications after the normal
budget review process.
The potential consequences are that DOD may not be able to
generate, deploy, and sustain military forces during a major
regional conflict in the event of information warfare attacks
on critical support functions controlled by networked
computers. According to various studies within DOD, including
several recent Defense Science Board reviews, such a threat
could be mounted by virtually any nation or even sophisticated
non-governmental organizations, with inexpensive, commercially
available equipment. Past and present Directors of the National
Security Agency have expressed grave concerns about this
emerging threat and likened it to ``an electronic Pearl
Harbor.''
The committee strongly believes that additional investments
in information security are required given the growing
dependence on networked computer systems. Therefore, in order
to assure that DOD will sustain additional investments in
future budget submissions, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 1031) that would require the Secretary of Defense to
allocate an additional half-percent of the total appropriations
for the defense information infrastructure (DII) to security
each year through the remainder of the Future Years Defense
Plan, for a total allocation of approximately 4.0 percent in
fiscal year 2001. These funds are in addition to the funds
available to the National Security Agency and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency for information security
technology. This provision would also require a report from the
Secretary annually through 2001 that describes specific,
measurable goals and objectives, the progress made over the
previous year in reaching them, and plans for the coming fiscal
year.
The committee would of course prefer that the Secretary of
Defense develop a detailed information systems security
investment plan and submit annual funding requests to the
Congress. In the absence of executive branch leadership,
however, the committee has no choice but to impose a specified
funding allocation.
Section 1032--Aviation and Vessel War Risk Insurance
This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
transfer funds to the Department of Transportation in the event
of a loss incurred incident to aviation insurance issued by the
Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to title 49, United
States Code, or vessel war risk insurance issued by the
Maritime Administration pursuant to title 46, United States
Code, when reimbursement is required by those statutes or
implementing agreements. In the case of a reimbursement
required as the result of an aviation incident, reimbursement
to the Secretary of Transportation is required within 30 days
following the presentment of a valid claim to the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration. For vessel war risk
claims, such reimbursement shall be made not later than 90 days
following adjudication of the claim by the Administrator of the
Maritime Administration. Because of the inability of the
Department of Defense to promptly indemnify for claims arising
out of activities or operations requested by the Department of
Defense, a number of air carriers have withdrawn from the Civil
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). Without continued significant
participation by a number of carriers in the CRAF program, the
ability to provide adequate airlift during critical periods
will be in jeopardy.
Section 1033--Aircraft Accident Investigation Boards
As a result of concerns about military flight safety raised
by the committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO) produced
a report in February 1996 entitled ``Military Aircraft Safety:
Significant Improvements Since 1975'' (GAO/NSIAD-96-69BR). The
report concluded that since 1975, the annual number of serious
DOD aviation accidents and the resulting fatalities and
destroyed aircraft has declined significantly. In fiscal year
1995, DOD reported its safest year in its aviation history in
both the total number of Class A mishaps and the number per
100,000 flying hours. Even though fiscal year 1995 was the
safest year, the services still sustained 76 class A mishaps
resulting in 85 fatalities and 67 destroyed aircraft. In fiscal
year 1995, aircraft accidents cost the Department of Defense
$1.3 billion in equipment losses and claims of damages against
the government.
As a result of the report, the committee believes there are
several areas within the flight safety program where
improvements could be made. First, the findings of the GAO
review and an Air Force Blue Ribbon Panel on flight safety
suggest that mishap investigation boards are perceived as
lacking the necessary independence from the operational chain
of command with management responsibility for the aircrew,
support personnel, and aircraft involved in the accident. The
GAO has made recommendations in the past to address concerns
about accident investigation board independence and some
changes have been made as a result. For example, the Air Force
has recently changed its policy to require a representative
from the Air Force safety center be included as a voting member
of mishap investigation boards and to limit the authority to
change mishap investigation board reports to the board members.
Accordingly, this section would require the secretaries of
the military departments to appoint a minimum of one
representative of the service's safety center as a voting
member on all accident investigation boards and to appoint a
majority of the membership of accident investigation boards
from units outside the chain of command of the unit involved in
the mishap. The secretaries of the military departments are
also encouraged to issue regulations specifying that the
authority to change accident investigation board reports be
vested only in the membership of the accident investigation
boards.
Second, the committee believes that the Secretary of
Defense should take action to develop and manage a joint
service effort to address flight safety issues which have
application across service lines. For example, with human error
reported as a contributing factor in about 70 percent of
aircraft accidents, it may be appropriate for DOD to take the
lead in assuring that the services jointly address the problem.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
feasibility of operating a joint service program to address
safety issues which have application across service lines and
report the findings of the study to the Congress not later than
March 31, 1997. At a minimum, the study should include an
assessment of a joint program to require a standardized process
for reporting and assessing the causes of accidents,
disseminating universal lessons learned to help prevent
accidents, and developing new approaches to reduce the
incidence of recurring safety problems, such as human error.
Finally, the committee recommends that the Secretary of
Defense coordinate a review of the training of aviation
managers, aircrew, and maintenance personnel to reduce the
incidence of human error in flying operations by modifying
aspects of training content, technique, and approach.
Section 1034--Authority for Use of Appropriated Funds for Recruiting
Functions
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments to expend appropriated funds for small
meals and snacks during recruiting functions.
Section 1035--Authority for Award of Medal of Honor to Certain African
American Soldiers Who Served During World War II
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
award the Medal of Honor to African American former service
members who have been found by the Secretary of the Army to
have distinguished themselves by gallantry above and beyond the
call of duty while serving in the United States Army during
World War II.
Section 1036--Compensation for Persons Awarded Prisoner of War Medal
Who Did Not Previously Receive Compensation as a Prisoner of War
This section would require the secretaries of the military
departments to pay subsistence and other allowances authorized
to be paid to prisoners of war interned by a government of a
nation with which the United States has been at war to former
service members who were awarded the Prisoner of War Medal as a
result of being interned by a nation with which the United
States was not at war. The provision would establish a one year
period for the submission of applications from former service
members who believe they are eligible.
Section 1037--George C. Marshall European Center for Strategic Studies
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
accept contributions of money or services from any foreign
nation intended to defray the cost of, or enhance the
operations of the George C. Marshall European Center For
Strategic Studies. The Secretary would be required to notify
the Congress if total contributions of money exceed $2,000,000
in any fiscal year. This provision would also authorize the
Secretary of Defense to approve the participation of a European
or Eurasian nation in Marshall Center programs if the Secretary
determines, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, that
such participation is in the national interest of the United
States and would materially contribute to reform of the
electoral process or development of democratic institutions.
Section 1038--Participation of Members, Dependents, and Other Persons
in Crime Prevention Efforts at Installations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
promulgate regulations to require service members, dependents,
civilian employees and defense contractors working on a
military installation to report to military law enforcement
officials any criminal activity, to include pilferage, grand
theft auto, underage drinking, embezzlement and rape or sexual
assault, which occurs on a military installation. It also would
require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by
February 1, 1997, on efforts to implement this provision.
Section 1039--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of minor technical and
clerical amendments.
Section 1040--Prohibition on Carrying Out SR-71 Strategic
Reconnaissance Program During Fiscal Year 1997
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
obligating any funds during fiscal year 1997 to operate the SR-
71 strategic reconnaissance program. The committee is concerned
that this program, while continuing to provide a unique
capability, has outlived its affordability. Further, the
committee notes that the Department of Defense has long sought
to cease the operation of this aircraft and has been precluded
from doing so by Congressional direction. The committee intends
for this provision to serve as emphatic direction to the
Department to cease the operation of this unaffordable
intelligence collection program.
The committee notes the recent letter from the Deputy
Secretary of Defense informing the committee of the decision to
terminate fiscal year 1996 SR-71 operations. The committee
supports the Department's decision. While the Deputy
Secretary's letter implied that this action was taken based on
conflicting Congressional direction, the committee believes
that it is fully consistent with the Department's position, as
reflected by the lack of funding for this program in the
President's fiscal year 1997 budget request.
TITLE XI--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $327.9 million for cooperative
threat reduction (CTR) activities, including $177.5 million for
destruction and dismantlement, $119.5 million for fissile
materials and nuclear weapons safety and storage, and $30.9
million for other program support. The committee reiterates its
support for the accelerated dismantlement and destruction of
strategic offensive weapons in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and
Belarus.
The committee recommends a total of $302.9 million for CTR
activities in fiscal year 1997, a reduction of $25.0 million
from the requested amount. The committee recommends the
requested amount for strategic offensive arms elimination
activities in Russia, strategic nuclear arms elimination in
Ukraine, fissile material storage containers in Russia, weapons
storage and security in Russia, and defense and military-to-
military contacts. The committee recommends the following
reductions to the requested amounts: chemical weapons
destruction ($4.0 million); fissile material storage facility
($20.0 million); and other program support ($1.0 million). The
discussion below provides additional rationale for these
reductions as well as other matters of interest and concern to
the committee.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Lack of Updated, Multi-Year Program Plan
Section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) directed the Secretary to
submit, together with the President's budget submission, an
annual report on the Department's plans and funding required
for the CTR program. This section also directed the Comptroller
General to issue a report on the Secretary's report. The
purpose of this reporting requirement for a multi-year program
plan was to provide the Congress with greater visibility into
the Department's long-term programmatic strategy and the
resources required to implement that strategy. Unfortunately,
the Department has failed to submit this report. Therefore, it
is difficult for the committee to assess overall program costs
and commitments, schedules, and milestones, and whether or how
the funds requested for fiscal year 1997 fit into those plans.
The committee once again directs that the Secretary promptly
submit the requested multi-year plan.
The committee also directs that future CTR multi-year plans
should identify and explain significant cost, schedule, or
scope changes from the preceding year's plan, and identify
known uncertainties affecting project cost estimates and
schedules. Finally, in order to better assess the impact of the
CTR program on reducing the threat, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, on an annual basis beginning with the
multi-year plan submitted with the President's fiscal year 1998
budget request, to include an assessment of the program's
political and practical impact. This assessment shall include a
listing of the number of missiles and launchers destroyed, the
number of warheads safely stored, the quantities of chemical
weapons destroyed, and the degree to which these actions
resulted in an acceleration as compared to the schedule such
activities would have otherwise occurred in the absence of U.S.
assistance, as well as other appropriate measures of
effectiveness that will allow the Congress to assess specific
progress in the program.
Chemical Weapons Destruction
The budget request included $2.2 million to initiate
dismantlement of a chemical weapons production facility at
Volgograd, Russia. The committee is concerned about
establishing a precedent for a new U.S. commitment and program
to assume responsibility for destroying Russian chemical
weapons production facilities, especially given that Russia has
both the resources and the technical capability to destroy such
facilities. The committee believes that Russia should take
immediate steps to destroy such facilities as a gesture of
goodwill. Therefore, the committee denies the request to
initiate this project.
The budget request also included $3.3 million for the
chemical weapons destruction support office in Moscow. The
committee is not convinced of the need for such significant
annual funding for what is essentially a clearinghouse for
information on the chemical weapons destruction project.
Therefore, the committee recommends $1.5 million for this
activity, a reduction of $1.8 million from the request, and
directs the Department to scale back the planned costs and
operations of the support office to the minimum essential
level.
The Department has assured the committee that no fiscal
year 1997 funds will be used to initiate actual construction
activities associated with a pilot chemical weapons destruction
plant. The funding recommended by the committee is based on
this assurance, and therefore the committee expects that the
fiscal year 1997 funds recommended herein will be used solely
for planning and design activities.
The committee also has a number of concerns regarding this
project. First, although Russia recently completed and provided
to the United States a comprehensive chemical weapons
destruction implementation plan, questions regarding cost
estimates, timelines, and overall credibility of that plan
remain to be resolved. Second, the Department's plan for this
project has been modified several times over the past year.
Thus, the committee is unable to ascertain whether an
appropriate U.S.-Russian cost-sharing arrangement has been
finalized and, if so, what the U.S. responsibilities and
obligations are for this project. Likewise, the committee is
unable to determine whether the latest programmatic and
technical milestones are in fact achievable. Third, the
committee is aware of, but unable to assess any progress for,
the Administration's effort to convince other nations to
contribute funding for Russian chemical weapons destruction.
Fourth, Russia has yet to ratify the Chemical Weapons
Convention, has made no specific commitment to the United
States to carry out the terms and conditions of the U.S.-Russia
bilateral chemical weapons destruction agreement, signed in
1990, and may still be developing offensive chemical weapons.
In the absence of these details, and given the magnitude of
the potential U.S. cost-share for this project (estimates range
from several hundred million dollars to approximately $1.0
billion), the committee cannot endorse proceeding with the
actual construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility.
Fissile Material Storage Facility
The budget request included $66.0 million for fissile
material storage activities in Russia. The committee
understands the Department plans to notify the committee of its
intention to take $20.0 million in excess, prior-year funds for
the fissile material storage facility and reallocate those
funds for another CTR project. The committee directs that the
$20.0 million in available, prior-year funds for the fissile
material storage facility be applied toward fiscal year 1997
fissile material storage activities. As a result, the fiscal
year 1997 budget request can be reduced by this same amount
without impacting program content. Therefore, the committee
recommends $46.0 million, a reduction of $20.0 million, for
this project in fiscal year 1997.
The committee is aware that the U.S. government has
insisted in negotiations with Russia that this new facility
meet or exceed Western standards for safe and secure warhead
and weapon component storage, and that Russia store all or the
vast majority of its excess weapons-grade fissile material and
warhead components there. Correspondingly, the U.S. government
has sought to negotiate detailed and binding agreements with
the Russian government on the quantity and type of components
and fissile material that will be stored in the facility, and
on the irreversibility of the dismantlements. However, the
Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) has been unwilling
to provide firm commitments on these points. In addition, the
U.S. government has insisted on inspection provisions that
would allow the United States to confirm that it is being used
for its intended purpose, and to verify that the weapons
components or fissile material placed there is not later used
for weapons construction. Minatom has refused to agree to this
demand as well. Other concerns with this project have been
raised as well. For example, a recent Harvard University study
noted that ``The storage facility will not begin operations
until 1998 at the earliest, which raises questions about the
wisdom of spending the largest single amount of money devoted
to fissile material security from a very limited budget on a
project that does nothing to meet the immediate needs for
secure storage.''
Based on these concerns, the committee directs that none of
the fiscal year 1997 funds made available for fissile material
storage may be obligated or expended until 15 days after the
Secretary provides the congressional defense committees with a
status report on the issues and concerns raised in the
preceding paragraph.
Finally, as with the chemical weapons destruction facility,
the Department's plan for assisting in the design and
construction of a fissile material storage facility in Russia
has undergone significant changes recently, thereby making the
description of this project contained in the 1995 multi-year
plan no longer valid, according to DOD officials. Therefore, it
is impossible for the committee to determine what obligations
the United States now plans to assume for this project, the
total project cost and planned completion date, and whether or
how fiscal year 1997 funds fit into the overall plan. The
committee notes again this situation could be rectified by
prompt submission of the multi-year program plan.
Program Overhead
The budget request included $20.9 million for other
assessments/administrative costs. The committee recommends
$19.9 million, a reduction of $1.0 million, for these
activities. The reduction is made without prejudice, but
expects the Department to identify efficiencies in program
management and support services and contracts.
Concerns Regarding Presidential Certification
Section 211 of the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of
1991 (Public Law 102-228) requires that, as a condition of
eligibility for U.S. assistance under the CTR program, the
President must submit an annual certification that a proposed
recipient country is ``committed to'' certain minimal actions
and standards. For example, the President must certify that the
proposed recipient country is committed to: making a
substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or
destroying such weapons; forgoing any military modernization
program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and
forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass
destruction; forgoing any use of fissionable and other
components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons;
facilitating U.S. verification of weapons destruction; and
complying with all relevant arms control agreements. The most
recent certification was issued March 13, 1996, by the
Secretary of State on the President's behalf.
The committee strongly believes that the Russian Federation
should promptly fulfill its obligations to honor all legal and
political commitments to fully implement relevant arms control
accords, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty, the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), and agreements
regarding chemical and biological weapons.
The committee is frustrated that the Congress has yet to
receive the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's report to
Congress on adherence to and compliance with arms control
agreements, which is required to be submitted not later than
January 31 of each year under which separate judgments are to
be made regarding Russian compliance with relevant arms control
accords.
The committee believes that any certification judging
Russia's commitment to complying with all relevant arms control
agreements should be based on Russian actions, not rhetoric.
The committee strongly believes it is not sufficient to refer
to statements of Russian President Yeltsin and senior-level
Russian policy officials as the sole evidence of Russia's
compliance with arms control accords. In this regard, the
committee notes that there is continuing evidence that the
commitments made by President Yeltsin have not been implemented
by the Russian Ministry of Defense.
To this end, the committee expresses deep concern that the
preponderance of the March 13, 1996 report referenced above
raises numerous concerns and issues regarding Russian
activities that are inconsistent with its obligations under
various relevant arms control accords, and in one case outright
noncompliance. Yet, in the face of such overwhelming evidence
of Russian misbehavior and intransigence, Russia is still
judged to be committed to complying with its arms control
obligations.
In this regard, the committee expects the Administration,
as it deliberates on the 1997 certification for Russia, to
ensure that such certification outlines a list of concrete
steps and actions taken by Russia to fulfill its obligations
under relevant arms control accords.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
This section would specify CTR programs.-
Section 1102--Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Allocations
This section would allocate fiscal year 1997 funding for
various CTR purposes and activities.
Section 1103--Prohibition on Use of Funds For Specified Purposes
This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for
specified purposes.
Section 1104--Limitation on Funds
This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of
fiscal year 1997 CTR funds until 15 days after various reports
are submitted to Congress.
Section 1105--Availability of Funds
This section would make fiscal year 1997 CTR funds
available for obligation for three fiscal years.
TITLE XII--RESERVE FORCES REVITALIZATION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Reserve Component Structure
Section 1211--Reserve Component Commands
This section would establish separate reserve commands and
commanders for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force
reserves. The section would also delineate the forces to be
assigned to each reserve command, as well as prescribe the
subsequent assignment of the reserve forces to the commanders-
in-chief (CINCs) of the joint combatant commands.
Section 1211--Reserve Component Chiefs
This section would establish separate offices of the
military reserve chiefs as part of the staffs of the senior
military headquarters of each of the services. In addition, the
section would also prescribe the appointment criteria and
procedures, and term of office for the reserve chiefs, and
would also assign budget, annual reporting, and other
management responsibilities to the reserve component chiefs.
Section 1213--Review of Active Duty and Reserve General and Flag
Officer Authorizations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a comprehensive review of the existing statutory
reserve and active general and flag officer authorizations and
report to Congress any recommendations for revisions to those
authorizations, as well as recommendations for the statutory
designation of other general and flag officers as part of the
commands created in sections 1211 and 1212 of this title. The
section would also require the Secretary to report on whether
reserve component general and flag officers should be exempt
from existing active duty general officer ceilings.
Section 1214--Guard and Reserve Technicians
This section would redefine military technicians as federal
civilian employees hired under titles 5 and 32, United States
Code, who are required to maintain dual-status as drilling
reserve component members as a condition of their federal
employment. The section would mandate that military technicians
be authorized and accounted for as a separate category of
civilian employees who are exempt from general civilian
personnel reductions in the Department of Defense. The section
would permit military technicians reductions only if the
reductions were related to force structure changes.
Section 1215--Technical Amendment Reflecting Prior Revision to National
Guard Bureau Charter
This section would make a technical amendment to section
641 of title 10, United States Code to correct an erroneous
reference.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Accessibility
Section 1231--Report to Congress on Measures Taken to Improve National
Guard and Reserve Ability to Respond to Emergencies
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
report comprehensively on the measures taken or planned to
improve the timeliness, adequacy and effectiveness of reserve
component responses to domestic emergencies. The section would
also require the Secretary of Defense to assess the
recommendations of the 1995 RAND report, ``Assessing the State
and Federal Missions of the National Guard.''
Sections 1232 Through 1234--Reporting Requirements
These sections would require the Secretary of Defense to
report to Congress on tax incentives for employees of members
of the reserve components, on income programs for activated
reservists, and on small business loans for reservists released
from active duty following contingency operation.
Subtitle C--Reserve forces Sustainment
Sections 1251 Through 1256--Improvements to Reserve Component Quality
of Life and Benefits
These sections would require the Secretary of Defense to
propose legislation on the tax deductibility of some
unreimbursed expenses incurred by reservists, as well as
legislative changes which would reduce the disparity of
benefits between the active and reserve components. These
sections would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay
transient housing charges or provide lodging in kind for
reservists in certain training situations.
TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Arms Control Implementation
The Administration's fiscal year 1997 budget requests
$282.3 million for arms control implementation programs. The
committee notes that a number of arms control agreements have
not yet been ratified or entered into force. For example, the
Chemical Weapons Convention has been signed by both Russia and
the United States, but neither country has ratified it and it
lacks ratification by the requisite number of countries to
enter into force. The START II Treaty has been ratified by the
United States, but not by Russia. And the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty is currently under negotiation. Delays in the entry
into force of these treaties will likely allow some reduction
in the amount of funding authorized for these arms control
implementation programs. Accordingly, the committee will
continue to monitor developments in these arms control areas
with a view toward possible further adjustments to the
Administration's budget request.
Chemical Weapons Convention
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the
production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Last
year, the Congress expressed its sense that the United States
and Russia, both signatories to the agreement, should ratify it
promptly. However, the treaty has not yet entered into force to
date for lack of the requisite number of ratifications.
The committee supports the ratification and full
implementation by all parties of the convention, as negotiated.
However, the committee remains concerned that Russia continues
to engage in chemical weapons activities inconsistent with the
accord. In addition, Iran, a signatory to the convention, has
been characterized by one U.S. official as having ``the most
active chemical weapons program'' in the Third World. And a
number of states that possess active chemical weapons programs,
such as Libya, are not signatories to the accord. For example,
the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central
Intelligence have confirmed that Libya is engaged in the
construction of an underground chemical weapons facility carved
into a mountain near Tarhunah. This extensive project
demonstrates the Libyan commitment to the acquisition of a
significant chemical weapons capability and raises questions
about the ability of arms control agreements like the Chemical
Weapons Convention to substantively impair the ability of rogue
regimes to acquire these types of weapons of terror.
The committee believes the continued proliferation of
chemical weapons capabilities raises serious issues with
respect to the CWC, and directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the Congressional defense committees no
later than December 31, 1996, in both classified and
unclassified form, that addresses the impact of the CWC on both
the ability of U.S. forces deployed abroad to execute their
missions and on the chemical weapons programs of other
countries. The report should include:
(1) an identification of the types of weapons or
chemical agents that can and cannot be used by U.S.
forces and under what circumstances;
(2) an assessment of the impact of the CWC on the
chemical weapons ----programs of other signatory
states;
(3) an assessment of whether the obligations
contained within the CWC can be met by other signatory
states within the time frames established by the
Convention;
(4) an identification of states that are not
signatories and an assessment of the impact of the CWC
on the chemical weapons programs of those states;
(5) a description of efforts being undertaken to
enlarge the number of ---signatories; and
(6) a description and analysis of efforts by Libya to
construct an underground chemical weapons facility at
Tarhunah.
Comprehensive Test Ban
The committee is concerned with the Administration's
inclination to reach a conclusion this year of an international
treaty banning all nuclear tests based on the rationale that it
would strengthen U.S. efforts to halt the spread of nuclear
weapons. The committee is troubled by this assumption. Several
Third World nations that either presently have a nuclear
capability or may be capable of assembling nuclear weapons on
short notice have reached this level of development despite
never having conducted a nuclear test of which the West is
aware. In fact, the relatively crude weapons Third World
countries are likely to develop may not require any nuclear
testing.
In addition, many experts believe that a Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT) is unlikely to ever be effectively
verifiable. Countries intent on cheating could identify and
implement evasive measures that would make it virtually
impossible for U.S. sensors to detect low-yield tests. This
thesis is given additional credibility by reports that the
Russians may have recently conducted a nuclear test, in
violation of their self-imposed moratorium, at their nuclear
test site on Novaya Zemlya. The Secretary of Defense has stated
that there is ``some ambiguity in the evidence'' and that the
intelligence community has ``some people saying yes and other
people saying maybe.''
In the committee's view, nuclear testing is needed to
assure the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of U.S.
nuclear weapons in the future. Despite progress in non-nuclear
testing technology and applications, nuclear testing will
ultimately be required to refine and validate these ``non-
testing'' technologies if the United States hopes to have
confidence in them as viable alternatives to actual testing.
Moreover, as confidence in the effectiveness of the U.S.
nuclear arsenal declines, so does its credibility. If the
credibility of the nuclear guarantee to U.S. allies is called
into question, those allies may seek to develop their own
nuclear capabilities.
With these concerns in mind, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy and the Director of Central Intelligence, to submit a
report to the Congressional defense committees no later than
December 31, 1996 describing the ability of the United States
to monitor a CTBT and to detect low-yield nuclear tests. The
report should also assess whether or not the Russians have
conducted any nuclear tests since their self-imposed moratorium
in 1992 and should detail any difficulties in making such
determinations.
Department of Defense Activities With China
The committee recognizes that U.S.-China civilian-military
and direct military-military contact are key components of the
U.S. strategy of ``comprehensive engagement'' toward China. The
committee also recognizes that as China continues to develop
its armed forces, it could potentially evolve into a more
direct threat to the national security of the United States and
American interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, the
committee finds it necessary to pursue a fuller understanding
of all Department of Defense interaction with the Chinese
government and military organizations. Particularly, the
committee seeks a full accounting and detailed presentation of:
(1) Department of Defense interaction with the
People's Republic of China, including meetings,
training, military technology-sharing or other related
events which took place during the period spanning
fiscal years 1994-1996, and those proposed for fiscal
years 1997 and 1998;
(2) the rationale for any information or technology
sharing which took place during or as a result of any
of the previously identified forms of interaction;
(3) costs incurred or other support provided by the
Department of Defense for the aforementioned
cooperative initiatives and related programs during the
fiscal years 1994-1996, and costs and funding
mechanisms anticipated for future or related
activities;
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a classified and unclassified report to the
congressional defense committees not later than February 1,
1997.
Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia
Since the original commitment by the Administration to
deploy United States armed forces as part of the multinational
peace implementation force (IFOR) in Bosnia, the committee has
been concerned over the strategic rationale for American
participation on the ground in Bosnia and the prospects for
ultimate success of the NATO-led peace mission. As part of its
oversight responsibilities, the committee held numerous
hearings on the Bosnia deployment, taking testimony in open and
closed sessions from Administration witnesses, former
ambassadors, current and former senior military officials, and
expert scholars and academics. In addition, the committee has
received regular briefings from the Administration on the
military and political situation in the former Yugoslavia.
In the committee's view, the decision to deploy American
ground troops as part of the peace implementation force lacked
compelling strategic rationale. Nevertheless, once the
deployment began, the committee's concerns shifted to the
operational impacts of the mission. Specifically, the committee
remains concerned on a number of fronts. First and foremost has
been the safety and security of U.S. armed forces as they
enforce the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement.
Second, the committee has been concerned that the military
mission of IFOR not be transformed into a civilian ``nation-
building'' exercise, as was the case in Somalia. Third, the
committee sought to ensure that the Department of Defense has a
sound and clearly articulated exit strategy for withdrawing
U.S. ground forces at the end of the one-year deadline imposed
by the Administration. In these areas, the results have so far
been decidedly mixed, and many of the committee's concerns have
not been alleviated.
The committee is extremely proud of the dedication and
professionalism with which the American men and women in
uniform have performed their missions in the former Yugoslavia.
U.S. armed forces have worked under challenging political,
military, and environmental conditions and have performed
admirably. The committee takes pride in recognizing that the
performance of U.S. armed forces in the former Yugoslavia
demonstrates that the U.S. military is second-to-none. However,
the committee is concerned that American soldiers still face
threats to their safety, including threats from the presence of
armed Islamic fundamentalists in Bosnia. The presence of these
mujahedeen forces is a clear violation of the Dayton agreement.
Moreover, the committee is disturbed that the Administration,
by tacitly approving the shipment of Iranian arms through
Croatia to the Bosnian Muslims during the time that the UN arms
embargo was in effect, may have allowed these Islamic
fundamentalists, including Iranian Revolutionary Guards and
intelligence services, to establish a solid foothold in Bosnia
and on the European mainland.
While most of the military aspects of the Dayton agreement
have been fulfilled, persistent violations of the accord
continue to raise questions about the commitment of the parties
to a just and lasting peace and to the endurance of the peace
process after U.S. ground forces are withdrawn. For example,
unauthorized checkpoints continue to impede freedom of
movement, arson and looting are widespread, numerous violations
of the zone of separation have occurred, soldiers and heavy
weapons have not been withdrawn to barracks and storage sites
as required, air defense weapons remain unaccounted for,
prisoners of war continue to be held by all parties, and the
incidences of civilian disturbances between Bosnian Serbs,
Croats, and Muslims are increasing.
In addition, IFOR troops are increasingly being tasked with
duties that are more appropriately left to civilian
authorities. NATO troops have been called on to put out fires
set by arsonists, IFOR has provided escort and security to
investigators of the War Crimes Tribunal as they search mass
gravesites, and NATO spokesmen have declared that the focus of
the IFOR mission is changing in a way that will allow greater
military involvement in support of the civilian rebuilding of
Bosnia. In the committee's view, this comes dangerously close
to the kind of ``mission creep'' that the Department of Defense
has assured the committee it will not permit. With the
implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton accord
running significantly behind schedule, the committee believes
that clearer ``rules of the road'' need to be formulated by the
Department in order to prevent U.S. armed forces from becoming
too heavily involved in nation-building endeavors in Bosnia.
Significantly, the Administration's exit strategy for U.S.
ground forces remains unclear. The Administration has on
numerous occasions sought to assure the committee that U.S.
troops would not remain in Bosnia beyond one year. In testimony
before the House International Relations Committee on April 23,
1996, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Peter
Tarnoff, stated under oath that ``our policy . . . is to have
all U.S. forces out on or about the 14th of December.'' When
asked if there was any plan to delay the withdrawal, he
responded, ``There is none whatsoever.'' At the same time,
however, the committee's repeated requests for an explanation
of the Administration's exit strategy have produced nothing
more than seemingly reflexive references to the calendar. A
date for withdrawal, however, does not a strategy make.
It is increasingly becoming apparent to the committee that
U.S. ground forces will, in fact, remain in Bosnia well beyond
the one-year timetable stated by the Administration and on
which significant Congressional support for the operation was
originally conditioned. The committee notes that within days of
Secretary Tarnoff's assurances, the Department of Defense
announced its decision to maintain a ``significant force'' in
Bosnia for ``a month, maybe longer'' after the December 1996
deadline for withdrawal. It therefore appears that the
successful fulfillment of IFOR's military mission is an
insufficient reason for keeping to the planned U.S. force
withdrawal schedule. Moreover, the Administration appears no
closer either to formulating a coherent and rational exit
strategy or to deciding when initial U.S. troop withdrawals
should commence.
In light of these developments, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Congressional
defense committees within 60 days of the enactment of this Act
that fully explains the Administration's Bosnia exit strategy.
This report should fully address the Department's plans to
withdraw U.S. ground forces according to the original
timetable, outline the conditions under which that planned
withdrawal may be delayed, and for how long, clearly describe
the Department's guidelines for avoiding ``mission creep,'' and
discuss the conditions whereby U.S. troops have been, are, and
would be used to accomplish, or assist in the accomplishment
of, various civilian and humanitarian tasks. This report should
be prepared in both classified and unclassified form.
Russian Missile Detargeting
During his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1996,
President Clinton stated, ``For the first time since the dawn
of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at
America's children.'' President Clinton similarly claimed in
1994 that the so-called ``detargeting agreement'' of January
14, 1994 has effectively halted the targeting of Russian
nuclear missiles against the United States. The detargeting
agreement, officially the Moscow Declaration, was a statement
signed by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin that provides: ``. . .
for the detargeting of strategic nuclear missiles under their
respective commands so that by not later than May 30, 1994,
those missiles will not be targeted.''
Both Russian and American experts overwhelmingly hold that
the detargeting provisions of the Moscow Declaration are non-
binding, unverifiable, and militarily inconsequential. For
example, Russian General Viktor Yesin, Chief of the Strategic
Missile Forces (SMF) Main Staff, in an April 1995 interview on
the detargeting agreement noted, ``The missiles' target
coordinates can be unloaded and reloaded. Missile specialists
believe that the SMF's actual combat readiness following Boris
Yeltsin's generous gesture of friendship to the Americans has
not diminished.'' Anton Surikov, a senior advisor to the
Russian Ministry of Defense, acknowledged in a March 1995
interview, ``When it was decided to detarget missiles, the
decision was mostly of a political, propaganda character,''
because, ``Technically it is not difficult to retarget a
missile very quickly.''
Therefore, the committee is concerned that Administration
statements may be significantly overstating the strategic and
military significance of the 1994 detargeting agreement. To
ensure that an appropriate record is established on this
critical national security question, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress by January
1, 1997 on the verifiability and military significance of the
detargeting provisions of the Moscow Declaration of January 14,
1994. The report should specifically address the following
questions: Can the United States independently verify that
Russian nuclear missiles are not targeted on the United States?
Assuming that Russian missiles are detargeted, is it likely
that coordinates for targets in the United States are still
stored locally and can be used to reprogram Russian missiles on
short notice? How long does retargeting of Russian missiles
take? The report is to be prepared in classified and
unclassified versions.
Russian Threat Perceptions
The committee is aware of allegations that during the
1980s, military and political leaders of the former Soviet
Union believed that a surprise nuclear attack by the United
States was imminent and undertook special intelligence and
defense measures to detect and preempt such an attack. In
addition, allegations exist that Russian military forces went
on nuclear alerts in 1991 and 1995, and that behavior and
programs associated with the so-called ``war scare'' may
persist in Russia today. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
Central Intelligence, to provide, not later than January 1,
1997, a report on these matters to the Congressional defense
and intelligence committees. The report should describe any
evidence since 1983 of such threat perceptions; nuclear alerts;
Russian preparations to detect, preempt, or defend against a
surprise nuclear attack; and the extent to which these
attitudes and activities continue today.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters
Section 1301--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities
This section would extend through fiscal year 1997 the
Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (title XV of
Public Law 102-484; 22 U.S.C. 5859a), which expires at the end
of fiscal year 1996. This authority is necessary for the
Department of Defense to continue its support of the UN Special
Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). The committee supports the
extension of this authority given ongoing concerns over Iraq's
continued possession of weapons of mass destruction and missile
delivery systems.
Section 1302--Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of Strategic
Nuclear Delivery Vehicles
This section would prohibit the use of funds appropriated
to the Department of Defense during fiscal year 1997 for
retiring or dismantling any B-52H bombers, Trident ballistic
missile submarines, Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBMs), or Peacekeeper ICBMs. The committee considers
this a prudent step in light of the fact that Russia has thus
far failed to ratify the START II treaty and the established
shortcomings in the U.S. bomber force structure. The committee
intends that this prohibition not apply to long-range pre-
planning, design and evaluation efforts to allow the military
departments to be ready to execute various retirement and
dismantlement options in an efficient manner.
To implement the provision, $56.4 million is required to
retain 28 B-52H aircraft in the active inventory during fiscal
year 1997. The committee recommends an additional $11.5 million
in Air Force procurement funds for this purpose. Furthermore,
the committee directs that of the amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to Title III for Air Force operations and
maintenance, $42.9 million shall be available for this purpose,
and that of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant
to Title IV for Air Force military personnel, $2.0 million
shall be available for this purpose.
Section 1303--Certification Required Before Observance of Moratorium on
Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel Landmines
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
certify to Congress that a moratorium on the use of
antipersonnel landmines would not adversely affect the ability
of U.S. armed forces to defend against attack and that
effective substitutes for antipersonnel landmines exist, prior
to implementation of such a moratorium.
The committee notes that the Administration is seeking a
global ban on the use of antipersonnel landmines because of the
civilian casualties that are caused by haphazardly laid or
marked non-self-destructing antipersonnel landmines after
hostilities have ceased. The committee further notes that it is
precisely because of the lingering effects of non-self-
destructive landmines that U.S. armed forces have refrained
from purchasing these types of landmines since 1974. Today,
U.S. armed forces use non-self-destructing landmines only along
internationally recognized borders or in demilitarized zones
within a perimeter marked area that is monitored by military
personnel and protected by adequate means to ensure the
exclusion of civilians. Self-destructing landmines do not pose
a significant humanitarian threat, since they self-destruct
with a high degree of reliability at a designated time after
emplacement.
The committee supports efforts to minimize and eliminate
post-combat civilian casualties and notes that the United
States has been the global leader in working toward this
objective. However, the committee notes that the problem of
post-combat civilian casualties today stems from the
indiscriminate and irresponsible use by other countries of non-
self-destructing landmines. The shift by the United States
toward self-destructing landmines has not been matched by other
nations. The committee does not believe that a unilateral
moratorium on the use of antipersonnel landmines by U.S. armed
forces would be observed by other nations, especially in light
of the fact that antipersonnel landmines are relatively
inexpensive and there are no effective substitutes for them at
present.
Landmines are an integral part of current U.S. doctrine and
an important economy-of-force combat multiplier. They are an
integral component of the ability to conduct maneuver warfare,
as was demonstrated so successfully during Operation Desert
Storm. A moratorium on their use would seriously diminish the
U.S. ability to conduct ground combat operations, putting
soldiers at greater risk, and requiring increased expenditures
to maintain an equivalent level of battlefield power. The
committee does not support a unilateral restriction on the use
of defensive weapons that will result in increased risk to
American men and women in uniform.
The committee is disturbed by reports that the
Administration is reviewing current policy with a view toward
establishing a date certain for a ban on the use of all
antipersonnel landmines. This proposal reportedly has the
support of the Department of Defense. In the committee's view,
effective and inexpensive substitutes should be available prior
to implementation of such a ban. Moreover, the committee is
perplexed by the apparent shift in the position of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who last year declared
antipersonnel landmines to be `indispensable'' and urged the
defeat of moratorium legislation subsequently signed into law
by the President. In September 1995, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman General Shalikashvili wrote to the committee's
chairman and ranking minority member that ``the proposed
legislation in the Senate bill would ban use of antipersonnel
landmines by U.S. forces except in narrowly defined scenarios.
I have significant concerns because, as written, American
personnel would be placed at risk.''
General Shalikashvili noted that ``the proposed
legislation, beginning three years after enactment, would
prohibit the use for one year of anti-personnel landmines by
U.S. forces, except in marked and guarded minefields along
internationally recognized national borders and demilitarized
zones. The legislation would effectively prohibit the use of
all self-destructing mine systems because they employ a
combination of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Self-
destructing antipersonnel mines represent approximately 65
percent of the U.S. total antipersonnel mine inventory. Mines
were an indispensable component of the coalition's ability to
conduct the maneuver warfare that made such an important
contribution to victory in Desert Storm. Significantly, mines
secured the right flank of General Schwartzkopf's ground
offensive in western Iraq.''
Importantly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman noted, ``I
wish to emphasize that mines used by U.S. armed forces self-
destruct a short period of time after emplacement with a high
degree of reliability and do not pose a significant
humanitarian problem. Restricting antipersonnel landmines to
`internationally recognized national borders' and demilitarized
zones effectively prohibits their use by U.S. forces in most
combat scenarios. Defensive minefields around sensitive
military installations such as Naval Station Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, would also be precluded. U.S. forces are heavily
dependent upon such minefields for security.'' General
Shalikashvili also noted that ``the U.S. military strongly
opposes the illegal and irresponsible use of these mines and is
a proponent of humanitarian demining activities to alleviate
suffering caused by them. However, antipersonnel landmines will
be required by U.S. forces for safe defense in the foreseeable
future. Congress and the American people expect us to fight and
win conflicts with minimum casualties. That goal requires the
retention of capabilities provided by the advanced, self-
destructing mine systems which would be prohibited under the
proposed legislation.''
Finally, General Shalikashvili declared, ``While I
wholeheartedly support U.S. leadership in the long-term goal of
antipersonnel landmine elimination, unilateral actions which
needlessly place our forces at risk now will not induce good
behavior from irresponsible combatants. As practical solutions
are pursued, our priorities must be to maintain warfighting
superiority while concurrently protecting the safety of U.S.
service men and women. I consider this to be a critical force
protection issue and request your support to defeat the
proposed legislation.''
The committee fails to understand what objective factors
have changed since September, 1995 that would now make
acceptable what was unacceptable then. Until such time as
effective substitutes for antipersonnel landmines are
developed, the committee believes that U.S. forces should not
be denied the use of weapons that are purely defensive and
consistent with international law.
Section 1304--Department of Defense Demining Program
This section would make clarifying changes to section 401,
title 10, United States Code relating to the authority of the
Department of Defense to carry out a humanitarian demining
program. The committee continues to support the use of military
personnel and resources to conduct humanitarian demining
efforts that are consistent with normal training requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1304)
that clarifies the Department's authorities with regard to
funding travel, transportation, subsistence expenses for
military personnel participating in such training. The
provision further provides clarification regarding the ability
of the Department to fund the costs of equipment, supplies, and
services directly associated with the authorized humanitarian
demining training operation. However, the committee does not
agree to the Administration's request to authorize the
Department to provide services and equipment to recipient
nations following the completion of the training operation.
The committee agrees with the Administration's humanitarian
demining strategy to pursue a program that is sustainable and
effective. However, the committee believes that the Department
of Defense's participation in this program should be limited to
those functions that it can uniquely and effectively perform.
The provision of contract services, equipment and other
materiel to recipient nations is a clear foreign assistance
function that is best carried out through the authorities
provided and resources specifically appropriated for this
purpose. The committee notes with concern that the trend over
the past few years has been for the government to rely on the
Department of Defense to shoulder an increasing if not
principal share of the responsibility for this foreign
assistance initiative. The committee notes that the President's
fiscal year 1997 budget request for humanitarian demining
activities within the international affairs budget function
totals $7 million, while the national defense function request
totals $25 million.
The committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to
work with the Secretary of State and other applicable
government agencies to establish clearer and more appropriate
allocation of responsibilities in the execution of a multi-
agency humanitarian demining effort that fulfills previously
stated objectives.
Section 1305--Report on Military Capabilities of People's Republic of
China
The military exercises and missile firings conducted by the
People's Republic of China this past spring in and around the
Taiwan Straits represented the culmination of several years' of
modernization and innovation in selected units of the People's
Liberation Army (PLA). The exercises formed a benchmark of
Chinese military development, demonstrating new capabilities
for projecting military power and for joint force operations.
In the committee's judgment, the American response to these
Chinese actions, though belated, also sent a clear signal of
both U.S. political interests and military capabilities in the
Asia-Pacific region.
As a result of these developments, the committee concurs
with initial Department of Defense and independent analysis
concluding that that the PLA has reached a crossroads, having
gained a better understanding of the required military
capabilities for the kind of power projection forces needed to
support its geopolitical aims in the region. The committee
further believes that the Chinese now better understand the
strategic requirement to deter or to raise the costs of
American military intervention if they intend to retain the
option of coercive diplomacy or the actual use of military
force to achieve their national goals. In particular, the
committee is concerned that the PLA now will devote more
intensive efforts to developing those kinds of capabilities
that will work to deny the ability to U.S. forces to operate
with little risk in the region. Thus, the Chinese may move to
develop different kinds of systems than their past
modernization efforts, with a view toward increasing deterrence
of U.S. power projection forces in the Asia-Pacific region.
These concerns prompt the committee to direct the Secretary
of Defense to report, in classified and unclassified form, on
the potential and likelihood for the People's Liberation Army
to pursue such a modernization strategy. The committee also
directs the Secretary of Defense to take a ``net assessment''
approach to the preparation of this report, so that the varying
strategic concerns of the United States and China and the
differing operational tasks of Chinese and American forces may
be properly taken into account. The report shall be submitted
no later than February 1, 1997.
Section 1306--United States-People's Republic of China Joint Defense
Conversion Commission
This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of
fiscal year 1997 funds for activities associated with the U.S.-
PRC Joint Defense Conversion Commission until 15 days after the
date on which the first semiannual report required by section
1343 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106) is received by Congress.
Section 1307--Authority To Accept Services From Foreign Governments and
International Organizations for Defense Purposes
This section would permit the Department of Defense to
accept services, as well as money or property, from foreign
governments and international organizations for the Defense
Cooperation Account. The Defense Cooperation Account was
originally established to enable the Department of Defense to
use funds from sources other than the U.S. Treasury to defray
the costs of U.S. military forces participating in multi-
national operations.
Section 1308--Review by Director of Central Intelligence of National
Intelligence Estimate 95-19
This section would direct the Director of Central
Intelligence (DCI) to convene a panel of independent, non-
government experts to review the underlying assumptions and
conclusions of the November, 1995 National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) on ``Emerging Missile Threats to North America
During the Next 15 Years,'' NIE 95-19, and to report the
panel's findings to Congress, along with the DCI's comments. In
light of serious questions that have been raised about the
NIE's terms of reference and conclusions, which downplay the
prospect of a long-range missile threat to the contiguous 48
states within the next 15 years, the committee believes that an
objective and independent assessment of the NIE is both
necessary and desirable.
The committee notes that the public release by the
Administration of the NIE's key findings, which were summarized
in a December 1, 1995 CIA letter to the Senate, occurred in the
midst of the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Pubilc Law 104-106). The NIE was cited
during that debate to bolster the Administration's position
that deployment of a national missile defense system was
unnecessary because there was no threat in the foreseeable
future. The conclusions reached in the NIE and the timing of
its insertion into the missile defense debate have given rise
to charges that intelligence may have been ``politicized.'' The
committee believes it is essential that U.S. policy makers be
confident that they are receiving objective analysis from the
intelligence community. Any allegation of politicization brings
into question the integrity of the intelligence community's
work.
The committee notes that independent scholars and former
intelligence community officials, including former DCI R. James
Woolsey, have questioned the terms of reference and methodology
of the NIE. Ambassador Woolsey, President Clinton's first
Director of Central Intelligence, testified before the
committee on March 14, 1996 that the intelligence community's
focus on missile threats to the continental United States
(excluding Alaska and Hawaii) ``can lead to a badly distorted
and minimized perception of the serious threats we face from
ballistic missiles now and in the very near future . . .'' He
further commented that drawing broad conclusions from an
assessment ``of such limited scope'' would be ``a serious
error.'' The former DCI observed that ``even with the best
intelligence in the world it is impossible to forecast fifteen
years in advance. . . .''
Criticisms of the NIE center on its core assumptions: (1)
that nations will be limited to their indigenous industrial and
technological base when developing ICBMs; (2) that countries
with the capability to develop ICBMs will not do so in the time
frame in question; (3) that ballistic missile threats to Alaska
and Hawaii are somehow less consequential than a missile threat
to the contiguous 48 states; (4) that nations will not seek to
acquire ICBMs that do not provide a militarily significant
warfighting potential; and (5) that the risk of unauthorized or
accidental missile launch by Russia or China is no greater now
than during the Cold War. In the committee's view, an
independent review of the NIE must address these assumptions.
In response to criticisms of the NIE, the committee
supports an independent assessment of its assumptions, terms of
reference, methodology, and conclusions. As part of such an
effort, the committee directs the Director of Central
Intelligence to ensure, at a minimum, that the panel conducting
the assessment:
(1) Reviews the classified and unclassified reports
and other inputs that formed the basis for the NIE;
(2) Analyzes the terms of reference and methodology
used by the intelligence community in the preparation
of the NIE and assesses their comprehensiveness;
(3) Evaluates the conclusions reached in the NIE and
reports on areas of agreement and disagreement with the
panel's findings;
(4) Identifies and assesses the reasons for the
inclusion of any questionable assumptions and logic
that may exist in the NIE;
(5) Compares the methodology and conclusions of the
NIE to that of earlier NIEs that address similar
topics; and
(6) Reports on any recommended changes in the current
NIE process that would result in improvements to future
NIEs.
In a related matter, the committee believes a more
comprehensive assessment of the ballistic missile threat to the
United States is warranted. To this end, the committee
recommends establishment in Section 1321 of a separate
``Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the
United States.''
Subtitle B--Commission To Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the
United States
Section 1321--Establishment of Commission
The committee believes that the threat posed to the United
States from ballistic missiles is real and growing. However,
the committee recognizes that much controversy surrounds this
issue and the intelligence community's assessment, as reflected
in the November, 1995 National Intelligence Estimate on
``Emerging Missile Threats to North America During the Next 15
Years.'' In an effort to receive expert competitive analysis on
the ballistic missile threat, this subtitle would establish a
commission to be known as the ``Commission to Assess the
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.''
The committee believes that, in keeping with past
precedent, this commission should ideally have been established
as a cooperative and self-initiated endeavor within the
executive branch. The intelligence community has in the past
supported independent and competitive analysis of its
conclusions by outside experts. In particular, the committee
recalls the establishment in the 1970s of a ``Team B,'' which
was granted full access to classified and unclassified
information in order to review and critique the intelligence
community's judgment and to provide an alternative analysis
regarding the strategic goals and objectives of the Soviet
Union. The ``Team B'' exercise was broadly judged to be a
successful experiment in competitive analysis.
Unfortunately, the Administration has been reluctant to
establish its own ``Team B'' on the issue of the ballistic
missile threat. Since the Administration has not expressed an
interest in undertaking a true ``Team B'' effort on this issue,
the committee believes it is necessary to pursue legislating
such a review. In establishing a six-month commission to
undertake this review, it is the committee's intent that the
consultative nature of the appointment process for the
commission parallel the process used by the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission, and as established in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public
Law 101-510). The committee also supports and encourages a
similar effort by the intelligence community and directs the
Director of Central Intelligence to task the intelligence
community to assess the nature and magnitude of the existing
and emerging ballistic missile threat to the United States, and
to report back to Congress the results of that assessment.
Accordingly, the committee recommens a provision (sec.
1321) that would establish a commission to be known as the
``Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the
United States.'' The commission's members will be private
citizens with knowledge and expertise in the political and
military aspects of proliferation of ballistic missiles and the
ballistic missile threat to the United States, and will have
access to the resources and information of the intelligence
community necessary to carry out their responsibilities.
The commission would consist of nine members appointed by
the Director of Central Intelligence. Consistent with the
consultative nature of the appointment process used by the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (Public Law
101-510), three members would be chosen in consultation with
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, three members
would be chosen in consultation with the Majority Leader of the
Senate, and three members would be chosen in consultation with
the minority leaders of the House and Senate.
This section also describes the procedure for designating a
commission chairman and for filling vacancies, and describes
the initial organizational requirements of the commission. It
specifies that all members of the commission shall hold
appropriate security clearances. The committee notes, however,
that it is not the intent of this subsection to disqualify from
membership former government officials whose clearances have
lapsed but which could be reinstituted in a short period of
time. The committee expects that in such circumstances, the
government shall move to reinstitute the necessary clearances
as expeditiously as possible.
Section 1322--Duties of Commission
This section describes the duties of the commission, which
shall assess the nature and magnitude of the existing and
emerging ballistic missile threat to the United States. It also
expresses the committee's view that the commission should
receive the full and timely cooperation of any U.S. government
official responsible for providing the commission with
information necessary to the fulfillment of its
responsibilities.
Section 1323--Report
This section would direct the commission to submit to the
Congress a report on its findings and conclusions not later
than six months after the date of its first meeting. Consistent
with intelligence community practice, provision shall be made
for the incorporation of dissenting footnotes in the
commission's report.
Section 1324--Powers
This section would establish the commission's authority to
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence. It would
also authorize the commission to secure any information from
the intelligence community and other federal agencies as the
committee deems necessary to carry out its responsibilities.
Section 1325--Commission Procedures
This section would establish the procedures by which the
commission shall conduct its business. It describes the number
of members required for a quorum and would authorize the
commission to establish panels for the purpose of carrying out
the Commission's duties.
Section 1326--Personnel Matters
This section notes that the members of the commission shall
serve in that capacity without pay. It would authorize
reimbursement of expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, for travel in the performance of services for the
commission. It also would allow the chairman to appoint a staff
director, subject to the approval of the commission, and such
additional personnel as may be necessary for the commission to
perform its duties. This section also would make provision for
the pay of the staff director and other personnel. It would
allow federal government employees to be detailed to the
commission on a non-reimbursable basis and would grant the
chairman authority to procure temporary and intermittent
services.
Section 1327--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions
This section would allow the commission to use the United
States mails and to obtain printing and binding services in
accordance with the procedures used by other federal agencies.
It also would direct the Director of Central Intelligence to
furnish the commission with administrative and support
services, as requested, on a reimbursable basis.
Section 1328--Funding
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide such sums as may be necessary for the activities of the
commission in fiscal year 1997. These funds should be made
available from the national foreign intelligence program.
Section 1329--Termination of the Commission
This section would terminate the commission 60 days after
the date of the submission of its report.
TITLE XIV--SIKES ACT IMPROVEMENTS AMENDMENTS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1402--Definition of Sikes Act for Purposes of Amendments-
This section would clarify references to the Sikes Act.
Section 1403--Codification of Short Title of Act
This section would codify the short title of the Sikes Act.
Section 1404--Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans
This section would amend the Sikes Act to require the
Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement integrated
natural resource management plans on all appropriate military
installations, including installations of the guard and reserve
forces.
Section 1405--Review for Preparation of Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans
This section would direct the Secretary of each military
department to review, within nine months of the date of
enactment of this title, each military installation under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned to determine the
applicability and appropriateness of integrated natural
resources management plans to those installations. The section
would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on
the findings of the Secretaries of the military departments.
The section would also provide for a schedule to initiate
implement integrated natural resource management plans on
military installations where appropriate.
Section 1406--Annual Reviews and Reports
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of the Interior to submit annual reports to Congress
regarding the implementation of integrated natural resource
management plans.
Section 1407--Transfer of Wildlife Conservation Fees From Closed
Military Installations
This section would permit fees charged for the purpose of
wildlife conservation at military installations scheduled to be
closed to be transferred to another military installation to be
used for the same purpose.
Section 1408--Federal Enforcement of Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans and Enforcement of Other Laws
This section would clarify the responsibility of the
Secretary of Defense for enforcement, on military
installations, of Federal law relating to the conservation of
natural resources. This section would not affect the
enforcement authorities of the Secretary of the Interior for
the same purpose.
Section 1409--Natural Resource Management Services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a sufficient number of professionally trained natural
resource management and law enforcement personnel to perform
the duties required by this title.
Section 1410--Definitions
This section would define terms used in this title.
Section 1411--Cooperative Agreements
This section would clarify that cooperative agreements
between and among the Department of Defense, the various
States, local governments, non-governmental organizations, or
other private parties, which are entered into to implement an
integrated natural resource management plan, shall be funded on
a cost-sharing basis.
Section 1412--Repeal of Superseded Provision
This section would repeal certain reporting requirements
and definitions of terms which would be superseded by enactment
of this title.
Section 1413--Clerical Amendments
This section would make various technical and clerical
changes to the Sikes Act.
Section 1414--Authorizations of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for programs on
public lands related to the implementation of this title for
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of Division B is to provide military
construction authorizations and related authority in support of
the military departments during fiscal year 1997. As approved
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in
the amount of $10,032,311,000 for construction in support of
the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and
the NATO security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 1997.
The State of Military Infrastructure
The committee is deeply concerned about the state of the
military infrastructure and troubled by the shortfalls evident
in the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1997 for
military construction and military family housing programs. The
committee notes again that the construction and modernization
of facilities and their upkeep and maintenance is a critical
component of military readiness which has been underfunded in
recent years. The committee is also mindful of the serious
deficiencies in facilities designed to support the quality of
life of military personnel and their families.
From an operational and readiness perspective, shortfalls
in the construction and repair and maintenance accounts have
exacerbated problems in the facilities infrastructure. Needed
improvements to basic infrastructure have often been deferred,
leading to the creation of a steep backlog in facilities
construction and maintenance. Underfunding of the military
construction accounts has serious implications for the
readiness of the armed forces. For example, approximately 20
percent of the Army's facilities are unsuitable, either due to
deteriorated conditions or they are unable to meet mission
requirements. Additionally, the Army lacks 30 percent of the
facilities required to meet specific mission requirements,
making due with work-arounds that impair efficiency. To cite
another example, over two-thirds of the Navy's piers were
constructed during the second World War. According to the
Navy's estimates, by the year 2010, only 20 percent of existing
piers and wharves would adequately be able to service the
fleet.
The condition of military housing for families and
unaccompanied personnel and other quality of life
infrastructure is in a similar state of deterioration.
According to the Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of
Life, 62 percent of barracks and dormitories are currently
unsuitable and 64 percent of family housing units are in the
same condition. In spite of these serious deficiencies, the
Administration's budget request fails to keep pace with current
levels of funding to support the construction of barracks and
dormitories. The budget request for fiscal year 1997 further
proposes to reduce sharply the expenditure of funds on new
construction of military family housing and improvements to
existing family housing units. The Administration also proposes
to reduce funding for basic maintenance of family housing.
The committee believes the Administration's budget request
for fiscal year 1997 for military construction and military
family housing programs is seriously underfunded. The committee
recommends an increase in new budget authority for these
programs of $900,000,000. Approximately 75 percent of that
amount is dedicated to a major quality of life initiative. The
committee recommends an additional $214,116,000 for the
construction of new barracks and dormitories and an additional
$303,152,000 for the construction of military family housing
and improvements to existing family housing units. The
committee also recommends an additional $28,260,000 for the
construction of child development centers. In addition to basic
construction, the committee also recommends an additional
$100,000,000 for the maintenance of military family housing.
The committee reiterates its support for the military housing
privatization initiative authorized in section 2801 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(division B of Public Law 104-106). The committee recommends an
additional $25,000,000 to support the privatization initiative.
The committee remains concerned about the instability in
funding for the military construction and military family
housing programs contemplated by the current Future Years
Defense Plan. The committee believes the serious backlog of
military construction requirements can no longer be deferred.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to address the
need to reduce the backlog of military construction
requirements affecting the operational needs of the military
departments and to enhance those programs which directly
support improvements in the quality of life for military
personnel and their families.
A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in
Division B for fiscal year 1997 follows:
AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
The military construction authorization request for fiscal
year 1997 was introduced as H.R. 3231 on April 15, 1996.
The Department of Defense requested $5,274,640,000 for
military construction and $3,857,671,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1997. Within the military construction request,
$2,507,476,000 was requested for implementation of base closure
and realignment actions.
The committee recommends authorization of $5,746,488,000
for military construction, including $2,507,476,000 for base
closure implementation, and $4,285,823,000 for family housing.
A tabular summary of the military construction projects
included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal
year 1997 for the BRAC II , BRAC III, and BRAC IV accounts
follows:
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The Army requested authorization of $434,723,000 for
military construction and $1,287,479,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
$603,584,000 for military construction and $1,434,069,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1997.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Improvements of Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Army execute the following projects:
$18,000,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Phase II
(256 units) at Fort Rucker, Alabama; $7,300,000 for family
housing improvements (120 units) at Stuttgart, Germany;
$4,600,000 for family housing improvements (64 units) at
Baumholder, Germany; $8,200,000 for family housing improvements
(136 units) at Heidelberg, Germany; $18,700,000 for Whole
Neighborhood Revitalization, Phases III and IV (200 units) at
Fort Campbell, Kentucky; $7,200,000 for family housing
improvements (250 units) at Fort Polk, Louisiana; $14,400,000
for family housing improvements (328 units) at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma; and $2,300,000 for family housing improvements (42
units) at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania.
Repair and Maintenance, Army
The committee remains concerned about serious safety and
other deficiencies at Lake Tholocco Dam at Fort Rucker, Alabama
and critical structural deficiencies of two bridges at Fort
Knox, Kentucky. The committee urges the Army to initiate
appropriate repair and maintenance at both installations. The
committee notes again the existence of a serious repair and
maintenance backlog at Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas which
requires an extensive infrastructure renovation to offset
deterioration to major mechanical, electrical and other
systems. Many major infrastructure systems at the depot have
reached the end of their useful lives and require major
renovation, repair, and upgrade. The committee urges the Army
and the Navy to coordinate and initiate appropriate repair and
maintenance of various buildings within the Corpus Christi Army
Depot complex.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
1997.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1997.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
1997. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2105--Correction in Authorized Uses of Funds, Fort Irwin,
California
This section would correct the authorized use of funds
authorized for appropriation in prior years for a military
construction project at Fort Irwin, California. The provision
would permit the use of previously authorized funds to
construct a heliport at Fort Irwin to support the National
Training Center.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The Navy requested authorization of $525,346,000 for
military construction and $1,417,967,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
$712,476,000 for military construction and $1,590,697,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1997.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Improvements of Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Navy execute the following projects:
$6,650,000 for Whole House Revitalization, Phase I (54 units)
at Public Works Center Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; $6,600,000 for
Whole House Revitalization, Phase I (160 units) at Naval Air
Station Meridian, Mississippi; $2,400,000 for Whole House
Revitalization (55 units) at Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth,
Texas; and $10,000,000 for Whole House Revitalization (150
units) at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington.
Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi
The committee is aware of noise abatement problems at Naval
Air Station Meridian, Mississippi. Significantly high levels of
aircraft noise during flight operations at Outlying Field (OLF)
Joe Williams have prompted concerns about the health and safety
effects of current flight operations on the surrounding
community. The committee understands that the Department of the
Navy has initiated a comprehensive study of noise abatement
issues affecting OLF Joe Williams. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on the Department's
findings, including any recommendations for the remediation of
noise levels, to the congressional defense committees no later
than January 1, 1997.
Ordnance Storage Needs of Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona
The committee remains deeply concerned about ordnance
storage at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona and
the effects on training and safety of inadequate ordnance
storage at the installation. The committee is aware of
validated military construction projects which would resolve
the currently serious deficiencies at MCAS Yuma. The committee
notes that the execution of military construction projects to
resolve ordnance storage deficiencies at the installations is
dependent upon the acquisition of land. The committee
understands that the Department of the Navy has recommended a
waiver of the current moratorium on land acquisition to the
Secretary of Defense for this purpose. The committee urges the
Secretary to approve a request for a waiver of the moratorium
on land acquisition at MCAS Yuma. The committee also urges the
Secretary of the Navy to make every effort to include land
acquisition at MCAS Yuma in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request.
Planning and Design
The committee directs that, within authorized amounts for
planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy conduct planning
and design activities for the following projects: $194,000 for
projects to upgrade and improve runways at Naval Air Station
Whiting Field, Pensacola, Florida.
Power Plant Upgrade, Public Works Center, Guam
The committee notes that the 1995 recommendations of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission concerning
naval activities in Guam included the transfer of the Piti
Power Plant to the Government of Guam. The committee also notes
the continued commitment of the Department of the Navy under
the Guam Power Agreement to transfer the Piti Power Plant to
the Government of Guam in good working order. The committee
understands that funding for the upgrade of two generators at
the Piti Power Plant which would permit the implementation of
the Navy's commitment under the agreement is currently
programmed for fiscal year 1999. The committee urges the
Secretary of the Navy to accelerate the required power plant
upgrades in order for the Navy to meet its commitments under
the agreement as soon as practicable.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
1997.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1997.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 1997. This
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy
may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2205--Beach Replenishment, Naval Air Station, North Island,
California
This section would provide for a cost-sharing agreement
between the Secretary of the Navy, the State of California, and
local governments concerning beach replenishment executed as
part of a military construction project at Naval Air Station
North Island, California.-
Section 2206--Lease to Facilitate Construction of Reserve Center, Naval
Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi
This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to
lease, without reimbursement, approximately five acres of real
property at Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi. The State
shall use the property to construct a reserve center and
ancillary supporting facilities. The section also would provide
for a leaseback of the reserve center by the Navy.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The Air Force requested authorization of $603,059,000 for
military construction and $1,060,710,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
$678,914,000 for military construction and $1,144,542,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1997.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Access Road, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado
The committee is aware of serious safety issues caused, and
operational constraints imposed, by the publicly accessible
road network through Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado. The
committee notes recent studies have demonstrated that State
Highway 94 is no longer capable of supporting the volume of
traffic associated with the installation and that a
deteriorating safety situation has caused numerous accidents,
including fatalities. In addition, the proximity of the current
road to the existing and planned antenna farms at the
installation constitutes an untenable risk to national
security. The committee understands that the Military Traffic
Management Command has recently certified the requirement for a
defense access road project at Falcon Air Force Base. The
committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to make every
effort to include the defense access road project at Falcon Air
Force Base in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Improvements of Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Air Force execute the following projects:
$8,600,000 for family housing improvements (112 units) at Eglin
Air Force Base, Florida; $6,000,000 for Whole House
Revitalization (52 units) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio; $15,000,000 for family housing improvements (180 units)
at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas; and $7,500,000 for Whole
House Revitalization (92 units) at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
Planning and Design
The committee directs that, within amounts authorized for
planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force conduct
planning and design activities for the following projects:
$288,000 for a physical fitness training center at Vance Air
Force Base, Oklahoma; and $512,000 for a consolidated logistics
complex at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 1997.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1997.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 1997.
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The Defense Agencies requested authorization of
$812,945,000 for military construction and $35,334,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
authorization of $772,345,000 for military construction and
$35,334,000 for family housing.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Defense
Agencies construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Military Housing Planning and Design
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out planning and design activities with respect to the
construction or improvement of military family housing units in
the amount of $500,000.
Section 2403--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 1997 in an amount not to exceed $3,871,000.
Section 2404--Military Housing Improvement Program
This section would authorize the availability of funds
credited to the Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund in the amount of $35,000,000, and to the
Department of Defense Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund in
the amount of $10,000,000.
Section 2405--Energy Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects.
Section 2406--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year
1997. This section also would provide an overall limit on the
amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction
projects.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
SUMMARY
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
$197,000,000 for the NATO infrastructure fund (NATO Security
Investment Program) for fiscal year 1997. The committee
recommends $177,000,000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations of $177,000,000
as the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment
program.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The Department of Defense requested a military construction
authorization of $194,091,000 for fiscal year 1997 for guard
and reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorization
for fiscal year 1997 of $294,693,000 to be distributed as
follows:
Army National Guard-.................................... $41,316,000
Air National Guard...................................... 118,394,000
Army Reserve............................................ 50,159,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... 33,169,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 51,655,000
Total............................................... 294,693,000
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Alternative Funding for Certain Guard and Reserve Facilities
The committee is aware of a number of alternative funding
proposals to provide facilities for the guard and reserve
components. The committee commends the State of Mississippi for
its willingness to provide 80 percent of the cost of
construction for a new naval reserve facility at Naval Air
Station, Meridian, Mississippi. Section 2206 of this Act would
facilitate the ability of the Secretary of the Navy to accept
the facility. The committee also takes particular note of a
project proposed for the construction of an armory and
organizational maintenance shop complex at Marion, Indiana, and
the willingness of the State of Indiana, local governments, and
private sources to fund various portions of the facility,
including its multi-activity aspects. The committee regrets its
inability to authorize a federal contribution toward the armory
complex at this time. The committee remains concerned about the
inability of the Army National Guard to award 23 previously
authorized armory projects for which funds were appropriated
from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1995. The committee,
however, encourages alternative funding methods for the
construction of these types of facilities and would consider
seriously a similar proposal at a later time.
Armory Infrastructure Requirements
The committee is aware of the serious infrastructure
deficiencies of the guard and reserve components and is
particularly concerned about deteriorating armory
infrastructure. The committee, however, is reluctant to fund
armory construction without an assessment of requirements. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study
of armory infrastructure and to assess and prioritize
requirements for military construction. The Secretary shall
submit a report on the Department's finding to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 1997.
Battle Projection Center, Fort Dix, New Jersey
The committee remains supportive of programs to train Army
Reserve components at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The committee is
especially supportive of the battle projection center (BPC)
located at that installation. The committee is concerned about
the possible relocation of the BPC from Fort Dix to another
installation. The committee understands that a substantial cost
would be incurred in relocating the battle projection center.
The committee is also concerned about the impact of relocation
on the operational and training requirements of the Army
Reserve. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the
Army revise current planning to relocate the battle projection
center and to ensure the permanent assignment of the battle
projection center at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Military Construction to Support the Beddown of Avenger Air Defense
System Units, Various Locations, Mississippi
The committee is concerned about the inability of the Army
National Guard to complete military construction projects
authorized in section 2601(1)(A) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (division B of Public
Law 103-160) due to unanticipated cost overruns and scope
variations. The projects, located at various sites in
Mississippi, are intended to support the beddown of Avenger air
defense system units. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to submit the appropriate scope and cost variation
reports to the congressional defense committees as required by
law.
Planning and Design
The committee directs that, within amounts authorized for
planning and design, the Secretary of the Army conduct planning
and design activities for the following projects: $280,000 for
infrastructure upgrades at Leesburg Training Site, Eastover,
South Carolina; and $224,000 for a battle simulation training
center, Leesburg Training Site, Eastover, South Carolina.
Planning and Design, Fiscal Year 1996
The committee recalls the direction provided to the
Secretary of the Army in the statement of managers report
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) concerning planning and design
activities for an intelligence training center at Fort Dix, New
Jersey. The committee reiterates its support for that
requirement and urges the Secretary of the Army to initiate
planning and design activities for that purpose as
expeditiously as possible.
Unspecified Minor Construction
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army
execute the following project: $576,000 for helicopter landing
pads and taxi lanes at Decatur, Illinois.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for
fiscal year 1997. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be
Specified by Law
This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities,
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will
expire on October 1, 1998 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
before October 1, 1998 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1994
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1994 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1997, whichever is later.
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1993
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1993 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1997, whichever is later.
Section 2704--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1992
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1992 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1997, whichever is later.
Section 2705--Effective Date
This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1,
1996, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assessment of Certain Overhead Costs of Military Construction
The committee is concerned over the cost of certain
overhead items built into the pricing of military construction
projects. The committee is especially interested in reviewing
contingency costs, as well as the standard cost of planning and
design, associated with military construction. At the same
time, the committee is equally concerned about apparent and
chronic underfunding of the planning and design accounts of the
military departments which may impede the timely execution of
contracts and the delivery of facilities. The committee urges
the military departments to use standard designs for new
facilities to the greatest extent practicable. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of the
standard costs in the planning and design of military
facilities and to assess the appropriate level of certain
overhead costs permitted on a military construction project. In
addition, the study should assess variations among the military
services for the planning and design of similar projects, as
well as differences between categories of facilities. The
Secretary shall submit a report on the Department's findings,
including any recommendations, to the congressional defense
committees no later than February 1, 1997.
Efficient Utilization of Existing Facilities
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
and the military departments are not maximizing the utilization
of existing facilities. In particular, the committee is aware
of instances in which military units currently occupy leased
facilities even though vacant, less expensive, facilities owned
by the Department are available in the general vicinity of the
leased space. Additionally, the committee is aware of
disagreement within the military departments over whether it is
legally permissible for active duty units to relocate onto
reserve installations which have been realigned under the base
closure and realignment process. The committee urges the
Department of Defense and the military departments to reduce
their commitment to leased facilities as much as practicable.
The committee also believes it is permissible for active duty
units and missions to relocate onto such reserve installations
consistent with the limited exceptions permitted under law.
Infrastructure Requirements for Depot-Level Maintenance
The committee recognizes the importance of depot-level
maintenance and other logistics support to the warfighting
capability of the armed forces. However, the committee is
concerned about significant deficiencies in the infrastructure
and facilities at several installations designed to support the
depot-level maintenance of mission-essential equipment and
systems. The committee notes that the construction and
modernization of logistics facilities and their maintenance is
a critical component of military readiness which has been
underfunded in recent years. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study of
the logistics capability and military construction
infrastructure requirements of the Department of Defense and
the military services. The Secretary shall submit a report on
his findings, including any recommendations, to the
congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1997.
Modular Utility Cores in Military Housing and Other Facilities
The committee understands that a joint venture involving
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
has adapted miniaturization technology utilized in submarine
and surface ship utility systems for possible use in newly
constructed or rehabilitated housing. The committee recognizes
that such technology offers considerable potential to enhance
energy efficiency and to reduce operations and maintenance
costs. The committee urges the Department of Defense to
continue development of modular utility core technology and
recommends that the Department assess the potential of modular
utility cores to meet the requirements of military family
housing and facilities generally.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction and Military Family Housing
Section 2801--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program
This section would make technical and conforming changes to
title 10, United States Code, regarding the name of the NATO
Security Investment Program
Section 2802--Authority to Demolish Excess Facilities
This section would authorize a program to demolish excess
facilities. Under the provision, funds authorized for
appropriation under the authorities contained in this section
may not be used for the demolition of military family housing,
facilities involved in a base closure and realignment action,
or facilities which would be demolished as an integral part of
a specific military construction project.
Section 2803--Improvements to Family Housing Units
This section would make technical changes to the
calculation of the cost of major maintenance and repair to
military family housing units.
Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Section 2811--Restoration of Authority for Certain Intragovernmental
Transfers Under 1988 Base Closure Law
This section would restore the ability of the Secretary of
Defense to transfer property at a closing or realigning
military installation to a military department, including a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality, or to the Coast Guard.
The previous authority for such transfers was inadvertently
repealed in a prior year through a technical drafting error.
Section 2812--Contracting for Certain Services at Facilities Remaining
on Closed Installations
This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
contract out for certain services at facilities remaining on
military installations closed under the base closure and
realignment process.
