----------------------------------------------------------------------- 105th Congress Report 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105-532 _______________________________________________________________________ NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 __________ R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 3616 together with ADDITIONAL, DISSENTING, AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> May 12, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed ----------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 48-245 WASHINGTON : 1998 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY One Hundred Fifth Congress FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman BOB STUMP, Arizona IKE SKELTON, Missouri DUNCAN HUNTER, California NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia Carolina JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania OWEN PICKETT, Virginia JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado LANE EVANS, Illinois JIM SAXTON, New Jersey GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi STEVE BUYER, Indiana NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam JAMES TALENT, Missouri JANE HARMAN, California TERRY EVERETT, Alabama PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois RON LEWIS, Kentucky SILVESTRE REYES, Texas J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma TOM ALLEN, Maine MAC THORNBERRY, Texas VIC SNYDER, Arkansas JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana JIM TURNER, Texas SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia F. ALLEN BOYD, Jr., Florida VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee ADAM SMITH, Washington JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut Carolina MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas JIM RYUN, Kansas CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey (VACANCY) BOB RILEY, Alabama JIM GIBBONS, Nevada BILL REDMOND, New Mexico KAY GRANGER, Texas Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 1 Purpose.......................................................... 2 Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 2 Summary of Authorization in the Bill............................. 2 Summary Table of Authorizations................................ 3 Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 9 The Strains of Shaping......................................... 10 Preparing for an Uncertain Future.............................. 11 Responding to a Crisis......................................... 13 Managing Risk.................................................. 15 Hearings......................................................... 17 DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION.................. 19 TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 19 OVERVIEW....................................................... 19 Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 22 Overview................................................... 22 Items of Special Interest.................................. 25 Airborne avionics........................................ 25 Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)........................ 25 Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)................... 25 Army airborne command and control system (A2C2S)......... 26 Army helicopter modernization plan....................... 26 C-12 modifications....................................... 27 CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications..................... 27 Endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).................. 27 Kiowa warrior modifications.............................. 28 UH-60L blackhawk......................................... 28 Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 28 Overview................................................... 28 Items of Special Interest.................................. 31 Enhanced fiber optic guided missile (EFOGM).............. 31 Javelin.................................................. 31 Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems.... 31 Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 31 Overview................................................... 31 Items of Special Interest.................................. 34 Bradley base sustainment................................. 34 Bradley base sustainment/command and control vehicle (C2V).................................................. 34 M1 abrams tank modification.............................. 34 M-240 series machine gun................................. 35 M4 carbine............................................... 35 Ammunition Procurement, Army................................. 35 Overview................................................... 35 Items of Special Interest.................................. 39 Ammunition............................................... 39 Arsenals................................................. 39 Non-toxic frangible ammunition........................... 39 Other Procurement, Army...................................... 40 Overview................................................... 40 Items of Special Interest.................................. 48 Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)............... 48 Close combat tactical trainer (CCTT)..................... 48 Co-site interference mitigation technology............... 48 Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)................ 48 Forward entry device (FED)............................... 49 Ground based common sensor (GBCS)........................ 49 High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)/HMMWV extended service plan (ESP)............................ 49 Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint STARS) common ground station (CGS)..................... 50 Joint tactical terminal.................................. 50 Land warrior............................................. 50 Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME).................. 51 Night vision devices..................................... 51 Nonsystem training devices............................... 51 Shortstop................................................ 52 Small pusher tug......................................... 52 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.............. 52 Overview................................................... 52 Item of Special Interest................................... 54 Chemical agents and munitions destruction................ 54 Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 54 Overview................................................... 54 Items of Special Interest.................................. 58 AV-8B.................................................... 58 AH-1W night targeting system (NTS)....................... 58 EA-6B modifications...................................... 58 EP-3E flat panel display................................. 59 ES-3 modifications....................................... 59 F-14 modifications....................................... 59 F/A-18E/F................................................ 59 Joint primary air training system (JPATS)................ 60 Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)................................................ 60 T-45TS................................................... 61 V-22..................................................... 61 Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 61 Overview................................................... 61 Items of Special Interest.................................. 66 Close-in weapon system (CIWS) surface mode upgrade....... 66 Standard missile......................................... 66 Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps.................... 66 Overview................................................... 66 Item of Special Interest................................... 69 Marine corps ammunition.................................. 69 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 69 Overview................................................... 69 Items of Special Interest.................................. 72 Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program (SLEP)......................................... 72 LPD-17................................................... 72 National defense features................................ 72 New attack submarine (NSSN).............................. 73 Strategic sealift........................................ 73 Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 73 Overview................................................... 73 Items of Special Interest.................................. 82 AN/BPS-15(H) submarine navigation radar upgrade.......... 82 AN/SQQ-89 surface anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combat system................................................. 82 AN/USC-42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) ultra-high frequency (UHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) terminals..................................... 82 Beamhit laser marksmanship training system (LMTS)........ 83 Cooperative engagement capability (CEC).................. 83 Weapons range support.................................... 83 WSN-7 ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN-2 doppler sonar velocity log (DSVL).................................... 84 Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 85 Overview................................................... 85 Items of Special Interest.................................. 89 Marine corps electronic warfare support system........... 89 Marine corps tactical intelligence equipment............. 89 Medium tactical vehicle replacement (MTVR)............... 89 Unit cost growth......................................... 90 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 90 Overview................................................... 90 Items of Special Interest.................................. 95 Bomber modernization..................................... 95 C-130J................................................... 95 CV-22.................................................... 95 E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS)................................................ 96 F-15 modifications....................................... 96 F-16..................................................... 97 F-16 modifications....................................... 97 Global hawk.............................................. 97 Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)........... 98 Miscellaneous production charges......................... 98 Navigational safety upgrades............................. 98 Pacer coin............................................... 99 Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................ 99 Overview................................................... 99 Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 102 Overview................................................... 102 Items of Special Interest.................................. 105 AGM-165 maverick modifications........................... 105 Global positioning system................................ 105 Inertial upper stage..................................... 105 Medium launch vehicle.................................... 105 Minuteman gyro stabilized platform....................... 105 Minuteman III modifications.............................. 106 Titan space boosters..................................... 106 Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 106 Overview................................................... 106 Items of Special Interest.................................. 113 Base information infrastructure.......................... 113 Rangeless air combat training system (RACTS)............. 113 Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment....... 113 Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 114 Overview................................................... 114 Items of Special Interest.................................. 119 Automated document conversion system (ADCS).............. 119 Chemical-biological defense equipment for rapid assessment and initial detection teams................. 119 Defense support program office training and exercise..... 119 Flat panel night vision heads-up display system.......... 120 Mentor protege........................................... 120 National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 120 Overview................................................... 120 Items of Special Interest.................................. 123 Air reserve forces....................................... 123 Senior scout............................................. 123 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 124 Overview................................................... 124 Defense Export Loan Guarantees............................... 126 Overview................................................... 126 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 128 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 128 Sections 101-109--Authorization of Appropriations.......... 128 Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Longbow Hellfire Missile Program................................. 128 Section 112--M1A2 System Enhancement Program Step 1 Program 128 Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 128 Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for the Department of the Navy................................... 128 Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 128 Section 141--Funding, Transfer and Management of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program.......... 128 Dialogue on assembled chemical weapons assessment........ 129 TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 130 OVERVIEW....................................................... 130 Department of Defense Basic Research/Science and Technology Program.................................................... 131 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.................... 131 Information Systems Technology, Superiority and Security..... 132 Army RDT&E................................................... 134 Overview................................................... 134 Items Of Special Interest.................................. 142 Aerostat................................................. 142 All source analysis system............................... 142 Army after next combat vehicle initiative................ 142 Advanced combat vehicle and automotive technology........ 142 Digital fire control system.............................. 143 Hardened materials....................................... 143 Industry and academia alternative vehicle propulsion initiative............................................. 143 Innovative engine technology............................. 144 Crusader self-propelled howitzer......................... 144 Aviation advanced technology development................. 144 Comanche................................................. 145 Command, control, communications technology.............. 145 Defense healthcare information assurance program......... 146 Defense information technology test bed.................. 146 Environmental development and management programs........ 146 Environmental quality technology......................... 146 Future direct support weapon system...................... 147 Future missile technology integration program............ 147 Helmet-mounted retinal display technology................ 147 High mobility artillery rocket system.................... 147 Improved fuel pumps and fuel controls.................... 147 Joint service small arms program......................... 148 Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint STARS)................................................. 148 Lighter more lethal weapons.............................. 148 MedTeams................................................. 149 Missile and rocket advanced technology................... 149 Missile defense battle integration center/battle lab..... 149 Plasma energy pyrolysis system........................... 150 Precision guided mortar munitions........................ 150 Starstreak............................................... 150 Stinger missile block two upgrades....................... 150 Stinger universal launcher............................... 151 Strategic environmental research and development program. 151 Tactical high energy laser............................... 151 Tactical exploitation of national capabilities........... 151 Trajectory correctable munitions development............. 152 Ultra lightweight camouflage net system.................. 152 Navy RDT&E................................................... 152 Overview................................................... 152 Items Of Special Interest.................................. 160 ADC(X) auxiliary cargo ship development.................. 160 Advanced amphibious assault vehicle...................... 160 Advanced anti-radiation guided missile................... 160 Arctic oceanographic observation program................. 161 Automatic target tracker................................. 161 Autonomous underwater robotics technology................ 161 Autonomous underwater vehicle and sonar development...... 162 Aviation depot maintenance technology.................... 162 Carbon-carbon materials for reentry bodies............... 162 Common support aircraft.................................. 162 Cooperative engagement capability........................ 163 Cooperative engagement capability frequency spectrum requirements........................................... 163 Cryogenic electronics technology......................... 164 Distributed surveillance system.......................... 164 DD-21 land attack destroyer.............................. 164 DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof of concept demonstration.......................................... 165 Environmentally safe energetic materials................. 165 Escape system dynamic flow test facility................. 166 Hybrid electronically scanned antenna.................... 166 Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system technology............................................. 166 Inter-cooled recuperated gas turbine engine.............. 167 Link 16 improvement program.............................. 167 LPD-17 amphibious assault ship self-defense.............. 168 Man overboard indicator technology....................... 168 Marine Corps ground combat/support system................ 169 Marine mammal research................................... 169 Molecular design materials science....................... 169 Multi-function self aligned gate technology.............. 169 Multipurpose processor................................... 170 Navy land attack missile program......................... 170 Navy theater missile defense............................. 171 NSSN advanced technology insertion....................... 172 Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer.......... 172 Parametric airborne dipping sonar........................ 172 Power electronic building blocks and power node control centers................................................ 173 Project M................................................ 173 Reduction to fiscal year 1999 budget request programs.... 174 Remote minehunting system................................ 174 Shallow water influence minesweeping system.............. 174 Shipboard system component development................... 174 Shortstop electronic protection system................... 175 Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates................. 175 Standoff land attack missile--expanded response (SLAM-ER) 175 Submarine sonar domes.................................... 176 Tactical combat training systems development............. 176 Tactical Tomahawk........................................ 177 Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers................... 178 Undersea warfare advanced technology..................... 178 Vacuum electronics....................................... 178 Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter technology demonstration............................... 179 Vectoring ESTOL control tailless operation research...... 179 Vertical gun for advanced ships.......................... 180 Air Force RDT&E.............................................. 180 Overview................................................... 180 Items Of Special Interest.................................. 189 Advanced low observable coatings......................... 189 Advanced military satellite communications............... 189 Aircrew laser eye protection............................. 189 ALR-69 radar warning receiver............................ 189 Ballistic missile technology............................. 190 Distributed agent information warfare.................... 190 Ejection seats........................................... 190 F-16 squadrons........................................... 191 Flight test safely enhancements.......................... 191 Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology...... 191 Integrated powerhead demonstration....................... 192 Longshot................................................. 192 Low cost launch technology............................... 192 Microsatellite technology................................ 192 Military spaceplane...................................... 193 More electric aircraft program........................... 193 Panoramic night vision goggle............................ 193 Protein-based memory development......................... 193 Rocket system launch program............................. 194 Defense Agencies RDT&E....................................... 194 Overview................................................... 194 Items Of Special Interest.................................. 202 Advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD)......... 202 Advanced synthetic aperture radar system improvement program................................................ 202 Ballistic missile defense................................ 202 Advanced technology development........................ 203 Atmospheric interceptor technology..................... 203 BMD research and development........................... 203 Ballistic missile defense testing...................... 204 Cooperative ballistic missile defense.................. 205 Joint theater missile defense.......................... 205 National missile defense............................... 205 Navy theater wide...................................... 206 Patriot advanced capability............................ 206 Space based laser...................................... 207 Support technology--applied research................... 207 Technical operations................................... 208 Theater high altitude area defense (THAAD)............. 208 Chemical-biological defense program...................... 209 Counterproliferation support............................. 209 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency................ 209 DARPA marine technology program........................ 210 Defense airborne reconnaissance program management....... 210 Defense manufacturing, technology program (MANTECH)...... 211 Demilitarization of non-nuclear military explosives...... 212 Electro-optic framing technologies....................... 212 Endurance unmanned aerial vehicle........................ 212 Facial recognition technology............................ 213 Flat panel displays...................................... 213 Global positioning system guidance package............... 214 Humanitarian demining.................................... 214 International medical programs global satellite system... 214 Joint signals intelligence avionics family............... 215 Live fire testing of vulnerability to asymmetric threats. 215 Medical free electron laser.............................. 216 National Technology Alliance............................. 216 Next Generation Internet revolutionary applications...... 216 Polymer-cased ammunition................................. 217 Operational field assessment program..................... 217 Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition............................................ 218 Seismic sensor technology................................ 218 Specialty aerospace metals initiative.................... 219 Special operations intelligence systems.................. 219 Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles funding................ 219 Thermionics.............................................. 220 University research initiatives.......................... 220 Unmanned aerial vehicle systems integration laboratory... 220 Verification technology demonstration.................... 221 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 221 Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 221 Section 201--Authorization Of Appropriations............... 221 Section 202--Amount For Basic And Applied Research......... 221 Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations................................................ 221 Section 211--Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures Programs................................. 221 Section 212--Future Aircraft Carrier Transition Technologies............................................. 222 Section 213--Manufacturing Technology Program.............. 222 Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................ 223 Section 231--National Missile Defense Policy............... 223 Section 232--Limitation on Funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System....................................... 223 Section 233--Limitation on Funding for Cooperative Ballistic Missile Defense Programs....................... 223 Section 234--Limitation on funding for Counterproliferation Support.................................................. 224 Section 235--Ballistic Missile Defense Program Elements.... 224 TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 225 OVERVIEW....................................................... 225 Funding Realities.......................................... 225 Readiness Realities........................................ 225 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 254 Budget Request Increases..................................... 254 Critical Readiness Accounts Increases...................... 254 Mobility Enhancement Funding............................... 254 Training Accounts.......................................... 254 United States Marine Corps Cold Weather Clothing........... 255 Budget Request Reductions.................................... 255 Administration and Support Accounts........................ 255 Advisory and Assistance Services........................... 256 Bulk Fuel Reductions....................................... 256 Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions................ 257 Foreign Currency Reductions................................ 257 Environmental Issues......................................... 257 Air Force Plant #3, Tulsa, Oklahoma........................ 257 Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation.................. 258 Navy Environmental Leadership Program...................... 258 Pollution Prevention Program............................... 258 Scrapping of Naval Vessels................................. 258 Information Technology Issues................................ 259 Overview................................................... 259 Automatic Identification Technology........................ 259 Computer Crimes and Information Technology Security........ 259 Information Technology Management.......................... 260 Information Technology Priorities.......................... 260 Joint Information Technology Systems....................... 261 Redundant Information Technology Programs.................. 262 Utilizing Commercial Information Technology................ 262 Intelligence Matters......................................... 263 Integrated Architecture Plan............................... 263 Joint Reserve Intelligence Program......................... 263 Intelligence Congressional Justification Books............. 263 Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues....................... 264 Defense Commissary Agency Information Technology Acquisition.............................................. 264 Libraries.................................................. 264 Performance Based Agreements............................... 265 Public-Private Ventures.................................... 265 Uniform Health Benefit for Nonappropriated Fund Employees.. 265 Other Issues................................................. 266 Appropriated Funds Used to Pay for Defense Information System Agency Costs...................................... 266 Army Civilian Personnel Management......................... 267 Automatic Document Conversion Technology................... 268 Budget Justification Materials............................. 268 Classified Materials Containers............................ 269 Corrosion Control Programs................................. 269 Defense Automated Printing Service......................... 269 Depleted Uranium Penetrators............................... 270 Infrastructure Reduction Initiatives....................... 270 Military Affiliate Radio System............................ 271 Prime Vendor Contracts..................................... 272 Ship Repair Industrial Base................................ 272 Tagging System for Hydrocarbon Fuels....................... 272 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 273 Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations.................. 273 Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 273 Section 302--Working Capital Funds......................... 273 Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................. 273 Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund......................................... 273 Section 305--Refurbishment of M1-A1 Tanks.................. 273 Section 306--Operation of Prepositioned Fleet, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California.................. 273 Section 307--Relocation of USS Wisconsin................... 274 Section 308--Fisher House Trust Funds...................... 274 Subtitle B--Information Technology Issues.................... 274 Section 311--Additional Information Technology Responsibilities of Chief Information Officers........... 274 Section 312--Defense-Wide Electronic Mall System for Supply Purchases................................................ 274 Section 313--Protection of Funding Provided for Certain Information Technology and National Security Programs.... 274 Section 314--Priority Funding to Ensure Year 2000 Compliance of Mission Critical Information Technology and National Security Systems................................ 274 Section 315--Evaluation of Year 2000 Compliance as Part of Training Exercises Programs.............................. 274 Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions......................... 275 Section 321--Authorization to Pay Negotiated Settlement for Environmental Cleanup at Former Department of Defense Sites in Canada.......................................... 275 Section 322--Removal of Underground Storage Tanks.......... 275 Subtitle D--Defense Infrastructure Support Improvement....... 275 Section 331--Reporting and Study Requirements Before Change of Commercial and Industrial Type Functions to Contractor Performance.............................................. 275 Section 332--Clarification of Requirement to Maintain Government-Owned and Government-Operated Core Logistics Capability............................................... 276 Section 333--Oversight of Development and Implementation of Automated Identification Technology...................... 276 Section 334--Conditions on Expansion of Functions Performed Under Prime Vendor Contracts............................. 