Section 2813--Authority to Compensate Owners of Manufactured Housing
This section would authorize payments from the base closure
and realignment accounts to compensate owners of manufactured
housing at military installations to be closed or realigned.
Under the provision, the payment may be made if the
manufactured housing park is eliminated or relocated. No
payment authorized by this section may exceed 90 percent of the
purchase price of the manufactured housing unit.
Section 2814--Additional Purpose for Which Adjustment and
Diversification Assistance Is Authorized
This section would restore the authority of the Secretary
of Defense to make grants, conclude cooperation agreements, and
supplement other Federal funds to assist base reuse planning by
the States and local redevelopment authorities at military
installations to be closed. The previous authority for such
support was inadvertently repealed in a prior year through a
technical drafting error.
Section 2815--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed Under CERCLA in
Connection With Loring Air Force Base, Maine
This section would authorize payments from the base closure
and realignment accounts for stipulated penalties assessed
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 in connection with the closure of
Loring Air Force Base, Maine.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally
Part I--Army Conveyances
Section 2821--Transfer and Exchange of Jurisdiction, Arlington National
Cemetery, Virginia
This section would authorize the transfer of real property,
and exchange of jurisdiction, between the Secretary of the Army
and the Secretary of the Interior at Arlington National
Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia.
Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Rushville, Indiana
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, to the City of Rushville, Indiana. The property
is to be used for the benefit of public safety. The cost of any
surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the
City.
Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Anderson, South
Carolina
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, to the County of Anderson, South Carolina. The
property is to be used for educational purposes. The cost of
any surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the
County.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
Section 2831--Release of Condition on Reconveyance of Transferred Land,
Guam
This section would repeal section 818(b)(2) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1981 (Public Law
96-418) relating to a condition on the disposal by the
Government of Guam of real property conveyed by the United
States.
Section 2832--Land Exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
Virginia
This section would authorize an exchange of real property,
with consideration, relating to Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
Virginia. As consideration for the real property located at the
Shipyard conveyed by the Secretary, the transferee shall convey
to the United States a parcel or parcels of real property, with
improvements, located in the area of Portsmouth, Virginia, and
pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount by which the
fair market value of the parcel conveyed by the Secretary
exceeds to the fair market value of the parcel conveyed to the
United States. In lieu of such consideration, the Secretary and
the transferee may agree upon in-kind consideration under which
the transferee would provide for the improvement, maintenance,
or repair of real property under the control of the Secretary
in the area of Hampton Roads, Virginia. The exact acreage and
legal description of the parcels shall be determined by a
survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey
shall be borne by the transferee.
Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Calverton Pine Barrens, Naval Weapons
Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, New York
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey a parcel of real property, comprising the Calverton Pine
Barrens and located at the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
Plant, Calverton, New York, to the Department of Environmental
Conservation of the State of New York. The property is to be
used as a nature preserve. The cost of any surveys necessary
for the conveyance shall be borne by the Department.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
Section 2841--Conveyance of Primate Research Complex, Holloman Air
Force Base, New Mexico
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, on a competitive basis, the primate research complex
located at Hollomon Air Force, New Mexico. The conveyance may
include the colony of chimpanzees owned by the Air Force, but
may not include the real property on which the primate research
complex is located. The conveyance would be subject to the
condition that the recipient of the primate research complex
utilize any chimpanzees included in the conveyance for
scientific or medical research purposes or retire and provide
adequate care for such chimpanzees.
Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site, Belle Forche,
South Dakota
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, approximately 37 acres with
improvements to the Belle Forche School District, Belle Forche,
South Dakota. The property is to be used for educational,
economic development, and housing purposes. The cost of any
surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the
School District.
Part IV--Other Conveyances
Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Tatum Salt Dome Test Site, Mississippi
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
convey the Tatum Salt Dome Test Site to the State of
Mississippi after certification by the Administration of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the State that any
contamination of the property has been remediated in accordance
with applicable federal and state statutory and regulatory
requirements. The property is to be used by the State as a
wildlife refuge and is to be designated as the Jamie Whitten
Wilderness Area.
Section 2852--Land Conveyance, William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant,
Rolla, North Dakota
This section would authorize the Administrator of the
General Services Administration to convey, without
consideration, approximately 9.77 acres with improvements
comprising the former Army-owned William Langer Jewel Bearing
Plant, Rolla, North Dakota to the Job Development Authority of
the City of Rolla, North Dakota. The property is to be used for
economic development. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance shall be borne by the Authority.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 2861--Easements for Rights-of-Way
This section would consolidate easement authorities
utilized by the military departments which are currently
dispersed throughout title 10, United States Code.
Section 2862--Authority to Enter Into Cooperative Agreements for the
Management of Cultural Resources on Military Installations
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, or
the Secretary of a military department, to enter into
cooperative agreements for the management of cultural resources
on military installations.
Section 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and Operation of
Electric Power Distribution System at Youngstown Air Reserve Station,
Ohio
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to carry out a demonstration project to assess the feasibility
of permitting private entities to install, operate, and
maintain electric power distribution systems at military
installations. The demonstration project would be conducted at
Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio.
Section 2864--Designation of Michael O'Callaghan Military Hospital
This section would designate the Nellis Federal Hospital,
Las Vegas, Nevada, as the Michael O'Callaghan Military
Hospital.
TITLE XXIX--MILITARY LAND WITHDRAWALS
Subtitle A--Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands Withdrawal
Section 2902--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Fort Carson
Military Reservation
This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid
existing rights, approximately 3,133 acres of public lands and
approximately 11,415 acres of mineral rights in the State of
Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Army for military
maneuvering, training, and other defense-related purposes at
Fort Carson, Colorado.
Section 2903--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Pinon Canyon
Maneuver Site
This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid
existing rights, approximately 2,517 acres of public lands and
approximately 130,139 acres of mineral rights in the State of
Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Army for military
maneuvering, training, and other defense-related purposes at
the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado.
Section 2904--Maps and Legal Descriptions
This section would require that maps and legal descriptions
of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this subtitle be
prepared and published by the Secretary of the Interior.
Section 2905--Management of Withdrawn Lands
This section would provide for the management by the
Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Secretary of
the Interior, of the withdrawn lands under this subtitle.
Section 2906--Management of Withdrawn and Acquired Mineral Resources
This section would provide that the management of withdrawn
and acquired mineral resources shall be conducted, as
applicable, pursuant to the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-606).
Section 2907--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping
This section would provide that hunting, fishing, and
trapping activities on the lands withdrawn and reserved under
this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with section
2671 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2908--Termination of Withdrawal and Reservation
This section would provide that the withdrawal and
reservation of public lands and mineral rights will terminate
15 years after the date of enactment of this subtitle. The
section would also provide for procedures to permit a
determination of continuing military need for the withdrawn and
reserved public lands and mineral rights and would provide for
procedures under which the Secretary of the Army could
relinquish all or part of the lands withdrawn and reserved
under this subtitle.
Section 2909--Determination of Presence of Contamination and Effect of
Contamination
This section would provide for decontamination of the
withdrawn lands, both during the period of withdrawal and upon
relinquishment of the lands by the Department of the Army.
Section 2910--Delegation
This section would provide that the functions of the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior under
this subtitle may be delegated without restriction, except that
an order by the Department of the Interior accepting
jurisdiction over withdrawn lands relinquished by the
Department of the Army may be signed only by the Secretary of
the Interior, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, or an
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Section 2911--Hold Harmless
This section would provide that any party conducting any
mining, mineral, or geothermal leasing activity on lands
withdrawn under this subtitle shall indemnify the United States
against any costs, fees, damages, or other liabilities incurred
by the United States arising from those activities.
Section 2912--Amendment to Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986
This section would amend the Military Lands Withdrawal Act
of 1986 (Public Law 99-606) to permit, subject to valid
existing rights, military use of sand, gravel, and similar
construction materials on the lands withdrawn by that Act.
Section 2913--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this subtitle.
Subtitle B--El Centro Naval Air Facility Ranges Withdrawal
Section 2921--Short Title and Definitions
This section would define terms used in this subtitle.
Section 2922--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands for El Centro
This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid
existing rights, approximately 46,600 acres of public lands in
the State of Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Navy for
defense-related purposes at Naval Air Facility, El Centro,
California.
Section 2923--Maps and Legal Descriptions
This section would require that maps and legal descriptions
of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this subtitle be
prepared and published by the Secretary of the Interior.
Section 2924--Management of Withdrawn Lands
This section would provide for the management by the
Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Secretary
of the Navy, of the withdrawn lands under this subtitle.
Section 2925--Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation
This section would provide that the withdrawal and
reservation of lands at Naval Air Facility, El Centro,
California, shall terminate 25 years after the date of
enactment of this subtitle.
Section 2926--Continuation of Ongoing Decontamination Activities
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
maintain a program of decontamination of the lands withdrawn
under this subtitle.
Section 2927--Requirements for Extension
This section would provide for procedures to permit a
determination of continuing military need for the lands
withdrawn under this subtitle.
Section 2928--Early Relinquishment of Withdrawal
This section would provide for procedures under which the
Secretary of the Navy could relinquish all or part of the lands
withdrawn and reserved under this subtitle.
Section 2929--Delegation of Authority
This section would provide that the functions of the
Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior under
this subtitle may be delegated without restriction, except that
an order by the Department of the Interior accepting
jurisdiction over withdrawn lands relinquished by the
Department of the Navy may be signed only by the Secretary of
the Interior, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, or an
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Section 2930--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping
This section would provide that hunting, fishing, and
trapping activities on the lands withdrawn and reserved under
this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with section
2671 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2931--Hold Harmless
This section would provide that any party conducting any
mining, mineral, or geothermal leasing activity on lands
withdrawn under this subtitle shall indemnify the United States
against any costs, fees, damages, or other liabilities incurred
by the United States arising from those activities.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
PURPOSE
Title XXXI would authorize appropriations for the national
security programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1997, including management and operations of programs for
research, development, and production in support of the armed
forces, the production of strategic and critical materials for
the armed forces, the protection of critical materials,
materials and information necessary for national defense,
management of defense radioactive wastes, environmental
management, naval nuclear propulsion, and other military
applications of nuclear energy.
OVERVIEW
The fiscal year 1997 budget request for DOE national
security programs totaled $11,049,012,000. Of the total amount
requested, $3,710,002,000 was for weapons activities,
$5,409,310,000 was for environmental restoration and waste
management, $182,000,000 was for defense fixed asset
acquisition, $1,547,000,000 was for other defense activities,
and $200,000,000 was for defense nuclear waste disposal. The
committee recommends $11,214,112,000, an increase of
$165,100,000 above the requested amount. The following table
summarizes the request and the committee recommendation:
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Environmental Restoration And Waste Management
The budget request contained $5.4 billion for activities of
the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management. The committee recommends an overall
authorization at the requested amount. However, several funding
changes are recommended for a number of the individual
subaccounts. These changes reflect the committee's policy
preference of funding actual cleanup activities as opposed to
administrative activities.
The committee recommends reducing the budget request for
the subaccount entitled ``program direction'' by $71.0 million,
for a total authorized amount of $375.5 million. The committee
directs that the Department absorb this funding reduction by
reducing the number of federal employees assigned to the
Department's headquarters, by reducing administrative overhead
and travel expenses associated with the reduced employment
levels at DOE headquarters, and by reducing non-technical
contract support services at DOE headquarters. To further
provide more resources for cleanup, the committee recommends
reducing the budget request for the subaccount entitled
``policy and management'' by $25.0 million for a total
authorization of $23.1 million. This reduction would result in
an authorization for this subaccount that is comparable to that
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1996. Approximately
$4.0 to $7.0 million of this reduction would be derived by
eliminating the requirement to submit to Congress, on an annual
basis, the baseline environmental management report as required
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-360). The committee recommends elsewhere in
this title that the annual reporting requirement be converted
to a biennial requirement.
The committee is aware that the Department of Energy often
reimburses contractors for expenses related to attendance at
DOE or privately sponsored conferences on cleanup or technology
issues. While participation at such events may on occasion be
beneficial to achieving the Department's cleanup goals, the
committee believes that attendance at such events should be
limited to the extent possible. The Department is strongly
encouraged to reduce all of its administrative and overhead
expenditures, particularly any expenditures that are not
associated directly with its remediation efforts.
The committee further recommends increasing the request in
the subaccounts entitled ``environmental restoration'',
``nuclear materials and facilities stabilization'' and the
``environmental science program'' by a total of $96.0 million
above the amounts requested in the President's budget. In doing
so, the committee directs that increased funding be applied to
those sites in the field where actual remediation occurs. The
committee recommendation would provide resources to sites such
as Rocky Flats, Hanford, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and Idaho
where additional funding can be used to significantly reduce
life cycle costs through acceleration of existing activities,
initiation of cost reducing deactivation and decommissioning
activities, and the development of enhanced cleanup
technologies.
The committee also directs the Department to continue to
consider and evaluate sites that would lend themselves to
accelerated cleanup. Section 3156 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
requires the Secretary to submit a report to the Congress by
May 1, 1996 detailing the activities and projects at those
sites at which the cleanup has been accelerated. The committee
expects to receive this report on time. The committee is
particularly interested in obtaining the details on how the
additional $60.0 million which was authorized and appropriated
for fiscal year 1996 accelerated cleanup was actually used. The
committee believes that the initiation of accelerated cleanup
programs at certain sites will result in significant long term
cost savings and risk reduction.
To allow the Department more flexibility in managing its
resources, the committee declines to accept the recommendation
to create a new office of site operations as a separate budget
function. The committee is concerned that the Department is
unnecessarily tying its own hands by creating this new budget
category. The committee understands and appreciates the role of
this new office and has no objection to this activity being
performed within the office of nuclear materials and facilities
stabilization. The committee recommends funding the
construction projects associated with the office of site
operations under the budget function for the office of nuclear
materials and facilities stabilization. All of these projects
have been funded in the past under the latter office's budget
function. To provide increased efficiencies and greater
flexibility and authority for the DOE site managers, the
committee also recommends elsewhere in this Act additional fund
transfer authority for the site managers.
The committee recommendation includes funding to establish
a privatization program for the treatment of high and low level
wastes at the Hanford facility, Richland, Washington at the
level requested in the President's budget. While the committee
generally supports this initiative, it intends to monitor very
closely the progress of this effort and to insure that the
projected cost savings do in fact accrue to the benefit of the
government. The committee directs that the Department provide a
report to the committee no later than December 31, 1996. The
report should include an analysis of the projected cost
savings, the extent of commercial competition and participation
in this initiative, and a recommendation on changes which
should be made to federal procurement regulations to make the
program more effective.
The committee is also aware that the Department will soon
select a new lead contractor for the Hanford facility. New
contract provisions should result in cost savings at this site.
The committee strongly encourages the Department, to the
maximum extent possible, to allocate those savings that result
from the new management contract to the privatization program
discussed earlier. This approach should help to diminish to
some degree the negative budgetary impact that results from the
creation of the privatization fund in fiscal year 1997 and
should eliminate any negative impact on current cleanup
activities at the Hanford facility. Creation of a privatization
fund is not intended to interfere with or impede on-going
critical stabilization, maintenance, and cleanup operations at
this site.
The committee is also aware that the Department is
considering additional new initiatives to expand its
decontamination and decommissioning efforts. While there are
opportunities to potentially save millions of dollars in life
cycle costs, the committee strongly urges the Department to
maximize competition in its procurement process if it chooses
to undertake these new initiatives.
Finally, the committee has been advised that there are a
very small number of former employees at the Hanford facility
who have failed to receive credit for the total years of
service performed at that facility, because of changes in
contractors on a least four occasions. While the four Hanford
site pension plans have been consolidated into a single pension
plan, apparently all of the service has not. The committee
directs that the Department examine this issue and provide a
report to the committee no later than December 31, 1996 with a
recommendation on how to correct this problem or certifying
that sufficient corrective action has been taken.
Fissile Materials Protection, Control, and Accountability
The budget request included $69.6 million for fissile
materials protection, control, and accountability (PC&A) in the
former Soviet Union. The committee recommends the amount
contained in the budget request. Section 3131 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) directed the Secretary to submit semi-annual reports on
obligation of funds for this program. The purpose of this
reporting requirement was to provide the Congress with greater
visibility into the Department's long-term programmatic
strategy and the resources required to implement that strategy.
The committee strongly urges the Department to submit this
report to Congress as soon as possible.
Independent Review
The committee recommends that, of the amounts authorized in
section 3104, $500,000 shall be available to conduct an
independent review of the potential to detect meteorites,
asteroids, and comets of sufficiently great sizes to inflict
large-scale damage on Earth, and possible means of averting
such strikes. The committee urges that the review be performed
by an independent group previously involved in reviewing
complex scientific matters, such as the stockpile stewardship
and inertial confinement fusion programs. In conducting this
review, the views of the nuclear weapons laboratories and U.S.
Space Command shall be solicited. The results of this review
shall be transmitted to the congressional defense committees
not later than January 15, 1997.
Inertial Confinement Fusion
The budget request included $366.5 million for inertial
confinement fusion (ICF). The committee recommends the
requested amount. Of this amount, $21,150,770 shall be
available for the University of Rochester/Laboratory for Laser
Energetics, the amount recommended for fiscal year 1997 in the
DOE-University of Rochester cooperative agreement and $855,770
above the request. The Committee requests that the Secretary
consult with the committee regarding the Secretary's proposed
offset within the ICF account.
Intelligence
The budget request included $29.2 million for intelligence-
related activities.
A 1988 General Accounting Office (GAO) report noted that
foreign visitors were coming to the nuclear weapons
laboratories on unclassified visits but these visits were not
well controlled. In fact, GAO reported that efforts to screen
visitors were inadequate, subjects related to nuclear weapons
were discussed, and little monitoring of these visits was
occurring. GAO concluded that as a result, these visits may
have transferred nuclear weapons-related information to foreign
countries.
Given greater involvement by the laboratories in
international activities, the committee is concerned that the
nuclear weapons laboratories may be an even more inviting
target for foreign countries seeking to obtain nuclear weapons-
related information. Senior DOE officials readily concede this
point, and have informed the committee of their concerns about
the adequacy of the Department's budget request in this regard.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to follow up
the prior GAO report and determine how well DOE is controlling
foreign visits to the weapons laboratories and whether these
visits raise any security or nuclear proliferation concerns.
The report shall be submitted not later than October 15, 1996.
In the interim, the committee directs the Secretary to reduce
significantly the number of such visits and limit such visits
to those individuals that hold appropriate security clearances
or that have significant business interests at the laboratory.
As to such business visitors, appropriate security measures
shall be taken
Based on these concerns, the committee recommends an
additional $6.0 million for intelligence, of which $5.0 million
shall be made available to support the expansion of
counterintelligence activities at the nuclear weapons
laboratories and at other high-risk facilities. The program
shall be administered by the Office of Energy Intelligence
under the guidance and oversight of the Department's senior
intelligence officer. The Secretary is directed to review the
Department's counterintelligence programs with the objective of
strengthening these activities and to include additional
resources for this important mission in the fiscal year 1998
budget submission. The committee recommends that the remaining
$1.0 million shall be used for expanded analysis of the Russian
and Chinese nuclear weapons programs. Furthermore, the
committee strongly urges the Secretary to consider submitting a
reprogramming request to provide additional funds for
counterintelligence activities in fiscal year 1996. The
Secretary shall promptly inform the committee of the
Secretary's plans in this regard.
International Nuclear Safety
The budget request included $72.2 million for nuclear
energy activities, including $66.2 million for Soviet-designed
nuclear reactor safety activities in the former Soviet Union
and $6.0 million for core-conversion efforts at plutonium
production reactors in Russia. These activities were carried
out by the Agency for International Development using foreign
assistance funds in fiscal year 1996. The committee believes
these activities should continue to be funded out of the
foreign assistance budget, and therefore the committee
recommends no funds be authorized for this purpose in fiscal
year 1997.
International Security
The budget request included $19.6 million within the arms
control account for international security activities,
including $14.6 million for the Industrial Partnering Program
(IPP) and $5.0 million for controlling North Korea's nuclear
program. The committee recommends $7.9 million for
international security, a reduction of $11.7 million from the
requested amount. The reduction shall be applied against the
Industrial Partnering Program. The committee remains
unconvinced of the merits of this program and other programs
whose goal is to promote ``long-term stability'' of Russia's
nuclear weapons laboratories.
The committee recommends $7.9 million for the North Korean
project. However, the committee is concerned about the
increased cost estimates for the project, as well as the
continued uncertainties regarding total project cost and
timetable for its completion. Finally, the committee urges
that, prior to obligating or expending these funds, the
President contact the South Korean Government to seek an
appropriate cost-sharing arrangement for the remaining work
associated with this project. The committee further expects to
be informed promptly of the results of any such demarche.
Laboratory Review of Missile Defense
Recognizing that the nuclear weapons laboratories have
played an important role in the development of promising
ballistic missile defense (BMD) concepts, the committee directs
the directors of each of the nuclear weapons laboratories to
review the expertise in BMD resident at their respective
laboratory and to report to the Assistant Secretary of Energy
for Defense Programs on how that expertise could be harnessed
to strengthen the U.S. BMD program. In turn, the Assistant
Secretary shall submit to the House National Security Committee
and the Senate Armed Services Committee a report detailing
options for providing greater laboratory involvement in BMD.
The report shall be due not later than November 15, 1996.
Naval Reactors
The budget request included $663.9 million for Naval
Reactors. The committee recommends $681.9 million, an increase
of $18.0 million, to allow proceeding with the prototype plant
inactivation plan endorsed by the Department's Office of Naval
Reactors.
Nuclear Emergency Search Team
The committee understands that the Department is
considering expanding the mission of the Nuclear Emergency
Search Team (NEST) to include activities outside the territory
of the United States. In the absence of additional information
regarding the cost and other implications of such an expansion
of the NEST mission, the committee cannot endorse such a
proposal. To better understand such implications, the committee
directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the House
National Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services
Committee not later than 30 days after the enactment of this
Act on the Department's future plans for the NEST, including
plans for expanding NEST's missions, the anticipated costs and
policy implications of such an expansion, required technology
modernization programs, and NEST's relationship to various
Department of Defense organizations and activities with
capabilities in this area. The Secretary is further directed to
coordinate with the Secretary of Defense in preparing the
report.
Nuclear Smuggling
The committee endorses an innovative, joint Department of
Energy-National Defense University program on nuclear
smuggling, including smuggling pathway analysis. The committee
recommends that, of the amounts made available within section
3104, $1.5 million shall be available for this study.
Technology Transfer
The budget request included $49.0 million for technology
transfer and $10.0 million for education. The committee is
pleased that the technology transfer program has been
refocused, consistent with Congressional direction, to address
issues that have direct relevance to the nuclear weapons
mission of the Department. Therefore, the committee recommends
the requested amounts. Of the amount made available for
technology transfer and education, the committee recommends
$13.0 million for the American Textiles Partnership (AMTEX)
project, an increase of $3.0 million above the amount requested
in the Weapons Activities account, but the same amount
requested in the Department's overall budget request.
Tritium
The budget request included $100.0 million for tritium
production-related activities. The committee is disappointed
that the Department's record of decision has excluded from
further consideration any new multipurpose reactor options. The
committee is aware of analysis which shows the potential cost-
effectiveness of new reactor options and which suggest that use
of simplified, streamlined processes for obtaining license
approval for new nuclear plants could ameliorate concerns
regarding ``regulatory risk.'' The committee strongly supports
full consideration of all technically feasible options for
producing tritium, including use of an accelerator, existing
commercial reactor options, and multipurpose reactors for
tritium production, plutonium disposition and electrical power
generation, as a means of maximizing assurance that tritium
supplies will be available when needed while, at the same time,
minimizing costs to the American taxpayer.
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary
to ensure that adequate resources are applied in fiscal year
1997 to permit a better understanding of the potential costs
and benefits of the tritium options listed above. Specifically,
the Department should include new reactor technology in the
tritium options that are being studied until a final selection
is made at the end of fiscal year 1998. Both government-
financed and privately-financed reactor facilities, including
the multipurpose reactor option, should be included as part of
this evaluation. The Department is also encouraged to consider
the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford, Washington, as an
option for interim production of tritium.
Warhead Master Plan
Section 3153 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the President to
submit to Congress a master plan for the certification,
stewardship, and management of warheads in the nuclear
stockpile. The committee commends the Department for embracing
the need for such detailed planning for actions necessary to
sustain U.S. nuclear warheads in the stockpile, for working
closely with the Department of Defense in drafting the report,
and for submitting the report to Congress in a timely fashion.
Nonetheless, the committee recognizes that the master plan is a
``living document'' that will need to be refined over time, and
therefore directs the Secretary to update the report on a
biennial basis and to inform the Congressional defense
committees of noteworthy changes in the plan.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations
Section 3101--Weapons Activities
This section would authorize DOE weapons activity funding
for fiscal year 1997.
Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
This section would authorize funds for DOE defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities for
fiscal year 1997 at the level of the budget request.
Section 3103--Defense Fixed Asset Acquisition
This section would authorize, as requested in the
President's budget for fiscal year 1997, $182.0 million to
establish a new asset acquisition and privatization program for
the Department of Energy's national security assets. Of the
total funding, $77.0 million would be allocated for the
advanced mixed waste treatment project, Idaho Falls, Idaho;
$15.0 million would be allocated for the mixed waste treatment
project, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; $70.0 million would be allocated
for the transuranic waste treatment project, Oak Ridge
Tennessee, and $20.0 million would be allocated for other
projects. No outlays are anticipated in fiscal year 1997 under
this program. The committee intends that pre-construction
planning expenditures for each of these projects be funded from
operating and maintenance funds authorized in section 3102 of
this Act. The committee authorizes $7.0 in pre-construction
funding for the advanced mixed waste treatment project. The
committee believes this project is important to fulfilling the
Department's agreement with the State of Idaho and the
Department of the Navy with respect to the interim storage of
Navy nuclear spent fuel in Idaho.
Section 3104--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize funds for DOE other defense
activities for fiscal year 1997.
Section 3105--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear
waste disposal activities of the Department for fiscal year
1997 at the requested amount.
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
Section 3121--Reprogramming
This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in
excess of 102 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for
the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the
congressional defense committees and a period of 30 days has
elapsed after the date on which the report is received. Should
the Department demonstrate that it has improved its procedures
for handling reprogramming requests, the committee would
consider returning to a more flexible reprogramming statute in
the future.
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects
This section would limit the initiation of ``general plant
projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost
for any project exceeds $1.2 million. However, if the Secretary
of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any project will
exceed $1.2 million, the appropriate committees of Congress
must be notified of the reasons for the cost variation.
Section 3123--Limits On Construction Projects
This section would permit any construction project to be
initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the
amount authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total
estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for
such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy
must report in detail to the appropriate committees of Congress
and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative
days. This section would also specify that the 125 percent
limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under
$5.0 million.
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
This section would permit funds authorized to be
appropriated by the bill to be transferred to other agencies of
the government for performance of work for which the funds were
authorized and appropriated. The provision would permit the
merger of such funds with the authorizations of the agency to
which they are transferred. This section would also limit to no
more than five percent the amount of funds that may be
transferred between authorizations in the Department of Energy
that were authorized pursuant to this act.
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
This section would limit the Secretary of Energy's
authority to request construction funding until the Secretary
has certified a conceptual design. This section would provide
an exception in the case of emergencies.
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and
Construction Activities
This section would permit, in addition to any advance
planning and construction designed otherwise authorized by the
bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national
security program construction project whenever the Secretary
determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to
protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of
national defense or to protect property.
Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security Programs of the
Department of Energy
This section would authorize, subject to the provisions of
appropriation Acts and section 3121 of this bill, amounts
appropriated pursuant to this bill for management and support
activities and for general plant projects to be made available
for use, when necessary, in connection with all national
security programs of the Department of Energy.
Section 3128--Availability of Funds
This section would authorize, subject to a provision of an
appropriation Act, amounts appropriated for operating expenses
or for plant and capital equipment to remain available until
expended.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3131--Stockpile Stewardship Program
This section would authorize an additional $100.0 million
for various stockpile stewardship activities. The additional
funds authorized for enhanced surveillance shall be used to
provide research and development in chemistry and materials to
support computation, engineering, and design assessment for
aged or replaced weapons components; characterization of device
components to include comparison of strain characteristics of
cast versus wrought cases, crystalline substructure, as well as
high explosive aging research; and modeling and simulation of
aging-induced changes. The additional funds for dual
revalidation shall be used to create an up-to-date
understanding of each system in the stockpile by employing
modern experimental, computational, and analytical techniques
to obtain baseline data on the behavior of weapons in the
stockpile. In this regard, the committee recognizes the
importance of subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site,
and is concerned about indications that the Department may be
planning to postpone experiments planned to be conducted in
fiscal year 1996 for reasons that are unclear. While the
majority of additional funds authorized for stockpile
stewardship would be spent at the nuclear weapons laboratories,
the committee strongly endorses and encourages a continued,
close collaboration between the weapons laboratories and the
production sites.
The committee notes that questions and concerns have been
raised in the public with the degree of thoroughness with which
the Department's Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management (PEIS/SSM)
addressed stewardship alternatives. The committee believes that
the Department should continue to consider fully all
stewardship options, including a no-action option, the proposed
stewardship, as well as alternatives that would involve a
program based upon less than the complete suite of experimental
capability. The committee directs that the Secretary not
obligate any of the additional funds authorized to be
appropriated in this section until the completion of the PEIS/
SSM or until October 15, 1996, whichever is earlier.
Section 3132--Manufacturing Infrastructure for Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile
This section would authorize an additional $125.0 million
for the stockpile manufacturing infrastructure program at the
four weapons production plants (Savannah River Site, South
Carolina, Pantex Plant, Texas, Kansas City Plant, Missouri, and
Y-12 Plant, Tennessee) established in section 3137 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106). This section would also require the Secretary of
Energy to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees on obligations under the program. The additional
funds are intended to establish and maintain the necessary
capability and competencies to fully support the evaluation,
surveillance, maintenance, repair, and dismantlement of the
nuclear stockpile; provide flexibility to respond to new
production requirements; to maintain and improve the
manufacturing technology necessary to fully support the
stockpile; and to achieve significant reductions in operating
costs for the complex.
The committee expects the funds to be allocated roughly
evenly among the four plants. Furthermore, the funds allocated
for the Savannah River Site shall be used to further
consolidate the tritium capabilities beginning in fiscal year
1997, a year earlier than the Department's current plans; to
accelerate the schedule for producing tritium; and support a
more robust and aggressive rapid reconstitution approach for
plutonium pit manufacturing by initiating a preconceptual
design study for a replacement pit fabrication facility. The
funds allocated for the Y-12 Plant shall be used to accelerate
the consolidation of facilities to manufacture and disassemble
secondaries; modernize production plant infrastructure elements
required for long-term operations; and increase core stockpile
management operations and maintenance (O&M) activities. The
funds allocated for the Pantex Plant shall be used for a
consolidated pit packaging system and for increased core
stockpile management O&M activities. The funds allocated for
the Kansas City Plant shall be used for upgrades to current
manufacturing technologies; replacing aging processing
equipment; investing in information systems upgrades to
maintain compatibility with advancements at the DOE national
laboratories; and core O&M.
Section 3133--Production of High Explosives
This section would prohibit the expenditure of funds to
move, or prepare to move, the manufacture and fabrication of
high explosives and energetic materials for use as components
in nuclear weapons systems from the Pantex Plant to any other
Department of Energy site or facility.
Section 3134--Limitation on Use of Funds by Laboratories for
Laboratory-Directed Research and Development
This section would reduce beginning in fiscal year 1997 the
funding percentage for Laboratory-Directed Research and
Development (LDRD) and prohibit expenditure of funds authorized
for LDRD in fiscal year 1997 until 15 days after the Secretary
of Energy has issued a report on the manner in which such funds
are planned to be used.
Section 3135--Prohibition on Funding Nuclear Weapons Activities With
People's Republic of China
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds for any activity associated with the conduct of
cooperative programs relating to nuclear weapons or nuclear
weapons technology, including stockpile stewardship and safety,
with the People's Republic of China (PRC), and require a report
on past and planned discussions or activities between the
United States and the PRC regarding nuclear weapons. The
committee is unconvinced of the merits of any such cooperative
discussions or activities between the U.S. and the PRC. The
committee is extremely concerned about any discussions that may
have resulted in or could lead to the release of restricted
data or other classified or sensitive information to the PRC
given the PRC's ongoing strategic modernization program,
including its efforts to acquire or develop multiple-
independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), its recent
nuclear threats against Los Angeles, and its willingness to
sell or transfer nuclear and missile technology to anti-Western
regimes.
Section 3136--International Cooperative Stockpile Stewardship Programs
This section would prohibit use of fiscal year 1997 or
prior year funds to conduct any activities associated with
international cooperative stockpile stewardship programs, with
an exception for such activities conducted with the United
Kingdom and France. The committee is aware that the Department
may be considering a ``global'' program to assist existing and
threshold nuclear weapons states in nuclear weapons safety,
reliability and effectiveness. The committee strongly objects
to any such effort. This prohibition shall apply to all such
DOE activities, including laboratory directed research and
development funded studies and analyses of possible nuclear
futures.
Section 3137--Temporary Authority Relating to Transfers of Defense
Environmental Management Funds
This section would direct the Secretary of Energy to
establish procedures to improve the financial management of
environmental management funds allocated to the various former
defense sites which are undergoing remedial cleanup activities.
This section, upon the establishment of sufficient financial
controls, would authorize the Secretary to grant authority to a
site manager to transfer up to $5.0 million between program
functions within his jurisdiction or to transfer a similar sum
between projects within his area of operation. This section
would provide a limited expansion of the current reprogramming
authority and would allow a site manager to move money on a
very limited basis based on a finding that the transfer is
necessary to reduce a health or safety risk or where the funds
can be used more efficiently at that site. Often-times, funds
remain obligated to projects which have been completed at less
than the original obligation or the scope of project has been
reduced. Prudent and selective use of this authority by a site
manager should allow the funds described in the above example
to be reallocated in a more timely manner. The committee
believes that this authority should result in more efficient
field operations and should allow field managers the latitude
to manage these facilities in the most efficient way possible.
The Secretary would be required to notify Congress within
thirty days after the transfer of funds occurs. Finally, this
section would expire on December 30, 1997.
Section 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons Production
Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories
This section would impose a limitation on delegation
authority, require consultations with area offices of the
Department, require DOE area offices to report directly to DOE
headquarters, require the Secretary to provide a Defense
Programs reorganization plan and report, and require
establishment of a Defense Programs Management Council.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 3141--Report on Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum
This section would require the President to submit to the
congressional defense committees a copy of the Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Memorandum, and to submit reports on any future
updates or changes to the Memorandum.
Section 3142--Report on Plutonium Pit Production and Remanufacturing
This section would require the Secretary to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on plans for
achieving a capability to produce and remanufacture plutonium
pits.
Section 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline Environmental Management
Reports
This section would amend section 3153 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 104-
360) to authorize the submission of the Baseline Environmental
Management Report on a biennial basis rather than an annual
basis. This change would reduce the report preparation cost,
which is estimated to exceed $4.0 million annually. Currently,
as soon as one report is completed, preparation of another one
must begin, leaving little time for analysis of the resulting
data. Submitting this report every two years should enable the
Department to analyze the data from the field to determine
patterns and should improve the usefulness of the report to the
Congress.
Section 3144--Requirement to Develop Future Use Plans for Environmental
Management Program
This section would permit the Secretary of Energy to
develop and implement as part of the Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management Program, a future land use
plan at sites where the Secretary is planning or implementing
environmental restoration activities. Although the Secretary
would be encouraged to use this authority at all defense sites
where remedial activities are occurring, the Secretary would be
required to develop these plans at specific selected defense
sites. In developing these plans, the Secretary would be
required to consult with local advisory boards, local land use
redevelopment authorities, or other appropriate state agencies.
The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue
Committee recently issued its final report entitled ``Consensus
Principles and Recommendations for Improving Federal Facilities
Cleanup''. The recommendations contained in this report are
aimed at improving the process of making decisions and setting
priorities for cleanup efforts at federal facilities. The
committee supports the expansive role of future use/site
advisory boards as described in that report and recommends that
future use planning, as required by this section follow, to the
extent practicable, the recommendations contained in that
report. The committee expects that reaching agreement with
local authorities about anticipated future land use associated
with contaminated former defense sites once they are remediated
should result in cleanup activities that are appropriate to
that anticipated future use. This should also result in a more
expeditious transfer of the property upon the completion of the
remediation activity. This section would recognize that certain
sites, in conjunction with local advisory groups, have
developed or are in the process of developing future use land
use plans. This section would not overturn or require changes
to those plans or the appointment of new advisory groups. This
section would also require the submission of a report to
Congress on the future land use plans at these former defense
facilities. Finally, this section would require that all future
land use plans developed under this section be in strict
compliance with all existing statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Subtitle E--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management
Section 3151--Purpose
This section would set forth the purpose of this subtitle
which is to improve the operation of the DOE defense nuclear
environmental cleanup and management program through the use of
cost-effective management mechanisms and innovative
technologies.
Section 3152--Covered Defense Nuclear Facilities
This section would define the application of this subtitle
to include any defense nuclear facility of the Department of
Energy for which the fiscal year 1996 environmental management
budget was $350.0 million or more.
Section 3153--Site Manager
This section would grant authority to the Secretary of
Energy to delegate to the site manager authority to oversee and
to direct management operations at a defense nuclear facility.
Specifically the Secretary may delegate the authority to enter
into and modify contractual agreements to enhance environmental
restoration at the facility, to submit reprogramming requests
to Congress directly if DOE headquarters fails to act on the
request within 60 days, and to negotiate amendments to
environmental agreements. For any environmental remedial action
where the cost exceeds $25.0 million, the site manager is
required to prepare an assessment of the costs and risk
reduction or other benefits associated with implementation of
the selected action.
Section 3154--Department of Energy Orders
This section would require that before new DOE orders are
issued that there be a finding that the order is necessary for
the protection of human health and the environment or safety,
or the fulfillment of current legal requirements. This section
should reduce the number of DOE orders that are unrelated to
cleanup, safety or protection of the environment and should
result in a more efficient and effective remediation effort at
the DOE defense nuclear facilities.
Section 3155--Deployment of Technology for Remediation of Defense
Nuclear Waste
This section would promote the deployment of innovative
environmental technologies for remediation of defense nuclear
waste at DOE nuclear facilities.
Section 3156--Performance-Based Contracting
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
develop and implement a program to encourage the use of
performance-based contracts as opposed to cost-plus contracts.
The contracts to the maximum extent possible would require
results oriented performance criteria, financial
accountability, incentives for contractors to meet or exceed
the performance criteria, specific incentives for cost savings,
and when appropriate, allocation of fee or profit reduction for
failure to meet minimum performance criteria. This section
would require the Secretary of Energy to implement this program
by October 1, 1997.
Section 3157--Designation of Defense Nuclear Facilities as National
Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Areas
This section would allow the Secretary of Energy, upon
receipt of a request from the governor of a state in which a
defense nuclear facility is situated, to designate the facility
as a ``National Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Area''.
This section would also express the sense of Congress that
federal and state regulatory authorities should work to develop
expedited and streamlined procedures for cleaning up the
nuclear facilities and to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic
delay.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
Section 3201 would authorize, as requested in the
President's budget, $17 million for the operation of the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3302--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds
This section would authorize $60 million from the National
Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operations and
maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year
1997. The provision would also permit the use of additional
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions after a
notification to Congress.
Section 3311--Biennial Report on Stockpile Requirements
This section would amend the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act, section 3203 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988 (Public Law 100-
180), concerning the requirements report provided to Congress
every other year by the Department of Defense (DOD). The
committee believes the Stock Piling Act, as currently written,
is in need of revisions that would reflect current world
conditions, particularly in the area of establishing
requirements for the National Defense Stockpile. The committee
further believes the provision will assist the DOD in the
preparation of the stockpile requirements report due to
Congress on January 15, 1997.
Section 3312--Notification Requirements
This section would update several sections of the Strategic
and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, section 3203 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988 (Public
Law 100-180), to standardize reporting requirements throughout
the act. The provision would establish that all legislative
reporting waiting periods are to be 45 days.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize the appropriation of
$149,500,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the Department of Energy
for the operation of the Naval Petroleum Reserves.
Section 3402--Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum During Fiscal
Year 1997
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to sell
petroleum produced for the Naval Petroleum Reserves at
established prices.
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
This subtitle would grant the Panama Canal Commission
authority to make expenditures from the Panama Canal Commission
Revolving Fund within existing statutory limits. The Panama
Canal Commission operates as a private government corporation
and is supervised by a nine member supervisory board, commonly
referred to as the Panama Canal Commission Board of Directors.
The Panama Canal Commission does not draw from U.S. taxpayer
funds for the operation of the Canal, but receives funding to
cover its operating, administrative, and capital improvement
expenses from tolls and other revenue collected. The Panama
Canal Commission's total operating costs including depreciation
and interest payments in Fiscal Year 1997 are estimated at
$623.6 million.
Subtitle B--Amendments to Panama Canal Act of 1979
Section 3521--Short Title; References
This section would establish the Act as the ``Panama Canal
Act Amendments of 1996.''
Section 3522--Definitions and Recommendations for Legislation
This section would delete the requirement that the
President submit recommendations to improve the Commission
structure. The President has complied with that provision.
Section 3523--Administrator
This section would authorize the Commission's Board of
Directors to establish the Panama Canal Administrator's pay at
a rate not to exceed that set for level III of the Executive
Service. It is currently established by statute at level IV of
the Executive Schedule. This amendment would ensure the
recruitment of highly qualified administrators during this
critical period in the transition of the canal to Panamanian
control. As is the case with all expenditures by the
Commission, the administrator's salary is paid from canal
revenues.
Section 3524--Deputy Administrator and Chief Engineer
This section would authorize the Commission's Board of
Directors to establish the Deputy Administrator's pay at a rate
not to exceed that set for level IV of the Executive Service.
This section would also delete the reference to chief engineer.
Section 3525--Office of Ombudsman
This section would remove the requirement in section 3623
of title 22, United States Code, that the Panama Canal
Commission Ombudsman be a U.S. citizen.-
Section 3526--Appointment and Compensation; Duties
This section would amend section 3642 of title 22, United
States Code, with technical changes and clarification on the
scope of the Panama Canal Employment System established in
section 3652 of title 22, United States Code.
Section 3527--Applicability of Certain Benefits
This section would amend section 3649 of title 22, United
States Code, to include those sections of the U.S. personnel
laws which are specifically applicable to all pre-treaty
employees and U.S. citizen, post-treaty employees.
Section 3528--Travel and Transportation Expenses
This section would amend section 3650 of title 22, United
States Code, to provide a specific exemption from the
requirement that an employee promise to remain in the
employment of the Commission for an additional two years after
completion of vacation leave. Inasmuch as the majority of the
agency's U.S. citizen employees will be separated from federal
service on December 31, 1999, it will be impossible for them to
make such a tour renewal commitment after December 31, 1997.
The remaining proposed changes to section 3650 of title 22,
United States Codes are non-substantive in nature.
Section 3529--Clarification of Definition of Agency
This section would make a technical amendment to section
3651 of title 22, United States Code, to clarify that the
Commission remains an ``Executive agency'' notwithstanding
other definitions in title 22, United States Code.
Section 3530--Panama Canal Employment System; Merit and Other
Employment Requirements
This section would amend section 3652 of title 22, United
States Code, to authorize the Commission to establish a
personnel system for the Commission that is independent of
other U.S. agencies in Panama. This amendment would allow the
Commission to have in place a personnel system which can easily
be transferred to and be implemented by the Panama Canal
Authority which will operate the canal after 1999.
Section 3531--Employment Standards
This section would amend section 3653 of title 22, United
States Code, to provide the Panama Canal Commission with the
sole authority to determine employment standards and promotion
criteria for the Commission consistent with the consolidation
of authority for the Panama Canal Employment System.
Section 3532--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Interim
Application of Canal Zone Merit System
This section would repeal section 3654 of title 22, United
States Code, to reflect the fact that the Canal Zone Merit
System has been replaced by the Panama Canal Employment System.
Section 3533--Repeal of Provision Relating to Recruitment and Retention
Remuneration
This section would repeal section 3657(d) of title 22,
United States Code, in light of the fact that similar
provisions contained in title 5, United States Code, would be
made applicable to canal employees in section 3536 of these
amendments.
Section 3534--Benefits Based on Basic Pay
This section would amend section 3658 of title 22, United
States Code, to add federal retirement benefits contained in
chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to the list of
benefits which are determined in relation to basic pay.
Section 3535--Vesting of General Administrative Authority of Commission
This section would amend section 3663 of title 22, United
States Code, to delete the authority of the President to
prescribe regulations on employment and pay practices of the
agencies participating in the Panama Canal Commission
Employment System. This authority would now reside with the
Commission.
Section 3536--Applicability of Certain Laws
This section would amend section 3664 of title 22, United
States Code, to clarify those provisions of title 5, United
States Code, which are applicable to the Panama Canal
Commission
Section 3537--Repeal of Provision Relating to Transferred or Reemployed
Employees
This section would repeal section 3671(a)(3) of title 22,
United States Code, as it is obsolete.
Section 3538--Administration of Special Disability Benefits
This section amends section 3682 of title 22, United States
Code, to provide for the continued administration of a special
disability program for 46 former employees and 295 surviving
spouses after the transition of the canal in the year 2000.
Section 3539--Panama Canal Revolving Fund
This section would amend section 3712 of title 22, United
States Code, to add two activities which are appropriate for
expenditures from the Panama Canal Revolving Fund. Authority
would be granted to expend funds for promotional activities
such as the procurement of radio and TV advertisements and for
the purchase and transport to Panama of U.S. built passenger
motor vehicles, including large, heavy duty vehicles.
Section 3540--Printing
This section would amend section 3711 of title 22, United
States Code, to exempt the Commission from the requirement to
obtain approval from the Public Printer and the Joint Committee
on Printing before printing activities can be secured from
commercial sources. This amendment would assist in the
transition process by permitting the canal to obtain commercial
suppliers of printing services who will be on hand after
support of the Government Printing Office ends on December 31,
1999.
Section 3541--Accounting Policies
This section would amend section 3721 of title 22, United
States Code, to make the Commission's accounting practices
conform with those applicable to other wholly-owned U.S.
Government corporation.
Section 3542--Interagency Services; Reimbursements
This section would amend section 3721 of title 22, United
States Code to authorize the Commission to defray the expenses
of eligible employees for the costs associated with primary and
secondary education in the United States.
Section 3543--Postal Service
This section would amend section 3741 of title 22, United
States Code, to authorize the Panama Canal Commission to close
out its obligations on any unpaid balances outstanding for
postal savings certificates, postal savings deposits, and
postal money orders effective December 1, 1999. The Commission
had assumed all obligations of the postal service with respect
to outstanding postal instruments issued prior to October 1,
1979. This provision would allow the Commission to close out
such balances prior to the transfer on December 31, 1999.
Section 3544--Investigations of Accidents or Injury Giving Rise to
Claim
This section would amend section 3777(1) of title 22,
United States Code, to clarify the current law's mandate that
the Canal's Board of Local Inspectors investigation (including
a hearing) is a perquisite to a subsequent claim or suit
against the Commission.
Section 3545--Operations Regulations
This section would amend section 3811 in title 22, United
States Code, to allow the Commission to issue navigational
regulations.
Section 3546--Miscellaneous Repeals
This section would amend various obsolete sections in title
22, United States Code.
Section 3547--Exemption
This section would exempt the Commission from the
requirement to adopt the metric system since it is costly and
the government of Panama has not adopted it.
Section 3548--Miscellaneous Conforming Amendments to Title 5, United
States Code
This section would make various conforming amendments to
title 5, United States Code.
Section 3549--Repeal of Panama Canal Code
This section would repeal the Panama Canal Code as it is
obsolete.
Section 3550--Miscellaneous Clerical and Conforming Amendments
This section would make certain clerical amendments.
DEPARTMENTAL DATA
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, April 5, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the
enclosed draft of legislation, ``To authorize appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1997 for military activities of the Department
of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
Fiscal Year 1997, and for other purposes.''
This legislative proposal is part of the Department of
Defense legislative program for the 104th Congress and is
needed to carry out the President's budget plans for Fiscal
Year 1997. The Office of Management and Budget advises that
there is no objection to the presentation of this proposal to
the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the
program of the President.
This bill provides management authority for the Department
of Defense in Fiscal Year 1997 and makes several changes to the
authorities under which we operate. These changes are designed
to permit a more efficient operation of the Department of
Defense.
Enactment of this legislation is of great importance to the
Department of Defense and the Department urges its speedy and
favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
Enclosure.
------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, April 8, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is proposed legislation to
authorize construction at certain military installations for
Fiscal Year 1997, and for other military construction
authorizations and activities of the Department of Defense.
This legislative proposal is needed to carry out the
President's Fiscal Year 1997 budget plan.
The draft proposal would authorize appropriations in Fiscal
Year 1997 for new construction and family housing support for
the Active Forces, Defense Agencies, NATO Security Investment
Program, and Guard and Reserve Forces. It also establishes the
effective dates within the military construction program and
includes construction projects resulting from base realignment
and closure actions. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 1997 draft
legislation includes General Provision requests.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this proposal to Congress,
and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of
the President.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
Enclosure.
------
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 1, 1996, the Committee on National Security, a
quorum being present, approved H.R. 3230, as amended, by a vote
of 49 to 2.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 6, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 1, 1996, the Conunittee on
National Security ordered reported H.R. 3230, the ``National
Defense Authorization Act.'' This measure, among other things,
is to authorize appropriations for the Department of Defense
for Fiscal Year 1997.
During the markup of this legislation, the Committee on
National Security adopted the following provisions which fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce:
Sec. 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997;
Sec. 741--Alternatives to Active Duty Service
Obligation under Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance program and
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences;-
Sec. 742--Exception to Strength Limitations for
Public Health Service Officers Assigned to the
Department of Defense;-
Sec. 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and
Operation of Electric Power Distribution System at
Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio;-
Sec. 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons
Production Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories;
Sec. 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline
Environmental Management Reports;-
Sec. 3151-3157--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup
and Management Act of 1996; and
Sec. 3402--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain
Petroleum during Fiscal Year 1996.
Recognizing your Committee's desire to bring this
legislation expeditiously before the House, and in reliance
upon our most recent discussions concerning those provisions
within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, we will not
seek sequential referral of the bill based on the provisions
listed above. By agreeing not to seek a sequential referral of
the bill, the Commerce Committee does not waive its
jurisdiction over these provisions.
Furthermore, the Commerce Committee reserves its authority
to seek equal conferees on these and any other provisions of
the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this
legislation. As you know, the Commerce Committee is continuing
its work to make comprehensive reforms in the Superfund
statute. We understand that the Senate is contemplating a
number of provisions that would fall within the jurisdiction of
this Committee, especially in the area of environmental cleanup
standards. We intend to resist efforts to use the Department of
Defense reauthorization bill to reform hazardous waste cleanup
standards, and look forward to your cooperation.
I want to thank you and your staff for your assistance in
providing the Commerce Committee with an opportunity to
evaluate its jurisdictional interests in H.R. 3230,
particularly with regard to Sections 291 1 and 293 1. I would
appreciate your including this letter as a part of the National
Security Committee's report on H.R. 3230, and as part of the
record during consideration of this bill by the House.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC, May 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the
seven provisions in H.R. 3230, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, that are within the
Committee on Resources jurisdiction.
I have reviewed the language included in H.R. 3230 and I am
in support of the provisions. Therefore, I agree to waive a
sequential referral over the seven provisions identified in
your April 29, 1996, letter to me with the understanding that
this action in no way affects any future jurisdictional claims
over these provisions. In addition, I would ask that the
Committee on Resources be represented during any conference on
these provisions.
Once again, I thank you and Jim Schweiter and Philip Grone
of your staff for the extraordinary cooperation shown in
working with me on H.R. 3230, especially regarding Title XIV of
the bill. I point out the value of the early and frequent
consultations between our committees and the happy results; our
working relationship should serve as a model for other, less
forthcoming committees.
Finally, I congratulate you on this important legislation
and look forward to its enactment.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC, May 6, 1996.
Hon. Floyd D. Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: When the Committee on National Security
met to consider and approve H.R. 3230, the FY 97 National
Defense Authorization Act, the legislation included several
provisions within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee
on Government Reform and oversight.
Since our committees have worked closely in coordinating
the development of these legislative initiatives, and in an
effort to honor your desire to expedite consideration of this
bill, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight waives
its right to seek sequential referral of any of these
provisions. We wish to make it clear, however, that this waiver
is specifically limited to these provisions in this single
instance and should not be construed as a waiver of the
committee's jurisdiction with respect to any of the legislative
provisions in H.R. 3230 that fall within its jurisdiction. The
Committee also wishes to preserve its prerogatives with respect
to any floor amendments on this bill or to any House-Senate
conference and any Senate amendments thereto, including the
appointment of an equal number of conferees to those appointed
for any other House committee with respect to the provisions of
H.R. 3230 which fall within this committee's jurisdiction.
As always, it is a pleasure working with you, and my
compliments on your efforts to revitalize U.S. national
security.
Sincerely,
William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 3, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 1,
1996, the Committee on National Security ordered favorably
reported H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997. The bill includes a number of provisions that
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of
Representatives.
The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction
are: (1) Title II, Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
Programs (Sections 233, 234, 236, and 237); (2) Section 1037--
George C. Marshall European Center For Strategic Security
Studies; (3) Title XI--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States
of Former Soviet Union (Section 1101-1105); (4) Title XIII,
Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters (Sections 1301, 1306, and
1307); (5) Title XIII, Subtitle B--Commission to Assess the
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States; and (6) Section
3135--Prohibition on funding nuclear weapons activities with
People's Republic of China (Subsection b only).
Pursuant to Chairman Solomon's announcement that the
Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule
for H.R. 3230 and your desire to have the bill considered on
the House floor the week of May 13, 1996, and in recognition
that both of our staffs have been consulting on these
provisions, the Committee on International Relations will not
seek a sequential referral of the bill as a result of including
these provisions, without waiving or ceding now or in the
future this committee's jurisdiction over the provisions in
question. I will seek to have conferees appointed for these
provisions during any House-Senate conference committee.
I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of
the report on H.R. 3230 and as part of the record during
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on National Security,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1996
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997, and the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
I appreciate the jurisdictional interest of your committee
in this legislation. I further appreciate your decision not to
request a sequential referral of H.R. 3230 so that
consideration of the bill by the House may be expedited.
If additional jurisdictional issues arise, I will make
every effort to include any mutually agreed upon modifications,
consistent with the rule, in an amendment when the bill is
considered on the House floor. I also will include a copy of
this and your letter in the committee report. I also understand
that you will seek the appointment of conferees from the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with respect to
provisions within your committee's jurisdiction during any
House-Senate conference on the bill or a Senate-passed version.
Thank you for your cooperation.
With warm personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Floyd Spence, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1996
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your information and
cooperation regarding H.R. 3230, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, and provisions that are
within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 3230 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of
provisions in the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential
referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual
understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision
to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise
affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to
include any agreements worked out by staff of our two
Committees in an amendment as the bill is taken to the House
Floor, and that a copy of this letter and of your response will
be included in the Committee Report. In addition, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reserves the right
to be included as conferees on any matter within its
jurisdiction should this legislation go to a House-Senate
conference.
Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1 (q), of Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee has jurisdiction over oil and other pollution of
navigable waters. This includes provisions which amend or
affect the Clean Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Coastal
Zone Management Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships,
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, our Committee has a
jurisdictional interest in various provisions in H.R. 3230,
including provisions in Subtitle C, Environmental Provisions,
provisions relating to CERCLA, and provisions in Subtitle E,
Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management.
Specifically, the following sections relating to water
quality are within or affect the primary jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee:
324--Navy compliance with shipboard solid waste control
requirements.
327--Navy program to monitor ecological effects of
organotin.
In addition, I believe the Committee could be successful in
requesting a sequential referral over provisions in Subtitle E,
Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management, based on
effects on authorities and requirements under CERCLA and the
Clean Water Act. However, I appreciate your willingness, prior
to markup, to address our jurisdictional concerns by, among
other things, modifying provisions on additional duties and
certifications, and therefore I will not seek a sequential
referral.
In addition, I appreciate your willingness to modify
section 2832, Land exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, Virginia, to take into account our jurisdictional
concerns.
Finally, I would note that section 247, the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program, may affect our jurisdiction,
as well. As the Committee with jurisdiction over laws
protecting ocean and coastal water quality and over agencies
such as the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection
Agency, we have a significant interest in ocean protection and
research.
Thank you again for your assurances. I look forward to
continuing to work with you on HR. 3230 and other matters of
mutual interest to our two Committees.
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster, Chairman.
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 1997 and the
four following fiscal years. The results of such efforts are
reflected in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this
report pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of House Rule XI.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted
pursuant to section 403(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is as follows:
May 7, 1996.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the attached cost estimate for H.R. 3230, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on National Security on May 1,
1996.
The bill would affect direct spending and receipts, and
thus would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures under section
252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
If you wish, we would be pleased to provide further details
on the estimate.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill.
congressional budget office cost estimate
1. Bill number: H.R. 3230.
2. Bill title: National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee
on National Security on May 1, 1996.
4. Bill purpose: This bill would authorize appropriations
for 1997 for the military functions of the Department of
Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy (DoE). This bill
also would prescribe personnel strengths for each active duty
and selected reserve component.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Table 1
summarizes the budgetary effects of the bill. It shows the
effects of the bill on direct spending and authorizations of
appropriations for 1997. Assuming appropriation of the amounts
authorized, the bill would increase funding for discretionary
programs in 1997 by about $2.3 billion over the 1996
appropriated level, and outlays would increase by about $0.6
billion.
6. Basis of estimate: The estimate assumes that the bill
will be enacted by October 1, 1996, and that the amounts
authorized will be appropriated for 1997. Outlays are estimated
according to historical spending patterns.
Direct spending
The bill contains several provisions that would affect
direct spending and thus would subject the bill to pay-as-you-
go procedures under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see Table 2). The
provisions involve eligibility for Montgomery GI Bill benefits,
recoupment of financial assistance from certain health
professionals, retirement of reserve judge advocates, and other
matters with much less significant costs.
TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 3230 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated budget authority..................... 0 -2 -4 -4 -3 -2 -1
Estimated outlays.............................. 0 -2 -4 -4 -3 -2 -1
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION
Spending under current law:
Budget authority \1\....................... 265,023 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated outlays.......................... 264,311 91,156 36,485 17,138 7,362 3,275 913
Proposed changes:
Authorization level........................ 0 267,328 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays.......................... 0 173,738 54,404 21,333 9,270 3,909 2,018
Spending Under H.R. 3230
Authorization level \1\.................... 265,023 267,328 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays.......................... 264,311 264,894 90,889 38,471 16,632 7,184 2,931
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1996 figure is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by this bill.
Note:-Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050, National Defense, except for certain other items
as noted.
Montgomery G.I. bill.--In section 556, the bill would
expand eligibility for Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) benefits to
certain Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) participants.
ROTC recipients who enter active duty after October 1, 1996,
and receive a yearly scholarship below $2,000 would be allowed
to enroll in the MGIB program. The provision reduces direct
spending by $1 million in 1997 and by $2 million in 1998 and
1999 because enrollees would contribute $1,200 each. Once these
cohorts begin training, however, net costs would be incurred--
about $1 million in 2002.
Financial Assistance Programs for Health Professionals.--
Each year 10 to 20 health professionals fail to complete the
service obligation that they incurred when DoD provided them
with financial assistance while they were being trained. The
bill would provide alternatives to the current obligation to
serve on active duty. This provision would give the Secretary
of Defense the discretion to allow such individuals to fulfill
their obligation through other types of government service or
by repaying the costs of their training. If half of those
affected chose the repayment option, savings to the government
would amount to about $1 million annually.
TABLE 2.--DIRECT SPENDING IMPACTS IN H.R. 3230
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT SPENDING
Montgomery GI bill........................................ -1 -2 -2 -1 ....... 1
Health professional repayment............................. -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Reserve judge advocates................................... ....... -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Other direct spending..................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
-----------------------------------------------------
Total direct spending............................... -2 -4 -4 -3 -2 -1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retirement of Reserve Judge Advocates. Section 507 would
allow the Secretary of Defense to retain on reserve duty
reservists who are judge advocates and who would otherwise
retire. This provision would reduce retirement costs because
these individuals would retire later than under current law.
Savings would be less than $500,000 in 1997 and $1 million
annually thereafter.
Other Direct Spending. The bill contains other provisions
with direct spending impacts of less than $500,000 a year.
Pilot Program for Reemployed Annuitants. Section 335 would
establish a pilot program to permit no more than 50 reemployed
annuitants in DoD to reduce their work hours and to begin
collecting their full pensions. Under current law, an employing
agency must deduct the annuity amount from the paycheck of a
reemployed civil service annuitant and remit that amount to the
retirement trust fund. The retirement fund, in effect, makes no
net annuity payments to annuitants while they are reemployed.
Under the bill, the salary reduction would be waived for up to
24 months for up to 50 people at any one time, but the sum of
annuity and pay may not exceed the gross full-time salary for
the position. Participants in the program would have to reduce
their work hours to 20 to 30 hours per week to meet this
requirement.
The provision would raise retirement outlays because some
employees would have an incentive to retire earlier than they
would under current law. CBO estimates that the increase in
spending would be less than $500,000 each year from fiscal year
1997 to 2001 when the program would end.
Miscellaneous Military Retirement Provisions. Five other
provisions would change current law governing military
retirement including survivor benefits. None of these
provisions would have significant costs because relatively few
people would be affected and changes in benefit levels are
relatively small:
Section 632 would allow service members who are
retired due to physical disabilities to receive retired
pay based on the grade to which they would have been
promoted had it not been for the onset of the physical
disability.
Section 555 would allow certain members of the
reserves to receive retirement-related credit if they
participate in selected educational programs and work
in a specialty that is critically needed in wartime.
Section 633 would authorize reservists to receive
disability retirement if they are injured during
overnight stays associated with inactive-duty training.
Section 634 would allow certain reservists to retire
at higher grades. Currently if a reservist accepts a
reduction in grade to serve on active duty, and then
retires while on active duty, the retirement annuity is
based on the lower grade. Under section 634, the
annuity would be based on the higher grade.
Section 635 would cause the initial cost-of-living
adjustment for military retirees who entered services
between 1980 and 1986 to follow the same formula as for
other military retirees.
Other Programs. Other provisions that would have
insignificant costs affect potential Medal of Honor recipients
and former prisoners of war:
Section 1035 would give the President the authority
to award the Medal of Honor to seven individuals. This
award is accompanied by a monthly payment of $400, but
the annual costs for all seven recipients would amount
to less than $500,000 a year.
Section 1036 would authorize one-time payments to
certain military personnel who received the prisoner of
war medal after being detained during World War II.
Payments of $120 to $180 would be made to a maximum of
50 people, so the total cost of the provision would be
less than $500,000.
Authorizations of appropriations
The bill authorizes specific appropriations of $197 billion
in 1997 for operation and maintenance, procurement, research,
development, test and evaluation, nuclear weapons programs and
other DoD programs. These authorizations fall under National
Defense, budget function 050.
In addition, the bill would authorize specific
appropriations for other budget functions:
$150 million for the Naval Petroleum Reserve
(function 270).
$70 million for the Maritime Administration (function
400).
$57 million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
(function 700).
$14 million in 1997 and 1998 to fund Sikes Act
programs (function 300).
The bill also contains both specific and implicit
authorizations of appropriations for other military programs,
primarily for military personnel costs, some of which extend
beyond 1997. Table 3 contains estimates for the authorized
amounts and the related outlays. The following sections
describe the estimated authorizations shown in Table 3 and
provide information about CBO's cost estimates.
Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve
component endstrengths for 1997 at a cost of more than $68
billion. Endstrengths for active-duty personnel would total
about 1,457,400--about 400 more than in the Administration's
request but about 24,300 below the level estimated for 1996.
DoD reserve endstrengths would be authorized at about 902,400--
about 1,400 more than in the Administration's request but about
28,400 less than the estimated 1996 level.
TABLE 3.--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AS
ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stated Authorizations............................... 197,056 14 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays................................... 107,003 50,873 21,347 9,276 3,909 2,018
Endstrengths:
Function 050:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 68,485 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................... 65,041 3,444 0 0 0 0
Function 400:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 66 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................... 59 7 0 0 0 0
Compensation and Benefits:
Military Pay Raise and BAQ Increase:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 1,400 1,852 1,826 1,808 1,807 1,804
Estimated Outlays........................... 1,330 1,829 1,827 1,809 1,807 1,804
Expiring Authorities-Active:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 0 148 51 35 33 16
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 141 56 36 33 17
Expiring Authorities-Aviation/Nuclear:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 0 49 24 24 17 15
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 47 25 24 17 15
Expiring Authorities-Reserve:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 0 33 27 18 13 9
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 31 27 18 13 9
Expiring Authorities-Nurses:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 0 12 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 11 1 0 0 0
Moving Expenses:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 55 75 75 77 78 78
Estimated Outlays........................... 52 74 75 77 78 78
Variable Housing Allowance:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 35 46 47 48 50 50
Estimated Outlays........................... 33 45 47 48 50 50
Housing for Personnel on Sea-Duty:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 10 41 42 43 44 44
Estimated Outlays........................... 9 39 42 43 44 44
Grade Structure:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 3 33 34 35 36 37
Estimated Outlays........................... 3 31 34 35 36 37
Special Pay for Dentists:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 15 15 15 15 15 15
Estimated Outlays........................... 14 15 15 15 15 15
Cap on Military Personnel Appropriations:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 203 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................... 193 10 0 0 0 0
Health Care:
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities:
Estimated Authorization Level............... (\1\) -157 -163 -170 -176 -184
Estimated Outlays........................... (\1\) -118 -162 -168 -175 -184
Composite Health Care System:
Estimated Authorization Level............... (\1\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
Estimated Outlays........................... (\1\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
Lodgings for Reserve Personnel:
Estimated Authorization Level................... (\1\) 19 19 20 20 21
Estimated Outlays............................... (\1\) 14 19 20 20 21
Reductions in Civilian Personnel:
Estimated Authorization Level................... (\1\) -423 -105 -15 -14 -14
Estimated Outlays............................... (\1\) -317 -185 -38 -14 -14
Total Authorizations of Appropriations:
Estimated Authorization Level................... 267,328 1,757 1,892 1,938 1,923 1,891
Estimated Outlays from Authorizations for 1997.. 173,738 54,404 21,333 9,270 3,909 2,018
Estimated Outlays from Authorizations for
19982001....................................... 0 1,774 1,836 1,925 1,925 1,892
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 impacts of these provisions are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated
in the bill.
\2\ CBO is unable to estimate the costs of this provision.
Also, the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in
1997 for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is the same as the 1996
level and the Administration's request; this authorization
would cost about $66 million and would fall under budget
function 400, Transportation.
Compensation and Benefits. The bill contains several
provisions that would affect military compensation and
benefits.
Pay Raises and Quarters Allowances. Section 601 would
authorize a 3.0 percent increase in the rates of basic pay and
the basic allowance for subsistence for military personnel, at
a cost of $1.2 billion in 1997. The same section would also
call for the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) to increase by
4.6 percent. Under current law BAQ increases according to the
military pay raise; consequently, the 3.0 percent pay raise
authorized in this bill would raise BAQ by $109 million. The
provision that raises BAQ by the additional 1.6 percent would
cost another $58 million. Thus, BAQ would increase by $167
million compared to 1996 rates.
Expiring Authorities. Several sections would extend for one
year certain payment authorities that are scheduled to expire
at the end of 1997. In some cases, renewing authorities for one
year results in costs over several years because payments are
made in installments. Payment authorities for enlistment and
reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost $148
million in 1998. The cost of extensions of special payments for
aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would total $49
million in 1998. Extension of various bonus programs for
Selected Reserve personnel would increase costs by $33 million
in 1998. Finally, authorities to make special payments to nurse
officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists
would increase authorizations by $12 million in 1998.
Moving Expenses. The bill makes several changes to benefits
received by military personnel when they change duty stations
permanently:
The dislocation allowance (DLA)--a payment for
miscellaneous expenses-- currently equals two months of
BAQ payments; the bill would increase it to two and
one-half months at a cost of $50 million annually.
Costs would be less in 1997, about $39 million, because
the provision would not take effect until January 1,
1997.
The allowance for temporary lodging expenses (TLE) is
paid to certain members who occupy temporary quarters--
for example, motels--during a move. Currently, first-
term personnel embarking on their initial change of
station are not eligible for this payment, but the bill
would extend it to them. This change would affect about
50,000 people, who would receive payments averaging
$360, for a total annual cost of about $18 million.
This provision also includes an effective date of
January 1, 1997, so costs in the first year would be
lower, about $14 million.
The bill would allow DoD to pay storage costs for
motor vehicles when members cannot take the vehicle
along and to reimburse members for certain expenses
when they pick up a vehicle at a port following
government shipment. Together, these two provisions
would cost $2 million in 1997.
Variable Housing Allowance. The bill would also increase
Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) payments to certain
servicemembers living in areas with high housing costs by
establishing a minimum payment level. The cost of this change
would be about $46 million annually. Because the provision
would not take effect until January 1, 1997, its first-year
costs would total $35 million.
Housing Allowance During Duty at Sea. The bill would
authorize payment of housing allowances to certain personnel in
pay grade E-5 who are assigned to shipboard sea duty. This
change would provide about 7,000 personnel with housing
allowances averaging $6,000 annually, for a total yearly cost
of about $40 million. In 1997, costs would only be $10 million
because the effective date of the provision is January 1, 1997.
Grade Structure. The bill would authorize the number of
active duty officers who can serve in certain pay grades in
each of the military services. This change would not increase
the overall endstrength, but it would result in increased
promotions. The provision has a cost, about $35 million
annually, because personnel serving in higher grades are paid
more. Because the provision does not take affect until
September 1, 1997, the cost are only $3 million in 1997.
Special Pay for Dentists. In 1996, DoD will pay about $40
million in incentive payments to dentists serving as officers
in the military services. This bill would increase both the
level and the number of these payments. Existing retention
payments to certain dental officers would increase at a cost of
$8 million in 1997. Certain new dental officers would be
granted an accession bonus of $30,000, for a total cost of $7
million each year. Finally, certain dentists serving in the
Selected Reserve would receive a new incentive payment during
their annual period of active duty, at a cost of less than
$500,000 a year.
Military Personnel Authorization. Section 421 of the bill
explicitly authorizes appropriations for military personnel of
$70,206 million in 1997. Because the estimated costs of other
sections of the bill fall short of this level, this section has
the effect of adding $203 million to the other 1997 costs
identified in Table 3.
Military Health Care Programs. The bill contains two
provisions that affect military health care and that have
significant budgetary impacts.
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTF). Uniformed
Services Treatment Facilities (USTFs) are private sector health
care providers under contract to DoD. They currently provide
health care to more than 95,000 DoD beneficiaries. DoD
purchases this care on an overall cost-per-beneficiary or
capitation basis. Currently, these facilities provide a broader
benefit package at a lower out-of-pocket cost for the
beneficiary than is available to most other DoD beneficiaries.
As a result, the cost of insuring beneficiaries through USTFs
is nearly twice as high as it would be through DoD's managed
care system. This provision would make USTF's subject to the
rules of DoD's managed care system, at a savings of about $170
million annually.
Composite Health Care System (CHCS). The bill would direct
the Secretary of Defense to make certain changes to the
Composite Health Care System (CHCS), an automated medical
information system used by DoD. These changes would standardize
CHCS so that the information systems of various military
treatment facilities and private contractors could exchange
data about health care beneficiaries. No information is
available from DoD about the potential costs of the changes, so
CBO is unable to estimate the cost of this provision.
Lodgings for Reservists. Section 1252 would allow the
secretaries of the military services to reimburse reservists
for certain lodging expenses during their annual period of
active duty. This provision would cost about $20 million
annually in operation and maintenance accounts.
Civilian Personnel Reductions. Sections 901 and 902 would
reduce the size of the DoD civilian workforce. Section 901
would reduce the number of personnel involved in the
acquisition process by 40,000 compared to the 1995 level. This
would cause the number of personnel to decline by 27,000 more
in 1997 than would already be accomplished under the
Administration's plan, assuming reductions in the acquisition
workforce are proportional to those planned for all of DoD.
Savings would total $160 million in 1997 and $410 million in
1998. The effect of this provision would be to accelerate
reductions already expected to take place under the
Administration's plan, so savings after 1998 would be smaller,
as the size of the workforce under the Administration's plan
would continue to decline beyond the level of the reductions in
the bill.
Section 902 would reduce the number of personnel assigned
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) by the end of
1999 to 75 percent of 1994 levels. This would reduce the number
of workers by about 400, or about 300 more than under the
Administration's current plan, assuming reductions in the OSD
workforce are proportional to those in the overall DoD
workforce. This change would save $6 million in 1997 and about
$15 million annually after that.
Panama Canal Commission. Title XXXV would authorize the
Panama Canal Commission to spend any sums available to it from
operating revenues or Treasury borrowing for operation,
maintenance, and improvement of the canal in fiscal year 1997.
This spending is considered discretionary, because the
appropriation bill customarily establishes an obligation
ceiling for this account. CBO estimates that Panama Canal
Commission collections and outlays will be about $624 million
in 1997.
7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts through 1998. Because this bill would
affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
These effects are summarized in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Change in outlays.......... 0 -2 -4
Change in receipts........... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.
8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal
governments: H.R. 3230 contains no intergovernmental mandates
as defined in Public Law 104-4 and would impose no significant
direct costs on state, local, or tribal governments. A number
of the bill's provisions--such as those pertaining to land
conveyances and food and equipment donations--would affect
state or local governments; however, none would create new
enforceable duties or result in significant budget impacts on
these entities.
9. Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would
impose no new federal private sector mandates, as defined in
Public Law 104-4.
10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Kent
Christensen, Victoria Fraider, Raymond Hall, and Amy Plapp
prepared the estimates affecting the Department of Defense.
Kathy Gramp prepared the estimate for the Naval Petroleum
Reserve. Deborah Reis prepared the estimate for the Panama
Canal Commission. Wayne Boyington prepared the estimates for
the costs of changes to civilian retirement programs. Gary S.
Brown and Victoria V. Heid prepared the estimates related to
the Sikes Act programs and land withdrawals.
State and Local Government Impact: Leo Lex and Karen McVey.
Private Sector Impact: Neil Singer.
12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 7(a) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
the estimate as contained in the report of the Congressional
Budget Office.
INFLATION IMPACT STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee concludes that the bill
would have no significant inflationary impact.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the committee has not received
a report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 3230.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
intergovernmental mandates.
ROLL CALL VOTES
In accordance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, roll call and voice
votes were taken with respect to the committee's consideration
of H.R. 3230. The record of these votes is attached to this
report.
The committee ordered H.R. 3230 reported to the House with
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 49-2, a quorum being
present.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Part D--Program Terminations
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 132. AH-64 HELICOPTER PROGRAM
[(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
terminate new production of AH-64 aircraft in accordance with
this section.
[(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense
pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the
procurement of AH-64 aircraft.
[(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a)(2)
does not apply to--
[(A) the modification of, or the acquisition of spare
or repair parts for, AH-64 aircraft described in
paragraph (2);
[(B) completion of the new production aircraft
described in paragraph (2)(B); and
[(C) the obligation of not more than $1,487,527,000
from funds made available for fiscal years 1990 and
1991 for not more than 132 new production AH-64
aircraft and for payment of costs necessary to
terminate the AH-64 aircraft program.
[(2) The AH-64 aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A) are--
[(A) AH-64 aircraft acquired by the Army on or before
the date of enactment of this Act;
[(B) AH-64 new production aircraft for which funds,
other than funds for the procurement of long lead items
and other advance procurement, were obligated before
the date of enactment of this Act and which are
delivered to the Army on or after that date; and
[(C) 132 new production AH-64 aircraft for which
funds are available in accordance with subsection
(b)(1)(C).
[SEC. 133. AHIP SCOUT AIRCRAFT PROGRAM
[(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
terminate the AHIP Scout aircraft program in accordance with
this section.
[(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense
pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the
procurement of AHIP Scout aircraft (OH-58 aircraft modified
into the configuration specified in the Army Helicopter
Improvement Program described in the Selected Acquisition
Report, dated December 31, 1988, relating to the OH-58
helicopter).
[(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a)(2)
does not apply to--
[(A) the modification of, or the acquisition of spare
or repair parts for, AHIP Scout aircraft described in
paragraph (2);
[(B) completion of the installation of AHIP
modification kits in the AHIP Scout aircraft described
in paragraph (2)(B);
[(C) the obligation of not more than $195,000,000
from funds made available pursuant to section 101(a)
for the procurement and installation of AHIP
modification kits in not more than 36 AHIP Scout
aircraft and for payment of costs necessary to
terminate the AHIP Scout aircraft program; and
[(D) the obligation of not more than $200,000,000
from funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of
appropriations for the OH-58D AHIP Scout aircraft
program during fiscal year 1991 for procurement of not
more than 36 OH-58D Armed AHIP Scout aircraft and for
payment of costs necessary to terminate the AHIP Scout
aircraft program.
[(2) The AHIP Scout aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A)
are--
[(A) AHIP Scout aircraft acquired by the Army on or
before the date of enactment of this Act;
[(B) AHIP Scout aircraft for which funds, other than
funds for the procurement of long lead items and other
advance procurement, were obligated before the date of
enactment of this Act and which are delivered to the
Army on or after that date; and
[(C) 36 AHIP Scout aircraft for which funds are
available in accordance with subsection (b)(1)(C).
[SEC. 134. F-15E AIRCRAFT PROGRAM
[(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
terminate new production of F-15E aircraft in accordance with
this section.
[(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense
pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the
procurement of F-15E aircraft.
[(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a) does
not apply to the obligation of funds for--
[(A) the completion of, the modification of, or the
acquisition of spare or repair parts for, F-15E
aircraft described in paragraph (2); or
[(B) the payment of costs necessary to terminate the
F-15E aircraft program.
[(2) The F-15E aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A) are
F-15E aircraft--
[(A) that are acquired by the Air Force before
October 1, 1991; or
[(B) for which funds have been obligated for
procurement before October 1, 1991, other than for the
procurement of long lead items and other advance
procurement.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Part C--Strategic Defense Initiative
* * * * * * *
SEC. 224. REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL REPORT ON SDI PROGRAMS
(a) * * *
(b) Content of Report.--Each such report shall include the
following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) A clear definition of the objectives of each
planned deployment phase of the Strategic Defense
Initiative or defense against strategic ballistic
missiles.
[(4) An explanation of the relationship between each
such phase and each program and project associated with
the proposed architecture for that phase.]
[(5)] (3) The status of consultations with other
member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Japan, and other appropriate allies
concerning research being conducted in the Strategic
Defense Initiative program.
[(6)] (4) A statement of the compliance of the
planned SDI development and testing programs with
existing arms control agreements, including the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
[(7)] (5) A review of possible countermeasures [of
the Soviet Union] to specific SDI programs, an estimate
of the time and cost required [for the Soviet Union] to
develop each such countermeasure, and an evaluation of
the adequacy of the SDI programs described in the
report to respond to such countermeasures.
[(8)] (6) Details regarding funding of programs and
projects for the Strategic Defense Initiative
(including the amounts authorized, appropriated, and
made available for obligation after undistributed
reductions or other offsetting reductions were carried
out), as follows:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(9)] (7) Details on what Strategic Defense
Initiative technologies can be developed or deployed
within the next 5 to 10 years to defend against
significant military threats and help accomplish
critical military missions. The missions to be
considered include the following:
(A) Defending elements of the Armed Forces
abroad and United States allies against
tactical ballistic missiles, particularly new
and highly accurate shorter-range ballistic
missiles [of the Soviet Union] armed with
conventional, chemical, or nuclear warheads.
(B) Defending against an accidental launch of
strategic ballistic missiles against the United
States.
[(C) Defending against a limited but
militarily effective attack by the Soviet Union
aimed at disrupting the National Command
Authority or other valuable military assets.
[(D) Providing sufficient warning and
tracking information to defend or effectively
evade possible attacks by the Soviet Union
against military satellites, including those in
high orbits.
[(E) Providing early warning and attack
assessment information and the necessary
survivable command, control, and communications
to facilitate the use of United States military
forces in defense against possible conventional
or strategic attacks by the Soviet Union.
[(F) Providing protection of the United
States population from a nuclear attack by the
Soviet Union.]
[(G)] (C) Any other significant near-term
military mission that the application of SDI
technologies might help to accomplish.
[(10) For each of the near-term military missions
listed in paragraph (9), the report shall include the
following:
[(A) A list of specific program elements of
the Strategic Defense Initiative that are
pertinent to such mission.
[(B) The Secretary's estimate of the initial
operating capability dates for the
architectures or systems to accomplish such
missions.
[(C) The Secretary's estimate of the level of
funding necessary for each program to reach
those initial operating capability dates.
[(D) The Secretary's estimate of the
survivability and cost effectiveness at the
margin of such architectures or systems against
current and projected threats from the Soviet
Union.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE XII--MILITARY DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1208. TRANSFER OF EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY
[(a) Transfer Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal
property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is--
[(A) suitable for use by such agencies in counter-
drug activities; and
[(B) excess to the needs of the Department of
Defense.
[(2) Personal property transferred under this section may be
transferred without cost to the recipient agency.
[(3) The Secretary shall carry out this section in
consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of
National Drug Control Policy.
[(b) Conditions for Transfer.--The Secretary may transfer
personal property under this section only if--
[(1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of
the Department of Defense; and
[(2) the transfer is made without the expenditure of
any funds available to the Department of Defense for
the procurement of defense equipment.
[(c) Application.--The authority of the Secretary to transfer
personal property under this section shall expire on September
30, 1997.]
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 133. COST LIMITATION FOR SEAWOLF SUBMARINE PROGRAM.
[(a) Limitation of Costs.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of
the SSN-21, SSN-22, and SSN-23 Seawolf class submarines may not
exceed $7,223,659,000.
[(b) Automatic Increase of Limitation Amount.--The amount of
the limitation set forth in subsection (a) is increased by the
following amounts:
[(1) The amounts of outfitting costs and post-
delivery costs incurred for the submarines referred to
in such subsection.
[(2) The amounts of increases in costs attributable
to economic inflation after September 30, 1995.
[(3) The amounts of increases in costs attributable
to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local
laws enacted after September 30, 1995.
[(c) Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Section 122 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2682) is repealed.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 137. T-39N TRAINER AIRCRAFT.
[(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Navy may not enter
into a contract, using funds appropriated for fiscal year 1996
for procurement of aircraft for the Navy, for the acquisition
of the aircraft described in subsection (b) until 60 days after
the date on which the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology submits to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security
of the House of Representatives--
[(1) an analysis of the proposed acquisition of such
aircraft; and
[(2) a certification that the proposed acquisition
during fiscal year 1996 (A) is in the best interest of
the Government, and (B) is the most cost effective
means of meeting the requirements of the Navy for
aircraft for use in the training of naval flight
officers.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 272. ENHANCED FIBER OPTIC GUIDED MISSILE (EFOG-M) SYSTEM.
(a) Limitations.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of the Army may not spend funds for the
enhanced fiber optic guided missile (EFOG-M) system after
September 30, [1998,] 1999, if the items described in paragraph
(1) have not been delivered to the Army by that date and at a
cost not greater than the amount set forth in paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources
SEC. 351. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF PRINTING AND DUPLICATION SERVICES.
(a) Requirement for Competitive Procurement.--Except as
provided in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall,
during [fiscal year 1996] fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and
consistent with the requirements of title 44, United States
Code, competitively procure printing and duplication services
from private-sector sources for the performance of at least 70
percent of the total printing and duplication requirements of
the Defense Printing Service.
* * * * * * *
(c) Reporting Requirements.--(1) Not later than 90 days after
the end of each fiscal year in which the requirement of
subsection (a) applies, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report--
(A) describing the extent of the compliance of the
Secretary with the requirement during that fiscal year;
(B) specifying the total volume of printing and
duplication services procured by Department of Defense
during that fiscal year--
(i) from sources within the Department of
Defense;
(ii) from private-sector sources; and
(ii) from other sources in the Federal
Government; and
(C) specifying the total volume of printed and
duplicated material during that fiscal year covered by
the exception in subsection (b).
(2) The report required for fiscal year 1996 shall also
include the plans of the Secretary for further implementation
of the requirement of subsection (a) during fiscal year 1997.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 561. EQUALIZATION OF ACCRUAL OF SERVICE CREDIT FOR OFFICERS AND
ENLISTED MEMBERS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1405(c) of such title
is amended--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 726. EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM COST SHARING
REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT
FACILITIES.
[(a) Time for Fee Implementation.--The uniform managed care
benefit fee and copayment schedule developed by the Secretary
of Defense for use in all managed care initiatives of the
military health service system, including the managed care
program of the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities, shall
be extended to the managed care program of a Uniformed Services
Treatment Facility only after the later of--
[(1) the implementation of the TRICARE regional
program covering the service area of the Uniformed
Services Treatment Facility; or
[(2) October 1, 1996.
[(b) Submission of Actuarial Estimates.--Paragraph (2) of
subsection (a) shall operate as a condition on the extension of
the uniform managed care benefit fee and copayment schedule to
the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities only if the
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities submit to the
Comptroller General of the United States, within 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, actuarial estimates in
support of their contention that the extension of such fees and
copayments will have an adverse effect on the operation of the
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities and the enrollment of
participants.
[(c) Evaluation.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the
results of an evaluation of the effect on the Uniformed
Services Treatment Facilities of the extension of the uniform
benefit fee and copayment schedule to the Uniformed Services
Treatment Facilities. The evaluation shall include an
examination of whether the benefit fee and copayment schedule
may--
[(A) cause adverse selection of enrollees;
[(B) be inappropriate for a fully at-risk program
similar to civilian health maintenance organizations;
or
[(C) result in an enrolled population dissimilar to
the general beneficiary population.
[(2) The Comptroller General shall not be required to prepare
or submit the evaluation under paragraph (1) if the Uniformed
Services Treatment Facilities fail to satisfactorily comply
with subsection (b), as determined by the Comptroller General.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Subtitle A--General Matters
SEC. 901. ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Personnel Reduction.--(1) Effective October 1, 1999, the
number of OSD personnel may not exceed 75 percent of the number
of OSD personnel as of October 1, 1994.
[(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``OSD
personnel'' means military and civilian personnel of the
Department of Defense who are assigned to, or employed in,
functions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (including
Direct Support Activities of that Office and the Washington
Headquarters Services of the Department of Defense).
[(3) In carrying out reductions in the number of personnel
assigned to, or employed in, the Office of the Department of
Defense in order to comply with paragraph (1), the Secretary
may not reassign functions solely in order to evade the
requirement contained in that paragraph.
[(4) If the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to
Congress, that the limitation in paragraph (1) would adversely
affect United States national security, the limitation under
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting ``80 percent''
for ``75 percent''.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 903. DEFERRED REPEAL OF VARIOUS STATUTORY POSITIONS AND OFFICES IN
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Conforming Amendments Relating to Repeal of Various OSD
Positions.--Chapter 4 of such title is further amended--
(1) in section 131(b)--
(A) by striking out [paragraphs (6) and (8)]
paragraph (6); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (8),
(9), (10), and (11), as paragraphs (6), (7),
(8), [and (9),] (9), and (10), respectively;
* * * * * * *
SEC. 905. JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.
(a) * * *
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 31, [1997] 1998.
SEC. 906. RESTRUCTURING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION
ORGANIZATION AND WORKFORCE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Reduction of Acquisition Workforce.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall accomplish reductions in defense acquisition
personnel positions [during fiscal year 1996 so that the total
number of such personnel as of October 1, 1996, is less than
the total number of such personnel as of October 1, 1995, by at
least 15,000.] so that--
(A) the total number of such positions as of October
1, 1996, is less than the baseline number by at least
15,000; and
(B) the total number of such positions as of October
1, 1997, is less than the baseline number by at least
40,000.
* * * * * * *
(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``baseline
number'' means the total number of defense acquisition
personnel positions as of October 1, 1995.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle H--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1092. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF MIDWAY
ISLANDS.
(a) * * *
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Midway Islands and the surrounding seas
deserve to be memorialized;
(2) the historic structures related to the Battle of
Midway should be maintained, in accordance with the
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-
470t), and subject to the availability of
appropriations for that purpose[.]; and
* * * * * * *
DIVISION D--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REFORM
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLIII--ADDITIONAL REFORM PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Additional Acquisition Reform Provisions
SEC. 4301. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Elimination of Certain Statutory Certification
Requirements.--(1) Section 2410b of title 10, United States
Code, is amended in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) by striking
out ``certification and''.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION E--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT REFORM
SEC. 5001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Information Technology
Management Reform Act of 1996''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE LI--RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACQUISITIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--National Security Systems
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5142. NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM DEFINED.
(a) Definition.--In this subtitle, the term ``national
security system'' means any telecommunications or information
system operated by the United States Government, the function,
operation, or use of which--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) involves equipment that is an integral part of a
weapon or weapons system; [or]
(5) subject to subsection (b), is critical to the
direct fulfillment of military or intelligence
missions[.]; or
(6) involves the storage, processing, or forwarding
of classified information and is protected at all times
by procedures established for the handling of
classified information.
* * * * * * *
TITLE LVI--CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS
SEC. 5601. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE.
(a) Protest File.--Section 2305(e) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking out paragraph (3).
* * * * * * *
(c) Law Inapplicable to Procurement of Information
Technology.--Section 2315 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``Section 111'' and all that follows
through ``[use of equipment or services if] use of the
equipment or services,'' and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: ``For the purposes of the Information Technology
Management Reform Act of 1996, the term `national security
systems' means those telecommunications and information systems
operated by the Department of Defense, the functions, operation
or use of which''.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 257. DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE
RESEARCH.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Eligible States.--(1) The [Director of the National
Science Foundation] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology shall designate which States are eligible States
for the purposes of this section [and shall notify the Director
of Defense Research and Engineering of the States so
designated].
(2) The [Director of the National Science Foundation] Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology shall
designate a State as an eligible State if, [as determined by
the Director] as determined by the Under Secretary--
(A) the average annual amount of all Department of
Defense obligations for science and engineering
research and development that were in effect with
institutions of higher education in the State for the
three fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which
the designation is effective or for the last three
fiscal years for which statistics are available is less
than the amount determined by multiplying 60 percent
times the amount equal to \1/50\ of the total average
annual amount of all Department of Defense obligations
for science and engineering research and development
that were in effect with institutions of higher
education in the United States for such three preceding
or last fiscal years, as the case may be [(to be
determined in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense);]; and
(B) the State has demonstrated a commitment to
developing research bases in the State and to improving
science and engineering research and education programs
at institutions of higher education in the State[;
and].
[(C) the State is an eligible State for purposes of
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research conducted by the National Science Foundation.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Related Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1023. MARITIME PREPOSITIONING SHIP PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT.
Section 2218(f) of title 10, United States Code, shall not
apply in the case of the purchase of [three ships] one ship for
the purpose of enhancing Marine Corps prepositioning ship
squadrons.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 571. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
[(1) the suspension of questioning concerning
homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals
for accession into the Armed Forces under the interim
policy of January 29, 1993, should be continued, but
the Secretary of Defense may reinstate that questioning
with such questions or such revised questions as he
considers appropriate if the Secretary determines that
it is necessary to do so in order to effectuate the
policy set forth in section 654 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a); and
[(2) the Secretary of Defense should consider issuing
guidance governing the circumstances under which
members of the Armed Forces questioned about
homosexuality for administrative purposes should be
afforded warnings similar to the warnings under section
831(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 31(b)
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).]
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Subtitle A--Defense Technology and Industrial Base, Reinvestment and
Conversion
* * * * * * *
SEC. 802. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVE SUPPORT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Eligibility.--An institution of higher education is
eligible for a grant or contract under the program if the
institution has received less than a total of $2,000,000 in
grants and contracts from the Department of Defense in the two
[fiscal years before the fiscal year in which the institution
submits a proposal] most recent fiscal years for which complete
statistics are available when proposals are requested for such
grant or contract.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY TO CARRY
OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.
(a) Authority.--The Director of the Advanced Research
Projects Agency, the Secretary of a military department, or any
other official designated by the Secretary of Defense may,
under the authority of section 2371 of title 10, United States
Code, carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant
to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or
developed by the Department of Defense.
(b) Exercise of Authority.--(1) Subsections [(c)(2) and
(c)(3) of such section 2371, as redesignated by section
827(b)(1)(B),] (e)(2) and (e)(3) of such section 2371 shall not
apply to projects carried out under subsection (a).
(2) The Director, Secretary, or other official shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, use competitive procedures when
entering into agreements to carry out projects under subsection
(a).
(c) Period of Authority.--The authority [of the Director] to
carry out projects under subsection (a) shall terminate [3
years after the date of the enactment of this Act] on September
30, 1999.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XVII--CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS DEFENSE
SEC. 1701. CONDUCT OF THE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Coordination of the Program.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall designate the Army as executive agent for the
Department of Defense to coordinate and integrate research,
development, test, and evaluation, and acquisition,
requirements of the military departments for chemical and
biological warfare defense programs of the Department of
Defense.
(2) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency may conduct a program of basic and applied research and
advanced technology development on chemical and biological
warfare defense technologies and systems. In conducting such
program, the Director shall seek to avoid unnecessary
duplication of the activities under the program with chemical
and biological warfare defense activities of the military
departments and defense agencies and shall coordinate the
activities under the program with those of the military
departments and defense agencies.
(d) Funding.--(1) The budget for the Department of Defense
for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1994 shall reflect a
coordinated and integrated chemical and biological defense
program for the [military departments] Department of Defense.
(2) Funding requests for the program (other than for
activities under the program conducted by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency under subsection (c)(2)) shall be set
forth in the budget of the Department of Defense for each
fiscal year as a separate account, with a single program
element for each of the categories of research, development,
test, and evaluation, acquisition, and military construction.
Amounts for military construction projects may be set forth in
the annual military construction budget. Funds for military
construction for the program in the military construction
budget shall be set forth separately from other funds for
military construction projects. Funding requests for the
program may not be included in the budget accounts of the
military departments.
(3) The program conducted by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency under subsection (c)(2) shall be set forth as a
separate program element in the budget of that agency.
[(3)] (4) All funding requirements for the chemical and
biological defense program shall be reviewed by the Secretary
of the Army as executive agent pursuant to subsection (c).
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3153. BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REPORTS.
(a) * * *
(b) [Annual] Biennial Waste Management Reports.--(1) * * *
(2) Reports required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted
as follows:
(A) The initial report shall be submitted not later
than June 1, 1995.
(B) A report after the initial report shall be
submitted in each odd-numbered year after 1995, not
later than 30 days after the date on which the
President submits to the Congress the budget for the
fiscal year beginning in that year.
* * * * * * *
(d) [Annual] Biennial Status and Variance Reports.--(1)(A) *
* *
(B) A report under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted in
1995 and [in each year thereafter] in each odd-numbered year
thereafter during which the Secretary of Energy conducts
environmental restoration and waste management activities, not
later than 30 days after the date on which the President
submits to the Congress the budget for the fiscal year
beginning in that year.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--General Military Law
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1--DEFINITIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 101. Definitions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Duty Status.--The following definitions relating to duty
status apply in this title:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The term ``active status'' means the status of [a
reserve commissioned officer, other than a commissioned
warrant officer] a member of a reserve component, who
is not in the inactive Army National Guard or inactive
Air National Guard, on an inactive status list, or in
the Retired Reserve.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 114. Annual authorization of appropriations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) In each budget submitted by the President to Congress
under section 1105 of title 31, amounts requested for
procurement of ammunition for the Navy and Marine Corps, and
for procurement of ammunition for the Air Force, shall be set
forth separately from other amounts requested for procurement.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 129. Prohibition of certain civilian personnel management
constraints
(a) The civilian personnel of the Department of Defense shall
be managed each fiscal year solely on the basis of and
consistent with (1) the workload required to carry out the
functions and activities of the department and (2) the funds
made available to the department for such fiscal year. The
management of such personnel in any fiscal year shall not be
subject to any constraint or limitation in terms of man years,
end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number
of employees. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of
the military departments may not be required to make a
reduction in the number of full-time equivalent positions in
the Department of Defense unless such reduction is necessary
due to a reduction in funds available to the Department or is
required under a law that is enacted after [the date of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996] February 10, 1996, and that refers specifically to
this subsection.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 6--COMBATANT COMMANDS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 162. Combatant commands: assigned forces; chain of command
(a) Assignment of Forces.--(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), the Secretaries of the military departments
shall assign all forces under their jurisdiction to unified and
specified combatant commands or to the United States element of
the [North American Air Defense Command] North American
Aerospace Defense Command to perform missions assigned to those
commands. Such assignments shall be made as directed by the
Secretary of Defense, including direction as to the command to
which forces are to be assigned. The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that such assignments are consistent with the force
structure prescribed by the President for each combatant
command.
(2) Except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense,
forces to be assigned by the Secretaries of the military
departments to the combatant commands or to the United States
element of the [North American Air Defense Command] North
American Aerospace Defense Command under paragraph (1) do not
include forces assigned to carry out functions of the Secretary
of a military department listed in sections 3013(b), 5013(b),
and 8013(b) of this title or forces assigned to multinational
peacekeeping organizations.
(3) A force assigned to a combatant command or to the United
States element of the [North American Air Defense Command]
North American Aerospace Defense Command under this section may
be transferred from the command to which it is assigned only--
(A) by authority of the Secretary of Defense; and
(B) under procedures prescribed by the Secretary and
approved by the President.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 172. Ammunition storage board
(a) The Secretaries of the military departments, acting
through [a joint board of officers selected by them] a joint
board selected by them composed of officers, civilian officers
and employees of the Department of Defense, or both, shall keep
informed on stored supplies of ammunition and components
thereof for use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps,
with particular regard to keeping those supplies properly
dispersed and stored and to preventing hazardous conditions
from arising to endanger life and property inside or outside of
storage reservations.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 20--HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 401. Humanitarian and civic assistance provided in conjunction
with military operations
(a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no member of
the [Armed Forces] armed forces, while providing assistance
under this section that is described in subsection (e)(5)--
(A) engages in the physical detection, lifting, or
destroying of landmines (unless the member does so for
the concurrent purpose of supporting a United States
military operation); or
(B) provides such assistance as part of a military
operation that does not involve the [Armed Forces]
armed forces.
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) Expenses incurred as a direct result of providing
humanitarian and civic assistance under this section to a
foreign country shall be paid for out of funds specifically
appropriated for such purpose.
(2) In the case of assistance described in subsection (e)(5),
expenses that may be paid out of funds appropriated pursuant to
paragraph (1) include--
(A) expenses for travel, transportation, and
subsistence of members of the armed forces
participating in activities described in that
subsection; and
(B) the cost of equipment, supplies, and services
acquired for the purpose of carrying out or directly
supporting activities described in that subsection.
[(2)] (3) Nothing in this section may be interpreted to
preclude the incurring of minimal expenditures by the
Department of Defense for purposes of humanitarian and civic
assistance out of funds other than funds appropriated pursuant
to paragraph (1), except that funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense for operation and maintenance (other than
funds appropriated pursuant to such paragraph) may be obligated
for humanitarian and civic assistance under this section only
for incidental costs of carrying out such assistance.
* * * * * * *
(e) In this section, the term ``humanitarian and civic
assistance'' means any of the following:
(1) Medical, dental, and veterinary care provided in
rural areas of a country.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 22--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec.
[451. Racial and ethnic issues; biennial survey; biennial report.]
451. Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group activity:
annual survey and report.
452. Quarterly readiness reports.
[Sec. 451. Racial and ethnic issues; biennial survey; biennial report
[(a) Biennial Survey.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry
out a biennial survey to measure the state of racial and ethnic
issues and discrimination among members of the armed forces
serving on active duty. The survey shall solicit information on
the race relations climate in the armed forces, including--
[(1) indicators of positive and negative trends of
relations between all racial and ethnic groups;
[(2) the effectiveness of Department of Defense
policies designed to improve race and ethnic relations;
and
[(3) the effectiveness of current processes for
complaints on and investigations into racial and ethnic
discrimination.
[(b) Implementing Entity.--The Secretary shall carry out each
biennial survey through the entity in the Department of Defense
known as the Armed Forces Survey on Race/Ethnic Issues.
[(c) Reports to Congress.--Upon completion of each biennial
survey under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report containing the results of the survey.]
Sec. 451. Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group
activity: annual survey and report
(a) Annual Survey.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out
an annual survey to measure the state of racial, ethnic, and
gender issues and discrimination among members of the armed
forces serving on active duty and the extent (if any) of
activity among such members that may be seen as so-called
``hate group'' activity. The survey shall solicit information
on the race relations and gender relations climate in the armed
forces, including--
(1) indicators of positive and negative trends of
relations among all racial and ethnic groups and
between the sexes;
(2) the effectiveness of Department of Defense
policies designed to improve race, ethnic, and gender
relations; and
(3) the effectiveness of current processes for
complaints on and investigations into racial, ethnic,
and gender discrimination.
(b) Implementing Entity.--The Secretary shall carry out each
annual survey through the entity in the Department of Defense
known as the Armed Forces Survey on Race/Ethnic Issues.
(c) Reports to Congress.--Upon completion of biennial survey
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report containing the results of the survey.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 31--ENLISTMENTS
Sec.
501. Definition.
502. Enlistment oath: who may administer.
503. Enlistments: recruiting campaigns; compilation of directory
information.
* * * * * * *
520c. Recruiting functions: use of funds.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 505. Regular components: qualifications, term, grade
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) The Secretary concerned may accept reenlistments in the
Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine
Corps, or Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, for period
of at least two but not more than six years. No enlisted member
is entitled to be reenlisted for a period that would expire
before the end of his current enlistment.]
(d)(1) For a member with less than 10 years of service, the
Secretary concerned may accept a reenlistment in the Regular
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or
Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, for periods of at
least two but not more than six years.
(2) At the discretion of the Secretary concerned, a member
with 10 or more years of service who reenlists in the Regular
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or
Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, and who meets all
qualifications for continued service, may be accepted for
reenlistment of an unspecified period of time.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 513. Enlistments: Delayed Entry Program
(a) * * *
(b) Unless sooner ordered to active duty under chapter 39 of
this title or another provision of law, a person enlisted under
subsection (a) shall, within 365 days after such enlistment, be
discharged from the reserve component in which enlisted and
immediately be enlisted in the regular component of an armed
force. The Secretary concerned may extend the 365-day period
for any person for up to an additional 180 days if the
Secretary considers such extension to be warranted on a case-
by-case basis. During the period beginning on the date on which
the person enlists under subsection (a) and ending on the date
on which the person is enlisted in a regular component under
[the preceding sentence] under this subsection, the person
shall be in the Ready Reserve of the armed force concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 520c. Recruiting functions: use of funds
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be expended
for small meals and snacks during recruiting functions for the
following persons:
(1) Persons who have entered the Delayed Entry
Program under section 513 of this title and other
persons who are the subject of recruiting efforts.
(2) Persons in communities who assist the military
departments in recruiting efforts.
(3) Military or civilian personnel whose attendance
at such functions is mandatory.
(4) Other persons whose presence at recruiting
functions will contribute to recruiting efforts.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 32--OFFICER STRENGTH AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 523. Authorized strengths: commissioned officers on active duty in
grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel
and Navy grades of lieutenant commander, commander,
and captain
(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (c), of the total
number of commissioned officers serving on active duty in the
Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps at the end of any fiscal year
(excluding officers in categories specified in subsection (b)),
the number of officers who may be serving on active duty in
each of the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel
may not, as of the end of such fiscal year, exceed a number
determined in accordance with the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of officers who may be serving
[Total number of commissioned on active duty in the grade of:
officers (excluding officers in ---------------------------------------
categories specified in Lieutenant
subsection (b)) on active duty: Major Colonel Colonel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
60,000........................ 11,580 7,941 3,080
65,000........................ 12,271 8,330 3,264
70,000........................ 12,963 8,718 3,447
75,000........................ 13,654 9,107 3,631
80,000........................ 14,346 9,495 3,814
85,000........................ 15,037 9,884 3,997
90,000........................ 15,729 10,272 4,181
95,000........................ 16,420 10,661 4,364
100,000....................... 17,112 11,049 4,548
110,000....................... 18,495 11,826 4,915
120,000....................... 19,878 12,603 5,281
130,000....................... 21,261 13,380 5,648
170,000....................... 26,793 16,488 7,116
Air Force:
70,000........................ 13,530 9,428 3,392
75,000........................ 14,266 9,801 3,573
80,000........................ 15,002 10,175 3,754
85,000........................ 15,738 10,549 3,935
90,000........................ 16,474 10,923 4,115
95,000........................ 17,210 11,297 4,296
100,000....................... 17,946 11,671 4,477
105,000....................... 18,682 12,045 4,658
110,000....................... 19,418 12,418 4,838
115,000....................... 20,154 12,792 5,019
120,000....................... 20,890 13,165 5,200
125,000....................... 21,626 13,539 5,381
Marine Corps:
12,500........................ 2,499 1,388 592
15,000........................ 2,766 1,483 613
17,500........................ 3,085 1,579 633
20,000........................ 3,404 1,674 654
22,500........................ 3,723 1,770 675
25,000........................ 4,042 1,865 695]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of officers who may be serving on
active duty in the grade of:
Total number of commissioned officers (excluding officers in -----------------------------------------------
categories specified in subsection (b)) on active duty: Lieutenant
Major Colonel Colonel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:
35,000........................................................ 8,922 6,419 2,163
40,000........................................................ 9,614 6,807 2,347
45,000........................................................ 10,305 7,196 2,530
50,000........................................................ 10,997 7,584 2,713
55,000........................................................ 11,688 7,973 2,897
60,000........................................................ 12,380 8,361 3,080
65,000........................................................ 13,071 8,750 3,264
70,000........................................................ 13,763 9,138 3,447
75,000........................................................ 14,454 9,527 3,631
80,000........................................................ 15,146 9,915 3,814
85,000........................................................ 15,837 10,304 3,997
90,000........................................................ 16,529 10,692 4,181
95,000........................................................ 17,220 11,081 4,364
100,000....................................................... 17,912 11,469 4,548
110,000....................................................... 19,295 12,246 4,915
120,000....................................................... 20,678 13,023 5,281
130,000....................................................... 22,061 13,800 5,648
170,000....................................................... 27,593 16,908 7,116
Air Force:
35,000........................................................ 9,216 7,090 2,125
40,000........................................................ 10,025 7,478 2,306
45,000........................................................ 10,835 7,866 2,487
50,000........................................................ 11,645 8,253 2,668
55,000........................................................ 12,454 8,641 2,849
60,000........................................................ 13,264 9,029 3,030
65,000........................................................ 14,073 9,417 3,211
70,000........................................................ 14,883 9,805 3,392
75,000........................................................ 15,693 10,193 3,573
80,000........................................................ 16,502 10,582 3,754
85,000........................................................ 17,312 10,971 3,935
90,000........................................................ 18,121 11,360 4,115
95,000........................................................ 18,931 11,749 4,296
100,000....................................................... 19,741 12,138 4,477
105,000....................................................... 20,550 12,527 4,658
110,000....................................................... 21,360 12,915 4,838
115,000....................................................... 22,169 13,304 5,019
120,000....................................................... 22,979 13,692 5,200
125,000....................................................... 23,789 14,081 5,381
Marine Corps:
10,000........................................................ 2,525 1,480 571
12,500........................................................ 2,900 1,600 592
15,000........................................................ 3,275 1,720 613
17,500........................................................ 3,650 1,840 633
20,000........................................................ 4,025 1,960 654
22,500........................................................ 4,400 2,080 675
25,000........................................................ 4,775 2,200 695
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Except as provided in subsection (c), of the total number
of commissioned officers serving on active duty in the Navy at
the end of any fiscal year (excluding officers in categories
specified in subsection (b)), the number of officers who may be
serving on active duty in each of the grades of lieutenant
commander, commander, and captain may not, as of the end of
such fiscal year, exceed a number determined in accordance with
the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of officers who may be serving
[Total number of commissioned on active duty in grade of:
officers (excluding officers in ----------------------------------------
categories specified in Lieutenant
subsection (b)) on active duty: Commander Commander Captain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
45,000....................... 9,124 5,776 2,501
48,000....................... 9,565 5,984 2,602
51,000....................... 10,006 6,190 2,702
54,000....................... 10,447 6,398 2,803
57,000....................... 10,888 6,606 2,904
60,000....................... 11,329 6,813 3,005
63,000....................... 11,770 7,020 3,106
66,000....................... 12,211 7,227 3,206
70,000....................... 12,799 7,504 3,341
90,000....................... 15,739 8,886 4,013]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of officers who may be serving on
active duty in grade of:
Total number of commissioned officers (excluding officers in -----------------------------------------------
categories specified in subsection (b)) on active duty: Lieutenant
Commander Commander Captain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
30,000........................................................ 7,331 5,018 2,116
33,000........................................................ 7,799 5,239 2,223
36,000........................................................ 8,267 5,460 2,330
39,000........................................................ 8,735 5,681 2,437
42,000........................................................ 9,203 5,902 2,544
45,000........................................................ 9,671 6,123 2,651
48,000........................................................ 10,139 6,343 2,758
51,000........................................................ 10,606 6,561 2,864
54,000........................................................ 11,074 6,782 2,971
57,000........................................................ 11,541 7,002 3,078
60,000........................................................ 12,009 7,222 3,185
63,000........................................................ 12,476 7,441 3,292
66,000........................................................ 12,944 7,661 3,398
70,000........................................................ 13,567 7,954 3,541
90,000........................................................ 16,683 9,419 4,254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 528. Limitation on number of officers on active duty in grades of
general and admiral
(a) Limitation.--The total number of officers on active duty
in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps in the grade of
general and in the Navy in the grade of admiral may not exceed
32.
(b)[(1)] Exceptions.--(1) The limitation in subsection (a)
does not apply in the case of an officer serving in the grade
of general or admiral in a position that is specifically
exempted by law from being counted for purposes of limitations
by law on the total number of officers that may be on active
duty in the grades of general and admiral or the number of
officers that may be on active duty in that officer's armed
force in the grade of general or admiral.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 33--ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS OF REGULAR OFFICERS IN GRADES ABOVE
WARRANT OFFICER GRADES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 532. Qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned
officer
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) After September 30, 1996, no person may receive an
original appointment as a commissioned officer in the Regular
Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps
until that person has completed one year of service on active
duty as a commissioned officer (other than a warrant officer)
of a reserve component.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROMOTION, SEPARATION,
AND RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 641. Applicability of chapter
Officers in the following categories are not subject to this
chapter (other than section 640 and, in the case of warrant
officers, section 628):
(1) Reserve officers--
(A) on active duty for training;
(B) on active duty under section 3038, 5143,
5144, 8038, 10211, 10301 through 10305, 10502,
10505, 10506(a), 10506(b), 10507, or 12402 of
this title or section 708 of title 32;
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 38--JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 662. Promotion policy objectives for joint officers
(a) * * *
(b) [Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall periodically
(and not less often than every six months) report to Congress
on the promotion rates] Annual Report.--Not later than January
1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report on the promotion rates during the preceding
fiscal year of officers who are serving in, or have served in,
joint duty assignments, especially with respect to the record
of officer selection boards in meeting the objectives of
[clauses] paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a). If
such promotion rates fail to meet such objectives for any
fiscal year, the Secretary shall include in the [periodic
report required by this subsection] report for that fiscal year
information on such failure and on what action the Secretary
has taken or plans to take to prevent further failures.
Sec. 663. Education
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Post-Education Joint Duty Assignments.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The Secretary of Defense may exclude from the
requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) an officer who is a member
of an Acquisition Corps established pursuant to 1731 of this
title if the officer--
(A) has graduated from a senior level course of
instruction designed for personnel serving in critical
acquisition positions; and
(B) is assigned, upon graduation, to a critical
acquisition position designated pursuant to section
1733 of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional
contingencies
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) No funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may
be used to implement a reduction of the active duty end
strength for any of the armed forces for any fiscal year below
the level specified in subsection (b) unless the Secretary of
Defense submits to Congress notice of the proposed lower end
strength levels and a justification for those levels. No action
may then be taken to implement such a reduction for that fiscal
year until the end of the six-month period beginning on the
date of the receipt of such notice by Congress.]
(c) The budget for the Department of Defense for any fiscal
year as submitted to Congress shall include amounts for funding
for each of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) at
least in the amounts necessary to maintain the active duty end
strengths prescribed in subsection (b), as in effect at the
time that such budget is submitted.
(d) No funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be
used to implement a reduction of the active duty end strength
for any of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) for
any fiscal year below the level specified in subsection (b)
unless the reduction in end strength for that armed force for
that fiscal year is specifically authorized by law.
[(d)] (e) For a fiscal year for which the active duty end
strength authorized by law pursuant to section 115(a)(1)(A) of
this title for any of the armed forces is identical to the
number applicable to that armed force under subsection (b), the
Secretary of Defense may reduce that number by not more than
0.5 percent.
[(e)] (f) The number of members of the armed forces on active
duty shall be counted for purposes of this section in the same
manner as applies under section 115(a)(1) of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 45--THE UNIFORM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 772. When wearing by persons not on active duty authorized
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) While attending a course of military instruction
conducted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, a
civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by that armed force if
the wear of such uniform is specifically authorized under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military
department concerned.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 820. Art. 20. Jurisdiction of summary courts-martial
(a) Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17),
summary courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject
to this chapter, except officers, cadets, aviation cadets, and
midshipmen, for any noncapital offense made punishable by this
chapter. [No person with respect to whom summary courts-martial
have jurisdiction may be brought to trial before a summary
court-martial if he objects thereto. If objection to trial by
summary court-martial is made by an accused, trial may be
ordered by special or general court-martial as may be
appropriate.]
(b) An accused with respect to whom summary courts-martial
have jurisdiction may not be brought to trial before a summary
court-martial if the accused objects thereto. If an accused so
objects to trial by summary court-martial, the convening
authority may order trial by special or general court-martial,
as may be appropriate.
(c) Summary courts-martial may, under such limitations as the
President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden
by this chapter except death, dismissal, dishonorable or bad-
conduct discharge, confinement for more than one month, hard-
labor without confinement for more than 45 days, restriction to
specified limits for more than two months, or forfeiture of
more than two-thirds of one month's pay.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VII--TRIAL PROCEDURE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 854. Art. 54. Record of trial
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) A [complete record of the proceedings and testimony]
verbatim record of the proceedings shall be prepared--
(A) in each general court-martial case in which the
sentence adjudged includes death, a dismissal, a
discharge, or (if the sentence adjudged does not
include a discharge) any other punishment which exceeds
that which may otherwise be adjudged by a special
court-martial; and
(B) in each special court-martial case in which the
sentence adjudged includes a bad-conduct discharge.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER XII--UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 943. Art. 143. Organization and employees
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Status of Attorney and Certain Other Positions.--(1)
Attorney positions of employment under the Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces and non-attorney positions on the personal
staff of a judge are excepted from the competitive service.
Appointments to such positions shall be made by the court,
without the concurrence of any other officer or employee of the
executive branch, in the same manner as appointments are made
to other executive branch positions of a confidential or
policy-determining character for which it is not practicable to
examine or to hold a competitive examination. Such positions
shall not be counted as positions of that character for
purposes of any limitation on the number of positions of that
character provided in law.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1044. Legal assistance
(a) Subject to the availability of legal staff resources, the
Secretary concerned may provide legal assistance in connection
with their personal civil legal affairs [to--] to the following
persons:
(1) [members] Members of the armed forces [under his
jurisdiction] who are on active duty[;].
(2) [members] Members and former members [under his
jurisdiction] entitled to retired or retainer pay or
equivalent pay[; and].
[(3) dependents of members and former members
described in clauses (1) and (2).]
(3) Officers of the commissioned corps of the Public
Health Service who are on active duty or entitled to
retired or equivalent pay.
(4) Dependents of members and former members
described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(b) Under such regulations as may be prescribed by the
Secretary concerned, the Judge Advocate General (as defined in
section 801(1) of this title) under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary is responsible for the establishment and supervision
of legal assistance programs under this section.
(c) This section does not authorize legal counsel to be
provided to represent a member or former member of the [armed
forces] uniformed services described in subsection (a), or the
dependent of such a member or former member, in a legal
proceeding if the member or former member can afford legal fees
for such representation without undue hardship.
(d) The Secretary concerned shall define ``dependent'' for
the purposes of this section.
Sec. 1044a. Authority to act as notary
(a) * * *
(b) Persons with the powers described in subsection (a) are
the following:
(1) All judge advocates [on active duty or performing
inactive-duty training], including reserve judge
advocates not on active duty.
(2) All civilian attorneys serving as legal
assistance officers.
(3) All adjutants, assistant adjutants, and personnel
[adjutants on active duty or performing inactive-duty
training] adjutants, including reserve members not on
active duty.
(4) All other [persons on active duty or performing
inactive-duty training] members of the armed forces,
including reserve members not on active duty, who are
designated by regulations of the armed forces or by
statute to have those powers.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
Sec.
1071. Purpose of this chapter.
* * * * * * *
[1074a. Medical and dental care: members on duty other than active
duty for a period of more than 30 days.]
1074a. Medical and dental care: reserve component members in a duty
status.
* * * * * * *
1079a. CHAMPUS: treatment of refunds and other amounts collected.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1074. Medical and dental care for members and certain former
members
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d)(1) The Secretary of Defense may require, by regulation,
a private CHAMPUS provider to apply the CHAMPUS payment rules
(subject to any modifications considered appropriate by the
Secretary) in imposing charges for health care that the private
CHAMPUS provider provides to a member of the uniformed services
who is enrolled in a health care plan of a facility deemed to
be a facility of the uniformed services under section 911(a) of
the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C.
248c(a)) when the health care is provided outside the catchment
area of the facility.
[(2) In this subsection:
[(A) The term ``private CHAMPUS provider'' means a
private facility or health care provider that is a
health care provider under the Civilian Health and
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services.
[(B) The term ``CHAMPUS payment rules'' means the
payment rules referred to in subsection (c).
[(3) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
under this subsection after consultation with the other
administering Secretaries.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1074a. Medical and dental care: members on duty other than active
duty for a period of more than 30 days
[(a) Under joint regulations prescribed by the administering
Secretaries, the following persons are entitled to the benefits
described in subsection (b):
[(1) Each member of a uniformed service who incurs or
aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
of duty while performing--
[(A) active duty for a period of 30 days or
less; or
[(B) inactive-duty training.
[(2) Each member of a uniformed service who incurs or
aggravates an injury, illness, or disease while
traveling directly to or from the place at which that
member is to perform or has performed--
[(A) active duty for a period of 30 days or
less; or
[(B) inactive-duty training.
[(3) Each member of the armed forces who incurs or
aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
of duty while remaining overnight, between successive
periods of inactive-duty training, at or in the
vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training, if
the site is outside reasonable commuting distance from
the member's residence.
[(b) A person described in subsection (a) is entitled to--
[(1) the medical and dental care appropriate for the
treatment of the injury, illness, or disease of that
person until the resulting disability cannot be
materially improved by further hospitalization or
treatment; and
[(2) subsistence during hospitalization.
[(c) A member is not entitled to benefits under subsection
(b) if the injury, illness, or disease, or aggravation of an
injury, illness, or disease described in subsection (a)(2), is
the result of the gross negligence or misconduct of the member.
[(d)(1) The Secretary of the Army shall provide to members of
the Selected Reserve of the Army who are assigned to units
scheduled for deployment within 75 days after mobilization the
following medical and dental services:
[(A) An annual medical screening.
[(B) For members who are over 40 years of age, a full
physical examination not less often than once every two
years.
[(C) An annual dental screening.
[(D) The dental care identified in an annual dental
screening as required to ensure that a member meets the
dental standards required for deployment in the event
of mobilization.
[(2) The services provided under this subsection shall be
provided at no cost to the member.]
Sec. 1074a. Medical and dental care: reserve component members in a
duty status
(a) Health Care Described.--A person described in subsection
(b) is entitled to the medical and dental care appropriate for
the treatment of the injury, illness, or disease of the person
until the person completes treatment and is physically able to
resume the military duties of the person or has completed
processing in accordance with chapter 61 of this title.
(b) Members Entitled to Care.--Under joint regulations
prescribed by the administering Secretaries, the following
persons are entitled to the benefits described in this section:
(1) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or
aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
of duty while performing--
(A) active duty, including active duty for
training and annual training duty, or full-time
National Guard duty; or
(B) inactive-duty training, regardless of
whether the member is in a pay or nonpay
status.
(2) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or
aggravates an injury, illness, or disease while
traveling directly to or from the place at which that
member is to perform or has performed--
(A) active duty, including active duty for
training and annual training duty, or full-time
National Guard duty, or
(B) inactive-duty training, regardless of
whether the member is in a pay or nonpay
status.
(3) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or
aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
of duty while remaining overnight, between successive
periods of inactive-duty training, at or in the
vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training, if
the site of inactive-duty training is outside
reasonable commuting distance from the member's
residence.
(c) Additional Benefits.--(1) At the request of a person
described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A) of subsection (b), the
person may continue on active duty or full-time National Guard
duty during any period of hospitalization resulting from the
injury, illness, or disease.
(2) A person described in subsection (b) is entitled to the
pay and allowances authorized in accordance with subsections
(g) and (h) of section 204 of title 37.
(d) Limitation.--A person described in subsection (b) is not
entitled to benefits under this section if the injury, illness,
or disease, or aggravation of the injury, illness, or disease,
is the result of the gross negligence or misconduct of the
person.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1078a. Continued health benefits coverage
(a) Provision of Continued Health Coverage.--[Beginning on
October 1, 1994, the] The Secretary of Defense shall implement
and carry out a program of continued health benefits coverage
in accordance with this section to provide persons described in
subsection (b) with temporary health benefits comparable to the
health benefits provided for former civilian employees of the
Federal Government and other persons under section 8905a of
title 5.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: plans
(a) To assure that medical care is available for dependents,
as described in subparagraphs (A), (D), and (I) of section
1072(2) of this title, of members of the uniformed services who
are on active duty for a period of more than 30 days, the
Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the other
administering Secretaries, shall contract, under the authority
of this section, for medical care for those persons under such
insurance, medical service, or health plans as he considers
appropriate. The types of health care authorized under this
section shall be the same as those provided under section 1076
of this title, [except that--] except as follows:
(1) [with] With respect to dental care, only that
care required as a necessary adjunct to medical or
surgical treatment may be provided[;].
(2) [consistent] Consistent with such regulations as
the Secretary of Defense may prescribe regarding the
content of health promotion and disease prevention
visits, the schedule of pap smears and mammograms, and
the types and schedule of immunizations--
(A) for dependents under six years of age,
both health promotion and disease prevention
visits and immunizations may be provided; and
(B) for dependents six years of age or older,
health promotion and disease prevention visits
may be provided in connection with
immunizations or with diagnostic or preventive
pap smears and mammograms[;].
(3) [not] Not more than one eye examination may be
provided to a patient in any calendar year[;].
(4) [under] Under joint regulations to be prescribed
by the administering Secretaires, the services of
Christian Science practitioners and nurses and services
obtained in Christian Science sanatoriums may be
provided[;].
(5) [durable] Durable equipment, such as wheelchairs,
iron lungs and hospital beds may be provided on a
rental basis[;].
(6) [inpatient] Inpatient mental health services may
not (except as provided in subsection (i)) be provided
to a patient in excess of--
(A) 30 days in any year, in the case of a
patient 19 years of age or older;
(B) 45 days in any year, in the case of a
patient under 19 years of age; or
(C) 150 days in any year, in the case of
inpatient mental health services provided as
residential treatment care[;].
(7) [services] Services in connection with
nonemergency inpatient hospital care may not be
provided if such services are available at a facility
of the uniformed services located within a 40-mile
radius of the residence of the patient, except that
those services may be provided in any case in which
another insurance plan or program provides primary
coverage for those services[;].
(8) [services] Services of pastoral counselors,
family and child counselors, or marital counselors
(other than certified marriage and family therapists)
may not be provided unless the patient has been
referred to the counselor by a medical doctor for
treatment of a specific problem with the results of
that treatment to be communicated back to the medical
doctor who made the referral and services of certified
marriage and family therapists may be provided
consistent with such rules as may be prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, including credentialing criteria
and a requirement that the therapists accept payment
under this section as full payment for all services
provided[;].
(9) [special] Special education may not be provided,
except when provided as secondary to the active
psychiatric treatment on an institutional inpatient
basis[;].
(10) [therapy] Therapy or counseling for sexual
dysfunctions or sexual inadequacies may not be
provided[;].
(11) [treatment] Treatment of obesity may not be
provided if obesity is the sole or major condition
treated[;].
(12) [surgery] Surgery which improves physical
appearance but is not expected to significantly restore
functions (including mammary augmentation, face lifts,
and sex gender changes) may not be provided, except
that--
(A) breast reconstructive surgery following a
mastectomy may be provided;
(B) reconstructive surgery to correct serious
deformities caused by congenital anomalies or
accidental injuries may be provided; and
(C) neoplastic surgery may be provided[;].
(13) [any] Any service or supply which is not
medically or psychologically necessary to prevent,
diagnose, or treat a mental or physical illness,
injury, or bodily malfunction as assessed or diagnosed
by a physician, dentist, clinical psychologist,
certified marriage and family therapist, optometrist,
podiatrist, certified nurse-midwife, certified nurse
practitioner, or certified clinical social worker, as
appropriate, may not be provided, except as authorized
in paragraph (4)[;]. Pursuant to an agreement with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and under such
regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe,
the Secretary of Defense may waive the operation of
this paragraph in connection with clinical trials
sponsored or approved by the National Institutes of
Health if the Secretary of Defense determines that such
a waiver will promote access by covered beneficiaries
to promising new treatments and contribute to the
development of such treatments.
(14) [the] The prohibition contained in section
1077(b)(3) of this title shall not apply in the case of
a member or former member of the uniformed services[;].
(15) [electronic] Electronic cardio-respiratory home
monitoring equipment (apnea monitors) for home use may
be provided if a physician prescribes and supervises
the use of the monitor for an infant)--
(A) who has had an apparent life-threatening
event,
(B) who is a subsequent sibling of a victim
of sudden infant death syndrome,
(C) whose birth weight was 1,500 grams or
less, or
(D) who is a pre-term infant with pathologic
apnea,
in which case the coverage may include the cost of the
equipment, hard copy analysis of physiological alarms,
professional visits, diagnostic testing, family
training on how to respond to apparent life threatening
events, and assistance necessary for proper use of the
equipment[;].
(16) [hospice] Hospice care may be provided only in
the manner and under the conditions provided in section
1861(dd) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(dd))[; and].
(17) [the] The Secretary of Defense may establish a
program for the individual case management of a person
covered by this section or section 1086 of this title
who has extraordinary medical or psychological
disorders and, under such a program, may waive benefit
limitations contained in paragraphs (5) and (13) of
this subsection or section 1077(b)(1) of this title and
authorize the payment for comprehensive home health
care services, supplies, and equipment if the Secretary
determines that such a waiver is cost-effective and
appropriate.
(b)(1) Plans covered by subsection (a) shall include
provisions for payment by the patient of the following amounts:
[(1)] (A) $25 for each admission to a hospital, or
the amount the patient would have been charged under
section 1078(a) of this title had the care being paid
for been obtained in a hospital of the uniformed
services, whichever amount is the greater. The
Secretary of Defense may exempt a patient from paying
such amount if the hospital to which the patient is
admitted does not impose a legal obligation on any of
its patients to pay for inpatient care.
[(2)] (B) Except as provided in [clause (3)]
subparagraph (C), the first $150 each fiscal year of
the charges for all types of care authorized by
subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient
status and 20 percent of all subsequent charges for
such care during a fiscal year. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, in the case of a dependent of an
enlisted member in a pay grade below E-5, the initial
deductible each fiscal year under this paragraph shall
be limited to $50.
[(3)] (C) A family group of two or more persons
covered by this section shall not be required to pay
collectively more than the first $300 (or in the case
of the family group of an enlisted member in a pay
grade below E-5, the first $100) each fiscal year of
the charges for all types of care authorized by
subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient
status and 20 percent of the additional charges for
such care during a fiscal year.
[(4)] (D) $25 for surgical care that is authorized by
subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient
status and that has been designated (under joint
regulations to be prescribed by the administering
Secretaries) as care to be treated as inpatient care
for purposes of this subsection. Any care for which
payment is made under [this clause] this subparagraph
shall not be considered to be care received while in an
outpatient status for purposes of [clauses (2) and (3)]
subparagraphs (B) and (C).
[(5)] (E) An individual or family group of two or
more persons covered by this section may not be
required by reason of this subsection to pay a total of
more than $1,000 for health care received during any
fiscal year under a plan under subsection (a).
(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive or reduce the
deductible amounts required by subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
paragraph (1) in the case of the dependents of a member of a
reserve component of the uniformed services who serves on
active duty in support of a contingency operation under a call
or order to active duty of less than one year.
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other
administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to
provide for such exceptions to the payment limitations under
paragraph (1) as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
assure that covered beneficiaries retain adequate access to
health care services. Such exceptions may include the payment
of amounts higher than the amount allowed under paragraph (1)
when enrollees in managed care programs obtain covered
[emergency] services from nonparticipating providers. To
provide a suitable transition from the payment methodologies in
effect before the date of the enactment of this paragraph to
the methodology required by paragraph (1), the amount allowable
for any service may not be reduced by more than 15 percent
below the amount allowed for the same service during the
immediately preceding 12-month period (or other period as
established by the Secretary of Defense).
(5) Except in an area in which the Secretary of Defense has
entered into an at-risk contract for the provision of health
care services, the Secretary may authorize the commander of a
facility of the uniformed services, the lead agent (if other
than the commander), and the health care contractor to modify
the payment limitations under paragraph (1) for certain health
care providers when necessary to ensure both the availability
of certain services for covered beneficiaries and costs lower
than standard CHAMPUS for the required services.
[(5)] (6) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to
establish limitations (similar to the limitations established
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq.)) on beneficiary liability for charges of an individual
health care professional (or other noninstitutional health care
provider).
* * * * * * *
(j)(1) A benefit may not be paid under a plan covered by this
section in the case of a person enrolled in, or covered by, any
other insurance, medical service, or health plan (including any
plan offered by a third-party payer (as defined in section
1095(h)(1) of this title)) to the extent that the benefit is
also a benefit under the other plan, except in the case of a
plan administered under title XIX of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1079a. CHAMPUS: treatment of refunds and other amounts collected
All refunds and other amounts collected in the administration
of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed
Services shall be credited to the appropriation supporting the
program in the year in which the amount is collected.
Sec. 1080. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children:
election of facilities
(a) Election.--A dependent covered by section 1079 of this
title may elect to receive inpatient medical care either in (1)
the facilities of the uniformed services, under the conditions
prescribed by sections 1076-1078 of this title, or (2) the
facilities provided under a plan contracted for under section
1079 of this title. However, under such regulations as the
Secretary of Defense, after consulting the other administering
Secretaries, may prescribe, the right to make this election may
be limited for dependents residing in the area where the member
concerned is assigned, if adequate medical facilities of the
uniformed services are available in that area for those
dependents.
(b) Issuance of [Nonavailability of Health Care Statements]
Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements.--In determining
whether to issue a [nonavailability of health care statement]
nonavailability of health care statement for a dependent
described in subsection (a), the commanding officer of a
facility of the uniformed services may consider the
availability of health care services for the dependent pursuant
to any contract or agreement entered into under this chapter
for the provision of health care services.
(c) Waivers and Exceptions to Requirements.--(1) A covered
beneficiary enrolled in a managed care plan offered pursuant to
any contract or agreement under this chapter for the provision
of health care services shall not be required to obtain a
nonavailability-of-health-care statement as a condition for the
receipt of health care.
(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement to
obtain nonavailability-of-health-care statements following an
evaluation of the effectiveness of such statements in
optimizing the use of facilities of the uniformed services.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1086. Contracts for health benefits for certain members, former
members, and their dependents
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) A person covered by this section may elect to receive
[benefits] inpatient medical care either in (1) Government
facilities, under the conditions prescribed in sections 1074
and 1076-1078 of this title, or (2) the facilities provided
under a plan contracted for under this section. However, under
joint regulations issued by the administering Secretaries, the
right to make this election may be limited for those persons
residing in an area where adequate facilities of the uniformed
service are available. In addition, [section 1080(b)]
subsections (b) and (c) of section 1080 of this title shall
apply in making the determination whether to issue a
nonavailability of health care statement for a person covered
by this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered
beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) Amounts collected under this section from a third-
party payer or under any other provision of law from any other
payer for the costs of health care services provided at or
through a facility of the uniformed services shall be credited
to the appropriation supporting the maintenance and operation
of the facility and shall not be taken into consideration in
establishing the operating budget of the facility.
* * * * * * *
(h) In this section:
(1) The term ``third-party payer'' means an entity
that provides an insurance, medical service, or health
plan by contract or agreement, including an automobile
liability insurance or no fault insurance carrier and a
workers' compensation program or plan. Such term also
includes entities described in subsection (j) under the
terms and to the extent provided in such subsection.
(2) The term ``insurance, medical service, or health
plan'' includes a preferred provider organization
[and], an insurance plan described as Medicare
supplemental insurance, and personal injury protection
or medical payments benefits in cases involving
personal injuries resulting from operation of a motor
vehicle.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 59--SEPARATION
Sec.
1161. Commissioned officers: limitations on dismissal.
* * * * * * *
1177. Members infected with HIV-1 virus: mandatory discharge or
retirement.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1161. Commissioned officers: limitations on dismissal
(a) * * *
(b) The President may drop from the rolls of any armed force
any commissioned officer (1) who has been absent without
authority for at least three months, (2) who may be separated
under [section 1178] section 1167 of this title by reason of a
sentence to confinement adjudged by a court-martial, or (3) who
is sentenced to confinement in a Federal or State penitentiary
or correctional institution after having been found guilty of
an offense by a court other than a court-martial or other
military court, and whose sentence has become final.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1167. Members under confinement by sentence of court-martial:
separation after six months confinement
Except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, a member sentenced by a court-martial to
a period of confinement for more than six months may be
separated from the member's armed force at any time after the
sentence to confinement has become final under chapter 47 of
this title and the [person] member has served in confinement
for a period of six months.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1177. Members infected with HIV-1 virus: mandatory discharge or
retirement
(a) Mandatory Separation.--(1) A member of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, or Marine Corps who is HIV-positive and who on the
date on which the medical determination is made that the member
is HIV-positive has less than 15 years of creditable service
shall be separated. Such separation shall be made on a date
determined by the Secretary concerned, which shall be as soon
as practicable after the date on which the medical
determination is made that the member is HIV-positive and not
later than the last day of the second month beginning after
such date.
(2) In determining the years of creditable service of a
member for purposes of paragraph (1)--
(A) in the case of a member on active duty or full-
time National Guard duty, the member's years of
creditable service are the number of years of service
of the member as computed for the purpose of
determining the member's eligibility for retirement
under any provision of law (other than chapter 61 or
1223 of this title); and
(B) in the case of a member in an active status, the
member's years of creditable service are the number of
years of service creditable to the member under section
12732 of this title.
(b) Form of Separation.--The characterization of the service
of the member shall be determined without regard to the
determination that the member is HIV-positive.
(c) Separation To Be Considered Involuntary.--A separation
under this section shall be considered to be an involuntary
separation for purposes of any other provision of law.
(d) Counseling About Available Medical Care.--A member to be
separated under this section shall be provided information, in
writing, before such separation of the available medical care
(through the Department of Veterans Affairs and otherwise) to
treat the member's condition. Such information shall include
identification of specific medical locations near the member's
home of record or point of discharge at which the member may
seek necessary medical care.
(e) HIV-Positive Members.--A member shall be considered to be
HIV-positive for purposes of this section if there is serologic
evidence that the member is infected with the virus known as
Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1), the virus most commonly
associated with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
in the United States. Such serologic evidence shall be
considered to exist if there is a reactive result given by an
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) serologic test that
is confirmed by a reactive and diagnostic immunoelectrophoresis
test (Western blot) on two separate samples. Any such serologic
test must be one that is approved by the Food and Drug
Administration.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY
* * * * * * *
[SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
[Sec.
[1447. Definitions.
[1448. Application of Plan.
[1449. Mental incompetency of member.
[1450. Payment of annuity: beneficiaries.
[1451. Amount of annuity.
[1452. Reduction in retired pay.
[1453. Recovery of annuity erroneously paid.
[1454. Correction of administrative errors.
[1455. Regulations.
[Sec. 1447. Definitions
[In this subchapter:
[(1) The term ``Plan'' means the Survivor Benefit Plan
established by this subchapter.
[(2) The term ``base amount'' means--
[(A) in the case of a person who dies after becoming
entitled to retired pay, the amount of monthly retired
pay (determined without regard to any reduction under
section 1409(b)(2) of this title) to which the person--
[(i) was entitled when he became eligible for
that pay; or
[(ii) later became entitled by being advanced
on the retired list, performing active duty, or
being transferred from the temporary disability
retired list to the permanent disability
retired list;
[(B) in the case of a person who would have become
eligible for reserve-component retired pay but for the
fact that he died before becoming 60 years of age, the
amount of monthly retired pay for which the person
would have been eligible--
[(i) if he had been 60 years of age on the
date of his death, for purposes of an annuity
to become effective on the day after his death
in accordance with a designation made under
section 1448(e) of this title; or
[(ii) upon becoming 60 years of age (if he
had lived to that age), for purposes of an
annuity to become effective on the 60th
anniversary of his birth in accordance with a
designation made under section 1448(e) of this
title; or
[(C) any amount which is less than the amount
otherwise applicable under clause (A) or (B) with
respect to an annuity provided under the Plan but which
is not less than $300 and which is designated by the
person (with the concurrence of the person's spouse, if
required under section 1448(a)(3) of this title)
providing the annuity on or before (i) the first day
for which he becomes eligible for retired pay, in the
case of a person providing a standard annuity, or (ii)
the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on
which he receives the notification required by section
12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years
of service required for eligibility for reserve-
component retired pay in the case of a person providing
a reserve-component annuity.
[(3) The term ``widow'' means the surviving wife of a person
who, if not married to the person at the time he became
eligible for retired pay--
[(A) was married to him for at least one year
immediately before his death; or
[(B) is the mother of issue by that marriage.
[(4) The term ``widower'' means the surviving husband of a
person who, if not married to the person at the time she became
eligible for retired pay--
[(A) was married to her for at least one year
immediately before her death; or
[(B) is the father of issue by that marriage.
[(5) The term ``dependent child'' means a person who is--
[(A) unmarried;
[(B) (i) under 18 years of age; (ii) at least 18, but
under 22, years of age and pursuing a full-time course
of study or training in a high school, trade school,
technical or vocational institute, junior college,
college, university, or comparable recognized
educational institution; or (iii) incapable of
supporting himself because of a mental or physical
incapacity existing before his eighteenth birthday or
incurred on or after that birthday, but before his
twenty-second birthday, while pursuing such a full-time
course of study or training; and
[(C) the child of a person to whom the Plan applies,
including (i) an adopted child, and (ii) a stepchild,
foster child, or recognized natural child who lived
with that person in a regular parent-child
relationship.
For the purpose of this paragraph, a child whose twenty-second
birthday occurs before July 1 or after August 31 of a calendar
year, and while he is regularly pursuing such a course of study
or training, is considered to have become 22 years of age on
the first day of July after that birthday. A child who is a
student is considered not to have ceased to be a student during
an interim between school years if the interim is not more than
150 days and if he shows to the satisfaction of the Secretary
of Defense that he has a bona fide intention of continuing to
pursue a course of study or training in the same or a different
school during the school semester (or other period into which
the school year is divided) immediately after the interim.
Under this paragraph, a foster child, to qualify as the
dependent child of a person to whom the Plan applies, must, at
the time of the death of that person, also reside with, and
receive over one-half of his support from, that person, and not
be cared for under a social agency contract. The temporary
absence of a foster child from the residence of that person,
while he is a student as described in this paragraph, will not
be considered to affect the residence of such a foster child.
[(6) The term ``former spouse'' means the surviving former
husband or wife of a person who is eligible to participate in
the Plan.
[(7) The term ``court'' has the meaning given that term by
section 1408(a)(1) of this title.
[(8) The term ``court order'' means a court's final decree of
divorce, dissolution, or annulment or a court ordered,
ratified, or approved property settlement incident to such a
decree (including a final decree modifying the terms of a
previously issued decree of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or
legal separation, or of a court ordered, ratified, or approved
property settlement agreement incident to such previously
issued decree).
[(9) The term ``final decree'' means a decree from which no
appeal may be taken or from which no appeal has been taken
within the time allowed for the taking of such appeals under
the laws applicable to such appeals, or a decree from which
timely appeal has been taken and such appeal has been finally
decided under the laws applicable to such appeals.
[(10) The term ``regular on its face'', when used in
connection with a court order, means a court order that meets
the conditions prescribed in section 1408(b)(2) of this title.
[(11) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay paid
under section 6330 of this title.
[(12) The term ``standard annuity'' means an annuity provided
by virtue of eligibility under section 1448(a)(1)(A) of this
title.
[(13) The term ``reserve-component annuity'' means an annuity
provided by virtue of eligibility under section 1448(a)(1)(B)
of this title.
[(14) The term ``reserve-component retired pay'' means
retired pay under chapter 1223 of this title (or under chapter
67 of this title as in effect before the effective date of the
Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act).
[Sec. 1448. Application of Plan
[(a)(1) The program established by this subchapter shall be
known as the Survivor Benefit Plan. The following persons are
eligible to participate in the Plan:
[(A) Persons entitled to retired pay.
[(B) Persons who would be eligible for reserve-
component retired pay but for the fact that they are
under 60 years of age.
[(2) The Plan applies--
[(A) to a person who is eligible to participate in
the Plan under paragraph (1)(A) and who is married or
has a dependent child when he becomes entitled to
retired pay, unless he elects (with his spouse's
concurrence, if required under paragraph (3)) not to
participate in the Plan before the first day for which
he is eligible for that pay; and
[(B) to a person who (i) is eligible to participate
in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), (ii) is married or
has a dependent child when he is notified under section
12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years
of service required for eligibility for reserve-
component retired pay, and (iii) elects to participate
in the Plan (and makes a designation under subsection
(e)) before the end of the 90-day period beginning on
the date he receives such notification.
A person described in subclauses (i) and (ii) of clause (B) who
does not elect to participate in the Plan before the end of the
90-day period referred to in such clause shall remain eligible,
upon reaching 60 years of age and otherwise becoming entitled
to retired pay, to participate in the Plan in accordance with
eligibility under paragraph (1)(A).
[(3)(A) A married person who is eligible to provide a
standard annuity may not without the concurrence of the
person's spouse elect--
[(i) not to participate in the Plan;
[(ii) to provide an annuity for the person's spouse
at less than the maximum level; or
[(iii) to provide an annuity for a dependent child
but not for the person's spouse.
[(B) A married person who elects to provide a reserve-
component annuity may not without the concurrence of the
person's spouse elect--
[(i) to provide an annuity for the person's spouse at
less than the maximum level; or
[(ii) to provide an annuity for a dependent child but
not for the person's spouse.
[(C) A person may make an election described in subparagraph
(A) or (B) without the concurrence of the person's spouse if
the person establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary
concerned--
[(i) that the spouse's whereabouts cannot be
determined; or
[(ii) that, due to exceptional circumstances,
requiring the person to seek the spouse's consent would
otherwise be inappropriate.
[(D) This paragraph does not affect any right or obligation
to elect to provide an annuity for a former spouse (or for a
former spouse and dependent child) under subsection (b)(2).
[(E) If a married person who is eligible to provide a
standard annuity elects to provide an annuity for a former
spouse (or for a former spouse and dependent child) under
subsection (b)(2), that person's spouse shall be notified of
that election.
[(4)(A) An election under paragraph (2)(A) not to participate
in the Plan is irrevocable if not revoked before the date on
which the person first becomes entitled to retire.
[(B) An election under paragraph (2)(B) to participate in the
Plan is irrevocable if not revoked before the end of the 90-day
period referred to in such paragraph.
[(5) A person who is not married when he becomes eligible to
participate in the Plan but who later marries or acquires a
dependent child may elect to participate in the Plan, but his
election must be written, signed by him, and received by the
Secretary concerned within one year after he marries or
acquires that dependent child. Such an election may not be
revoked except in accordance with subsection (b)(3). His
election is effective as of the first day of the first calendar
month following the month in which his election is received by
the Secretary concerned. In the case of a person providing a
reserve-component annuity, such an election shall include a
designation under subsection (e).
[(6)(A) A person--
[(i) who is a participant in the Plan and is
providing coverage for a spouse or a spouse and child;
[(ii) who does not have an eligible spouse
beneficiary under the Plan; and
[(iii) who remarries,
may elect not to provide coverage under the Plan for the
person's spouse.
[(B) If such an election is made, no reduction in the retired
pay of such person under section 1452 of this title may be
made. An election under this paragraph--
[(i) is irrevocable;
[(ii) shall be made within one year after the
person's remarriage; and
[(iii) shall be made in such form and manner as may
be prescribed in regulations under section 1455 of this
title.
[(C) If a person makes an election under this paragraph--
[(i) not to participate in the Plan;
[(ii) to provide an annuity for the person's spouse
at less than the maximum level; or
[(iii) to provide an annuity for a dependent child
but not for the person's spouse,
the person's spouse shall be notified of that election.
[(D) This paragraph does not affect any right or obligation
to elect to provide an annuity to a former spouse under
subsection (b).
[(b)(1)(A) A person who is not married and does not have a
dependent child when he becomes eligible to participate in the
Plan may elect to provide an annuity to a natural person with
an insurable interest in that person. In the case of a person
providing a reserve-component annuity, such an election shall
include a designation under subsection (e).