276 Section 335--Clarification of Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair................................... 276 Section 336--Clarification of Commercial Item Exception to Requirements Regarding Core Logistics Capabilities....... 276 Section 337--Development of Plan for Establishment of Core Logistics Capabilities for Maintenance and Repair of C-17 Aircraft................................................. 276 Section 338--Contractor-Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores Program........................................... 277 Section 339--Report on Savings and Effect of Personnel Reductions in Army Materiel Command...................... 277 Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities.......................................... 277 Section 341--Continuation of Management and Funding of Defense Commissary Agency through the Office of the Secretary of Defense..................................... 277 Section 342--Expansion of Current Eligibility of Reserves for Commissary Benefits.................................. 277 Section 343--Repeal of Requirement for Air Force to Sell Tobacco Products to Enlisted Personnel................... 278 Section 344--Restrictions on Patron Access to, and Purchases in, Overseas Commissaries and Exchange Stores.. 278 Section 345--Extension of Demonstration Project for Uniform Funding of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities.... 278 Section 346--Prohibition on Consolidation or Other Organizational Changes of Department of Defense Retail Systems.................................................. 278 Section 347--Authorized Use of Appropriated Funds for Relocation of Navy Exchange Service Command.............. 279 Section 348--Evaluation of Merit of Selling Malt Beverages and Wine in Commissary Stores as Exchange System Merchandise.............................................. 279 Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 279 Section 361--Eligibility Requirements for Attendance at Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools........................................ 279 Section 362--Specific Emphasis of Program to Investigate Fraud, Waste, and Abuse within Department of Defense..... 280 Section 363--Revision of Inspection Requirements Relating to Armed Forces Retirement Home.......................... 280 Section 364--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees................. 280 Section 365--Strategic Plan for Expansion of Distance Learning Initiatives..................................... 281 Section 366--Public Availability of Operating Agreements Between Military Installations and Financial Institutions 281 Section 367--Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System................................................... 281 Section 368--Travel by Reservists on Carriers under Contract with General Services Administration............ 285 Subtitle G--Demonstration of Commercial-Type Practices to Improve Quality of Personal Property Shipments........... 285 Section 381--Demonstration Program Required................ 285 Section 382--Goals of Demonstration Program................ 286 Section 383--Program Participants.......................... 286 Section 384--Test Plan..................................... 286 Section 385--Other Methods of Personal Property Shipping... 286 Section 386--Duration of Demonstration Program............. 286 Section 387--Evaluation of Demonstration Program........... 286 TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 287 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 287 Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 287 Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 287 Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Levels..... 287 Section 403--Date for Submission of Annual Manpower Requirements Report...................................... 288 Section 404--Extension of Authority for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Designate Up to 12 General and Flag Officer Positions to Be Excluded from General and Flag Officer Grade Limitations........................... 288 Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 288 Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 288 Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves.................................. 289 Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status).................................................. 289 Section 414--Increase in Number of Members in Certain Grades Authorized to Serve on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves............................................. 290 Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 290 Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel................................................ 290 TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 292 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 292 National Guard Youth Challenge............................... 292 Recruiting................................................... 292 Reserve Component Full-time Support Force.................... 293 Reserve Component Joint Professional Military Education...... 294 Sustaining Education and Teaching Excellence at the National Defense University......................................... 295 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 296 Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 296 Section 501--Codification of Eligibility of Retired Officers and Former Officers for Consideration by Special Selection Boards......................................... 296 Section 502--Communication to Promotion Boards by Officers under Consideration...................................... 296 Section 503--Procedures for Separation of Regular Officers for Substandard Performance of Duty or Certain Other Reasons.................................................. 296 Section 504--Posthumous Commissions and Warrants........... 296 Section 505--Tenure of Chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps.. 296 Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters........................ 297 Section 511--Composition of Selective Early Retirement Boards of Reserve General and Flag Officers of the Navy and Marine Corps......................................... 297 Section 512--Active Status Service Requirement for Promotion Consideration for Army and Air Force Reserve Component Brigadier Generals............................. 297 Section 513--Revision to Educational Requirement for Promotion of Reserve Officers............................ 297 Subtitle C--Military Education and Training.................. 297 Section 521--Requirements Relating to Recruit Basic Training................................................. 297 Section 522--After-Hours Privacy for Recruits During Basic Training................................................. 298 Section 523--Extension of Reporting Dates for Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues.............. 298 Section 524--Improved Oversight of Innovative Readiness Training................................................. 298 Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards and Commendations............ 299 Section 531--Study of New Decorations for Injury or Death in Line of Duty.......................................... 299 Section 532--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain Decorations to Specified Persons................. 299 Section 533--Commendation of the Navy and Marine Corps Personnel who Served in the United States Navy Asiatic Fleet from 1910-1942..................................... 299 Section 534--Appreciation for Service during World War I and World War II by Members of the Navy Assigned on Board Merchant Ships as the Naval Armed Guard Service.......... 299 Section 535--Sense of Congress Regarding the Heroism, Sacrifice, and Service of the Military Forces of South Vietnam and Other Nations in Connection with the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam Conflict.......... 299 Section 536--Sense of Congress Regarding the Heroism, Sacrifice, and Service of Former South Vietnamese Commandos in Connection with United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam Conflict.............................. 300 Subtitle E--Administration of Agencies Responsible for Review and Correction of Military Records....................... 300 Sections 541-544--Corrections of Military Records.......... 300 Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 301 Section 551--One-Year Extension of Certain Force Drawdown Transition Authorities Relating to Personnel Management and Benefits............................................. 301 Section 552--Leave Without Pay for Academy Cadets and Midshipmen............................................... 301 Section 553--Provision for Recovery, Care, and Disposition of the Remains of All Medically Retired Members.......... 302 Section 554--Continued Eligibility under Voluntary Separation Incentive Program for Members who Involuntarily Lose Membership in a Reserve Component..... 302 Section 555--Definition of Financial Institution for Direct Deposit of Pay........................................... 302 Section 556--Increase in Maximum Amount for College Fund Program.................................................. 302 Section 557--Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii..... 302 Section 558--Honor Guard Details at Funerals of Veterans... 303 Section 559--Applicability to All Persons in Chain of Command of Policy Requiring Exemplary Conduct by Commanding Officers and Others in Authority in the Armed Forces................................................... 303 Section 560--Report on Prisoners Transferred from United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Federal Bureau of Prisons............................. 303 Section 561--Report on Process for Selection of Members for Service on Courts-Martial................................ 304 Section 562--Study of Revising the Term of Service of Members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces............................................. 304 Section 563--Status of Cadets at the Merchant Marine Academy.................................................. 304 TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 305 OVERVIEW....................................................... 305 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 305 Military Retirement.......................................... 305 Survivor Benefit Plan........................................ 306 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 306 Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 306 Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 1999.... 306 Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing Outside the United States................................................... 306 Section 603--Basic Allowance for Subsistence for Reserves.. 306 Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 307 Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 307 Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists................ 307 Section 613--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other Bonuses and Special Pays................ 307 Section 614--Aviation Career Incentive Pay and Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.................................. 307 Section 615--Special Pay for Diving Duty................... 307 Section 616--Selective Reenlistment Bonus Eligibility for Reserve Members Performing Active Guard and Reserve Duty. 308 Section 617--Removal of Ten Percent Restriction on Selective Reenlistment Bonuses........................... 308 Section 618--Increase in Maximum Amount of Army Enlistment Bonus.................................................... 308 Section 619--Equitable Treatment of Reserves Eligible for Special Pay for Duty Subject to Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger................................................... 308 Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 308 Section 631--Exception to Maximum Weight Allowance for Baggage and Household Effects............................ 308 Section 632--Travel and Transportation Allowances for Travel Performed by Members in Connection with Rest and Recuperative Leave from Overseas Stations................ 308 Section 633--Storage of Baggage of Certain Dependents...... 308 Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters.................................................... 309 Section 641--Effective Date of Former Spouse Survivor Benefit Coverage......................................... 309 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 309 Section 651--Deletion of Canal Zone from Definition of United States Possessions for Purposes of Pay and Allowances............................................... 309 Section 652--Accounting of Advance Payments................ 309 Section 653--Reimbursement of Rental Vehicle Costs when Motor Vehicle Transported at Government Expense Is Late.. 309 Section 654--Education Loan Repayment Program for Certain Health Profession Officers Serving in Selected Reserve... 309 TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 311 OVERVIEW....................................................... 311 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 312 Depleted Uranium Training and Health Surveillance............ 312 Graduate Medical Education Programs.......................... 313 Medical Readiness Learning Initiative........................ 314 TRICARE Contract Performance................................. 314 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 315 Subtitle A--Health Care Services............................. 315 Section 701--Expansion of Dependent Eligibility Under Retiree Dental Program................................... 315 Section 702--Plan for Provision of Health Care for Military Retirees and Their Dependents Comparable to Health Care Provided Under TRICARE Prime............................. 315 Section 703--Plan for Redesign of Military Pharmacy System. 316 Section 704--Transitional Authority to Provide Continued Health Care Coverage for Certain Persons Unaware of Loss of CHAMPUS Eligibility................................... 317 Subtitle B--TRICARE Program.................................. 318 Section 711--Payment of Claims for Provision of Health Care Under the TRICARE Program for which a Third Party May be Liable................................................... 318 Section 712--Procedures Regarding Enrollment in TRICARE Prime.................................................... 319 Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 319 Section 721--Inflation Adjustment of Premium Amounts for Dependents Dental Program................................ 319 Section 722--System for Tracking Data and Measuring Performance in Meeting TRICARE Access Standards.......... 319 Section 723--Air Force Research, Development, Training and Education on Exposure to Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Hazards..................................... 320 Section 724--Authorization to Establish a Level 1 Trauma Training Center.......................................... 320 Section 725--Report on Implementation of Enrollment-based Capitation for Funding for Military Medical Treatment Facilities............................................... 320 TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 322 ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 322 Payments to Subtier Contractors.............................. 322 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 322 Section 801--Limitation on Procurement of Ammunition and Components............................................... 322 Section 802--Acquisition Corps Eligibility................. 322 Section 803--Amendments Relating to Procurement from Firms in Industrial Base for Production of Small Arms.......... 322 TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 323 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 323 Section 901--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce................................................ 323 Section 902--Limitation on Operation and Support Funds for the Office of the Secretary of Defense................... 323 Section 903--Revision to Defense Directive Relating to Management Headquarters and Headquarters Support Activities............................................... 324 Section 904--Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to Have Responsibility with Respect to Export Control Activities of the Department of Defense............................. 324 Section 905--Independent Task Force on Transformation and Department of Defense Organization....................... 326 Section 906--Improved Accounting for Defense Contract Services................................................. 326 Section 907--Repeal of Requirement Relating to Assignment of Tactical Airlift Mission to Reserve Components........ 327 Section 908--Repeal of Certain Requirements Relating to Inspector General Investigations of Reprisal Complaints.. 328 Section 909--Consultation with Commandant of the Marine Corps Regarding Marine Corps Aviation.................... 328 TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 329 Counter-Drug Activities........................................ 329 Overview..................................................... 329 Items of Special Interest.................................... 330 Gulf states counter-drug initiative command, control, communications and computer network...................... 330 Gulf states counter-drug initiative regional counter-drug training academy......................................... 330 Joint interagency task force south......................... 331 Joint military intelligence program........................ 331 Multi-jurisdictional task force............................ 331 National guard state plans................................. 331 Southern air forces counter-drug support................... 332 Southwest border fence project............................. 332 Support for counter-drug activities of Peru and Colombia... 332 Other Matters................................................ 333 Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction.............................................. 333 Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)................................ 335 Intelligence Community Access to Export Control Information 335 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 336 Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 336 Section 1001--Transfer Authority........................... 336 Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............ 337 Section 1003--Outlay Limitations........................... 337 Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 337 Section 1011--Revision to Requirement for Continued Listing of Two Iowa-Class Battleships on the Naval Register...... 337 Section 1012--Transfer of the USS New Jersey............... 337 Section 1013--Long-Term Charter of Three Vessels in Support of Submarine Rescue, Escort, and Towing.................. 337 Section 1014--Transfer of Obsolete Army Tugboat............ 337 Section 1015--Long-Term Charter Contracts for Acquisition of Auxiliary Vessels for the Department of Defense....... 337 Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities...... 338 Section 1021--Department of Defense Support for Counter- Drug Activities.......................................... 338 Section 1022--Support for Counter-Drug Operation Caper Focus.................................................... 338 Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals.... 340 Section 1031--Annual Report on Resources Allocated to Support and Mission Activities........................... 340 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 340 Section 1041--Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority, Armed Forces Retirement Home, District of Columbia....... 340 Section 1042--Content of Notice Required to be Provided Garnishees Before Garnishment of Pay or Benefits......... 340 Section 1043--Training of Special Operations Forces with Friendly Foreign Forces.................................. 341 TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL............... 342 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS....................................... 342 Section 1101--Authority for Release to Coast Guard of Drug Test Results of Civil Service Mariners of the Military Sealift Command.......................................... 342 Section 1102--Limitations on Back Pay Awards............... 342 Section 1103--Restoration of Annual Leave Accumulated by Civilian Employees at Installations in the Republic of Panama to be Closed Pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.................................................. 342 Section 1104--Repeal of Program Providing Preference for Employment of Military Spouses in Military Child Care Facilities............................................... 343 Section 1105--Elimination of Retained Pay as a Basis for Determining Locality Based Adjustments................... 343 Section 1106--Observance of Certain Holidays at Duty Posts Outside the United States................................ 343 TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS..................... 344 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 344 Arms Control Implementation.................................. 344 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.............................................. 345 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 345 Section 1201--Limitation on Funds for Peacekeeping in the Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina....................... 345 Section 1202--Reports on the Mission of United States Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina......... 346 Section 1203--Report on Military Capabilities of an Expanded NATO Alliance................................... 347 Section 1204--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities for Support of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq....................................... 347 Section 1205--Repeal of Landmine Moratorium................ 348 TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET UNION................................................. 349 OVERVIEW....................................................... 349 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 349 Arms Elimination Projects in Russia........................ 349 Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine....................... 350 Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia...... 350 Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia..................... 352 Fissile Material Storage Facility.......................... 353 Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion............................ 354 Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia......... 354 Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia................. 354 Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security.................... 355 Other Support Programs..................................... 355 Program Overhead........................................... 355 Prohibition of Specified Activities........................ 356 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 357 Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs and Funds....................................... 357 Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 357 Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified Purposes................................................. 357 Section 1304--Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility............................. 357 Section 1305--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for a Specified Period......................................... 357 Section 1306--Requirement to Submit Breakdown of Amounts Requested by Project Category............................ 357 Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Completion of Fiscal Year 1998 Requirements......................... 357 Section 1308--Report on Biological Weapons Programs in Russia................................................... 357 Section 1309--Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention Activities in Russia.... 358 Section 1310--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds for Strategic Arms Elimination in Russia or Ukraine.......... 358 Section 1311--Availability of Funds........................ 358 DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 359 PURPOSE........................................................ 359 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW................................. 359 TITLE XXI--ARMY.................................................. 378 SUMMARY........................................................ 378 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 378 Improvements of Military Family Housing.................... 378 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 378 Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 378 Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 378 Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 378 Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 378 Section 2105--Increase in Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization for Military Construction Project at Fort Drum, New York, and Fort Sill, Oklahoma.................................. 379 TITLE XXII--NAVY................................................. 380 SUMMARY........................................................ 380 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 380 Condition of Laboratory Facilities, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey......... 380 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 380 Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 380 Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 380 Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 381 Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 381 Section 2205--Authorization to Accept Road Construction Project, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. 381 TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE........................................... 382 SUMMARY........................................................ 382 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 382 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 382 Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 382 Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 382 Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 382 TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES..................................... 383 SUMMARY........................................................ 383 ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 383 Department of Defense Education Activity, Guam............. 383 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 383 Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects................................ 383 Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 384 Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects................. 384 Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies................................................. 384 Section 2405--Increase in Fiscal Year 1995 Authorization for Military Construction Projects at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, and Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon................ 384 Section 2406--Increase in Fiscal Year 1990 Authorization for Military Construction Project at Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia....................................... 384 TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE..... 385 SUMMARY........................................................ 385 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 385 Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition Projects..................................... 385 Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 385 TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 386 SUMMARY........................................................ 386 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 386 Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects................................ 386 Section 2602--Army Reserve Construction Project, Salt Lake City, Utah............................................... 386 TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS.......... 387 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 387 Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be Specified by Law.......................... 387 Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1996 Projects................................ 387 Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1995 Projects....................................... 387 Section 2704--Effective Date............................... 387 TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS................................. 388 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 388 Incorporation of Energy Conservation Criteria in the Planning and Design of Facilities........................ 388 Military Family Housing Referral and Set-Aside Programs.... 388 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 389 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing Changes.......................................... 389 Section 2801--Definition of Ancillary Supporting Facilities under the Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing.......................... 389 Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 389 Section 2811--Restoration of Department of Defense Lands Used by Another Federal Agency........................... 389 Section 2812--Outdoor Recreation Development on Military Installations for Disabled Veterans, Military Dependents with Disabilities, and Other Persons with Disabilities... 389 Section 2813--Report on Use of Utility System Conveyance Authority................................................ 389 Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 390 Section 2821--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 in Connection with McClellan Air Force Base, California..................... 390 Section 2822--Elimination of Waiver Authority Regarding Prohibition Against Certain Conveyances of Property at Naval Station, Long Beach, California.................... 390 Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 390 Part I--Army Conveyances................................... 390 Section 2831--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Massena, New York........................................ 390 Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Ogdensberg, New York..................................... 390 Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Jamestown, Ohio.......................................... 391 Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Stewart Army Sub-Post, New Windsor, New York........................................ 391 Section 2835--Land Conveyance, Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, Charlestown, Indiana.............................. 391 Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee............................ 391 Section 2837--Release of Reversionary Interest of United States in Former Redstone Army Arsenal Property Conveyed to Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission.............. 392 Part II--Navy Conveyances.................................. 392 Section 2841--Easement, Camp Pendleton, Marine Corps Base, California............................................... 392 Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Readiness Center, Portland, Maine.................................. 392 Part III--Air Force Conveyances............................ 392 Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Lake Charles Air Force Station, Louisiana....................................... 392 Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Air Force Housing Facility, La Junta, Colorado....................................... 