[(B) An election under subparagraph (A) for a beneficiary who
is not the former spouse of the person providing the annuity
may be terminated. Any such termination shall be made by a
participant by the submission to the Secretary concerned of a
request to discontinue participation in the Plan, and such
participation in the Plan shall be discontinued effective on
the first day of the first month following the month in which
the request is received by the Secretary concerned. Effective
on such date, the Secretary concerned shall discontinue the
reduction being made in such person's retired pay on account of
participation in the Plan or, in the case of a person who has
been required to make deposits in the Treasury on account of
participation in the Plan, such person may discontinue making
such deposits effective on such date.
[(C) A request under subparagraph (B) to discontinue
participation in the Plan shall be in such form and shall
contain such information as may be required under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
[(D) The Secretary concerned shall furnish promptly to each
person who submits a request under subparagraph (B) to
discontinue participation in the Plan a written statement of
the advantages and disadvantages of participating in the Plan
and the possible disadvantages of discontinuing participation.
A person may withdraw the request to discontinue participation
if withdrawn within 30 days after having been submitted to the
Secretary concerned.
[(E) Once participation is discontinued, benefits may not be
paid in conjunction with the earlier participation in the Plan
and premiums paid may not be refunded. Participation in the
Plan may not later be resumed except through a qualified
election under paragraph (5) of subsection (a).
[(2) A person who has a former spouse when he becomes
eligible to participate in the Plan may elect to provide an
annuity to that former spouse. In the case of a person with a
spouse or a dependent child, such an election prevents payment
of an annuity to that spouse or child (other than a child who
is a beneficiary under an election under paragraph (4)),
including payment under subsection (d). If there is more than
one former spouse, the person shall designate which former
spouse is to be provided the annuity. In the case of a person
providing a reserve-component annuity, such an election shall
include a designation under subsection (e).
[(3)(A) A person--
[(i) who is a participant in the Plan and is
providing coverage for a spouse or a spouse and child
(even though there is no beneficiary currently eligible
for such coverage), and
[(ii) who has a former spouse who was not that
person's former spouse when he became eligible to
participate in the Plan,
may (subject to subparagraph (B)) elect to provide an annuity
to that former spouse. Any such election terminates any
previous coverage under the Plan and must be written, signed by
the person, and received by the Secretary concerned within one
year after the date of the decree of divorce, dissolution, or
annulment.
[(B) A person may not make an election under subparagraph (A)
to provide an annuity to a former spouse who that person
married after becoming eligible for retired pay unless--
[(i) the person was married to that former spouse for
at least one year, or
[(ii) that former spouse is the parent of issue by
that marriage.
[(C) An election under this paragraph may not be revoked
except in accordance with section 1450(f) of this title and is
effective as of the first day of the first calendar month
following the month in which it is received by the Secretary
concerned. This paragraph does not provide the authority to
change a designation previously made under subsection (e).
[(D) If a person who is married makes an election to provide
an annuity to a former spouse under this paragraph, that
person's spouse shall be notified of that election.
[(4) A person who elects to provide an annuity for a former
spouse under paragraph (2) or (3) may, at the time of the
election, elect to provide coverage under that annuity for both
the former spouse and a dependent child, if the child resulted
from the person's marriage to that former spouse.
[(5) A person who elects to provide an annuity to a former
spouse under paragraph (2) or (3) shall, at the time of making
the election, provide the Secretary concerned with a written
statement (in a form to be prescribed by that Secretary and
signed by such person and the former spouse) setting forth (A)
whether the election is being made pursuant to the requirements
of a court order, or (B) whether the election is being made
pursuant to a written agreement previously entered into
voluntarily by such person as a part of or incident to a
proceeding of divorce, dissolution, or annulment and (if so)
whether such voluntary written agreement has been incorporated
in, or ratified or approved by, a court order.
[(c) The application of the Plan to a person whose name is on
the temporary disability retired list terminates when his name
is removed from that list and he is no longer entitled to
disability retired pay.
[(d)(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay an annuity under
this subchapter to the surviving spouse of a member who dies on
active duty after--
[(A) becoming eligible to receive retired pay;
[(B) qualifying for retired pay except that he has
not applied for or been granted that pay; or
[(C) completing 20 years of active service but before
he is eligible to retire as a commissioned officer
because he has not completed 10 years of active
commissioned service.
[(2) The Secretary concerned shall pay an annuity under this
subchapter to the dependent child of a member described in
paragraph (1) if there is no surviving spouse or if the
member's surviving spouse subsequently dies.
[(3) If a member described in paragraph (1) is required under
a court order or spousal agreement to provide an annuity to a
former spouse upon becoming eligible to be a participant in the
Plan or has made an election under subsection (b) to provide an
annuity to a former spouse, the Secretary--
[(A) may not pay an annuity under paragraph (1) or
(2); but
[(B) shall pay an annuity to that former spouse as if
the member had been a participant in the Plan and had
made an election under subsection (b) to provide an
annuity to the former spouse, or in accordance with
that election, as the case may be, if the Secretary
receives a written request from the former spouse
concerned that the election be deemed to have been made
in the same manner as provided in section 1450(f)(3) of
this title.
[(4) An annuity that may be provided under this subsection
shall be provided in preference to an annuity that may be
provided under any other provision of this subchapter on
account of service of the same member.
[(5) The amount of an annuity under this subsection is
computed under section 1451(c) of this title.
[(e) In any case in which a person electing to participate in
the Plan is required to make a designation under this
subsection, the person making such election shall designate
whether, in the event he dies before becoming 60 years of age,
the annuity provided shall become effective on the day after
the date of his death or on the 60th anniversary of his birth.
[(f)(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay an annuity under
this subchapter to the surviving spouse of a person who is
eligible to provide a reserve-component annuity and who dies--
[(A) before being notified under section 12731(d) of
this title that he has completed the years of service
required for eligibility for reserve-component retired
pay; or
[(B) during the 90-day period beginning on the date
he receives notification under section 12731(d) of this
title that he has completed the years of service
required for eligibility for reserve-component retired
pay if he had not made an election under subsection
(a)(2)(B) to participate in the Plan.
[(2) The Secretary concerned shall pay an annuity under this
subchapter to the dependent child of a person described in
paragraph (1) if there is no surviving spouse or if the
person's surviving spouse subsequently dies.
[(3) If a person described in paragraph (1) is required under
a court order or spousal agreement to provide an annuity to a
former spouse upon becoming eligible to be a participant in the
Plan or has made an election under subsection (b) to provide an
annuity to a former spouse, the Secretary--
[(A) may not pay an annuity under paragraph (1) or
(2); but
[(B) shall pay an annuity to that former spouse as if
the person had been a participant in the Plan and had
made an election under subsection (b) to provide an
annuity to the former spouse, or in accordance with
that election, as the case may be, if the Secretary
receives a written request from the former spouse
concerned that the election be deemed to have been made
in the same manner as provided in section 1450(f)(3) of
this title.
[(4) The amount of an annuity under this subsection is
computed under section 1451(c) of this title.
[(g)(1) A person--
[(A) who is a participant in the Plan and is
providing coverage under subsection (a) for a spouse or
a spouse and child, but at less than the maximum level;
and
[(B) who remarries,
may elect, within one year of such remarriage, to increase the
level of coverage provided under the Plan to a level not in
excess of the current retired pay of that person.
[(2) Such an election shall be contingent on the person
paying to the United States the amount determined under
paragraph (3) plus interest on such amount at a rate determined
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
[(3) The amount referred to in paragraph (2) is the amount
equal to the difference between--
[(A) the amount that would have been withheld from
such person's retired pay under section 1452 of this
title if the higher level of coverage had been in
effect from the time the person became a participant in
the Plan; and
[(B) the amount of such person's retired pay actually
withheld.
[(4) An election under paragraph (1) shall be made in such
manner as the Secretary shall prescribe and shall become
effective upon receipt of the payment required by paragraph
(2).
[(5) A payment received under this subsection by the
Secretary of Defense shall be deposited into the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund. Any other payment received
under this subsection shall be deposited in the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
[Sec. 1449. Mental incompetency of member
[If a person to whom section 1448 of this title applies is
determined to be mentally incompetent by medical officers of
the armed force concerned or of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, any election
described in subsection (a)(2) or (b) of section 1448 of this
title may be made on behalf of that person by the Secretary
concerned. If the person for whom the Secretary has made an
election is later determined to be mentally competent by an
authority named in the first sentence, he may, within 180 days
after that determination revoke that election. Any deductions
made from by reason of such an election will not be refunded.
[Sec. 1450. Payment of annuity: beneficiaries
[(a) Effective as of the first day after the death of a
person to whom section 1448 of this title applies (or on such
other day as he may provide under subsection (j)), a monthly
annuity under section 1451 of this title shall be paid to--
[(1) the eligible widow or widower or the eligible
former spouse;
[(2) the surviving dependent children in equal
shares, if the eligible widow or widower or the
eligible former spouse is dead, dies, or otherwise
becomes ineligible under this section;
[(3) the dependent children in equal shares if the
person to whom section 1448 of this title applies (with
the concurrence of the person's spouse, if required
under section 1448(a)(3) of this title) elected to
provide an annuity for dependent children but not for
the spouse or former spouse; or
[(4) the natural person designated under section
1448(b) of this title, unless the election to provide
an annuity to the natural person has been changed as
provided in subsection (f).
[(b) An annuity payable to the beneficiary terminates
effective as of the first day of the month in which eligibility
is lost. An annuity for a widow, widower, or former spouse
shall be paid to the widow, widower, or former spouse while the
widow, widower, or former spouse is living or, if the widow,
widower, or former spouse remarries before reaching age 55,
until the widow, widower, or former spouse remarries. If the
widow, widower, or former spouse remarries before reaching age
55 and that marriage is terminated by death, annulment, or
divorce, payment of the annuity will be resumed effective as of
the first day of the month in which the marriage is so
terminated. However, if the widow, widower, or former spouse is
also entitled to an annuity under the Plan based upon the
marriage so terminated, the widow, widower, or former spouse
may not receive both annuities but must elect which to receive.
[(c) If, upon the death of a person to whom section 1448 of
this title applies, the widow, widower, or former spouse of
that person is also entitled to dependency and indemnity
compensation under section 1311(a) of title 38, the widow,
widower, or former spouse may be paid an annuity under this
section, but only in the amount that the annuity otherwise
payable under this section would exceed that compensation. A
reduction in an annuity under this section required by the
preceding sentence shall be effective on the date of the
commencement of the period of payment of such compensation
under title 38.
[(d) If, upon the death of a person to whom section 1448 of
this title applies, that person had in effect a waiver of his
retired pay for the purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 of
title 5, an annuity under this section shall not be payable
unless, in accordance with section 8339(j) of title 5, he
notified the Office of Personnel Management that he did not
desire any spouse surviving him to receive an annuity under
section 8341(b) of that title.
[(e) If no annuity under this section is payable because of
subsection (c), any amounts deducted from the retired pay of
the deceased under section 1452 of this title shall be refunded
to the widow, widower, or former spouse. If, because of
subsection (c), the annuity payable is less than the amount
established under section 1451 of this title, the annuity
payable shall be recalculated under that section. The amount of
the reduction in the retired pay required to provide that
recalculated annuity shall be computed under section 1452 of
this title, and the difference between the amount deducted
prior to the computation of that recalculated annuity and the
amount that would have been deducted on the basis of that
recalculated annuity shall be refunded to the widow, widower,
or former spouse.
[(f)(1) A person who elects to provide an annuity to a person
designated by him under section 1448(b) of this title may,
subject to paragraph (2), change that election and provide an
annuity to his spouse or dependent child. The Secretary
concerned shall notify the former spouse or other natural
person previously designated under section 1448(b) of this
title of any change of election under the first sentence of
this paragraph. Any such change of election is subject to the
same rules with respect to execution, revocation, and
effectiveness as are set forth in section 1448(a)(5) of this
title (without regard to the eligibility of the person making
the change of election to make an election under such section).
[(2) A person who, incident to a proceeding of divorce,
dissolution, or annulment, is required by a court order to
elect under section 1448(b) of this title to provide an annuity
to a former spouse (or to both a former spouse and child), or
who enters into a written agreement (whether voluntary or
required by a court order) to make such an election, and who
makes an election pursuant to such order or agreement, may not
change such election under paragraph (1) unless--
[(A) in a case in which the election is required by a
court order, or in which an agreement to make the
election has been incorporated in or ratified or
approved by a court order, the person--
[(i) furnishes to the Secretary concerned a
certified copy of a court order which is
regular on its face and modifies the provisions
of all previous court orders relating to such
election, or the agreement to make such
election, so as to permit the person to change
the election; and
[(ii) certifies to the Secretary concerned
that the court order is valid and in effect; or
[(B) in a case of a written agreement that has not
been incorporated or ratified or approved by a court
order, the person--
[(i) furnishes to the Secretary concerned a
statement, in such form as the Secretary
concerned may prescribe, signed by the former
spouse and evidencing the former spouse's
agreement to a change in the election under
paragraph (1); and
[(ii) certifies to the Secretary concerned
that the statement is current and in effect.
[(3)(A) If a person described in paragraph (2) or (3) of
section 1448(b) of this title enters, incident to a proceeding
of divorce, dissolution, or annulment, into a written agreement
to elect under section 1448(b) of this title to provide an
annuity to a former spouse and such agreement has been
incorporated in or ratified or approved by a court order or has
been filed with the court of appropriate jurisdiction in
accordance with applicable State law, or if such person is
required by a court order to make such an election and such
person then fails or refuses to make such an election, such
person shall be deemed to have made such an election if the
Secretary concerned receives a written request, in such manner
as the Secretary shall prescribe, from the former spouse
concerned requesting that such an election be deemed to have
been made and receives a copy of the court order, regular on
its face, which requires such election or incorporates,
ratifies, or approves the written agreement of such person or
receives a statement from the clerk of the court (or other
appropriate official) that such agreement has been filed with
the court in accordance with applicable State law.
[(B) An election may not be deemed to have been made under
subparagraph (A) in the case of any person unless the Secretary
concerned receives a request from the former spouse of the
person within one year of the date of the court order or filing
involved.
[(C) An election deemed to have been made under subparagraph
(A) shall become effective on the first day of the first month
which begins after the date of the court order or filing
involved.
[(4) A court order may require a person to elect (or to enter
into an agreement to elect) under section 1448(b) of this title
to provide an annuity to a former spouse (or to both a former
spouse and child).
[(g) Except as provided in section 1449 of this title or in
subsection (f) of this section, an election under this section
may not be changed or revoked.
[(h) Except as provided in section 1451 of this title, an
annuity under this section is in addition to any other payment
to which a person is entitled under any other provision of law.
Such annuity shall be considered as income under laws
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
[(i) Except as provided in subsection (l)(3)(B), an annuity
under this section is not assignable or subject to execution,
levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.
[(j) An annuity elected by a person providing a reserve-
component annuity shall be effective in accordance with the
designation made by such person under section 1448(e) of this
title. An annuity payable under section 1448(f) of this title
shall be effective on the day after the date of the death of
the person upon whose service the right to the annuity is
based.
[(k)(1) If a widow, widower, or former spouse whose annuity
has been adjusted under subsection (c) subsequently loses
entitlement to compensation under section 1311(a) of title 38
because of the remarriage of such widow, widower, or former
spouse, and if at the time of such remarriage such widow,
widower, or former spouse is 55 years of age or more, the
amount of the annuity of such widow, widower, or former spouse
shall be readjusted, effective on the effective date of such
loss of compensation, to the amount of the annuity which would
be in effect with respect to such widow, widower, or former
spouse if the adjustment under subsection (c) had never been
made.
[(2) A widow, widower, or former spouse whose annuity is
readjusted under paragraph (1) shall repay any amount refunded
under subsection (e) by reason of the adjustment under
subsection (c). If the repayment is not made in a lump sum, the
widow, widower, or former spouse shall pay interest on the
amount to be repaid commencing on the date on which the first
such payment is due and applied over the period during which
any part of the repayment remains to be paid. The manner in
which such repayment shall be made, and the rate of any such
interest, shall be prescribed in regulations under section 1455
of this title. An amount repaid under this paragraph (including
any such interest) received by the Secretary of Defense shall
be deposited into the Department of Defense Military Retirement
Fund. Any other amount repaid under this paragraph shall be
deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
[(l)(1) Upon application of the beneficiary of a participant
in the Plan whose retired pay has been suspended on the basis
that the participant is missing (or of a participant in the
Plan who would be eligible for reserve-component retired pay
but for the fact that he is under 60 years of age and whose
retired pay, if he were entitled to retired pay, would be
suspended on the basis that he is missing), the Secretary
concerned may determine for purposes of this subchapter that
the participant is presumed dead. Any such determination shall
be made in accordance with regulations prescribed under section
1455 of this title. The Secretary concerned may not make a
determination for purposes of this subchapter that a
participant is presumed dead unless he finds--
[(A) that the participant has been missing for at
least 30 days; and
[(B) that the circumstances under which the
participant is missing would lead a reasonably prudent
person to conclude that the participant is dead.
[(2) Upon a determination under paragraph (1) with respect to
a participant in the Plan, an annuity otherwise payable under
this subchapter shall be paid as if the participant died on the
date as of which the retired pay of the participant was
suspended.
[(3)(A) If, after a determination under paragraph (1), the
Secretary concerned determines that the participant is alive,
any annuity being paid under this subchapter by reason of this
subsection shall be terminated and the total amount of any
annuity payments made by reason of this subsection shall
constitute a debt to the United States which may be collected
or offset--
[(i) from any retired pay otherwise payable to the
participant;
[(ii) if the participant is entitled to compensation
under chapter 11 of title 38, from that compensation;
or
[(iii) if the participant is entitled to any other
payment from the United States, from that payment.
[(B) If the participant dies before the full recovery of the
amount of annuity payments described in subparagraph (A) has
been made by the United States, the remaining amount of such
annuity payments may be collected from his beneficiary under
the Plan if that beneficiary was the recipient of the annuity
payments made by reason of this subsection.
[Sec. 1451. Amount of annuity
[(a)(1) In the case of a standard annuity provided to a
beneficiary under section 1450(a) of this title (other than
under section 1450(a)(4)), the monthly annuity payable to the
beneficiary shall be determined as follows:
[(A) If the beneficiary is under 62 years of age or
is a dependent child when becoming entitled to the
annuity, the monthly annuity shall be the amount equal
to 55 percent of the base amount.
[(B) If the beneficiary (other than a dependent
child) is 62 years of age or older when becoming
entitled to the annuity, the monthly annuity shall be
the amount equal to 35 percent of the base amount.
However, if the beneficiary is eligible to have the
annuity computed under subsection (e) and if, at the
time the beneficiary becomes entitled to the annuity,
computation of the annuity under that subsection is
more favorable to the beneficiary, the annuity shall be
computed under that subsection.
[(2) In the case of a reserve-component annuity provided to a
beneficiary under section 1450(a) of this title (other than
under section 1450(a)(4)), the monthly annuity payable to the
beneficiary shall be determined as follows:
[(A) If the beneficiary is under 62 years of age or
is a dependent child when becoming entitled to the
annuity, the monthly annuity shall be the amount equal
to a percentage of the base amount that--
[(i) is less than 55 percent; and
[(ii) is determined under subsection (f).
[(B) If the beneficiary (other than a dependent
child) is 62 years of age or older when becoming
entitled to the annuity, the monthly annuity shall be
the amount equal to a percentage of the base amount
that--
[(i) is less than 35 percent; and
[(ii) is determined under subsection (f).
However, if the beneficiary is eligible to have the
annuity computed under subsection (e) and if, at the
time the beneficiary becomes entitled to the annuity,
computation of the annuity under that subsection is
more favorable to the beneficiary, the annuity shall be
computed under that subsection.
[(b)(1) In the case of a standard annuity provided to a
beneficiary under section 1450(a)(4) of this title, the monthly
annuity payable to the beneficiary shall be the amount equal to
55 percent of the retired pay of the person who elected to
provide the annuity after the reduction in that pay in
accordance with section 1452(c) of this title.
[(2) In the case of a reserve-component annuity provided to a
beneficiary under section 1450(a)(4) of this title, the monthly
annuity payable to the beneficiary shall be the amount equal to
a percentage of the retired pay of the person who elected to
provide the annuity after the reduction in such pay in
accordance with section 1452(c) of this title that--
[(A) is less than 55 percent; and
[(B) is determined under subsection (f).
[(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2), a person--
[(A) who provides an annuity that is determined in
accordance with that paragraph;
[(B) who dies before becoming 60 years of age; and
[(C) who at the time of death is otherwise entitled
to retired pay,
shall be considered to have been entitled to retired pay at the
time of death. The retired pay of such person for the purposes
of such paragraph shall be computed on the basis of the rates
of basic pay in effect on the date on which the annuity
provided by such person is to become effective in accordance
with the designation of such person under section 1448(e) of
this title.
[(c)(1) In the case of an annuity provided under section
1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the amount of the annuity
shall be determined as follows:
[(A) If the person receiving the annuity is under 62
years of age or is a dependent child when the member or
former member dies, the monthly annuity shall be the
amount equal to 55 percent of the retired pay to which
the member or former member would have been entitled if
the member or former member had been entitled to that
pay based upon his years of active service when he
died.
[(B) If the person receiving the annuity (other than
a dependent child) is 62 years of age or older when the
member or former member dies, the monthly annuity shall
be the amount equal to 35 percent of the retired pay to
which the member or former member would have been
entitled if the member or former member had been
entitled to that pay based upon his years of active
service when he died. However, if the beneficiary is
eligible to have the annuity computed under subsection
(e) and if, at the time the beneficiary becomes
entitled to the annuity, computation of the annuity
under that subsection is more favorable to the
beneficiary, the annuity shall be computed under that
subsection.
[(2) An annuity computed under paragraph (1) that is paid to
a surviving spouse shall be reduced by the amount of dependency
and indemnity compensation to which the surviving spouse is
entitled under section 1311(a) of title 38. Any such reduction
shall be effective on the date of the commencement of the
period of payment of such compensation under title 38.
[(3) In the case of an annuity provided by reason of the
service of a member described in section 1448(d)(1)(B) or
1448(d)(1)(C) of this title who first became a member of a
uniformed service before September 8, 1980, the retired pay to
which the member would have been entitled when he died shall be
determined for purposes of paragraph (1) based upon the rate of
basic pay in effect at the time of death for the grade in which
the member was serving at the time of death, unless (as
determined by the Secretary concerned) the member would have
been entitled to be retired in a higher grade.
[(4) In the case of an annuity paid under section 1448(f) of
this title by reason of the service of a person who first
became a member of a uniformed service before September 8,
1980, the retired pay of the person providing the annuity shall
for the purposes of paragraph (1) be computed on the basis of
the rates of basic pay in effect on the effective date of the
annuity.
[(d)(1) The annuity of a person whose annuity is computed
under clause (A) of subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (c)(1) shall
be reduced on the first day of the month after the month in
which the person becomes 62 years of age.
[(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the reduced
amount of the annuity shall be the amount of the annuity that
the person would be receiving on that date if the annuity had
initially been computed under clause (B) of that subsection.
[(B) In the case of a person eligible to have the annuity
computed under subsection (e) and for whom, at the time the
person becomes 62 years of age, an annuity computed with a
reduction under subsection (e)(3) is more favorable than an
annuity with a reduction described in subparagraph (A), the
reduction in the annuity shall be computed in the same manner
as a reduction under subsection (e)(3).
[(e)(1) The following beneficiaries under the Plan are
eligible to have an annuity under the Plan computed under this
subsection:
[(A) A beneficiary receiving an annuity under the
Plan on October 1, 1985, as the widow, widower, or
former spouse of the person providing the annuity.
[(B) A spouse or former spouse beneficiary of a
person who on October 1, 1985--
[(i) was a participant in the Plan;
[(ii) was entitled to retired pay or was
qualified for that pay except that he had not
applied for and been granted that pay; or
[(iii) would have been eligible for retired
pay under chapter 67 of this title but for the
fact that he was under 60 years of age.
[(2) Subject to paragraph (3), an annuity computed under this
subsection shall be determined as follows:
[(A) In the case of a beneficiary of a standard
annuity under section 1450(a) of this title, the
annuity shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of the
base amount.
[(B) In the case of a beneficiary of a reserve-
component annuity under section 1450(a) of this title,
the annuity shall be the percentage of the base amount
that--
[(i) is less than 55 percent; and
[(ii) is determined under subsection (f).
[(C) In the case of a beneficiary of an annuity under
section 1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the annuity
shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of the retired
pay of the person providing the annuity (as that pay is
determined under subsection (c)).
[(3) An annuity computed under this subsection shall be
reduced by the lesser of--
[(A) the amount of the survivor benefit, if any, to
which the widow or widower or former spouse would be
entitled under title II of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) based solely upon service by the
person concerned as described in section 210(l)(1) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 410(l)(1)) and calculated assuming
that the person concerned lives to age 65; or
[(B) 40 percent of the amount of the monthly annuity
as determined under paragraph (2).
[(4)(A) For the purpose of paragraph (3), a widow or widower
or former spouse shall not be considered as entitled to a
benefit under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
401 et seq.) to the extent that such benefit has been offset by
deductions under section 203 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 403) on
account of work.
[(B) In the computation of any reduction made under paragraph
(3), there shall be excluded any period of service described in
section 210(l)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
410(l)(1))--
[(i) which was performed after December 1, 1980; and
[(ii) which involved periods of service of less than
30 continuous days for which the person concerned is
entitled to receive a refund under section 6413(c) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of the social
security tax which the person had paid.
[(f) The percentage to be applied in determining the amount
of an annuity computed under subsection (a)(2), (b)(2), or
(e)(2)(B) shall be determined under regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of Defense. Such regulations shall be prescribed
taking into consideration--
[(1) the age of the person electing to provide the
annuity at the time of such election;
[(2) the difference in age between such person and
the beneficiary of the annuity;
[(3) whether such person provided for the annuity to
become effective (in the event he died before becoming
60 years of age) on the day after his death or on the
60th anniversary of his birth;
[(4) appropriate group annuity tables; and
[(5) such other factors as the Secretary considers
relevant.
[(g)(1) Whenever retired pay is increased under section 1401a
of this title (or any other provision of law), each annuity
that is payable under the Plan shall be increased at the same
time. The increase shall, in the case of any annuity, be by the
same percent as the percent by which the retired pay of the
person providing the annuity would have been increased at such
time if the person were alive (and otherwise entitled to such
pay). The amount of the increase shall be based on the monthly
annuity payable before any reduction under section 1450(c) of
this title or under subsection (c)(2).
[(2) The monthly amount of an annuity payable under this
subchapter, if not a multiple of $1, shall be rounded to the
next lower multiple of $1.
[(h)(1) Whenever retired pay is increased under section 1401a
of this title (or any other provision of law), the base amount
applicable to each participant in the Plan shall be increased
at the same time. The increase shall be by the same percent as
the percent by which the retired pay of the participant is
increased.
[(2) When the retired pay of a person who first became a
member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 1986, and
who is a participant in the Plan is recomputed under section
1410 of this title upon the person's becoming 62 years of age,
the base amount applicable to that person shall be recomputed
(effective on the effective date of the recomputation of such
retired pay under section 1410 of this title) so as to be the
amount equal to the amount of the base amount that would be in
effect on that date if increases in such base amount under
paragraph (1) had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of
section 1401a(b) of this title (rather than under paragraph (3)
of that section).
[(3) Computation of a member's retired pay for purposes of
this section shall be made without regard to any reduction
under section 1409(b)(2) of this title.
[(i) In the case of an annuity under the Plan which is
computed on the basis of the retired pay of a member or former
member who would have been entitled to have that retired pay
recomputed under section 1410 of this title upon attaining 62
years of age, but who died before attaining such age, such
annuity shall be recomputed, effective on the first day of the
first month beginning after the date on which the member or
former member would have attained 62 years of age, so as to be
the amount equal to the amount of the annuity that would be in
effect on that date if increases under subsection (h)(1) in the
base amount applicable to that annuity to the time of the death
of the member or former member, and increases in such annuity
under subsection (g)(1), had been computed as provided in
paragraph (2) of section 1401a(b) of this title (rather than
under paragraph (3) of that section).
[Sec. 1452. Reduction in retired pay
[(a) Spouse and Former Spouse Annuities.--
[(1) Required reduction in retired pay.--Except as
provided in subsection (b), the retired pay of a
participant in the Plan who is providing spouse
coverage (as described in paragraph (5)) shall be
reduced as follows:
[(A) Standard annuity.--If the annuity
coverage being provided is a standard annuity,
the reduction shall be as follows:
[(i) Disability and nonregular
service retirees.--In the case of a
person who is entitled to retired pay
under chapter 61 or chapter 67 of this
title, the reduction shall be in
whichever of the alternative reduction
amounts is more favorable to that
person.
[(ii) Members as of enactment of
flat-rate reduction.--In the case of a
person who first became a member of a
uniformed service before March 1, 1990,
the reduction shall be in whichever of
the alternative reduction amounts is
more favorable to that person.
[(iii) New entrants after enactment
of flat-rate reduction.--In the case of
a person who first becomes a member of
a uniformed service on or after March
1, 1990, and who is entitled to retired
pay under a provision of law other than
chapter 61 or chapter 67 \2\ of this
title, the reduction shall be in an
amount equal to 6\1/2\ percent of the
base amount.
[(iv) Alternative reduction
amounts.--For purposes of clauses (i)
and (ii), the alternative reduction
amounts are the following:
[(I) An amount equal to 6\1/
2\ percent of the base amount.
[(II) An amount equal to 2\1/
2\ percent of the first $337
(as adjusted after November 1,
1989, under paragraph (4)) of
the base amount plus 10 percent
of the remainder of the base
amount.
[(B) Reserve-component annuity.--If the
annuity coverage being provided is a reserve-
component annuity, the reduction shall be in
whichever of the following amounts is more
favorable to that person:
[(i) An amount equal to 6\1/2\
percent of the base amount plus an
amount determined in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense as a premium for the
additional coverage provided through
reserve-component annuity coverage
under the Plan.
[(ii) An amount equal to 2\1/2\
percent of the first $337 (as adjusted
after November 1, 1989, under paragraph
(4)) of the base amount plus 10 percent
of the remainder of the base amount
plus an amount determined in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense as a premium for
the additional coverage provided
through reserve-component annuity
coverage under the Plan.
[(2) If there is a dependent child as well as a spouse or
former spouse, the amount prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
be increased by an amount prescribed under regulations of the
Secretary of Defense.
[(3) The reduction in retired pay prescribed by paragraph (1)
shall not be applicable during any month in which there is no
eligible spouse or former spouse beneficiary.
[(4)(A) Whenever there is an increase in the rates of basic
pay of members of the uniformed services effective on or after
October 1, 1985, amounts under paragraph (1) with respect to
which the percentage factor of 2\1/2\ is applied shall be
increased by the overall percentage of such increase in the
rates of basic pay. The increase under the preceding sentence
shall apply only with respect to persons whose retired pay is
computed based on the rates of basic pay in effect on or after
the date of such increase in rates of basic pay.
[(B) In addition to the increase under paragraph (4)(A), the
amounts under paragraph (1) with respect to which the
percentage factor of 2\1/2\ is applied shall be further
increased at the same time and by the same percentage as an
increase in retired pay under section 1401a of this title
effective on or after October 1, 1985. Such increase under the
preceding sentence shall apply only with respect to persons who
initially participate in the Plan on a date which is after both
the effective date of such increase under section 1401a and the
effective date of the rates of basic pay upon which their
retired pay is computed.
[(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a participant in the
Plan who is providing spouse coverage is a participant who--
[(A) has (i) a spouse or former spouse, or (ii) a
spouse or former spouse and a dependent child; and
[(B) has not elected to provide an annuity to a
person designated by him under section 1448(b)(1) of
this title or, having made such an election, has
changed his election in favor of his spouse under
section 1450(f) of this title.
[(b) Child-Only Annuities.--
[(1) Required reduction in retired pay.--The retired
pay of a participant in the Plan who is providing
child-only coverage (as described in paragraph (4))
shall be reduced by an amount prescribed under
regulations by the Secretary of Defense.
[(2) No reduction when no child.--There shall be no
reduction in retired pay under paragraph (1) for any
month during which the participant has no eligible
dependent child.
[(3) Special rule for certain rcsbp participants.--In
the case of a participant in the Plan who is
participating in the Plan under an election under
section 1448(a)(2)(B) of this title and who provided
child-only coverage during a period before the
participant becomes entitled to receive retired pay,
the retired pay of the participant shall be reduced by
an amount prescribed under regulations by the Secretary
of Defense to reflect the coverage provided under the
Plan during the period before the participant became
entitled to receive retired pay. A reduction under this
paragraph is in addition to any reduction under
paragraph (1) and is made without regard to whether
there is an eligible dependent child during a month for
which the reduction is made.
[(4) Child-only coverage defined.--For the purposes
of this subsection, a participant in the Plan who is
providing child-only coverage is a participant who has
a dependent child and who--
[(A) does not have an eligible spouse or
former spouse; or
[(B) has a spouse or former spouse but has
elected to provide an annuity for dependent
children only.
[(c) The retired pay of a person who has elected to provide
an annuity to a person designated by him under section
1450(a)(4) of this title shall be reduced--
[(1) in the case of a person providing a standard
annuity, by 10 percent plus 5 percent for each full
five years the individual designated is younger than
that person; or
[(2) in the case of a person providing a reserve-
component annuity, by an amount prescribed under
regulations of the Secretary of Defense.
However, the total reduction under clause (1) may not exceed 40
percent. The reduction in retired pay prescribed by this
subsection shall continue during the lifetime of the person
designated under section 1450(a)(4) of this title or until the
person receiving retired pay changes his election under section
1450(f) of this title. Computation of a member's retired pay
for purposes of this subsection shall be made without regard to
any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of this title.
[(d) If a person who has elected to participate in the Plan
has been awarded retired pay and is not entitled to that pay
for any period, he must deposit in the Treasury the amount that
would otherwise have been deducted from his pay for that
period, except when he is called or ordered to active duty for
a period of more than 30 days.
[(e) When a person who has elected to participate in the Plan
waives his retired pay for the purposes of subchapter III of
chapter 83 of title 5, he shall not be required to make the
deposit otherwise required by subsection (d) as long as that
waiver is in effect unless, in accordance with section 8339(i)
of title 5, he has notified the Office of Personnel Management
that he does not desire any spouse surviving him to receive an
annuity under section 8341(b) of title 5.
[(f) Except as provided in section 1450(e) of this title, a
person is not entitled to any refunds of amounts deducted from
retired pay under this section unless the amounts were deducted
through administrative error.
[(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subchapter but subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any person
who has elected to participate in the Plan and who is suffering
from a service-connected disability rated by the Department of
Veterans Affairs as totally disabling and has suffered from
such disability while so rated for a continuous period of 10 or
more years (or, if so rated for a lesser period, has suffered
from such disability while so rated for a continuous period of
not less than 5 years from the date of such person's last
discharge or release from active duty) may discontinue
participation in the Plan by submitting to the Secretary
concerned a request to discontinue participation in the Plan.
Any such person's participation in the Plan shall be
discontinued effective on the first day of the first month
following the month in which a request under this paragraph is
received by the Secretary concerned. Effective on such date,
the Secretary concerned shall discontinue the reduction being
made in such person's retired pay on account of participation
in the Plan or, in the case of a person who has been required
to make deposits in the Treasury on account of participation in
the Plan, such person may discontinue making such deposits
effective on such date. Any request under this paragraph to
discontinue participation in the Plan shall be in such form and
shall contain such information as the Secretary concerned may
require by regulation.
[(2) A person described in paragraph (1) may not discontinue
participation in the Plan under such paragraph without the
written consent of the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such
person under the Plan.
[(3) The Secretary concerned shall furnish promptly to each
person who files a request under paragraph (1) to discontinue
participation in the Plan a written statement of the advantages
of participating in the Plan and the possible disadvantages of
discontinuing participation. A person may withdraw a request
made under paragraph (1) if it is withdrawn within 30 days
after having been submitted to the Secretary concerned.
[(4) Upon the death of any person described in paragraph (1)
who has discontinued participation in the Plan in accordance
with this subsection, any amounts deducted from the retired pay
of the deceased under this section shall be refunded to the
widow or widower.
[(5) Any person described in paragraph (1) who had
discontinued participation in the Plan may again elect to
participate in the Plan if (A) at any time after having
discontinued participation in the Plan the Department of
Veterans Affairs reduces such person's service-connected
disability rating to less than total, and (B) such person
applies to the Secretary concerned, within such period of time
after the reduction in such person's service-connected
disability rating has been made as the Secretary concerned may
prescribe, to again participate in the Plan and includes in
such application such information as the Secretary concerned
may require. Such person's participation in the Plan under this
paragraph is effective beginning on the first day of the month
after the month in which the Secretary concerned receives the
application for resumption of participation in the Plan, and
the Secretary concerned shall begin making reductions in such
person's retired pay, or require such person to make deposits
in the Treasury under subsection (d), as appropriate, effective
on such day.
[(h) Whenever retired pay is increased under section 1401a of
this title (or any other provision of law), the amount of the
reduction to be made under subsection (a) or (b) in the retired
pay of any person shall be increased at the same time and by
the same percentage as such retired pay is so increased.
[(i) When the retired pay of a person who first became a
member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 1986, and
who is a participant in the Plan is recomputed under section
1410 of this title upon the person's becoming 62 years of age,
the amount of the reduction in such retired pay under this
section shall be recomputed (effective on the effective date of
the recomputation of such retired pay under section 1410 of
this title) so as to be the amount equal to the amount of such
reduction that would be in effect on that date if increases in
such retired pay under section 1401a(b) of this title, and
increases in reductions in such retired pay under subsection
(h), had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of section
1401a(b) of this title (rather than under paragraph (3) of that
section).
[Sec. 1453. Recovery of annuity erroneously paid
[In addition to other methods of recovery provided by law,
the Secretary concerned may authorize the recovery, by
deduction from later payments to a person, of any amount
erroneously paid to him under this subchapter. However,
recovery is not required if, in the judgment of the Secretary
concerned and the Comptroller General, there has been no fault
by the person to whom the amount was erroneously paid and
recovery would be contrary to the purposes of this subchapter
or against equity and good conscience.
[Sec. 1454. Correction of administrative errors
[The Secretary concerned may, under regulations prescribed
under section 1455 of this title, correct or revoke any
election under this subchapter when he considers it necessary
to correct an administrative error. Except when procured by
fraud, a correction or revocation under this section is final
and conclusive on all officers of the United States.
[Sec. 1455. Regulations
[(a) The President shall prescribe regulations to carry out
this subchapter. Those regulations shall, so far as
practicable, be uniform for the armed forces, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Public Health
Service. Those regulations shall--
[(1) provide that before the date the member becomes
entitled to retired pay--
[(A) if the member is married, the member and
the member's spouse shall be informed of the
elections available under section 1448(a) of
this title and the effects of such elections;
and
[(B) if the notification referred to in
section 1448(a)(3)(E) of this title is
required, any former spouse of the member shall
be informed of the elections available and the
effects of such elections; and
[(2) establish procedures for depositing the amounts
referred to in sections 1448(g), 1450(k)(2), and
1452(d) of this title.
[(b) The regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (a)
shall provide procedures for the payment of an annuity under
this subchapter in the case of--
[(1) a person for whom a guardian or other fiduciary
has been appointed; and
[(2) a minor, mentally incompetent, or otherwise
legally disabled person for whom a guardian or other
fiduciary has not been appointed.
[(c) The regulations under subsection (b) may include
provisions for the following:
[(1) In the case of an annuitant referred to in
subsection (b)(1), payment of the annuity to the
appointed guardian or other fiduciary.
[(2) In the case of an annuitant referred to in
subsection (b)(2), payment of the annuity to any person
who, in the judgment of the Secretary concerned, is
responsible for the care of the annuitant.
[(3) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), a requirement
for the payee of an annuity to spend or invest the
amounts paid on behalf of the annuitant solely for
benefit of the annuitant.
[(4) Authority for the Secretary concerned to permit
the payee to withhold from the annuity payment such
amount, not in excess of 4 percent of the annuity, as
the Secretary concerned considers a reasonable fee for
the fiduciary services of the payee when a court
appointment order provides for payment of such a fee to
the payee for such services or the Secretary concerned
determines that payment of a fee to such payee is
necessary in order to obtain the fiduciary services of
the payee.
[(5) Authority for the Secretary concerned to require
the payee to provide a surety bond in an amount
sufficient to protect the interests of the annuitant
and to pay for such bond out of the annuity.
[(6) A requirement for the payee of an annuity to
maintain and, upon request, to provide to the Secretary
concerned an accounting of expenditures and investments
of amounts paid to the payee.
[(7) In the case of an annuitant referred to in
subsection (b)(2)--
[(A) procedures for determining incompetency
and for selecting a payee to represent the
annuitant for the purposes of this section,
including provisions for notifying the
annuitant of the actions being taken to make
such a determination and to select a
representative payee, an opportunity for the
annuitant to review the evidence being
considered, and an opportunity for the
annuitant to submit additional evidence before
the determination is made; and
[(B) standards for determining incompetency,
including standards for determining the
sufficiency of medical evidence and other
evidence.
[(8) Provisions for any other matters that the
President considers appropriate in connection with the
payment of an annuity in the case of a person referred
to in subsection (b).
[(d) An annuity paid to a person on behalf of an annuitant in
accordance with the regulations prescribed pursuant to
subsection (b) discharges the obligation of the United States
for payment to the annuitant of the amount of the annuity so
paid.]
SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
Sec.
1447. Definitions.
1448. Application of Plan.
1449. Mental incompetency of member.
1450. Payment of annuity: beneficiaries.
1451. Amount of annuity.
1452. Reduction in retired pay.
1453. Recovery of amounts erroneously paid.
1454. Correction of administrative errors.
1455. Regulations.
Sec. 1447. Definitions
In this subchapter:
(1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Survivor
Benefit Plan established by this subchapter.
(2) Standard annuity.--The term ``standard annuity''
means an annuity provided by virtue of eligibility
under section 1448(a)(1)(A) of this title.
(3) Reserve-component annuity.--The term ``reserve-
component annuity'' means an annuity provided by virtue
of eligibility under section 1448(a)(1)(B) of this
title.
(4) Retired pay.--The term ``retired pay'' includes
retainer pay paid under section 6330 of this title.
(5) Reserve-component retired pay.--The term
``reserve-component retired pay'' means retired pay
under chapter 1223 of this title (or under chapter 67
of this title as in effect before the effective date of
the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act).
(6) Base amount.--The term ``base amount'' means the
following:
(A) Full amount under standard annuity.--In
the case of a person who dies after becoming
entitled to retired pay, such term means the
amount of monthly retired pay (determined
without regard to any reduction under section
1409(b)(2) of this title) to which the person--
(i) was entitled when he became
eligible for that pay; or
(ii) later became entitled by being
advanced on the retired list,
performing active duty, or being
transferred from the temporary
disability retired list to the
permanent disability retired list.
(B) Full amount under reserve-component
annuity.--In the case of a person who would
have become eligible for reserve-component
retired pay but for the fact that he died
before becoming 60 years of age, such term
means the amount of monthly retired pay for
which the person would have been eligible--
(i) if he had been 60 years of age on
the date of his death, for purposes of
an annuity to become effective on the
day after his death in accordance with
a designation made under section
1448(e) of this title.
(ii) upon becoming 60 years of age
(if he had lived to that age), for
purposes of an annuity to become
effective on the 60th anniversary of
his birth in accordance with a
designation made under section 1448(e)
of this title.
(C) Reduced amount.--Such term means any
amount less than the amount otherwise
applicable under subparagraph (A) or (B) with
respect to an annuity provided under the Plan
but which is not less than $300 and which is
designated by the person (with the concurrence
of the person's spouse, if required under
section 1448(a)(3) of this title) providing the
annuity on or before--
(i) the first day for which he
becomes eligible for retired pay, in
the case of a person providing a
standard annuity, or
(ii) the end of the 90-day period
beginning on the date on which he
receives the notification required by
section 12731(d) of this title that he
has completed the years of service
required for eligibility for reserve-
component retired pay, in the case of a
person providing a reserve-component
annuity.
(7) Widow.--The term ``widow'' means the surviving
wife of a person who, if not married to the person at
the time he became eligible for retired pay--
(A) was married to the person for at least
one year immediately before the person's death;
or
(B) is the mother of issue by that marriage.
(8) Widower.--The term ``widower'' means the
surviving husband of a person who, if not married to
the person at the time she became eligible for retired
pay--
(A) was married to her for at least one year
immediately before her death; or
(B) is the father of issue by that marriage.
(9) Surviving spouse.--The term ``surviving spouse''
means a widow or widower.
(10) Former spouse.--The term ``former spouse'' means
the surviving former husband or wife of a person who is
eligible to participate in the Plan.
(11) Dependent child.--
(A) In general.--The term ``dependent child''
means a person who--
(i) is unmarried;
(ii) is (I) under 18 years of age,
(II) at least 18, but under 22, years
of age and pursuing a full-time course
of study or training in a high school,
trade school, technical or vocational
institute, junior college, college,
university, or comparable recognized
educational institution, or (III)
incapable of self support because of a
mental or physical incapacity existing
before the person's eighteenth birthday
or incurred on or after that birthday,
but before the person's twenty-second
birthday, while pursuing such a full-
time course of study or training; and
(iii) is the child of a person to
whom the Plan applies, including (I) an
adopted child, and (II) a stepchild,
foster child, or recognized natural
child who lived with that person in a
regular parent-child relationship.
(B) Special rules for college students.--For
the purpose of subparagraph (A), a child whose
twenty-second birthday occurs before July 1 or
after August 31 of a calendar year, and while
regularly pursuing such a course of study or
training, is considered to have become 22 years
of age on the first day of July after that
birthday. A child who is a student is
considered not to have ceased to be a student
during an interim between school years if the
interim is not more than 150 days and if the
child shows to the satisfaction of the
Secretary of Defense that the child has a bona
fide intention of continuing to pursue a course
of study or training in the same or a different
school during the school semester (or other
period into which the school year is divided)
immediately after the interim.
(C) Foster children.--A foster child, to
qualify under this paragraph as the dependent
child of a person to whom the Plan applies,
must, at the time of the death of that person,
also reside with, and receive over one-half of
his support from, that person, and not be cared
for under a social agency contract. The
temporary absence of a foster child from the
residence of that person, while a student as
described in this paragraph, shall not be
considered to affect the residence of such a
foster child.
(12) Court.--The term ``court'' has the meaning given
that term by section 1408(a)(1) of this title.
(13) Court order.--
(A) In general.--The term ``court order''
means a court's final decree of divorce,
dissolution, or annulment or a court ordered,
ratified, or approved property settlement
incident to such a decree (including a final
decree modifying the terms of a previously
issued decree of divorce, dissolution,
annulment, or legal separation, or of a court
ordered, ratified, or approved property
settlement agreement incident to such
previously issued decree).
(B) Final decree.--The term ``final decree''
means a decree from which no appeal may be
taken or from which no appeal has been taken
within the time allowed for the taking of such
appeals under the laws applicable to such
appeals, or a decree from which timely appeal
has been taken and such appeal has been finally
decided under the laws applicable to such
appeals.
(C) Regular on its face.--The term ``regular
on its face'', when used in connection with a
court order, means a court order that meets the
conditions prescribed in section 1408(b)(2) of
this title.
Sec. 1448. Application of plan
(a) General Rules for Participation in the Plan.--
(1) Name of plan; eligible participants.--The program
established by this subchapter shall be known as the
Survivor Benefit Plan. The following persons are
eligible to participate in the Plan:
(A) Persons entitled to retired pay.
(B) Persons who would be eligible for
reserve-component retired pay but for the fact
that they are under 60 years of age.
(2) Participants in the plan.--The Plan applies to
the following persons, who shall be participants in the
Plan:
(A) Standard annuity participants.--A person
who is eligible to participate in the Plan
under paragraph (1)(A) and who is married or
has a dependent child when he becomes entitled
to retired pay, unless he elects (with his
spouse's concurrence, if required under
paragraph (3)) not to participate in the Plan
before the first day for which he is eligible
for that pay.
(B) Reserve-component annuity participants.--
A person who (i) is eligible to participate in
the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), (ii) is
married or has a dependent child when he is
notified under section 12731(d) of this title
that he has completed the years of service
required for eligibility for reserve-component
retired pay, and (iii) elects to participate in
the Plan (and makes a designation under
subsection (e)) before the end of the 90-day
period beginning on the date he receives such
notification.
A person described in clauses (i) and (ii) of
subparagraph (B) who does not elect to participate in
the Plan before the end of the 90-day period referred
to in that clause remains eligible, upon reaching 60
years of age and otherwise becoming entitled to retired
pay, to participate in the Plan in accordance with
eligibility under paragraph (1)(A).
(3) Elections.--
(A) Spousal consent for certain elections
respecting standard annuity.--A married person
who is eligible to provide a standard annuity
may not without the concurrence of the person's
spouse elect--
(i) not to participate in the Plan;
(ii) to provide an annuity for the
person's spouse at less than the
maximum level; or
(iii) to provide an annuity for a
dependent child but not for the
person's spouse.
(B) Spousal consent for certain elections
respecting reserve-component annuity.--A
married person who elects to provide a reserve-
component annuity may not without the
concurrence of the person's spouse elect--
(i) to provide an annuity for the
person's spouse at less than the
maximum level; or
(ii) to provide an annuity for a
dependent child but not for the
person's spouse.
(C) Exception when spouse unavailable.--A
person may make an election described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) without the concurrence
of the person's spouse if the person
establishes to the satisfaction of the
Secretary concerned--
(i) that the spouse's whereabouts
cannot be determined; or
(ii) that, due to exceptional
circumstances, requiring the person to
seek the spouse's consent would
otherwise be inappropriate.
(D) Construction with former spouse election
provisions.--This paragraph does not affect any
right or obligation to elect to provide an
annuity for a former spouse (or for a former
spouse and dependent child) under subsection
(b)(2).
(E) Notice to spouse of election to provide
former spouse annuity.--If a married person who
is eligible to provide a standard annuity
elects to provide an annuity for a former
spouse (or for a former spouse and dependent
child) under subsection (b)(2), that person's
spouse shall be notified of that election.
(4) Irrevocability of elections.--
(A) Standard annuity.--An election under
paragraph (2)(A) not to participate in the Plan
is irrevocable if not revoked before the date
on which the person first becomes entitled to
retired pay.
(B) Reserve-component annuity.--An election
under paragraph (2)(B) to participate in the
Plan is irrevocable if not revoked before the
end of the 90-day period referred to in that
paragraph.
(5) Participation by person marrying after
retirement, etc.--
(A) Election to participate in plan.--A
person who is not married and has no dependent
child upon becoming eligible to participate in
the Plan but who later marries or acquires a
dependent child may elect to participate in the
Plan.
(B) Manner and time of election.--Such an
election must be written, signed by the person
making the election, and received by the
Secretary concerned within one year after the
date on which that person marries or acquires
that dependent child.
(C) Limitation on revocation of election.--
Such an election may not be revoked except in
accordance with subsection (b)(3).
(D) Effective date of election.--The election
is effective as of the first day of the first
calendar month following the month in which the
election is received by the Secretary
concerned.
(E) Designation if rcsbp election.--In the
case of a person providing a reserve-component
annuity, such an election shall include a
designation under subsection (e).
(6) Election out of plan by person with spouse
coverage who remarries.--
(A) General rule.--A person--
(i) who is a participant in the Plan
and is providing coverage under the
Plan for a spouse (or a spouse and
child);
(ii) who does not have an eligible
spouse beneficiary under the Plan; and
(iii) who remarries,
may elect not to provide coverage under the
Plan for the person's spouse.
(B) Effect of election on retired pay.--If
such an election is made, reductions in the
retired pay of that person under section 1452
of this title shall not be made.
(C) Terms and conditions of election.--An
election under this paragraph--
(i) is irrevocable;
(ii) shall be made within one year
after the person's remarriage; and
(iii) shall be made in such form and
manner as may be prescribed in
regulations under section 1455 of this
title.
(D) Notice to spouse.--If a person makes an
election under this paragraph--
(i) not to participate in the Plan;
(ii) to provide an annuity for the
person's spouse at less than the
maximum level; or
(iii) to provide an annuity for a
dependent child but not for the
person's spouse,
the person's spouse shall be notified of that
election.
(E) Construction with former spouse election
provisions.--This paragraph does not affect any
right or obligation to elect to provide an
annuity to a former spouse under subsection
(b).
(b) Insurable Interest and Former Spouse Coverage.--
(1) Coverage for person with insurable interest.--
(A) General rule.--A person who is not
married and does not have a dependent child
upon becoming eligible to participate in the
Plan may elect to provide an annuity under the
Plan to a natural person with an insurable
interest in that person. In the case of a
person providing a reserve-component annuity,
such an election shall include a designation
under subsection (e).
(B) Termination of coverage.--An election
under subparagraph (A) for a beneficiary who is
not the former spouse of the person providing
the annuity may be terminated. Any such
termination shall be made by a participant by
the submission to the Secretary concerned of a
request to discontinue participation in the
Plan, and such participation in the Plan shall
be discontinued effective on the first day of
the first month following the month in which
the request is received by the Secretary
concerned. Effective on such date, the
Secretary concerned shall discontinue the
reduction being made in such person's retired
pay on account of participation in the Plan or,
in the case of a person who has been required
to make deposits in the Treasury on account of
participation in the Plan, such person may
discontinue making such deposits effective on
such date.
(C) Form for discontinuation.--A request
under subparagraph (B) to discontinue
participation in the Plan shall be in such form
and shall contain such information as may be
required under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense.
(D) Withdrawal of request for
discontinuation.--The Secretary concerned shall
furnish promptly to each person who submits a
request under subparagraph (B) to discontinue
participation in the Plan a written statement
of the advantages and disadvantages of
participating in the Plan and the possible
disadvantages of discontinuing participation. A
person may withdraw the request to discontinue
participation if withdrawn within 30 days after
having been submitted to the Secretary
concerned.
(E) Consequences of discontinuation.--Once
participation is discontinued, benefits may not
be paid in conjunction with the earlier
participation in the Plan and premiums paid may
not be refunded. Participation in the Plan may
not later be resumed except through a qualified
election under paragraph (5) of subsection (a).
(2) Former spouse coverage upon becoming a
participant in the plan.--
(A) General rule.--A person who has a former
spouse upon becoming eligible to participate in
the Plan may elect to provide an annuity to
that former spouse.
(B) Effect of former spouse election on
spouse or dependent child.--In the case of a
person with a spouse or a dependent child, such
an election prevents payment of an annuity to
that spouse or child (other than a child who is
a beneficiary under an election under paragraph
(4)), including payment under subsection (d).
(C) Designation if more than one former
spouse.--If there is more than one former
spouse, the person shall designate which former
spouse is to be provided the annuity.
(D) Designation if rcsbp election.--In the
case of a person providing a reserve-component
annuity, such an election shall include a
designation under subsection (e).
(3) Former spouse coverage by persons already
participating in plan.--
(A) Election of coverage.--
(i) Authority for election.--A
person--
(I) who is a participant in
the Plan and is providing
coverage for a spouse or a
spouse and child (even though
there is no beneficiary
currently eligible for such
coverage), and
(II) who has a former spouse
who was not that person's
former spouse when that person
became eligible to participate
in the Plan,
may (subject to subparagraph (B)) elect
to provide an annuity to that former
spouse.
(ii) Termination of previous
coverage.--Any such election terminates
any previous coverage under the Plan.
(iii) Manner and time of election.--
Any such election must be written,
signed by the person making the
election, and received by the Secretary
concerned within one year after the
date of the decree of divorce,
dissolution, or annulment.
(B) Limitation on election.--A person may not
make an election under subparagraph (A) to
provide an annuity to a former spouse who that
person married after becoming eligible for
retired pay unless--
(i) the person was married to that
former spouse for at least one year, or
(ii) that former spouse is the parent
of issue by that marriage.
(C) Irrevocability, effective date, etc.--An
election under this paragraph may not be
revoked except in accordance with section
1450(f) of this title. Such an election is
effective as of the first day of the first
calendar month following the month in which it
is received by the Secretary concerned. This
paragraph does not provide the authority to
change a designation previously made under
subsection (e).
(D) Notice to spouse.--If a person who is
married makes an election to provide an annuity
to a former spouse under this paragraph, that
person's spouse shall be notified of the
election.
(4) Former spouse and child coverage.--A person who
elects to provide an annuity for a former spouse under
paragraph (2) or (3) may, at the time of the election,
elect to provide coverage under that annuity for both
the former spouse and a dependent child, if the child
resulted from the person's marriage to that former
spouse.
(5) Disclosure of whether election of former spouse
coverage is required.--A person who elects to provide
an annuity to a former spouse under paragraph (2) or
(3) shall, at the time of making the election, provide
the Secretary concerned with a written statement (in a
form to be prescribed by that Secretary and signed by
such person and the former spouse) setting forth--
(A) whether the election is being made
pursuant to the requirements of a court order;
or
(B) whether the election is being made
pursuant to a written agreement previously
entered into voluntarily by such person as a
part of or incident to a proceeding of divorce,
dissolution, or annulment and (if so) whether
such voluntary written agreement has been
incorporated in, or ratified or approved by, a
court order.
(c) Persons on Temporary Disability Retired List.--The
application of the Plan to a person whose name is on the
temporary disability retired list terminates when his name is
removed from that list and he is no longer entitled to
disability retired pay.
(d) Coverage for Survivors of Retirement-Eligible Members Who
Die on Active Duty.--
(1) Surviving spouse annuity.--The Secretary
concerned shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to
the surviving spouse of a member who dies on active
duty after--
(A) becoming eligible to receive retired pay;
(B) qualifying for retired pay except that he
has not applied for or been granted that pay;
or
(C) completing 20 years of active service but
before he is eligible to retire as a
commissioned officer because he has not
completed 10 years of active commissioned
service.
(2) Dependent child annuity.--The Secretary concerned
shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to the
dependent child of a member described in paragraph (1)
if there is no surviving spouse or if the member's
surviving spouse subsequently dies.
(3) Mandatory former spouse annuity.--If a member
described in paragraph (1) is required under a court
order or spousal agreement to provide an annuity to a
former spouse upon becoming eligible to be a
participant in the Plan or has made an election under
subsection (b) to provide an annuity to a former
spouse, the Secretary--
(A) may not pay an annuity under paragraph
(1) or (2); but
(B) shall pay an annuity to that former
spouse as if the member had been a participant
in the Plan and had made an election under
subsection (b) to provide an annuity to the
former spouse, or in accordance with that
election, as the case may be, if the Secretary
receives a written request from the former
spouse concerned that the election be deemed to
have been made in the same manner as provided
in section 1450(f)(3) of this title.
(4) Priority.--An annuity that may be provided under
this subsection shall be provided in preference to an
annuity that may be provided under any other provision
of this subchapter on account of service of the same
member.
(5) Computation.--The amount of an annuity under this
subsection is computed under section 1451(c) of this
title.
(e) Designation for Commencement of Reserve-Component
Annuity.--In any case in which a person electing to participate
in the Plan is required to make a designation under this
subsection, the person making such election shall designate
whether, in the event he dies before becoming 60 years of age,
the annuity provided shall become effective on--
(1) the day after the date of his death; or
(2) the 60th anniversary of his birth.
(f) Coverage of Survivors of Persons Dying When Eligible To
Elect Reserve-Component Annuity.--
(1) Surviving spouse annuity.--The Secretary
concerned shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to
the surviving spouse of a person who is eligible to
provide a reserve-component annuity and who dies--
(A) before being notified under section
12731(d) of this title that he has completed
the years of service required for eligibility
for reserve-component retired pay; or
(B) during the 90-day period beginning on the
date he receives notification under section
12731(d) of this title that he has completed
the years of service required for eligibility
for reserve-component retired pay if he had not
made an election under subsection (a)(2)(B) to
participate in the Plan.
(2) Dependent child annuity.--The Secretary concerned
shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to the
dependent child of a person described in paragraph (1)
if there is no surviving spouse or if the person's
surviving spouse subsequently dies.
(3) Mandatory former spouse annuity.--If a person
described in paragraph (1) is required under a court
order or spousal agreement to provide an annuity to a
former spouse upon becoming eligible to be a
participant in the Plan or has made an election under
subsection (b) to provide an annuity to a former
spouse, the Secretary--
(A) may not pay an annuity under paragraph
(1) or (2); but
(B) shall pay an annuity to that former
spouse as if the person had been a participant
in the Plan and had made an election under
subsection (b) to provide an annuity to the
former spouse, or in accordance with that
election, as the case may be, if the Secretary
receives a written request from the former
spouse concerned that the election be deemed to
have been made in the same manner as provided
in section 1450(f)(3) of this title.
(4) Computation.--The amount of an annuity under this
subsection is computed under section 1451(c) of this
title.
(g) Election To Increase Coverage Upon Remarriage.--
(1) Election.--A person--
(A) who is a participant in the Plan and is
providing coverage under subsection (a) for a
spouse or a spouse and child, but at less than
the maximum level; and
(B) who remarries,
may elect, within one year of such remarriage, to
increase the level of coverage provided under the Plan
to a level not in excess of the current retired pay of
that person.
(2) Payment required.--Such an election shall be
contingent on the person paying to the United States
the amount determined under paragraph (3) plus interest
on such amount at a rate determined under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
(3) Amount to be paid.--The amount referred to in
paragraph (2) is the amount equal to the difference
between--
(A) the amount that would have been withheld
from such person's retired pay under section
1452 of this title if the higher level of
coverage had been in effect from the time the
person became a participant in the Plan; and
(B) the amount of such person's retired pay
actually withheld.
(4) Manner of making election.--An election under
paragraph (1) shall be made in such manner as the
Secretary shall prescribe and shall become effective
upon receipt of the payment required by paragraph (2).
(5) Disposition of payments.--A payment received
under this subsection by the Secretary of Defense shall
be deposited into the Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund. Any other payment received under this
subsection shall be deposited in the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 1449. Mental incompetency of member
(a) Election by Secretary Concerned on Behalf of Mentally
Incompetent Member.--If a person to whom section 1448 of this
title applies is determined to be mentally incompetent by
medical officers of the armed force concerned or of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, or by a court of competent
jurisdiction, an election described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)
of section 1448 of this title may be made on behalf of that
person by the Secretary concerned.
(b) Revocation of Election by Member.--
(1) Authority upon subsequent determination of mental
competence.--If a person for whom the Secretary has
made an election under subsection (a) is later
determined to be mentally competent by an authority
named in that subsection, that person may, within 180
days after that determination, revoke that election.
(2) Deductions from retired pay not to be refunded.--
Any deduction made from retired pay by reason of such
an election may not be refunded.
Sec. 1450. Payment of annuity: beneficiaries
(a) In General.--Effective as of the first day after the
death of a person to whom section 1448 of this title applies
(or on such other day as that person may provide under
subsection (j)), a monthly annuity under section 1451 of this
title shall be paid to the person's beneficiaries under the
Plan, as follows:
(1) Surviving spouse or former spouse.--The eligible
surviving spouse or the eligible former spouse.
(2) Surviving children.--The surviving dependent
children in equal shares, if the eligible surviving
spouse or the eligible former spouse is dead, dies, or
otherwise becomes ineligible under this section.
(3) Dependent children.--The dependent children in
equal shares if the person to whom section 1448 of this
title applies (with the concurrence of the person's
spouse, if required under section 1448(a)(3) of this
title) elected to provide an annuity for dependent
children but not for the spouse or former spouse.
(4) Natural person designated under ``insurable
interest'' coverage.--The natural person designated
under section 1448(b)(1) of this title, unless the
election to provide an annuity to the natural person
has been changed as provided in subsection (f).
(b) Termination of Annuity for Death, Remarriage Before Age
55, Etc.--
(1) General rule.--An annuity payable to the
beneficiary terminates effective as of the first day of
the month in which eligibility is lost.
(2) Termination of spouse annuity upon death or
remarriage before age 55.--An annuity for a surviving
spouse or former spouse shall be paid to the surviving
spouse or former spouse while the surviving spouse or
former spouse is living or, if the surviving spouse or
former spouse remarries before reaching age 55, until
the surviving spouse or former spouse remarries.
(3) Effect of termination of subsequent marriage
before age 55.--If the surviving spouse or former
spouse remarries before reaching age 55 and that
marriage is terminated by death, annulment, or divorce,
payment of the annuity shall be resumed effective as of
the first day of the month in which the marriage is so
terminated. However, if the surviving spouse or former
spouse is also entitled to an annuity under the Plan
based upon the marriage so terminated, the surviving
spouse or former spouse may not receive both annuities
but must elect which to receive.
(c) Offset for Amount of Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation.--
(1) Required offset.--If, upon the death of a person
to whom section 1448 of this title applies, the
surviving spouse or former spouse of that person is
also entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation
under section 1311(a) of title 38, the surviving spouse
or former spouse may be paid an annuity under this
section, but only in the amount that the annuity
otherwise payable under this section would exceed that
compensation.
(2) Effective date of offset.--A reduction in an
annuity under this section required by paragraph (1)
shall be effective on the date of the commencement of
the period of payment of such dependency and indemnity
compensation under title 38.
(d) Limitation on Payment of Annuities When Coverage Under
Civil Service Retirement Elected.--If, upon the death of a
person to whom section 1448 of this title applies, that person
had in effect a waiver of that person's retired pay for the
purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, an annuity
under this section shall not be payable unless, in accordance
with section 8339(j) of title 5, that person notified the
Office of Personnel Management that he did not desire any
spouse surviving him to receive an annuity under section
8341(b) of that title.
(e) Refund of Amounts Deducted From Retired Pay When DIC
Offset Is Applicable.--
(1) Full refund when dic greater than sbp annuity.--
If an annuity under this section is not payable because
of subsection (c), any amount deducted from the retired
pay of the deceased under section 1452 of this title
shall be refunded to the surviving spouse or former
spouse.
(2) Partial refund when sbp annuity reduced by dic.--
If, because of subsection (c), the annuity payable is
less than the amount established under section 1451 of
this title, the annuity payable shall be recalculated
under that section. The amount of the reduction in the
retired pay required to provide that recalculated
annuity shall be computed under section 1452 of this
title, and the difference between the amount deducted
before the computation of that recalculated annuity and
the amount that would have been deducted on the basis
of that recalculated annuity shall be refunded to the
surviving spouse or former spouse.
(f) Change in Election of Insurable Interest or Former Spouse
Beneficiary.--
(1) Authorized changes.--
(A) Election in favor of spouse or child.--A
person who elects to provide an annuity to a
person designated by him under section 1448(b)
of this title may, subject to paragraph (2),
change that election and provide an annuity to
his spouse or dependent child.
(B) Notice.--The Secretary concerned shall
notify the former spouse or other natural
person previously designated under section
1448(b) of this title of any change of election
under subparagraph (A).
(C) Procedures, effective date, etc.--Any
such change of election is subject to the same
rules with respect to execution, revocation,
and effectiveness as are set forth in section
1448(a)(5) of this title (without regard to the
eligibility of the person making the change of
election to make such an election under that
section).
(2) Limitation on change in beneficiary when former
spouse coverage in effect.--A person who, incident to a
proceeding of divorce, dissolution, or annulment, is
required by a court order to elect under section
1448(b) of this title to provide an annuity to a former
spouse (or to both a former spouse and child), or who
enters into a written agreement (whether voluntary or
required by a court order) to make such an election,
and who makes an election pursuant to such order or
agreement, may not change that election under paragraph
(1) unless, of the following requirements, whichever
are applicable in a particular case are satisfied:
(A) In a case in which the election is
required by a court order, or in which an
agreement to make the election has been
incorporated in or ratified or approved by a
court order, the person--
(i) furnishes to the Secretary
concerned a certified copy of a court
order which is regular on its face and
which modifies the provisions of all
previous court orders relating to such
election, or the agreement to make such
election, so as to permit the person to
change the election; and
(ii) certifies to the Secretary
concerned that the court order is valid
and in effect.
(B) In a case of a written agreement that has
not been incorporated in or ratified or
approved by a court order, the person--
(i) furnishes to the Secretary
concerned a statement, in such form as
the Secretary concerned may prescribe,
signed by the former spouse and
evidencing the former spouse's
agreement to a change in the election
under paragraph (1); and
(ii) certifies to the Secretary
concerned that the statement is current
and in effect.
(3) Required former spouse election to be deemed to
have been made.--
(A) Deemed election upon request by former
spouse.--If a person described in paragraph (2)
or (3) of section 1448(b) of this title is
required (as described in subparagraph (B)) to
elect under section 1448(b) of this title to
provide an annuity to a former spouse and such
person then fails or refuses to make such an
election, such person shall be deemed to have
made such an election if the Secretary
concerned receives the following:
(i) Request from former spouse.--A
written request, in such manner as the
Secretary shall prescribe, from the
former spouse concerned requesting that
such an election be deemed to have been
made.
(ii) Copy of court order or other
official statement.--Either--
(I) a copy of the court
order, regular on its face,
which requires such election or
incorporates, ratifies, or
approves the written agreement
of such person; or
(II) a statement from the
clerk of the court (or other
appropriate official) that such
agreement has been filed with
the court in accordance with
applicable State law.
(B) Persons required to make election.--A
person shall be considered for purposes of
subparagraph (A) to be required to elect under
section 1448(b) of this title to provide an
annuity to a former spouse if--
(i) the person enters, incident to a
proceeding of divorce, dissolution, or
annulment, into a written agreement to
make such an election and the agreement
(I) has been incorporated in or
ratified or approved by a court order,
or (II) has been filed with the court
of appropriate jurisdiction in
accordance with applicable State law;
or
(ii) the person is required by a
court order to make such an election.
(C) Time limit for request by former
spouse.--An election may not be deemed to have
been made under subparagraph (A) in the case of
any person unless the Secretary concerned
receives a request from the former spouse of
the person within one year of the date of the
court order or filing involved.
(D) Effective date of deemed election.--An
election deemed to have been made under
subparagraph (A) shall become effective on the
first day of the first month which begins after
the date of the court order or filing involved.
(4) Former spouse coverage may be required by court
order.--A court order may require a person to elect (or
to enter into an agreement to elect) under section
1448(b) of this title to provide an annuity to a former
spouse (or to both a former spouse and child).
(g) Limitation on Changing or Revoking Elections.--
(1) In general.--An election under this section may
not be changed or revoked.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
(A) a revocation of an election under section
1449(b) of this title; or
(B) a change in an election under subsection
(f).
(h) Treatment of Annuities Under Other Laws.--Except as
provided in section 1451 of this title, an annuity under this
section is in addition to any other payment to which a person
is entitled under any other provision of law. Such annuity
shall be considered as income under laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(i) Annuities Exempt From Certain Legal Process.--Except as
provided in subsection (l)(3)(B), an annuity under this section
is not assignable or subject to execution, levy, attachment,
garnishment, or other legal process.
(j) Effective Date of Reserve-Component Annuities.--
(1) Persons making section 1448(e) designation.--An
annuity elected by a person providing a reserve-
component annuity shall be effective in accordance with
the designation made by such person under section
1448(e) of this title.
(2) Persons dying before making section 1448(e)
designation.--An annuity payable under section 1448(f)
of this title shall be effective on the day after the
date of the death of the person upon whose service the
right to the annuity is based.
(k) Adjustment of Spouse or Former Spouse Annuity Upon Loss
of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.--
(1) Readjustment if beneficiary 55 years of age or
more.--If a surviving spouse or former spouse whose
annuity has been adjusted under subsection (c)
subsequently loses entitlement to dependency and
indemnity compensation under section 1311(a) of title
38 because of the remarriage of the surviving spouse,
or former spouse, and if at the time of such remarriage
the surviving spouse or former spouse is 55 years of
age or more, the amount of the annuity of the surviving
spouse or former spouse shall be readjusted, effective
on the effective date of such loss of dependency and
indemnity compensation, to the amount of the annuity
which would be in effect with respect to the surviving
spouse or former spouse if the adjustment under
subsection (c) had never been made.
(2) Repayment of amounts previously refunded.--
(A) General rule.--A surviving spouse or
former spouse whose annuity is readjusted under
paragraph (1) shall repay any amount refunded
under subsection (e) by reason of the
adjustment under subsection (c).
(B) Interest required if repayment not a lump
sum.--If the repayment is not made in a lump
sum, the surviving spouse or former spouse
shall pay interest on the amount to be repaid.
Such interest shall commence on the date on
which the first such payment is due and shall
be applied over the period during which any
part of the repayment remains to be paid.
(C) Manner of repayment; rate of interest.--
The manner in which such repayment shall be
made, and the rate of any such interest, shall
be prescribed in regulations under section 1455
of this title.
(D) Deposit of amounts repaid.--An amount
repaid under this paragraph (including any such
interest) received by the Secretary of Defense
shall be deposited into the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund. Any other
amount repaid under this paragraph shall be
deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts.
(l) Participants in the Plan Who Are Missing.--
(1) Authority to presume death of missing
participant.--
(A) In general.--Upon application of the
beneficiary of a participant in the Plan who is
missing, the Secretary concerned may determine
for purposes of this subchapter that the
participant is presumed dead.
(B) Participant who is missing.--A
participant in the Plan is considered to be
missing for purposes of this subsection if--
(i) the retired pay of the
participant has been suspended on the
basis that the participant is missing;
or
(ii) in the case of a participant in
the Plan who would be eligible for
reserve-component retired pay but for
the fact that he is under 60 years of
age, his retired pay, if he were
entitled to retired pay, would be
suspended on the basis that he is
missing.
(C) Requirements applicable to presumption of
death.--Any such determination shall be made in
accordance with regulations prescribed under
section 1455 of this title. The Secretary
concerned may not make a determination for
purposes of this subchapter that a participant
who is missing is presumed dead unless the
Secretary finds that--
(i) the participant has been missing
for at least 30 days; and
(ii) the circumstances under which
the participant is missing would lead a
reasonably prudent person to conclude
that the participant is dead.
(2) Commencement of annuity.--Upon a determination
under paragraph (1) with respect to a participant in
the Plan, an annuity otherwise payable under this
subchapter shall be paid as if the participant died on
the date as of which the retired pay of the participant
was suspended.
(3) Effect of person not being dead.--
(A) Termination of annuity.--If, after a
determination under paragraph (1), the
Secretary concerned determines that the
participant is alive--
(i) any annuity being paid under this
subchapter by reason of this subsection
shall be terminate; and
(ii) the total amount of any annuity
payments made by reason of this
subsection shall constitute a debt to
the United States.
(B) Collection from participant of annuity
amounts erroneously paid.--A debt under
subparagraph (A)(ii) may be collected or
offset--
(i) from any retired pay otherwise
payable to the participant;
(ii) if the participant is entitled
to compensation under chapter 11 of
title 38, from that compensation; or
(iii) if the participant is entitled
to any other payment from the United
States, from that payment.
(C) Collection from beneficiary.--If the
participant dies before the full recovery of
the amount of annuity payments described in
subparagraph (A)(ii) has been made by the
United States, the remaining amount of such
annuity payments may be collected from the
participant's beneficiary under the Plan if
that beneficiary was the recipient of the
annuity payments made by reason of this
subsection.
Sec. 1451. Amount of annuity
(a) Computation of Annuity for a Spouse, Former Spouse, or
Child.--
(1) Standard annuity.--In the case of a standard
annuity provided to a beneficiary under section 1450(a)
of this title (other than under section 1450(a)(4)),
the monthly annuity payable to the beneficiary shall be
determined as follows:
(A) Beneficiary under 62 years of age.--If
the beneficiary is under 62 years of age or is
a dependent child when becoming entitled to the
annuity, the monthly annuity shall be the
amount equal to 55 percent of the base amount.
(B) Beneficiary 62 years of age or older.--
(i) General rule.--If the beneficiary
(other than a dependent child) is 62
years of age or older when becoming
entitled to the annuity, the monthly
annuity shall be the amount equal to 35
percent of the base amount.
(ii) Rule if beneficiary eligible for
social security offset computation.--If
the beneficiary is eligible to have the
annuity computed under subsection (e)
and if, at the time the beneficiary
becomes entitled to the annuity,
computation of the annuity under that
subsection is more favorable to the
beneficiary than computation under
clause (i), the annuity shall be
computed under that subsection rather
than under clause (i).
(2) Reserve-component annuity--In the case of a
reserve-component annuity provided to a beneficiary
under section 1450(a) of this title (other than under
section 1450(a)(4)), the monthly annuity payable to the
beneficiary shall be determined as follows:
(A) Beneficiary under 62 years of age.--If
the beneficiary is under 62 years of age or is
a dependent child when becoming entitled to the
annuity, the monthly annuity shall be the
amount equal to a percentage of the base amount
that--
(i) is less than 55 percent; and
(ii) is determined under subsection
(f).
(B) Beneficiary 62 years of age or older.--
(i) General rule.--If the beneficiary
(other than a dependent child) is 62
years of age or older when becoming
entitled to the annuity, the monthly
annuity shall be the amount equal to a
percentage of the base amount that--
(I) is less than 35 percent;
and
(II) is determined under
subsection (f).
(ii) Rule if beneficiary eligible for
social security offset computation.--If
the beneficiary is eligible to have the
annuity computed under subsection (e)
and if, at the time the beneficiary
becomes entitled to the annuity,
computation of the annuity under that
subsection is more favorable to the
beneficiary than computation under
clause (i), the annuity shall be
computed under that subsection rather
than under clause (i).
(b) Insurable Interest Beneficiary.--
(1) Standard annuity.--In the case of a standard
annuity provided to a beneficiary under section
1450(a)(4) of this title, the monthly annuity payable
to the beneficiary shall be the amount equal to 55
percent of the retired pay of the person who elected to
provide the annuity after the reduction in that pay in
accordance with section 1452(c) of this title.
(2) Reserve-component annuity.--In the case of a
reserve-component annuity provided to a beneficiary
under section 1450(a)(4) of this title, the monthly
annuity payable to the beneficiary shall be the amount
equal to a percentage of the retired pay of the person
who elected to provide the annuity after the reduction
in such pay in accordance with section 1452(c) of this
title that--
(A) is less than 55 percent; and
(B) is determined under subsection (f).
(3) Computation of reserve-component annuity when
participant dies before age 60.--For the purposes of
paragraph (2), a person--
(A) who provides an annuity that is
determined in accordance with that paragraph;
(B) who dies before becoming 60 years of age;
and
(C) who at the time of death is otherwise
entitled to retired pay,
shall be considered to have been entitled to retired
pay at the time of death. The retired pay of such
person for the purposes of such paragraph shall be
computed on the basis of the rates of basic pay in
effect on the date on which the annuity provided by
such person is to become effective in accordance with
the designation of such person under section 1448(e) of
this title.
(c) Annuities for Survivors of Certain Persons Dying During a
Period of Special Eligibility for SBP.--
(1) In general.--In the case of an annuity provided
under section 1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the
amount of the annuity shall be determined as follows:
(A) Beneficiary under 62 years of age.--If
the person receiving the annuity is under 62
years of age or is a dependent child when the
member or former member dies, the monthly
annuity shall be the amount equal to 55 percent
of the retired pay to which the member or
former member would have been entitled if the
member or former member had been entitled to
that pay based upon his years of active service
when he died.
(B) Beneficiary 62 years of age or older.--
(i) General rule.--If the person
receiving the annuity (other than a
dependent child) is 62 years of age or
older when the member or former member
dies, the monthly annuity shall be the
amount equal to 35 percent of the
retired pay to which the member or
former member would have been entitled
if the member or former member had been
entitled to that pay based upon his
years of active service when he died.
(ii) Rule if beneficiary eligible for
social security offset computation.--If
the beneficiary is eligible to have the
annuity computed under subsection (e)
and if, at the time the beneficiary
becomes entitled to the annuity,
computation of the annuity under that
subsection is more favorable to the
beneficiary than computation under
clause (i), the annuity shall be
computed under that subsection rather
than under clause (i).
(2) DIC offset.--An annuity computed under paragraph
(1) that is paid to a surviving spouse shall be reduced
by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation
to which the surviving spouse is entitled under section
1311(a) of title 38. Any such reduction shall be
effective on the date of the commencement of the period
of payment of such compensation under title 38.
(3) Officer with enlisted service who is not yet
eligible to retire as an officer.--In the case of an
annuity provided by reason of the service of a member
described in section 1448(d)(1)(B) or 1448(d)(1)(C) of
this title who first became a member of a uniformed
service before September 8, 1980, the retired pay to
which the member would have been entitled when he died
shall be determined for purposes of paragraph (1) based
upon the rate of basic pay in effect at the time of
death for the grade in which the member was serving at
the time of death, unless (as determined by the
Secretary concerned) the member would have been
entitled to be retired in a higher grade.
(4) Rate of pay to be used in computing annuity.--In
the case of an annuity paid under section 1448(f) of
this title by reason of the service of a person who
first became a member of a uniformed service before
September 8, 1980, the retired pay of the person
providing the annuity shall for the purposes of
paragraph (1) be computed on the basis of the rates of
basic pay in effect on the effective date of the
annuity.
(d) Reduction of Annuities at Age 62.--
(1) Reduction required.--The annuity of a person
whose annuity is computed under subparagraph (A) of
subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (c)(1) shall be reduced
on the first day of the month after the month in which
the person becomes 62 years of age.
(2) Amount of annuity as reduced.--
(A) 35 percent annuity.--Except as provided
in subparagraph (B), the reduced amount of the
annuity shall be the amount of the annuity that
the person would be receiving on that date if
the annuity had initially been computed under
subparagraph (B) of that subsection.
(B) Savings provision for beneficiaries
eligible for social security offset
computation.--In the case of a person eligible
to have an annuity computed under subsection
(e) and for whom, at the time the person
becomes 62 years of age, the annuity computed
with a reduction under subsection (e)(3) is
more favorable than the annuity with a
reduction described in subparagraph (A), the
reduction in the annuity shall be computed in
the same manner as a reduction under subsection
(e)(3).
(e) Savings Provision for Certain Beneficiaries.--
(1) Persons covered.--The following beneficiaries
under the Plan are eligible to have an annuity under
the Plan computed under this subsection:
(A) A beneficiary receiving an annuity under
the Plan on October 1, 1985, as the surviving
spouse or former spouse of the person providing
the annuity.
(B) A spouse or former spouse beneficiary of
a person who on October 1, 1985--
(i) was a participant in the Plan;
(ii) was entitled to retired pay or
was qualified for that pay except that
he had not applied for and been granted
that pay; or
(iii) would have been eligible for
reserve-component retired pay but for
the fact that he was under 60 years of
age.
(2) Amount of annuity.--Subject to paragraph (3), an
annuity computed under this subsection is determined as
follows:
(A) Standard annuity.--In the case of the
beneficiary of a standard annuity, the annuity
shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of the
base amount.
(B) Reserve component annuity.--In the case
of the beneficiary of a reserve-component
annuity, the annuity shall be the percentage of
the base amount that--
(i) is less than 55 percent; and
(ii) is determined under subsection
(f).
(C) Beneficiaries of persons dying during a
period of special eligibility for sbp.--In the
case of the beneficiary of an annuity under
section 1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the
annuity shall be the amount equal to 55 percent
of the retired pay of the person providing the
annuity (as that pay is determined under
subsection (c)).
(3) Social security offset.--An annuity computed
under this subsection shall be reduced by the lesser of
the following:
(A) Social security computation.--The amount
of the survivor benefit, if any, to which the
surviving spouse (or the former spouse, in the
case of a former spouse beneficiary who became
a former spouse under a divorce that became
final after November 29, 1989) would be
entitled under title II of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) based solely upon
service by the person concerned as described in
section 210(l)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
410(l)(1)) and calculated assuming that the
person concerned lives to age 65.
(B) Maximum amount of reduction.--40 percent
of the amount of the monthly annuity as
determined under paragraph (2).
(4) Special rules for social security offset
computation.--
(A) Treatment of deductions made on account
of work.--For the purpose of paragraph (3), a
surviving spouse (or a former spouse, in the
case of a person who becomes a former spouse
under a divorce that becomes final after
November 29, 1989) shall not be considered as
entitled to a benefit under title II of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) to
the extent that such benefit has been offset by
deductions under section 203 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 403) on account of work.
(B) Treatment of certain periods for which
social security refunds are made.--In the
computation of any reduction made under
paragraph (3), there shall be excluded any
period of service described in section
210(l)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
410(l)(1))--
(i) which was performed after
December 1, 1980; and
(ii) which involved periods of
service of less than 30 continuous days
for which the person concerned is
entitled to receive a refund under
section 6413(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 of the social security tax
which the person had paid.
(f) Determination of Percentages Applicable to Computation of
Reserve-Component Annuities.--The percentage to be applied in
determining the amount of an annuity computed under subsection
(a)(2), (b)(2), or (e)(2)(B) shall be determined under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. Such
regulations shall be prescribed taking into consideration the
following:
(1) The age of the person electing to provide the
annuity at the time of such election.
(2) The difference in age between such person and the
beneficiary of the annuity.
(3) Whether such person provided for the annuity to
become effective (in the event he died before becoming
60 years of age) on the day after his death or on the
60th anniversary of his birth.
(4) Appropriate group annuity tables.
(5) Such other factors as the Secretary considers
relevant.
(g) Adjustments to Annuities.--
(1) Periodic adjustments for cost-of-living.--
(A) Increases in annuities when retired pay
increased.--Whenever retired pay is increased
under section 1401a of this title (or any other
provision of law), each annuity that is payable
under the Plan shall be increased at the same
time.
(B) Percentage of increase.--The increase
shall, in the case of any annuity, be by the
same percent as the percent by which the
retired pay of the person providing the annuity
would have been increased at such time if the
person were alive (and otherwise entitled to
such pay).
(C) Certain reductions to be disregarded.--
The amount of the increase shall be based on
the monthly annuity payable before any
reduction under section 1450(c) of this title
or under subsection (c)(2).
(2) Rounding down.--The monthly amount of an annuity
payable under this subchapter, if not a multiple of $1,
shall be rounded to the next lower multiple of $1.
(h) Adjustments to Base Amount.--
(1) Periodic adjustments for cost-of-living.--
(A) Increases in base amount when retired pay
increased.--Whenever retired pay is increased
under section 1401a of this title (or any other
provision of law), the base amount applicable
to each participant in the Plan shall be
increased at the same time.
(B) Percentage of increase.--The increase
shall be by the same percent as the percent by
which the retired pay of the participant is so
increased.
(2) Recomputation at age 62.--When the retired pay of
a person who first became a member of a uniformed
service on or after August 1, 1986, and who is a
participant in the Plan is recomputed under section
1410 of this title upon the person's becoming 62 years
of age, the base amount applicable to that person shall
be recomputed (effective on the effective date of the
recomputation of such retired pay under section 1410 of
this title) so as to be the amount equal to the amount
of the base amount that would be in effect on that date
if increases in such base amount under paragraph (1)
had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of
section 1401a(b) of this title (rather than under
paragraph (3) of that section).
(3) Disregarding of retired pay reductions for
retirement before 30 years of service.--Computation of
a member's retired pay for purposes of this section
shall be made without regard to any reduction under
section 1409(b)(2) of this title.
(i) Recomputation of Annuity for Certain Beneficiaries.--In
the case of an annuity under the Plan which is computed on the
basis of the retired pay of a person who would have been
entitled to have that retired pay recomputed under section 1410
of this title upon attaining 62 years of age, but who dies
before attaining that age, the annuity shall be recomputed,
effective on the first day of the first month beginning after
the date on which the member or former member would have
attained 62 years of age, so as to be the amount equal to the
amount of the annuity that would be in effect on that date if
increases under subsection (h)(1) in the base amount applicable
to that annuity to the time of the death of the member or
former member, and increases in such annuity under subsection
(g)(1), had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of
section 1401a(b) of this title (rather than under paragraph (3)
of that section).
Sec. 1452. Reduction in retired pay
(a) Spouse and Former Spouse Annuities.--
(1) Required reduction in retired pay.--Except as
provided in subsection (b), the retired pay of a
participant in the Plan who is providing spouse
coverage (as described in paragraph (5)) shall be
reduced as follows:
(A) Standard annuity.--If the annuity
coverage being providing is a standard annuity,
the reduction shall be as follows:
(i) Disability and nonregular service
retirees.--In the case of a person who
is entitled to retired pay under
chapter 61 or chapter 1223 of this
title, the reduction shall be in
whichever of the alternative reduction
amounts is more favorable to that
person.
(ii) Members as of enactment of flat-
rate reduction.--In the case of a
person who first became a member of a
uniformed service before March 1, 1990,
the reduction shall be in whichever of
the alternative reduction amounts is
more favorable to that person.
(iii) New entrants after enactment of
flat-rate reduction.--In the case of a
person who first becomes a member of a
uniformed service on or after March 1,
1990, and who is entitled to retired
pay under a provision of law other than
chapter 61 or chapter 1223 of this
title, the reduction shall be in an
amount equal to 6\1/2\ percent of the
base amount.
(iv) Alternative reduction amounts.--
For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii),
the alternative reduction amounts are
the following:
(I) Flat-rate reduction.--An
amount equal to 6\1/2\ percent
of the base amount.
(II) Amount under pre-flat-
rate reduction.--An amount
equal to 2\1/2\ percent of the
first $421 (as adjusted under
paragraph (4)) of the base
amount plus 10 percent of the
remainder of the base amount.
(B) Reserve-component annuity.--If the
annuity coverage being provided is a reserve-
component annuity, the reduction shall be in
whichever of the following amounts is more
favorable to that person:
(i) Flat-rate reduction.--An amount
equal to 6\1/2\ percent of the base
amount plus an amount determined in
accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense as a
premium for the additional coverage
provided through reserve-component
annuity coverage under the Plan.
(ii) Amount under pre-flat-rate
reduction.--An amount equal to 2\1/2\
percent of the first $421 (as adjusted
under paragraph (4)) of the base amount
plus 10 percent of the remainder of the
base amount plus an amount determined
in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense
as a premium for the additional
coverage provided through reserve-
component annuity coverage under the
Plan.
(2) Additional reduction for child coverage.--If
there is a dependent child as well as a spouse or
former spouse, the amount prescribed under paragraph
(1) shall be increased by an amount prescribed under
regulations of the Secretary of Defense.
(3) No reduction when no beneficiary.--The reduction
in retired pay prescribed by paragraph (1) shall not be
applicable during any month in which there is no
eligible spouse or former spouse beneficiary.
(4) Periodic adjustments.--
(A) Adjustments for increases in rates of
basic pay.--Whenever there is an increase in
the rates of basic pay of members of the
uniformed services effective after January 1,
1996, the amounts under paragraph (1) with
respect to which the percentage factor of 2\1/
2\ is applied shall be increased by the overall
percentage of such increase in the rates of
basic pay. The increase under the preceding
sentence shall apply only with respect to
persons whose retired pay is computed based on
the rates of basic pay in effect on or after
the date of such increase in rates of basic
pay.
(B) Adjustments for retired pay colas.--In
addition to the increase under subparagraph
(A), the amounts under paragraph (1) with
respect to which the percentage factor of 2\1/
2\ is applied shall be further increased at the
same time and by the same percentage as an
increase in retired pay under section 1401a of
this title effective after January 1, 1996.
Such increase under the preceding sentence
shall apply only with respect to a person who
initially participates in the Plan on a date
which is after both the effective date of such
increase under section 1401a and the effective
date of the rates of basic pay upon which that
person's retired pay is computed.
(5) Spouse coverage described.--For the purposes of
paragraph (1), a participant in the Plan who is
providing spouse coverage is a participant who--
(A) has (i) a spouse or former spouse, or
(ii) a spouse or former spouse and a dependent
child; and
(B) has not elected to provide an annuity to
a person designated by him under section
1448(b)(1) of this title or, having made such
an election, has changed his election in favor
of his spouse under section 1450(f) of this
title.
(b) Child-Only Annuities.--
(1) Required reduction in retired pay.--The retired
pay of a participant in the Plan who is providing
child-only coverage (as described in paragraph (4))
shall be reduced by an amount prescribed under
regulations by the Secretary of Defense.
(2) No reduction when no child.--There shall be no
reduction in retired pay under paragraph (1) for any
month during which the participant has no eligible
dependent child.
(3) Special rule for certain rcsbp participants.--In
the case of a participant in the Plan who is
participating in the Plan under an election under
section 1448(a)(2)(B) of this title and who provided
child-only coverage during a period before the
participant becomes entitled to receive retired pay,
the retired pay of the participant shall be reduced by
an amount prescribed under regulations by the Secretary
of Defense to reflect the coverage provided under the
Plan during the period before the participant became
entitled to receive retired pay. A reduction under this
paragraph is in addition to any reduction under
paragraph (1) and is made without regard to whether
there is an eligible dependent child during a month for
which the reduction is made.
(4) Child-only coverage defined.--For the purposes of
this subsection, a participant in the Plan who is
providing child-only coverage is a participant who has
a dependent child and who--
(A) does not have an eligible spouse or
former spouse; or
(B) has a spouse or former spouse but has
elected to provide an annuity for dependent
children only.
(c) Reduction for Insurable Interest Coverage.--
(1) Required reduction in retired pay.--The retired
pay of a person who has elected to provide an annuity
to a person designated by him under section 1450(a)(4)
of this title shall be reduced as follows:
(A) Standard annuity.--In the case of a
person providing a standard annuity, the
reduction shall be by 10 percent plus 5 percent
for each full five years the individual
designated is younger than that person.
(B) Reserve component annuity.--In the case
of a person providing a reserve-component
annuity, the reduction shall be by an amount
prescribed under regulations of the Secretary
of Defense.
(2) Limitation on total reduction.--The total
reduction under paragraph (1) may not exceed 40
percent.
(3) Duration of reduction.--The reduction in retired
pay prescribed by this subsection shall continue during
the lifetime of the person designated under section
1450(a)(4) of this title or until the person receiving
retired pay changes his election under section 1450(f)
of this title.
(4) Rule for computation.--Computation of a member's
retired pay for purposes of this subsection shall be
made without regard to any reduction under section
1409(b)(2) of this title.
(d) Deposits To Cover Periods When Retired Pay Not Paid.--
(1) Required deposits.--If a person who has elected
to participate in the Plan has been awarded retired pay
and is not entitled to that pay for any period, that
person must deposit in the Treasury the amount that
would otherwise have been deducted from his pay for
that period.
(2) Deposits not required when participant on active
duty.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to a person with
respect to any period when that person is on active
duty under a call or order to active duty for a period
of more than 30 days.
``(e) Deposits Not Required for Certain Participants in
CSRS.--When a person who has elected to participate in the Plan
waives that person's retired pay for the purposes of subchapter
III of chapter 83 of title 5, that person shall not be required
to make the deposit otherwise required by subsection (d) as
long as that waiver is in effect unless, in accordance with
section 8339(i) of title 5, that person has notified the Office
of Personnel Management that he does not desire a spouse
surviving him to receive any annuity under section 8341(b) of
title 5.
(f) Refunds of Deductions Not Allowed.--
(1) General rule.--A person is not entitled to refund
of any amount deducted from retired pay under this
section.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply--
(A) in the case of a refund authorized by
section 1450(e) of this title; or
(B) in case of a deduction made through
administrative error.
(g) Discontinuation of Participation by Participants Whose
Surviving Spouses Will Be Entitled to DIC.--
(1) Discontinuation.--
(A) Conditions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subchapter but subject to
paragraphs (2) and (3), a person who has
elected to participate in the Plan and who is
suffering from a service-connected disability
rated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as
totally disabling and has suffered from such
disability while so rated for a continuous
period of 10 or more years (or, if so rated for
a lesser period, has suffered from such
disability while so rated for a continuous
period of not less than 5 years from the date
of such person's last discharge or release from
active duty) may discontinue participation in
the Plan by submitting to the Secretary
concerned a request to discontinue
participation in the Plan.
(B) Effective date.--Participation in the
Plan of a person who submits a request under
subparagraph (A) shall be discontinued
effective on the first day of the first month
following the month in which the request under
subparagraph (A) is received by the Secretary
concerned. Effective on such date, the
Secretary concerned shall discontinue the
reduction being made in such person's retired
pay on account of participation in the Plan or,
in the case of a person who has been required
to make deposits in the Treasury on account of
participation in the Plan, such person may
discontinue making such deposits effective on
such date.
(C) Form for request for discontinuation.--
Any request under this paragraph to discontinue
participation in the Plan shall be in such form
and shall contain such information as the
Secretary concerned may require by regulation.
(2) Consent of beneficiaries required.--A person
described in paragraph (1) may not discontinue
participation in the Plan under such paragraph without
the written consent of the beneficiary or beneficiaries
of such person under the Plan.
(3) Information on plan to be provided by secretary
concerned.--
(A) Information to be provided promptly to
participant.--The Secretary concerned shall
furnish promptly to each person who files a
request under paragraph (1) to discontinue
participation in the Plan a written statement
of the advantages of participating in the Plan
and the possible disadvantages of discontinuing
participation.
(B) Right to withdraw discontinuation
request.--A person may withdraw a request made
under paragraph (1) if it is withdrawn within
30 days after having been submitted to the
Secretary concerned.
(4) Refund of deductions from retired pay.--Upon the
death of a person described in paragraph (1) who
discontinued participation in the Plan in accordance
with this subsection, any amount deducted from the
retired pay of that person under this section shall be
refunded to the person's surviving spouse.
(5) Resumption of participation in plan.--
(A) Conditions for resumption.--A person
described in paragraph (1) who discontinued
participation in the Plan may elect to
participate again in the Plan if--
(i) after having discontinued
participation in the Plan the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs reduces that
person's service-connected disability
rating to a rating of less than total;
and
(ii) that person applies to the
Secretary concerned, within such period
of time after the reduction in such
person's service-connected disability
rating has been made as the Secretary
concerned may prescribe, to again
participate in the Plan and includes in
such application such information as
the Secretary concerned may require.
(B) Effective date of resumed coverage.--Such
person's participation in the Plan under this
paragraph is effective beginning on the first
day of the month after the month in which the
Secretary concerned receives the application
for resumption of participation in the Plan.
(C) Resumption of contributions.--When a
person elects to participate in the Plan under
this paragraph, the Secretary concerned shall
begin making reductions in that person's
retired pay, or require such person to make
deposits in the Treasury under subsection (d),
as appropriate, effective on the effective date
of such participation under subparagraph (B).
(h) Increases in Reduction With Increases in Retired Pay.--
Whenever retired pay is increased under section 1401a of this
title (or any other provision of law), the amount of the
reduction to be made under subsection (a) or (b) in the retired
pay of any person shall be increased at the same time and by
the same percentage as such retired pay is so increased.
(i) Recomputation of Reduction Upon Recomputation of Retired
Pay.--When the retired pay of a person who first became a
member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 1986, and
who is a participant in the Plan is recomputed under section
1410 of this title upon the person's becoming 62 years of age,
the amount of the reduction in such retired pay under this
section shall be recomputed (effective on the effective date of
the recomputation of such retired pay under section 1410 of
this title) so as to be the amount equal to the amount of such
reduction that would be in effect on that date if increases in
such retired pay under section 1401a(b) of this title, and
increases in reductions in such retired pay under subsection
(h), had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of section
1401a(b) of this title (rather than under paragraph (3) of that
section).
Sec. 1453. Recovery of amounts erroneously paid
(a) Recovery.--In addition to any other method of recovery
provided by law, the Secretary concerned may authorize the
recovery of any amount erroneously paid to a person under this
subchapter by deduction from later payments to that person.
(b) Authority To Waive Recovery.--Recovery of an amount
erroneously paid to a person under this subchapter is not
required if, in the judgment of the Secretary concerned and the
Comptroller General--
(1) there has been no fault by the person to whom the
amount was erroneously paid; and
(2) recovery of such amount would be contrary to the
purposes of this subchapter or against equity and good
conscience.
Sec. 1454. Correction of administrative errors
(a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned may, under
regulations prescribed under section 1455 of this title,
correct or revoke any election under this subchapter when the
Secretary considers it necessary to correct an administrative
error.
(b) Finality.--Except when procured by fraud, a correction or
revocation under this section is final and conclusive on all
officers of the United States.
Sec. 1455. Regulations
(a) In General.--The President shall prescribe regulations to
carry out this subchapter. Those regulations shall, so far as
practicable, be uniform for the uniformed services.
(b) Notice of Elections.--Regulations prescribed under this
section shall provide that before the date on which a member
becomes entitled to retired pay--
(1) if the member is married, the member and the
member's spouse shall be informed of the elections
available under section 1448(a) of this title and the
effects of such elections; and
(2) if the notification referred to in section
1448(a)(3)(E) of this title is required, any former
spouse of the member shall be informed of the elections
available and the effects of such elections.
(c) Procedure for Depositing Certain Receipts.--Regulations
prescribed under this section shall establish procedures for
depositing the amounts referred to in sections 1448(g),
1450(k)(2), and 1452(d) of this title.
(d) Payments to Guardians and Fiduciaries.--
(1) In general.--Regulations prescribed under this
section shall provide procedures for the payment of an
annuity under this subchapter in the case of--
(A) a person for whom a guardian or other
fiduciary has been appointed; and
(B) a minor, mentally incompetent, or
otherwise legally disabled person for whom a
guardian or other fiduciary has not been
appointed.
(2) Authorized procedures.--The regulations under
paragraph (1) may include provisions for the following:
(A) In the case of an annuitant referred to
in paragraph (1)(A), payment of the annuity to
the appointed guardian or other fiduciary.
(B) In the case of an annuitant referred to
in paragraph (1)(B), payment of the annuity to
any person who, in the judgment of the
Secretary concerned, is responsible for the
care of the annuitant.
(C) Subject to subparagraphs (D) and (E), a
requirement for the payee of an annuity to
spend or invest the amounts paid on behalf of
the annuitant solely for benefit of the
annuitant.
(D) Authority for the Secretary concerned to
permit the payee to withhold from the annuity
payment such amount, not in excess of 4 percent
of the annuity, as the Secretary concerned
considers a reasonable fee for the fiduciary
services of the payee when a court appointment
order provides for payment of such a fee to the
payee for such services or the Secretary
concerned determines that payment of a fee to
such payee is necessary in order to obtain the
fiduciary services of the payee.
(E) Authority for the Secretary concerned to
require the payee to provide a surety bond in
an amount sufficient to protect the interests
of the annuitant and to pay for such bond out
of the annuity.
(F) A requirement for the payee of an annuity
to maintain and, upon request, to provide to
the Secretary concerned an accounting of
expenditures and investments of amounts paid to
the payee.
(G) In the case of an annuitant referred to
in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) procedures for determining
incompetency and for selecting a payee
to represent the annuitant for the
purposes of this section, including
provisions for notifying the annuitant
of the actions being taken to make such
a determination and to select a
representative payee, an opportunity
for the annuitant to review the
evidence being considered, and an
opportunity for the annuitant to submit
additional evidence before the
determination is made; and
(ii) standards for determining
incompetency, including standards for
determining the sufficiency of medical
evidence and other evidence.
(H) Provisions for any other matter that the
President considers appropriate in connection
with the payment of an annuity in the case of a
person referred to in paragraph (1).
(3) Legal effect of payment to guardian or
fiduciary.--An annuity paid to a person on behalf of an
annuitant in accordance with the regulations prescribed
pursuant to paragraph (1) discharges the obligation of
the United States for payment to the annuitant of the
amount of the annuity so paid.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 81--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
1581. Foreign National Employees Separation Pay Account.
1583. Employment of certain persons without pay.
1584. Employment of non-citizens.
* * * * * * *
[1589. Prohibition on payment of lodging expenses when adequate
Government quarters are available.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec.] 1599a. Financial assistance to certain employees in acquisition
of critical skills.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1588. Authority to accept certain voluntary services
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Status of Persons Providing Services.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (3), while providing voluntary services accepted
under subsection (a) or receiving training under subsection
(c), a person, other than a person referred to in paragraph
(2), shall be considered to be an employee of the Federal
Government only for purposes of the following provisions of
law:
(A) Subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5 (relating
to compensation for work-related injuries).
(B) Section 2733 of this title and chapter 171 of
title 28 (relating to claims for damages or loss).
(C) [Section 522a] Section 552a of title 5 (relating
to maintenance of records on individuals).
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1589. Prohibition on payment of lodging expenses when adequate
Government quarters are available
[(a) Funds available to the Department of Defense (including
funds in any working-capital fund) may not be used to pay the
lodging expenses of a civilian employee of the Department of
Defense while such employee is on official business away from
his designated post of duty or, in the case of a person
referred to in section 5703 of title 5, while such person is
away from his home or regular place of duty, when adequate
Government quarters are available but are not occupied by such
employee or person.
[(b) Subsection (a) does not apply during a fiscal year to an
employee whose duties can be expected to require official
travel during more than one-half of the number of the basic
administrative work weeks during that fiscal year.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 87--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--DEFENSE ACQUISITION POSITIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1723. General education, training, and experience requirements
(a) Qualification Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish education, training, and experience
requirements for each acquisition position, based on the level
of complexity of duties carried out in the position. [Unless
otherwise provided in this chapter, such requirements shall
take effect not later than October 1, 1993.] In establishing
such requirements for positions other than critical acquisition
positions designated pursuant to section 1733 of this title,
the Secretary may state the requirements by categories of
positions.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1724. Contracting positions: qualification requirements
(a) Contracting Officers.--The Secretary of Defense shall
require that[, beginning on October 1, 1993,] in order to
qualify to serve in an acquisition position as a contracting
officer with authority to award or administer contracts for
amounts above the small purchase threshold referred to in
section 2304(g) of this title, a person must (except as
provided in subsections (c) and (d))--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) GS-1102 Series.--The Secretary of Defense shall require
that[, beginning on October 1, 1993,] a person may not be
employed by the Department of Defense in the GS-1102
occupational series unless the person (except as provided in
subsections (c) and (d)) meets the requirements set forth in
subsection (a)(3).
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--ACQUISITION CORPS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1733. Critical acquisition positions
(a) Requirement for Corps Member.--[On and after October 1,
1993, a] A critical acquisition position may be filled only by
a member of an Acquisition Corps.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1734. Career development
(a) Three-Year Assignment Period.--(1) Except as provided
under subsection (b) and paragraph (3), the Secretary of each
military department, acting through the service acquisition
executive for that department, shall provide that[, on and
after October 1, 1993,] any person who is assigned to a
critical acquisition position shall be assigned to the position
for not fewer than three years. Except as provided in
subsection (d), the Secretary concerned may not reassign a
person from such an assignment before the end of the three-year
period.
* * * * * * *
(b) Assignment Period for Program Managers.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in regulations--
(A) a requirement that[, on and after October 1,
1991,] a program manager and a deputy program manager
(except as provided in paragraph (3)) of a major
defense acquisition program be assigned to the position
at least until completion of the major milestone that
occurs closest in time to the date on which the person
has served in the position for four years; and
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 103--SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2101. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) The term ``program'' means the Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps of an armed force.
(2) The term ``member of the program'' means a
student who is enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps of an armed force.
(3) The term ``advanced training'' means the training
and instruction offered in the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps to students enrolled in an advanced
education program beyond the baccalaureate degree level
or to students in the third and fourth years of a four-
year Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course, or
the equivalent period of training in an approved two-
year Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course
(except that, in the case of a student enrolled in an
academic program which has been approved by the
Secretary of the military department concerned and
which requires more than four academic years for
completion of baccalaureate degree requirements,
including elective requirements of the Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps course, such term includes a
fifth academic year or a combination of a part of a
fifth academic year and summer sessions).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2103. Eligibility for membership
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) An educational institution at which a unit of the program
has been established shall give priority for enrollment in the
program to students who are eligible for advanced training
under section 2104 of this title.
(f) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, in carrying
out the program, the Secretaries of the military departments
permit any person who is receiving financial assistance under
section 2107 of this title simultaneously to be a member of the
Selected Reserve.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected members
(a) The Secretary of the military department concerned may
appoint as a cadet or midshipman, as appropriate, in the
reserve of an armed force under his jurisdiction any eligible
member of the program who will be under [25 years of age] 27
years of age on June 30 of the calendar year in which he is
eligible under this section for appointment as an ensign in the
Navy or as a second lieutenant in the Army, Air Force, or
Marine Corps, as the case may be, except that the age of any
such member who has served on active duty in the armed forces
may exceed such age limitation on such date by a period equal
to the period such member served on active duty, but only if
such member will be under [29 years of age] 30 years of age on
such date.
* * * * * * *
(c) The Secretary of the military department concerned may
provide for the payment of all expenses in his department of
administering the financial assistance program under this
section, including tuition, fees, books, and laboratory
expenses. In the case of a student enrolled in an academic
program which has been approved by the Secretary of the
military department concerned and which requires more than four
academic years for completion of baccalaureate degree
requirements, including elective requirements of the Senior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps course, financial assistance
under this section may also be provided during a fifth academic
year or during a combination of a part of a fifth academic year
and summer sessions. The Secretary of the military department
concerned may provide similar financial assistance to a student
enrolled in an advanced education program beyond the
baccalaureate degree level if the student also is a cadet or
midshipman in an advanced training program. At least 50 percent
of the cadets and midshipmen appointed under this section must
qualify for in-State tuition rates at their respective
institutions and will receive tuition benefits at that rate.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2107a. Financial assistance program for specially selected
members: Army Reserve and Army National Guard
(a)(1) The Secretary of the Army may appoint as a cadet in
the Army Reserve or Army National Guard of the United States
any eligible member of the program who is enrolled in the
Advanced Course of the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps at
a military college, military junior college, or civilian
institution and who will be under [25 years of age] 27 years of
age on June 30 of the calendar year in which he is eligible
under this section for appointment as a second lieutenant in
the Army Reserve or Army National Guard, except that the age of
any such member who has served on active duty in the armed
forces may exceed such age limitation on such date by a period
equal to the period such member served on active duty, but only
if such member will be under [29 years of age] 30 years of age
on such date.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2109. Practical military training
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) A person who is not qualified for, and (as determined
by the Secretary concerned) will not be able to become
qualified for, advanced training by reason of one or more of
the requirements prescribed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
section 2104(b) of this title shall not be permitted to
participate in--
(A) field training or a practice cruise under section
2106(b)(6) of this title; or
(B) practical military training under subsection (a).
(2) The Secretary of the military department concerned may
waive the limitation in paragraph (1) under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary.
Sec. 2114. Students: selection; status; obligation
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) A graduate of the University who is relieved of the
graduate's active-duty service obligation under subsection (b)
before the completion of the active-duty service obligation may
be given, with or without the consent of the graduate, an
alternative obligation comparable to the alternative
obligations authorized in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
2123(e)(1) of this title for members of the Armed Forces Health
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance program.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOLARSHIP AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2123. Members of the program: active duty obligation; failure to
complete training; release from program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Any member of the program relieved of his active duty
obligation under this subchapter before the completion of such
obligation may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense, be assigned to a health professional shortage area
designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a
period equal to the period of obligation from which he was
relieved.]
(e)(1) A member of the program who is relieved of the
member's active duty obligation under this subchapter before
the completion of the active duty obligation may be given, with
or without the consent of the member, any of the following
alternative obligations, as determined by the Secretary of the
military department concerned:
(A) A service obligation in a component of the
Selected Reserve for a period not less than twice as
long as the member's remaining active duty service
obligation.
(B) A service obligation as a civilian employee
employed as a health care professional in a facility of
the uniformed services for a period of time equal to
the member's remaining active duty service obligation.
(C) With the concurrence of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, transfer of the active duty service
obligation to an obligation equal in time in the
National Health Service Corps under section 338C of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254m) and subject
to all requirements and procedures applicable to
obligated members of the National Health Service Corps.
(D) Repayment to the Secretary of Defense of a
percentage of the total cost incurred by the Secretary
under this subchapter on behalf of the member equal to
the percentage of the member's total active duty
service obligation being relieved, plus interest.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
describing the manner in which an alternative obligation may be
given under paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2126. Members of the program: service credit
[Service performed] (a) General Rule Against Provision of
Service Credit.--Except as provided in subsection (b), service
performed while a member of the program shall not be counted--
(1) in determining eligibility for retirement other
than by reason of a physical disability incurred while
on active duty as a member of the program; or
(2) in computing years of service creditable under
section 205 of title 37.
(b) Service Credit for Certain Purposes.--(1) This subsection
applies with respect to a member of the Selected Reserve who--
(A) completed a course of study under this subchapter
as a member of the program;
(B) completed the active duty obligation imposed
under section 2123(a) of this title; and
(C) possesses a specialty designated by the Secretary
concerned as critically needed in wartime.
(2) Upon satisfactory completion of a year of service in the
Selected Reserve by a member of the Selected Reserve described
in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may credit the member
with a maximum of 50 points creditable toward the computation
of the member's years of service under section 12732(a)(2) of
this title for one year of participation in a course of study
under this subchapter. Not more than four years of
participation in a course of study under this subchapter may be
considered under this paragraph.
(3) In the case of a member of the Selected Reserve described
in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may also credit the
service of the member while pursuing a course of study under
this subchapter, but not to exceed a total of four years, for
purposes of computing years of service creditable under section
205 of title 37.
(c) Limitations.--(1) A member of the Selected Reserve
relieved of any portion of the minimum active duty obligation
imposed under section 2123(a) of this title may not receive any
point or service credit under subsection (b).
(2) A member of the Selected Reserve awarded points or
service credit under subsection (b) shall not be considered to
have been in an active status, by reason of the award of the
points or credit, while pursuing a course of study under this
subchapter for purposes of any provision of law other than
section 12732(a)(2) of this title and section 205 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates
(a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and
ending on September 30, [1997] 1998, executes a written
agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept an
appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned
at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first
installment may not exceed $2,500.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Sec.
2201. Apportionment of funds: authority for exemption; excepted
expenses.
2202. Regulations on procurement, production, warehousing, and supply
distribution functions.
2203. Budget estimates.
* * * * * * *
2215. Transfer of funds to other departments and agencies: limitation.
2216. Defense Modernization Account.
[2216. Defense Business Operations Fund.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2216. Defense Business Operations Fund
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``capital assets'' means the following
capital assets that have a development or acquisition
cost of not less than [$50,000] $100,000:
(A) Minor construction projects financed by
the Fund pursuant to section 2805(c)(1) of this
title.
(B) Automatic data processing equipment,
software.
(C) Equipment other than equipment described
in subparagraph (B).
(D) Other capital improvements.
[The following section is repealed effective October 1, 1998]
[Sec. 2216. Defense Business Operations Fund
[(a) Management of Working-Capital Funds and Certain
Activities.--The Secretary of Defense may manage the
performance of the working-capital funds and industrial,
commercial, and support type activities described in subsection
(b) through the fund known as the Defense Business Operations
Fund, which is established on the books of the Treasury. Except
for the funds and activities specified in subsection (b), no
other functions, activities, funds, or accounts of the
Department of Defense may be managed or converted to management
through the Fund.
[(b) Funds and Activities Included.--The funds and activities
referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
[(1) Working-capital funds established under section
2208 of this title and in existence on December 5,
1991.
[(2) Those activities that, on December 5, 1991, were
funded through the use of a working-capital fund
established under that section.
[(3) The Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
[(4) The Defense Commissary Agency.
[(5) The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service.
[(6) The Joint Logistics Systems Center.
[(c) Separate Accounting, Reporting, and Auditing of Funds
and Activities.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall provide in
accordance with this subsection for separate accounting,
reporting, and auditing of funds and activities managed through
the Fund.
[(2) The Secretary shall maintain the separate identity of
each fund and activity managed through the Fund that (before
the establishment of the Fund) was managed as a separate Fund
or activity.
[(3) The Secretary shall maintain separate records for each
function for which payment is made through the Fund and which
(before the establishment of the Fund) was paid directly
through appropriations, including the separate identity of the
appropriation account used to pay for the performance of the
function.
[(d) Charges for Goods and Services Provided Through the
Fund.--(1) Charges for goods and services provided through the
Fund shall include the following:
[(A) Amounts necessary to recover the full costs of
the goods and services, whenever practicable, and the
costs of the development, implementation, operation,
and maintenance of systems supporting the wholesale
supply and maintenance activities of the Department of
Defense.
[(B) Amounts for depreciation of capital assets, set
in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
[(C) Amounts necessary to recover the full cost of
the operation of the Defense Finance Accounting
Service.
[(2) Charges for goods and services provided through the Fund
may not include the following:
[(A) Amounts necessary to recover the costs of a
military construction project (as defined in section
2801(b) of this title), other than a minor construction
project financed by the Fund pursuant to section
2805(c)(1) of this title.
[(B) Amounts necessary to cover costs incurred in
connection with the closure or realignment of a
military installation.
[(C) Amounts necessary to recover the costs of
functions designated by the Secretary of Defense as
mission critical, such as ammunition handling safety,
and amounts for ancillary tasks not directly related to
the mission of the function or activity managed through
the Fund.
[(3)(A) The Secretary of Defense may submit to a customer a
bill for the provision of goods and services through the Fund
in advance of the provision of those goods and services.
[(B) The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on
advance billings made pursuant to subparagraph (A)--
[(i) when the aggregate amount of all such billings
after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 reaches
$100,000,000; and
[(ii) whenever the aggregate amount of all such
billings after the date of a preceding report under
this subparagraph reaches $100,000,000.
[(C) Each report under subparagraph (B) shall include, for
each such advance billing, the following:
[(i) An explanation of the reason for the advance
billing.
[(ii) An analysis of the impact of the advance
billing on readiness.
[(iii) An analysis of the impact of the advance
billing on the customer so billed.
[(e) Capital Asset Subaccount.--(1) Amounts charged for
depreciation of capital assets pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(B)
shall be credited to a separate capital asset subaccount
established within the Fund.
[(2) The Secretary of Defense may award contracts for capital
assets of the Fund in advance of the availability of funds in
the subaccount.
[(f) Procedures For Accumulation of Funds.--The Secretary of
Defense shall establish billing procedures to ensure that the
balance in the Fund does not exceed the amount necessary to
provide for the working capital requirements of the Fund, as
determined by the Secretary.
[(g) Purchase From Other Sources.--The Secretary of Defense
or the Secretary of a military department may purchase goods
and services that are available for purchase from the Fund from
a source other than the Fund if the Secretary determines that
such source offers a more competitive rate for the goods and
services than the Fund offers.
[(h) Annual Reports and Budget.--The Secretary of Defense
shall annually submit to Congress, at the same time that the
President submits the budget under section 1105 of title 31,
the following:
[(1) A detailed report that contains a statement of
all receipts and disbursements of the Fund (including
such a statement for each subaccount of the Fund) for
the fiscal year ending in the year preceding the year
in which the budget is submitted.
[(2) A detailed proposed budget for the operation of
the Fund for the fiscal year for which the budget is
submitted.
[(3) A comparison of the amounts actually expended
for the operation of the Fund for the fiscal year
referred to in paragraph (1) with the amount proposed
for the operation of the Fund for that fiscal year in
the President's budget.
[(4) A report on the capital asset subaccount of the
Fund that contains the following information:
[(A) The opening balance of the subaccount as
of the beginning of the fiscal year in which
the report is submitted.
[(B) The estimated amounts to be credited to
the subaccount in the fiscal year in which the
report is submitted.
[(C) The estimated amounts of outlays to be
paid out of the subaccount in the fiscal year
in which the report is submitted.
[(D) The estimated balance of the subaccount
at the end of the fiscal year in which the
report is submitted.
[(E) A statement of how much of the estimated
balance at the end of the fiscal year in which
the report is submitted will be needed to pay
outlays in the immediately following fiscal
year that are in excess of the amount to be
credited to the subaccount in the immediately
following fiscal year.
[(i) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) The term ``capital assets'' means the following
capital assets that have a development or acquisition
cost of not less than $50,000:
[(A) Minor construction projects financed by
the Fund pursuant to section 2805(c)(1) of this
title.
[(B) Automatic data processing equipment,
software.
[(C) Equipment other than equipment described
in subparagraph (B).
[(D) Other capital improvements.
[(2) The term ``Fund'' means the Defense Business
Operations Fund.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 134--MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY
Sec.
2251. Household furnishings and other property: personnel outside the
United States or in Alaska or Hawaii.
2252. Rewards: missing property.
2253. Motor vehicles.
2254. Treatment of reports of aircraft accident investigations.
2255. Aircraft accident investigation boards: independence and
objectivity.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2255. Aircraft accident investigation boards: independence and
objectivity
(a) Required Membership of Boards.--Whenever the Secretary of
a military department convenes an aircraft accident
investigation board to conduct an accident investigation of an
accident involving an aircraft under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary, the Secretary shall select the membership of the
board so that--
(1) a majority of the voting members of the board are
selected from units outside the chain of command of the
mishap unit; and
(2) at least one voting member of the board is an
officer or an employee assigned to the relevant service
safety center.
(b) Determination of Units Outside Same Chain of Command.--
For purposes of this section, a unit shall be considered to be
outside the chain of command of another unit if the two units
do not have a common commander in their respective chains of
command below a position for which the authorized grade is
major general or rear admiral.
(c) Mishap Unit Defined.--In this section, the term ``mishap
unit'', with respect to an aircraft accident investigation,
means the unit of the armed forces (at the squadron level or
equivalent) to which was assigned the flight crew of the
aircraft that sustained the accident that is the subject of the
investigation.
(d) Service Safety Center.--For purposes of this section, a
service safety center is the single office or separate
operating agency of a military department that has
responsibility for the management of aviation safety matters
for that military department.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2302. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The term ``major system'' means a combination of
elements that will function together to produce the
capabilities required to fulfill a mission need. The
elements may include hardware, equipment, software or
any combination thereof, but excludes construction or
other improvements to real property. A system shall be
considered a major system if (A) the Department of
Defense is responsible for the system and the total
expenditures for research, development, test, and
evaluation for the system are estimated to be more than
[$75,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1980 constant
dollars)] $115,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990
dollars) or the eventual total expenditure for
procurement of more than [$300,000,000 (based on fiscal
year 1980 constant dollars)] $540,000,000 (based on
fiscal year 1990 constant dollars); (B) a civilian
agency is responsible for the system and total
expenditures for the system are estimated to exceed
$750,000 (based on fiscal year 1980 constant dollars)
or the dollar threshold for a ``major system''
established by the agency pursuant to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-109, entitled
``Major Systems Acquisitions,'' whichever is greater;
or (C) the system is designated a ``major system'' by
the head of the agency responsible for the system. The
Secretary of Defense may adjust the amounts and the
base fiscal year provided in clause (A) on the basis of
Department of Defense escalation rates. An adjustment
under this paragraph shall be effective after the
Secretary transmits to the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of
the House of Representatives a written notification of
the adjustment.
(6) The term ``Federal Acquisition Regulation'' means
the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued pursuant to
section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)).
(7)(A) The term ``simplified acquisition threshold''
has the meaning provided that term in section 4 of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
403), except that, in the case of any contract to be
awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside
the United States in support of a contingency operation
or a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation, the term
means an amount equal to two times the amount specified
for that term in section 4 of such Act.
(B) In subparagraph (A), the term ``humanitarian or
peacekeeping operation'' means a military operation in
support of the provision of humanitarian or foreign
disaster assistance or in support of a peacekeeping
operation under chapter VI or VII of the Charter of the
United Nations. The term does not include routine
training, force rotation, or stationing.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2305. Contracts: planning, solicitation, evaluation, and award
procedures
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6)(A) * * *
(B) The contracting officer is required to debrief an
excluded offeror in accordance with paragraph (5) [of this
section] only if that offeror requested and was refused a
preaward debriefing under subparagraph (A) [of this paragraph].
(C) The debriefing conducted under [this subsection]
subparagraph (A) shall include--
(i) the executive agency's evaluation of the
significant elements in the offeror's offer;
(ii) a summary of the rationale for the offeror's
exclusion; and
(iii) reasonable responses to relevant questions
posed by the debriefed offeror as to whether source
selection procedures set forth in the solicitation,
applicable regulations, and other applicable
authorities were followed by the executive agency.
(D) The debriefing conducted [pursuant to this subsection]
under subparagraph (A) may not disclose the number or identity
of other offerors and shall not disclose information about the
content, ranking, or evaluation of other offerors' proposals.
* * * * * * *
(g) Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals.--(1) A
proposal in the possession or control of the Department of
Defense may not be made available to any person under section
552 of title 5.
(2) In this subsection, the term ``proposal'' means any
proposal, including a technical, management, or cost proposal,
submitted by a contractor in response to the requirements of a
solicitation for a competitive proposal.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2306a. Cost or pricing data: truth in negotiations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Commercial item.--The term ``commercial item''
has the meaning provided such term in section 4(12) of
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
403(12)).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2313. Examination of records of contractor
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Limitation on Preaward Audits Relating to Indirect
Costs.--The head of an agency may not perform a preaward audit
to evaluate proposed indirect costs under any contract,
subcontract, or modification to be entered into in accordance
with this chapter in any case in which the contracting officer
determines that the objectives of the audit can reasonably be
met by accepting the results of an audit conducted by any other
department or agency of the Federal Government within one year
preceding the date of the contracting officer's determination.]
(d) Limitation on Audits Relating to Indirect Costs.--The
head of an agency may not perform an audit of indirect costs
under a contract, subcontract, or modification before or after
entering into the contract, subcontract, or modification in any
case in which the contracting officer determines that the
objectives of the audit can reasonably be met by accepting the
results of an audit that was conducted by any other department
or agency of the Federal Government within one year preceding
the date of the contracting officer's determination.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2323a. Credit for Indian contracting in meeting certain
subcontracting goals for small disadvantaged
businesses and certain institutions of higher
education
(a) Regulations.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), in any
case in which a subcontracting goal is specified in a
Department of Defense contract in the implementation of
[section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1987 (10 U.S.C. 2301 note)] section 2323 of this
title and section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(d)), credit toward meeting that subcontracting goal shall
be given for--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 139--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Sec.
2351. Availability of appropriations.
2353. Contracts: acquisition, construction, or furnishing of test
facilities and equipment.
* * * * * * *
[2366. Major systems and munitions programs: survivability testing and
lethality testing required before full-scale production.]
2366. Major systems and munitions programs: vulnerability testing and
lethality testing required before full-scale production.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2361. Award of grants and contracts to colleges and universities:
requirement of competition
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives an annual
report on the use of competitive procedures for the award of
research and development contracts, and the award of
construction contracts, to colleges and universities. Each such
report shall include--
[(A) a list of each college and university that,
during the period covered by the report, received more
than $1,000,000 in such contracts through the use of
procedures other than competitive procedures; and
[(B) the cumulative amount of such contracts received
during that period by each such college and university.
[(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall cover the
preceding fiscal year and shall be submitted not later than
February 1 of the fiscal year after the fiscal year covered by
the report.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2366. Major systems and munitions programs: [survivability]
vulnerability and lethality testing required before
full-scale production
(a) Requirements.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall provide
that--
(A) a covered system may not proceed beyond low-rate
initial production until realistic [survivability]
vulnerability testing of the system is completed in
accordance with this section and the report required by
subsection (d) with respect to that testing is
submitted in accordance with that subsection; and
(B) a major munition program or a missile program may
not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until
realistic lethality testing of the program is completed
in accordance with this section and the report required
by subsection (d) with respect to that testing is
submitted in accordance with that subsection.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall provide that a covered
product improvement program may not proceed beyond low-rate
initial production until--
(A) in the case of a product improvement to a covered
system, realistic [survivability] vulnerability testing
is completed in accordance with this section; and
(B) in the case of a product improvement to a major
munitions program or a missile program, realistic
lethality testing is completed in accordance with this
section.
(b) Test Guidelines.--(1) [Survivability] Vulnerability and
lethality tests required under subsection (a) shall be carried
out sufficiently early in the development phase of the system
or program (including a covered product improvement program) to
allow any design deficiency demonstrated by the testing to be
corrected in the design of the system, munition, or missile (or
in the product modification or upgrade to the system, munition,
or missile) before proceeding beyond low-rate initial
production.
(2) The costs of all tests required under that subsection
shall be paid from funds available for the system being tested.
(3) Testing should begin at the component, subsystem, and
subassembly level, culminating with tests of the complete
system configured for combat.
(c) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive
the application of the [survivability] vulnerability and
lethality tests of this section to a covered system, munitions
program, missile program, or covered product improvement
program if the Secretary, before the system or program enters
engineering and manufacturing development, certifies to
Congress that live-fire testing of such system or program would
be unreasonably expensive and impractical.
(2) In the case of a covered system (or covered product
improvement program for a covered system), the Secretary may
waive the application of the [survivability] vulnerability and
lethality tests of this section to such system or program and
instead allow testing of the system or program in combat by
firing munitions likely to be encountered in combat at
components, subsystems, and subassemblies, together with
performing design analyses, modeling and simulation, and
analysis of combat data. Such alternative testing may not be
carried out in the case of any covered system (or covered
product improvement program for a covered system) unless the
Secretary certifies to Congress, before the system or program
enters engineering and manufacturing development, that the
[survivability] vulnerability and lethality testing of such
system or program otherwise required by this section would be
unreasonably expensive and impracticable.
(3) The Secretary shall include with any certification under
paragraph (1) or (2) a report explaining how the Secretary
plans to evaluate the [survivability] vulnerability or the
lethality of the system or program and assessing possible
alternatives to realistic [survivability] vulnerability testing
of the system or program.
(4) In time of war or mobilization, the President may suspend
the operation of any provision of this section.
(d) Reporting to Congress.--At the conclusion of
[survivability] vulnerability or lethality testing under
subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report
on the testing to the congressional defense committees. Each
such report shall describe the results of the [survivability]
vulnerability or lethality testing and shall give the
Secretary's overall assessment of the testing.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``covered system'' means a vehicle,
weapon platform, or conventional weapon system--
(A) that includes features designed to
provide some degree of protection to users in
combat; and
(B) that is a major system within the meaning
of that term in section 2302(5) of this title.
(2) The term ``major munitions program'' means--
(A) a munition program for which more than
1,000,000 rounds are planned to be acquired; or
(B) a conventional munitions program that is
a major system within the meaning of that term
in section 2302(5) of this title.
(3) The term ``realistic [survivability]
vulnerability testing'' means, in the case of a covered
system (or a covered product improvement program for a
covered system), testing for vulnerability of the
system in combat by firing munitions likely to be
encountered in combat (or munitions with a capability
similar to such munitions) at the system configured for
combat, with the primary emphasis on testing
vulnerability with respect to potential user casualties
and taking into equal consideration the susceptibility
to attack and combat performance of the system.
(4) The term ``realistic lethality testing'' means,
in the case of a major munitions program or a missile
program (or a covered product improvement program for
such a program), testing for lethality by firing the
munition or missile concerned at appropriate targets
configured for combat.
(5) The term ``configured for combat'', with respect
to a weapon system, platform, or vehicle, means loaded
or equipped with all dangerous materials (including all
flammables and explosives) that would normally be on
board in combat.
(6) The term ``covered product improvement program''
means a program under which--
(A) a modification or upgrade will be made to
a covered system which (as determined by the
Secretary of Defense) is likely to affect
significantly the [survivability] vulnerability
of such system; or
(B) a modification or upgrade will be made to
a major munitions program or a missile program
which (as determined by the Secretary of
Defense) is likely to affect significantly the
lethality of the munition or missile produced
under the program.
(7) The term ``congressional defense committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on National Security and
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2391. Military base reuse studies and community planning
assistance
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5)(A) The Secretary of Defense may also make grants,
conclude cooperative agreements, and supplement other Federal
funds in order to assist a State or local government in
planning community adjustments and economic diversification
even though the State or local government is not currently
eligible for assistance under paragraph (1) if the Secretary
determines that a substantial portion of the economic activity
or population of the geographic area to be subject to the
advance planning is dependent on defense expenditures.
(B) The Secretary of Defense may also make grants, conclude
cooperative agreements, and supplement other Federal funds in
order to assist a State in enhancing its capacities--
(i) to assist communities, businesses, and workers
adversely affected by an action described in paragraph
(1);
(ii) to support local adjustment and diversification
initiatives; and
(iii) to stimulate cooperation between statewide and
local adjustment and diversification efforts.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 144--MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2432. Selected Acquisition Reports
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) Each Selected Acquisition Report for the first quarter
for a fiscal year shall include--
(A) the same information, in detailed and summarized
form, as is provided in reports submitted under section
2431 of this title;
(B) the current program acquisition unit cost for
each major defense acquisition program included in the
report and the history of that cost from the date the
program was first included in a Selected Acquisition
Report to the end of the quarter for which the current
report is submitted; [and]
(C) the current procurement unit cost for each major
defense acquisition program included in the report and
the history of that cost from the date the program was
first included in a Selected Acquisition Report to the
end of the quarter for which the current report is
submitted; and
[(C)] (D) such other information as the Secretary of
Defense considers appropriate.
* * * * * * *
(e) Information to be included under this subsection in a
Quarterly Selected Acquisition Report with respect to a major
defense acquisition program is as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(8) The completion status of the program (A)
expressed as the percentage that the number of years
for which funds have been appropriated for the program
is of the number of years for which it is planned that
funds will be appropriated for the program, and (B)
expressed as the percentage that the amount of funds
that have been appropriated for the program is of the
total amount of funds which it is planned will be
appropriated for the program.
[(9)] (8) Program highlights since the last Selected
Acquisition Report.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2466. Limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance of
materiel
(a) * * *
(b) Treatment of Certain Large Projects.--If a single
maintenance or repair project contracted for performance by
non-Federal Government personnel accounts for five percent or
more of the funds made available in a fiscal year to a military
department or a Defense Agency for depot-level maintenance and
repair workload, the project and the funds necessary for the
project shall not be considered when applying the percentage
limitation specified in subsection (a) to that military
department or Defense Agency.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 147--UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Sec.
2481. Utilities and services: sale; expansion and extension of systems
and facilities.
* * * * * * *
2490b. Contracts with other agencies and instrumentalities for goods
and services.
2490c. Sale or rental of sexually explicit material prohibited.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2485. Donation of unusable food: commissary stores and other
activities
(a) The Secretary of [a military department] Defense may
donate food described in subsection (b) to [authorized
charitable nonprofit food banks] entities specified under
subsection (d).
(b) Food that may be donated under this section is commissary
store food, mess food, meals ready-to-eat (MREs), rations known
as humanitarian daily rations (HDRs), and other food available
to the Secretary of [a military department] Defense that--
(1) is certified as edible by appropriate food
inspection technicians;
(2) would otherwise be destroyed as unusable; and
(3) in the case of commissary store food, is
unmarketable and unsaleable.
* * * * * * *
(d) A donation under this section [may only be made to an
entity that is authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to receive donations
under this section.] may only be made to an entity that is one
of the following:
(1) A charitable nonprofit food bank that is
designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary
of Health and Human Services as authorized to receive
such donations.
(2) A State or local agency that is designated by the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Health and
Human Services as authorized to receive such donations.
(3) A chapter or other local unit of a recognized
national veterans organization that provides services
to persons without adequate shelter and is designated
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as authorized to
receive such donations.
(4) A not-for-profit organization that provides care
for homeless veterans and is designated by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs as authorized to receive
such donations.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold; uniform
surcharges and pricing
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The Secretary of Defense may not use the exception
provided in section 2304(c)(5) of this title regarding the
procurement of a brand-name commercial item for resale in
commissary stores unless the commercial item is regularly sold
outside of commissary stores under the same brand name as the
name by which the commercial item will be sold in commissary
stores.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2490b. Contracts with other agencies and instrumentalities for
goods and services
An agency or instrumentality of the Department of Defense
that supports the operation of the exchange or morale, welfare,
and recreation systems of the Department of Defense may enter
into a contract or other agreement with another department,
agency, or instrumentality of the Department of Defense or
another Federal agency to provide goods and services beneficial
to the efficient management and operation of the exchange or
morale, welfare, and recreation systems.
Sec. 2490c. Sale or rental of sexually explicit material prohibited
(a) Prohibition of Sale or Rental.--The Secretary of Defense
may not permit the sale or rental of sexually explicit written
or videotaped material on property under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Defense.
(b) Prohibition of Officially Provided Sexually Explicit
Material.--A member of the armed forces or a civilian officer
or employee of the Department of Defense acting in an official
capacity for sale, remuneration, or rental may not provide
sexually explicit material to another person.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations to implement this section.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``sexually explicit material'' means an
audio recording, a film or video recording, or a
periodical with visual depictions, produced in any
medium, the dominant theme of which depicts or
describes nudity, including sexual or excretory
activities or organs, in a lascivious way.
(2) The term ``property under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Defense'' includes commissaries, all
facilities operated by the Army and Air Force Exchange
Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, the Navy
Resale and Services Support Office, Marine Corps
exchanges, and ship stores.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--POLICIES AND PLANNING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2501. National security objectives concerning national technology
and industrial base
(a) National Security Objectives for National Technology and
Industrial Base.--It is the policy of Congress that the
national technology and industrial base be capable of meeting
the following national security objectives:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Providing for the development, manufacture, and
supply of items and technologies critical to the
production and sustainment of advanced military weapon
systems with minimal reliance on items for which the
source of supply, manufacture, or technology is outside
of the United States and Canada and for which there is
no immediately available source in the United States or
Canada.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2505. National technology and industrial base: periodic defense
capability assessments
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Foreign Dependency Considerations.--In the preparation
of the periodic assessment, the Council shall include
considerations of foreign dependency.]
(c) Assessment of Extent of Dependency on Foreign Source
Items.--Each assessment under subsection (a) shall include a
separate discussion and presentation regarding the extent to
which the national technology and industrial base is dependent
on items for which the source of supply, manufacture, or
technology is outside of the United States and Canada and for
which there is no immediately available source in the United
States or Canada. The discussion and presentation shall include
the following:
(1) An assessment of the overall degree of dependence
by the national technology and industrial base on such
foreign items, including a comparison with the degree
of dependence identified in the preceding assessment.
(2) Identification of major systems (as defined in
section 2302 of this title) under development or
production containing such foreign items, including an
identification of all such foreign items for each
system.
(3) An analysis of the production or development
risks resulting from the possible disruption of access
to such foreign items, including consideration of both
peacetime and wartime scenarios.
(4) An analysis of the importance of retaining
domestic production sources for the items specified in
section 2534 of this title.
(5) A discussion of programs and initiatives in place
to reduce dependence by the national technology and
industrial base on such foreign items.
(6) A discussion of proposed policy or legislative
initiatives recommended to reduce the dependence of the
national technology and industrial base on such foreign
items.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods other
than United States goods
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Applicability to Certain Items.--
(1) * * *
(2) Valves and machine tools.--(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Subsection (a)(4) and this paragraph shall cease
to be effective on October 1, [1996] 2001.
(3) Ball bearings and roller bearings.--Subsection
(a)(5) and this paragraph shall cease to be effective
on October 1, 2000.
(4) Vessel propellers.--Subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii) and
this paragraph shall cease to be effective on [the date
occurring two years after the date of the enactment of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996] February 10, 1998.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 153--EXCHANGE OF MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE, SURPLUS, OR
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
Sec.
2571. Interchange of property and services.
* * * * * * *
2576a. Excess personal property: sale or donation for law enforcement
activities.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2576a. Excess personal property: sale or donation for law
enforcement activities
(a) Transfer Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal
property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is--
(A) suitable for use by the agencies in law
enforcement activities, including counter-drug
activities; and
(B) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Secretary shall carry out this section in
consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of
National Drug Control Policy.
(b) Conditions for Transfer.--The Secretary may transfer
personal property under this section only if--
(1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of the
Department of Defense; and
(2) the transfer is made without the expenditure of
any funds available to the Department of Defense for
the procurement of defense equipment.
(c) Consideration.--Personal property may be transferred
under this section without cost to the recipient agency.
(d) Preference for Certain Transfers.--In considering
applications for the transfer of personal property under this
section, the Secretary shall give a preference to those
applications indicating that the transferred property will be
used in the counter-drug activities of the recipient agency.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 155--ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES
Sec.
2601. General gift funds.
2602. American National Red Cross: cooperation and assistance.
2603. Acceptance of fellowships, scholarships, or grants.
* * * * * * *
[2609. Theater Missile Defense: acceptance of contributions from
allies; Theater Missile Defense Cooperation Account.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2608. Acceptance of contributions for defense programs, projects,
and activities; Defense Cooperation Account
(a) Acceptance Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may
accept from any person, foreign government, or international
organization any contribution of money or real or personal
property made by such person, foreign government, or
international organization for use by the Department of Defense
and may accept from any foreign government or international
organization any contribution of services made by such foreign
government or international organization for use by the
Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2610. Competitions for excellence: acceptance of monetary awards
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Termination.--The authority of the Secretary under this
section shall expire [two years after the date of the enactment
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996]
on February 10, 1998.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION
Sec.
2631. Supplies: preference to United States vessels.
* * * * * * *
[2634. Motor vehicles: for members on change of permanent station.]
2634. Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on change
of permanent station or extended deployment.
* * * * * * *
2644. Control of transportation systems in time of war.
2645. Indemnification of Department of Transportation for losses
covered by vessel war risk insurance.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2634. Motor vehicles: for members on change of permanent station]
Sec. 2634. Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on
change of permanent station or extended deployment
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) In lieu of transportation authorized by this section,
if a member is ordered to make a change of permanent station to
a foreign country and the laws, regulations, or other
restrictions imposed by the foreign country or the United
States preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in
subsection (a) into that country, or would require extensive
modification of the vehicle as a condition to entry, the member
may elect to have the vehicle stored at the expense of the
United States at a location approved by the Secretary
concerned.
(2) If a member is transferred or assigned to duty at a
location other than the permanent station of the member for a
period of more than 30 consecutive days, but the transfer or
assignment is not considered a change of permanent station, the
member may elect to have a motor vehicle described in
subsection (a) stored at the expense of the United States at a
location approved by the Secretary concerned.
(3) Authorized expenses under this subsection include costs
associated with the delivery of the motor vehicle for storage
and removal of the vehicle for delivery to a destination
approved by the Secretary concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2644. Control of transportation systems in time of war
In time of war, the President, acting through the Secretary
of Defense, may take possession and assume control of all or
any part of a system of transportation to transport troops, war
material, and equipment, or for other purposes related to the
emergency. So far as necessary, the Secretary may use the
transportation system to the exclusion of other traffic.
Sec. 2645. Indemnification of Department of Transportation for losses
covered by vessel war risk insurance
(a) Prompt Indemnification Required.--In the event of a loss
that is covered by vessel war risk insurance, the Secretary of
Defense shall promptly indemnify the Secretary of
Transportation for the amount of the loss. The Secretary of
Defense shall make such indemnification--
(1) in the case of a claim for a loss to a vessel,
not later than 90 days following the date of the
adjudication or settlement of the claim by the
Secretary of Transportation; and
(2) in the case of any other claim, not later than
180 days after the date on which the claim is
determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be
payable.
(b) Source of Funds for Payment of Indemnity.--The Secretary
may pay an indemnity described in subsection (a) from any funds
available to the Department of Defense for operation and
maintenance, and such sums as may be necessary for payment of
such indemnity are hereby authorized to be transferred to the
Secretary of Transportation for such purpose.
(c) Deposit of Funds.--(1) Any amount transferred to the
Secretary of Transportation under this section shall be
deposited in, and merged with amounts in, the Vessel War Risk
Insurance Fund as provided in the second sentence of section
1208(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App.
1288(a)).
(2) In this subsection, the term ``Vessel War Risk Insurance
Fund'' means the insurance fund referred to in the first
sentence of section 1208(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936
(46 U.S.C. App. 1288(a)).
(d) Notice to Congress.--In the event of a loss that is
covered by vessel war risk insurance in the case of an incident
in which the covered loss is (or is expected to be) in an
amount in excess of $1,000,000, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress--
(1) notification of the loss as soon after the
occurrence of the loss as possible and in no event more
than 30 days after the date of the loss; and
(2) semiannual reports thereafter updating the
information submitted under paragraph (1) and showing
with respect to losses arising from such incident the
total amount expended to cover such losses, the source
of such funds, pending litigation, and estimated total
cost to the Government.
(e) Implementing Matters.--(1) Payment of indemnification
under this section is not subject to section 2214 or 2215 of
this title or any other provision of law requiring notification
to Congress before funds may be transferred.
(2) Consolidation of claims arising from the same incident is
not required before indemnification of the Secretary of
Transportation for payment of a claim may be made under this
section.
(f) Construction With Other Transfer Authority.--Authority to
transfer funds under this section is in addition to any other
authority provided by law to transfer funds (whether enacted
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section)
and is not subject to any dollar limitation or notification
requirement contained in any other such authority to transfer
funds.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Vessel war risk insurance.--The term ``vessel war
risk insurance'' means insurance and reinsurance
provided through policies issued by the Secretary of
Transportation under title XII of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1281 et seq.), that is
provided by that Secretary without premium at the
request of the Secretary of Defense and is covered by
an indemnity agreement between the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of Defense.
(2) Loss.--The term ``loss'' includes damage to or
destruction of property, personal injury or death, and
other liabilities and expenses covered by the vessel
war risk insurance.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF
NONEXCESS PROPERTY
Sec.
2661. Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real
property.
* * * * * * *
[2674. Operation and control of the Pentagon Reservation.]
2674. Operation and control of Pentagon Reservation and defense
facilities in National Capital Region.
* * * * * * *
2684. Cooperative agreements for management of cultural resources.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2668. Easements for rights-of-way
(a) If the Secretary of a military department finds that it
will not be against the public interest, he may grant, upon
such terms as he considers advisable, easements for rights-of-
way over, in, and upon public lands permanently withdrawn or
reserved for the use of that department, and other lands under
his control, to a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or
possession, or political subdivision thereof, or to a citizen,
association, partnership, or corporation of a State, Territory,
Commonwealth, or possession, for--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(9) roads and streets; [and]
(10) poles and lines for the transmission and
distribution of electrical power;
(11) poles and lines for communication purposes, and
for radio, television, and other forms of communication
transmitting, relay, and receiving structures and
facilities; and
[(10)] (12) any other purpose that he considers
advisable, except a purpose covered by section 2669 of
this title [or by the Act of March 4, 1911 (43 U.S.C.
961)].