393 Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 393 Section 2861--Repeal of Prohibition on Joint Use of Gray Army Airfield, Fort Hood, Texas, with Civil Aviation..... 393 Section 2862--Designation of Building Containing Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Augusta, Georgia............ 393 Section 2863--Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery..... 393 Section 2864--Reporting Requirements Under Demonstration Project for Purchase of Fire, Security, Police, Public Works, and Utility Services from Local Government Agencies................................................. 393 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................... 395 TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 395 OVERVIEW....................................................... 395 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 407 Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative................. 407 Advanced Manufacturing, Design and Production Technologies. 407 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Safeguards................... 408 Core Stockpile Management Weapons Program.................. 408 Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Science and Technology................................... 408 Defense Programs Construction Projects..................... 409 Emergency Management....................................... 409 Hanford Tank Safety and Remediation Projects............... 409 Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Privatization Phase I 410 Hazardous Material Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) Program......................................... 410 Heavy Water Processing..................................... 410 Inertial Confinement Fusion................................ 411 In-Tank Precipitation Process.............................. 411 International Nuclear Safety............................... 411 Laboratory Collaboration With the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization............................................. 411 Naval Reactors............................................. 412 Office of Environment, Safety, and Health.................. 412 Program Direction.......................................... 413 Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning................ 413 Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project.. 413 Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment.............. 413 Stockpile Management at Y-12 Plant......................... 413 Technology Partnerships.................................... 414 Tritium production......................................... 414 Uncosted Obligations and Unobligated Balances.............. 414 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Waste Transportation.... 415 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 415 Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorization.......... 415 Section 3101--Weapons Activities........................... 415 Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management............................................... 416 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 416 Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 416 Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 416 Section 3121--Reprogramming................................ 416 Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects............. 416 Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects.............. 416 Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority...................... 417 Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design................................................... 417 Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction Activities.................................. 417 Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security Programs of the Department of Energy..................... 417 Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................ 417 Section 3129--Transfers of Defense Environmental Management Funds.................................................... 417 Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations................................................ 418 Section 3131--Prohibition on Federal Loan Guarantees for Defense Environmental Management Privatization Projects.. 418 Section 3132--Extension of Funding Prohibition Relating to International Cooperative Stockpile Stewardship.......... 418 Section 3133--Use of Certain Funds for Missile Defense Technology Development................................... 418 Section 3134--Selection of Technology for Tritium Production............................................... 418 Section 3135--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds at Hanford Site..................................................... 419 Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 419 Section 3151--Termination of Worker and Community Transition Assistance.................................... 419 Section 3152--Requirement for Plan to Modify Employment System Used by Department of Energy in Defense Environmental Management Programs........................ 419 Section 3153--Report on Stockpile Stewardship Criteria..... 420 TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 421 LEGISLATIVE PROVISION.......................................... 421 Section 3201--Authorization................................ 421 TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE......................... 422 ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 422 Materials Research......................................... 422 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 422 Section 3301--Definitions.................................. 422 Section 3302--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds........... 422 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLUEM RESERVES............................ 423 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 423 Section 3401--Definitions.................................. 423 Section 3402--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 423 Section 3403--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum During Fiscal Year 1999........................ 423 Section 3404--Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2........................................................ 423 Section 3405--Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3........................................................ 423 Section 3406--Disposal of Naval Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2........................................................ 423 Section 3407--Administration............................... 423 TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION.............................. 424 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 424 Section 3501--Short Title; References to Panama Canal Act of 1979.................................................. 424 Section 3502--Authorization of Expenditures................ 424 Section 3503--Purchase of Vehicles......................... 424 Section 3504--Expenditures Only in Accordance with Treaties 424 Section 3505--Donations to the Commission.................. 424 Section 3506--Sunset of United States Overseas Benefits Just Before Transfer..................................... 424 Section 3507--Central Examining Office..................... 425 Section 3508--Liability for Vessel Accidents............... 425 Section 3509--Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals....... 425 Section 3510--Technical Amendments......................... 425 TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION............................. 426 ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 426 Merchant Marine Academy.................................... 426 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 426 Section 3601--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999................................................ 426 Section 3602--Conveyance of NDRF Vessel M/V Bayamon........ 426 Section 3603--Conveyance of NDRF Vessels Benjamin Isherwood and Henry Eckford........................................ 426 Section 3604--Clearinghouse for Maritime Information....... 426 Section 3605--Conveyance of NDRF Vessel Ex-USS Lorain County................................................... 427 Departmental Data................................................ 428 Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 428 Military Construction Authorization Request.................... 429 Committee Position............................................... 429 Communications From Other Committees............................. 429 Fiscal Data...................................................... 439 Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 439 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...................... 439 Authorization of Appropriations.............................. 440 Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 449 Inflation-Impact Statement..................................... 450 Oversight Findings............................................... 450 Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 450 Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 450 Roll Call Votes.................................................. 450 Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 459 Additional, Dissenting, and Supplemental Views: ....................................................... Additional views of Lane Evans, Martin T. Meehan, Robert A. Underwood, Jane Harman, Thomas H. Allen, Loretta Sanchez and Cynthia McKinney............................................. 559 Additional views of Robert A. Underwood........................ 561 Supplemental views of Tillie Fowler, Jane Harman, Martin T. Meehan, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie, Loretta Sanchez, Ciro D. Rodriguez, Patrick J. Kennedy, James H. Maloney and Cynthia A. McKinney.......................................... 562 Additional views of Jane Harman, Patrick Kennedy, Martin Meehan, Lane Evans, Loretta Sanchez, Ciro Rodriguez, James Maloney, Cynthia McKinney and Tillie Fowler.................. 565 Additional views of James M. Talent............................ 567 Additional views of Patrick Kennedy............................ 569 Additional views of Roscoe G. Bartlett......................... 571 Additional views of Tom Allen, Paul McHale, Mike Pappas, Jim Saxton and Gene Taylor....................................... 573 Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Lane Evans, Vic Snyder, Jane Harman, Adam Smith and Cynthia McKinney................. 576 Additional views of Mr. Ryun, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Watts, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Hilleary and Mr. Pappas.................................. 577 Dissenting views of Cynthia McKinney........................... 579 105th Congress Report 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105-532 _______________________________________________________________________ NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 _______ May 12, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _______ Mr. Spence, from the Committee on National Security, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL, DISSENTING, AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 3616] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on National Security, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows: The amendment to the text of the bill is a complete substitute therefor and appears in italic type in the reported bill. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 3616. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. PURPOSE The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 1999: (a) the personnel strength for each active duty component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for the Department of Energy national security programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for the operation of the Panama Canal Commission; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for the Maritime Administration. RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and military construction and family housing. The bill also addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and the Maritime Administration. Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel. SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL The President requested budget authority of $270.9 billion for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 1999. Of this amount, the President requested $257.5 billion for the Department of Defense (including $7.8 billion for military construction and family housing) and $12.3 billion for Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The committee recommends an overall level of $270.4 billion in budget authority. This amount is consistent with the discretionary defense spending limitations imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and it represents an increase of approximately $2.2 billion from the amount authorized for appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). Overall, the committee's recommendation is largely consistent with the amounts the committee expects to be established in the budget resolution for fiscal year 1999 for the national security budget function. SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS The following table provides a summary of the amounts requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the budget authority implications of committee action, the table reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL The President's fiscal year 1999 defense budget request fully reflects last year's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR was mandated by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 (Public Law 104- 201), as a result of growing dissatisfaction with the Clinton Administration's 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR). In addition to being dramatically underfunded, the BUR also reflected far too narrow a view of America's strategic interests and military requirements in the post-Cold War world. In particular, the BUR failed to account for the increasing number and duration of peacekeeping, peacemaking and contingency ``operations other than war,'' as well as for the possibility of conflicts between powerful states in the future. The QDR's declared strategy, in the committee's judgment, more accurately reflects the true scope of America's post-Cold- War defense strategy. The QDR's central strategic vision of shaping the international environment in ways that will protect and advance U.S. national security interests, preparing U.S. military forces for future challenges to those interests, and responding to current threats--is broadly shared by the committee. Although the QDR fails to prioritize among the three elements of the ``shape-prepare-respond'' approach, its acknowledgment of today's strategic realities represents a step forward from the BUR. Ironically, the increased clarity of the QDR's strategic vision only serves to highlight the disparities between requirements, forces and resources. The mismatches and shortfalls inherent in the BUR are more severe when measured by the QDR's standards. While the QDR retains the requirement to fight and win two nearly simultaneous regional theater wars, persuasively arguing that such a capability ``is the sine qua non of a superpower and is essential to the credibility of our overall national security strategy,'' it also requires that U.S. armed forces ``be prepared to conduct successfully multiple, concurrent [smaller-scale contingency] operations worldwide, in any environment, including one in which an adversary uses asymmetric means, such [nuclear, biological, or chemical] weapons.'' In addition, the QDR demands that the Department of Defense prepare now for an uncertain future that may include ``significant'' future threats from a rising China or a reinvigorated and aggressive Russia, and where military technologies, doctrine and organizations will have changed radically. The QDR's strategic vision for the post-Cold War world places much greater demands on the Department of Defense than did the BUR. Despite the QDR's expansive strategy, the Administration continues to recommend real decline in defense spending. The President's fiscal year 1999 defense budget request of $270.6 billion in budget authority represents a real decline of 1.1 percent from current defense spending levels, is more than $54.0 billion short of keeping pace even with today's record low inflation over the next five years, and continues a 14-year trend of real decline in defense spending. Overall, the request represents a 39 percent reduction from defense spending levels of the mid-1980s. Indeed, the fiscal year 1999 defense budget request represents the lowest real level of U.S. defense spending since before the Korean War. Today, the unofficial motto of the U.S. military is ``doing more with less'' for good reason: missions increase as forces and resources decline. In the committee's judgment, there is a dangerously widening gap between strategic requirements of the post-Cold War world and the levels of resources this nation is committing to its national security. As senior committee members of both parties recently wrote to thePresident and leaders of Congress, ``[I]t is our collective judgment that, short of an unwise retrenchment and overhaul of U.S. national security strategy, fixing the nation's long-term defense program will require increased defense spending.'' Measured by any of the QDR's benchmarks--shaping, preparing, or responding--the current defense program is seriously underresourced. The Strains of Shaping The QDR asserts that the Department of Defense ``has an essential role to play'' in shaping the international environment in ways beneficial to American national interests. Yet the review's treatment of the military capabilities essential to this shaping effort serves to understate the magnitude of the task. The current moment in history, one which finds the United States as the world's sole superpower, imposes unique responsibilities upon our armed forces. However, as recent trends indicate, the constant employment of military power quickly strains the reduced forces of today. The Administration's propensity to use U.S. military forces in a multitude of nontraditional roles around the world has merely added to and accelerated the strains of downsizing. To fully understand the challenge implicit in trying to shape the international environment, it is necessary to consider recent events in broad perspective. The collapse of the Soviet Union, almost a decade ago, has been one of this century's and perhaps history's great turning points. Even should a revitalized and revanchist Russia reassert itself in the future, the retreat of the Red Army has left in its wake a security vacuum stretching from Europe to Africa to Asia. Dozens of nations, many of them tied to U.S. national interests in one way or the other, now live in a state of uncertainty-- freed from Soviet tyranny but unable to guarantee their own independence and security. The result for the United States is both new opportunity and new challenge. In their desire for both freedom and security, many of these fledgling states turn to the United States as their best hope. Nowhere is this more in evidence than the desire of the newly independent nations of Central and Eastern Europe to join the NATO alliance. While the committee strongly supports the NATO alliance, concerns remain about the Administration's inability or unwillingness to explain what a fully expanded NATO alliance will mean in terms of function, structure, and membership. The United States is on the verge of assuming substantial new commitments to protect and shape the future security of Europe without a firm understanding of the political purpose or financial cost, let alone the military requirements or how to meet the requirements Yet for all the uncertainties and concerns raised by the incorporation of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and perhaps, in time, additional Central and Eastern European nations into the Atlantic alliance, NATO expansion is well understood in comparison to challenges of shaping the international environment elsewhere around the globe. As indicated above, the demise of the Soviet Union has brought turmoil and uncertainty hand in hand with independence. The United States' interests in protecting the world's energy supplies and distribution network, the basis for the quasi- permanent American military presence in the Persian Gulf, will be complicated as new supplies and routes are developed to deliver Caspian Sea and Central Asian gas and oil to market. Likewise, the loss of the common security goal of containment of the Soviet Union will continue to complicate American relations with China. Although China did not repeat its 1996 missile blockade of Taiwan, in 1997 it reacquired Hong Kong and continued its aggressive policy of acquiring advanced military technologies. Moreover, the financial crisis in East Asia, threatening even the stability of Japan, may have unpredictable political consequences and could further complicate shaping of the international environment. The committee is concerned that while the QDR's requirement to ``shape the international environment'' is essential to the protection of American security interests, its full implications are not yet well understood. Trying to achieve the QDR's goal of ``promoting regional stability'' will require continued global military presence. From protecting against threats to the American homeland; to projecting power to Europe, the Gulf and the expanding region responsible for the world's energy supplies, and the Pacific Rim; to defending the international system from a wide variety of transnational threats from proliferation to information warfare, shaping the complex and increasingly dangerous post-Cold War international environment is one of the central reasons American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are ``doing more with less.'' Preparing for an Uncertain Future Beyond shaping today's security environment, the QDR rightly recognizes that the security environment of the future will pose entirely new problems. The geopolitical uncertainties alone are daunting. The United States' status as the world's only superpower is an anomaly of history. No single nation has ever enjoyed such unchallenged global influence, but it would be folly to assume that American preeminence will last indefinitely. Much of the basis of U.S. military superiority rests upon the technological edge enjoyed by American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and the organizational and doctrinal advantages that this technological edge allows. The significant investment made in the nation's armed forces in the 1980s brought to the battlefield a generation of weapons systems without rival, as revealed so strikingly in Operation Desert Storm. Yet the ``procurement holiday,'' beginning in the early 1990s and continuing still, is eroding this U.S. technological edge. In some areas, lack of investment has allowed vulnerabilities to remain unaddressed. For example, Scud missiles of the kind that caused significant American casualties in the Gulf War have become even more of a threat to U.S. forces and American allies today than they were in 1991. Despite Congressional increases in funding for theater missile defense programs over the past three years, this vulnerability remains. And it is a vulnerability that is well understood by our potential enemies. Moreover, weapons platforms and systems procured during the 1980s, based on 1970s technology, are prematurely aging due to the high operational tempo associated with repeated extended contingency operations. The same M1A1 tanks and Apache helicopters, sophisticated F-15E strike fighters and carrier battle groups that defeated the Iraqi military are too often found today at checkpoints in Bosnia, flying lazy figure-8s enforcing no-fly zones, or steaming from ocean to ocean to react to the crisis of the day. Military equipment is simply getting older and wearing out faster than planned. Finally, the battlefield advantages conferred by the application of information technologies and similar innovations to military systems promise to transform warfare in the near future. The United States has heretofore set the pace in the practical application of the so-called ``Revolution in Military Affairs,'' during the innovation in ``smart'' and ``brilliant'' munitions; battlefield surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence; and the rapid dissemination ofinformation in ways that we now take for granted. But the U.S. military's ``innovation edge'' is eroding as well. Increasingly inexpensive and accessible technologies of computing power, communications, surveillance from space--indeed, the overall advance and proliferation of high technology, much of it commercially available--will certainly enhance the military capabilities of future enemies of the United States. The task for the United States is to retain its edge across the broad spectrum of military technology, through modernization and innovation. Faced with these realities, the QDR calls for the Department of Defense to pursue a ``focused modernization effort'' and to ``increase procurement spending now so that we can ensure tomorrow's forces are every bit as capable as today's.'' Once again, the committee generally agrees with the QDR's declared objectives. However, as with the costs and risks associated with shaping the international environment, the committee is concerned with the lack of adequate attention being paid to preparing for a strategically and technologically uncertain future. The gap between resources being committed to research, development and procurement is as great as or greater than the shortfalls in requirements for the shaping missions described above. This has been apparent from the outset of the QDR process. In the legislation creating the QDR, the Congress also created the independent National Defense Panel (NDP). The NDP's assessment of the QDR highlighted the ``risk in defense resources,'' stating that ``the Panel considers the [QDR] modernization plan to have more budget risk than is acknowledged by the QDR. The funding necessary to attain the procurement goal * * * rests on several key assumptions * * * The Panel considers each of these assumptions to be somewhat tenuous. Collectively, they represent a budget risk which could potentially undermine the entire Defense Strategy.'' In recent years, the committee consistently has expressed its concerns about the continued decline in modernization funding. Defense procurement spending has declined by two- thirds since fiscal year 1985, even taking into account Congress' significant increases of the past three years. In 1996, the Joint Chiefs of Staff established that $60.0 billion in constant-dollar procurement funding was the minimum amount required to modernize the force, and set a goal to achieve that level of funding by fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, for the fourth consecutive year, the President's defense budget request again postpones attainment of this modernization funding goal. At $48.7 billion, the procurement request is $2.0 billion less than was projected for fiscal year 1999 just last year, and is approximately $5.0 billion less than was projected for the two- year period from fiscal years 1999 through fiscal year 2000. The shortfall is actually worse when the fact that the Administration's fiscal year 1999 procurement request for the first time includes programs not traditionally funded in procurement accounts, such as strategic sealift, is considered. Whether in modernizing today's military or in preparing for tomorrow's force, the committee believes the current level of investment is inadequate. Sustaining the technological advantages that give U.S. military forces an unquestioned edge wherever they operate is a keystone in national security strategy. Indeed, it is a central foundation upon which that strategy is built. The committee is concerned that the Administration is building a strategy for an uncertain future upon an eroding foundation. For what is uncertain about the future is not whether there will be threats to U.S. national security interests, but what form these threats will take. Threats may come from regional rogue states like Iraq or Iran, newly armed with more accurate ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional weapons; they may come from other large and powerful nations like a retrenched Russia or an ascendant China; they may come from terrorist groups, drug traffickers or other ruthless and well-resourced international organizations; they may come from ethnic nationalists for whom war is itself an end as a means. Yet wherever these future threats originate, the committee has no doubt that a failure to prepare to meet them can only encourage America's enemies. Responding to a Crisis In ``shaping the international environment,'' U.S. military forces are linked to American diplomacy, business, and culture. In ``preparing for an uncertain future,'' the Department of Defense is mortgaging its technological future by robbing long- term investment accounts to pay short-term operational bills and may, even under the best of circumstances, be hard-pressed to keep pace with commercial enterprise. Yet some tasks are, will, and must remain unique to the military. The military's unique capability, indeed its raison d'etre, is its role in response to international crisis or the outbreak of war. The collapse of the Soviet Union has not changed this fundamental reality. As the QDR acknowledges, today's armed forces must be ready to respond to the full spectrum of crises, from deterrence, to coercion, to the conduct of an increasing number of ``smaller-scale contingencies'' or ``military operations other than war,'' and to fighting and winning the major theater wars that would pose the greatest threat to U.S. national security interests. The committee considers the crisis response requirement to be the essential element of the QDR's strategy, indeed of any proper U.S. national military strategy. As important as the requirements are to ``shape the international environment'' and to ``prepare for an uncertain future,'' the primary responsibility of U.S. armed forces is to defend America and its global interests against today's and tomorrow's threats. As the post-Soviet period has evolved, the number and duration of what the QDR recognized as smaller-scale contingencies has increased. Yet the core of U.S. national military strategy remains--and in the committee's view, must remain--the requirement to maintain the capability to fight and to win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. This benchmark has served the United States military well during the post-Cold War era. Absent a well understood and precisely defined threat such as the Soviet military, the two-war standard has been the only means for preserving the kind of flexible and global military capability required for the vast array of security responsibilities that the United States maintains. According to the QDR, ``If the United States were to forego its ability to defeat aggression in more than one theater at a time, our standing as a global power, as the security partner of choice and the leader of the international community, would be called into question.'' The committee continues to believe that this two-war benchmark is an appropriate peacetime force-sizing mechanism that follows clearly from an appreciation of the kinds of potential conventional commitments and conflicts that confront the United States today. Our adversaries are at all times acutely aware of the proximity and presence of U.S. forces. General Anthony Zinni, commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, recently testified before the committee that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein clearly times his provocative actions to those occasions when U.S. military