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2674. Operation and control of the Pentagon Reservation]
Sec. 2674. Operation and control of Pentagon Reservation and defense
facilities in National Capital Region
(a) * * *
(b) The Secretary may appoint military or civilian personnel
or contract personnel to perform law enforcement and security
functions for property occupied by, or under the jurisdiction,
custody, and control of the Department of Defense, and located
[at the Pentagon Reservation] in the National Capital Region.
Such individuals--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2684. Cooperative agreements for management of cultural resources
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of
a military department may enter into a cooperative agreement
with a State, local government, or other entity for the
preservation, management, maintenance, and improvement of
cultural resources on military installations and for the
conducting of research regarding the cultural resources.
Activities under the cooperative agreement shall be subject to
the availability of funds to carry out the cooperative
agreement.
(b) Application of Other Laws.--Section 1535 and chapter 63
of title 31 shall not apply to a cooperative agreement entered
into under this section.
(c) Cultural Resource Defined.--In this section, the term
``cultural resource'' means any of the following:
(1) Any building, structure, site, district, or
object included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places under section 101
of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.
470a).
(2) Cultural items, as defined in section 2(3) of the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(25 U.S.C. 3001(3)).
(3) An archaeological resource, as defined in section
3(1) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
1979 (16 U.S.C. 470bb(1)).
(4) Archaeological artifact collections and
associated records, as defined in section 79 of title
36, Code of Federal Regulations.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 160--ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2706. Annual reports to Congress
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Report on Contractor Reimbursement Costs.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress each year,
not later than 30 days after the date on which the President
submits to the Congress the budget for a fiscal year, a report
on payments made by the Secretary to defense contractors for
the costs of environmental response actions.
[(2) Each such report shall include, for the fiscal year
preceding the year in which the report is submitted, the
following:
[(A) An estimate of the payments made by the
Secretary to any defense contractor (other than a
response action contractor) for the costs of
environmental response actions at facilities owned or
operated by the defense contractor or at which the
defense contractor is liable in whole or in part for
the environmental response action.
[(B) A statement of the amount and current status of
any pending requests by any defense contractor (other
than a response action contractor) for payment of the
costs of environmental response actions at facilities
owned or operated by the defense contractor or at which
the defense contractor is liable in whole or in part
for the environmental response action.]
[(d)] (c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``defense contractor''--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
SUBCHAPTER I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Sec.
2801. Scope of chapter; definitions.
* * * * * * *
[2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Infrastructure.]
2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program.
* * * * * * *
2814. Demolition of excess facilities.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Infrastructure]
Sec. 2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
(a) * * *
(b) Funds may not be obligated or expended in connection with
the [North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure program]
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program
in any year unless such funds have been authorized by law for
such program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2814. Demolition of excess facilities
(a) Demolition Using Military Construction Appropriations.--
Within an amount equal to 125 percent of the amount
appropriated for such purpose in the military construction
account, the Secretary concerned may carry out the demolition
of a facility on a military installation when the facility is
determined by the Secretary concerned to be--
(1) excess to the needs of the military department or
Defense Agency concerned; and
(2) not suitable for reuse.
(b) Demolitions Using Operations and Maintenance Funds.--
Using funds available to the Secretary concerned for operation
and maintenance, the Secretary concerned may carry out a
demolition project involving an excess facility described in
subsection (a), except that the amount obligated on the project
may not exceed the maximum amount authorized for a minor
construction project under section 2805(c)(1) of this title.
(c) Advance Approval of Certain Projects.--(1) A demolition
project under this section that would cost more than $500,000
may not be carried out under this section unless approved in
advance by the Secretary concerned.
(2) When a decision is made to demolish a facility covered by
paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall submit a report in
writing to the appropriate committees of Congress on that
decision. Each such report shall include--
(A) the justification for the demolition and the
current estimate of its costs, and
(B) the justification for carrying out the project
under this section.
(3) The demolition project may be carried out only after the
end of the 21-day period beginning on the date the notification
is received by such committees.
(d) Certain Projects Prohibited.--(1) A demolition project
involving military family housing may not be carried out under
the authority of this section.
(2) A demolition project required as a result of a base
closure action authorized by title II of the Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act
(Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) or the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) may not be carried out
under the authority of this section.
(3) A demolition project required as a result of
environmental contamination shall be carried out under the
authority of the environmental restoration program under
section 2701(b)(3) of this title.
(e) Demolition Included in Specific Military Construction
Project.--Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
inclusion of demolition of facilities as an integral part of a
specific military construction project when the demolition is
required for accomplishment of the intent of that construction
project.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2824. Authorization for acquisition of existing family housing in
lieu of construction
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The net floor area of a family housing unit acquired
under the authority of this section may not exceed the
applicable limitation specified in section 2826 of this title.
The Secretary concerned may waive the limitation set forth in
the preceding sentence to family housing units acquired under
this section during the five-year period beginning on [the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996] February 10, 1996.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2825. Improvements to family housing units
(a)(1) Authority provided by law to improve existing military
family housing units and ancillary family housing support
facilities is authority to make alterations, additions,
expansions, and extensions.
(2) In this section, the term ``improvement'' includes
rehabilitation of a housing unit and major maintenance or
repair work to be accomplished concurrently with an improvement
project. Such term does not include day-to-day maintenance and
repair.
(b)(1) * * *
[(2) In determining the applicability of the limitation
contained in paragraph (1), there shall be included as part of
the cost of the improvement the cost of repairs undertaken in
connection with the improvement and any cost in connection with
(A) the furnishing of electricity, gas, water and sewage
disposal, (B) the construction or repair of roads and walks,
and (C) grading and drainage work.]
(2) In determining the applicability of the limitation
contained in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall
include as part of the cost of the improvement the following:
(A) The cost of major maintenance or repair work
(excluding day-to-day maintenance and repair)
undertaken in connection with the improvement.
(B) Any cost, beyond the five-foot line of a housing
unit, in connection with--
(i) the furnishing of electricity, gas,
water, and sewage disposal;
(ii) the construction or repair of roads,
drives, and walks; and
(iii) grading and drainage work.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2826. Limitations on space by pay grade
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i)(1) The Secretary concerned may waive the provisions of
subsection (a) with respect to military family housing units
constructed, acquired, or improved during the five-year period
beginning on [the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996] February 10, 1996.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY
FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2861. Annual report to Congress
(a) * * *
(b) Each report under subsection (a) shall include the
following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Information to enable the committees to monitor
trends in construction started using funds contributed
by the United States under section 2806 of this title
to the [North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Infrastructure program] North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program and the status
of recoupments under that program.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Army
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 305--THE ARMY STAFF
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3036. Chiefs of branches: appointment; duties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) [For purposes of this subsection,] In this subsection,
the term ``State'' includes the several States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern
Mariana Islands, territories and possessions of the United
States, and Indian tribes.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3038. Office of Army Reserve: appointment of Chief
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Budget.--The Chief of Army Reserve is the official within
the executive part of the Department of the Army who, subject
to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
the Army and the Chief of Staff, is responsible for
justification and execution of the personnel, operation and
maintenance, and construction budgets for the Army Reserve. As
such, the Chief of Army Reserve is the director and functional
manager of appropriations made for the Army Reserve in those
areas.
(e) Full-Time Support Program.--The Chief of Army Reserve
manages, with respect to the Army Reserve, the personnel
program of the Department of Defense known as the Full-Time
Support Program.
(f) Annual Report.--(1) The Chief of Army Reserve shall
submit to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of
the Army, an annual report on the state of the Army Reserve and
the ability of the Army Reserve to meet its missions. The
report shall be prepared in conjunction with the Chief of Staff
of the Army and may be submitted in classified and unclassified
versions.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit the annual report
of the Chief of Army Reserve under paragraph (1) to Congress,
together with such comments on the report as the Secretary
considers appropriate. The report shall be transmitted at the
same time each year that the annual report of the Secretary
under section 113 of this title is submitted to Congress.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4346. Cadets: requirements for admission
(a) To be eligible for admission to the Academy a candidate
must be at least 17 years of age and must not have passed his
[twenty-second birthday] twenty-third birthday on July 1 of the
year in which he enters the Academy.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 447--TRANSPORTATION
Sec.
4741. Control and supervision.
[4742. Control of transportation systems in time of war.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 4742. Control of transportation systems in time of war
[In time of war, the President, through the Secretary of the
Army, may take possession and assume control of all or part of
any system of transportation to transport troops, war material,
and equipment, or for other purposes related to the emergency.
So far as necessary, he may use the system to the exclusion of
other traffic.]
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps
* * * * * * *
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Secretary of the Navy: Miscellaneous Powers and Duties........7201
* * * * * * *
National Oceanographic Partnership Program....................7901
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 513--BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Sec.
5131. Bureaus: names; location.
5132. Bureaus: distribution of business; orders; records; expenses.
5133. Bureau Chiefs: rank; pay and allowances; retirement.
* * * * * * *
5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief.
5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief
(a) Establishment of Office: Chief of Naval Reserve.--There
is in the executive part of the Department of the Navy, on the
staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, an Office of the Naval
Reserve, which is headed by a Chief of Naval Reserve. The Chief
of Naval Reserve--
(1) is the principal adviser on Naval Reserve matters
to the Chief of Naval Operations; and
(2) is the commander of the Naval Reserve Force.
(b) Appointment.--The President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall appoint the Chief of Naval Reserve
from officers who--
(1) have had at least 10 years of commissioned
service;
(2) are in a grade above captain; and
(3) have been recommended by the Secretary of the
Navy.
(c) Grade.--(1) The Chief of Naval Reserve holds office for a
term determined by the Chief of Naval Operations, normally four
years, but may be removed for cause at any time. He is eligible
to succeed himself.
(2) The Chief of Naval Reserve, while so serving, has a grade
above rear admiral (lower half), without vacating the officer's
permanent grade.
(d) Budget.--The Chief of Naval Reserve is the official
within the executive part of the Department of the Navy who,
subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, is
responsible for preparation, justification, and execution of
the personnel, operation and maintenance, and construction
budgets for the Naval Reserve. As such, the Chief of Naval
Reserve is the director and functional manager of
appropriations made for the Naval Reserve in those areas.
(e) Annual Report.--(1) The Chief of Naval Reserve shall
submit to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of
the Navy, an annual report on the state of the Naval Reserve
and the ability of the Naval Reserve to meet its missions. The
report shall be prepared in conjunction with the Chief of Naval
Operations and may be submitted in classified and unclassified
versions.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit the annual report
of the Chief of Naval Reserve under paragraph (1) to Congress,
together with such comments on the report as the Secretary
considers appropriate. The report shall be transmitted at the
same time each year that the annual report of the Secretary
under section 113 of this title is submitted to Congress.
Sec. 5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander
(a) Establishment of Office; Commander, Marine Forces
Reserve.--There is in the executive part of the Department of
the Navy an Office of the Marine Forces Reserve, which is
headed by the Commander, Marine Forces Reserve. The Commander,
Marine Forces Reserve is the principal adviser to the
Commandant on Marine Forces Reserve matters.
(b) Appointment.--The President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall appoint the Commander, Marine
Forces Reserve, from officers of the Marine Corps who--
(1) have had at least 10 years of commissioned
service;
(2) are in a grade above colonel; and
(3) have been recommended by the Secretary of the
Navy.
(c) Term of Office; Grade.--(1) The Commander, Marine Forces
Reserve, holds office for a term determined by the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, normally four years, but may be removed
for cause at any time. He is eligible to succeed himself.
(2) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, while so serving,
has a grade above brigadier general, without vacating the
officer's permanent grade.
(d) Annual Report.--(1) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve,
shall submit to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary
of the Navy, an annual report on the state of the Marine Corps
Reserve and the ability of the Marine Corps Reserve to meet its
missions. The report shall be prepared in conjunction with the
Commandant of the Marine Corps and may be submitted in
classified and unclassified versions.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit the annual report
of the Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, under paragraph (1) to
Congress, together with such comments on the report as the
Secretary considers appropriate. The report shall be
transmitted at the same time each year that the annual report
of the Secretary under section 113 of this title is submitted
to Congress.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 544--TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5721. Temporary promotions of certain Navy lieutenants
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(g) Termination of Appointment Authority.--The authority to
make appointments under this section terminates on September
30, 1996.]
* * * * * * *
PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6958. Midshipmen: qualifications for admission
(a) Each candidate for admission to the Naval Academy--
(1) must be at least 17 years of age and must not
have passed his [twenty-second birthday] twenty-third
birthday on July 1 of the calendar year in which he
enters the Academy; and
* * * * * * *
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Chap. Sec.
Secretary of the Navy: Miscellaneous Powers and Duties........7201
* * * * * * *
National Oceanographic Partnership Program....................7901
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 631--SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: MISCELLANEOUS POWERS AND DUTIES
Sec.
7204. Schools near naval activities: financial aid.
7205. Promotion of health and prevention of accidents.
7207. Administration of liberated and occupied areas.
* * * * * * *
[7222. Office of Naval Records and History gift fund.]
7222. Naval Historical Center Fund.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 7222. Office of Naval Records and History gift fund]
Sec. 7222. Naval Historical Center Fund
(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, and
administer gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans
of personal property other than money, for the benefit of the
[Office of Naval Records and History] Naval Historical Center,
its collection, or its services. Gifts or bequests of money
shall be deposited in the Treasury in a trust fund called
``[Office of Naval Records and History] Naval Historical Center
Fund.''
* * * * * * *
(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of the Treasury may invest or reinvest all or any
part of the funds deposited under this section in securities of
the United States or in securities guaranteed by the United
States. The interest accruing from these securities shall be
deposited to the credit of the [Office of Naval Records and
History] Naval Historical Center Fund.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 633--NAVAL VESSELS
Sec.
7291. Classification.
* * * * * * *
7315. Use of private shipyards for complex ship repair work: limitation
to certain shipyards.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7315. Use of private shipyards for complex ship repair work:
limitation to certain shipyards
(a) Limitation on Repair Locations.--Whenever a naval vessel
(other than a submarine) is to undergo complex ship repairs and
the Secretary of the Navy determines that a private shipyard
contractor is to be used for the work required, such work--
(1) may be performed only by a qualifying shipyard
contractor; and
(2) shall be performed at the shipyard facility of
the contractor selected unless the Secretary determines
that the work should be conducted elsewhere in the
interest of national security.
(b) Qualifying Shipyard Contractor.--For the purposes of this
section, a qualifying shipyard contractor, with respect to the
award of any contract for ship repair work, is a private
shipyard that--
(1) is capable of performing the repair and overhaul
of ships with a displacement of 800 tons or more;
(2) performs at least 55 percent of repairs with its
own facilities and work force;
(3) possesses or has access to a dry-dock and a pier
with the capability to berth a ship with a displacement
of 800 tons or more; and
(4) has all the facilities and organizational
elements needed for the repair of a ship with a
displacement of 800 tons or more.
(c) Complex Ship Repairs.--In this section, the term
``complex ship repairs'' means repairs to a vessel performed at
a shipyard that are estimated (before work on the repairs by a
shipyard begins) to require expenditure of $750,000 or more.
(d) Exception Regarding Pacific Coast.--This section shall
not apply in the case of complex ship repairs to be performed
at a shipyard facility located on the Pacific Coast of the
United States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 641--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
Sec.
7420. Definitions.
7421. Jurisdiction and control.
7422. Administration.
* * * * * * *
[7434. Annual report to congressional committees.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 665--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Sec.
7901. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council.
7903. Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating Group.
7904. Ocean Research Advisory Panel.
Sec. 7901. National Oceanographic Partnership Program
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Navy shall establish
a program to be known as the ``National Oceanographic
Partnership Program''.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are as follows:
(1) To promote the national goals of assuring
national security, advancing economic development,
protecting quality of life, and strengthening science
education and communication through improved knowledge
of the ocean.
(2) To coordinate and strengthen oceanographic
efforts in support of those goals by--
(A) identifying and carrying out partnerships
among Federal agencies, academia, industry, and
other members of the oceanographic scientific
community in the areas of data, resources,
education, and communication; and
(B) reporting annually to Congress on the
program.
Sec. 7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council
(a) Council.--There is a National Ocean Research Leadership
Council (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the
``Council'').
(b) Membership.--The Council is composed of the following
members:
(1) The Secretary of the Navy, who shall be the
Chairman of the Council.
(2) The Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, who shall be the Vice
Chairman of the Council.
(3) The Director of the National Science Foundation.
(4) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
(5) The Deputy Secretary of Energy.
(6) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(7) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.
(8) The Director of the Geological Survey of the
Department of the Interior.
(9) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency.
(10) The Director of the Minerals Management Service
of the Department of the Interior.
(11) The President of the National Academy of
Sciences, the President of the National Academy of
Engineering, and the President of the Institute of
Medicine.
(12) The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology.
(13) The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
(14) One member appointed by the Chairman from among
individuals who will represent the views of ocean
industries.
(15) One member appointed by the Chairman from among
individuals who will represent the views of State
governments.
(16) One member appointed by the Chairman from among
individuals who will represent the views of academia.
(17) One member appointed by the Chairman from among
individuals who will represent such other views as the
Chairman considers appropriate.
(c) Term of Office.--The term of office of a member of the
Council appointed under paragraph (14), (15), (16), or (17) of
subsection (b) shall be two years, except that any person
appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of
the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be
appointed for the remainder of such term.
(d) Responsibilities.--The Council shall have the following
responsibilities:
(1) To establish the Ocean Research Partnership
Coordinating Group as provided in section 7903.
(2) To establish the Ocean Research Advisory Panel as
provided in section 7904.
(3) To submit to Congress an annual report pursuant
to subsection (e).
(e) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Council shall submit to Congress a report on the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program. The report shall contain the
following:
(1) A description of activities of the program
carried out during the fiscal year before the fiscal
year in which the report is prepared. The description
also shall include a list of the members of the Ocean
Research Partnership Coordinating Group, the Ocean
Research Advisory Panel, and any working groups in
existence during the fiscal year covered.
(2) A general outline of the activities planned for
the program during the fiscal year in which the report
is prepared.
(3) A summary of projects continued from the fiscal
year before the fiscal year in which the report is
prepared and projects expected to be started during the
fiscal year in which the report is prepared and during
the following fiscal year.
(4) A description of the involvement of the program
with Federal interagency coordinating entities.
(5) The amounts requested, in the budget submitted to
Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31 for
the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
report is prepared, for the programs, projects, and
activities of the program and the estimated
expenditures under such programs, projects, and
activities during such following fiscal year.
Sec. 7903. Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating Group
(a) Establishment.--The Council shall establish an entity to
be known as the ``Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating
Group'' (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the
``Coordinating Group'').
(b) Membership.--The Coordinating Group shall consist of
members appointed by the Council, with one member appointed
from each Federal department or agency having an oceanographic
research or development program.
(c) Chairman.--The Council shall appoint the Chairman of the
Coordinating Group.
(d) Responsibilities.--Subject to the authority, direction,
and control of the Council, the Coordinating Group shall have
the following responsibilities:
(1) To prescribe policies and procedures to implement
the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
(2) To review, select, and identify and allocate
funds for partnership projects for implementation under
the program, based on the following criteria:
(A) Whether the project addresses critical
research objectives or operational goals, such
as data accessibility and quality assurance,
sharing of resources, education, or
communication.
(B) Whether the project has broad
participation within the oceanographic
community.
(C) Whether the partners have a long-term
commitment to the objectives of the project.
(D) Whether the resources supporting the
project are shared among the partners.
(E) Whether the project has been subjected to
adequate peer review.
(3) To promote participation in partnership projects
by each Federal department and agency involved with
oceanographic research and development by publicizing
the program and by prescribing guidelines for
participation in the program.
(4) To submit to the Council an annual report
pursuant to subsection (i).
(e) Partnership Program Office.--The Coordinating Group shall
establish, using competitive procedures, and oversee a
partnership program office to carry out such duties as the
Chairman of the Coordinating Group considers appropriate to
implement the National Oceanographic Partnership Program,
including the following:
(1) To establish and oversee working groups to
propose partnership projects to the Coordinating Group
and advise the Group on such projects.
(2) To manage peer review of partnership projects
proposed to the Coordinating Group and competitions for
projects selected by the Group.
(3) To submit to the Coordinating Group an annual
report on the status of all partnership projects and
activities of the office.
(f) Contract and Grant Authority.--The Coordinating Group may
authorize one or more of the departments or agencies
represented in the Group to enter into contracts and make
grants, using funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization
for the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, for the
purpose of implementing the program and carrying out the
Coordinating Group's responsibilities.
(g) Forms of Partnership Projects.--Partnership projects
selected by the Coordinating Group may be in any form that the
Coordinating Group considers appropriate, including memoranda
of understanding, demonstration projects, cooperative research
and development agreements, and similar instruments.
(h) Annual Report.--Not later than February 1 of each year,
the Coordinating Group shall submit to the Council a report on
the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. The report
shall contain, at a minimum, copies of any recommendations or
reports to the Coordinating Group by the Ocean Research
Advisory Panel.
Sec. 7904. Ocean Research Advisory Panel
(a) Establishment.--The Council shall appoint an Ocean
Research Advisory Panel (hereinafter in this chapter referred
to as the ``Advisory Panel'') consisting of not less than 10
and not more than 18 members.
(b) Membership.--Members of the Advisory Panel shall be
appointed from among persons who are eminent in the fields of
marine science or marine policy, or related fields, and who are
representative, at a minimum, of the interests of government,
academia, and industry.
(c) Responsibilities.--(1) The Coordinating Group shall refer
to the Advisory Panel, and the Advisory Panel shall review,
each proposed partnership project estimated to cost more than
$500,000. The Advisory Panel shall make any recommendations to
the Coordinating Group that the Advisory Panel considers
appropriate regarding such projects.
(2) The Advisory Panel shall make any recommendations to the
Coordinating Group regarding activities that should be
addressed by the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
that the Advisory Panel considers appropriate.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Air Force
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 805--THE AIR STAFF
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8038. Office of Air Force Reserve: appointment of Chief
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Budget.--The Chief of Air Force Reserve is the official
within the executive part of the Department of the Air Force
who, subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff, is
responsible for preparation, justification, and execution of
the personnel, operation and maintenance, and construction
budgets for the Air Force Reserve. As such, the Chief of Air
Force Reserve is the director and functional manager of
appropriations made for the Air Force Reserve in those areas.
(e) Full Time Support Program.--(1) The Chief of Air Force
Reserve manages, with respect to the Air Force Reserve, the
personnel program of the Department of Defense known as the
Full Time Support Program.
(f) Annual Report.--(1) The Chief of Air Force Reserve shall
submit to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of
the Air Force, an annual report on the state of the Air Force
Reserve and the ability of the Air Force Reserve to meet its
missions. The report shall be prepared in conjunction with the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force and may be submitted in
classified and unclassified versions.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit the annual report
of the Chief of Air Force Reserve under paragraph (1) to
Congress, together with such comments on the report as the
Secretary considers appropriate. The report shall be
transmitted at the same time each year that the annual report
of the Secretary under section 113 of this title is submitted
to Congress.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9346. Cadets: requirements for admission
(a) To be eligible for admission to the Academy a candidate
must be at least 17 years of age and must not have passed his
[twenty-second birthday] twenty-third birthday on July 1 of the
year in which he enters the Academy.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 931--CIVIL RESERVE AIR FLEET
Sec.
9511. Definitions.
9512. Contracts for the inclusion or incorporation of defense features.
9513. Use of military installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet
contractors.
9514. Indemnification of Department of Transportation for losses
covered by defense-related aviation insurance.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9514. Indemnification of Department of Transportation for losses
covered by defense-related aviation insurance
(a) Prompt Indemnification Required.--In the event of a loss
that is covered by defense-related aviation insurance, the
Secretary of Defense shall promptly indemnify the Secretary of
Transportation for the amount of the loss. The Secretary of
Defense shall make such indemnification--
(1) in the case of a claim for the loss of an
aircraft hull, not later than 30 days following the
date of the presentment of the claim to the Secretary
of Transportation; and
(2) in the case of any other claim, not later than
180 days after the date on which the claim is
determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be
payable.
(b) Source of Funds for Payment of Indemnity.--The Secretary
may pay an indemnity described in subsection (a) from any funds
available to the Department of Defense for operation and
maintenance, and such sums as may be necessary for payment of
such indemnity are hereby authorized to be transferred to the
Secretary of Transportation for such purpose.
(c) Notice to Congress.--In the event of a loss that is
covered by defense-related aviation insurance in the case of an
incident in which the covered loss is (or is expected to be) in
an amount in excess of $1,000,000, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress--
(1) notification of the loss as soon after the
occurrence of the loss as possible and in no event more
than 30 days after the date of the loss; and
(2) semiannual reports thereafter updating the
information submitted under paragraph (1) and showing
with respect to losses arising from such incident the
total amount expended to cover such losses, the source
of those funds, pending litigation, and estimated total
cost to the Government.
(d) Implementing Matters.--(1) Payment of indemnification
under this section is not subject to section 2214 or 2215 of
this title or any other provision of law requiring notification
to Congress before funds may be transferred.
(2) Consolidation of claims arising from the same incident is
not required before indemnification of the Secretary of
Transportation for payment of a claim may be made under this
section.
(e) Construction With Other Transfer Authority.--Authority to
transfer funds under this section is in addition to any other
authority provided by law to transfer funds (whether enacted
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section)
and is not subject to any dollar limitation or notification
requirement contained in any other such authority to transfer
funds.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Defense-related aviation insurance.--The term
``defense-related aviation insurance'' means aviation
insurance and reinsurance provided through policies
issued by the Secretary of Transportation under chapter
443 of title 49 that pursuant to section 44305(b) of
that title is provided by that Secretary without
premium at the request of the Secretary of Defense and
is covered by an indemnity agreement between the
Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of
Defense.
(2) Loss.--The term ``loss'' includes damage to or
destruction of property, personal injury or death, and
other liabilities and expenses covered by the defense-
related aviation insurance.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 947--TRANSPORTATION
Sec.
9741. Control and supervision.
[9742. Control of transportation systems in time of war.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 9742. Control of transportation systems in time of war
[In time of war, the President, through the Secretary of the
Air Force, may take possession and assume control of all or
part of any system of transportation to transport troops, war
material, and equipment, or for other purposes related to the
emergency. So far as necessary, he may use the system to the
exclusion of other traffic.]
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Reserve Components
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Chap. Sec.
Definitions..................................................10001
Reserve Components Generally.................................10101
Elements of Reserve Components...............................10141
Reserve Component Commands...................................10171
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Chap. Sec.
Definitions..................................................10001
Reserve Components Generally.................................10101
Elements of Reserve Components...............................10141
Reserve Component Commands...................................10171
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1005--ELEMENTS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10144. Ready Reserve: Individual Ready Reserve
(a) Within the Ready Reserve of each of the reserve
components there is an Individual Ready Reserve. The Individual
Ready Reserve consists of those members of the Ready Reserve
who are not in the Selected Reserve or the inactive National
Guard.
(b)(1) Within the Individual Ready Reserve of each reserve
component there is a mobilization category of members, as
designated by the Secretary concerned, who are subject to being
ordered to active duty involuntarily in accordance with section
12304 of this title. A member may not be placed in that
mobilization category unless--
(A) the member volunteers for that category; and
(B) the member is selected for that category by the
Secretary concerned, based upon the needs of the
service and the grade and military skills of that
member.
(2) A member of the Individual Ready Reserve may not be
carried in the mobilization category of members under paragraph
(1) after the end of the 24-month period beginning on the date
of the separation of the member from active service.
(3) The Secretary shall designate the grades and critical
military skills or specialities of members to be eligible for
placement in such mobilization category.
(4) A member in such mobilization category shall be eligible
for benefits (other than pay and training) as are normally
available to members of the Selected Reserve, as determined by
the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1006--RESERVE COMPONENT COMMANDS
Sec.
10171. Army Reserve Command.
10172. Naval Reserve Force.
10173. Marine Forces Reserve.
10174. Air Force Reserve Command.
Sec. 10171. Army Reserve Command
(a) Establishment of Command.--The Secretary of the Army,
with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Staff of the
Army, shall establish a United States Army Reserve Command. The
Army Reserve Command shall be operated as a separate command of
the Army.
(b) Commander.--The Chief of Army Reserve is the commander of
the Army Reserve Command. The commander of the Army Reserve
Command reports directly to the Chief of Staff of the Army.
(c) Assignment of Forces.--The Secretary of the Army--
(1) shall assign to the Army Reserve Command all
forces of the Army Reserve stationed in the continental
United States other than forces assigned to the unified
combatant command for special operations forces
established pursuant to section 167 of this title; and
(2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
functions of the Secretary of the Army specified in
section 3013 of this title, shall assign all such
forces assigned to the Army Reserve Command under
paragraph (1) to the commanders of the combatant
commands in the manner specified by the Secretary of
Defense.
Sec. 10172. Naval Reserve Force
(a) Establishment of Command.--The Secretary of the Navy,
with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Naval
Operations, shall establish a Naval Reserve Force. The Naval
Reserve Force shall be operated as a separate command of the
Navy.
(b) Commander.--The Chief of Naval Reserve shall be the
commander of the Naval Reserve Force. The commander of the
Naval Reserve Force reports directly to the Chief of Naval
Operations.
(c) Assignment of Forces.--The Secretary of the Navy--
(1) shall assign to the Naval Reserve Force specified
portions of the Naval Reserve other than forces
assigned to the unified combatant command for special
operations forces established pursuant to section 167
of this title; and
(2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
functions of the Secretary of the Navy specified in
section 5013 of this title, shall assign to the
combatant commands all such forces assigned to the
Naval Reserve Force under paragraph (1) in the manner
specified by the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 10173. Marine Forces Reserve
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Navy, with the
advice and assistance of the Commandant of the Marine Corps,
shall establish in the Marine Corps a command known as the
Marine Forces Reserve.
(b) Commander.--The Marine Forces Reserve is commanded by the
Commander, Marine Forces Reserve. The Commander, Marine Forces
Reserve, reports directly to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps.
(c) Assignment of Forces.--The Commandant of the Marine
Corps--
(1) shall assign to the Marine Forces Reserve the
forces of the Marine Corps Reserve stationed in the
continental United States other than forces assigned to
the unified combatant command for special operations
forces established pursuant to section 167 of this
title; and
(2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
functions of the Secretary of the Navy specified in
section 5013 of this title, shall assign to the
combatant commands (through the Marine Corps component
commander for each such command) all such forces
assigned to the Marine Forces Reserve under paragraph
(1) in the manner specified by the Secretary of
Defense.
Sec. 10174. Air Force Reserve Command
(a) Establishment of Command.--The Secretary of the Air
Force, with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, shall establish an Air Force Reserve Command.
The Air Force Reserve Command shall be operated as a separate
command of the Air Force.
(b) Commander.--The Chief of Air Force Reserve is the
Commander of the Air Force Reserve Command. The commander of
the Air Force Reserve Command reports directly to the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force.
(c) Assignment of Forces.--The Secretary of the Air Force--
(1) shall assign to the Air Force Reserve Command all
forces of the Air Force Reserve stationed in the
continental United States other than forces assigned to
the unified combatant command for special operations
forces established pursuant to section 167 of this
title; and
(2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
functions of the Secretary of the Air Force specified
in section 8013 of this title, shall assign to the
combatant commands all such forces assigned to the Air
Force Reserve Command under paragraph (1) in the manner
specified by the Secretary of Defense.
CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10206. Members: periodic physical examinations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) The Secretary of the Army shall provide to members of
the Selected Reserve of the Army who are assigned to units
scheduled for deployment within 75 days after mobilization the
following medical and dental services:
(A) An annual medical screening.
(B) For members who are over 40 years of age, a full
physical examination not less often than once every two
years.
(C) An annual dental screening.
(D) The dental care identified in an annual dental
screening as required to ensure that a member meets the
dental standards required for deployment in the event
of mobilization.
(2) The services provided under this subsection shall be
provided at no cost to the member.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10216. Military technicians
(a) In General.--Military technicians are Federal civilian
employees hired under title 5 and title 32 who are required to
maintain dual-status as drilling reserve component members as a
condition of their Federal civilian employment. Such employees
shall be authorized and accounted for as a separate category of
dual-status civilian employees, exempt as specified in
subsection (b)(3) from any general or regulatory requirement
for adjustments in Department of Defense civilian personnel.
[(a)] (b) Priority for Management of Military Technicians.--
(1) As a basis for making the annual request to Congress
pursuant to section [115] 115(g) of this title for
authorization of end strengths for military technicians of the
Army and Air Force reserve components, the Secretary of Defense
shall give priority to supporting authorizations for dual
status military technicians in the following high-priority
units and organizations:
(A) Units of the Selected Reserve that are scheduled
to deploy no later than 90 days after mobilization.
(B) Units of the Selected Reserve that are or will
deploy to relieve active duty peacetime operations
tempo.
(C) Those organizations with the primary mission of
providing direct support surface and aviation
maintenance for the reserve components of the Army and
Air Force, to the extent that the military technicians
in such units would mobilize and deploy in a skill that
is compatible with their civilian position skill.
(2) For each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall, for
the high-priority units and organizations referred to in
paragraph (1), seek to achieve a programmed manning level for
military technicians that is not less than 90 percent of the
programmed manpower structure for those units and organizations
for military technicians for that fiscal year.
(3) Military technician authorizations and personnel [in
high-priority units and organizations specified in paragraph
(1)] shall be exempt from any requirement (imposed by law or
otherwise) for reductions in Department of Defense civilian
personnel and shall only be reduced as part of military force
structure reductions.
(c) Information Required To Be Submitted With Annual End
Strength Authorization Request.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall include as part of the budget justification documents
submitted to Congress with the budget of the Department of
Defense for any fiscal year the following information with
respect to the end strengths for military technicians requested
in that budget pursuant to section 115(g) of this title, shown
separately for each of the Army and Air Force reserve
components:
(A) The number of dual-status technicians in the high
priority units and organizations specified in
subsection (a)(1).
(B) The number of technicians other than dual-status
technicians in the high priority units and
organizations specified in subsection (a)(1).
(C) The number of dual-status technicians in other
than high priority units and organizations specified in
subsection (a)(1).
(D) The number of technicians other than dual-status
technicians in other than high priority units and
organizations specified in subsection (a)(1).
(2)(A) If the budget submitted to Congress for any fiscal
year requests authorization for that fiscal year under section
115(g) of this title of a military technician end strength for
a reserve component of the Army or Air Force in a number that
constitutes a reduction from the end strength minimum
established by law for that reserve component for the fiscal
year during which the budget is submitted, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees
with that budget a justification providing the basis for that
requested reduction in technician end strength.
(B) Any justification submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
clearly delineate--
(i) in the case of a reduction that includes a
reduction in technicians described in subparagraph (A)
or (C) of paragraph (1), the specific force structure
reductions forming the basis for such requested
technician reduction (and the numbers related to those
force structure reductions); and
(ii) in the case of a reduction that includes
reductions in technicians described in subparagraphs
(B) or (D) of paragraph (1), the specific force
structure reductions, Department of Defense civilian
personnel reductions, or other reasons forming the
basis for such requested technician reduction (and the
numbers related to those reductions).
[(b)] (d) Dual-Status Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense
shall require the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of
the Air Force to establish as a condition of employment for
each individual who is hired [after the date of the enactment
of this section] after February 10, 1996, as a military
technician that the individual maintain membership in the
Selected Reserve (so as to be a so-called ``dual-status''
technician) and shall require that the civilian and military
position skill requirements of dual-status military technicians
be compatible. No Department of Defense funds may be spent for
compensation for any military technician hired [after the date
of the enactment of this section] after February 10, 1996, who
is not a member of the Selected Reserve, except that
compensation may be paid for up to six months following loss of
membership in the Selected Reserve if such loss of membership
was not due to the failure to meet military standards.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1013--BUDGET INFORMATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10542. Army National Guard combat readiness: annual report
(a) * * *
(b) Matters To Be Included in Report.--Each presentation
under subsection (a) shall include, with respect to the period
covered by the report, the following information concerning the
Army National Guard:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(21) A specification of the active-duty personnel
assigned to units of the Selected Reserve pursuant to
section 414(c) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (10 U.S.C. [261]
12001 note), shown (A) by State, (B) by rank of
officers, warrant officers, and enlisted members
assigned, and (C) by unit or other organizational
entity of assignment.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1205--APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12205. Commissioned officers: appointment; educational requirement
(a) In General.--[After September 30, 1995, no person] No
person may be appointed to a grade above the grade of first
lieutenant in the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, or Marine
Corps Reserve or to a grade above the grade of lieutenant
(junior grade) in the Naval Reserve, or be federally recognized
in a grade above the grade of first lieutenant as a member of
the Army National Guard or Air National Guard, unless that
person has been awarded a baccalaureate degree by a qualifying
educational institution.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the
following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The appointment in the Naval Reserve of a person
appointed for service under the Naval Aviation Cadet
(NAVCAD) program or the Seaman to Admiral Program.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1209--ACTIVE DUTY
Sec.
12301. Reserve components generally.
12302. Ready Reserve.
12303. Ready Reserve: members not assigned to, or participating
satisfactorily in, units.
[12304. Selected Reserve; order to active duty other than during war or
national emergency.]
12304. Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members;
order to active duty other than during war or national
emergency.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 12304. Selected Reserve; order to active duty other than during
war or national emergency]
Sec. 12304. Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve
members; order to active duty other than during war
or national emergency
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12302(a) or any
other provision of law, when the President determines that it
is necessary to augment the active forces for any operational
mission, he may authorize the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, without the
consent of the members concerned, to order any unit, and any
member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit of
the Selected Reserve (as defined in section 10143(a) of this
title), or any member in the Individual Ready Reserve
mobilization category and designated as essential under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, under their
respective jurisdictions, to active duty (other than for
training) for not more than 270 days.
* * * * * * *
(c) Not more than 200,000 members of the Selected Reserve and
the Individual Ready Reserve may be on active duty under this
section at any one time, of whom not more than 30,000 may be
members of the Individual Ready Reserve.
* * * * * * *
(f) Whenever the President authorizes the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of Transportation to order any unit or
member of the Selected Reserve or Individual Ready Reserve to
active duty, under the authority of subsection (a), he shall,
within 24 hours after exercising such authority, submit to
Congress a report, in writing, setting forth the circumstances
necessitating the action taken under this section and
describing the anticipated use of these units or members.
(g) Whenever any unit of the Selected Reserve or any member
of the Selected Reserve not assigned to a unit organized to
serve as a unit, or member of the Individual Ready Reserve, is
ordered to active duty under authority of subsection (a), the
service of all units or members so ordered to active duty may
be terminated by--
(1) order of the President, or
(2) law.
* * * * * * *
(i) For purposes of this section, the term ``Individual Ready
Reserve mobilization category'' means, in the case of any
reserve component, the category of the Individual Ready Reserve
described in section 10144(b) of this title.
Sec. 12310. Reserves: for organizing, administering, etc., reserve
components
(a) * * *
[(b) To assure that a Reserve on duty under subsection (a)
receives periodic refresher training in the categories for
which he is qualified, the Secretary concerned may detail him
to duty with any armed force, or otherwise as the Secretary
sees fit.]
(b) A Reserve on active duty as described in subsection (a)
may be provided training and professional development
opportunities consistent with those provided to other members
on active duty, as the Secretary concerned sees fit.
* * * * * * *
PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
STATUS LIST
Sec. 14507. Removal from the reserve active-status list for years of
service: reserve lieutenant colonels and colonels
of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and
reserve commanders and captains of the Navy
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Temporary Authority To Retain Certain Officers Designated
as Judge Advocates.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary of the Air Force may
retain on the reserve active-status list any reserve officer of
the Air Force who is designated as a judge advocate and who
obtained the first professional degree in law while on an
educational delay program subsequent to being commissioned
through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
(2) No more than 50 officers may be retained on the reserve
active-status list under the authority of paragraph (1) at any
time.
(3) No officer may be retained on the reserve active-status
list under the authority of paragraph (1) for a period
exceeding three years from the date on which, but for that
authority, that officer would have been removed from the
reserve active-status list under subsection (a) or (b).
(4) The authority of the Secretary of the Air Force under
paragraph (1) expires on September 30, 2003.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions
officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime
critical medical skill shortages
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned
officer before October 1, [1997] 1998.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Part B--Health Care Management
* * * * * * *
SEC. 718. UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Managed-Care Delivery and Reimbursement Model.--
[(1) Time for operation.--Not later than the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall begin operation of a managed-care delivery and
reimbursement model that will continue to utilize the
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities in the military
health services system. Except as provided in paragraph
(4), a participation agreement negotiated between a
Uniformed Services Treatment Facility and the Secretary
of Defense under this subsection shall not be subject
to the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued pursuant
to section 25(c) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)).
[(2) Copayments.--A Uniformed Services Treatment
Facility for which there exists a managed-care plan
developed as part of the model required by this
subsection may impose reasonable charges for inpatient
and outpatient care provided to all categories of
beneficiaries enrolled in the plan. The schedule and
application of such charges shall be in accordance with
the terms and conditions specified in the plan.
[(3) Evaluation of performance under the model.--(A)
The Secretary of Defense shall utilize a federally
funded research and development center to conduct an
independent evaluation of the performance of each
Uniformed Services Treatment Facility operating under a
managed-care plan developed as part of the model
required by this subsection. The evaluation shall
include an assessment of the efficiency of the
Uniformed Services Treatment Facility in providing
health care under the plan. The assessment shall be
made in the same manner as provided in section 712(a)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1993 (10 U.S.C. 1073 note) for expansion of the
CHAMPUS reform initiative.
[(B) Not later than December 31, 1995, the center
conducting the evaluation and assessment shall submit
to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress a report on
the results of the evaluation and assessment. The
report shall include such recommendations regarding the
managed-care delivery and reimbursement model under
this subsection as the entity considers to be
appropriate.
[(4) Application of federal acquisition regulation.--
On and after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities and
any participation agreement between Uniformed Services
Treatment Facilities and the Secretary of Defense shall
be subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued
pursuant to section 25(c) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c))
notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in such a
participation agreement. The requirements regarding
competition in the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall
apply with regard to the negotiation of any new
participation agreement between the Uniformed Services
Treatment Facilities and the Secretary of Defense under
this subsection or any other provision of law.
[(5) Plan for integrating facilities.--(A) The
Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan under which
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities could be
included, before the expiration date of the
participation agreements entered into under this
section, in the exclusive health care provider networks
established by the Secretary for the geographic regions
in which the facilities are located. The Secretary
shall address in the plan the feasibility of
implementing the managed care plan of the Uniformed
Services Treatment Facilities, known as Option II, on a
mandatory basis for all USTF Medicare-eligible
beneficiaries and the potential cost savings to the
Military Health Care Program that could be achieved
under such option.
[(B) The Secretary shall submit the plan developed
under this paragraph to Congress not later than March
1, 1996.
[(C) The plan developed under this paragraph shall be
consistent with the requirements specified in paragraph
(4). If the plan is not submitted to Congress by the
expiration date of the participation agreements entered
into under this section, the participation agreements
shall remain in effect, at the option of the Uniformed
Services Treatment Facilities, until the end of the
180-day period beginning on the date the plan is
finally submitted.
[(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``USTF
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries'' means covered
beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, who are enrolled in a managed health plan
offered by the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
and entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part
A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395c et seq.).
[(6) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term ``Uniformed Services Treatment Facility''
means a facility described in section 911(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act, 1982 (42
U.S.C. 248c(a)).]
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Part D--Miscellaneous
SEC. 831. MENTOR-PROTEGE PILOT PROGRAM
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j) Duration of Pilot Program.--(1) Business concerns
eligible to participate in the program may enter into mentor-
protege agreements pursuant to subsection (e) during the period
commencing on October 1, 1991, and ending on September 30,
[1996] 1997.
(2) A mentor firm may not incur costs furnishing
developmental assistance to a protege firm that are eligible
for reimbursement pursuant to subsection (g) prior to October
1, 1991, or after September 30, [1996] 1997.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT MATTERS
Part A--General Management Matters
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 903. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND
[(a) Establishment of Command.--The Secretary of the Army,
with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Staff of the
Army, shall establish a United States Army Reserve Command
under the command of the Chief of Army Reserve. The Army
Reserve Command shall be a separate command of the Army
commanded by the Chief, Army Reserve.
[(b) Assignment of Forces.--The Secretary of the Army-
[(1) shall assign to the Army Reserve Command all
forces of the Army Reserve in the continental United
States other than forces assigned to the unified
combatant command for special operations forces
established pursuant to section 167 of title 10, United
States Code; and
[(2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
functions of the Secretary of the Army specified in
section 3013 of title 10, United States Code, shall
assign all such forces of the Army Reserve to the
Commander-in-Chief, United States Atlantic Command.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1005. TRANSFER OF EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES
Pursuant to [section 1208 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (10 U.S.C. 372
note) and section 372] sections 372 and 2576a of title 10,
United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall review the
availability of equipment resulting from the withdrawal of
United States forces from Europe and Asia for the purpose of
identifying excess equipment that may be suitable for drug
enforcement activities for transfer to appropriate Federal,
State, or local civilian law enforcement authorities.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Part A--Financial and Budget Matters
* * * * * * *
Part B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
SEC. 1425. AUTHORIZATION FOR NAVAL SHIPYARDS AND AVIATION DEPOTS TO
ENGAGE IN DEFENSE-RELATED PRODUCTION AND SERVICES
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Expiration of Authority.--The authority provided by this
section expires on September 30, [1996] 1997.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIX--DEFENSE BASE CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS
Part A--Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
SEC. 2901. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE
(a) Short Title.--This part may be cited as the ``Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION
(a) * * *
(b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(8)(A) Subject to subparagraph (C), the Secretary may enter
into agreements (including contracts, cooperative agreements,
or other arrangements for reimbursement) with local governments
for the provision of police or security services, fire
protection services, airfield operation services, or other
community services by such governments at military
installations to be closed under this part or at facilities
remaining on installations closed under this part if the
Secretary determines that the provision of such services under
such agreements is in the best interests of the Department of
Defense.
* * * * * * *
(g) Acquisition of Manufactured Housing.--(1) In closing or
realigning any military installation under this part, the
Secretary may purchase any or all right, title, and interest of
a member of the Armed Forces and any spouse of the member in
manufactured housing located at a manufactured housing park
established at an installation closed or realigned under this
part, or make a payment to the member to relocate the
manufactured housing to a suitable new site, if the Secretary
determines that--
(A) it is in the best interests of the Federal
Government to eliminate or relocate the manufactured
housing park; and
(B) the elimination or relocation of the manufactured
housing park would result in an unreasonable financial
hardship to the owners of the manufactured housing.
(2) Any payment made under this subsection shall not exceed
90 percent of the purchase price of the manufactured housing,
as paid by the member or any spouse of the member, plus the
cost of any permanent improvements subsequently made to the
manufactured housing by the member or spouse of the member.
(3) The Secretary shall dispose of manufactured housing
acquired under this subsection through resale, donation, trade
or otherwise within one year of acquisition.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--OTHER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Part C--Miscellaneous
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3132. LABORATORY-DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Funding.--Of the funds provided by the Department of
Energy to such laboratories for national security activities,
the Secretary shall provide a specific amount, not to exceed
[6] 2 percent of such funds, to be used by such laboratories
for laboratory-directed research and development.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION D--ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT, DIVERSIFICATION, CONVERSION, AND
STABILIZATION
SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE
This division may be cited as the ``Defense Economic
Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, and Stabilization Act
of 1990''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLI--ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT PLANNING
[SEC. 4101. NOTIFICATION
[(a) In General.--The Chairman of Economic Adjustment
Committee shall establish procedures to ensure that the head of
the appropriate Federal agencies promptly notify the
appropriate official or other person or party described in
subsection (b) with respect to any community, business, or
group of workers that may be substantially and seriously
affected as a result of--
[(1) the annual budget of the President submitted to
Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, and any longer-term guidance document of
the Secretary of Defense;
[(2) the public announcement of the realignment or
closure of a military installation or defense facility;
or
[(3) the cancellation or curtailment of a major
defense contract.
[(b) Persons To Receive Notice.--The officials, persons, and
other parties referred to in subsection (a) are--
[(1) the chief elected executive official of an
affected State;
[(2) the mayor of an affected city;
[(3) the executive or other appropriate
representative of any other affected political
subdivision of a State; and
[(4) the head of a national or international labor
organization, the headquarters of which is located in
the United States, which represents a substantially and
seriously affected group of workers.
[(c) Benefit Information Required to Accompany Notice.--Each
notice under subsection (a) shall contain information
describing Federal economic adjustment programs available to
communities, businesses, and groups of workers.
[(d) Notification of Communities Affected by Defense
Realignment Before Date of Enactment.--The information provided
under subsection (a) shall include information regarding
actions referred to in such subsection which were--
[(1) proposed in the budget of the President which
was submitted to Congress during the period beginning
on January 1, 1990, and ending on the date of the
enactment of this Act; or
[(2) otherwise announced during such period.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLII--ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR EMPLOYEES
[SEC. 4201. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE NOTICE REQUIREMENT
[(a) Information to be Provided.--The Secretary of Defense
shall--
[(1) provide timely information to the Secretary of
Labor on--
[(A) any proposed closure of, or substantial
reduction in, military installations; and
[(B) any proposed cancellation of, or
reduction in, any contract for products or
services for the Department of Defense,
if the proposed closure, cancellation, or reduction
will have a substantial impact on employment;
[(2) when feasible, identify the location at which
employment which will be affected by such closure,
cancellation, or reduction; and
[(3) provide to the Secretary of Labor information
with respect to such proposed closure, cancellation, or
reduction.
[(b) Notification to Governor of State Concerned.--If the
Secretary of Labor receives information under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall notify the Governor of each State in which
such proposed closure, cancellation, or reduction will occur
pursuant to guidelines established by the Economic Adjustment
Committee to avoid duplicative notification.]
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 3 OF THE ACT TO PREVENT POLLUTION FROM SHIPS
Sec. 3. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Discharges in Special Areas.--(1) Not later than December
31, 2000, all surface ships owned or operated by the Department
of the Navy, and not later than December 31, 2008, all
submersibles owned or operated by the Department of the Navy,
shall comply with the special area requirements of Regulation 5
of Annex V to the Convention, except as provided in paragraphs
(4) and (5) of this subsection.
* * * * * * *
[(4) Upon receipt of the compliance plan under paragraph (2)
of this subsection, the Congress may modify the applicability
of paragraph (1) of this subsection, as appropriate.]
(4) A vessel owned or operated by the Department of the Navy
for which the Secretary of the Navy determines under the
compliance plan submitted under paragraph (2) that, due to
unique military design, construction, manning, or operating
requirements, full compliance with paragraph (1) would not be
technologically feasible, would impair the vessel's operations,
and would impair the vessel's operational capability, is
authorized to discharge garbage consisting of either of the
following:
(A) A slurry of seawater, paper, cardboard, and food
waste that does not contain more than the minimum
amount practicable of plastic, if such slurry is
discharged not less than 3 nautical miles from the
nearest land and is capable of passing through a screen
with openings of no greater than 12 millimeters.
(B) Metal and glass garbage that has been shredded
and bagged to ensure negative buoyancy and is
discharged not less than 12 nautical miles from the
nearest land.
(5) Not later than December 31, 2000, the Secretary of the
Navy shall publish in the Federal Register--
(A) a list of those surface ships planned to be
decommissioned between January 1, 2001, and December
31, 2005; and
(B) standards to ensure, so far as is reasonable and
practicable, without impairing the operations or
operational capabilities of such ships, that such ships
act in a manner consistent with the special area
requirements of Regulation 5 of Annex V to the
Convention.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 35--RETENTION PREFERENCE, RESTORATION, AND REEMPLOYMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3502. Order of retention
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f)(1) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
military department may--
[(A) release in a reduction in force an employee who
volunteers for the release even though the employee is
not otherwise subject to release in the reduction in
force under the criteria applicable under the other
provisions of this section; and
[(B) for each employee voluntarily released in the
reduction in force under subparagraph (A), retain an
employee in a similar position who would otherwise be
released in the reduction in force under such criteria.
[(2) A voluntary release of an employee in a reduction in
force pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be treated as an
involuntary release in the reduction in force.
[(3) An employee with critical knowledge and skills (as
defined by the Secretary concerned) may not participate in a
voluntary release under paragraph (1) if the Secretary
concerned determines that such participation would impair the
performance of the mission of the Department of Defense or the
military department concerned.
[(4) The regulations prescribed under this section shall
incorporate the authority provided in this subsection.
[(5) The authority under paragraph (1) may not be exercised
after September 30, 1996.]
(f)(1) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
military department may--
(A) separate from service any employee who volunteers
to be separated under this subparagraph even though the
employee is not otherwise subject to separation due to
a reduction in force; and
(B) for each employee voluntarily separated under
subparagraph (A), retain an employee in a similar
position who would otherwise be separated due to a
reduction in force.
(2) The separation of an employee under paragraph (1)(A)
shall be treated as an involuntary separation due to a
reduction in force.
(3) An employee with critical knowledge and skills (as
defined by the Secretary concerned) may not participate in a
voluntary separation under paragraph (1)(A) if the Secretary
concerned determines that such participation would impair the
performance of the mission of the Department of Defense or the
military department concerned.
(4) The regulations prescribed under this section shall
incorporate the authority provided in this subsection.
(5) No authority under paragraph (1) may be exercised after
September 30, 2001.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--PAY ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--PREMIUM PAY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5543. Compensatory time off
(a) * * *
(b) The head of an agency may, on request of an employee,
grant the employee compensatory time off from his scheduled
tour of duty instead of payment under section 5544 or section 7
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for an equal amount of
time spent in irregular or occasional overtime work.
[(b)] (c) The Architect of the Capitol may grant an employee
paid on an annual basis compensatory time off from duty instead
of overtime pay for overtime work.
Sec. 5544. Wage-board overtime and Sunday rates; computation
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The provisions of this section, including the last two
sentences of subsection (a), and the provisions of section
5543(b) shall apply to a prevailing rate employee described in
section 5342(a)(2)(B).
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IX--SEVERANCE PAY AND BACK PAY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5597. Separation pay
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) If the employment is without compensation, the appointing
official may waive the repayment.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 61--HOURS OF WORK
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6103. Holidays
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``compressed schedule'' has the meaning
given such term by section 6121(5); and
(B) the term ``adverse agency impact'' has the
meaning given such term by section 6131(b).
(2) An agency may prescribe rules under which employees on a
compressed schedule may, in the case of a holiday that occurs
on a regularly scheduled non-workday for such employees, and
notwithstanding any other provision of law or the terms of any
collective bargaining agreement, be required to observe such
holiday on a workday other than as provided by subsection (b),
if the agency head determines that it is necessary to do so in
order to prevent an adverse agency impact.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8344. Annuities and pay on reemployment
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(m)(1) In order to promote the retention of employees having
knowledge, skills, or expertise needed by the Department of
Defense, in a manner consistent with ongoing downsizing
efforts, the Secretary of Defense or his designee may waive the
application of subsection (a), with respect to reemployed
annuitants of the Department of Defense, under this subsection.
(2) A waiver under this subsection--
(A) may not be granted except upon appropriate
written application submitted and approved not later
than the date of separation on which entitlement to
annuity is based;
(B) shall be contingent on the reemployment
commencing within such time as the Secretary or his
designee may require, may remain in effect for a period
of not to exceed 2 years, and shall not be renewable;
and
(C) may be granted and thereafter remain in effect
only if, with respect to the position in which
reemployed, the number of regularly scheduled hours in
each week or other period is at least \1/2\ but not
more than \3/4\ those last in effect for the individual
before the separation referred to in subparagraph (A).
(3)(A) In no event shall the sum of the rate of basic pay
for, plus annuity allocable to, any period of service as a
reemployed annuitant under this subsection exceed the rate of
basic pay that would then be in effect for service performed
during such period if separation had not occurred.
(B) If the limitation under subparagraph (A) would otherwise
be exceeded, an amount equal to the excess shall be deducted
from basic pay for the period involved (but not to exceed total
basic pay for such period), and any amount so deducted shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of
the Fund.
(4) The number of reemployed annuitants under this subsection
at any given time may not, when taken together with the then
current number under section 8468(j), exceed a total of 50.
(5) All waivers under this subsection shall cease to be
effective after September 30, 2001.
CHAPTER 84--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VI--GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8468. Annuities and pay on reemployment
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j)(1) In order to promote the retention of employees having
knowledge, skills, or expertise needed by the Department of
Defense, in a manner consistent with ongoing downsizing
efforts, the Secretary of Defense or his designee may waive the
application of subsections (a) and (b), with respect to
reemployed annuitants of the Department of Defense, under this
subsection.
(2) A waiver under this subsection--
(A) may not be granted except upon appropriate
written application submitted and approved not later
than the date of separation on which entitlement to
annuity is based;
(B) shall be contingent on the reemployment
commencing within such time as the Secretary or his
designee may require, may remain in effect for a period
of not to exceed 2 years, and shall not be renewable;
and
(C) may be granted and thereafter remain in effect
only if, with respect to the position in which
reemployed, the number of regularly scheduled hours in
each week or other period is at least \1/2\ but not
more than \3/4\ those last in effect for the individual
before the separation referred to in subparagraph (A).
(3)(A) In no event shall the sum of the rate of basic pay
for, plus annuity allocable to, any period of service as a
reemployed annuitant under this subsection exceed the rate of
basic pay that would then be in effect for service performed
during such period if separation had not occurred.
(B) If the limitation under subparagraph (A) would otherwise
be exceeded, an amount equal to the excess shall be deducted
from basic pay for the period involved (but not to exceed total
basic pay for such period), and any amount so deducted shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of
the Fund.
(4) The number of reemployed annuitants under this subsection
at any given time may not, when taken together with the then
current number under section 8344(m), exceed a total of 50.
(5) All waivers under this subsection shall cease to be
effective after September 30, 2001.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
Sec.
301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.
301a. Incentive pay: aviation career.
* * * * * * *
302h. Special pay: accession bonus for dental officers.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of
active duty
(a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1,
1989, and ending on September 30, [1997] 1998, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as
provided in this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302b. Special pay: dental officers of the armed forces
(a) Variable, Additional, and Board Certification Special
Pay.--(1) * * *
(2) An officer described in paragraph (1) who is serving in a
pay grade below pay grade O-7 is entitled to variable special
pay at the following rates:
(A) [$1,200] $3,000 per year, if the officer is
undergoing dental internship training or has less than
three years of creditable service.
(B) [$2,000] $7,000 per year, if the officer has at
least three but less than six years of creditable
service and is not undergoing dental internship
training.
(C) [$4,000] $7,000 per year, if the officer has at
least six but less than 10 years of creditable service.
* * * * * * *
(4) Subject to subsection (b), an officer entitled to
variable special pay under paragraph (2) or (3) is entitled to
additional special pay for any 12-month period during which the
officer is not undergoing dental internship or residency
training. Such additional special pay shall be paid at the
following rates:
[(A) $6,000 per year, if the officer has at least
three but less than 14 years of creditable service.
[(B) $8,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
but less than 18 years of creditable service.
[(C) $10,000 per year, if the officer has 18 or more
years of creditable service.]
(A) $4,000 per year, if the officer has less than
three years of creditable service.
(B) $6,000 per year, if the officer has at least
three but less than 14 years of creditable service.
(C) $8,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
but less than 18 years of creditable service.
(D) $10,000 per year, if the officer has at least 18
or more years of creditable service.
(5) An officer who is entitled to variable special pay under
paragraph (2) or (3) and who is board certified is entitled to
additional special pay at the following rates:
[(A) $2,000 per year, if the officer has less than 12
years of creditable service.
[(B) $3,000 per year, if the officer has at least 12
but less than 14 years of creditable service.
[(C) $4,000 per year, if the officer has 14 or more
years of creditable service.]
(A) $2,500 per year, if the officer has less than 10
years of creditable service.
(B) $3,500 per year, if the officer has at least 10
but less than 12 years of creditable service.
(C) $4,000 per year, if the officer has at least 12
but less than 14 years of creditable service.
(D) $5,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
but less than 18 years of creditable service.
(E) $6,000 per year, if the officer has 18 or more
years of creditable service.
* * * * * * *
(b) Active-Duty Agreement.--(1) An officer may not be paid
additional special pay under subsection (a)(4) for any 12-month
period unless the officer first executes a written agreement
under which the officer agrees to remain on active duty for a
period of not less than one year beginning on the date the
officer accepts the award of such special pay.
(2) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense
under section 303a(a) of this title, the Secretary of the
military department concerned may terminate at any time an
officer's entitlement to the special pay authorized by
subsection (a)(4). If such entitlement is terminated, the
officer concerned is entitled to be paid such special pay only
for the part of the period on active duty that the officer
served, and the officer may be required to refund any amount in
excess of that entitlement.
(c) Regulations.--Regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense under section 303a(a) of this title shall include
standards for determining--
(1) whether an officer is undergoing internship or
residency training for purposes of subsections
(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(4); and
(2) whether an officer is board certified for
purposes of subsection (a)(5).
(d) Frequency of Payments.--Special pay payable to an officer
under paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of subsection (a) shall be
paid monthly. Special pay payable to an officer under
subsection (a)(4) shall be paid annually at the beginning of
the 12-month period for which the officer is entitled to such
payment.
(e) Refund for Period of Unserved Obligated Service.--An
officer who voluntarily terminates service on active duty
before the end of the period for which a payment was made to
such officer under subsection (a)(4) shall refund to the United
States an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount paid
to such officer as the unserved part of such period bears to
the total period for which the payment was made.
(f) Effect of Discharge in Bankruptcy.--A discharge in
bankruptcy under title 11 shall not release a person from an
obligation to reimburse the United States required under the
terms of an agreement described in subsection (b) if the final
decree of the discharge in bankruptcy was issued within a
period of five years after the last day of a period which such
person had agreed to serve on active duty. This subsection
applies to a discharge in bankruptcy in any proceeding which
begins after September 30, 1985.
(g) Determination of Creditable Service.--For purposes of
this section, creditable service of an officer is computed by
adding--
(1) all periods which the officer spent in dental
internship or residency training during which the
officer was not on active duty; and
(2) all periods of active service in the Dental Corps
of the Army or Navy, as an officer of the Air Force
designated as a dental officer, or as a dental officer
of the Public Health Service.
(h) Reserve Dental Officers Special Pay.--(1) A reserve
dental officer described in paragraph (2) is entitled to
special pay at the rate of $350 a month for each month of
active duty, including active duty in the form of annual
training, active duty for training, and active duty for special
work.
(2) A reserve dental officer referred to in paragraph (1) is
a reserve officer who--
(A) is an officer of the Dental Corps of the Army or
the Navy or an officer of the Air Force designated as a
dental officer; and
(B) is on active duty under a call or order to active
duty for a period of less than one year.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on
November 29, 1989, and ending on September 30, [1997] 1998,
executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to
accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for
a period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance
of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an
accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary
concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists
(a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November
29, 1989, and ending on September 30, [1997] 1998, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one
year or more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the
Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount
not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in
critically short wartime specialties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under
this section may be entered into after September 30, [1997]
1998.
Sec. 302h. Special pay: accession bonus for dental officers
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
graduate of an accredited dental school and who, during the
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section,
and ending on September 30, 2002, executes a written agreement
described in subsection (c) to accept a commission as an
officer of the armed forces and remain on active duty for a
period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance of
the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary concerned.
(2) The amount of an accession bonus under paragraph (1) may
not exceed $30,000.
(b) Limitation on Eligibility for Bonus.--A person may not be
paid a bonus under subsection (a) if--
(1) the person, in exchange for an agreement to
accept an appointment as an officer, received financial
assistance from the Department of Defense to pursue a
course of study in dentistry; or
(2) the Secretary concerned determines that the
person is not qualified to become and remain certified
and licensed as a dentist.
(c) Agreement.--The agreement referred to in subsection (a)
shall provide that, consistent with the needs of the armed
service concerned, the person executing the agreement will be
assigned to duty, for the period of obligated service covered
by the agreement, as an officer of the Dental Corps of the Army
or the Navy or an officer of the Air Force designated as a
dental officer.
(d) Repayment.--(1) An officer who receives a payment under
subsection (a) and who fails to become and remain certified or
licensed as a dentist during the period for which the payment
is made shall refund to the United States an amount equal to
the full amount of such payment.
(2) An officer who voluntarily terminates service on active
duty before the end of the period agreed to be served under
subsection (a) shall refund to the United States an amount that
bears the same ratio to the amount paid to the officer as the
unserved part of such period bears to the total period agreed
to be served.
(3) An obligation to reimburse the United States imposed
under paragraph (1) or (2) is for all purposes a debt owed to
the United States.
(4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
less than five years after the termination of an agreement
under this section does not discharge the person signing such
agreement from a debt arising under such agreement or this
subsection. This paragraph applies to any case commenced under
title 11 after the date of the enactment of this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 303a. Special pay: health professionals; general provisions
(a) The Secretary of Defense, with respect to the Army, Navy,
and Air Force, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
with respect to the Public Health Service, shall prescribe
regulations for the administration of sections 301d, 302
through [302g] 302h, and 303 of this title.
(b) Special pay authorized under sections 301d, 302 through
[302g] 302h, and 303 of this title is in addition to any other
pay or allowance to which an officer is entitled. The amount of
special pay to which an officer is entitled under any of such
sections may not be included in computing the amount of any
increase in pay authorized by any other provision of this title
or in computing retired pay, separation pay, severance pay, or
readjustment pay.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review every two
years of the special pay for health professionals authorized by
sections 301d, 302 through [302g] 302h, and 303 of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty
reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after September
30, [1997] 1998.
Sec. 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any enlistment or extension of an initial period of active duty
in the armed forces made after September 30, [1997] 1998.
Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected
Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted
member who, after September 30, [1997] 1998, reenlists or
voluntarily extends his enlistment in a reserve component.
Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted
member who, after September 30, [1997] 1998, enlists in the
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.
Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve
assigned to certain high priority units
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this
section for inactive duty performed after September 30, [1997]
1998.
Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after September 30,
[1997] 1998.
Sec. 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to
an enlistment in the Army after September 30, [1997] 1998.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or
voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of
the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person
for a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an
enlistment after September 30, [1997] 1998.
Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
an enlistment after September 30, [1997] 1998.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of
active duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before September 30, [1997]
1998, execute the required written agreement to remain in
active service.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before September 30, [1997]
1998, have been accepted for training for duty in connection
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval
nuclear propulsion plants.
Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before October 1, [1997]
1998.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 403. Basic allowance for quarters
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) [A member] Subject to the provisions of subsection (j), a
member without dependents who is in pay grade E-6 and who is
assigned to quarters of the United States that do not meet the
minimum adequacy standards established by the Department of
Defense for members in such pay grade, or to a housing facility
under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service that does not
meet such standards, may elect not to occupy such quarters or
facility and instead to receive the basic allowance for
quarters prescribed for the member's pay grade by this section.
(c)(1)* * *
(2) [A member](A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) or
(C), a member of a uniformed service without dependents who is
in a pay grade below pay grade E-7 is not entitled to a basic
allowance for quarters while he is on sea duty. [A member of a
uniformed service without dependents who is in a pay grade
above E-6 who is assigned to sea duty under a permanent change
of station is not entitled to a basic allowance for quarters if
the unit to which the member is ordered is deployed and the
permanent station of the unit is different than the permanent
station from which the member is reporting.]
(B) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
the Secretary may authorize the payment of a basic allowance
for quarters to a member of a uniformed service under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary when the member is without
dependents, is serving in pay grade E-5, and is assigned to sea
duty. In prescribing regulations under this subparagraph, the
Secretary concerned shall consider the availability of quarters
for members serving in pay grade E-5.
(C) Notwithstanding section 421 of this title, two members of
the uniformed services in a pay grade below pay grade E-5 who
are married to each other, have no other dependents, and are
simultaneously assigned to sea duty are entitled to a single
basic allowance for quarters during the period of such
simultaneous sea duty. The amount of the allowance shall be
based on the without dependents rate for the pay grade of the
senior member.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 403a. Variable housing allowance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)[(1) The monthly amount of a variable housing allowance
under this section for a member of a uniformed service with
respect to an area is the difference between (A) the median
monthly cost of housing in that area for members of the
uniformed services serving in the same pay grade and with the
same dependency status as that member, and (B) 80 percent of
the median monthly cost of housing in the United States for
members of the uniformed services serving in the same pay grade
and with the same dependency status as that member.](1) The
monthly amount of a variable housing allowance under this
section for a member of a uniformed service with respect to an
area is equal to the greater of the following amounts:
(A) An amount equal to the difference between--
(i) the median monthly cost of housing in
that area for members of the uniformed services
serving in the same pay grade and with the same
dependency status as that member; and
(ii) 80 percent of the median monthly cost of
housing in the United States for members of the
uniformed services serving in the same pay
grade and with the same dependency status as
that member.
(B) An amount equal to the difference between--
(i) the adequate housing allowance floor
determined by the Secretary of Defense for all
members of the uniformed services in that area
entitled to a variable housing allowance under
this section; and
(ii) the monthly basic allowance for quarters
for members of the uniformed services serving
in the same pay grade and with the same
dependency status as that member.
* * * * * * *
(3) The effective date of any adjustment in rates of variable
housing allowance because of a redetermination of median
monthly costs of housing under [this subsection] paragraph
(1)(A) or the minimum amount of a variable housing allowance
under paragraph (1)(B) shall be the same as the effective date
of the next increase after such redetermination in the basic
allowances for quarters. However, so long as a member of a
uniformed service retains uninterrupted eligibility to receive
a variable housing allowance within an area and the member's
certified housing costs are not reduced (as indicated by
certifications provided by the member under subsection (b)(4)),
the monthly amount of a variable housing allowance under this
section for the member within that area may not be reduced as a
result of systematic adjustments required by changes in housing
costs within that area.
* * * * * * *
(5) Any reduction required under paragraph (2) and any
determination of median monthly costs of housing or minimum
amount of a variable housing allowance under this subsection
shall be made under regulations prescribed under subsection
(e).
* * * * * * *
(7)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(i), the Secretary of
Defense shall establish an adequate housing allowance floor for
members of the uniformed services in an area as a selected
percentage, not to exceed 85 percent, of the cost of adequate
housing in that area based on an index of housing costs
selected by the Secretary of Defense from among the following:
(i) The fair market rentals established annually by
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under
section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(1)).
(ii) An index developed in the private sector that
the Secretary of Defense determines is comparable to
the fair market rentals referred to in clause (i) and
is appropriate for use to determine the adequate
housing allowance floor.
(B) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out this paragraph
in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, the
Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
(d)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) In making a determination under paragraph (1) for a
fiscal year, the amount authorized to be paid for the preceding
fiscal year for the variable housing allowance shall be
adjusted to reflect changes during the year for which the
determination is made in the number, grade distribution, and
dependency status of members of the uniformed services entitled
to variable housing allowance from the number of such members
during the preceding fiscal year. In addition, the total amount
determined under paragraph (1) shall be adjusted to ensure that
sufficient amounts are available to allow payment of any
additional amounts of variable housing allowance necessary as a
result of the requirements of [the second sentence of
subsection (c)(3)] paragraph (1)(B) of subsection (c) and the
second sentence of paragraph (3) of that subsection.
Adjustments under this paragraph shall be made in accordance
with regulations prescribed under subsection (e).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j)(1) In the case of a member of a reserve component
performing [annual training duty] active duty for training or
inactive-duty training who is not otherwise entitled to travel
and transportation allowances in connection with such duty
under subsection (a), [the Secretary concerned may reimburse
the member for housing service charge expenses incurred by the
member in occupying transient government housing during the
performance of such duty.] the Secretary concerned--
(A) may reimburse the member for housing service
charge expenses incurred by the member in occupying
transient government housing during the performance of
such duty; or
(B) if transient government quarters are unavailable,
may provide the member with contract quarters as
lodging in kind as if the member were entitled to such
an allowance under subsection (a).
(2) Any payment or other benefit under this subsection shall
be provided in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretaries concerned.
(3) The Secretary may pay service charge expenses and
expenses for contract quarters under paragraph (1) out of funds
appropriated for operation and maintenance for the reserve
component concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary lodging
expenses
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries
concerned, a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to
make a change of permanent station--
(1) from any duty station to a duty station in the
United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska); [or]
(2) from a duty station in the United States (other
than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station outside the
United States or in Hawaii or Alaska; or
(3) from home of record or initial technical school
to first duty station;
shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses actually
incurred by the member and the member's dependents while
occupying temporary quarters incident to that change of
permanent station. In the case of a change of permanent station
described in clause (1), the period for which such expenses are
to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed 10 days. In the case of
a change of permanent station described in clause (2), the
period for which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may
not exceed five days and such payment or reimbursement may be
provided only for expenses incurred before leaving the United
States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 406. Travel and transportation allowances: dependents; baggage and
household effects
(a) * * *
(b)(1)(A) * * *
(B) Subject to uniform regulations prescribed by the
Secretaries concerned, in the case of a permanent change of
station in which the Secretary concerned has authorized
transportation of a motor vehicle under section 2634 of title
10 (except when such transportation is authorized from the old
duty station to the new duty station), the member is entitled
to a monetary allowance for transportation of that motor
vehicle--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
Such monetary allowance shall be established at a rate per mile
that does not exceed the rate established under section
404(d)(1) of this title. If clause (i)(I) applies to the
transportation by the member of a motor vehicle from the old
duty station, the monetary allowance under this subparagraph
shall also cover return travel to the old duty station by the
member or other person transporting the vehicle. In the case of
transportation described in clause (ii), the monetary allowance
shall also cover travel from the new duty station to the port
of debarkation to pick up the vehicle.
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) If the Secretary concerned determines that it is in
the best interests of a member described in paragraph (2) or
the member's dependents and the United States, the Secretary
may, when orders directing a change of permanent station for
the member concerned have not been issued, or when they have
been issued but cannot be used as authority for the
transportation of the member's dependents, baggage, and
household effects--
(A) * * *
[(B) in the case of a member described in paragraph
(2)(A), authorize the transportation of one motor
vehicle that is owned or leased by the member (or a
dependent of the member) and is for his dependents'
personal use to that location by means of
transportation authorized under section 2634 of title
10.]
(B) in the case of a member described in paragraph
(2)(A), authorize the transportation of one motor
vehicle, which is owned or leased by the member (or a
dependent of the member) and is for the personal use of
a dependent of the member, to that location by means of
transportation authorized under section 2634 of title
10 or authorize the storage of the motor vehicle
pursuant to subsection (g) of such section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a
member of a uniformed service is entitled to a dislocation
allowance equal to the basic allowance for quarters for [two
months] two and one-half months as provided for the member's
pay grade and dependency status in section 403 of this title
if--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 411b. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in
connection with leave between consecutive overseas
tours
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Under the regulations referred to in paragraph (1), a
member may defer the travel for which the member is paid travel
and transportation allowances under such paragraph until not
more than one year after the date on which the member begins
the consecutive tour of duty at the same duty station or
reports to another duty station under the order involved, as
the case may be. If the member is unable to undertake the
travel before the end of such one-year period as a result of
the participation of the member in a critical operational
mission, as determined by the Secretary concerned, the member
may defer the travel, under the regulations referred to in
paragraph (1), for a period not to exceed one year after the
date on which the member's participation in the critical
operational mission ends.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 418. Clothing allowance: enlisted members
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) A uniform allowance may not be paid, and uniforms may not
be furnished, under section 1593 of title 10 or section 5901 of
title 5 to a person referred to in subsection (b) for a period
of employment referred to in that subsection [for which a
uniform allowance is paid under section 415 or 416 of this
title] for which clothing is furnished or a uniform allowance
is paid under this section.
* * * * * * *
----------
ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME ACT OF 1991
TITLE XV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME
SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE
This title may be cited as the ``Armed Forces Retirement Home
Act of 1991''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1515. COMPOSITION AND OPERATION OF RETIREMENT HOME BOARD
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Terms.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The chairman of the Retirement Home Board may appoint a
member of the Retirement Home Board for a second consecutive
term. The chairman of a Local Board may appoint a member of
that Local Board for a second consecutive term.
[(f) First Appointment and Designation.--Not later than the
effective date specified in section 1541(a), members of the
Retirement Home Board and the members of each Local Board shall
be first appointed to staggered terms.]
(f) Early Expiration of Term.--A member of the Armed Forces
or Federal civilian employee who is appointed as a member of
the Retirement Home Board or a Local Board may serve as a board
member only so long as the member of the Armed Forces or
Federal civilian employee is assigned to or serving in the duty
position that gave rise to the appointment as a board member.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1516. DUTIES OF RETIREMENT HOME BOARD
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Limitation on the Disposal of Real Property.--(1) Real
property of the Retirement Home may not be disposed of by the
Retirement Home Board by sale or otherwise unless the disposal
of the property is specifically authorized by law.]
(d) Disposal of Real Property.--(1) The Retirement Home Board
may dispose of real property of the Retirement Home by sale or
otherwise, except that the disposal may not occur until after
the end of a period of 30 legislative days or 60 calendar days,
whichever is longer, beginning on the date on which the
Retirement Home Board notifies the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives of the proposed disposal. The Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471
et seq.), section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), and any other provision of
law or regulation relating to the handling or disposal of real
property by the United States shall not apply to the disposal
of real property by the Retirement Home Board.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1517. DIRECTORS AND STAFF
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f) Initial Operation.--(1) Until the date on which the
Secretary of Defense first appoints the Director for the
establishment of the Retirement Home known as the Naval Home,
the Governor of the Naval Home shall operate that facility
consistent with this title and other laws applicable to the
Retirement Home.
[(2) Until the date on which the Secretary of Defense first
appoints the Director for the facility of the Retirement Home
known as the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, the
Governor of the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home shall
operate that establishment consistent with this title and other
laws applicable to the Retirement Home.]
(f) Annual Evaluation of Directors.--The chairman of the
Retirement Home Board shall annually evaluate the performance
of the Directors and shall make such recommendations to the
Secretary of Defense as the chairman considers appropriate in
light of the evaluation.
* * * * * * *
----------
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961
* * * * * * *
PART II
Chapter 1--Policy
* * * * * * *
Sec. 544. Exchange Training.--[In carrying out this chapter]
(a) In carrying out this chapter, the President is authorized
to provide for attendance of foreign military personnel at
professional military education institutions in the United
States (other than service academies) without charge, and
without charge to funds available to carry out this chapter
(notwithstanding section 632(d) of this Act), if such
attendance is pursuant to an agreement providing for the
exchange of students on a one-for-one, reciprocal basis each
fiscal year between those United States professional military
education institutions and comparable institutions of foreign
countries and international organizations.
(b) The President may provide for the attendance of foreign
military and civilian defense personnel at flight training
schools and programs (including test pilot school) in the
United States without charge, and without charge to funds
available to carry out this chapter (notwithstanding section
632(d) of this Act), if such attendance is pursuant to an
agreement providing for the exchange of personnel on a one-on-
one basis each fiscal year between those United States flight
training schools and programs (including test pilot schools)
and comparable flight training schools and programs of foreign
countries.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 414 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS
1992 AND 1993
SEC. 414. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE COMPONENT SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.
(a) Pilot Program Required.--[During fiscal years 1992 and
1993, the Secretary of the Army shall institute] The Secretary
of the Army shall carry out a pilot program to provide active
component advisers to combat units, combat support units, and
combat service support units in the Selected Reserve of the
Ready Reserve that have a high priority for deployment on a
time-phased troop deployment list or have another contingent
high priority for deployment. The advisers shall be assigned to
full-time duty in connection with organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training such units.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART III--READJUSTMENT AND RELATED BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 30--ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3011. Basic educational assistance entitlement for service on
active duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) An individual described in subsection (a)(1)(A) of
this section may make an election not to receive educational
assistance under this chapter. Any such election shall be made
at the time the individual initially enters on active duty as a
member of the Armed Forces. Any individual who makes such an
election is not entitled to educational assistance under this
chapter.
(2) An individual who after December 31, 1976, receives a
commission as an officer in the Armed Forces upon graduation
from the United States Military Academy, the United States
Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, or the
Coast Guard Academy [or upon completion of a program of
educational assistance under section 2107 of title 10] is not
eligible for educational assistance under this section.
(3) An individual who after December 31, 1976, receives a
commission as an officer in the Armed Forces upon completion of
a program of educational assistance under section 2107 of title
10 is not eligible for educational assistance under this
section if the individual enters on active duty--
(A) before October 1, 1996; or
(B) after September 30, 1996, and while participating
in such program received more than $2,000 for each year
of such participation.
Sec. 3012. Basic educational assistance entitlement for service in the
Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) An individual described in subsection (a)(1)(A) of
this section may make an election not to receive educational
assistance under this chapter. Any such election shall be made
at the time the individual initially enters on active duty as a
member of the Armed Forces. Any individual who makes such an
election is not entitled to educational assistance under this
chapter.
(2) An individual who after December 31, 1976, receives a
commission as an officer in the Armed Forces upon graduation
from the United States Military Academy, the United States
Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, or the
Coast Guard Academy [or upon completion of a program of
educational assistance under section 2107 of title 10] is not
eligible for educational assistance under this section.
(3) An individual who after December 31, 1976, receives a
commission as an officer in the Armed Forces upon completion of
a program of educational assistance under section 2107 of title
10 is not eligible for educational assistance under this
section if the individual enters on active duty--
(A) before October 1, 1996; or
(B) after September 30, 1996, and while participating
in such program received more than $2,000 for each year
of such participation.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE
Chap. Sec.
Organization...................................................101
Personnel......................................................301
Courts-Martial for the National Guard When not in Federal Servi401
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--PERSONNEL
Sec.
301. Federal recognition of enlisted members.
302. Enlistments, reenlistments, and extensions.
303. Active and inactive enlistments and transfers.
* * * * * * *
[326. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service:
composition, jurisdiction, and procedures.
[327. General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[328. Special courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[329. Summary courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[330. Confinement instead of fine.
[331. Dismissal or dishonorable discharge.
[332. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses.
[333. Execution of process and sentence.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 4--COURTS-MARTIAL FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD WHEN NOT IN FEDERAL
SERVICE
Sec.
401. Courts-martial: composition, jurisdiction, and procedures.
402. General courts-martial.
403. Special courts-martial.
404. Summary courts-martial.
405. Sentences requiring approval of governor.
406. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses.
407. Execution of process and sentence.
Sec. [326.] 401. Courts-martial [of National Guard not in Federal
service]: composition, jurisdiction, and procedures
(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, there are
general, special, and summary courts-martial constituted like
similar courts of the Army and the Air Force. [They have the
jurisdiction and powers, except as to punishments, and shall
follow the forms and procedures, provided for those courts.]
They shall follow substantially the forms and procedures
provided for those courts and shall provide accused members of
the National Guard the rights and protections provided in those
courts.
(b) Courts-martial of the National Guard not in Federal
service do not have jurisdiction over those persons who are
subject to the jurisdiction of a court-martial pursuant to
section 802 of title 10.
(c) A court-martial of the National Guard not in Federal
service shall have such jurisdiction and powers, consistent
with the provisions of this chapter, as may be provided by the
law of the State or Territory, Puerto Rico, or District of
Columbia in which the court-martial is convened.
Sec. [327.] 402. General courts-martial [of National Guard not in
Federal service]
(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general
courts-martial may be convened by the President or by the
governor or adjutant general of a State or Territory, Puerto
Rico or by the commanding general of the National Guard of the
District of Columbia.
[(b) A general court-martial may sentence to--
[(1) a fine of not more than $200;
[(2) forfeiture of pay and allowances;
[(3) a reprimand;
[(4) dismissal or dishonorable discharge;
[(5) reduction of a noncommissioned officer to the
ranks; or
[(6) any combination of these punishments.]
(b) A general court-martial may sentence an accused, upon
conviction, to any of the following punishments:
(1) A fine of not more than $500 for a single
offense.
(2) Forfeiture of pay and allowances in an amount of
not more than $500 for a single offense or any
forfeiture of pay for not more than six months.
(3) A reprimand.
(4) Dismissal, bad conduct discharge, or dishonorable
discharge.
(5) In the case of an enlisted member, reduction to a
lower grade.
(6) Confinement for not more than 180 days.
(7) Any combination of the punishments specified in
paragraphs (1) through (6).
(c)(1) A dismissal or bad conduct or dishonorable discharge
may not be adjudged unless counsel was detailed to represent
the accused and a military judge was detailed to the trial.
(2) In a case in which the sentence adjudged includes
dismissal or a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, a
verbatim record of the proceedings shall be made.
Sec. [328.] 403. Special courts-martial [of National Guard not in
Federal service]
(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the
commanding officer, if a National Guard officer, of a garrison,
fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place
where troops are on duty, or of a brigade, regiment, wing,
group, detached battalion, separate squadron, or other detached
command, may convene special courts-martial. Special courts-
martial may also be convened by superior authority.
[(b) A special court-martial may not try a commissioned
officer.
[(c) A special court-martial has the same powers of
punishment as a general court-martial, except that a fine
imposed by a special court-martial may not be more than $100
for a single offense.]
(b) A special court-martial may sentence an accused, upon
conviction, to any of the following punishments:
(1) A fine of not more than $300 for a single
offense.
(2) Forfeiture of pay and allowances in an amount of
not more than $300 for a single offense, but adjudged
forfeiture of pay may not exceed two-thirds pay per
month and forfeitures may not extend for more than six
months.
(3) A reprimand.
(4) Bad conduct discharge.
(5) In the case of an enlisted member, reduction to a
lower grade.
(6) Confinement for not more than 100 days.
(7) Any combination of the punishments specified in
paragraphs (1) through (6).
(c)(1) A bad conduct discharge may not be adjudged unless
counsel was detailed to represent the accused and a military
judge was detailed to the trial.
(2) In a case in which the sentence adjudged includes a bad
conduct discharge, a verbatim record of the proceedings shall
be made.
Sec. [329.] 404. Summary courts-martial [of National Guard not in
Federal service]
(a)(1) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the
commanding officer, if a National Guard officer, of a garrison,
fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place
where troops are on duty, or of a regiment, wing, group,
detached battalion, detached squadron, detached company, or
other detachment, may convene a summary court-martial
consisting of one commissioned officer. Summary courts-martial
may also be convened by superior authority. The proceedings
shall be informal.
(2) A summary court-martial may not try a commissioned
officer.
[(b) A summary court-martial may sentence to a fine of not
more than $25 for a single offense, to forfeiture of pay and
allowances, and to reduction of a noncommissioned officer to
the ranks.]
(b) A summary court-martial may sentence an accused, upon
conviction, to any of the following punishments:
(1) A fine of not more than $200 for a single
offense.
(2) Forfeiture of pay and allowances in an amount of
not more than $200 for a single offense, but not to
exceed two-thirds of one month's pay.
(3) Reduction to a lower grade.
(4) Any combination of the punishments specified in
paragraphs (1) through (3).
(c) An accused with respect to whom summary courts-martial
have jurisdiction may not be brought to trial before a summary
court-martial if the accused objects thereto. If an accused so
objects to trial by summary court-martial, the convening
authority may order trial by special or general court-martial,
as may be appropriate.
[Sec. 330. Confinement instead of fine
[In the National Guard not in Federal service, a court-
martial may, instead of imposing a fine, sentence to
confinement for not more than one day for each dollar of the
authorized fine.]
[Sec. 331. Dismissal or dishonorable discharge]
Sec. 405. Sentences requiring approval of governor
In the National Guard not in Federal service, no sentence of
dismissal [or dishonorable discharge], bad conduct discharge,
dishonorable discharge, or confinement for three months or more
may be executed until it is approved by the governor of the
State or Territory, Puerto Rico, or whichever is concerned, or,
in the case of the National Guard of the District of Columbia,
by its commanding general.
Sec. [332.] 406. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses
In the National Guard not in Federal service, the president
or military judge of a court-martial or a summary court officer
may--
(1) issue a warrant for the arrest of any accused
person who, having been served with a warrant and a
copy of the charges, disobeys a written order by the
convening authority to appear before the court;
(2) issue subpenas duces tecum and other subpenas;
(3) enforce by attachment the attendance or witnesses
and the production of books and papers; and
(4) sentence for refusal to be sworn or to answer, as
provided in actions before civil courts.
Sec. [333.] 407. Execution of process and sentence
In the National Guard not in Federal service, the processes
and sentences of its courts-martial shall be executed by the
civil officers prescribed by the laws of the States concerned.
In a State where no provision is made for executing those
processes and sentences, and in the Territories, Puerto Rico
and the District of Columbia, the process or sentence shall be
executed by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, who
shall make a return to the military officer issuing the process
or the court imposing the sentence.
* * * * * * *
----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1982
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[continued use of certain former public health service facilities
[Sec. 911. (a) Any Public Health Service hospital or other
station which was transferred to a public or nonprofit private
entity pursuant to the provisions of section 987 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35; 95 Stat.
603) shall be deemed to be a facility of the uniformed services
for the purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code,
if such hospital or other station was, on the day before the
date of the transfer, a facility approved under such chapter to
provide medical and dental care to members and former members
of the uniformed services and their dependents.
[(b) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and the Secretary of Transportation when the
Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy may
terminate, for purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, the approved status, of any facility described in
subsection (a) to furnish medical or dental care to members and
former members of the uniformed services and their dependents
as provided for in section 1252(e) of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1984.
[(c) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and the Secretary of Transportation when the
Coast Gurard is not operating as a service in the Navy shall
reimburse any facility described in subsection (a) for medical
and dental care provided by such facility to members and former
members of the uniformed services and their dependents who
receive such care under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code. The rates of reimbursement shall be negotiated and agreed
upon by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, the Secretary of Transportation when the Coast
Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy, and the
appropriate officials representing the facility concerned. The
rates of reimbursement shall be based upon medical and dental
care costs in the area in which the facility concerned is
located.]
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1252 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1984
[public health service hospitals
[Sec. 1252. (a) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
Secretary of Transportation when the Coast Guard is not
operating as a service in the Navy, shall conduct demonstration
projects for the purpose of comparing and evaluating the cost-
effectiveness, accessibility, patient acceptance, and the
quality of medical care contracted for by the Secretary of
Defense under sections 1079 and 1086 of title 10, United States
Code, with the medical care provided in those facilities deemed
to be facilities of the uniformed services by virtue of section
911 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1982 (42
U.S.C. 248c). The Secretary of Defense shall begin conducting
such projects within one year after the date of the enactment
of this section and continue conducting such projects for not
less than three years.
[(b) The projects carried out by the Secretary of Defense
under this subsection shall utilize various alternative
mechanisms for the payment of medical services provided
eligible persons, including capitation, prospective payment,
all-inclusive fee-for-service charges, and other concepts and
programs consistent with the purpose of this section.
[(c) If the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and the Secretary of Transportation when the
Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy determine
such action is necessary in order to permit a meaningful
evaluation of alternative methods of providing medical care to
persons eligible for such care under sections 1079 and 1086 of
title 10, United States Code, they may jointly designate
additional civilian medical facilities to be facilities of the
uniformed services for the purposes of section 1079 of such
title. The Secretary may designate a facility under the
authority of this subsection for such purposes only if such
action is agreed to by the governing body of the facility.
[(e) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and the Secretary of Transportation when the
Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy may
terminate, for purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, the status of any facility referred to in
subsection (a) or (c) to furnish medical or dental care to
members and former members of the uniformed services or their
dependents, and such termination may become effective at any
time after September 30, 1997. The termination of such status
in the case of any such facility may be effected only by an
order jointly issued by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of
Transportation when the Coast Guard is not operating as a
service in the Navy which (1) identifies the facility whose
status is being terminated, (2) specifies the date on which
such status is being terminated, and (3) certifies that more
cost-effective medical and dental care for members and former
members of the uniformed services or their dependents is
available elsewhere in the same geographic area. A copy of each
such order shall be furnished to the affected facility and the
congressional committees specified in subsection (d) and shall
become effective in accordance with the terms of the notice,
but not earlier than six months following the date on which a
copy of the notice has been furnished to the facility and the
committees. Each such copy of the order shall include a copy of
the certification required in clause (3) of the second sentence
of this subsection and shall contain cost data substantiating
the termination decision and identifying how more cost-
effective care could be provided to the affected individuals.
Any facility described in subsection (a) or designated under
subsection (c) may terminate its status or designation made
under that subsection at any time after the expiration of six
months following the date on which a copy of the order
terminating the status or designation has been furnished the
facility.
[(f) Limitation on Expenditures.--The total amount of
expenditures by the Secretary of Defense to carry out this
section and section 911 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C. 248c), for fiscal year 1996
may not exceed $300,000,000, adjusted by the Secretary to
reflect the inflation factor used by the Department of Defense
for such fiscal year.
[(g) Section 911(b) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C. 248c(b)), is amended by
striking out ``at any time after'' and all that follows through
the end of the second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof:
``as provided for in section 1252(e) of the Department of
Defense Authorization Act, 1984.''.]
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 8057. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
available to the Department of Defense may be used to reimburse
a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces who is not
otherwise entitled to travel and transportation allowances and
who occupies transient government housing while performing
active duty for training or inactive duty training: Provided,
That such members may be provided lodging in kind if transient
government quarters are unavailable as if the member was
entitled to such allowances under subsection (a) of section 404
of title 37, United States Code: Provided further, That if
lodging in kind is provided, any authorized service charge or
cost of such lodging may be paid directly from funds
appropriated for operation and maintenance of the reserve
component of the member concerned.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 8094. All refunds or other amounts collected in the
administration of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of
the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be credited to current
year appropriations.]
* * * * * * *
----------
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Part A--Administration
* * * * * * *
grades, ranks, and titles of the commissioned corps
Sec. 206. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) In computing the maximum number of commissioned officers
of the Public Health Service authorized by law or
administrative determination to serve on active duty, there may
be excluded from such computation officers who are assigned to
duty in the Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
----------
FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 210. OPERATION OF BUILDINGS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
(a) Whenever and to the extent that the Administrator has
been or hereafter may be authorized by any provision of law
other than this subsection to maintain, operate, and protect
any building, property, or grounds situated in or outside the
District of Columbia, including the construction, repair,
preservation, demolition, furnishing, and equipment thereof, he
is authorized in the discharge of the duties so conferred upon
him--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(14) to enter into contracts [for periods not
exceeding three years] for the inspection, maintenance,
and repair of fixed equipment in such buildings which
are federally owned; and
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE
* * * * * * *
SEC. 303B. EVALUATION AND AWARD.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(m) Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals.--(1) A
proposal in the possession or control of an executive agency
may not be made available to any person under section 552 of
title 5.
(2) In this subsection, the term ``proposal'' means any
proposal, including a technical, management, or cost proposal,
submitted by a contractor in response to the requirements of a
solicitation for a competitive proposal.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 304C. EXAMINATION OF RECORDS OF CONTRACTOR.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Limitation on Preaward Audits Relating to Indirect
Costs.--An executive agency may not perform a preaward audit to
evaluate proposed indirect costs under any contract,
subcontract, or modification to be entered into in accordance
with this title in any case in which the contracting officer
determines that the objectives of the audit can reasonably be
met by accepting the results of an audit conducted by any other
department or agency of the Federal Government within one year
preceding the date of the contracting officer's determination.]
(d) Limitation on Audits Relating to Indirect Costs.--An
executive agency may not perform an audit of indirect costs
under a contract, subcontract, or modification before or after
entering into the contract, subcontract, or modification in any
case in which the contracting officer determines that the
objectives of the audit can reasonably be met by accepting the
results of an audit that was conducted by any other department
or agency of the Federal Government within one year preceding
the date of the contracting officer's determination.
* * * * * * *
----------
OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY ACT
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is
as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
Sec. [35.] 38. Modular contracting for information technology.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 20. ADVOCATES FOR COMPETITION.
(a) * * *
(b) The advocate for competition of an executive agency
shall--
(1) be responsible for challenging barriers to and
promoting full and open competition in the procurement
of property and services by the executive agency;
(2) review the procurement activities of the
executive agency;
(3) identify and report to the senior procurement
executive of the executive agency designated pursuant
to section 16(3)--
(A) opportunities and actions taken to
achieve full and open competition in the
procurement activities of the executive agency;
and
(B) any condition or action which has the
effect of unnecessarily restricting competition
in the procurement actions of the executive
agency; [and
[(4) prepare and transmit to such senior procurement
executive an annual report describing--
[(A) such advocate's activities under this
section;
[(B) new initiatives required to increase
competition; and
[(C) barriers to full and open competition
that remain;
[(5)] (4) recommend to the senior procurement
executive of the executive agency goals and the plans
for increasing competition on a fiscal year basis;
[(6)] (5) recommend to the senior procurement
executive of the executive agency a system of personal
and organizational accountability for competition,
which may include the use of recognition and awards to
motivate program managers, contracting officers, and
others in authority to promote competition in
procurement programs; and
[(7)] (6) describe other ways in which the executive
agency has emphasized competition in programs for
procurement training and research.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 25. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATORY COUNCIL.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(g) Reports.--The Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy shall--
[(1) publish a report within 6 months after the date
of enactment of this section and every 6 months
thereafter relating to the development of procurement
regulations to be issued in accordance with subsection
(c) of this section;
[(2) include in each report published under paragraph
(1)--
[(A) the status of each such regulation;
[(B) a description of those regulations which
are required by statute;
[(C) a description of the methods by which
public comment was sought with regard to each
proposed regulation in accordance with section
22 of this Act, and to the extent appropriate,
sections 3504(h) and 3507 of title 44, United
States Code;
[(D) regulatory activities completed and
initiated since the last report;
[(E) regulations, policies, procedures,
practices, and forms that are under
consideration or review by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy;
[(F) whether the regulations have paperwork
requirements;
[(G) the progress made in promulgating and
implementing the Federal Acquisition
Regulation; and
[(H) such other matters as the Administrator
determines would be useful; and
[(3) report to Congress within 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, in consultation
with the Admin- istrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, regarding--
[(A) the extent of the paperwork burden
created by the Federal procurement process, and
[(B) the extent to which the Federal
procurement system can be streamlined to reduce
unnecessary paperwork while at the same time
maintaining recordkeeping and reporting
requirements necessary to ensure the integrity
and accountability of the system.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. [35.] 38. MODULAR CONTRACTING FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
(a) In General.--The head of an executive agency should, to
the maximum extent practicable, use modular contracting for an
acquisition of a major system of information technology.
(b) Modular Contracting Described.--Under modular
contracting, an executive agency's need for a system is
satisfied in successive acquisitions of interoperable
increments. Each increment complies with common or commercially
accepted standards applicable to information technology so that
the increments are compatible with other increments of
information technology comprising the system.
(c) Implementation.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall
provide that--
(1) under the modular contracting process, an
acquisition of a major system of information technology
may be divided into several smaller acquisition
increments that--
(A) are easier to manage individually than
would be one comprehensive acquisition;
(B) address complex information technology
objectives incrementally in order to enhance
the likelihood of achieving workable solutions
for attainment of those objectives;
(C) provide for delivery, implementation, and
testing of workable systems or solutions in
discrete increments each of which comprises a
system or solution that is not dependent on any
subsequent increment in order to perform its
principal functions; and
(D) provide an opportunity for subsequent
increments of the acquisition to take advantage
of any evolution in technology or needs that
occur during conduct of the earlier increments;
(2) a contract for an increment of an information
technology acquisition should, to the maximum extent
practicable, be awarded within 180 days after the date
on which the solicitation is issued and, if the
contract for that increment cannot be awarded within
such period, the increment should be considered for
cancellation; and
(3) the information technology provided for in a
contract for acquisition of information technology
should be delivered within 18 months after the date on
which the solicitation resulting in award of the
contract was issued.
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XV--NONPROLIFERATION
SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Weapons of Mass Destruction
Control Act of 1992''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Sources of Assistance.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The total amount of the assistance provided in the form
of funds under this section including funds used for activities
of the Department of Defense in support of the United Nations
Special Commission on Iraq, may not exceed $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 1994, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995, [or]
$15,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, or $15,000,000 for fiscal
year 1997.
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates
at the close of fiscal year [1996] 1997.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION D--DEFENSE CONVERSION, REINVESTMENT, AND TRANSITION ASSISTANCE
SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Defense Conversion,
Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLIV--PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Job Training and Employment and Educational Opportunities
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4471. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS AND EMPLOYEES UPON PROPOSED AND ACTUAL
TERMINATION OR SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN MAJOR
DEFENSE PROGRAMS.
[(a) Notice Requirement After Submission of President's
Budget to Congress.--Each year, in conjunction with the
preparation of the budget for the next fiscal year to be
submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall determine which
major defense programs (if any) are proposed to be terminated
or substantially reduced under the budget. Not later than 60
days after the date on which the budget is submitted to
Congress under such section, the Secretary, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, shall provide notice
of the proposed termination of, or substantial reduction in,
each such program--
[(1) directly to each prime contractor under that
program; and
[(2) by general notice through publication in the
Federal Register.
[(b)] (a) Notice Requirement After Enactment of
Appropriations Act.--Each year, not later than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of an Act appropriating funds for the
military functions of the Department of Defense, the Secretary
of Defense, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary--
[(1) shall determine which major defense programs (if
any) of the Department of Defense that were not
previously identified under subsection (a) are likely
to be terminated or substantially reduced as a result
of the funding levels provided in that Act; and
[(2) shall provide notice of the anticipated
termination of, or substantial reduction in, that
program--
[(A) directly to each prime contractor under
that program;
[(B) directly to the Secretary of Labor; and
[(C) by general notice through publication in
the Federal Register.]
(1) shall identify each contract (if any) under major
defense programs of the Department of Defense that will
be terminated or substantially reduced as a result of
the funding levels provided in that Act; and
(2) shall ensure that notice of the termination of,
or substantial reduction in, the funding of the
contract is provided--
(A) directly to the prime contractor under
the contract; and
(B) directly to the Secretary of Labor.
[(c)] (b) Notice to Subcontractors.--[As soon as reasonably
practicable after the date on which the prime contractor for a
major defense program receives notice under subsection (a) or
(b) of the termination of, or substantial reduction in, that
program,] Not later than 60 days after the date on which the
prime contractor for a contract under a major defense program
receives notice under subsection (a), and not more than 45 days
after such date, the prime contractor shall--
(1) provide notice of that termination or substantial
reduction to each person that is a first-tier
subcontractor [for that program under a contract] for
that prime contract for subcontracts in an amount not
less than $500,000 [for the program]; and
(2) require that each such subcontractor--
(A) provide such notice to each of its
subcontractors [for the program under a
contract] for subcontracts in an amount in
excess of $100,000; and
(B) impose a similar notice and pass through
requirement to subcontractors in an amount in
excess of $100,000 at all tiers.
[(d)] (c) Contractor Notice to Employees and State Dislocated
Worker Unit.--Not later than two weeks after a defense
contractor receives notice [under subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1),
as the case may be, of the termination of, or substantial
reduction in, a defense program,] under subsection (a), the
contractor shall provide notice of such termination or
substantial reduction to--
(1)(A) each representative of employees whose work is
directly related to the defense contract under such
program and who are employed by the defense contractor;
or
(B) if there is no such representative at that time,
each such employee; and
(2) the State dislocated worker unit or office
described in section 311(b)(2) of the Job Training
Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1661(b)(2)) and the chief
elected official of the unit of general local
government within which the adverse effect may occur.
[(e)] (d) Constructive Notice.--The notice of termination of,
or substantial reduction in, [a major defense program provided
under subsection (d)(1)] a defense contract provided under
subsection (c)(1) to an employee of a contractor shall have the
same effect as a notice of termination to such employee for the
purposes of determining whether such employee is eligible for
training, adjustment assistance, and employment services under
section 325 or 325A of the Job Training Partnership Act (29
U.S.C. 1662d, 1662d-1), except where the employer has specified
that the termination of, or substantial reduction in, [the
program] the contract is not likely to result in plant closure
or mass layoff. Any employee considered to have received such
notice under the preceding sentence shall only be eligible to
receive services under section 314(b) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
1661c(b)) and under paragraphs (1) through (14), (16), and (18)
of section 314(c) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1661c(c)).
[(f) Withdrawal of Notification Upon Sufficient Funding for
Program To Continue.--
[(1) Notice to prime contractor.--If the Secretary of
Defense provides a notification under subsection (a)
for a fiscal year with respect to a major defense
program and the Secretary subsequently determines, upon
enactment of an Act appropriating funds for the
military functions of the Department of Defense for
that fiscal year that due to a sufficient level of
funding for the program having been provided in that
Act there will not be a termination of, or substantial
reduction in, that program, then the Secretary shall
provide notice of withdrawal of the notification
provided under subsection (a) to each prime contractor
that received that notice under such subsection. Any
such notice of withdrawal shall be provided not later
than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the
appropriations Act concerned. In any such case, the
Secretary shall at the same time provide general notice
of such withdrawal by publication in the Federal
Register.
[(2) Notice to subcontractors.--As soon as reasonably
practicable after the date on which the prime
contractor for a major defense program receives notice
under paragraph (1) of the withdrawal of a notification
previously provided to the contractor under subsection
(a), and not more than 45 days after that date, the
prime contractor shall provide notice of such
withdrawal to each person that is a first-tier
subcontractor for the program under a contract in an
amount not less than $500,000 for the program and shall
require that each such subcontractor provide such
notice to each subcontractor for the program under a
contract in an amount not less than $100,000 at any
tier.
[(3) Notice to employees.--As soon as reasonably
practicable after the date on which a prime contractor
receives notice of withdrawal under paragraph (1) or a
subcontractor receives such a notice under paragraph
(2), and not more than two weeks after that date, the
contractor or subcontractor shall provide notice of
such withdrawal--
[(A) to each representative of employees
whose work is directly related to the defense
contract under the program and who are employed
by the contractor or subcontractor or, if there
is no such representative at that time, each
such employee;
[(B) to the State dislocated worker unit or
office described in section 311(b)(2) of the
Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C.
1661(b)(2)) and the chief elected official of
the unit of general local government within
which the adverse effect may occur; and
[(C) to each grantee under section 325(a) or
325A(a) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29
U.S.C. 1662d, 1662d-1) providing training,
adjustment assistance, and employment services
to an employee described in this paragraph.
[(4)] (e) Loss of [eligibility] Eligibility.--An employee who
receives a notice of withdrawal [under paragraph (3)] or
cancellation of the termination of, or substantial reduction
in, contract funding shall not be eligible for training,
adjustment assistance, and employment services under section
325 or 325A of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C.
1662d, 1662d-1) beginning on the date on which the employee
receives the notice.
[(g)] (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``major defense program'' means a
program that is carried out to produce or acquire a
major system (as defined in section 2302(5) of title
10, United States Code).
(2) The terms ``substantial reduction'' and
``substantially reduced'', with respect to a defense
contract under a major defense program, mean a
reduction of 25 percent or more in the total dollar
value of [contracts under the program] the funds
obligated by the contract.
----------
SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934
(Commonly known as the ``Foreign Trade Zones Act'')
AN ACT To provide for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of
foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite
and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when
used in this Act--
(a) * * *
(b) The term ``Board'' means the Board which is hereby
established to carry out the provisions of this Act. The Board
shall consist of the Secretary of Commerce, who shall be
chairman and executive officer of the Board, [the Secretary of
the Treasury, and the Secretary of War] and the Secretary of
the Treasury;
(c) The term ``State'' includes any State, the District of
Columbia, [Alaska, Hawaii,] and Puerto Rico;
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 3342 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 3342. Check cashing and exchange transactions
(a) * * *
(b) A disbursing official may act under subsection (a) (1)
and (2) of this section only for--
(1) an official purpose;
(2) personnel of the Government;
(3) a dependent of personnel of the Government, but
only--
(A) at a United States installation at which
adequate banking facilities are not available;
and
(B) in the case of negotiation of negotiable
instruments, if the dependent's sponsor
authorizes, in writing, the presentation of
negotiable instruments to the disbursing
official for negotiation[.];
(4) a veteran hospitalized or living in an
institution operated by an agency;
(5) a contractor, or personnel of a contractor,
carrying out a Government project; [and]
(6) personnel of an authorized agency not part of the
Government that operates with an agency of the
Government[.]; or
(7) a Federal credit union that at the request of the
Secretary of Defense is operating on a United States
military installation in a foreign country, but only if
that country does not permit contractor-operated
military banking facilities to operate on such
installations.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 2055 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
SEC. 2055. TRANSFERS FOR PUBLIC, CHARITABLE, AND RELIGIOUS USES.
(a) In General.--
* * * * * * *
(g) Cross References.--
(1) For option as to time for valuation for purpose of
deduction under this section, see section 2032.
* * * * * * *
[(4) For treatment of gifts and bequests for the benefit of
the Office of Naval Records and History as gifts or bequests to
or for the use of the United States, see section 7222 of title
10, United States Code.]
(4) For treatment of gifts and bequests for the benefit of the
Naval Historical Center as gifts or bequests to or for the use
of the United States, see section 7222 of title 10, United
States Code.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 172 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1993
SEC. 172. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Functions.--The Secretary of the Army shall provide for a
representative from the Office of the [Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Environment)] Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)
to meet with each commission under this section to receive
citizen and State concerns regarding the ongoing program of the
Army for the disposal of the lethal chemical agents and
munitions in the stockpile referred to in section 1412(a)(1) of
the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C.
1521(a)(1)) at each of the sites with respect to which a
commission is established pursuant to subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
(f) Meetings.--Each commission shall meet with a
representative from the Office of the [Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Environment)] Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)
upon joint agreement between the chairman of the commission and
that representative. The two parties shall meet not less often
than twice a year and may meet more often at their discretion.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1412 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1986
SEC. 1412. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL CHEMICAL AGENTS
AND MUNITIONS
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Periodic Reports.--(1) Except as provided by paragraph
(3), the Secretary shall transmit, by December 15 of each year,
a report to the Congress on the activities carried out under
this section during the fiscal year ending on September 30 of
the calendar year in which the report is to be made.
(2) Each annual report [shall contain--] shall include the
following:
(A) [a] A site-by-site description of the
construction, equipment, operation, and dismantling of
facilities (during the fiscal year for which the report
is made) used to carry out the destruction of agents
and munitions under this section, including any
accidents or other unplanned occurrences associated
with such construction and operation[;].
(B) [an] An accounting of all funds expended (during
such fiscal year) for activities carried out under this
section, with a separate accounting for amounts
expended for--
(i) the construction of and equipment for
facilities used for the destruction of agents
and munitions;
(ii) the operation of such facilities;
(iii) the dismantling or other closure of
such facilities;
(iv) research and development;
(v) program management; and
(vi) travel and associated travel costs for
Citizens' Advisory Commissioners under section
172(g) of Public Law 102-484 (50 U.S.C. 1521
note).
(C) [an] An assessment of the safety status and the
integrity of the stockpile of lethal chemical agents
and munitions subject to this section, including--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1960
(COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE ``SIKES ACT'')
AN ACT to promote effectual planning, development, maintenance, and
coordination of wildlife, fish, and game conservation and
rehabilitation in military reservations.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Sikes Act''.
TITLE I--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON [MILITARY RESERVATIONS] MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS
Sec. 101. (a)(1) The Secretary of Defense [is authorized
to] shall carry out a program of planning for, and the
development, maintenance, and coordination of, wildlife, fish,
and game conservation and rehabilitation [in each military
reservation in accordance with a cooperative plan] on military
installations. Under the program, the Secretary shall prepare
and implement for each military installation in the United
States an integrated natural resource management plan mutually
agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the appropriate State agency designated by the
State in which the [reservation] installation is located,
except that the Secretary is not required to prepare such a
plan for a military installation if the Secretary determines
that preparation of such a plan for the installation is not
appropriate.
(2) Consistent with essential military requirements to
enhance the national security of the United States, the
Secretary of Defense shall manage each military installation to
provide--
(A) for the conservation of fish and wildlife on the
military installation and sustained multipurpose uses
of those resources, including hunting, fishing, and
trapping; and
(B) public access that is necessary or appropriate
for those uses.
(b) Each [cooperative] integrated natural resource
management plan entered into under subsection (a)--
(1) shall provide for--
(A) fish and wildlife habitat improvements or
modifications,
(B) range rehabilitation where necessary for
support of wildlife,
(C) control of off-road vehicle traffic,
[and]
(D) specific habitat improvement projects and
related activities and adequate protection for
species of fish, wildlife, and plants
considered threatened or endangered[;],
(E) wetland protection and restoration, and
wetland creation where necessary, for support
of fish or wildlife,
(F) consideration of conservation needs for
all biological communities, and
(G) the establishment of specific natural
resource management goals, objectives, and
time-frames for proposed actions;
(2) shall for the military installation for which it
is prepared--
(A) address the needs for fish and wildlife
management, land management, forest management,
and wildlife-oriented recreation;
(B) ensure the integration of, and
consistency among, the various activities
conducted under the plan;
(C) ensure that there is no net loss in the
capability of installation lands to support the
military mission of the installation;
(D) provide for sustained use by the public
of natural resources, to the extent that such
use is not inconsistent with the military
mission of the installation or the needs of
fish and wildlife management;
(E) provide the public access to the
installation that is necessary or appropriate
for that use, to the extent that access is not
inconsistent with the military mission of the
installation; and
(F) provide for professional enforcement of
natural resource laws and regulations;
[(2)](3) must be reviewed as to operation and effect
by the parties thereto on a regular basis, but not less
often than every 5 years;
[(3) shall, if a multiuse natural resources
management plan is applicable to the military
reservation, be treated as the exclusive component of
that management plan with respect to wildlife, fish,
and game conservation and rehabilitation; and]
(4) may stipulate the issuance of special State
hunting and fishing permits to individuals and require
payment of nominal fees therefor, which fees shall be
utilized for the protection, conservation, and
management of fish and wildlife, including habitat
improvement and related activities in accordance with
the [cooperative] integrated natural resource
management plan; except that--
(A) the Commanding Officer of the
[reservation] installation or persons
designated by that Officer are authorized to
enforce such special hunting and fishing
permits and to [collect the fees therefor,]
collect, spend, administer, and account for
fees therefor, acting as agent or agents for
the State if the [cooperative] integrated
natural resource management plan so provides,
and
(B) the fees collected under this paragraph
may not be expended with respect to other than
the military [reservation] installation on
which collected, unless that military
installation is subsequently closed, in which
case the fees may be transferred to another
military installation to be used for the same
purposes.
(c) After [a cooperative] an integrated natural resource
management plan is agreed to under subsection (a)--
(1) no sale of land, or forest products from land,
that is within a military [reservation] installation
covered by that plan may be made under section 2665 (a)
or (b) of title 10, United States Code; and
(2) no leasing of land that is within the
[reservation] installation may be made under section
2667 of such title 10;
unless the effects of that sale or leasing are compatible with
the purposes of the plan.
(d) With regard to the implementation and enforcement of
[cooperative] integrated natural resource management plans
agreed to under subsection (a)--
(1) neither Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-76 nor any successor circular thereto applies to the
procurement of services that are necessary for that
implementation and enforcement; and
(2) priority shall be given to the entering into of
contracts for the procurement of such implementation
and enforcement services with Federal and State
agencies having responsibility for the conservation or
management of fish or wildlife.
(e) [Cooperative] Integrated natural resource management
plans agreed to under the authority of this section and section
102 shall not be deemed to be, nor treated as, cooperative
agreements to which the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Act of 1977 (41 U.S.C. 501 et seq.) applies.
(f) Public Comment.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
an opportunity for public comment on each integrated natural
resource management plan prepared under subsection (a).
(g) Reviews and Reports.--
(1) Secretary of defense.--The Secretary of Defense
shall, by not later than March 1 of each year, review
the extent to which integrated natural resource
management plans were prepared or in effect and
implemented in accordance with this Act in the
preceding year, and submit a report on the findings of
that review to the committees. Each report shall
include--
(A) the number of integrated natural resource
management plans in effect in the year covered
by the report, including the date on which each
plan was issued in final form or most recently
revised;
(B) the amount of moneys expended on
conservation activities conducted pursuant to
those plans in the year covered by the report,
including amounts expended under the Legacy
Resource Management Program established under
section 8120 of the Act of November 5, 1990
(Public Law 101-511; 104 Stat. 1905); and
(C) an assessment of the extent to which the
plans comply with the requirements of
subsection (b)(1) and (2), including
specifically the extent to which the plans
ensure in accordance with subsection (b)(2)(C)
that there is no net loss of lands to support
the military missions of military
installations.
(2) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the
Interior, by not later than March 1 of each year and in
consultation with State agencies responsible for
conservation or management of fish or wildlife, shall
submit a report to the committees on the amount of
moneys expended by the Department of the Interior and
those State agencies in the year covered by the report
on conservation activities conducted pursuant to
integrated natural resource management plans.
(3) Committees defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``committees'' means the Committee
on Resources and the Committee on National Security of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed
Services and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
Sec. 102. The Secretary of Defense in cooperation with the
Secretary of Interior and the appropriate State agency is
authorized to carry out a program for the conservation,
restoration and management of migratory game birds on military
[reservations] installations, including the issuance of special
hunting permits and the collection of fees therefor, in
accordance with [a cooperative] an integrated natural resource
management plan mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Interior and the appropriate
State agency: Provided, That possession of a special permit for
hunting migratory game birds issued pursuant to this title
shall not relieve the permittee of the requirements of the
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act as amended nor of the
requirements pertaining to State law set forth in Public Law
85-337.
Sec. 103. The Secretary of Defense is also authorized to
carry out a program for the development, enhancement,
operation, and maintenance of public outdoor recreation
resources at military [reservations] installations in
accordance with [a cooperative] an integrated natural resource
management plan mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with
the appropriate State agency designated by the State in which
such [reservations] installations are located.
Sec. 103a. (a) The Secretary of Defense may enter into
cooperative agreements with States, local governments,
nongovernmental organizations, and individuals to provide for
the maintenance and improvement of natural resources on, or to
benefit natural and historic research on, Department of Defense
installations.
(b) A cooperative agreement shall provide for the Secretary
of Defense and the other party or parties to the agreement--
(1) to contribute funds on a [matching basis] cost-
sharing basis to defray the cost of programs, projects,
and activities under the agreement; or
(2) to furnish services on a [matching basis] cost-
sharing basis to carry out such programs, projects, and
activities,
or to do both.
(c) Cooperative agreements entered into under this section
shall be subject to the availability of funds and shall not be
considered, nor be treated as, cooperative agreements to which
chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, applies, and shall
not be subject to section 1535 of that title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 106. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER LAWS.
All Federal laws relating to the conservation of natural
resources on Federal lands may be enforced by the Secretary of
Defense with respect to violations of those laws which occur on
military installations within the United States.
SEC. 107. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
The Secretary of each military department shall ensure that
sufficient numbers of professionally trained natural resource
management personnel and natural resource law enforcement
personnel are available and assigned responsibility to perform
tasks necessary to comply with this Act, including the
preparation and implementation of integrated natural resource
management plans.
SEC. 108. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Military installation.--The term ``military
installation''--
(A) means any land or interest in land owned
by the United States and administered by the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
military department; and
(B) includes all public lands withdrawn from
all forms of appropriation under public land
laws and reserved for use by the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of a military
department.
(2) State fish and wildlife agency.--The term ``State
fish and wildlife agency'' means an agency of State
government that is responsible under State law for
managing fish or wildlife resources.
(3) United states.--The term ``United States'' means
the States, the District of Columbia, and the
territories and possessions of the United States.
Sec. [106.] 109. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall expend
such funds as may be collected in accordance with the
[cooperative] integrated natural resource management plans
agreed to under sections 101 and 102 and cooperative agreements
agreed to under section 103a of this title and for no other
purpose. All funds that are so collected shall remain available
until expended.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Defense not to exceed $1,500,000 for each of the
fiscal years [1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990,
1991, 1992, and 1993,] 1983 through 1998, to carry out this
title, including the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat
and the development of public recreation and other facilities
and to carry out such functions and responsibilities as the
Secretary may have under cooperative agreements entered into
under section 103a. The Secretary of Defense shall, to the
greatest extent practicable, enter into agreements to utilize
the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, with or
without reimbursement, of the Secretary of the Interior in
carrying out the provisions of this section.
(c) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior not to exceed $3,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years [1983, 1994, 1995, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989,
1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993,] 1983 through 1998, to carry out
such functions and responsibilities as the Secretary may have
under [cooperative] integrated natural resource management
plans to which such Secretary is a party under this section,
including those for the enhancement of fish and wildlife
habitat and the development of public recreation and other
facilities.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND
* * * * * * *
Sec. 209. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated [the
sum of $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1983, 1984,
1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, to
enable the Secretary of the Interior] $4,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1997 and 1998, to enable the Secretary of the
Interior to carry out his functions and responsibilities under
this title, including data collection, research, planning, and
conservation and rehabilitation programs on public lands. Such
funds shall be in addition to those authorized for wildlife,
range, soil, and water management pursuant to section 318 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1748), or other provisions of law.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated [the sum of
$12,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1983, 1984, 1985,
1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, to enable
the Secretary of Agriculture] $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 1997 and 1998, to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to
carry out his functions and responsibilities under this title.
Such funds shall be in addition to those provided under other
provisions of law. In requesting funds under this subsection
the Secretary shall take into account fish and wildlife program
needs, including those for projects, identified in the State
comprehensive plans as contained in the program developed
pursuant to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974, as amended (16 U.S. 1601-1610).
----------
SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 27, 1986
[SEC. 2. NATURAL RESOURCES AND FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ON MILITARY
RESERVATIONS; REPORT ON MILITARY EXPENDITURES FOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.
[(a) Natural Resources Management.--The Secretary of each
military department shall manage the natural resources of each
military reservation within the United States that is under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary--
[(1) so as to provide for sustained multipurpose uses
of those resources; and
[(2) to provide the public access that is necessary or
appropriate for those uses;
to the extent that those uses and that access are not
inconsistent with the military mission of the reservation.
[(b) Fish and Wildlife Management Service.--The Secretary
of each military department shall ensure, to the extent
feasible, that the services necessary for the development,
implementation, and enforcement of fish and wildlife management
on each military reservation within the United States under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary are provided by the Department of
Defense personnel who have professional training in those
services.
[(c) Fish and Wildlife Management Report.--The Secretary of
each military department shall submit to each House of the
Congress, before the close of the 180-day period occurring
after the close of fiscal year 1986, a detailed report setting
forth the amount and purpose of all expenditures made during
fiscal year 1986 for fish and wildlife management on each
military reservation in the United States under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
[(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
[(1) The term ``military department'' means the
Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and
the Department of the Air Force.
[(2) The term ``United States'' means the States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the territories and possessions of the United
States.]
----------
SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE
AND REALIGNMENT ACT
SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION
(a) * * *
(b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
(2)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) The Secretary of Defense may transfer real property or
facilities located at a military installation to be closed or
realigned under this title, with or without reimbursement, to a
military department or other entity (including a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality) within the Department of
Defense or the Coast Guard.
[(D)] (E) Before any action may be taken with respect to the
disposal of any surplus real property or facility located at
any military installation to be closed or realigned under this
title, the Secretary shall consult with the Governor of the
State and the heads of the local governments concerned for the
purpose of considering any plan for the use of such property by
the local community concerned.
[(E)] (F) The provisions of this paragraph and paragraph (1)
are subject to paragraphs (3) through (6).
* * * * * * *
(8)(A) Subject to subparagraph (C), the Secretary may enter
into agreements (including contracts, cooperative agreements,
or other arrangements for reimbursement) with local governments
for the provision of police or security services, fire
protection services, airfield operation services, or other
community services by such governments at military
installations to be closed under this title or at facilities
remaining on installations closed under this title if the
Secretary determines that the provision of such services under
such agreements is in the best interests of the Department of
Defense.
* * * * * * *
(f) Acquisition of Manufactured Housing.--(1) In closing or
realigning any military installation under this title, the
Secretary may purchase any or all right, title, and interest of
a member of the Armed Forces and any spouse of the member in
manufactured housing located at a manufactured housing park
established at an installation closed or realigned under this
title, or make a payment to the member to relocate the
manufactured housing to a suitable new site, if the Secretary
determines that--
(A) it is in the best interests of the Federal
Government to eliminate or relocate the manufactured
housing park; and
(B) the elimination or relocation of the manufactured
housing park would result in an unreasonable financial
hardship to the owners of the manufactured housing.
(2) Any payment made under this subsection shall not exceed
90 percent of the purchase price of the manufactured housing,
as paid by the member or any spouse of the member, plus the
cost of any permanent improvements subsequently made to the
manufactured housing by the member or spouse of the member.
(3) The Secretary shall dispose of manufactured housing
acquired under this subsection through resale, donation, trade
or otherwise within one year of acquisition.
----------
SECTION 818 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1981
land conveyance, guam, marianas islands
Sec. 818. (a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
[(2) Conveyance of the property described in subsection (a)
shall be subject to the condition that any disposal by sale or
lease of any part or all of the property by the Government of
Guam shall only be for a monetary consideration equal to or in
excess of the fair market value (at the time of the disposal)
of the property concerned, or of the leasehold interest
therein, as determined by the Administrator of General
Services, and any such monetary consideration received by the
Government of Guam, minus any reasonable development costs
incurred by such Government in preparing the property concerned
for disposal, shall be paid to the United States. Reasonable
development costs shall be a fixed standard percentage of such
monetary consideration received by the Government of Guam. The
fixed standard percentage shall be determined by a study,
conducted by the Secretary, typical development costs required
to convert comparable lands to finished developed sites, except
that such percentage shall not exceed 50 percent.]
* * * * * * *
----------
MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT OF 1986
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWN LANDS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Additional Military Uses.--(1) * * *
(2) Subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary of the
military department concerned may utilize sand, gravel, or
similar mineral or material resources when the use of such
resources is required for construction needs on the respective
lands withdrawn by this Act.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 9. DELEGABILITY.
(a) * * *
(b) Interior.--The functions of the Secretary of the Interior
under this title may be delegated, except that an order
described in section [7(f)] 8(f) may be approved and signed
only by the Secretary of the Interior, the Under Secretary of
the Interior, or an Assistant Secretary of the Department of
the Interior.
* * * * * * *
----------
STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MATERIALS STOCK PILING ACT
* * * * * * *
FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
Sec. 2. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) In providing for the National Defense Stockpile under
this Act, Congress establishes the following principles:
[(1) The purpose of the National Defense Stockpile is
to serve the interest of national defense only. The
National Defense Stockpile is not to be used for
economic or budgetary purposes.
[(2) Before October 1, 1994, the quantities of
materials stockpiled under this Act should be
sufficient to sustain the United States for a period of
not less than three years during a national emergency
situation that would necessitate total mobilization of
the economy of the United States for a sustained
conventional global war of indefinite duration.
[(3) On and after October 1, 1994, the quantities of
materials stockpiled under this Act should be
sufficient to meet the needs of the United States
during a period of a national emergency that would
necessitate an expansion of the Armed Forces together
with a significant mobilization of the economy of the
United States under planning guidance issued by the
Secretary of Defense.]
(c) The purpose of the National Defense Stockpile is to serve
the interest of national defense only. The National Defense
Stockpile is not to be used for economic or budgetary purposes.
MATERIALS TO BE ACQUIRED: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY AND GUIDELINES
Sec. 3. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
(2) The President shall notify Congress in writing of any
change proposed to be made in the quantity of any material to
be stockpiled. The President may make the change [effective on
or after the 30th legislative day following] after the end of
the 45-day period beginning on the date of the notification.
The President shall include a full explanation and
justification for the proposed change with the notification.
[For purposes of this paragraph, a legislative day is a day on
which both Houses of Congress are in session.]
* * * * * * *
stockpile management
Sec. 6. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) The President may waive the applicability of any
provision of the first sentence of subsection (b) to any
acquisition of material for, or disposal of material from, the
stockpile. Whenever the President waives any such provision
with respect to any such acquisition or disposal, or whenever
the President determines that the application of paragraph (1)
or (2) of such subsection to a particular acquisition or
disposal is not feasible, the President shall notify the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives in writing of
the proposed acquisition or disposal at least [thirty days] 45
days before any obligation of the United States is incurred in
connection with such acquisition or disposal and shall include
in such notification the reasons for not complying with any
provision of such subsection.
(2) Materials in the stockpile may be disposed of under
subsection (a)(5) only if such congressional committees are
notified in writing of the proposed disposal at least [thirty
days] 45 days before any obligation of the United States is
incurred in connection with such disposal.
* * * * * * *
importation of strategic and critical materials
Sec. 13. The President may not prohibit or regulate the
importation into the United States of any material determined
to be strategic and critical pursuant to the provisions of this
Act, if such material is the product of any foreign country or
area not listed [as a Communist-dominated country or area] in
general note 3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), for so long as the importation
into the United States of material of that kind which is the
product of [such Communist-dominated countries or areas] a
country or area listed in such general note is not prohibited
by any provision of law.
biennial report on stockpile requirements
Sec. 14. (a) * * *
[(b) Each report under this section shall set forth the
national emergency planning assumptions used in determining the
stockpile requirements recommended by the Secretary. Before
October 1, 1994, such assumptions shall be based upon the total
mobilization of the economy of the United States for a
sustained conventional global war for a period of not less than
three years. On and after October 1, 1994, such assumptions
shall be based on an assumed national emergency involving
military conflict that necessitates an expansion of the Armed
Forces together with a significant mobilization of the economy
of the United States. Assumptions to be set forth include
assumptions relating to each of the following:
[(1) Length and intensity of the assumed emergency.
[(2) The military force structure to be mobilized.
[(3) Losses from enemy action.
[(4) Military, industrial, and essential civilian
requirements to support the national emergency.
[(5) Budget authority necessary to meet the
requirements of total mobilization for the military,
industrial, and essential civilian sectors.
[(6) The availability of supplies of strategic and
critical materials from foreign sources, taking into
consideration possible shipping losses.
[(7) Domestic production of strategic and critical
materials.
[(8) Civilian austerity measures.]
(b) Each report under this section shall set forth the
national emergency planning assumptions used by the Secretary
in making the Secretary's recommendations under subsection
(a)(1) with respect to stockpile requirements. The Secretary
shall base the national emergency planning assumptions on a
military conflict scenario consistent with the scenario used by
the Secretary in budgeting and defense planning purposes. The
assumptions to be set forth include assumptions relating to
each of the following:
(1) The length and intensity of the assumed military
conflict.
(2) The military force structure to be mobilized.
(3) The losses anticipated from enemy action.
(4) The military, industrial, and essential civilian
requirements to support the national emergency.
(5) The availability of supplies of strategic and
critical materials from foreign sources during the
mobilization period, the military conflict, and the
subsequent period of replenishment, taking into
consideration possible shipping losses.
(6) The domestic production of strategic and critical
materials during the mobilization period, the military
conflict, and the subsequent period of replenishment,
taking into consideration possible shipping losses.
(7) Civilian austerity measures required during the
mobilization period and military conflict.
(c) The stockpile requirements shall be based on those
strategic and critical materials necessary for the United
States to replenish or replace, within three years of the end
of the military conflict scenario required under subsection
(b), all munitions, combat support items, and weapons systems
that would be consumed or exhausted during such a military
conflict.
(d) The Secretary shall also include in each report under
this section an examination of the effect that alternative
mobilization periods under the military conflict scenario
required under subsection (b), as well as a range of other
military conflict scenarios addressing potentially more serious
threats to national security, would have on the Secretary's
recommendations under subsection (a)(1) with respect to
stockpile requirements.
[(c)] (e) The President shall submit with each report under
this section a statement of the plans of the President for
meeting the recommendations of the Secretary set forth in the
report.
* * * * * * *
----------
PANAMA CANAL ACT OF 1979
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Panama Canal Act of
1979''.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Statement of purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions [and recommendation for legislation].
TITLE I--ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATIONS
Chapter 1--Panama Canal Commission
Sec. 1101. Establishment, Purposes, Offices, and Residence of
Commission.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1102a. General powers of Commission.
Sec. 1102b. Specific powers of Commission.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1104. Deputy Administrator [and Chief Engineer].
* * * * * * *
Chapter 2--Employees
Subchapter I--Panama Canal Commission Personnel
Sec. 1201. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1209. Inapplicability of certain benefits to certain noncitizens.]
Sec. 1209. Applicability of certain benefits.
Subchapter II--Wage and Employment Practices
Sec. 1210. Travel and transportation expenses.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1214. Interim application of Canal Zone Merit System.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1223. Administration by the President.
[Sec. 1224. Applicability of certain laws.]
Sec. 1223. Central Examining Office.
Sec. 1224. Applicability of title 5, United States Code.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter IV--Retirement
Sec. 1241. Early retirement eligibility.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1245. Cash relief to certain former employees.
[Sec. 1246. Appliances for employees injured before September 7, 1916.]
Sec. 1245. Administration of certain disability benefits.
Subchapter V--Leave
[Sec. 1251. Leave for jury or witness service.]
* * * * * * *
Chapter 3--Funds and Accounts
Subchapter I--Funds
[Sec. 1301. Canal Zone Government funds.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1306. Printing.
Subchapter II--Accounting Policies and Audits
Sec. 1311. Accounting policies.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1313. Audits.
Chapter 6--Tolls for Use of the Panama Canal
Sec. 1601. Prescription of measurement rules and rates of tolls.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1605. Interim toll adjustment.]
Chapter 7--General Regulations
[Sec. 1701. Authority of President.
[Sec. 1702. Authority of Commission.]
* * * * * * *
[TITLE II--TREATY TRANSITION PERIOD
[Chapter 1--Laws Continued in Force
[Sec. 2101. Laws, regulations, and administrative authority.
[Chapter 2--Courts
[Sec. 2201. Jurisdiction.
[Sec. 2202. Divisions and terms of District Court.
[Sec. 2203. Terms of certain offices.
[Sec. 2204. Residence requirements.
[Sec. 2205. Special District Judge.
[Sec. 2206. Magistrates' courts.
[Chapter 3--Attorneys
[Sec. 2301. Oath of attorneys.
[Chapter 4--Transition Authority
[Sec. 2401. Transition authority of President.
[Sec. 2402. Prisons; parole; pardons.]
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
[Chapter 1--Cemeteries
[Sec. 3101. Disinterment, transportation, and reinterment of remains.]
* * * * * * *
Chapter 3--Reports; Amendments; Repeals and Redesignation; Effective
Date
Sec. 3301. Report.
[Sec. 3302. Amendments.]
Sec. 3302. Exemption.
* * * * * * *
definitions [and recommendation for legislation]
Sec. 3. (a) * * *
(b) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this
section, for purposes of applying the Canal Zone Code or other
laws of the United States and regulations issued pursuant to
such Code or other laws with respect to transactions,
occurrences, or status on or after the effective date of this
Act--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) ``Governor of the Canal Zone'' or ``Governor'',
wherever the reference is to the Governor of the Canal
Zone, shall be deemed to refer to the Panama Canal
Commission; and
(5) ``Panama Canal Company'' or ``Company'', wherever
the reference is to the Panama Canal Company, shall be
deemed to refer to the Panama Canal Commission[;].
[(6) in chapter 57 of title 5 of the Canal Zone,
``hospitals'' and ``health Bureau'' shall be deemed to
refer, respectively, to the hospitals operated by the
United States in the Republic of Panama, and to the
organizational unit operating such hospitals; and
[(7) in chapter 57 of title 5 of the Canal Zone Code,
in section 4784 of title 6 of such Code, and in section
2 of title 7 of such Code, ``health director'' shall be
deemed to refer to the senior official in charge of the
hospitals operated by the United States in the Republic
of Panama.]
* * * * * * *
[(d) The President shall, within two years after the Panama
Canal Treaty of 1977 enters into force, submit to the Congress
a request for legislation which would--
[(1) amend or repeal provisions of law which in their
present form are applicable only during the transition
period prescribed in Article XI of that Treaty.
[(2) repeal the Canal Zone Code, and
[(3) contain provisions considered necessary and
appropriate in light of the experience as of that time
under that Treaty.]
TITLE I--ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATIONS
Chapter 1--Panama Canal Commission
* * * * * * *
[administrator
[Sec. 1103. There shall be an Administrator of the
Commission, who shall be appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold
office at the pleasure of the President.
[deputy administrator and chief engineer
[Sec. 1104. (a) There shall be a Deputy Administrator and a
Chief Engineer of the Commission, both of whom shall be
appointed by the President. The Deputy Administrator and the
Chief Engineer shall perform such duties as may be prescribed
by the President.
[(b) The Deputy Administrator and the Chief Engineer shall
each be paid compensation at a rate of pay established by the
President which does not exceed the rate of basic pay in effect
for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of
title 5, United States Code, and, if eligible, shall be paid
the overseas recruitment or retention differential provided for
in section 1217 of this Act.]
administrator
Sec. 1103. (a) There shall be an Administrator of the
Commission who shall be appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold office at
the pleasure of the President.
(b) The Administrator shall be paid compensation in an
amount, established by the Board, not to exceed level III of
the Executive Schedule.
deputy administrator
Sec. 1104. (a) There shall be a Deputy Administrator of the
Commission who shall be appointed by the President. The Deputy
Administrator shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by
the Board.
(b) The Deputy Administrator shall be paid compensation at a
rate of pay, established by the Board, which does not exceed
the rate of basic pay in effect for level IV of the Executive
Schedule, and, if eligible, shall be paid the overseas
recruitment and retention difference provided for in section
1217 of this Act.
* * * * * * *
office of ombudsman
Sec. 1113. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) The Ombudsman shall be a citizen of the United States.]
[(e)] (d) The Office of Ombudsman shall terminate upon the
termination of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.
Chapter 2--Employees
Subchapter I--Panama Canal Commission Personnel
* * * * * * *
[appointment and compensation; duties
[Sec. 1202. (a) In accordance with this chapter, the Panama
Canal Commission may appoint without regard to the provisions
of title 5, United States Code, relating to appointments in the
competitive service, fix the compensation of, and define the
authority and duties of, officers, agents, attorneys, and
employees (other than the Administrator, Deputy Administrator,
and Chief Engineer) necessary for the management, operation,
and maintenance of the Panama Canal and its complementary
works, installations, and equipment.
[(b) Individuals serving in any Executive agency (other than
the Commission) or the Smithsonian Institution, including
individuals serving in the uniformed services, may, if
appointed under this section or section 1103 or 1104 of this
Act, serve as officers or employees of the Commission.]
appointment and compensation; duties
Sec. 1202. (a) In accordance with this chapter, the
Commission may appoint, fix the compensation of, and define the
authority and duties of officers and employees (other than the
Administrator and Deputy Administrator) necessary for the
management, operation, and maintenance of the Panama Canal and
its complementary works, installations, and equipment.
(b) Individuals serving in any Executive agency (other than
the Commission) or the Smithsonian Institution, including
individuals in the uniform services, may, if appointed under
this section or section 1104 of this Act, serve as officers or
employees of the Commission.
* * * * * * *
[inapplicability of certain benefits to certain noncitizens
[Sec. 1209. (a) Chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to compensation for work injuries, chapter 83 of such
title 5, relating to civil service retirement, chapter 87 of
such title 5, relating to life insurance, and chapter 89 of
such title 5, relating to health insurance, are inapplicable to
any individual--
[(1) who is not a citizen of the United States;
[(2) whose initial appointment by the Commission
occurs after October 1, 1979; and
[(3) who is covered by the Social Security System of
the Republic of Panama pursuant to any provision of the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements.
[(b) Subparagraph (B) of section 8701(a) of title 5, United
States Code, defining the term employee for purposes of life
insurance, is amended to read as follows:
[``(B) an individual who is not a citizen or national
of the United States and whose permanent duty station
is outside the United States, unless the individual was
an employee for the purpose of this chapter on
September 30, 1979, by reason of service in an
Executive agency, the United States Postal Service, or
the Smithsonian Institution in the area which was then
known as the Canal Zone; or''.
[(c) Clause (ii) of section 8901(1) of title 5, United States
Code, defining the term employee for purposes of health
insurance is amended to read as follows:
[``(ii) an individual who is not a citizen or
national of the United States and whose
permanent duty station is outside the United
States, unless the individual was an employee
for the purpose of this chapter on September
30, 1979, by reason of service in an Executive
agency, the United States Postal Service, or
the Smithsonian Institution in the area which
was then known as the Canal Zone;''.]
applicability of certain benefits
Sec. 1209. Chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to compensation for work injuries, chapters 83 and 84
of such title 5, relating to retirement, chapter 87 of such
title 5, relating to life insurance, and chapter 89 of such
title 5, relating to health insurance, are applicable to
Commission employees, except any individual--
(1) who is not a citizen of the United States;
(2) whose initial appointment by the Commission
occurs after October 1, 1979; and
(3) who is covered by the Social Security System of
the Republic of Panama pursuant to any provision of the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements.
Subchapter II--Wage and Employment Practices
[travel and transportation expenses
[Sec. 1210. The Commission may pay the expenses of vacation
leave travel for an employee of the Commission to whom section
1206 of this Act applies and for transportation of employee's
family from the employee's post of duty in Panama to the place
of the employee's actual residence at the time of appointment
to the post of duty. The authorization of expenses under this
section shall be in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 57
of title 5, United States Code, and the regulations issued
under that subchapter, except that the Commission may prescribe
required periods of service notwithstanding section 5722 of
title 5, United States Code, and the regulations issued under
subchapter II of chapter 57 of such title.]
travel and transportation expenses
Sec. 1210. (a) Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the
Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses for
employees in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code.
(b) For an employee to whom section 1206 applies, the
Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses
associated with vacation leave for the employee and the
immediate family of the employee notwithstanding requirements
regarding periods of service established by subchapter II of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, or the regulations
promulgated thereunder.
(c) For an employee to whom section 1206 does not apply, the
Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses
associated with vacation leave for the employee and the
immediate family of the employee notwithstanding requirements
regarding a written agreement concerning the duration of a
continuing service obligation established by subchapter II of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code or the regulations
promulgated thereunder.
definitions
Sec. 1211. As used in this subchapter--
(1) ``agency'' means--
(A) the Commission, and
[(B) an Executive agency or the Smithsonian
Institution, to the extent of any election in
effect under section 1212(b)(2) of this Act;]
(B) any other Executive agency or the
Smithsonian Institution, to the extent of any
election in effect under section 1212(b) of
this Act;
* * * * * * *
[panama canal employment system; merit and other employment
requirements
[Sec. 1212. (a) After considering any recommendations of the
Commission, the President shall establish a Panama Canal
Employment System. The Panama Canal Employment System shall--
[(1) be established in accordance with and be subject
to the provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
and related agreements, the provisions of this chapter,
and any other applicable provision of law;
[(2) be based on the consideration of the merit of
each employee or candidate for employment and the
qualifications and fitness of the employee to hold the
position concerned;
[(3) conform, to the extent practicable and
consistent with the provisions of this Act, to the
policies, principles, and standards applicable to the
competitive service; and
[(4) in the case of employees who are citizens of the
United States, provide for the appropriate interchange
of those employees between positions under the Panama
Canal Employment System and positions in the
competitive service.
[(b)(1) The Commission, and any Executive agency and the
Smithsonian Institution to the extent of any election under
paragraph (2) of this subsection, shall conduct their
employment and pay practices relating to employees in
accordance with the Panama Canal Employment System and
regulations prescribed by, or under the authority of, the
President in accordance with this subchapter.
[(2) The head of any Executive agency and the Smithsonian
Institution may elect to have the Panama Canal Employment
System made applicable in whole or in part to personnel of that
agency in the Republic of Panama.
[(c) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the President
may, from time to time and after considering any recommendation
of the Commission, amend or modify any provision of the Panama
Canal Employment System, including any provision relating to
selection for appointment, reappointment, reinstatement,
reemployment, and retention, with respect to positions,
employees, and candidates for employment.
[(d) The President may, to the extent the President
determines appropriate--
[(1) exclude any employee or position from coverage
under any provision of this subchapter; and
[(2) notwithstanding section 1202 of this Act, extend
to any employee, whether or not the employee is a
citizen of the United States, the rights and privileges
which are provided by applicable laws and regulations
for citizens of the United States employed in the
competitive service.]
panama canal employment system; merit and other employment requirements
Sec. 1212. (a) The Commission shall establish a Panama Canal
Employment System and prescribe the regulations necessary for
its administration. The Panama Canal Employment System shall--
(1) be established in accordance with and be subject
to the provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
and related agreements, the provisions of this chapter,
and any other applicable provision of law;
(2) be based on the consideration of the merit of
each employee or candidate for employment and the
qualifications and fitness of the employee to hold the
position concerned;
(3) conform, to the extent practicable and consistent
with the provisions of this Act, to the policies,
principles, and standards applicable to the competitive
service;
(4) in the case of employees who are citizens of the
United States, provide for the appropriate interchange
of those employees between positions under the Panama
Canal Employment System and positions in the
competitive service; and
(5) not be subject to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, unless specifically made applicable
by this Act.
(b)(1) The head of any Executive agency (other than the
Commission) and the Smithsonian Institution may elect to have
the Panama Canal Employment System made applicable in whole or
in part to personnel of that agency in the Republic of Panama.
(2) Any Executive agency (other than the Commission) and the
Smithsonian Institution, to the extent of any election under
paragraph (1), shall conduct its employment and pay practices
relating to employees in accordance with the Panama Canal
Employment System.
(c) The Commission may exclude any employee or position from
coverage under any provision of this subchapter, other than the
interchange rights extended under subsection (a)(4).
employment standards
Sec. 1213. [The head of each agency] The Commission shall
establish written standards for--
(1) determining the qualifications and fitness of
employees and of candidates for employment in
positions; and
(2) selecting individuals for appointment, promotion,
or transfer to positions.
The standards shall conform to the provisions of this
subchapter, and regulations prescribed thereunder, and the
Panama Canal Employment System.
[interim application of canal zone merit system
[Sec. 1214. Notwithstanding any repeal made by this Act or
any provision of this chapter, the provisions of subchapter III
of chapter 7 of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code establishing the
Canal Zone Merit System, together with the regulations
prescribed thereunder, as in effect on September 30, 1979,
shall continue in effect and shall apply with respect to
employees under the Panama Canal Employment System is
established and in effect pursuant to section 1212 of this
Act.]
* * * * * * *
recruitment and retention remuneration
Sec. 1217. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Subchapter III of chapter 59 of title 5, United States
Code, relating to overseas differentials and allowances, shall
not apply with respect to any employee whose permanent duty
station is in the Republic of Panama and who is employed by an
agency.]
* * * * * * *
benefits based on basic pay
Sec. 1218. For the purposes of determining--
(1) amounts of compensation for disability or death
under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to compensation for work injuries;
[(2) benefits under subchapter III of chapter 83 of
title 5, United States Code, relating to civil service
retirement;]
(2) benefits under subchapter III of chapter 83 and
subchapter II of chapter 84 of title 5, United States
Code, relating to retirement;
* * * * * * *
[administration by the president
[Sec. 1223. (a) The President shall prescribe regulations
necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this
subchapter and coordinate the policies and activities of
agencies under this subchapter.
[(b) The President may establish an office within the
Commission as the successor to the Canal Zone Central Examining
Office. The purpose of the office shall be to assist the
President in--
[(1) carrying out the President's coordination
responsibility under section (a) of this section; and
[(2) implementing the provisions of the Panama Canal
Treaty of 1977 and related agreements with respect to
recruitment, examination, determination of
qualification standards and similar matters.
[(c) The President may delegate any authority vested in the
President by this subchapter and may provide for the
redelegation of that authority.
[applicability of certain laws
[Sec. 1224. This chapter does not affect the applicability
of--
[(1) the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
which relate to preference eligibles;
[(2) the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
which relate to removal or suspension from the
competitive service; and
[(3) the provisions of section 554(a) of title 5,
United States Code, which relate to wage-board overtime
and Sunday rates, with respect to classes of employees
who were covered by those provisions on the date of the
enactment of this Act.]
central examining office
Sec. 1223. The Commission shall establish a Central Examining
Office. The purpose of the office shall be to implement the
provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related
agreements with respect to recruitment, examination,
determination of qualification standards, and similar matters
relating to employment of the Commission.
applicability of title 5, united states code
Sec. 1224. The following provisions of title 5, United States
Code, apply to the Panama Canal Commission:
(1) Part I of title 5 (relating to agencies
generally).
(2) Chapter 21 (relating to employee definitions).
(3) Section 2302(b)(8) (relating to whistleblower
protection) and all provisions of title 5 relating to
the administration or enforcement or any other aspect
thereof, as identified in regulations prescribed by the
Commission in consultation with the Office of Personnel
Management.
(4) All provisions relating to preference eligibles.
(5) Section 5514 (relating to offset from salary).
(6) Section 5520a (relating to garnishments).
(7) Sections 5531-5535 (relating to dual pay and
employment).
(8) Subchapter VI of chapter 55 (relating to
accumulated and accrued leave).
(9) Subchapter IX of chapter 55 (relating to
severance and back pay).
(10) Chapter 57 (relating to travel and
transportation).
(11) Chapter 59 (relating to allowances).
(12) Chapter 63 (relating to leave).
(13) Section 6323 (relating to military leave;
Reserves and National Guardsmen).
(14) Chapter 71 (relating to labor relations).
(15) Subchapters II and III of chapter 73 (relating
to employment limitations and political activities,
respectively) and all provisions of title 5 relating to
the administration or enforcement or any other aspect
thereof, as identified in regulations prescribed by the
Commission in consultation with the Office of Personnel
Management.
(16) Chapter 81 (relating to compensation for work
injuries).
(17) Chapters 83 and 84 (relating to retirement).
(18) Chapter 85 (relating to unemployment
compensation).
(19) Chapter 87 (relating to life insurance).
(20) Chapter 89 (relating to health insurance).
Subchapter III--Conditions of Employment and Placement
transferred or reemployed employees
Sec. 1231. (a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3)(A) The provisions of this subsection shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
[(B) No spending authority (as described in section
401(c)(2)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) provided
for under this subsection shall take effect before October 1,
1979.
[(C) Effective October 1, 1979, any individual who, but for
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, would have been entitled to
one or more payments pursuant to this subsection for periods
before October 1, 1979, shall be entitled, to the extent or in
such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
to a lump sum payment equal to the total amount of all such
payments.]
* * * * * * *
[cash relief to certain former employees
[Sec. 1245. (a) The Commission, under the regulation
prescribed by the President pursuant to the Act entitled ``An
Act authorizing cash relief for certain employees of the Panama
Canal not coming within the provisions of the Canal Zone
Retirement Act'', approved July 8, 1937, as amended (50 Stat.
478; 68 Stat. 17), may continue the payments of cash relief to
those individual former employees of the Canal Zone Government
or Panama Canal Company or their predecessor agencies not
coming within the scope of the former Canal Zone Retirement Act
whose services were terminated prior to October 5, 1958,
because of unfitness for further useful service by reason of
mental or physical disability resulting from age or disease.
Subject to subsection (b) of this section, that cash relief may
not exceed $1.50 per month for each year of service of the
employees so furnished relief, with a maximum of $45 per month,
plus the amount of any cost-of-living increases in such cash
relief granted before October 1, 1979, pursuant to section 181
of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code (as in effect on September
30, 1979), nor be paid to any employee who, at the time of
termination for disability prior to October 5, 1958, had less
than 10 years' service with the Canal Zone Government, the
Panama Canal Company, or their predecessor agencies on the
Isthmus of Panama.]
administration of certain disability benefits
Sec. 1245. (a)(1) The Commission, or any other United States
Government agency or private entity acting pursuant to an
agreement with the Commission, under the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing cash relief for certain employees of the Panama
Canal not coming within the provisions of the Canal Zone
Retirement Act'', approved July 8, 1937 (50 Stat. 478; 68 Stat.
17), may continue the payments of cash relief to those
individual former employees of the Canal Zone Government or
Panama Canal Company or their predecessor agencies not coming
within the scope of the former Canal Zone Retirement Act whose
services were terminated prior to October 5, 1958, because of
unfitness for further useful service by reason of mental or
physical disability resulting from age or disease.
(2) Subject to subsection (b), cash relief under this
subsection may not exceed $1.50 per month for each year of
service of the employees so furnished relief, with a maximum of
$45 per month, plus the amount of any cost-of-living increases
in such cash relief granted before October 1, 1979, pursuant to
section 181 of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code (as in effect on
September 30, 1979), nor be paid to any employee who, at the
time of termination for disability prior to October 5, 1958,
had less than 10 years' service with the Canal Zone Government,
the Panama Canal Company, or their predecessor agencies on the
Isthmus of Panama.
* * * * * * *
[appliances for employees injured before september 7, 1916
[Sec. 1246. Artificial limbs or other appliances may be
purchased by the Commission, out of any funds available to the
Commission, for persons who were injured in the service of the
Isthmian Canal Commission or of the Panama Canal before
September 7, 1916.]
Subchapter V--Leave
[leave for jury or witness service
[Sec. 1251. Section 6322(a) of title 5, United States Code,
is amended--
[(1) by striking out ``the Canal Zone, or''; and
[(2) by striking out ``Islands.'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``Islands, or the Republic of Panama.''.]
* * * * * * *
Chapter 3--Funds and Accounts
Subchapter I--Funds
[canal zone government funds
[Sec. 1301. On the effective date of this Act, any unexpended
balances of the appropriation accounts appearing on the books
of the United States Government as ``Operating Expenses, Canal
Zone Government (38-0116-0-1-806)'' and ``Capital Outlay, Canal
Zone Government (38-0116-0-1-806)'' shall be covered into the
general fund of the Treasury, and any appropriations to which
expenditures under such accounts have been chargeable before
such effective date are repealed. The Commission may, to the
extent of funds available to it, pay claims or make payments
chargeable to such accounts, upon proper audit of such claims
of payments.
[panama canal revolving fund
[Sec. 1302. (a)(1) There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a revolving fund to be known as the ``Panama
Canal Revolving Fund''. The Panama Canal Revolving Fund shall,
subject to subsection (c), be available to the Commission to
carry out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by
this Act, including for--
[(A) the hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft;
[(B) uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized
by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States
Code;
[(C) official receptions and representation expenses
of the Board, the Secretary of the Commission, and the
Administrator;
[(D) the operation of guide services;
[(E) a residence for the Administrator;
[(F) disbursements by the Administrator for employee
and community projects; and
[(G) the procurement of expert and consultant
services as provided in section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code.
[(2) On the effective date of the Panama Canal Revolving Fund
Act--
[(A) the Panama Canal Commission Fund shall be
terminated and the unappropriated balance, including
undeposited receipts as of the close of business on the
day before the effective date of the Panama Canal
Revolving Fund Act, shall be transferred to the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund;
[(B) the unexpended balance of appropriations to the
Commission, as of the close of business on the day
before the effective date of the Panama Canal Revolving
Fund Act, shall be transferred to the Panama Canal
Revolving Fund, and such amounts including amounts
appropriated for capital expenditures, shall remain
available until expended;
[(C) the assets and liabilities recorded before such
effective date under the ``Panama Canal Commission
Fund'' shall be recorded under the Panama Canal
Revolving Fund; and
[(D) the Panama Canal Emergency Fund shall be
terminated and the remaining balance shall be
transferred to the Panama Canal Revolving Fund.
[(b) Upon completion of the transfers of funds under
subsection (a)--
[(1) amounts attributable to interest on the
investment of the United States in the Panama Canal
which accrued before January 1, 1986, shall be
transferred from the Panama Canal Revolving Fund to the
general fund of the Treasury; and
[(2) such amounts as were appropriated to the
Commission in the fiscal year which ended September 30,
1980, and for which the Commission has not reimbursed
the general fund of the Treasury, shall be transferred
to the general fund of the Treasury.
[(c)(1) There shall be deposited in the Panama Canal
Revolving Fund, on a continuing basis, toll receipts (other
than amounts of toll receipts deposited into the Panama Canal
Commission Dissolution Fund under section 1305) and all other
receipts of the Commission. Except as provided in section 1303,
no funds may be obligated or expended by the Commission in any
fiscal year unless such obligation or expenditure has been
specifically authorized by law.
[(2) No funds may be authorized for the use of the
Commission, or obligated or expended by the Commission in any
fiscal year in excess of--
[(A) the amount of revenues deposited in the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund and the Panama Canal Dissolution
Fund during such fiscal year, plus
[(B) the amount of revenues deposited in the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund before such fiscal year and
remaining unexpended at the beginning of such fiscal
year.
Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress the
amount of revenues deposited in the Panama Canal Revolving Fund
during such fiscal year.
[(d) With the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Commission may deposit amounts in the Panama Canal Revolving
Fund in any Federal Reserve bank, any depository for public
funds, or in such other places and in such other manner as the
Commission and the Secretary may agree.
[(e) In accordance with section 9104 of title 31, United
States Code, Congress shall review the annual budget of the
Commission.
[(f)(1) It is the sense of the Congress that the additional
costs resulting from implementation of the Panama Canal Treaty
of 1977 and related agreements should be kept to the absolute
minimum level. To this end, the Congress declares that the
direct appropriated costs of implementation to be borne by the
taxpayers over the life of such Treaty should be kept to a
level no greater than the March 1979 estimate of those costs
($870,700,000) presented to the Congress by the executive
branch during consideration of this Act by the Congress, less
personnel retirement costs of $205,000,000, which were
subtracted and charged to tolls, therefore resulting in the net
taxpayer cost of approximately $665,700,000, plus appropriate
adjustment for inflation.
[(2) It is further the sense of the Congress that the actual
costs of implementation be consistent with the obligations of
the United States to operate the Panama Canal safely and
efficiently and keep it secure.]
panama canal revolving fund
Sec. 1302. (a) There is established in the Treasury of the
United States a revolving fund to be known as ``Panama Canal
Revolving fund''. The Panama Canal Revolving Fund shall,
subject to subsection (b), be available to the Commission to
carry out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by
this Act, including for--
(1) the hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft;
(2) uniforms or allowances therefor;
(3) official receptions and representation expenses
of the Board, the Secretary of the Commission, and the
Administrator;
(4) the operation of guide services;
(5) a residence for the Administrator;
(6) disbursements by the Administrator for employee
and community projects;
(7) the procurement of expert and consultant
services;
(8) promotional activities, including the
preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television, film, or other
media presentation designed to promote the Panama Canal
as a resource of the world shipping industry; and
(9) the purchase and transportation to the Republic
of Panama of passenger motor vehicles built in the
United States, including large, heavy-duty vehicles.
(b)(1) There shall be deposited in the Panama Canal Revolving
Fund, on a continuing basis, toll receipts (other than amounts
of toll receipts deposited into the Panama Canal Commission
Dissolution Fund under section 1305) and all other receipts of
the Commission. Except as provided in section 1303, no funds
may be obligated or expended by the Commission in any fiscal
year unless such obligation or expenditure has been
specifically authorized by law.
(2) No funds may be authorized for the use of the Commission,
or obligated or expended by the Commission in any fiscal year,
in excess of--
(A) the amount of revenues deposited in the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund and the Panama Canal Dissolution
Fund during such fiscal year, plus
(B) the amount of revenues deposited in the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund before such fiscal year and
remaining unobligated at the beginning of such fiscal
year; plus
(C) the $100,000,000 borrowing authority provided for
in section 1304 of this Act.
Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress the
amount of revenues deposited in the Panama Canal Revolving Fund
during such fiscal year.
(c) With the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Commission may deposit amounts in the Panama Canal Revolving
Fund in any Federal Reserve bank, any depository for public
funds, or such other place and in such manner as the Commission
and the Secretary may agree.
(d)(1) It is the sense of the Congress that the additional
costs resulting from the implementation of the Panama Canal
Treaty of 1977 and related agreements should be kept to the
absolute minimum level. To this end, the Congress declares
appropriated costs of implementation to be borne by the
taxpayers over the life of such Treaty should be kept to a
level no greater than the March 1979 estimate of those costs
($870,700,000) presented to the Congress by the executive
branch during consideration of this Act by the Congress, less
personnel retirement costs of $205,000,000, which were
subtracted and charged to tolls, therefore resulting in net
taxpayer cost of approximately $665,700,000, plus appropriate
adjustments for inflation.
(2) It is further the sense of the Congress that the actual
costs of implementation be consistent with the obligations of
the United States to operate the Panama Canal safely and
efficiently and keep it secure.
emergency authority
Sec. 1303. If authorizing legislation described in section
[1302(c)(1)] 1302(b)(1) has not been enacted for a fiscal year,
then the Commission may withdraw funds from the Panama Canal
Revolving Fund in order to defray emergency expenses and to
ensure the continuous, efficient, and safe operation of the
Panama Canal, including expenses for capital projects. The
authority of this section may be exercised only until
authorizing legislation described in section [1302(c)(1)]
1302(b)(1) is enacted, or for a period of 24 months after the
end of the fiscal year for which such authorizing legislation
was last enacted, whichever occurs first. Within 60 days after
the end of any calendar quarter in which expenditures are made
under this section, the Commission shall report such
expenditures to the appropriate committees of the Congress.
* * * * * * *
printing
Sec. 1306. (a) Section 501 of title 44, United States Code,
shall not apply to direct purchase by the Commission for its
use of printing, binding, and blank-book work in the Republic
of Panama when the Commission determines that such direct
purchase is in the best interest of the Government.
(b) This section shall not affect the Commission's authority,
under chapter 5 of title 44, United States Code, to operate a
field printing plant.
Subchapter II--Accounting Policies and Audits
accounting policies
Sec. 1311. (a) [The Commission shall establish and maintain
its accounts pursuant to the Accounting and Auditing Act of
1950 (31 U.S.C. 65 et seq.) and the provisions of this
chapter.] The Commission shall establish and maintain its
accounts in accordance with chapter 91 of title 31, United
States Code, and the provisions of this chapter. Such accounts
shall specify all revenues received by the Commission,
including tolls for the use of the Panama Canal, expenditures
for capital replacement, expansion, and improvement, and all
costs of maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal and of
its complementary works, installations, and equipment,
including depreciation, payments to the Republic of Panama
under the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, and interest on the
investment of the United States calculated in accordance with
section 1603 of this Act.
* * * * * * *
audits
Sec. 1313. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) In conducting the audit and preparing the reports
provided for in this section and in carrying out his other
responsibilities pursuant to law, the Comptroller General
shall, with respect to fiscal year 1980, take into account the
problems inherent in converting the existing accounting system
of the Panama Canal Company to conform to the requirements
established in section 1311 of this Act. Accordingly, the
Comptroller General shall take no adverse action with respect
to the Commission, nor shall any violation of section 3679 of
the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 665) be considered to have
taken place, so long as the Commission is in substantial
compliance with the requirements of this Act. The Comptroller
General shall make such recommendations to the Commission and
to the Congress as he may consider appropriate to insure that
full compliance with the financial controls provided for in the
Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 65 et seq.) is
achieved promptly.]
Subchapter III--Interagency Accounts
interagency services; reimbursements
Sec. 1321. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The appropriations or funds of the Commission, or of any
other department or agency of the United States conducting
operations in the Republic of Panama, shall be available to
defray the cost of--
(1) health care services provided by medical
facilities licensed and approved by the Republic of
Panama (and not operated by the United States) to
elderly or disabled persons who were eligible to
receive such services before the effective date of this
Act, less amounts payable by such persons, and
(2) educational services provided by schools in the
Republic of Panama or the United States, which are not
operated by the United States, to employees of the
Commission who are citizens of the United States and
persons who were receiving such services at the expense
of the Canal Zone Government before the effective date
of this Act.
Notwithstanding section 5924 of title 5, United States Code,
the Commission shall by regulation determine the extent to
which costs of educational services may be defrayed under this
subsection.
Subchapter IV--Postal Matters
[postal service
[Sec. 1331. The postal service established and governed by
chapter 73 of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code shall be
discontinued on October 1, 1979.
[(b) The provisions of chapter 73 of such title 2 relating to
postal-savings deposits, postal-savings certificates, postal
money orders, and the accounting for funds shall continue to
apply for the purpose of meeting the obligations of the United
States concerning outstanding postal savings and money orders
and disposition of funds.
[(c) The Commission shall take possession of and administer
the funds of the postal service referred to in subsection (a)
and this section and shall assume its obligation. The
Commission and the United States Postal Service may enter into
agreements for the transfer of funds of property and the
assumption of administrative rights or responsibilities with
respect to the outstanding obligations of the postal service
referred to in subsection (a) of this section. Any transfer or
assumption (including any agreement for such transfer or
assumption) pursuant to this subsection shall be effective only
to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance in
appropriate Acts.
[(d) Mail addressed to the Canal Zone from or through the
continental United States may be routed by the United States
Postal Service to the military post offices of the United
States Forces in the Republic of Panama. Such military offices
shall provide the required directory services and shall accept
such mail to the extent permitted under the Panama Canal Treaty
of 1977 and related agreements. The Commission shall furnish
personnel, records, and other services to such military to
assure wherever appropriate the distribution, rerouting, or
return of such mail.
[(e)(1) The second sentence of section 403(a) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by striking out ``Except as
provided in the Canal Zone Code, the'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``The''.
[(2) Section 340(b) of such title is amended--
[(A) by inserting ``or'' before ``the Virgin
Islands''; and
[(B) by striking out ``or the Canal Zone,''.
[(3)(A) Section 3402 of such title repealed.
[(B) the table of sections for chapter 34 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by repealing the item relating to
section 3402.
[(4) Section 3682(b)(5) of such title is amended by striking
out ``the Canal Zone and''.]
postal service
Sec. 1331. (a) The Commission shall take possession of and
administer the funds of the Canal Zone postal service and shall
assume its obligations.
(b) Effective December 1, 1999, neither the Commission nor
the United States Government shall be responsible for the
distribution of any accumulated unpaid balances relating to
Canal Zone postal-savings deposits, postal-savings
certificates, and postal money orders.
(c) Mail addressed to the Canal Zone from or through the
continental United States may be routed by the United States
Postal Service to the military post offices of the United
States Armed Forces in the Republic of Panama. Such military
post offices shall provide the required directory services and
shall accept such mail to the extent permitted under the Panama
Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements. The Commission
shall furnish personnel, records, and other services to such
military post offices to assure wherever appropriate the
distribution, rerouting, or return of such mail.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 4--Claims for Injuries to Persons or Property
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Vessel Damage
* * * * * * *
investigation of accident or injury giving rise to claim
Sec. 1417. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
claim may not be considered under this subchapter, or an action
for damages lie thereon, unless, prior to the departure from
the Panama Canal of the vessel involved--
[(1) an investigation by the competent authorities of
the accident or injury, giving rise to the claim has
been completed; and]
(1) an investigation of the accident or injury giving
rise to the claim has been completed, which shall
include a hearing by the Board of Local Inspectors of
the Commission; and
* * * * * * *
Chapter 6--Tolls for Use of the Panama Canal
* * * * * * *
[interim toll adjustment
[Sec. 1605. (a) After the effective date of this section, the
Panama Canal Company or the Commission may, without regard to
the procedures set forth in section 1604 of this Act for making
changes in tolls by the Commission and the President, change
the rates of tolls calculated to cover the cost of maintaining
and operating the Panama Canal during the fiscal year beginning
on October 1, 1979. Such rates shall be calculated in
accordance with the provisions of section 1602(b) of this Act.
Any such change in rates of tolls shall be subject to the
approval of the President whose action in the matter shall be
final. Any change in rates of tolls approved by the President
shall become effective on a date prescribed by the President.
[(b) This section shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.]
Chapter 7--General Regulations
[authority of president
[Sec. 1701. The President may prescribe, and from time to
time amend, regulations applicable within the areas and
installations made available to the United States for the
operation and protection of the Panama Canal pursuant to the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements concerning--
[(1) the use of aircraft;
[(2) the possession and use of alcoholic beverages;
[(3) exclusion and removal of persons; and
[(4) health and sanitation.
[authority of commission
[Sec. 1702. The Commission may prescribe, and from time to
time amend, regulations applicable within the areas and
installations made available to the United States for the
operation and protection of the Panama Canal pursuant to the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements concerning--
[(1) the keeping and impounding of domestic animals;
[(2) fire prevention;
[(3) the sale or use of fireworks;
[(4) the use of roads and highways;
[(5) photographing of areas, objects, installations,
or structures;
[(6) swimming in the Panama Canal and adjacent
waters; and
[(7) the protection of wildlife, hunting, and
fishing.]
Chapter 8--Shipping and Navigation
Subchapter I--Operation of Canal
operating regulations
Sec. 1801. The [President] Commission may prescribe, and from
time to time amend, regulations governing--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[TITLE II--TREATY TRANSITION PERIOD
[Chapter 1--Laws Continued in Force
[laws, regulations, and administrative authority
[Sec. 2101. To the extent not inconsistent with the Panama
Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements and the provisions
of this Act, the Canal Zone Code and other laws, regulations,
and administrative authority of the United States applicable in
the Canal Zone immediately before the date on which the Panama
Canal Treaty of 1977 enters into force shall continue in force
for the purpose of the exercise by the United States of law
enforcement and judicial jurisdiction during the transition
period provided for in Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty of
1977 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``transition
period'').
[Chapter 2--Courts
[jurisdiction
[Sec. 2201. (a) During the transition period, the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
District of the Canal Zone and the magistrates' courts under
title 3 of the Canal Zone shall be continued, subject to the
limitations set forth in Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty
of 1977.
[(b) For purposes of the exercise of the jurisdiction
provided in Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, the
United States District Court and magistrates' courts referred
to in subsection (a) of this section shall construe the terms
``United States citizen employees'', ``members of the United
States Forces'', ``civilian component'', and ``dependents'' as
such terms are defined in the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and
related agreements, and shall construe the terms ``areas and
installations made available for the use of the United States''
to mean (1) The Panama Canal operating areas and housing areas
described in Annex A to the Agreement in Implementation of
Article III of the Panama Canal Treaty, (2) the Ports of Balboa
and Cristobal described in Annex B to that Agreement, and (3)
the defense sites and Military Areas of Coordination described
in Annex A to the Agreement in Implementation of Article IV of
the Panama Canal Treaty.
[division and terms of district court
[Sec. 2202. The United States District Court for the District
of the Canal Zone may conduct its affairs at such places within
the areas made available for the use by the United States
pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related
agreements, and at such times, as the district judge may
designate by rule or order.
[terms of certain offices
[Sec. 2203. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 5,
41, 45, and 82 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code, the term of
office of a district judge, magistrate, United States attorney,
or United States marshal shall extend for a period of 30 months
beginning on the date on which the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
enters into force, and any such term shall be subject to such
extension of time as may be provided for the disposition of
pending cases by agreement between the United States and the
Republic of Panama, pursuant to the last sentence of paragraph
7 of Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.
[(b) The provisions of this section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
[residence requirements
[Sec. 2204. Section 5(d), 7(d), 41(d), and 45(d) of title 3
of the Canal Zone Code, the second sentence of section 42 of
such title, and the second sentence of section 82(c) of such
title, which provisions require that certain court officials
reside in the Canal Zone, are repealed.
[special district judge
[Sec. 2205. (a) Section 6 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code
is amended to read as follows:
[``Sec. 6. Special district judge
[``The chief judge of the judicial circuit of the United
States in which the district court lies may designate and
assign a special district judge to act when necessary--
[``(1) during the absence of the district judge;
[``(2) during the disability or disqualification of
the district judge because of sickness or otherwise to
discharge his duties; or
[``(3) when there is a vacancy in the office of
district judge.''.
[(b) Each designation and assignment by the chief judge under
section 6 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code, as amended by
subsection (a) of this section, shall be made in accordance
with chapter 13 of title 28, United States Code, which shall be
deemed to apply for such purposes.]
[magistrates' courts
[Sec. 2206. (a) The two magistrates' courts established
pursuant to section 81 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code and
existing immediately before the date on which the Panama Canal
Treaty of 1977 enters into force shall continue in operation
during the transition period unless terminated during such
period under subsection (b) of this section.
[(b) During the transition period, the President may
terminate one magistrate's court, together with the positions
of magistrate and constable corresponding thereto, if the
President determines that the workload is insufficient to
warrant continuance of that court. If one of the magistrates'
courts is so terminated, the remaining magistrate's courts
shall exercise the jurisdiction that otherwise would have been
exercised by the terminated court and shall take custody of and
administer all records of the terminated court.
[Chapter 3--Attorneys
[oath of attorneys
[Sec. 2301. (a) Section 543 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code
is amended to read as follows:
[``Sec. 543. Oath of attorneys admitted to bar
[``Before receiving a certificate the applicant shall take
and subscribe in court an appropriate oath prescribed by the
district judge.''.
[(b) The table of section for chapter 17 of title 3 of the
Canal Zone Code is amended by amending the item relating to
section 543 to read as follows:
[``543. Oath of attorneys admitted to bar.''.
[Chapter 4--Transition Authority
[transition authority of president
[Sec. 2401. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in
this or any other Act, or in the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
and related agreements, any authority necessary for the
exercise during the transition period of the rights and
responsibilities of the United States specified in Article XI
of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 shall be vested in the
President.
[prisons; parole; pardons
[Sec. 2402. (a) Subsection (c) of section 6503 of title 6 of
the Canal Zone Code is amended to read as follows:
[``(c) Pursuant to the provisions of section 5003 of title
18, United States Code, the Governor may contract with the
Attorney General of the United States for the transfer to the
custody of the Attorney General of prisoners sentenced by the
United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone
to terms of imprisonment in excess of one year.''.
[(b) After entry into force of the Panama Canal Treaty of
1977--
[(1) all prisoners imprisoned in United States
prisons pursuant to contracts entered into pursuant to
subsection (c) of section 6503 of title 6 of the Canal
Zone Code, as amended by subsection (a) of this
section, shall be committed to the custody of the
Attorney General as if committed in accordance with
part III of title 18, United States Code;
[(2) all persons convicted of offenses in the United
States District Court for the District of the Canal
Zone, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment of one
year or less, shall be committed to the custody of the
Commission; and
[(3) the Commission shall prescribe, and from time to
time may amend, regulations providing for the
management of prisoners in the jails located in the
areas and installations made available for the use of
the United States pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty
of 1977 and related agreements, including provisions
for treatment, care, assignment for work, discipline,
and welfare.
[(c) After the entry into force of the Panama Canal Treaty of
1977, all persons convicted of offenses in the United States
District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, and
sentenced to terms of imprisonment in excess of one year, shall
be committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to
parts III and IV of title 18, United States Code.
[(d)(1) Sections 6501 through 6505 of title 6 of the Canal
Zone Code are repealed.
[(2) The table of sections for chapter 351 of title 6 of the
Canal Zone Code is amended by repealing the items relating to
sections 6501 through 6505.
[(e) Subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall take
effect 90 days after entry into force of the prisoner transfer
agreement referred to in paragraph 11 of Article IX of the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 but in no event later than 90 days
prior to the end of the transition period.
[(f)(1) Chapter 355 of title 6 of the Canal Zone Code is
repealed.
[(2) the table of chapters for part 3 of title 6 of the Canal
Zone Code is amended by repealing the item relating to chapter
355.]
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
[Chapter 1--Cemeteries
[disinterment, transportation, and reinterment of remains
[Sec. 3101. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated for
the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1979, and subsequent
fiscal years, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes and provisions of Reservation (3) to the Resolution of
Ratification of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality
and Operation of the Panama Canal, adopted by the United States
Senate March 16, 1978, such sums to be made available to carry
out such purposes and provisions.
[(b) With regard to remains that are to be reinterred in the
United States, the United States shall not bear the cost of
funeral home services, vaults, plots, or crypts unless
otherwise provided for by law.]
* * * * * * *
Chapter 3--Reports, Amendments; Repeals and Redesignation; Effective
Date
* * * * * * *
[amendments
[Sec. 3302. (a) Section 1 of title II of the Act of June 15,
1917 (50 U.S.C. 19 1), is amended--
[(1) by striking out the second paragraph; and
[(2) in subsection (b) of the last paragraph, by
striking out ``, the Canal Zone,''.
[(b) Section 1 of title XIII of the Act of June 15, 1917 (50
U.S.C. 195), is amended by striking out ``the Canal Zone and''.
[(c) The first section of the Act of August 9, 1954 (50
U.S.C. 196), is amended by striking out ``, including the Canal
Zone,''.
[(d) The Department of State, Justice, and Commerce, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1974 (87
Stat. 636 et seq.) is amended by striking out the heading
``PAYMENT TO THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA'' and all that follows that
relates to the heading.
[(e) Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
[(1) in sections 305(a)(7), 5102(a)(1)(vii),
5342(a)(1)(G), 5348(b), and 5541(2)(xii), by striking
out ``Panama Canal Company'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``Panama Canal Commission'';
[(2) in sections 5504(a)(A) and 6301(2)(iv), by
striking out ``Canal Zone Government or the Panama
Canal Company'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Panama
Canal Commission'';
[(3) in section 8335(e), by striking out ``Panama
Canal Company or the Canal Zone Government'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``Panama Canal Commission'';
[(4) in section 5373(l), by striking out ``section
121 of title 2, Canal Zone Code (76A Stat. 15)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``section 1202 of the Panama
Canal Act of 1979'';
[(5) in section 6323(c)(2)(B), by striking out ``the
Canal Zone,'';
[(6) in section 5102(c), by amending paragraph (12)
to read as follows:
[``(12) any Executive agency to the extent of any
election under section 1212(b)(2) (relating to the
Panama Canal Employment System) of the Panama Canal Act
of 1979;''
[(7) in section 5583(b), by--
[(A) adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(1);
[(B) striking out paragraph (2); and
[(C) redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph
(2);
[(8) in section 5533(d)(7), by--
[(A) striking out the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (E) and inserting in lieu thereof
``; or'';
[(B) striking out ``; or'' at the end of
subparagraph (F) and inserting in lieu a
period; and
[(C) striking out subparagraph (G);
[(9) in section 8146--
[(A) by striking out ``Canal Zone'' in the
catchline and inserting in lieu thereof
``Panama Canal Commission'';
[(B) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out
``Canal Zone Government and of the Panama Canal
Company are concerned to the Governor of the
Canal Zone'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Panama Canal Commission are concerned to the
Commission'';
[(C) in the first sentence of subsection (b),
by striking out ``Canal Zone Government'' and
inserting ``Panama Cana Commission'' in lieu
thereof;
[(D) in the first sentence of subsection (b),
by striking out'' or from funds of the Panama
Canal Company'';
[(E) in the second sentence of subsection
(b), by striking out ``Governor of the Canal
Zone'' and inserting ``Panama Canal
Commission'' in lieu thereof and by striking
out ``Canal Zone Government'' and inserting
``Panama Canal Commission'' in lieu thereof;
[(F) by amending subsection (c) to read as
follows:
[``(c) The President may authorize the Panama Canal
Commission to waive, at its discretion, the making of the claim
required by section 8121 of this title in the case of
compensation to an employee of the Panama Canal Commission for
temporary disability, either total or partial.''; and
[(G) in subsection (e), by striking out
``Canal Zone Government and of the Panama Canal
Company'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Panama Canal Commission'';
[(10) in section 5343(a)(5), by striking out ``Canal
Zone'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``areas and
installations in the Republic of Panama made available
to the United States pursuant to the Panama Canal
Treaty of 1977 and related agreements (as described in
section 3(a) of the Panama Canal Act of 1979).'';
[(11) in section 5316(87), by striking out ``Governor
of the Canal Zone'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission''; and
[(12) in the table of sections for chapter 81, by
striking out ``Canal zone'' in the item relating to
section 8146 and inserting in lieu thereof ``Panama
Canal Commission''.]
exemption
Sec. 3302. The Commission is exempt from the provisions of
subchapter II of chapter 6 of title 15, United States Code.
repeals and redesignation
Sec. 3303. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The Panama Canal Code is repealed effective on the date
of the enactment of the Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996.
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JAMES V. HANSEN, GLEN BROWDER, TILLIE K. FOWLER,
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, WALTER B. JONES, JR.,
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, J.C. WATTS, JR., JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, NEIL ABERCROMBIE,
ROBERT K. DORNAN, LANE EVANS, AND JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR.
We note that the committee, by a bipartisan vote of 34 to
13, overwhelmingly defeated repeal of 10 U.S.C., Section 2466
during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997. This vote to retain the current 60/40
rule for depot maintenance represents a commitment to
preserving our organic depot structure and a repudiation of the
Department of Defense depot privatization plan.
It is important to understand the context in which this
vote occurred. After significant debate, the Congress in 1995
passed section 311 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
1996 in an effort to provide the Department of Defense with
expanded flexibility to manage its depot maintenance and repair
requirements, while at the same time assuring the viability of
an organic logistics capability necessary to ensure troop
readiness and national security. This provision required the
Department to develop a responsible, comprehensive depot
maintenance policy and report to the Congress on its findings.
We are disappointed that the series of reports provided by
the Secretary of Defense pursuant to Section 311 of P.L. 104-
106 failed to address many of the primary requirements of the
statute. Specifically, we find the Department Policy Regarding
Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair seriously
deficient and non-responsive in a number of areas including:
providing for performance of core depot level maintenance and
repair capabilities in facilities owned and operated by the
United States; providing for core capabilities necessary to
meeting the requirements of the National Military Strategy;
providing for sufficient organic workload to ensure cost-
efficiency and technical proficiency in time of peace;
providing for competition for above core workloads between
public and private entities to achieve cost savings; adequately
addressing issues concerning exchange of technical data between
the Federal Government and the private sector; developing a
methodology that ensures that appropriate costs to the
government and the private sector are identified; and providing
for the performance of maintenance and repair for any new
weapons systems defined as core in facilities owned and
operated by the United States, and other considerations.
Furthermore, we are gravely concerned about the failure of
the Department to provide specific information required by the
statute to enable the Congress to properly exercise its
oversight responsibility for defense policy. In particular, we
found the Department to be remiss in its report on Depot-Level
Maintenance and Repair Workload, which failed to provide
mandated data on workload as measured by direct labor hours. We
are particularly troubled by the Department's presentation of
workload data which appeared to skew the comparison of previous
workload distribution and future workload distribution through
manipulation of data concerning contractor logistic support and
interim contractor support for depot maintenance.
Additionally, we regret that the Department failed to
provide the Congress with the required information regarding
the detailed methodology used to determine core requirements
and the specific weapons systems and equipment which support
JCS mobilization, contingency and emergency scenarios under the
National Military Strategy. We view with skepticism the
Administration ``refinement'' of the process used by the
Military Services in determining core capability requirements
and the workloads necessary to sustain these capabilities. We
are especially concerned about the Department's predilection
toward private sector accomplishment of core depot level
maintenance without the development of an analytically based
risk assessment process. We view core depot level workload as
synonymous with organic workload. Core workload should be
accomplished by government employees in facilities owned and
operated by the United States with only limited exceptions. We
believe that the defeat of the amendment to repeal 10 U.S.C.,
Section 2466 validates this view.
While we support privatization of functions that are not
inherently governmental in nature, including some depot
maintenance of above core systems, we do not support the
wholesale privatization of those functions necessary to ensure
readiness and defend the United States and our allies during
periods of armed conflict. Depot maintenance by its very nature
is inherently governmental when conducted on mission essential
weapons systems used in combat, combat support, combat service
support, and combat readiness training.
The Administration policy, by contrast, appears to have
been developed without proper consideration of future readiness
implications, and seems directly aimed at circumventing both
Congressional intent and current public law, specifically P.L.
101-480 (BRAC) and 10 U.S.C., Sections 2464, 2466, 2469, and
2472. By pursuing the Privatization in Place of facilities
closed by the 1995 Base Closure Commission, the Administration
has failed to eliminate excess capacity or achieve savings
through consolidation of workloads and efficient use of
remaining facilities. Moreover, it appears that the Department
is routinely in direct violation of the law requiring
competitive procedures prior to transfer of any organic
workload valued at more than $3 million to the private sector.
We are particularly concerned about the flagrant disregard of
this statute by the Administration in planning its
Privatization in Place initiative. By its actions, the
Administration has embarked on a journey that impairs readiness
and could lead to a return of the hollow force of the 1970s.
Congressional support of privatization initiatives is based
on the achievement of cost savings to the government as a
result of a competitive marketplace. The Department of Defense
has assumed cost savings will be achieved by privatization and
outsourcing of depot level maintenance, but has offered no
concrete data to support that assertion. An audit of current
depot level contracting practices reveals that a large
percentage of depot level maintenance is awarded without the
benefit of full and open competition between several qualified
bidders, indicating the lack of a competitive market for most
depot level maintenance activities. In testimony before the
committee, the Department of Defense revealed that more than 50
percent of competitions between the public and private sector
were won by the public sector, indicating that competition
rather than privatization may achieve the greatest degree of
potential savings. Additionally, an Army Audit Agency report
investigating the difference in cost between Department of Army
civilians and private sector contractor employees deployed in
support of Desert Shield/Desert Storm revealed that contractor
employees cost the taxpayer between 50 percent and 117 percent
more per employee. Indeed, a careful analysis of historical
data reveals that organic depot level maintenance may provide
the best value to the American taxpayer in terms of cost,
quality and efficiency.
To preserve our military readiness, the Department should
sustain the organic capability and capacity to maintain and
repair mission-essential equipment associated with combat,
including new weapons systems. Furthermore, the weapon systems
and equipment necessary to meet the requirements of the
National Military Strategy should be maintained and repaired in
organic Department of Defense facilities by government
employees.
To ensure efficient use of organic maintenance and repair
capacity, as well as the best value to the taxpayer, we believe
the Department of Defense must effectively utilize its
logistics facilities. We note that the General Accounting
Office presented testimony indicating that the optimal capacity
utilization rate for an industrial facility such as a military
depot is 85 percent of that facility's capacity.
With regard to current practices, the Department should
discontinue all regulatory and administrative policies and
actions which fail to comply with 10 U.S.C., Section 2469. To
ensure equity and fairness in competitions between the public
and private sector, the Department should aggressively pursue
any necessary adjustments to the Cost Comparability Handbook.
Furthermore, we believe the Department should halt the transfer
of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads from organic
facilities to the private sector until the Department has
officially notified Congress that all depots of the Department
of Defense have been certified as fully eligible to participate
in competitions between the public and private sector entities
under 10 U.S.C., Section 2469. Additionally, while price should
not always be the sole determinant of where depot-level repair
and maintenance work is performed, we find efforts to
manipulate the assignment of workloads and circumvent public
law through the application of biased ``best value'' criteria
unacceptable.
Finally, we register our strong disapproval of the
Department's continuing disregard of 10 U.S.C., Section 2472,
concerning the management of depot-level maintenance and repair
workloads by end-strength. In passing this provision, the
Congress made clear its opposition to the management of depot-
level maintenance and repair by artificial personnel
constraints. Nevertheless, the Department routinely manages
depot-level maintenance and repair by Full Time Equivalent
(FTE) limitations, which we consider to be end-strength
constraints by another name. This practice is not in keeping
with the law and should not be continued.
We admonish the Department that continued disregard for
public law may result in serious Congressional sanctions in the
future, such as sequestration of funds.
James V. Hansen.
Tillie K. Fowler.
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham.
Saxby Chambliss.
John N. Hostettler.
Bob Dornan.
Jim Longley.
Glen Browder.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Walter B. Jones, Jr.
J.C. Watts, Jr.
Neil Abercrombie.
Lane Evans.
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF RONALD V. DELLUMS
I offer dissenting views because I am deeply troubled by
several aspects of the authorization bill and its report, most
especially by its overall focus and direction. I remain
convinced that the authorization top line is significantly
higher than required for the military aspects of our national
security strategy. It may be true that the committee marked to
a top line that it anticipates in the coming fiscal year 1997
budget resolution. Despite this, I believe it had the
opportunity to make prudent reductions in the overall program
authorization, thereby providing guidance to the Committee on
the Budget as to how better to meet deficit reduction goals.
Moreover, I remain convinced that the significant plus-up over
the President's request has caused a lack of focus and a lack
of discipline in our procurement and research and development
accounts, a point to which I will return later.
Despite the collegial and effective working relationship
between the committee's majority leadership and the minority,
there has at times been a troubling partisan appearance to some
of the committee's business and is reflected in the committee
report as well. Most troubling has been an unwillingness to
hear from administration witnesses on important policy issues
before the committee. It is certainly true that outside experts
provide important insight into the policy choices and strategic
circumstances we confront, but we owe ourselves the
responsibility to hear also from government experts and
responsible officials. What is especially troubling is that we
have failed to request the traditional intelligence threat
briefing which has provided a cogent perspective on the
strategic requirements that we face. Given our rapidly changing
world, this annual review is even more important now than it
was during the period of the Cold War.
A small but important additional example of this problem is
the committee's determination to plumb the conclusions reached
by the Intelligence Community in a National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) on the ballistic missile threat to the United
States. Whether or not there is a legitimate concern about the
development of the NIE and whatever questions one has regarding
the validity of its conclusions, it is unconscionable that we
have failed to have the Intelligence Community before the
committee to testify on the NIE's contents and its methodology.
I have requested such a committee hearing on several occasions,
and am disappointed that this has not occurred. While I am
willing to support the provisions contained in the committee
report asking the Director of Central Intelligence to review
both the matter of the NIE and to develop an updated and
expanded assessment, and while I accept the majority's interest
in having an alternative analysis rendered, it concerns me that
we have gotten to this point without a full committee
deliberation on the substance and development of the IN.
While the fiscal year 1997 authorization bill reported by
the committee does not itself contain highly contentious
provisions on the command and control of U.S. armed forces
participating in peacekeeping operations, the issue arises in a
free-standing piece of legislation marked-up the same day by
the committee and reported as H.R. 3308 just three months after
the Congress sustained the President's veto of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 on this issue,
among other reasons.
The same point can be made for the committee's decision to
report out H.R. 3144, a national missile defense program
guideline clearly calculated to breach the ABM Treaty and
return the United States to pursuit of a ``star wars'' missile
defense program. A less extreme formulation for national
missile defense program activity was met with a Presidential
veto on last year's defense authorization bill. As with the
command and control issue, it strikes this gentleman that there
is little legislative reason to have decided to push forward an
even more extreme ballistic missile defense program, given that
it is surely destined to meet a Presidential veto as well. Our
committee must achieve its policy goals through legislation,
and obviously that activity must be bound by the constraints of
our Constitution's separation of powers between the Branches.
Pursuing legislation knowing that it will be vetoed, when
nothing has occurred to change the imaginable outcome seems a
political rather than a legislative course.
But the national ballistic missile defense issue is also
embedded in the committee recommendation and report on H.R.
3230 in important ways. And there is much more commonality
between the administration and the Congress on this issue than
the political rhetoric would suggest. Many of the differences
between the two approaches are rooted in a perception of the
timing of the appearance of a threat to which we would need
such a response. This is essentially a function of risk
management, and how to determine what type of ``insurance
policy'' we wish to purchase against such a future contingency.
What is less focused on but should be very central to the
debate, is the cost and character of the alternative
``insurance policies'' that are available to the Nation. And
this is where the parties diverge.
The administration's current national ballistic missile
defense plan can provide for an affordable defense against
limited ballistic missile threats before those threats will
emerge. It does so in a way that anticipates likely changes in
the threat from today's estimates. It also does so in a way
that avoids becoming trapped in a technological cul-de-sac by a
premature deployment of a potentially misdirected system.
The committee recommendation and its report would unfocus
U.S. efforts by pursuing space-based interceptors without
regard to ABM Treaty requirements, START treaty considerations
and the threat reduction and strategic stability goals that the
treaties promise.
This course of action commits us as well to an incredibly
expensive and ultimately unaffordable path. Both the
department's 3+3 program and the Spratt substitute to H.R.
3144, provide for a more capable missile defense system when
deployed, and one that is affordable within current budget
projections. It blends arms control and counterproliferation
activities with deterrence and missile intercept capabilities.
It thus pursues the most effective approach to missile defense,
preventing missiles from being deployed at all, while providing
a prudent ``insurance policy'' against limited but as of yet
non-existent threats.
The overreliance by the committee recommendation on a
``hardware'' solution to intercept incoming missiles in the
final minutes of their flight time, risks constructing a very
expensive 21st Century Maginot Line. Such a defense strategy
may well prove as ineffective to the 21st Century threats we
might face, as the original Maginot Line was in defending
France during World War II.
Returning now to refocus on the issue of the size of the
top line and its impact on our procurement choices, I am
reminded of echoes from last year's debate on the fiscal year
1996 authorization bill.
During that debate, we heard a hue and cry that there
existed a readiness crisis in the services. Foregone training
and maintenance, as well as ``optempo'' stress were all
allegedly impacting adversely on the U.S. armed force's ability
to perform its principal missions. This hue and cry was raised
despite assurances by the top military leadership that the
force was receiving historically high levels of operational
funding and was as ready a force as we had ever had. Facts have
borne out their more sober assessment and, indeed, one can say
that the relatively modest increased investment that the fiscal
year 1996 defense authorization conference in the end committed
to the readiness accounts confirmed the view that a ``crisis''
did not really exist. The small increase in the readiness
account proposed in the fiscal year 1997 authorization bill
lends additional credence to this assessment.
This year's hue and cry is that there is a
``modernization'' crisis, with much displaying of data to
support the view that low levels of procurement spending must
equate with an insufficient modernization strategy. What is so
remarkably similar about this debate with last year's debate on
readiness are three things:
First, the services generally agree that they could all
``use'' more money for procurement this year, but that they
could meet their requirements with what had been budgeted as
long as long-term trends supported their needs. This sounds
very much like ``we're missing some training'' but ``we're as
ready as we've ever been.''
Second, the leadership of the Department of Defense has
offered a cogent and calm viewpoint that the drawdown of the
force structure from its Cold War levels allowed them one more
year's grace before they needed to begin to replace equipment
that had been procured in large numbers during the 1980s for a
much larger force. In other words, they had a plan, it was
being managed, and they could perform their mission. And they
could more appropriately use defense resources in other
accounts and reserve for the future year's defense plan a
significant increase in procurement dollars.
Third, while the committee invited the service chiefs to
submit their ``wish list'' for additional procurement items, it
has not followed the Secretary of Defense's plea to limit
procurement additions to those items needed by the services. By
my calculation approximately half of the procurement plus-up
does not meet that qualification.
Not satisfied with this explanation the committee
recommendation would spend an additional $7.5 billion on
procurement, and as I noted above much of that on requirements
not established by the service chiefs. I believe that this
unsolicited largess is imprudent and will have significant
adverse impact on our ability to meet real future requirements.
It will provoke budget and program disruptions in the near term
and it will preempt important opportunities into the future.
In many cases it would appear that these adds were made
with little consideration to the ability to sustain the program
in the next year. The disruptive business and human
implications of creating program instabilities by ``spiking''
procurement for one or two years could haunt the military
industrial base for years to come. This is a costly and
ineffective way to approach long-term modernization
requirements. In addition, it would also appear that program
risks, indeed even assessing the department's ability to even
execute a program, may not have been given adequate
consideration in determining authorization levels.
Equally important and worse, the committee recommendation
throws much of this money into systems that were designed ``to
fight the last war.'' This is a common failing that is so
easily avoidable. In addition, the procurement ``theme'' to
solve the ``crisis'' appears to be only to buy more, and often
not more of what the service chiefs requested. This binge in
procurement both purchases needlessly redundant weapons
capabilities and does so in excessive amounts. With regard to
the former, we will end making purchases of too many different
systems, rather than making choices and sticking with the best
choice. With regard to the latter, we are spending our
investment capital to buy unneeded equipment for today that
will prevent us from purchasing the right equipment when it
becomes available tomorrow.
Rather than buying more hardware now, we should invest in
the technologies of the future, both the direct military
technologies, including innovative non-lethal weapons
technology more appropriate to operations other than war, and
into those dual-use technologies that will give our economy a
leg up as we move into the next century. Our failure to plan
and invest wisely for the future because of hyperbolic claims
about a modernization ``crisis'' will harm our national
security in both the short and long term.
Much more could be said about this particular problem. Let
me summarize my views in this area by saying that this
extravagant level of spending is neither needed for our current
military requirements nor prudent for meeting the needs of the
future. In addition, it contributes to a defense authorization
top line that needlessly consumes resources from the two other
elements of our national security triad: our economy and our
foreign policy program that can dampen the circumstances that
give rise to war. And, unlike money put into the operations and
maintenance accounts, it is not easily or efficaciously
diverted to other priorities when hindsight establishes that
the perceived requirement in fact does not exist.
There are other issues and problems in this report other
than with its dollar level and the procurement choices. They
deserve illumination as well.
Foremost among them are the several issues that erupted in
the personnel title of the bill and report. While I do not
support the current ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy on gays
and lesbians serving in the military, I more strongly reject
the committee's view that we should return to an era in which
capable and willing gay men and lesbians were denied the
opportunity to serve their nation in uniform. I support a
policy that would allow individuals to serve regardless of
sexual orientation. Clearly ``don't ask, don't tell'' has not
provided the protections to such individuals that its crafters
felt it would; but a return to an era of repression and
intolerance is not the solution.
By way of explanation of the necessity for the change in
policy under section 566 of this legislation, the committee
elsewhere in this report cites at length the decision in the
case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit in the case of Paul G. Thomasson, Lieutenant, United
Sates Navy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. Perry, Secretary
of Defense; John H. Dalton Secretary of the Navy, Defendants-
Applies.
It is useful to note that this case is but one of several
that are expected to be heard before the United States Supreme
Court later this year on the issue of the Administration's
``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. No fewer than eight other
cases on the policy are presently before the federal courts. In
the last year, judges in two of those cases reached the
opposite view of the judges in the Thomasson case, yet the
committee does not make reference to those decisions.
The committee has not held a single hearing on the issue of
gays and lesbians in the military in either the first or second
session of the 104th Congress--the period during which the
current policy has been implemented. Though the committee
obviously feels that it is of utmost importance to change the
current policy, it did not choose to expend any time or effort
to get the views of witnesses from the military, the
administration or the public on the issue. Instead, it relies
on the decision on one court case to base a major change to
military policy. -
If the committee is to make an informed and thoughtful
decision on this matter, it should make the effort to shed
light on the competing views and experiences that represent all
sides on this complex and important issue through the committee
hearing process. The committee avoids the subject by relying
instead on the judicial branch for justification and to explain
Congressional intent. By including legislative provisions in
the subcommittee chairman's mark without any discussion of the
matter, the committee demonstrates a lack of faith in the
hearing process, betrays a lack of confidence that its
provision would prevail under scrutiny, and abuses the
prerogatives of the majority.
Similarly the committee's recommendation to discharge
personnel who test positive for the HIV-1 virus is medically
and militarily unnecessary and flies in the face of the
Congress's very recent determination to rescind such a policy
even before it went into effect. Of even greater concern than
having established a policy for which there is no military
requirement, the committee's recommendation pretends that it
has protected the medical disability rights of personnel who
will face discharge under its provisions. This is a
disingenuous formulation given that the committee was fully
apprised that in order to provide such protection it would have
to do so in legislative language, which it refused to do
because of the direct spending implications that would have
forced funding cuts in other accounts. Our service personnel
who have served this nation with honor, distinction and
professionalism need better from their government than this.
In language on section 567, elsewhere in this report, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ``deem separating
service members determined to be HIV-positive as meeting all
other requirements for disability retirement * * *.''
While giving the appearance of providing for medical
retirement, the fact is that such language had to be stripped
from the bill by amendment in the full committee markup because
of direct spending implications. The Congressional Budget
Office has scored this provision as costing $27 million over
the next five years, and it could not be enacted without
identifying an offset to pay for it. The committee could not
accomplish this and, instead, decided to foist the problem off
on the Department of Defense as an unfunded mandate, and then
take credit for supposedly providing the medical retirement
benefit.
Worse yet, it turns out that the Secretary of Defense may
not have the statutory authority to fund such a mandate ``out
of hide'' in any case. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 and 1204 direct DoD
to use the Department of Veterans Affairs rating schedule.
While the tables currently indicate that a servicemember who is
symptomatic of AIDS is eligible for medical retirement, it
rates a servicemember who has asymptomatic HIV with a zero
percent disability rating. Consequently, they would not be
entitled to disability retired pay.
Under these circumstances, and since the law which would be
reinstated by this section was repealed, the member who is
discharged under section 567 would have no medical or
retirement benefits at all, nor would the members of his or her
family. He or she would be promptly discharged within two
months of testing positive for HIV-1 virus. It would be the
height of irresponsibility to enact such a provision without
first clearing up these discrepancies.
The committee's refusal to return the right to secure safe
abortion services to servicewomen serving overseas is an
additional reason why I could not support the bill being
reported. Of equal concern to our servicewomen should be the
committee's apparent view of the role of women in combat-
related specialties and the important equal-opportunity
problems that its position raises.
On another social issue, the committee has trampled on the
Constitution's First Amendment protections by embracing overly
broad and vague language in an effort to suppress pornographic
literature and other media. Despite the obviously degrading and
sexist imagery of such media, those who would publish, sell or
purchase them enjoy the protection of the Constitution. Surely
better ways exist to overcome these problems than by
legislating overly broad and unconstitutional attacks on the
problem.
The committee's decision to weigh in on these cultural
battles in this manner will, I believe, be to the ultimate
detriment of the morale and welfare of our service personnel.
We are a diverse society, with varying views on these issues.
As such, we should decline as a legislature to impose a narrow
view that fails to account fully for the human dignity of all
in our society. Civility, morality and the Constitution all
argue for such restraint. Failure to yield to the natural
progression of expanded civil and human rights will only result
in further turmoil, which will be adverse to the national
security interests of our nation.
In this regard, let me note my appreciation for the
committee's action to confront in a purposeful and reasonable
manner the problem of hate crime in the military. Obviously, we
are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, a
society with varying religious traditions. With a Constitution
committed to the equality of each person, we seek to vindicate
the promise of that equality. The provision in the committee
recommendation helps to build upon the military's successes in
moving toward making that principal a reality, and should help
to overcome the shortcomings where they have occurred.
The committee's treatment of international, peacekeeping
and arms control issues displays a continuing resistance to
realign our requirements and resources to the realities
emerging in this new strategic era. It has become apparent that
operations other than war, such as our participation in the
peacekeeping effort in Bosnia-Herzegovina, will become more and
more common. Yet the image of the U.S. servicemember as
peacekeeper is new and it does not yet fit comfortably in the
view of the committee. As a result, the committee attempts to
micromanage the services, and the Commander in Chief, as I
noted above, as they seek to implement these efforts at which
we are relatively new participants. The report language
requiring probing insight into military plans to withdraw from
what is thus far a highly successful effort in Bosnia, for
example, is both insulting to our service leadership and
potentially dangerous in what it could reveal about our
planning process.
The committee and the Congress surely have an oversight
responsibility; but it is equally clear that we do not have
management responsibility, and the Framer's of our Constitution
clearly viewed it that way. I would have hoped that we could
have demonstrated more confidence in our service leaderships
and their ability to develop and implement an appropriate plan
for the withdrawal of the U.S. forces in Bosnia. Similarly, the
committee's recommendations concerning humanitarian demining
and amending the prospective land-mine use moratorium are
disturbing and will unduly constrain our theater CINCS in
pursuing demining programs that are an essential part of their
overall strategy in their area of responsibility.
On another positive note, let me support the determination
reached in this bill that the environmental management and
restoration programs operated by the Department of Defense and
the Department of Energy are important and integral parts of
our military requirements. I am pleased that we have not had
the same struggle over both funding levels and authority that I
believe plagued last year's effort and I look forward to
continuing to work with the committee to fashion effective
programs for accelerating clean-up, making environmental
management more effective and efficient and for saving money on
these accounts as a result.
I remain concerned though with the funding levels and
program direction of the nuclear weapons program accounts of
Title XXXI. The addition of funds to the requested levels for
stockpile stewardship and management seem unnecessary given the
still pending Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on
Stockpile Stewardship and Management. While I appreciate the
committee's responsiveness in establishing a modest fence
around the stewardship increase, I do not believe that the
committee has taken sufficient time to inquire fully into the
opportunities available for a more fundamental reassessment of
our nuclear weapons policy.
The permanent extension of the Non Proliferation Treaty
concluded last year was achieved in part because of the U.S.
reaffirmation of its adherence to the Treaty's Article VI
requirement to reduce our arsenal towards elimination. Despite
the fact that this is, and remains, the policy of our
government, we are not proceeding outside of our bilateral
discussions with Russia under the START process to pursue
further reductions. I am concerned that such a failure will
lead to lost opportunities that seemed so promising only a year
and a half ago, when President Clinton and Russian President
Yeltsin jointly declared that each nation would consider
pursuing such unilateral initiatives.
Finally, let me note that, despite my disagreements with
the committee report, I applaud the chairman and my colleagues
for their willingness to work cooperatively where possible to
find common ground on the important issues covered in the
recommended bill and its accompanying report. I am concerned
that, despite this collegiality, we may have produced a
committee recommendation that remains vulnerable to a
Presidential veto because of the weight of the many contentious
matters that it contains.
Ronald V. Dellums.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OFFERED BY HON. JOHN SPRATT
Although I support most of this bill, I object to Sections
232, 233, and 234. These sections are superfluous and risk a
veto of this bill.
Section 232 requires the President, within 15 days after
enactment, to certify whether this country could intercept a
ballistic missile launched against U.S. territory. In hearings
held by this committee, Secretary Perry and other senior
Administration officials have discussed this matter and
answered the question for the record. The certification does
not add in any substantive manner to the committee's
understanding of the ballistic missile threat to this country
or the status of this country's defense against such an attack.
Rather, given the timing of the certification, it appears to be
an attempt to make ballistic missile defense a presidential
election campaign issue.
Section 233 reiterates a demarcation standard between
theater and strategic missile defense systems in the ABM
Treaty. This demarcation standard was established last year as
a matter of law with bipartisan support. Deviation from this
standard requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate or a
majority of both the House and Senate. Section 233 goes one
step further and prohibits administration officials from even
discussing potential ABM restrictions on theater missile
defense systems. This prohibition is inconsistent with Article
VI(a) of the ABM Treaty and will surely be perceived as an
intrusion on the prerogatives of the executive branch. Having
settled the demarcation standard only a few months ago, raising
the issue again with the funding prohibition leads me to the
conclusion that this section is designed not to correct any
unresolved demarcation issues but simply to challenge the
Administration.
Section 234 prohibits any new signatory parties to the ABM
Treaty without approval of two-thirds of the Senate. The
Administration should seriously consider the consequences of
multilateralizing the ABM Treaty. But on the other hand,
Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine have demonstrated a high degree
of cooperation in arms control and counter-proliferation
discussions; this section is unnecessarily hostile toward
nations which have made good faith efforts to earn our trust.
In addition, this section will likely be viewed as an
unwarranted intrusion upon executive branch powers and could
draw a veto from the President.
These provisions risk a repeat of last year's veto, but
this year we will not likely have the time for a second
conference. I urge my colleagues to drop these sections at a
point in the legislative process prior to submittal to the
President. Otherwise, we will not only be acting against the
best interests of this committee, but we will not be serving
the best interests of the men and women in uniform--for whom
our efforts should be focused.
John Spratt.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN CHET EDWARDS
I was pleased to support final passage of the fiscal year
1997 Defense Authorization Act. This measure, while not fully
containing the defense objectives I believe our nation should
pursue, does contain many provisions needed to preserve a
strong defense. I am particularly pleased with the efforts to
improve our procurement modernization efforts through an
increase in funding for these accounts. I also applaud our
committee's efforts to enhance our personnel's Quality-of-Life,
which the Administration has made a top priority.
I appreciate the efforts of our chairman for his continued
efforts to maintain fairness and decorum throughout the hearing
process. While the fiscal year 1997 hearing schedule was
compressed, we did have a careful review of some critical areas
which comprise our national security--especially in the area of
national missile defense.
As I stated last year, we need to fully review our future
procurement strategy in a series of hearings to ensure the
proper funding level for programs is designed. I remain
concerned that we may be trying to do too much in the way of
starting new programs, and having a tremendous funding problem
in the out years. I am hopeful these hearings can take place
soon, so that we can properly plan and budget to meet these
critical defense needs.
While the final defense budget figure is far from certain,
I am pleased with the higher level of defense spending
contained in this measure. During the post-cold war era, we
have to define and meet new defense threats and obligations. To
meet these objectives, we must craft a defense budget which
takes into account these new criteria. With a shrinking force
level and an increased number of foreign deployments, we need
to be mindful of the adverse impact this has on our key defense
component, our personnel.
Our most important defense asset, our first-rate personnel,
keep our military second-to-none. I am pleased that our
committee is continuing with the Administration's commitment to
enhanced Quality-of-Life, through improved pay, benefits, and
housing. One key component to enhanced Quality-of-Life is the
continued work of our committee in funding the impact aid
program. Through a true bipartisan effort, our committee once
again added funding to assist school districts adjacent to our
military installations. This funding is critical to ensure a
quality education is provided to the children of our military
personnel. We have a special responsibility to provide the
necessary funding for these children's education, at a time
when their parents are sacrificing so much for our nations
defense. I maintain that impact aid funding is a critical
element in our nation's defense readiness, and removes a
potential distraction from our military personnel. I am hopeful
the full funding level necessary for preserving this program
can be achieved, and I am committed to working with my
colleagues to achieve this goal.
Our procurement accounts were sufficiently increased to
avoid potential problems with modernization efforts. I remain
concerned that we may be heading into a potential problem by
not fully anticipating the future costs of procuring some of
these programs. A review of the military utility, future costs,
and impact on our defense industrial base must be considered
sooner rather than later. If a sufficient level of funding for
defense is to be preserved, we must make some critical choices
on many of these programs.
Another area of concern that I have relates to how our
guard and reserve forces are funded. If our guard and reserve
forces are to remain a key component to the Total Force
concept, we need to ensure they review the necessary funding to
meet their needs. The respective services need to adequately
budget what each respective component should receive each year,
rather than have the committee compile a package just prior to
the committee markup. While this process has been used
adequately for some time, we need to move to a more
deliberative process which allows for the necessary oversight
and evaluation as to the needs of the respective components. I
am committed to working with my colleagues in pursuit of this
effort for the next fiscal year. In this way, we will know at
the beginning of the budget process, rather than at the end,
what the specific needs of the guard and reserve components are
for the fiscal year.
I remain concerned in the area of missile defense,
especially with the decision to pursue separate legislation
from our defense authorization bill. I believe this decision
will create future political gridlock in the area of missile
defense, much like we saw in the fiscal year 1996 Authorization
bill. I am hopeful this decision can be reversed in short order
so that we can craft a workable compromise in the area of
national missile defense, rather than pursue an effort designed
to score political points in an election year.
The decision to rush headlong into deploying a national
missile defense system, rather then continued development of a
workable system is troubling. I am reminded of the lengthy
budget negotiations for FY 96, which were recently resolved
some six months into the fiscal year. The ability to compromise
and find common ground was unfortunately lost during that
struggle and not realized for many months. In the area of
national missile defense, there has been significant progress
in the area of reaching a general consensus in pursuing
development of a system for eventual deployment. The leadership
of our committee is pursuing a plan to develop within two years
and to deploy a system within two years. The Administration has
put forth a workable plan of developing a system within three
years and then make a decision to deploy such a system within
three years. I support this plan because it will give us
adequate time to develop a technologically feasible system that
will take into account our best available technology. We need
to ensure our funding efforts are adequately channeled into
development of a system which will meet present and future
defense needs, and builds on the consensus a strong majority
supports.
This defense bill requires further refinement to ensure our
present and future defense needs will be met. I am committed to
working with my colleagues, from the floor to the conference,
to achieve this objective. Despite objections to certain
provisions contained in the bill, I believe the committee
product is a good first-step to achieving a workable compromise
that is agreeable to the Congress and the Administration.
I am pleased to commend the dedication, hard work and
professionalism of the committee staff for all their assistance
in drafting this important measure. I look forward to their
continuing efforts as we make further refinements to the
committee's work in the days and weeks ahead.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in
finalizing a fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization bill in a
timely manner, which meets our national security needs.
Chet Edwards.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JANE HARMAN, ROSA L. DeLAURO, RONALD V. DELLUMS,
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, LANE EVANS, NEIL ABERCROMBIE, MARTIN T. MEEHAN, AND
PATRICK J. KENNEDY ON THE BAN OF ABORTIONS IN U.S. OVERSEAS MILITARY
HOSPITALS, PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE IMMEDIATE SEPARATION OF HIV-
POSITIVE PERSONNEL, AND RESTORATION OF THE PRE-1993 POLICY ON GAYS AND
LESBIANS IN THE MILITARY
We are disappointed that divisive social issues are, once
again, at the core of debate over the Defense Department's FY97
Authorization Bill.
Abortions in Military Hospitals Overseas
Attempts to repeal the policy that bans all privately-
funded abortions performed in military hospitals overseas
failed in both the Personnel Subcommittee and again in full
Committee. If successful, we would have reinstated a policy
under which women would be permitted to use their own funds to
obtain abortion services, where no federal funds would be used,
and where health care professionals who were opposed to
performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral
principle would not be required to do so.
This issue is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and
military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special
treatment, only the right to receive the same services
guaranteed to American women under Roe v. Wade--at their own
expense--that are available in this country.
Prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain
abortions services at overseas military facilities endangers
their health. Women could be forced to seek illegal and unsafe
procedures, or be forced to delay the procedure for several
weeks until they can return to the states. The question for our
House colleagues is whether they can justify limiting
constitutionally-protected rights and providing lower quality
health care simply because these servicewomen have duty
assignments overseas. It is our view that we should not.
Separation of HIV-Positive Personnel
The bill reported by the committee again includes a
provision requiring HIV-positive personnel to be immediately
separated from the military services. This provision is
punitive, discriminatory and a terrible waste of human talent
and taxpayer investment in personnel training. Only two weeks
ago, by a vote of 399 to 25, Congress repealed last year's
provision requiring the discharge of HIV-infected service
personnel.
Under current Pentagon regulations, so long as HIV-infected
individuals are deemed fit for duty by the Service itself, they
may continue in the Service. If the Service determines that
they are unfit, they are discharged. The Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs has said that there is no evidence that current policy
has resulted in lower military readiness or the retention of
unqualified individuals. Indeed, the Department and Services
oppose Congress making a blanket categorization stating that an
otherwise healthy individual is unfit for duty because of this
disease.
The discharge provision included in this bill is worse than
that just repudiated by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of
the House and Senate.
While proponents of the provision describe their language
as kinder and gentler, the fact that they had to change bill
language to directive report language is an admission that they
failed.
For example, there is considerable doubt that the Secretary
of Defense has the legal authority to comply with the report's
directive that individuals discharged for HIV be awarded a 30%
disability rating.
And, in another twist from last year's provision, by
deferring mandatory separation for service members within 5
years of retirement eligibility, the Committee highlights the
double standards with which it treats so-called bad conduct,
which proponents claim is the way individuals contract HIV.
Under the bill, if you're within 5 years of retirement, we'll
look the other way. You get special treatment.
By contrast, if you are more than 5 years from retirement,
too bad. Not only no special treatment for you, but no due
process either. We'll just give you the boot.
Here is a partial list of the individuals and organizations
opposed to efforts to forcibly discharge HIV-infected
servicemen and women:
Secretary of Defense William Perry;
General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff;
The Surgeons General of the Navy, Army and Air Force;
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness;
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs;
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown;
The American Medical Association;
The American Academy of Physicians Assistants;
The American Dental Association;
The American Nurses Association;
The American Occupational Therapy Association;
The American Podiatric Medical Association;
The American Speech-Hearing-Language Association;
The Air Force Association;
The Veterans of Foreign Wars;
The Disabled American Veterans;
The Human Rights Campaign;
National Organizations Responding to AIDS;
Former Senator Barry Goldwater;
Columnist George Will;
Columnist Charles Krauthammer;
162 Members of the House;
and 56 Members of the Senate, including Senators Sam
Nunn, John McCain, Bill Cohen, Ted Kennedy, Alfonse
D'Amato, John Chafee, Slade Gorton, Orrin Hatch, Nancy
Kassebaum, Connie Mack, Alan Simpson, Olympia Snowe,
Robert Bennett, Jim Jeffords, Mark Hatfield, and Arlen
Specter.
Gays in the Military
Lastly, the bill reported by the Committee returns the
nation to the pre-1993 policy regarding gays and lesbians in
the military. In our view, this policy is unconstitutional,
discriminatory and in violation of the equal protection clause
of the 14th Amendment and the rights of free speech under the
1st Amendment.
Just as important, the proposed change is ill-timed,
unnecessary, divisive, and designed only to distract members of
the House from the serious defense and security issues our
nation continues to face. Several cases in the federal
districts are making their way to the Supreme Court. The Court
could rule as early as next year and what they decide may well
be key to a better resolution of this issue. Thus, it would
seem that awaiting a high court ruling clarifying the
constitutional rights involved is a more prudent course.
In our view, it is way past time to recognize that gays and
lesbians have always been part of the military and that they
have performed their duties with diligence, patriotism and
honor. They have risked their lives in order to protect some of
the very rights this legislation is proposing to take away.
We feel the military needs to adopt a policy that fully
integrates these highly trained and talented individuals into
the force, without prejudice, without discrimination, and in
recognition of the personal sacrifices all our servicemen and
women make to this nation and in support of the Constitution.
We regret the Committee's action endorsing these three
divisive, unfair and punitive policies.
Jane Harman.
Ronald V. Dellums.
Lane Evans.
Martin T. Meehan.
Rosa L. DeLauro.
Patricia Schroeder.
Neil Abercrombie.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF PATRICIA SCHROEDER
During my career in the House, I have worked on twenty-four
Defense Authorization bills. This year, the National Security
Committee has strayed farther from its central mission than
ever before. I have never seen so much attention paid to
divisive social issues with so little discussion of our defense
priorities. I have never seen so much money added to the
Administration's request with so little Congressional oversight
and scrutiny.
The House National Security Committee appears to have
forgotten its primary function--to oversee the military. Of the
twelve hours the committee spent in mark-up, approximately
eight hours were spent on social issues. Perhaps we should
rename the committee, the House Committee on Morals in the
Military. This means that the committee spent four hours on
half of the discretionary budget of our country.
We debated and included the same social issues I objected
to last year. We added more deeply divisive social issues
without addressing the implications of a $13 billion addition
to the Pentagon's request. I am disappointed that the committee
has spent more time discussing pornography, discharging HIV
positive personnel, abortions at military hospitals, and gays
in the military than was spent on all the weapons systems and
military programs included in the bill.
We spent an hour drafting legislation to implement a study
of women in combat roles. The subcommittee should have worked
this out, to avoid wasting our time and increasing the number
of redundant studies in the military. The committee has already
authorized so many studies of women, we may as well write a
high-school lab manual on the subject.
While the rest of Congress focuses on balancing the budget
and reducing the deficit, the committee has ignored these
objectives. We made the Pentagon our sacred cow, never to be
questioned or scrutinized. The public deserves better oversight
from Congress. We should ensure wise and effective government
spending. Moreover, the committee ignored glaring problems in
Pentagon accounting systems, inventory overstock, and
contractor overpayment. They threw $13 billion in unrequested
funds to an organization that in the past could not account for
$14.7 billion of its FY94 budget.
The committee has abandoned its full funding principle that
would have increased congressional oversight by putting the
entire funding for a program in one fiscal year. We departed
from this sound principle last year by partially funding
National Missile Defense (NMD) and the B-2. This year, we did
so again with long lead-funding for another aircraft carrier
and NMD. These programs have potential budgetary commitments of
more than $30 billion dollars.
Finally, I am also disappointed that the committee has co-
opted the military to support this increase. While the
committee has touted the $13 billion increase as accelerations
of the Department's priorities, this is not the case. Fifty
percent of the additional money is nowhere to be found in the
Department of Defense's Future Year Development Plan (FYDP).
Pat Schroeder.