force presence in the Gulf is lower. Likewise, the continuing economic and humanitarian crisis in North Korea, combined with that regime's continuing investment in its military capability, could easily provide the spark to renewed conflict. In theseand other vital regions, the presence of strong U.S. forces, credited with overwhelming conventional combat capability, provide a convincing deterrent force, and a lethal fighting force. Unfortunately, the de facto motto of the U.S. military-- ``doing more with less''--has become today's reality. American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are in fact doing much more than protecting the nation's interests and preparing to fight the nation's wars. Indeed, the burdens of peacekeeping, peacemaking and the variety of other operations other than war that increasingly occupy our military's time are preventing them from properly and adequately training. This is the unspoken reality underlying the QDR's recognition of smaller-scale contingencies; ``the demand for [smaller-scale contingency] operations is expected to remain high over the next 15 to 20 years.'' Yet even while acknowledging the burdens imposed by multiple, concurrent peacekeeping operations, the QDR underestimates the high political profile, import and even permanence they assume over time. The QDR's assertion that ``U.S. forces must also be able to withdraw from [such] operations, reconstitute, and then deploy to a major theater war in accordance with required timelines'' is, in the committee's judgment, an unrealistic, even naive, expectation. A textbook example of the complexities of meeting both warfighting requirements and peacekeeping missions was clearly illustrated several weeks ago. When the Army announced that the 1st Cavalry Division would be deployed from Fort Hood, Texas, to Bosnia as the U.S. follow-on force, the conflict between peacekeeping and warfighting was revealed starkly. The 1st Cavalry Division is the most modern, best equipped and best trained heavy division in the entire Army, and would be among the first two divisions to deploy in the event of a major theater war. Yet the debilitating demand of constant rotation of forces to Bosnia-resulting from the President's commitment to an increasingly open-ended mission in the Balkans--has compelled the Army to start beating its sharpest sword into a plowshare. The Army has yet to explain how it will meet its requirement to rapidly deploy heavy forces in the event of a major theater war while the 1st Cavalry Division is in Bosnia. What is true of the Army applies equally to the other services: to Air Force fighter squadrons employed in no-fly zones; to Navy aircraft carriers transferred from the Pacific, where they would support a Korea contingency, to the Persian Gulf; to the Marine Corps which, in the recent testimony of Commandant Gen. Charles Krulak is ``not a two [major theater war] force.'' In sum, the pervasive mismatch between strategic objectives and defense resources that undermines the QDR's vision of shaping the international environment and preparing for an uncertain future most seriously affects the ability of the U.S. military to respond to current crises. This is a potentially catastrophic mismatch, and one with very real consequences, as foretold in the QDR: shortfalls in warfighting capacity ``risk undermining both deterrence and the credibility of U.S. security commitments in key regions of the world. This, in turn, could cause allies and friends to adopt more divergent defense policies and postures, thereby weakening the web of alliances and coalitions on which we rely to protect our interests abroad.'' The committee agrees with this assessment. Indeed, in Europe, in the Gulf and in East Asia, the ability of America to defend its interests by responding to multiple crises remains an open question. Managing Risk Caught between an international geopolitical environment that requires an expansive U.S. national security strategy and a domestic political environment bounded by the declining defense budgets locked in place by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the committee is left to try and figure out how best to manage risks. No one should have any illusions about the growing risk: the committee finds itself in accord with the Joint Chiefs of Staff who, in their monthly reviews of the ability of U.S. forces to execute the National Military Strategy, have recently concluded that the level of risk is ``moderate to high.' Thus the committee's actions with regard to the fiscal year 1999 defense authorization bill are intended to protect those programs that will help to lower the risks to U.S. national security interests by protecting core readiness, enhancing quality of life and increasing the pace at which rapidly aging equipment is modernized or replaced. Central to these efforts are the committee's initiatives related to force readiness. Over recent months, the committee conducted a series of field hearings at military installations in addition to its traditional budget oversight hearings. These hearings confirmed the pattern, revealed in past committee readiness reports and reviews, of shortages of spare parts, a high operations tempo and continued deterioration of military infrastructure and facilities. For example, in response to a request from the committee, the service chiefs of staff identified approximately $10.0 billion in unfunded requirements in fiscal year 1999 requests alone. Tellingly, the largest portion of these unfunded requirements pertained to core readiness needs--training, spare parts and other basics. Indeed, almost the entire Air Force unfunded requirements list reflected readiness shortfalls. Therefore, the committee has closely scrutinized the operation and maintenance accounts in the President's budget request. The request includes programs that previously were contained in other accounts and a variety of programs that have little if anything to do with core force readiness requirements. In general, the committee's actions have aimed to increase spending in core readiness accounts at the expense of lower priority spending on administrative and support functions. Likewise, the committee believes that in addition to forming an essential element in the basic compact between the nation and those who defend it, the quality of military life is inextricably tied to force readiness. This is particularly true in today's force projection environment characterized by its high pace of operations and the stress it places on both individuals and families. Thus, the committee continues a five- part approach to maintaining a decent quality of life for service members and their families: providing fair compensation; improving the military health care system; maintaining the value of retirement benefits; supporting key morale, welfare and recreation programs; and ensuring that military personnel and their families live and work in the best possible facilities. Finally, the committee has had to manage risk within the modernization accounts. Although the President's fiscal year 1999 procurement budget request of $48.7 billion grows modestly in real terms for the first time in 13 years, it is still well short of the required level. The research and development request--the key not only to robust modernization but to innovation in the next century--falls even shorter of the requirement to prepare for an uncertain future. Over the next five years, defense spending for research and development accounts is projected to fall by at least 14 percent. The committee believes these levels of investment to be wholly inadequate. Thus, in comparison with the substantial addition of funds for modernization over the past three years, this year's bill reflects an effort to protect what the committee considers to becritical modernization projects, as it protected core readiness accounts. Although budget constraints have prevented the committee from providing the large funding increases needed in the modernization accounts, the committee bill does contain additional procurement funding above the President's request, and protects the $36.1 billion requested for research and development. Selected programs have received increases. For example, the committee has added $72.0 million for advanced procurement of an additional two Joint STARS aircraft. These reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft are among the most sought-after assets by regional commanders-in-chief for a range of operations, from peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia to the regular crises with Iraq. Though considered ``low-density, high-demand'' assets and thus tightly managed by the Department of Defense, the Administration through the QDR chose to terminate the program at 13 aircraft, six short of the 19 required. The committee has concluded that the Joint STARS aircraft is precisely the sort of ``focused modernization'' effort essential to today's and tomorrow's forces. The committee has tried to prudently manage risks for tomorrow as well. In particular, the committee continues to believe that robust theater and national missile defenses are a key to future U.S. national security. Whether for the protection of U.S. forces deployed abroad or the ultimate safety of Americans at home, effective missile defenses will become an even more important requirement in the future. Thus, the committee has added $132.8 million to the President's request for missile defense spending. Yet despite its best efforts to manage risk, the committee remains concerned that its actions can only compel improvements at the margin. The magnitude of the shortfalls, as outlined above, is so great that it cannot be eliminated by a wiser allocation of resources alone. Nor can any foreseeable defense reform, including new rounds of base closures proposed by the Administration, provide sufficient savings to reapply towards critical shortfalls in a timely manner. In short, the committee has attempted to ensure, within the severe constraints of a declining defense budget, the most effective U.S. military force possible. By reprioritizing the Administration's budget request, the committee has provided the Department of Defense with some of the additional tools and resources required to recruit and retain the best people, train them to the highest standard, equip them with the most advanced military technology and provide them with a standard of life more commensurate with that of the American citizens they are sworn to protect. Having done so, the committee nonetheless finds itself deeply troubled that the world's ``sole superpower'' is running a ``moderate to high'' risk when it comes to its ability to promote and protect vital national security interests. HEARINGS Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 results from extensive hearings that began on January 29, 1998 and that were completed on April 1, 1998. The full committee conducted 9 sessions. In addition, a total of 36 sessions were conducted by five different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on various titles of the bill. DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION TITLE I--PROCUREMENT OVERVIEW The fiscal year 1999 procurement budget request continues the Department's pattern of neglecting long-term modernization of aging equipment to pay for near-term readiness- and personnel-related shortfalls. Although the $48.7 billion request finally grows modestly in real terms for the first time in 13 years, it is nevertheless $2.0 billion less than was projected to be just a year ago, and the forecast for fiscal year 2000 is an additional $2.9 billion below last year's forecast. Additionally, the request has been artificially inflated by the inclusion of items not traditionally funded in procurement accounts, such as strategic sealift. However, the committee is pleased the Department has finally ``turned the corner'' on procurement spending after having established a pattern of promising year-after-year to do so, only to backtrack from its commitment each succeeding year. The committee has added $15.0 billion to the procurement accounts over the past three fiscal years and, despite the severe fiscal limitations, for a fourth consecutive year, it was able to continue its own established pattern of increasing these accounts. The following increases are of note: [In millions of dollars] Army: UH-60 blackhawk-.............................................. $66.4 ARL-.......................................................... 35.0 Kiowa warrior safety mods-.................................... 16.0 Javelin-...................................................... 20.0 MLRS launchers-............................................... 50.0 Bradley base sustainment-..................................... 75.0 Ammunition-................................................... 44.6 HMMWV-........................................................ 10.0 Shortstop-.................................................... 15.0 Navy/Marine Corps: V-22-......................................................... 78.0 JPATS-........................................................ 12.2 KC-130J-...................................................... 112.4 EA-6B modifications-.......................................... 39.0 Ammunition-................................................... 25.0 LCAC SLEP-.................................................... 16.0 CEC-.......................................................... 35.0 Air Force: F-16-......................................................... 60.0 Joint stars advance procurement-.............................. 72.0 Global hawk unmanned aerial vehicle-.......................... 32.5 F-15 modifications-........................................... 45.0 TCAS/EGPWS navigation safety modifications-................... 50.0 B-2 post production support-.................................. 86.0 Minuteman III modifications-.................................. 23.0 Theater deployable communications-............................ 20.0 National Guard and Reserve: Various equipment items-...................................... 300.0 WC-130J-...................................................... 59.7 EC-130J-...................................................... 51.5 C-130J-....................................................... 174.0 <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Aircraft Procurement, Army Overview The budget request contained $1,325.9 million for Aircraft Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $1,420.8 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Airborne avionics The budget request contained $56.3 million for the procurement of various airborne avionics upgrades to Army aircraft, of which $20.1 million was for engineering change orders (ECO) for 51 improved data modems (IDM). The IDM is a digital data link modem, which exchanges targeting data between an aircraft and various ground-based weapons systems in support of tactical combat and forward air control missions. The committee notes that there is an 84 percent increase in the amount requested for ECOs in fiscal year 1999 over the amount appropriated for the same number of IDMs in fiscal year 1998 and a 93 percent increase over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997 for 94 IDMs. Although the committee understands the importance of this system to the Army's digital battlefield effort, the committee believes this large increase for ECOs is unjustified and recommends $46.3 million, a decrease of $10.0 million. Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL) The budget request contained $13.1 million for fielding two ARL-Multifunction (M) aircraft, Commanders Tactical Terminal (CTT) installations and upgrades of imagery intelligence (IMINT) payloads with second generation forward looking infrared radars into three ARL-M aircraft. However, no funds were requested for the procurement of additional aircraft or for wide-area search moving target indicators (MTI) and synthetic aperture radars (SAR). The ARL supports intelligence collection requirements for forward deployed force projection, operations other than war, and mid-intensity conflicts. The committee notes that the final Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)-validated ARL-M aircraft remains unfunded and that this aircraft would be U.S.- based to support theater-level worldwide contingency operations. The ARL-M possesses an integrated IMINT, communications intelligence (COMINT), and MTI/SAR and offers a broader intelligence collection capability than the previously fielded specific mission type aircraft, such as the ARL-C (COMINT) and ARL-I (IMINT) platforms. The committee understands that the MTI/SAR vastly improves the capability of the aircraft to detect, classify and track moving targets on the ground and is critical to daily support of Joint Chiefs of Staff sensitive reconnaissance operations, United States Forces Korea indications and warning requirements, and various non- Department of Defense government agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, the committee recommends $48.1 million, an increase of $30.0 million for an additional aircraft to fulfill the JROC requirement and $5.0 million for an additional MTI/SAR to upgrade a previously fielded ARL-C aircraft. Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) The budget request contained $5.1 million for nonrecurring engineering and engineering change orders for the Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures, but no funds were included for upgrades to the Aircraft Survivability Equipment Trainer IV (ASET IV). ASET IV is a ground-based, mobile aviation threat emitter simulation and training system, which enables aircrews to recognize surface-to-air-missile (SAM) and anti-aircraft artillery threats in order to employ the correct aircraft threat avoidance tactics. ASET IV systems are currently fielded at major training centers throughout the United States and Germany and require that an aircraft have a fully operational ASE suite of sensors on board for training. Congress authorized and appropriated an increase of $7.4 million for ASET IV upgrades in fiscal year 1998. Nevertheless, additional validated requirements exist and several systems in their present configuration still lack the capability to locate, identify, or track aircraft at night and cannot simulate the most current infrared (IR) SAM threats, thereby limiting aircrews to daylight training against older IR SAM threats--a situation which is not representative of the Army's ``train as you fight concept.'' The committee believes that the Army should continue to upgrade the ASET IV system in order for aircrews to have access to realistic training through the incorporation of additional night vision cameras and up-to-date IR SAM threat emitter simulation capabilities at several additional training centers. Consistent with committee actions taken in fiscal year 1998 and based on the Army's requirement for forces to train in realistic threat environments, the committee recommends an increase of $7.4 million for upgrading ASET IV systems with IR SAM threat simulators and night vision cameras. Army airborne command and control system (A2C2S) The budget request contained $24.4 million to procure 11 A2C2Ss. The A2C2S is a UH-60 deployable command post, which provides a highly mobile data, voice, and imagery command and control (C2) capability in support of Corps through Brigade level commanders. While the committee is supportive of improved C2 systems, it believes that programs entering initial procurement under the Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP) should be procured at a more modest rate than planned for the A2C2S in order to validate the success of the WRAP research and development efforts. Therefore, the committee recommends $13.4 million, a decrease of $11.0 million. Army helicopter modernization plan The committee notes that the recently completed congressionally mandated Army Helicopter Modernization Plan did not include a strategy for fielding the next light utility helicopter (LUH), arguably one of the basic aircraft for performing the Army's mission. The committee is concerned with the condition of the Vietnam war-era Army and Army National Guard (ARNG) UH-1 Huey helicopters--the aircraft that currently performs the LUH mission--and the Army's plan to maintain over 500 of these aircraft in the fleet beyond fiscal year 2010. The recent worldwide grounding of all Army and ARNG UH-1 Hueys due to the potential for engine spur gear fractures only heightens this concern. The committee is aware of the ongoing development of a LUH operational requirements document and strongly urges the Secretary of the Army to complete it by the December 1998 scheduled completion date. The committee also urges the Secretary to fund the LUH in the future years defense program. C-12 modifications The budget request contained $2.7 million for avionics and cockpit upgrades to C-12 aircraft. The C-12 is based throughout the world and is one of the Army's primary passenger-carrying aircraft. This aircraft is expected to continue in active service for at least the next 20 years and will be one of four types that will remain in the Army's fixed wing utility aircraft fleet after a major consolidation of the inventory is completed. The committee notes that the majority of the Army's C-12 aircraft continue to operate with the same avionics and navigation equipment that was installed when they were purchased in the 1970s and 1980s. While this equipment may have been state-of-the-art at that time, today it is obsolete. Based on the need for passenger-carrying military aircraft to have the latest technology for safe flight operations, Congress authorized and appropriated an increase of $6.0 million in fiscal year 1998 for C-12 avionics and cockpit modifications. The committee believes these upgrades should continue to be accelerated and, therefore, recommends an increase of $7.0 million for this purpose. CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications The budget request contained $101.2 million for CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications, of which $87.3 million was for T55 engine upgrades. The T55 engine upgrade includes engine conversion kits, engine fielding kits, and engine conversions. Engine conversion kits improve fuel, torque and rotor performance and include newer metal alloy parts to reduce corrosion. Engine fielding kits assist in torque management and engine temperature reduction. Engine conversions allow for cockpit instrumentation, associated wiring, and structural modifications for new engines to prevent them from ejecting toward crew and passengers in the event of a crash. While the committee is aware of the importance of these modifications, it notes that 87 individual engine conversion kits and engine conversions were included in the fiscal year 1999 budget request, while only 70 engine fielding kits were requested. To adjust the procurement of these three items to the fiscal years 1997 and 1998 level, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.2 million for engine conversion kits and a decrease of $4.5 million for engine conversions in order to make them consistent with the number of engine fielding kits being procured. Endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) The budget request did not contain funds for procurement of endurance UAVs for the Army. The committee notes that the operational performance of the Predator UAV in support of U.S. operations in Bosnia has been impressive in all respects and understands that a draft Operational Requirements Document indicates that the Predator will meet the Army's endurance UAV criteria. Since the Predator is the only operational endurance UAV that can support the Army's tactical intelligence requirements, the committee encourages the Army to procure this system. Kiowa warrior modifications The budget request contained $40.4 million for Kiowa Warrior system safety enhancement program (SSEP) modifications. Included in the SSEP are new crashworthy crew seats; an inflatable air bag body and head restraint system; a new handheld fire extinguisher; a full authority digital electronic control engine upgrade; and an improved master controller processor unit, which will replace three existing processors with two state-of-the-art units providing considerable memory growth while reducing aircraft weight and operating and support costs. Similar to congressional action in fiscal year 1998, which authorized and appropriated an additional $15.0 million for these upgrades, the committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million for this purpose.- UH-60L blackhawk The budget request contained $218.8 million for the procurement of 22 UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters, 10 of which are for the Army National Guard (ARNG). The UH-60 Blackhawk is the Army's primary utility helicopter for both the active and reserve components. As a result of the fiscal year 1998 congressionally mandated Army Modernization Plan, the Army determined that an additional 90 Blackhawks should be fielded to the ARNG. Beginning with the fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Army plans to include funding to procure 10 aircraft per year for 5 years toward the additional 90 aircraft requirement. The committee notes that 40 aircraft remain unfunded and that additional Blackhawks are one of the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded priorities for fiscal year 1999. Therefore, the committee recommends $285.2 million, an increase of $66.4 million, for eight additional aircraft for the ARNG in order to reduce the shortfall. Missile Procurement, Army Overview The budget request contained $1,205.8 million for Missile Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $1,232.3 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Enhanced fiber optic guided missile (EFOGM) The budget request contained $13.7 million, of which $13.2 million was for the procurement of 96 EFOGMs. Both the committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) and the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-340) specifically state that production EFOGMs would not be procured until successful flight tests of prototype missiles occur. The committee notes elsewhere in this report that the EFOGM has been plagued with technical difficulties and has not demonstrated a successful flight to date. Therefore, the committee recommends no funding for EFOGM procurement. Javelin The budget request contained $320.0 million for the procurement of 3,316 Javelin missiles for the Army. The Javelin is a medium range, man-portable, fire-and- forget, anti-tank missile, which can defeat all known and projected armor threats and is employed by infantrymen, scouts and combat engineers. The committee believes that this anti- armor system is essential for light forces to maintain battlefield dominance and has consistently supported accelerating the fielding of this missile to both the Army and the Marine Corps. Consistent with past actions, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to continue accelerated fielding of Javelin missiles.- Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems The budget request contained $85.4 million for the procurement of 24 MLRS launchers, of which $20.9 million was for engineering services. However, no funds were included for procurement of launchers for the Army National Guard (ARNG). The committee notes that the funding for engineering services in the budget request is excessive. The committee believes such an increase is unjustified and, therefore, recommends a reduction of $10.0 million. Although the ARNG provides nearly 70 percent of the artillery fire support for the total Army, the committee is aware that additional launchers are required to fill a shortfall in ARNG MLRS battalions. Therefore, the committee recommends $125.4 million, an increase of $50.0 million, for additional MLRS launchers for the ARNG. Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army Overview The budget request contained $1,433.6 million for procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $1,507.6 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Bradley base sustainment The budget request contained $285.8 million for the procurement of 73 Bradley M2A3 fighting vehicles, but no funds were included for upgrading Bradley ``A0'' vehicles to the ``A2'' Operation Desert Storm (ODS) variant. The Bradley A2ODS variant incorporates changes that improve the vehicle's lethality, survivability, and mobility, as well as the situational awareness of its crew. Modifications include installation of a laser range finder, Global Positioning System navigation capability, a combat identification system, a driver's thermal viewer and a missile countermeasure device. When the Army completes all of its planned modifications to the Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most advanced ``A3'' variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The Army National Guard (ARNG), however, will be left with unmodified, first-generation ``A0'' vehicles, which, because of major survivability deficiencies, were not used in the Persian Gulf War and will not likely be taken into future combat. Because the ARNG comprises an increasing percentage of the Army's warfighting capability as a result of active component force reductions and consistent with actions taken in fiscal year 1998, the committee recommends $360.8 million, an increase of $75.0 million, for modifying Bradley ``A0'' vehicles to the ODS variant for the ARNG. Bradley base sustainment/command and control vehicle (C2V) The budget request contained $285.8 million for the procurement of 73 Bradley M2A3 fighting vehicles and $44.2 million for the procurement of 10 C2V. The committee understands that the Army is considering the savings and benefits associated with a multi-program multiyear procurement contract for the Bradley M2A3 and the C2V. The committee urges the Army to consider this contracting opportunity beginning in fiscal year 2000 and recommends that the Army consider additional vehicles in the contract, such as the Bradley A3 Fire Support Team Vehicle, the Improved Recovery Vehicle and the Multiple Launch Rocket System launcher remanufacture program, thereby providing the Army with the flexibility to change the vehicle mix from year-to-year as the need arises. M1 abrams tank modifications The budget request contained $53.3 million for modifications to improve the M1 Abrams tank's lethality, safety and survivability, of which $20.3 million was for M1A1-D integration kits. The committee notes that the Army is in the third year of a five-year multiyear procurement (MYP) contract to upgrade M1A1 tanks to the M1A2 system enhancement program (SEP) variant. The committee fully supports this upgrade and believes that a full complement of M1A2 SEP tanks will provide a more lethal armor force in future digitized divisions compared to a mixed fleet of lesser capable M1A1-Ds and M1A2 SEP variants. The committee finds no compelling need for both the M1A1-D and M1A2 SEP upgrades, and, therefore, recommends no funds for the M1A1-D upgrade. The committee has included a provision (sec. 112) that directs the Secretary of the Army to obligate the $20.3 million requested for M1A1-D integration kits for M1A2 SEP Step One digital communications upgrades. Additionally, the committee understands that the Army intends to reduce the size of M1 tank battalions from 60 to 45 tanks in the near-term and that this force structure reduction is possible due to the increased lethality, survivability and command and control capability that the M1A2 SEP tank provides. While the committee concurs with the National Defense Panel's recommendation to develop a lighter, more deployable tank for the Army After Next, it does not foresee technological advances that would warrant the fielding of a follow-on tank to the M1A2 before 2015. Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Army to request authorization for a three-year follow-on MYP contract in fiscal year 2000 with an annual production rate of 120 tanks per year. M-240 series machine gun The budget request contained $6.5 million to procure 673 M- 240 machine guns, and the committee recommends the requested amount. The committee understands that the Army is planning to modernize its UH-60 and CH-47 helicopter fleets with the M-240D machine gun. Because it believes that this initiative will provide unprecedented commonality in medium machine gun equipage across the force, the committee encourages the Army to expeditiously provide the resources for its implementation. M4 carbine The budget request contained $4.2 million for the procurement of 6,310 M4 carbines. The M4 carbine is a shoulder-fired 5.56 millimeter round weapon for light forces designed to replace all M3A1 World War II era .45 caliber machine guns and certain M16 rifles and M9 pistols. The committee recommends $5.2 million, an increase of $1.0 million, for additional M4 carbines for light forces. Ammunition Procurement, Army Overview The budget request contained $1,008.9 million for Ammunition Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $1,053.5 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Ammunition The budget request contained $827.2 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends $871.8 million, an increase of $44.6 million for the following types of ammunition: [In millions of dollars] Small/Medium Cal Ammunition: CTG 5.56mm All Types-......................................... $5.6 CTG 7.62mm All Types-......................................... 4.0 CTG 25mm All Types-........................................... 10.0 Mortar Ammunition: CTG Mortar 60mm Illum M761/767-............................... 5.0 Tank Ammunition: CTG Tank 120mm HEAT-MP-T M830A1-.............................. 10.0 Artillery Fuzes: M767A1 Electronic Artillery Fuze-............................. 10.0 Items of Special Interest Arsenals The committee notes the historical importance of and unique contributions made by U.S. Army arsenals as part of the defense industrial base. Their support to the military under title 10, United States Code, section 4532 (The Arsenal Act), aided immeasurably in the demise of the Cold War and will continue into the 21st century. However, with the decrease in defense spending over the last decade, the committee is concerned over the dramatic decrease in workload at these government-owned, government-operated industrial facilities. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Army to identify and evaluate processes and economical practices that would enable arsenals to remain viable and critical components of the defense industrial base. Non-toxic frangible ammunition The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of non-toxic frangible ammunition. Non-toxic frangible ammunition rounds are environmentally- friendly, lead-free munitions for indoor or urban small arms training. These rounds disintegrate on impact with hard surface targets and reduce or eliminate lead contamination to the environment while providing safer and cleaner training scenarios than currently available. The committee notes the Army's recent evaluation and safety certification of certain commercial-off-the-shelf, non-toxic frangible 9 millimeter (mm) and 5.56mm ammunition under the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP). The committee understands, however, that the certifications were granted with certain limitations and restrictions. Nevertheless, the committee is encouraged by the Army's efforts under the JSSAP. Since non-toxic frangible ammunition is currently procured on a limited basis for training requirements, the committee believes that continued procurement is warranted for these unique requirements while performance deficiencies are addressed. Other Procurement, Army Overview The budget request contained $3,198.8 million for Other Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $3,136.9 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless other specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Automated data processing equipment (ADPE) The budget request contained $130.7 million for procurement of ADPE, of which $44.0 million was for the procurement of the Joint Computer Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support (JCALS) system. The committee notes a nearly 25 percent increase in the amount requested for JCALS over both the amount authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1998 and the amount projected for fiscal year 2000. Additionally, the committee notes that the system recently failed approval for Milestone III low rate initial production for the second time. Therefore, the committee recommends $24.9 million, a decrease of $19.1 million, for continued limited procurement of this system. Close combat tactical trainer (CCTT) The budget request contained $113.9 million for continued low rate initial production (LRIP) of the CCTT system, to include 77 fixed site modules and 18 mobile modules. The CCTT is a networked system of manned simulators for the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, and M113A3 carrier and will train both active and reserve component crews of armored and mechanized infantry combat units. Although the committee is aware of cost savings that can be achieved through simulation training, it is concerned with delays that have been experienced by this system as a result of the one-year slip in initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). Moreover, the committee is concerned with the 53 percent increase in the request over the amount authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1998 prior to the system's having successfully completed IOT&E. Therefore, the committee recommends $84.5 million, a decrease of $17.0 million for modules and site equipment, $2.4 million for commercial trainers, and $10.0 million for commercial image generators. Co-site interference mitigation technology The budget request did not contain funds for the procurement of co-site interference mitigation technology. Co-site interference mitigation technology limits electronic interference created by multiple, co-located radio transmission antennae when radios transmit simultaneously, thereby producing ``bleed over'' of conversations from one channel to another. The committee is aware of currently available electronically-tuned helix antennae and interference- canceling technologies that may provide a solution to co-site interference and, therefore, recommends an increase of $3.0 million to procure these technologies for evaluation by Force XXI experimental units. Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV) The budget request contained $332.0 million for the procurement of 2038 FMTVs. The committee is aware that these vehicles will be procured under a four-year multiyear procurement (MYP) contract, with a fifth one-year option, beginning in fiscal year 1998. The committee is also aware of the Army's plan to develop a second production source to achieve savings through competition. However, the committee is concerned that the Army may not be able to budget sufficient resources for medium trucks in its future years defense program to justify two sources and questions whether the Army's plan to develop a second source is necessary. Therefore, the committee expects that the Secretary of the Army will not enter into production qualification contracts with potential second source suppliers until he certifies to the congressional defense committees that a second source acquisition strategy is cost effective, that sufficient funds are programmed in the future years defense program to execute that strategy and provides analysis supporting his certification. Forward entry device (FED) The budget request contained $25.0 million for the procurement of 852 FEDs. The FED is a hand-held computer used in heavy divisions by forward observers, field artillery battery commanders, and fire support teams for transmitting artillery fire requirements to field artillery units. The committee notes that the unit cost for the 852 FEDs requested is three thousand dollars higher than the unit cost for the 45 units procured in fiscal year 1998. The committee is aware of some enhancements incorporated into the system, which might explain a modest increase in unit cost. However, since the proliferation of information technologies (IT) in both the public and private sectors has greatly decreased IT costs, the committee believes that the unit cost increase for the procurement of 800 more units than were procured in fiscal year 1998 is unwarranted and recommends a reduction of $10.0 million. Ground based common sensor (GBCS) The budget request contained $25.4 million for the GBCS- Light (L) system, of which $1.5 million is for the Common Modules Electronic Intelligence Subsystem (CMES). The committee notes that the GBCS-L system has had numerous technical difficulties and experienced a significant fielding delay as a result of a two-year slip in initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). This delay has resulted in the Department's twice having used GBCS as a source of funds for reprogramming requests. The committee understands that the GBCS-L may now begin IOT&E in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998, however, as a result of the sensor's past performance, it believes that all of the requested funding may not be executable because of further delays. Therefore, the committee recommends $14.2 million, a decrease of $9.7 million for GBCS-L hardware and $1.5 million due to the duplicate entries for CMES in the budget request. High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)/HMMWV extended service plan (ESP) The budget request contained $12.1 million to procure 110 HMMWVs, 100 of which were up-armored variants, and $24.8 million to extend the life of 387 HMMWVs. The committee notes that subsequent to the submission of the budget request, the Army decided to only procure new HMMWVs rather than extend the life of older vehicles and that the new HMMWVs are a top unfunded priority of the Army Chief of Staff. Therefore, the committee recommends no funding for the HMMWV ESP and recommends $22.1 million, an increase of $10.0 million, for procurement of new up-armored HMMWVs. Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint STARS) common ground station (CGS) The budget request contained $87.2 million for the procurement of 20 Joint STARS CGSs. The committee is aware of the lack of adequate joint Army/ Air Force air-land battlefield sensor assets to detect, locate, track, and classify both moving and stationary targets beyond the forward line of troops. The CGS improves ground commanders' battlefield command and control (C2) capability by integrating into a single station the processing of signals, imagery and other intelligence received through a data link from the Air Force's E-8 Joint STARS aircraft radar. The committee is aware of the proven success of the CGS in Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia, and, therefore, recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the procurement of 24 additional CGS workstations. Joint tactical terminal The budget request contained $6.5 million in other procurement, Army, and $4.2 million in other procurement, Air Force, for the Joint Tactical Terminal intelligence broadcast transceivers. These radios are an integral part of the Integrated Broadcast Service that the committee fully supports. The committee is concerned that, because of contract protests that have resulted in delays in final contract award, the fielding of these radios has slipped, leaving operational users without the ability to receive tactical intelligence data broadcasts. In order to correct this problem, the committee recommends $11.5 million and $7.2 million, an increase of $5.0 million for the Army and $3.0 million for the Air Force, respectively, for accelerating the purchase and fielding of these radios. Land warrior The budget request contained $51.4 million for initial procurement of Land Warrior dismounted combat soldier weapon systems, but no funds were included for all-torso body armor. In its report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132), the committee noted that the effectiveness of modern all-torso body armor was aptly demonstrated during Operation Provide Hope in Somalia and that subsequent Army studies and analyses indicated more than 50 percent of all life-threatening wounds received in combat could be prevented by using such body armor. The committee believes that the medical expenses and loss of human life that could be avoided by employing this type of armor far outweigh the costs of procuring and fielding it; therefore, the committee recommends $56.4 million, an increase of $5.0 million, for the procurement of all-torso body armor. Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME) The budget request contained $545 thousand for 50 LMEs. The LME is a lightweight, frame-supported, mobile tent designed to provide rapid deployed and forward maintenance units a quick setup-and-takedown enclosed shelter in which to perform field maintenance operations on tracked and wheeled vehicles and other equipment in all climatic conditions. The committee notes that light forces will be more mobile in the future and must therefore be capable of rapidly repairing and maintaining equipment while deployed. However, because the Army identified a new requirement for LMEs after the budget request was submitted to Congress, it was not adequately funded. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the procurement of additional LMEs. Night vision devices The budget request contained $29.6 million for procurement of AN/PVS-7 night vision goggles, but no funds were included for the procurement of AN-PEQ-2A infrared aiming target pointers/infrared aiming lights. The AN-PEQ-2A infrared aiming target pointer/infrared aiming light is a target designator mounted either on individual or crew served weapons. Its eyesafe laser output is visible only when used with image intensifier night vision goggles, such as the AN/PVS-7. The committee notes that the ``Own the Night'' initiative--the Army's concept of fighting, dominating and winning battles during nighttime operations--is one of the Army Chief of Staff's top five priorities. However, the committee is concerned that adequate funding for night vision equipment is not included in the budget request, despite its having proved to be a highly successful ``over match'' capability and ``force multiplier'' for light forces in the Task Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiments. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for AN-PEQ-2A infrared aiming target pointers/infrared aiming lights. Nonsystem training devices The budget request contained $56.8 million for procurement of nonsystem training devices, but no funds were included for firefighter trainers. This training device is a computer- controlled, natural-gas-fueled system, which provides safe, realistic, and environmentally-friendly training for firefighters at airports and training academies throughout the country. The committee understands that Army firefighter training sites have been or will be closed in the future because most are not in compliance with environmental regulations. Because of the site closures, the Army has established a program to provide regional firefighter training and has awarded a contract to procure 28 firefighter trainers over a five-year period for this purpose. However, it will have procured only 12 of these trainers by the end of fiscal year 1998. The committee continues to believe that these trainers provide a safe, unique and fundamental fire prevention and teaching function for Army firefighters. Therefore, consistent with action taken in fiscal year 1998, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to procure four additional firefighter trainers. The committee also urges the Secretary of the Army to provide funds for the remaining trainer requirements in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Shortstop The budget request contained no funds for procurement of the Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS). The SEPS is a commercial electronics radio frequency countermeasure system that protects personnel and high value assets from artillery, mortar rounds and rockets by detonating their proximity fuzes well before they impact in the target area. The committee understands that initial Army testing of 5,000 rounds fired at the SEPS resulted in a 100 percent pre- detonation success rate and that follow-on tests with both artillery and rockets were also highly successful. However, for the third straight year, the Army has failed to include funding for SEPS in the budget request. SEPS, developed as a quick reaction capability system, was deployed during Operation Desert Storm and more recently in Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia. The committee authorized $9.0 million (of which $6.0 million was appropriated) in fiscal year 1998 for procurement of 30 units for forward-deployed forces in Korea. Similar to prior year action, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the procurement of additional SEPS in order to complete the fielding of systems to Korea and to begin fielding systems to Kuwait. Small pusher tug The budget request contained $4.3 million for the procurement of one small pusher tug. This tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin propeller vessel designed to tow general cargo barges in harbors, inland waterways and along coastlines. It can also assist larger tugs in docking and undocking ships of all sizes, movement of floating cranes and machine shops, and performing line handling duties. The committee is aware of the unreliable performance of the Army's 40 year-old small tugs during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and understands that the Army has a requirement for eight new tugs to replace these older vessels. The committee understands that two additional tugs can be procured at a cost of $4.7 million. Since the Army has only budgeted for six of these tugs in its future years defense program, the committee recommends $8.6 million, an increase of $4.3 million, for a total of three vessels, which would fulfill the Army requirement and complete the program. Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army Overview The budget request contained $855.1 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions, Army, for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of no funds for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Item of Special Interest Chemical agents and munitions destruction The budget request contained $855.1 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, including $182.8 million for research and development, $140.7 million for procurement, and $531.7 million for operations and maintenance. Section 1412(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99-145) requires that funds for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions, including funds for military construction projects necessary to carrying out the demilitarization program, shall be set forth in the budget of the Department of Defense as a separate program and shall not be included in the budget accounts for any military department. The committee is aware of delays associated with the construction of the chemical demilitarization site at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, that should result in a reduced level of expenditures at that installation during fiscal year 1999. The committee also notes projected increases that it does not consider are warranted in the research and development request for the destruction of stockpile and for non-stockpile agents and munitions. Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, and $834.0 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense. The recommendation includes a decrease of $11.9 million in research and development, a decrease of $6.0 million in procurement, and a decrease of $3.2 million in operations and maintenance. Aircraft Procurement, Navy Overview The budget request contained $7,466.7 million for Aircraft Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $7,420.8 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest AV-8B The budget request contained $282.7 million to procure 12 remanufactured AV-8B aircraft and $55.7 million for advance procurement of 12 remanufactured aircraft in fiscal year 2000. Consistent with its recommendations in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the committee continues to support accelerated mission capability and safety-related improvements to the AV- 8B. The committee notes that the Department's legislative proposal requests authorization for multiyear procurement of these aircraft and recommends a provision (sec. 121) that would support this request. However, the committee also notes unexplained growth in integrated logistics support and government furnished avionics compared to fiscal year 1998, and concludes such increase is unwarranted. Accordingly, the committee recommends $279.5 million, a decrease of $3.2 million, and believes that this decrease will not affect the ability of the Department to proceed with a multiyear contract. The committee understands that an unfunded option exists in the proposed 72-aircraft multiyear contract that would remanufacture the remaining 24 aircraft in the fleet and encourages the Department to negotiate such an option. AH-1W night targeting system (NTS) The budget request contained $22.4 million for AH-1W helicopter modifications, and included $9.1 million for the AH- 1W NTS. According to the budget justification documents, fiscal year 1999 is the final procurement year for this system. The NTS provides a night and adverse weather capability to employ the Hellfire and tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire guided (TOW) missiles. In addition, NTS will provide enhanced conventional weapons delivery by utilizing the system's laser ranging capability. The Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded requirements list for fiscal year 1999 identified the procurement of 10 additional systems among his highest priorities so that the Marine Corps could achieve its objective of 188 systems to modify training and attrition aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million for 10 NTSs. EA-6B modifications The budget request contained $75.7 million for EA-6B modifications but included no funds for the band 9/10 transmitter/receiver upgrade. The committee understands that the Department faces an emergent requirement to counter high frequency radar techniques of a new family of electronic threats. The committee further understands that the EA-6B is not currently equipped to counter these threats and notes that the Joint Tactical Electronic Warfare Study identified a need for improving the aircraft's jamming capability in the high frequency (band 9/10) ranges. Inrecognition of this situation, the committee recommends an increase of $39.0 million to meet this requirement.- EP-3E flat panel display The budget request contained $5.4 million for modifications to the EP-3E aircraft, but included no funds to procure flat panel displays. The EP-3E is a land-based, long-range aircraft with electronic intercept devices for detection and tracking of enemy radars and radios. The committee understands that, as new combat threats have emerged over the years, the fleet of EP-3E aircraft has undergone numerous equipment upgrades that have increased its weight. As a result, the committee also understands that critical operational and safety equipment has been removed in order to maintain the aircraft within its designed weight limit. The much lighter-weight flat panel display is a form, fit and function replacement for existing displays and would save nearly 600 pounds per aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to replace existing displays with the flat panel displays in the Navy's EP-3E fleet of 12 aircraft. ES-3 modifications The budget request contained $5.2 million for ES-3 series modification kits. The Navy has informed the committee that it intends to terminate the ES-3 program in fiscal year 2000. Based on this decision, the committee sees no need for modifying these aircraft prior to their removal from the fleet. The committee, therefore, recommends no funding for these modifications. F-14 modifications The budget request contained $223.7 million for F-14 modifications, including $81.1 million for structural improvements. The committee notes excessive cost growth related to modifications for structural improvements and, therefore, recommends a decrease of $7.3 million. F/A-18E/F The budget request contained $2,787.8 million for 30 F/A- 18E/F aircraft and $109.4 million for advance procurement of 36 aircraft in fiscal year 2000. Based on the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the committee notes that the Department has reduced the total procurement objective from 1,000 to 548 aircraft and has also reduced procurement in the future years defense program (FYDP) from 248 to 224. The committee notes that the Department plans to request increases of six aircraft per year for each of the next three fiscal years until its maximum production rate of 48 aircraft per year is attained in fiscal year 2002. However, for fiscal year 1999, the requested increase from fiscal year 1998 is 10 aircraft. The committee is also aware that the Department has increased the number of low rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft in fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 from 42, as approved in 1992 by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), to its current plan of 62 aircraft. The Department's Selected Acquisition Reports indicate that both its initial plan of 42 LRIP aircraft and its current plan of 62 LRIP aircraft were predicated on a procurement objective of 1,000 aircraft. The committee notes that were the Department to comply with the 10 percent LRIP guideline contained in section 2400 of title 10, United States Code, 55 LRIP aircraft should be sufficient. During the past year, the committee has followed the Department's challenges in solving an uncommanded rolling motion problem that occurs at altitudes and angles of attack in that portion of the flight envelope where the F/A-18E/F performs air combat maneuvers. The Department's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation recently testified that the most promising solution to this problem--a porous wing fairing--causes unacceptable airframe buffeting and that the final solution to the problem may include other combinations of aerodynamic alterations to the wing surface. According to the Director, the root cause of the problem and modifications to the porous wing fairing are still being investigated, and the wing fairing configuration flown during developmental testing does not incorporate the production representative wing fold mechanism. Additionally, the Director stated that the Department would not have a complete understanding of the impact of the design fix, including uncertainty over air flow effects around the weapons pylons, until the conclusion of operational testing in 1999. Moreover, the Director also noted other concerns with the aircraft such as deficiencies in the performance of its survivability and radar jamming systems. In light of the significantly higher increase in production proposed for fiscal year 1999, the apparent excess number of LRIP aircraft, and the development and testing issues yet to be fully resolved, the committee recommends a reduction of $213.1 million and three aircraft. Of the total $213.1 million reduction, initial spares is reduced by $8.4 million. The committee believes that an increase of seven aircraft from the approved fiscal year 1998 level is appropriate and further believes that a total of 59 LRIP aircraft, approximately 11 percent of the total procurement objective, will meet requirements for operational testing and evaluation and will also be sufficient to meet both initial training requirements and the first operational deployment scheduled for fiscal year 2002. Joint primary air training system (JPATS) The budget request contained no funds for the Navy JPATS. The JPATS, consisting of both the T-6A aircraft and a ground-based training system, will be used by the Navy and Air Force for primary pilot training. The T-6A will replace both the Navy's T-34 and Air Force's T-37B fleets, providing safer, more economical and more effective training for future student pilots. The Air Force began procurement of the T-6A in fiscal year 1995, and the committee understands that the Navy plans to begin procurement in fiscal year 2000. The committee believes that accelerating T-6A procurement for the Navy would not only reduce procurement costs for both the Navy and the Air Force but would reduce operations and maintenance costs forboth services as well. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $12.2 million for four T-6A aircraft to initiate the Navy's procurement of JPATS. Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA) The budget request contained no funds for the LESPA. The committee continues to support the LESPA to replace old parachutes in the P-3 and E-2C aircraft. Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life, the committee believes that the Navy will realize substantial life cycle cost savings by procuring LESPA compared to continued use of existing parachutes. Consistent with previous actions, the committee recommends $22.0 million to procure LESPA, including $15.0 million for the P-3 and $7.0 million for the E-2C. T-45TS The budget request contained $282.7 million for 15 T-45C aircraft and $60.2 million for advance procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2000. The committee notes that fiscal year 1999 is the first year of a planned five-year multiyear procurement. The committee supports the Department's replacement of its TA-4J and T-2C training aircraft fleets due to their decreasing reliability and increasing maintenance costs. In fiscal year 1998, the committee recommended additional funding for procurement of the T-45C from 12 to 15 aircraft in order to accelerate the replacement process. Consequently, the committee supports the Department's plan to procure this aircraft using a multiyear contract. However, the committee notes unexplained cost growth in airframe ground support and peculiar training equipment. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.5 million for these items and understands that this reduction will not impact the airframe multiyear contract. V-22 The budget request contained $610.8 million to procure 7 V- 22 tiltrotor aircraft and $54.0 million for advance procurement of 10 aircraft in fiscal year 2000. The committee continues to support accelerated V-22 procurement and endorses the Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR) recommendation to achieve a long-term production rate of 30 aircraft per year by 2004. Additionally, the committee notes that the procurement of an additional MV-22 aircraft in fiscal year 1999 is the Commandant of the Marine Corps' highest unfunded aviation acquisition priority. However, the committee also notes excessive cost growth for peculiar ground support equipment. Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the recommendations of the QDR, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priorities for fiscal year 1999, the committee recommends an increase of $78.0 million to procure one additional aircraft. The committee also recommends a decrease of $14.0 million for peculiar ground support equipment, resulting in a net increase of $64.0 million. Weapons Procurement, Navy Overview The budget request contained $1,327.5 million for Weapons Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $1,192.2 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Close-in weapon system (CIWS) surface mode upgrade The budget request contained $2.8 million for CIWS modifications but included no funds for the surface mode upgrade for amphibious ships. The CIWS is a fully autonomous, radar-directed gun system designed for anti-ship missile defense. While the existing system is effective against its designed threat, the Navy's new focus on littoral operations requires an ability to defend against small, fast surface craft for which most Navy ships have a limited defense. The surface mode upgrade adds an electro-optical infra-red radar that provides this capability. To address this deficiency, the committee recommended an increase of $20.0 million in fiscal year 1998, of which Congress appropriated an increase of $15.0 million. Consistent with its prior actions, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to procure CIWS surface mode upgrade kits for amphibious ships. The committee is concerned that continued manpower and budget reductions threaten the readiness and performance of the CIWS, which the committee understands will be maintained in the fleet beyond 2010. As a result, the committee has been advised that the Department is considering proposals that would reduce life-cycle costs of this system, including a single agency support concept. Under this concept, the Navy would contract with a single agency to integrate ordnance alteration kit production and installation with overhauls, maintenance, spares, warehousing, and shipping activities. The committee encourages the Department to conduct a fleet demonstration of this concept to assess its utility to the CIWS and other systems. Standard missile The budget request contained $225.7 million for 70 Block III and 45 Block IV Standard missiles. The committee notes a 41 percent increase in support costs, despite the fact that the total number of missiles would only increase by 15 percent from fiscal year 1998 levels. Accordingly, the committee recommends $205.7 million, a decrease of $20.0 million, and believes that the Department can procure the requested number of missiles within this amount. Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps Overview The budget request contained $429.5 million for Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $452.0 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Item of Special Interest Marine corps ammunition The budget request contained $146.7 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends $171.7 million, an increase of $25.0 million for the following types of ammunition: [In millions of dollars] 9mm all types-.................................................... $0.8 CTG 5.56mm all types-............................................. 0.6 CTG 7.62mm all types-............................................. 0.7 CTG 25mm all types-............................................... 0.9 120mm TPCSDS-T M865-.............................................. 0.5 120mm TP-T M831-.................................................. 0.7 Rocket, 83mm Dual Mode PIP-....................................... 17.0 Fuze, Hand Grenade, practice-..................................... 2.5 Grenade, Hand Smoke Green-........................................ 0.5 Grenade, Hand Practice Smoke TA M83-.............................. 0.2 Igniter, Time Fuze Blasting-...................................... 0.6 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy Overview The budget request contained $6,252.7 million for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $5,992.4 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program (SLEP) The budget request contained no funds for LCAC SLEP. The LCAC is the only surface platform that can provide high-speed, heavy lift for Marine Corps amphibious operations from over-the-horizon. Despite the Department's failure to provide funding for an LCAC SLEP in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Congress added $2.9 million in fiscal year 1997 and $19.5 million in fiscal year 1998 to begin to correct serious corrosion problems on the LCACs that, if not addressed, would force them out of service long before they reach their planned twenty-year operational life. The Department plans to begin the LCAC SLEP in fiscal year 2000. The Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded requirements list for fiscal year 1999 identified acceleration of the LCAC SLEP as his number one shipbuilding and conversion priority. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million for the service life extension of two LCACs. LPD-17 The budget request contained $638.8 million for LPD-18, the second ship of 12 in the LPD-17 class of new amphibious ships. The committee has recently learned that the AN/SPY-1 radar and its associated combat system has been proposed to the Navy as an alternative to the currently planned combat system of the LPD-17 class of amphibious ships. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the congressional defense committees an analysis of alternatives that compares the AN/ SPY-1 radar and its associated combat system with the currently-planned combat system or any other combat systems under consideration for the LPD-17 class by March 30, 1999. This analysis should consider current and future requirements for combat systems capability, as well as schedule and life- cycle cost impacts of the various alternatives. National defense features The committee continues its strong support for the National Defense Features (NDF) program and believes that a robust NDF program will provide superior ships to support mobilization requirements, preserve domestic shipbuilding and supplier base jobs, and assist U.S. shipyards in gaining commercial market share. The incorporation of defense features into newly built commercial vehicle carriers would be a cost effective method to both expand surge sealift capability and recapitalize the Ready Reserve Fleet. The committee believes that entry into the commercial vehicle carrier market is a key element for the success of the NDF program. The committee reaffirms that the NDF program and, specifically, the entry of new U.S. built commercial vehicle carriers equipped with NDF into the U.S.-Japan shipping market are in the national interest. The committee expects the Navy to follow the committee's guidance and to more aggressivelyexecute the NDF program. Furthermore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to enlist the cooperation of the Government of Japan to overcome restrictions which inhibit U.S. flag carrier participation in the Japan trade market. Such cooperation will advance the mutual security interests of both nations. New attack submarine (NSSN) The budget request contained $1,498.2 million for the second NSSN and $504.7 million for advance procurement of the third NSSN in fiscal year 2001. The committee has learned that the budget request underfunds the integration of the non-propulsion electronic systems (NPES). The NPES is composed of 24 subsystems, including sonar, combat control, and electronic support measures. The committee understands that underfunding NPES integration would add future cost risk to this program and, therefore, recommends an increase of $10.0 million to address the integration shortfall. Strategic sealift The budget request contained $251.4 million for procurement of the final Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) vessel. Prior to the fiscal year 1999 budget request, procurement of strategic sealift vessels was budgeted, authorized and appropriated in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF). The NDSF is a revolving fund that was specifically established by the Congress to give autonomy and visibility to the critical mission area of strategic sealift, in recognition of the low priority sealift had been previously accorded by the Navy. Consolidating the acquisition of sealift assets and their operations into a single account was intended to protect it from competing with other Navy priorities in the budget formulation and program execution processes. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $251.4 million to the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy request and an increase of $251.4 million to the NDSF request in order to reflect the procurement of the final LMSR in the NDSF. Other Procurement, Navy Overview The budget request contained $3,937.7 million for Other Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $3,969.5 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest AN/BPS-15(H) submarine navigation radar upgrade The budget request contained no funds for upgrading the AN/ BPS-15(H) submarine navigation radar to make it compliant with the Navy's new electronic chart display information systems (ECDIS-N) requirement. ECDIS-N compliance mandates the elimination of paper navigation charts on submarines by upgrading their radar navigation systems with computer-based charts designed to international commercial-off-the-shelf standards. The committee supports the ECDIS-N requirement and recommends an increase of $9.0 million to provide for software and hardware upgrades to the AN/BPS-15(H) in order to meet it. The committee believes that this increase will further enhance the safety and improve the operational capability of the Navy's submarine fleet. AN/SQQ-89 surface anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combat system The budget request contained $27.4 million for the AN/SQQ- 89 ASW combat system, including $8.7 million for upgrade of existing systems on DDG-51 destroyers. The AN/SQQ-89 detects, classifies, and localizes threat attack submarines, and the planned upgrade is intended to improve its shallow water capabilities. However, subsequent to the submission of the Department's budget request, the committee was informed that the upgrade cannot be integrated into the existing systems. The committee has also learned that a fleet evaluation demonstrated that portions of the upgrade may not be effective or suitable to field. Moreover, limited developmental testing of a related classification system showed that it, too, may not meet performance requirements. As a result of these deficiencies, the committee understands that the Navy is reviewing and revising its AN/SQQ-89 upgrade program to develop and procure a fully integrated system in fiscal year 2003. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.7 million for this upgrade. AN/USC-42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) ultra-high frequency (UHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) terminals The budget request contained $145.2 million for SATCOM ship terminals, but included no funds for AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminals. The AN/USC-42 Mini-DAMA is a commercial-off-the-shelf miniaturized submarine transceiver version of the DAMA terminal. DAMA terminals quadruple the UHF satellite channel capacity through multiplexing, thus providing adequate satellite access to meet user requirements without requiring an increase in the number of satellites on orbit. The committee has learned that at less than one-tenth the size or weight of previous UHF systems, the AN/USC-42 mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminal digitizes, encrypts, transmits and receives data and voice transmissions at more than ten times the efficiency of terminals without DAMA capability. The committee understands fiscal year1999 is the final production year for the AN/USC-42 terminal and that the Department has an operational requirement for 115 AN/USC-42 terminals but has only budgeted for 72, leaving a shortfall of 43 terminals. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to procure additional mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminals and associated spare parts. Beamhit laser marksmanship training system (LMTS) The budget request contained $2.2 million for training support equipment, but included no funds for the Beamhit LMTS. The committee is aware of the improved marksmanship qualification scores achieved by Army, Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Navy personnel with the Beamhit LMTS. By using this system, the committee understands that military personnel may train with their own weapons and do so under home station conditions thereby conserving ammunition and other resources. The committee has also learned that the Army Dismounted Battlespace Lab at Fort Benning, Georgia, determined that the Beamhit LMTS was so precise that it could be used to correct the aim of both weapons and aiming devices. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this system and encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine its utility for use throughout the Department. Cooperative engagement capability (CEC) The budget request contained $47.3 million for four CEC systems. CEC allows theater air and missile defense weapons to operate as a single system by distributing sensor data from any ship or aircraft in the battle group to other platforms through a real-time, line-of-sight, high-data-rate network. For fiscal year 1998, the Chief of Naval Operations identified nine CEC systems as one of his top three unfunded procurement priorities, and the Congress provided $75.0 million to procure the seven needed for a carrier battle group. The committee understands that the Navy still requires five additional CEC systems for training and operational requirements. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million to meet this requirement. Weapons range support The budget request contained $8.1 million for weapons range support, but included no funds to procure a deployable rangeless air combat training system (DRACTS) or to procure mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES) systems for the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF). The DRACTS is an air combat training system used by a deployed aircraft carrier battle group as a primary means of fleet readiness training. The committee has been advised that DRACTS capability can be achieved by leveraging the Navy's existing Large Area Tracking Range (LATR) capability through the addition of an off-the-shelf processor and by the reconfiguration of existing software. In its present configuration, the LATR tracks aircraft and vessels during large-scale battle group, mine warfare, and air combat training exercises. The committee notes that a future such system, the Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS), is under development and, elsewhere in this report, recommends an increase to accelerate this process. However, to improve the near-term readiness of deployed carrier battle groups, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to procure additional DRACTS components. The MRES, which is employed with the LATR system, is a high-power electronic warfare simulator system capable of illuminating aircraft, ships and various other signal collection platforms. The system will also be capable of receiving active electronic countermeasures (ECM) transmissions for spectrum viewing and evaluation of ECM techniques. Existing threat simulators at the PMRF are low-fidelity emitters designed to track only ships and submarines and do not have the capability to track fast-moving fighter and attack aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to procure two MRES systems for the PMRF to improve electronic warfare training for the Pacific fleet. WSN-7 ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN-2 doppler sonar velocity log (DSVL) The budget request contained $45.3 million for other navigation equipment, including $22.0 million for the procurement of 26 WSN-7 RLGs, but included no funds for the WQN-2 DVSL. The WSN-7 RLG is the common RLG for both surface and subsurface platforms. The WQN-2 has been designated by the Navy as the fleet standard speed log to replace the existing logs which were designed in the 1950s. The committee understands that RLGs are less expensive, more reliable, more accurate, and have lower cost of ownership than the existing WSN-1, -3, and -5 navigators that they replace. The committee also understands that savings in maintenance costs alone will pay for replacement RLGs in three to four years. For these reasons, fleet commanders have emphasized the need to accelerate WSN-7 RLG installation. Consequently, the committee recommended an increase of $18.0 million to accelerate the procurement of RLGs for fiscal year 1998. Consistent with its previous action, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to continue to accelerate the procurement and installation of the WSN-7 RLG. The committee notes that the Navy has not budgeted funding to modify the input/output boards of the WSN-7 RLG to make it compatible with the antiquated speed logs throughout the fleet. Since the WQN-2 is already compatible with these I/O boards, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to initiate replacement of the existing speed logs and eliminate the need for unnecessary, expensive modification of existing speed logs. However, the committee understands that there are at least two versions of the WQN-2 that could be competed for production. Accordingly, the committee also recommends an increase of $2.5 million to test and evaluate a second version for a possible future production competition. Procurement, Marine Corps Overview The budget request contained $745.9 million for Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $691.9 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Marine corps electronic warfare support system The budget request contained $16.4 million for acquiring two Marine Corps Electronic Warfare Support Systems (MEWSS). Because of developmental problems and delays in the testing and fielding of the MEWSS, the committee directs that none of the funds authorized may be obligated until completion of a successful initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). Although the development of the MEWSS is common with that of the Army's Ground-Based Common Sensor (GBCS) system and that the IOT&E of the MEWSS is directly dependent to the testing of the GBCS, the committee does not see a specific need to make a successful IOT&E of MEWSS contingent on a successful IOT&E of GBCS. Marine corps tactical intelligence equipment The budget requested contained no funds for purchasing and evaluating commercial imagery display tools or modern printer technologies. The committee is aware of the Marine Corps' highly successful evaluation of the Remote Replication System (RRS). The RRS allows the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) to deploy with automated equipment that provides the capability to ``reach back'' to National Imagery and Mapping Agency data bases and ``pull forward'' data in order to construct mapping and imagery products. The committee believes this concept has the potential to reduce drastically the paper products with which the MEF currently deploys. However, despite the success of the RRS concept, the committee understands that there has been little attention paid to providing modern display and printing technologies. Therefore the committee recommends $1.0 million for purchasing and evaluating commercial imagery manipulation tools, state-of-the-art display devices and high quality large format printers for field use. Medium tactical vehicle replacement (MTVR) The budget request contained $83.7 million for procurement of replacement vehicles for five-ton trucks, of which $19.8 million was for training devices in support of the replacement vehicles. The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy has requested authorization to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for the MTVR program. The MTVR is the upgraded vehicle replacement for the current M809/M939 five-ton truck. Major improvements include an expanded 7\1/2\-ton off-road and up to 12-ton on-road cargo capacity, a new electronically controlled engine and transmission, independent suspension, central tire inflation system, antilock brakes, traction control, corrosion control, and safety and ergonomic features. While the committee supports the use of training and simulation devices to reduce costs of vehicle operations andmaintenance, it questions the procurement of such a large number of these devices prior to a contract being awarded for low rate initial production of the vehicle they support. Therefore, the committee recommends $73.9 million, a decrease of $9.8 million for training devices. The committee also approves the Secretary's request to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for the MTVR program. Unit cost growth The budget request contained $745.9 million for Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 1999. The committee is encouraged that the budget request is 50 percent higher than the fiscal year 1998 budget request. However, the committee notes that a number of programs have experienced unjustified unit cost growth even though for several programs twice as many units are planned to be procured in fiscal year 1999 than were procured in fiscal year 1998. The committee is concerned by these increases, and, therefore, recommends a decrease for the programs reflected in the table below. [In millions of dollars] Automatic Test Equipment System: Third Echelon Test Set-....................................... $7.0 Communications Switching and Control Systems: Tactical Data Network (TDN) Gateway/Shelter-.................. 6.0 TDN Server.................................................... 17.0 Environmental Control Equipment Assorted: Enhanced Refrigeration Unit-.................................. 0.5 Recycling Unit-............................................... 0.3 Power Equipment Assorted: Generator, 30 Kw/60 Hz-....................................... 0.9 Generator, 30 Kw/60 Hz-....................................... 0.5 Garrison Mobile Engineer Equipment-............................... 0.4 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force Overview The budget request contained $7,756.5 million for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $8,219.1 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Bomber modernization The budget request contained $189.9 million in post production support for the B-2 bomber and $15.7 million, $91.6 million and $38.3 million for aircraft modifications for the B- 2, B-1, and B-52 bombers, respectively. The Long Range Airpower Review panel was mandated by section 8131 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-56) to ``evaluate the adequacy of current planning for United States long range airpower and the requirement for continued low rate production of B-2 stealth bombers.'' The panel concluded that in order to reach the full potential of the current bomber fleet, consisting of B-52s, B- 1s, and B-2s, additional investments in upgrades should be fully supported. The committee endorses this conclusion and believes that upgrades to each of these aircraft, but especially the very small fleet of B-2 bombers, must be a priority. The committee received testimony from the panel that upgrades to the B-2 identified by the Air Force will solve a number of the problems concerning low observable maintainability, further enhance the B-2's stealthiness, as well as significantly improve situational awareness for B-2 crews. The panel strongly recommended that these upgrades be funded, and the committee understands that funding added to the B-2 program by Congress in fiscal year 1998 will meet the costs of many, but not all, of these improvements. Consequently, the committee recommends $275.9 million for B-2 post production support, an increase of $86.0 million to continue to enhance the B-2's operational effectiveness. The panel also stated that a long-term bomber force structure plan, which includes consideration of additional bomber aircraft procurement, needs to be developed to ensure sustainment of the bomber force. The committee agrees with this assessment and, therefore, directs the Secretary of the Air Force to prepare such a plan and submit it to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 1999. The plan should identify upgrades required for the current bomber fleet, a funding profile for these upgrades, and a timeline for consideration of the acquisition of a follow-on bomber. C-130J The budget request contained $63.8 million for one C-130J aircraft. No funds were requested for any C-130J variant--the EC-130J, the WC-130J, and the KC-130J. The committee recommends an increase of $397.6 million for seven additional aircraft. Two of these are to be configured as KC-130J tankers for the Marine Corps, one is to be configured as a special operations variant for the Air National Guard, and one is to be configured as a weather reconnaissance variant for the Air Force Reserve. CV-22 The budget request contained $22.3 million for advance procurement of a CV-22 weapons system trainer. The CV-22 is a Special Operations Forces variant of the V- 22 tiltrotor aircraft. The Air Force plans to procure and field 50 CV-22 aircraft and associate support equipment for the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The Air Force also plans to fund 85 percent of the procurement costs for CV-22 training systems with USSOCOM funding the remaining 15 percent. According to the budget justification material for the CV- 22 weapons system trainer, it requires a three-year lead time for delivery, requiring procurement funding to begin in fiscal year 1999 in order to support a ready-for-training date of September 2002. The committee is unaware of any previous weapons system trainer of such complexity as to necessitate advance procurement funds two years prior to the request for full funding of the weapons system it supports. Consequently, the committee believes these funds can be deferred until fiscal year 2000 and recommends no authorization for this purpose. Likewise, the committee recommends no funds for CV-22 modifications in the Defense-wide Procurement account, a decrease of $4.0 million. E-8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS) The budget request contained $463.1 million to procure two E-8C Joint STARS aircraft, but included no advance procurement funding to continue production of this aircraft. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommended reducing the procurement objective of the Joint STARS from 19 to 13 aircraft, based on the assumption that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would select Joint STARS as its Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) aircraft and purchase 6 of them. Despite NATO's having rejected the Joint STARS as its AGS choice before the budget request was finalized, the Department failed to change the QDR recommendation. The committee is disturbed that the Department chose not to continue Joint STARS production, despite the Air Combat Command's requirement for 19 of these ``low-density, high-demand'' aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends $72.0 million for advance procurement of two additional E-8Cs in fiscal year 2000. F-15 modifications The budget request contained $196.6 million for F-15 modifications, including $17.8 million for upgrading 12 F100 engines to the 220E configuration. The request contained no funds for procurement of the ALQ-135 internal countermeasures set Band 1.5 upgrade. The committee understands that the so-called ``E-Kit'' upgrade will provide increased safety, reliability, and performance at a fraction of the cost of a new production 220 engine. Since the F-15C will remain the Air Force's primary air superiority fighter until the F-22 enters the inventory in the mid-2000s, the committee believes that the ``E-Kit'' modification is critical to ensuring that this aircraft continues to perform safely and at peak efficiency. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to accelerate this upgrade. The committee also understands that the ALQ-135 Band 1.5 program, which is currently in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase, is scheduled to complete initial operational test and evaluation in May 1999. The committee notes the Band 1.5 shares a high degree of commonality with the currently fielded Band 3, which completes production in late 1998. Because the Air Force did not request procurement funds to begin production of Band 1.5, the committee is concerned about the impact of a production break and with the delay in getting this important upgrade fielded. Accordingly, the committee recommends $25.0 million to upgrade approximately one squadron of F-15Es with the modified ALQ-135 Band 1.5 in order to ensure this aircraft will have full frequency protection. In total, the committee recommends $231.4 million for F-15 modifications, an increase of $34.8 million. In addition to the increases described above, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.2 million for various modifications which either show excessive cost growth or were poorly justified. F-16 The budget request contained no funds for procurement of the F-16C multirole aircraft. The committee notes that the Congress has funded 15 additional F-16Cs in the last three fiscal years--six each in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and three in fiscal year 1998--to reduce the attrition reserve shortfall of 40 aircraft the Air Force has projected through 2010. The committee believes that it is prudent to continue to reduce this shortfall, especially in the most capable Block 40 and Block 50 versions, and, therefore, recommends $60.0 million to acquire two additional F-16C aircraft for this purpose. F-16 modifications The budget request contained $229.3 million for F-16 modifications but included no funding for the Digital Terrain System (DTS) upgrade. The DTS, which provides both a precise navigation and a ground collision avoidance capability, is designed to reduce controlled flight into terrain mishaps. The committee strongly supports the DTS upgrade as indicated by its addition of $20.0 million (of which $12.0 million was appropriated) to the fiscal year 1998 budget request for this purpose. Although the Air Force states that DTS is a firm requirement for the F-16 and it is in the process of modifying the F-16's operational flight program to accommodate DTS integration, it has not budgeted funds to continue this upgrade until fiscal year 2001. The committee finds this situation unacceptable and recommends $12.0 million to continue to accelerate the incorporation of DTS technology into the F-16 fleet. The committee also recommends a decrease of $6.9 million for various poorly justified modifications. Global hawk The budget request contained $90.1 million in research and development funds to complete fabrication and integration of the final three demonstration aerial vehicles, which will be used for military utility and user demonstration testing. However, the budget request contained no procurement funds to begin production of the vehicle. Global Hawk is a conventional, high altitude, endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which will provide all-weather, day/night, reconnaissance and surveillance in direct support of Joint Forces Commanders. The committee understands that the Air Force will assume management of the Global Hawk from the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office on October 1, 1998 and that planning is underway to transition this UAV from an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration platform to a production program. However, the committee notes that even if production funds are requested in fiscal year 2000, there will be a gap of two years between delivery of the last demonstration vehicle and the first production vehicle. In order to efficiently transition this program to production, the committee recommends an increase of $32.5 million for advance procurement of three Global Hawk UAVs. Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS) The budget request contained $107.1 million for JPATS, including $36.2 million for the Ground Based Training System (GBTS). The committee notes that more research and development funding for the GBTS is included in the budget request--$34.2 million--than was appropriated in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 combined. The committee further notes that this amount is only slightly less than the procurement request--indicating the GBTS program is highly concurrent. Although the committee strongly supports the JPATS program, it believes that GBTS procurement funding is premature in view of the pre-production research and development activities remaining. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $36.2 million and defers initial GBTS procurement. However, the committee also recommends an increase of $9.1 million for three additional T6-A aircraft in order to allow the Air Force to obtain the upper limit in its JPATS variations-in-quantity contract. In total, the committee recommends a decrease of $27.1 million for JPATS. Miscellaneous production charges The budget request contained $221.5 million for miscellaneous production charges, including $10.1 million for High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile targeting pod modifications. The committee notes that $6.1 million was requested for the same purpose in the ``Other aircraft modifications'' funding line. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.1 million. Navigational safety upgrades The budget request contained $49.5 million for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) equipment and $51.1 million for Enhanced Ground ProximityWarning System (EGPWS) equipment. The committee is aware there is also funding for both TCAS and EGPWS in other larger modification projects where itemized cost breakouts are not exact. TCAS provides a flight crew predictive collision avoidance information regarding its aircraft's position relative to another aircraft. It operates without air traffic control from ground-based systems. EGPWS provides an aircrew with knowledge of impending collision with the ground. The committee is very supportive of providing these navigational safety upgrades to the Air Force's fleet of passenger- and cargo-carrying aircraft as expeditiously as possible. The committee understands that the majority of these upgrades for passenger-carrying aircraft have been funded in prior years and believes that appropriate attention should now be given to cargo-carrying aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for TCAS equipment and $25.0 million for EGPWS equipment. Pacer coin The budget request contained $2.4 million in aircraft spares and repair parts for the transfer of mission equipment from retiring Pacer Coin aircraft to the non-dedicated, follow- on C-130 reconnaissance aircraft. The committee notes that a fiscal year 1998 reprogramming action stated that all funds for the C-130 follow-on program were included in that request. Furthermore, the committee does not agree that $2.4 million of procurement funding is required to transfer equipment from one aircraft to another. Therefore, the committee recommends no funding for this purpose. Ammunition Procurement, Air Force Overview The budget request contained $384.2 million for Ammunition Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $383.6 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Missile Procurement, Air Force Overview The budget request contained $2,359.8 million for Missile Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $2,234.7 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest AGM-165 Maverick Modifications The budget request contained no funds for Maverick modifications. The committee recommended $11.0 million in fiscal year 1998 to initiate a much-needed, low-cost, service life extension program to the Maverick missile. Unfortunately, only $8.0 million was appropriated for this purpose. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to provide the necessary funds to ensure a smooth transition from development to production. The committee expects the Air Force to include continued funding for this upgrade in the future years defense program. Global positioning system The budget request contained $77.4 million for advance procurement of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites. The committee understands that $28.4 million of the advance procurement funds would be used to acquire the first three Block IIF satellites and the remaining $49.0 million would support a multiyear procurement of an additional 12 satellites. While the committee continues to support the GPS program, it believes that a commitment to a multiyear procurement for these satellites is premature. GPS satellites continue to remain on orbit much longer than their expected design lives. Although the uncertainty inherent in satellite life span requires that a certain number be constructed for contingencies, the committee believes that the planned multiyear procurement would result in an inventory well in excess of future requirements. Moreover, the Department's fiscal year 1999 legislative proposal included several requests for multiyear procurement approval, but it did not include such a request for GPS. Therefore, the committee recommends deferral of a GPS multiyear procurement and a decrease of $49.0 million. Inertial upper stage The budget request contained $48.0 million for the inertial upper stage (IUS) program. The committee notes that the Department has withheld approximately $2.0 million that was authorized and appropriated for the IUS in fiscal year 1998 and understands these funds are excess to program needs. Accordingly, the committee recommends $46.0 million for the IUS and directs the Department to apply the funds being withheld to fiscal year 1999 requirements. Medium launch vehicle The budget request contained $188.4 million for the medium launch vehicle program. The committee recommends $177.4 million, a reduction of $11.0 million,based on changes in the launch schedule of Global Positioning System satellites that will reduce medium launch vehicle operations costs. Minuteman gyro stabilized platform The budget request contained no funding for advanced inertial measurement units (IMU) or gyro stabilized platforms (GSP). The committee notes that, although the Air Force has two validated mission need statements for improved missile guidance systems, Air Force Space Command has not completed a GSP operational requirements document (ORD). The committee understands that maintenance problems with the current IMU on the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) are increasing and believes that its replacement with an advanced IMU would result in increased alert force reliability and flexibility, as well as lower life cycle costs and improved accuracy. The committee therefore urges Air Force Space Command to complete the GSP ORD in time to support the fiscal year 2000 budget request and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the congressional defense committees a report on IMU options for the Minuteman III by January 15, 1999. The report should include an analysis of options currently under consideration, estimated cost of these options, and potential benefits of any option involving a new GSP. Minuteman III modifications The budget request contained $90.6 million for Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) modifications, of which $83.7 million was for the guidance replacement program (GRP). The committee notes that the Department reduced the fiscal year 1999 GRP request from the level anticipated when the fiscal year 1998 budget was submitted to Congress. The committee understands that this reduction would delay the program by up to two years and require continued use of increasingly unreliable guidance packages. The committee also believes that this delay could potentially undermine the ICBM industrial base. As a consequence, the committee is concerned that the proposed GRP funding level would increase risk to the sustainability of the ICBM force and increase overall program costs. Therefore, in order to mitigate such problems, the committee recommends $113.6 million, an increase of $23.0 million, for GRP procurement. Titan space boosters The budget request contained $578.5 million for Titan space boosters. The committee understands that excess program funds have been identified in fiscal year 1998 and believes that the fiscal year 1999 request also contains excess funds. Therefore, the committee recommends $550.5 million, a reduction of $28.0 million. Of this reduction, $12.0 million is from excess funds in fiscal year 1998, which the committee directs be applied to fiscal year 1999 program requirements. Other Procurement, Air Force Overview The budget request contained $6,974.4 million for Other Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of $7,046.4 million for fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Base information infrastructure The budget request contained $159.4 million for base information infrastructure, of which $72.7 million is for the voice switching system (VSS) product area. The committee notes that the request for the VSS product area exceeds the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1998 by almost $67.0 million. This increase is attributed to the ``Year 2000'' problem, yet no justification has been provided to the committee that explains how these funds will be used. Although the committee is acutely aware of the ``Year 2000'' problem, it believes that an increase of this magnitude is unwarranted absent a detailed explanation for its intended use. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million. Rangeless air combat training system (RACTS) The budget request contained $13.2 million for combat training ranges, but included no funds for the RACTS. The RACTS, which can be used at either home station or in a deployed location, provides realistic air combat training over land or sea without dependence upon ground-installed instrumentation. The committee notes that a RACTS was delivered to Kadena Air Base, Japan, in August 1997, and the committee understands that since its delivery, Air Force and Navy pilots have successfully used this system on more than 3,000 sorties. The committee also notes that a similar system is scheduled for installation at Alpena Air National Guard Base, Michigan, during fiscal year 1998. Since the committee has been informed that the United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE) has a requirement for a RACTS but has not budgeted funds to meet this requirement, it recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this purpose. Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment The budget request contained $31.1 million for tactical CE equipment, of which $27.3 million is for theater deployable communications (TDC) sets. TDC is a compact, high bandwidth, commercially available communications system used by forward- deployed forces. It is much more capable than the aging equipment it replaces and requires significantly reduced airlift support. In April 1997, the Air Force created a command and control (C2) task force and directed it to establish an air and space C2 policy for the 21st century. One key finding of that task force was the determination that the Air Force should accelerate procurement of TDC sets and complete the buyout of this equipment by fiscal year 2001. The committee endorsed this finding and added $25.0 million ($18.0 million of which was appropriated) for this purpose to the fiscal year 1998 budget request. To continue acceleration of TDC equipment and consistent with its fiscal year 1998 action, the committee recommends anincrease of $20.0 million for TDC equipment. Procurement, Defense-Wide Overview The budget request contained $2,041.7 million for Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of $1,962.9 million for fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Automated document conversion system (ADCS) The budget request contained no funds for ADCS. The committee understands that the ADCS program is performing a critical role in the attainment of the Department's goal to digitize all engineering drawings and technical data by fiscal year 2002. The committee continues to strongly support this program and recommends $32.0 million for the purchase of ADCS hardware and software. Chemical-biological defense equipment for rapid assessment and initial detection teams The budget request contained a total of $620.3 million for the chemical-biological defense program, including $283.9 million for procurement of chemical and biological defense equipment for the military services and $336.4 million for research, development, test and evaluation. The committee is aware that the budget request includes $6.9 million for initial procurement of contamination avoidance equipment for the National Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams that the DOD has proposed be established to provide immediate response and assistance to state and local authorities in response to a domestic emergency involving the use of weapons of mass destruction, or other chemical or biological accident or incident. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee is concerned that the Department's efforts and initiatives have not been closely coordinated with other agencies within the government who share responsibility for responding to such incidents, and by the apparent lack of an effectively coordinated effort on the part of these agencies. Accordingly, the committee has deferred action on the Department's recommendations for legislation which would provide authority to establish the RAID teams in the National Guard and on related matters, pending a report from the Secretary of Defense on the Department's overall plan for addressing these issues. Furthermore, the committee recommends no authorization for procurement of equipment for the RAID teams and recommends a decrease of $6.9 million for procurement of chemical and biological defense contamination avoidance equipment for the military services. Defense support program office training and exercise The budget request contained $7.8 million for Defense Support Program Office (DSPO) training and exercise support. The Secretary of Defense has informed the committee that the DSPO is being abolished and its functions consolidated within the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The committee understands that the National Military and Operations Support Office within the NRO is also charged with, and funded for, training and exercise support. Therefore, the committee believes the DSPO training and exercise support funding is no longer required and recommends no funds for this purpose. Flat panel night vision heads-up display system The budget request contained $47.0 million for rotary wing upgrades and sustainment, but included no funds for upgrading the HH-60G, MC-130P, C-141B, and MC-130E with a flat panel night vision heads-up display (HUD) system. A night vision HUD system allows pilots to fly at night by using outside visual references instead of using only aircraft instruments. Since the early 1980s, Air Force special operations aircrews have had such a system, but it was recently removed from their aircraft because of safety issues related to high cockpit voltages. As a result, these aircrews face increased danger and mission degradation due to the lack of night vision capability. The committee understands that the newer-technology flat panel night vision HUD system is safer, more effective, and more reliable than its predecessor. The committee also understands that the flat panel night vision HUD is a non-developmental item and can therefore meet the near- term needs of Air Force special operations crews. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million to procure and install the flat panel night vision HUD system into HH-60G, MC-130P, C-141B, and MC-130E aircraft in order to improve the safety and survivability of special operations aircrews. Mentor protege The budget request contained $17.8 million for the Mentor Protege program. This program provides funds to major Department of Defense prime contractors for the purpose of developing the technical capabilities of Small Disadvantaged Businesses to perform as subcontractors. The committee notes that the legal authority for this pilot program expires at the end of fiscal year 1998. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for the Mentor Protege program. National Guard and Reserve Equipment Overview The budget request contained no funds for National Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $300.0 million for fiscal year 1999. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Air reserve forces The United States has dramatically decreased its defense force structure over the last several years. To compensate for this smaller force structure will require the active Air Force to continue to rely on Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units to project and sustain power around the globe. The committee notes that Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units have been seamlessly integrated into the total Air Force for many years and have performed their missions superbly. In order to adequately maintain a strong total Air Force, the committee believes it is important that weapons systems assigned to the air reserve forces and the active components be comparably equipped. Therefore, the committee expects the Air Force, and the other services as well, to ensure their operational plans and budget submissions reflect this guidance. Senior scout--------- The budget request contained $14.3 million in operations and maintenance, Air National Guard, partially for the continued operation of the Senior Scout tactical reconnaissance system. Senior Scout is a C-130-employed, roll-on/roll-off, reconnaissance system operated by the Air National Guard. It provides an airborne reconnaissance collection system that is complementary to other airborne collection systems operated by the active component. The committee perceives a lack of direction and support for Senior Scout, noting that on several occasions the Air Force has nearly terminated the program, that the system has not been well supported in terms of upgrades or sensor improvements, and that it has certainly not maintained technological pace with the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft or other similar reconnaissance platforms. Consequently, the committee does not believe continuing Senior Scout to be either cost or mission effective. However, the committee believes the Air National Guard linguists currently operating the Senior Scout are vital to the overall national reconnaissance effort and sees a critical need both to retain and train them on more modern equipment. In fiscal year 1997, the Congress authorized and appropriated funding for two additional RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft. The committee has learned that the Air Force is having difficulty fully manning these aircraft. Since the Guard personnel are currently called on to supplement active component RC-135 operations, the committee believes providing at least one of these aircraft on a rotational basis to the Air National Guard would both resolve the manpower problem and take greater advantage of an available resource. Therefore, the committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the congressional defense and intelligence committees no later than October 1, 1999, a plan for phasing out the Senior Scout reconnaissance system and replacing it with an RC-135alternative or a plan for upgrading and maintaining the Senior Scout system commensurate with Rivet Joint capabilities. Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense Overview The budget request contained no funds for Chemical Agents and Munitions, Defense, for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $834.0 million for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends approval of the request except for those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Defense Export Loan Guarantees Overview The budget request contained $1.3 million for Defense Export Loan Guarantees, Defense for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends authorization of $1.3 million for fiscal year 1999. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations Sections 101-109--Authorization of Appropriations These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 1999 funding levels for all procurement accounts. Subtitle B--Army Programs Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Longbow Hellfire Missile Program This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for the Longbow Hellfire missile. Section 112--M1A2 System Enhancement Program Step 1 Program This section would require the Army to use the $20.3 requested in the budget for M1A1-D upgrade kits to instead procure M1A2 System Enhancement Program Step 1 communications upgrades. Subtitle C--Navy Programs Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for the Department of the Navy This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for the Navy AV-8B, T-45TS, and E-2C aircraft programs and for the Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement. Subtitle D--Other Matters Section 141--Funding, Transfer and Management of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program This section would authorize funding for identification and demonstration of technologies alternative to the baseline incineration process for destruction of assembled chemical munitions that are a part of the U.S. chemical munitions stockpile. The provision would also direct the transfer of management oversight responsibility for the program from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (USD(A&T)) to the Secretary of the Army. The Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program was established under section 8065, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 104-208) as the Department of Defense (DOD) program for assessment of the feasibility of alternative technologies for the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions. Such technologies could provide an alternative to the baseline program, which uses incineration of chemical agents and munitions as the means for demilitarization of the chemical munitions stockpile. The assessment is to be completed with a final report to the Congress in December 1998. Responsibility for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program will be transferred from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Army as a part of the Defense Reform Initiative (DRI). The committee believes that transfer of the responsibility for the assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA) program to the Army is also appropriate and consistent with the DRI recommendations. In making the transfer, the USD(A&T) and the Secretary of the Army must insure the independence of the ACWA program from the baseline incineration program, in order to maintain public acceptance of, interaction with, and confidence in the ACWA program management. The committee notes that the consultation among ACWA program management and interested individuals from the chemical weapons stockpile communities; federal, tribal, and state environmental regulators; and national activist organization representatives that regularly work on chemical weapons issues has been a key factor in winning public acceptance of the program. The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to continue that consultation as an integral part of the ACWA program. Dialogue on assembled chemical weapons assessment The DOD has committed to meaningful public involvement in the assessment program, and has stated that such involvement is critical to its success. In response to this commitment, a public interest group, known as the Dialogue on Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (``the Dialogue'') has sought to consult with the DOD to discuss issues relating to the assessment program. The Dialogue consists of a diverse group of interested individuals from the chemical weapons stockpile communities; federal, tribal, and state environmental regulators; and national activist organization representatives that regularly work on chemical weapons issues. During the committee's consideration of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1999 (H.R. 3616), a concern was raised that the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-462; 5 U.S.C. App.) (FACA) might apply to the Dialogue in its consultative relationship with the DOD on the assessment program. The program's near-term deadline would make it unlikely that a formal charter process for the Dialogue, which would be required under FACA, could be completed in sufficient time to meet the deadline for the assessment program's final report to Congress and, concurrently, incorporate public involvement. In response to this concern, the committee consulted with the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the committee of jurisdiction on issues related to FACA. In the opinion of that committee, FACA does not apply to the Dialogue in its relationship with the DOD on the assessment program. TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION OVERVIEW The budget request contained $36,078.5 million for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), representing a $144.1 million increase from the amount authorized for fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of $36,228.0 million, an increase of $149.5 million from the budget request. The committee notes that the budget request proposes to implement portions of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommendations including increases in new procurement and major upgrades to current military equipment programs. However, the committee is concerned that while procurement accounts are projected to continue increasing by as much as 29 percent over the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), the Department projects a decline in research and development accounts of at least 14 percent during that same time period. The Department has publicly placed great emphasis on QDR recommendations that stress preparing for future conflicts, maximizing capabilities of smaller force structures, and implementing leap-ahead technologies, with only minimal investment in legacy modernization programs. However, the committee notes that the Department's plan to continue decreasing already underfunded research and development accounts, the cornerstone investment needed to support each service's future requirements, appears in direct contradiction with QDR recommendations. The committee is also concerned with the continuing trend of placing higher priority on a number of Department level initiatives such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Advanced Concepts Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs) at the expense of already seriously constrained service research and development budgets. The committee notes, in particular, that while the Army, Air Force, and defense-wide research and development requests all decreased from fiscal year 1998 levels, the service requests also include shifts over $300.0 million from defense-wide programs to the services. This shift results in actual increases to remaining defense-wide programs while masking an even greater decline in service programs. For these reasons and others stated elsewhere in this report, the committee is seriously concerned that Department statements asserting the health and growing improvement of the defense budget are not evident in the research and development budget request. While the Secretary of Defense has described the fiscal year 1999 request as one that is carefully balanced to address both present and future requirements, the committee notes a very visible sacrifice on the part of high priority service requirements to achieve that balance, and yet, no similar level of sacrifice within the defense-wide programs. The committee believes that the Department should provide a more succinct explanation of how DARPA, ACTDs, and other large defense-wide research and development programs are more appropriate investments for addressing future requirements than the focused service research and development accounts. Department of Defense Basic Research/Science and Technology Program The committee strongly supports the request for the Department of Defense basic research and science and technology programs, and recommends a total of $1,130.7 million for basic research and a total of $7,280.4 million for the Defense science and technology program (including basic research). However, to address the committee's concerns with respect to critical shortcomings in the service requests and perceived imbalances between defense-wide and service research and development programs, the committee recommends shifts of funding, outlined elsewhere in this report, from the defense agencies' science and technology accounts to those of the services. The committee believes that the Department's basic research program has long played a crucial role in the development of technology and in the education and training of scientific personnel required to support the continuing technical advances critical to maintaining superior military capabilities. The ability of today's U.S. military forces to deploy anywhere in the world, sustain a forward presence, and win decisively on the battlefield results from past investments in research and technology. For more than 50 years, these investments have enabled the Department of Defense to advance the frontiers of knowledge and develop the technologies necessary to gain and maintain operational and technical superiority. The committee believes that the Department must continue to provide the necessary investments in research and technologies that ensure a strong, stable, and robust science and technology program for our armed forces. The committee notes with concern that the research budget request is at a 19 year low and that funding for Defense science and technology is at an equally disturbing 13 year low. While the committee is pleased that this year's request brings an end to the disturbing decline in overall research funding levels and proposes a period of projected growth of approximately 5 percent over the period through fiscal year 2003, the committee expresses concern over the apparent conflict between the Department's projection for growth in the research budget in light of the current forecast for a 14 percent decline in overall research and development during the same period. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency The committee is concerned by the Department's continued commitment to a very large budget for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in comparison to the science and technology budgets of the military departments, and by the trend this represents in the overall Department of Defense science and technology program. The committee commends the agency and its outstanding contribution over its 40 year history to the development of advanced technology and military systems for our armed forces, and believes that DARPA will continue to play a key role in the development of advanced capabilities for our future armed forces. The committee notes, however, that the budget request for DARPA, although reduced from the peak level attained in 1994, remains at a higher level (when measured in constant fiscal year 1997 dollars) than at any time since 1960, two years after the agency was formed. The committee also notes that, despite the elimination of over $200.0 million in fiscal year 1998 programs from the DARPA budget by transfer to the military departments or by cancellation, there is no commensurate reduction in fiscal year 1999budget request. The committee notes that a number of DARPA programs have grown significantly from the fiscal year 1999 projection that was included with the fiscal year 1998 budget request. The committee believes that in this time of great financial constraint, all expenditures must be considered carefully and continued only where they make a clear contribution to critical service requirements. Information Systems Technology, Superiority and Security The budget request contained a total of $705.7 million for information technology research, development, test, and evaluation. The budget request also included a total of $191.8 million for the Department of Defense (DOD) information systems security program. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) and the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-340) directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Congressional defense committees an assessment of the DOD information systems security program that addresses the current status of the program, specific actions being taken on the recommendations of the 1996 Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense, and additional actions that should be taken to assure the increased security and integrity of the defense information infrastructure. The report is to also address measures necessary to assure the integrity of those elements of the national information infrastructure and critical national infrastructure on which the defense information infrastructure depends, and identify any additional resources and legislative authority which may be required. The Secretary's report has not yet been received by the committee. However, assuming that the report will have been received by the Congressional defense committees prior to the House-Senate Conference on H.R. 3616 and that there will have been sufficient time for congressional review of the issues and recommendations contained in the report, the committee intends to address appropriate issues and recommendations from its review of Secretary's report during the conference. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major issues are discussed following the table. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Army RDT&E Overview The budget request contained $4,780.5 million for Army RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $4,793.0 million, an increase of $12.5 million. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 Army RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the table. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Aerostat The budget request contained for $103.9 million for the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS), formerly referred to as Aerostat, in PE 12419A. The committee is aware that JLENS is duplicative of more promising missile defense efforts and believes funding should be reduced to support strengthening other more essential Army programs. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $73.9 million in PE 12419A. All source analysis system The budget request contained $28.1 million in PE 64321A for the All Source Analysis System (ASAS). The committee recommends $30.1 million, an increase of $2.0 million in PE 64321A to continue the development of situation display fusion algorithms, for migrating these algorithms to the other service intelligence support systems, and to achieve ASAS Block II interoperability with the Defense Intelligence Agency's Modernized Integrated Data Base. Army after next combat vehicle initiative The committee is aware of the Army's commitment to ensure that priority modernization efforts are fully compatible with the Army's vision of required capabilities for the Army After Next (AAN). While a significant number of important Army modernization programs are being refocused or restructured to incorporate new technologies needed for the AAN, the committee notes with interest numerous criticisms, including recent Army statements and the recommendations of the National Defense Panel, that question the viability of the current combat vehicle technology for the lighter, faster, more mobile AAN. The committee also notes, however, that the Army is already addressing these criticisms by conducting promising new research on lighter, more capable vehicle systems, lighter- weight and more fuel-efficient hybrid power systems and other innovations to meet the emerging combat vehicle requirements of the AAN. The committee is encouraged by these developments and finds the associated longer range planning/development horizon especially noteworthy for guiding investment of increasingly scarce research and development funds. The committee believes that longer planning horizons are required to develop the reaching systems necessary to ensure technical viability and longer useful service lives for AAN combat systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends: Advanced combat vehicle and automotive technology The budget request contained $4.8 million in PE 63005A for advanced materials and components for advanced combat vehicle technology. The committee notes that new composite materials have the potential of reducing future combat vehicle weight and operating costs, as well as for improving vehicle mobility and transportability. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63005A for advanced composite materials. Digital fire control system The budget request contained $0.1 million for artillery system engineering and development. No funds were included for the Army and Marine Corps joint Light Weight 155mm Towed Howitzer program and its digital fire control system. The committee notes the Army's continued efforts to develop digital fire control technology that will yield significant increases in howitzer system capability while reducing weight and size of current 155mm howitzer fire control systems. The committee believes that, given sufficient funding, this area of technology offers the potential for significant contributions to all 155mm howitzer systems, including Crusader. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 64854A for further development of digital fire control technology. Hardened materials The budget request contained $10.1 million for materials technology in PE 62105A. The request did not include funds for continuation of the hardened materials project. The committee notes that this project is directed toward developing materials technology that will make heavy forces lighter and more deployable while improving their survivability. The committee recommends $15.1 million in PE 62105A, an increase of $5.0 million for advanced hardened materials. Industry and academia alternative vehicle propulsion initiative The budget request contained $40.1 million in PE 62601A for combat vehicle and automotive technology, but did not include funds for the ongoing industry and academia alternative vehicle propulsion initiative. The committee notes that one of the Army's most significant challenges for future vehicles is lighter, more efficient power systems that comply with future environmental regulations. The committee is aware that the Fuel-Efficient AAN Task Group concluded that the AAN is conceived to be a highly mobile, high-speed insertion force and stated that decrease in the fuel logistics burden is a prerequisite to achieving this goal. The task group determined that a significant fuel decrease is a practical possibility that can be realized by two primary approaches: (1) by doubling propulsion efficiency, and (2) by decrease in vehicle weight. The committee believes that combining the efforts of the private sector, academic research, and Army technical experts offers a means of infusing both new ideas and technologies into future Army vehicles. The committee recommends $50.1 million, an increase of $10.0 million for the innovative industry and academia alternative vehicle propulsion initiative. Innovative engine technology The budget request contained $54.4 million in PE 63005A for advanced combat vehicle and automotive technology. No funding was included for completion of the combined diesel/turbine engine program. The committee is aware that the combined diesel/turbine engine offers the potential for an improved power plant for next generation vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63005A for completion and testing of the combined diesel/turbine engine and other hybrid engine developments. Crusader self-propelled howitzer The budget request contained $313.2 million in PE 63854A for the Crusader self-propelled howitzer. The Crusader is an evolutionary development of a self- propelled howitzer (SPH) intended to replace the current Paladin 155mm SPH. It promises improved mobility, higher rate- of-fire, and greater survivability than the Paladin. The committee notes that the Crusader no longer incorporates some of the key technologies, specifically liquid propellant gun technology and common heavy vehicle chassis, that were original cornerstones of the program when first introduced. Nevertheless, the committee is aware of the Army's stated need to modernize its tactical ground fire support forces and remains very concerned that technology currently incorporated in Crusader is not sufficiently advanced to ensure Crusader's viability in the AAN. At a minimum, Crusader's weight, speed, agility and fuel efficiency would be so dissimilar, to other combat vehicles planned for the AAN, as to be operationally limiting. Given the current and projected fiscal environment, the committee does not believe that the Army should continue making such large investments in new weapon systems such as Crusader in order to maintain a proposed fielding schedule, unless that system is fully compatible with AAN requirements. Rather, the committee believes the Army should be developing the first of the next generation combat systems instead of developing and fielding the last of the current generation that the Crusader program now represents. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to evaluate the restructuring of the Crusader program to ensure incorporation of applicable state-of-the-art technologies such as weight saving composite technology for armor and structural uses, advanced lighter, more efficient propulsion technologies to meet AAN fuel economy goals, and innovative weapons technologies to increase lethality and reduce the logistics tail. The committee believes that such restructuring of Crusader development will provide for maturation and integration of these promising technologies to support alighter, more mobile, more lethal SPH that would be more compatible with AAN combat vehicle requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $59.6 million in PE 63854A. Aviation advanced technology development The budget request contained $30.0 million in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology. The committee notes that the Army is seeking new propulsion technologies to reduce the size and cost of future missiles while increasing lethality and further notes the potential benefits of scramjet propulsion technology for future missiles and interceptors. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 63003A for scramjet technology. Comanche The budget request contained $367.8 million for Comanche in PE 64223A. Comanche is a vital system for the 21st century Army, as well as the Army After Next (AAN), and is planned to replace several aging helicopters that cannot be upgraded to meet AAN requirements. The Comanche schedule has steadily slipped beyond its first envisioned operational capability in 1996 as a result of numerous funding decreases which have collectively slowed initial operational capability until late 2006. The Army's decision to reduce prototype aircraft from eight to two has delayed development still further and increased program risk. Comanche development is presently proceeding with a single prototype after funding was again reduced, reinforcing the perception that the Army's Comanche program appears fated to proceed at only a minimal level for the foreseeable future. The committee is aware that increased funding is required to enable Comanche to fully participate in upcoming Army warfighting experiments such as Division 00 and Digitized Corps 04. Additional funding will also reduce the unwarranted program risk inherent in undertaking a major aviation development effort with a single flying prototype. Specifically, additional funding would support the Army Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWE), accelerate mission electronics package development and weapons system integration, and integrate and test the proven Apache Longbow radar, as well as lower outyear procurement costs. The committee recommends $429.8 million, an increase of $62.0 million in PE 64223A to accelerate fielding and equipping the second Comanche prototype and provide a more robust testing program in fiscal year 1999. The committee is aware that this increase, coupled with additional funding throughout the future year defense program, would enable the Comanche schedule to be accelerated to coincide with establishment of the first digitized Army division in 2004. Command, control, communications technology The budget request contained $19.7 million in PE 62782A for command, control and communications technology, including $12.9 million for communications. The committee notes that rapid dissemination of multimedia information is critical to total integration of forces on the future battlefield. The committee is aware of successful demonstrations of the Army Multimedia Communications Device which addresses warfighter requirements to conduct two-way communication wherever they may be deployed. The committee supports efforts to improve communications and provide better man-machine interfaces and recommends $22.5 million, an increase of $2.8 million in PE 62782A for further development of the Army multimedia communications device. Defense healthcare information assurance program The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 33140A for the Army information systems security program. Congress provided $2.5 million for fiscal year 1998 to initiate a demonstration program for military healthcare information protection that would be consistent with national healthcare and information protection initiatives. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 103-132) directed the Secretary of the Army to report to the Congressional defense committees on the program's development, demonstration, evaluation plan and funding requirements. The committee recommends $12.4 million, an increase of $5.0 million to continue the demonstration program for military healthcare information protection. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide to the Congressional defense committees an update to the program plan and funding required to complete the demonstration program with the submission of the fiscal year 2000 Defense budget request. Defense information technology test bed The budget request contained no funding in PE 323751A for the defense information technology test bed (DITT). The committee is aware that information dominance is vital to success on the future battlefield and supports the Army's ongoing joint DITT effort at the Center for Army Lessons Learned at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas to establish a fully electronic virtual intelligence archive for use by battlefield commanders. The committee recommends $6.6 million in PE 323751A, an increase of $6.6 million to make DITT operational. Environmental development and management programs The budget request contained $13.8 million in PE 62720A for environmental quality technology. The committee notes that no funding is specifically provided to continue the facility environmental management and monitoring system and the computer based land management efforts. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for facility environmental management and monitoring system and $4.0 million forcomputer based land management, noting that these increases will complete these developments. Environmental quality technology The budget request contained $13.8 million for environmental quality technology within PE 62720A. The committee supports continuation of the joint effort of the U.S. Army Environmental Center and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to demonstrate the efficacy and cost effectiveness of agriculturally based bioremediation to restore contaminated military and civilian sites in geographically isolated Pacific island ecosystems. The committee supports demonstration of phytoremediation, composting, wetlands, and other agriculturally based technologies to restore lands and related resources and recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62720A to continue agriculturally based bioremediation efforts. Future direct support weapon system The budget request contained $24.6 million in PE 63004A for weapons and munitions advanced technology. The committee is aware that the Army After Next (AAN) will require lighter, more transportable, and more mobile weapons systems, and supports the Army's efforts to develop enabling technologies such as soft recoil, advanced propellant technology, and improved digital fire control that can provide such systems. The committee supports development of lighter, more agile AAN weapons and recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the future direct support weapon system. Future missile technology integration program The budget request contained $86.1 million in PE 63313A for missile and rocket advanced technology, which included $1.5 million for future missile technology integration. The committee notes the importance of lighter more affordable missiles and supports composite technology development for that purpose. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for composite missile technology. Helmet-mounted retinal display technology The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63801A for aviation advanced development, including $2.5 million for aircrew integrated systems. The committee notes the aircrew integrated common helmet (AICH) incorporates reaching technology including miniature retinal display technology that greatly improves aircrew performance. The committee recommends $12.5 million, an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63801A for retinal display technology. High mobility artillery rocket system The budget request contained $20.2 million in PE 63778A for the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) improvement program. The committee notes the high mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS) is being developed as an early entry capability for light forces and is scheduled to participate in the Army's rapid force projection initiative. The committee strongly supports development of this mobile, high lethality weapons system for early entry and light forces and notes that this effort represents an excellent example of leveraging the proven capabilities of the MLRS system to address a specifically defined force projection requirement. The committee recommends $26.2 million, an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63778A for HIMARS. Improved fuel pumps and fuel controls The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 23752A for the aircraft engine component improvement program. Improved fuel pumps and engine controls are necessary elements of all fielded helicopters, as well as new helicopter development programs such as Longbow Apache and Comanche. The committee supports these critical improvements and recommends $11.9 million in PE 23752A, an increase of $4.0 million for improved fuel pumps and $5.0 million for the full authority digital engine control. Joint service small arms program The budget request contained $5.2 million for the joint service small arms program in PE 63607A. The objective of this program is to demonstrate key technologies leading to more effective small arms and munitions for all services, including such technology as the objective individual combat weapon. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for the joint service small arms program. Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (Joint STARS) The budget request contained $5.5 million for engineering, manufacturing and development system improvements to the Joint STARS in PE 64770A. The committee notes the proven success of the Joint STARS system in both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia. A key feature of Joint STARS is the secure, encrypted, anti-jam Surveillance Control Data Link (SCDL). The SCDL links the Air Force's E-8 Joint STARS aircraft to the Army's ground support modules and common ground stations, enabling real-time data transfer of command and control information between the aircraft and ground stations. The committee is aware that the ongoing SCDL System Improvement Program (SIP), which eliminates obsolete parts and updates older digital circuit boards with state-of-the-art, software-based array boards, willincrease the data transfer rate while reducing component cost, size, weight, and power requirements by as much as 50 percent. Based on the increased reliability and improved performance benefits of this SIP, the committee recommends $21.5 million, an increase of $16.0 million in PE 64770A for its completion. Lighter more lethal weapons The budget request contained $26.5 million in PE 63639A for the armament enhancement initiative. No funds were included for the ongoing tank extended range munitions-kinetic energy (TERM-KE) program. The committee notes that the TERM-KE is a 120mm tank munition that uses a rocket boosted standard kinetic energy penetrator and fire-and-forget guidance to provide greater lethality at extended ranges. The committee is aware that lighter, more lethal, fire and forget weapons are needed for the Army After Next and supports such efforts. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63639A for continued development of TERM-KE technology as an integral part of efforts to meet the broad range of future requirements for lighter, longer range, more lethal weapons. The committee is also aware of continued Army/Marine Corps joint development of the lightweight 155mm howitzer and that additional funding is needed for testing, evaluation of a breech mounted laser ignition system, and modifications to accommodate the Army's new propelling charge system. A significant part of this effort is the Army's digital fire control system. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the lightweight 155mm howitzer and fire control system in PE 64854A. MedTeams The budget request contained $13.4 million in PE 62716A for human factors engineering technology, including, $0.5 million for the Emergency Team Coordination program (MedTeams) in PE 62716A. The committee notes that the Army MedTeams research under the extended team performance efforts has improved shock trauma care to reduce medical and casualty risks. The committee recommends $18.2 million, an increase of $4.8 million in PE 62716A for MedTeams, with the clear understanding that this increase will complete this program. Missile and rocket advanced technology The budget request contained $86.1 million in PE 63313A to support development of advanced missile technologies. The committee notes recent statements by the Army Chief of Staff expressing concern over the inability of future budgets to sustain the current number of Army modernization programs. While the Army is currently pursuing a significant number of anti-armor missile programs, the committee remains concerned over continuing poor performance of the Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (E-FOGM) missile system, and questions whether this program is an appropriate use of the Army's extremely limited modernization funds. Last year, the committee expressed great concern over the Army's plan to procure over 300 of these missiles during the Advanced Concepts Technology Demonstration (ACTD) based on only two actual missile flights, both of which were failures. However, $31.4 million was authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 to complete the planned 14 missile ACTD testing with the direction that no additional missiles be procured for other than test purposes. A full year later, still with no successful missile flights during the ACTD, the fiscal year 1999 request includes funds to continue ACTD testing and procure an additional 192 missiles, including 96 production missiles. The committee remains concerned over the lack of successful missile flight tests and recent problems with rising missile costs projections. Furthermore, the committee has seen no indication that the Army intends to pursue fielding this system beyond those capabilities obtained during the planned scope of the ACTD. Based on the disappointing results of this program to date and the assessment that fiscal year 1998 funds should be more than sufficient to complete the remaining 12 missile flight tests, the committee believes that the time has come to terminate this effort and redirect limited resources to more viable programs. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.7 million in PE 63313A allocated for evaluation of the E-FOGM missile system. Missile defense battle integration center/battle lab The budget request contained $12.2 million in PE 63308A for Army missile defense system integration. The Army is developing the missile defense battle integration center (MDBIC), a flexible distributed interactive simulation-based architecture for training, exercises, and military operations. The committee notes that while missile defense is a stated high priority for the Army, the MDBIC program is inadequately funded. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63308A to continue development of the integrated battle lab. Plasma energy pyrolysis system The budget request contained no funds in PE 62720A for completion of the plasma energy pyrolysis system (PEPS) development. The committee notes that PEPS technology has been validated through testing to safely destroy hazardous waste streams into inert gasses. The committee supports efforts to keep the environment clean and recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62720A, to complete development, construction and delivery of a transportable and a mobile PEPS system to the Army for testing. The committee notes that this funding will complete PEPS development, and any future PEPS procurement must be based on military requirements and priorities. Precision guided mortar munitions The budget request contained $24.6 million in PE 63004A, including $1.9 million for precision guided mortar munitions (PGMM). The committee notes that PGMM doubles the weapon range and provides a precision kill capability against tanks and bunkers. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63004A for PGMM. Starstreak The budget request contained $30.0 million for aviation advanced technology in PE 63003A. No funds were included for Starstreak (ATASK)-Stinger missile side-by-side testing for the Apache helicopter. The committee is aware that the Apache helicopter does not have a defensive air-to-air missile capability, even though other helicopters are being so equipped, and that Starstreak and Stinger are being evaluated and compared using simulation. The committee supports comparative test of Starstreak and Stinger, as appropriate, in live side-by-side firings, and recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63003A for this purpose. Stinger missile block two upgrades The budget request contained $11.3 million in PE 23801A for missile/air defense product improvement, which included $2.0 million for Stinger product improvement. The committee notes efforts to develop block II modifications to the Stinger missile to provide enhanced performance. The committee supports continuation of this initiative and recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 23801A to support these efforts. Stinger universal launcher The budget request contained $30.0 million for aviation advanced technology in PE 63003A. The budget request contained no funds for the Stinger universal launcher, which is under development, and required to support side-by side testing. The committee notes that this launcher has broad applicability to a number of platforms, including Apache aircraft. The committee supports this development including necessary weapons system interfaces and recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63003A for this purpose. Strategic environmental research and development program The budget request contained $54.4 million for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)/Environmental Security Technology in a new Army program element (PE 63780A). SERDP was established in 1990 to address Department of Defense and Department of Energy environmental concerns. SERDP's stated objective is to improve DOD's mission readiness. This program was transferred from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the Army with the fiscal year 1999 request. The Army's budget request already contains ongoing environmental programs including: Environmental Quality Technology (PE 62720A), Environmental Conservation (PE 65853A), Pollution prevention (PE 65854A), and Environmental Compliance (PE 65856A) totaling $75.8 million. The committee believes that the mission essential Army environmental protection needs can be met within existing Army programs and, therefore, recommends no funding for SERDP. Tactical high energy laser The budget request contained $12.2 million in PE 63308A, but included no funding for the tactical high energy laser (THEL) program. The committee understands that the Army now has an identified mission need for a directed energy air defense system. The committee believes that the Army's continued technical involvement in the THEL program represents an effectively leveraged path to meeting its requirements. While the early prototypes of THEL will not have sufficient mobility to meet Army needs, the committee understands that the planned evolution of the THEL program will lead to a mobile, sustainable battlefield system. Key elements of this effort include development of materials for crystals and manufacturing technology in support of solid state laser technology and integration of a lightweight acquisition and tracking system with a lightweight beam director. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63308A for THEL. Tactical exploitation of national capabilities The budget request contained $44.7 million in PE 64766A for Army tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP). The committee notes that the amount requested represents nearly a $26.0 million increase from the level approved for fiscal year 1998. The committee is concerned that the Army may be using the TENCAP program as a means for bypassing the ``normal'' acquisition process allowing it to procure and operate combat systems associated with space sensors. The committee is supportive of TENCAP efforts for short-term, high- pay off concepts and initiatives that improve the use of national space sensors and systems. However, the committee will not support TENCAP funded development and production of entire weapons systems. Therefore, the committee directs that future TENCAP requests be limited to space exploitation initiatives and projects that are of short-duration and high payoff. The committee recommends $40.1 million for the Army's TENCAP program in fiscal year 1999, a reduction of 4.6 million in PE 64766A. Trajectory correctable munitions development The budget request contained $24.6 million weapons and munitions advanced technology in PE 63004A. No funds were provided for the Trajectory Correctable Munitions (TCM) program. The committee is aware that the TCM will provide the Army with a versatile projectile with unprecedented range and accuracy and will significantly extend the range and accuracy of both current and developmental 155mm artillery platforms. The committee supports TCM development and recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63004A for TCM development. Ultra lightweight camouflage net system The budget request contained $26.0 million for Logistics and Engineer Equipment in PE 64804A, including $0.8 million for camouflage systems (ULCANS). The committee notes that the ultra lightweight camouflage net system is intended to increase force survivability in arctic, desert and urban environments. The committee recommends $28.0 million, and increase of $2.0 million for expedited production qualification and testing of ULCANS. Navy RDT&E Overview The budget request contained $8,108.9 million for Navy RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $8,403.6 million, an increase of $294.6 million. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 Navy RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the table. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest ADC(X) auxiliary cargo ship development The budget request contained $133.6 million in PE 64567N for the Navy's program for ship contract design and live fire test and evaluation design, including $5.9 million for the ADC(X) Dry Auxiliary Cargo Ship program. The committee is aware that research and development funding for the ADC(X) should be shifted from PE 64567N, Ship Contract Design, to PE 63564N, Ship Preliminary Design and Feasibility Studies, to support the Build and Charter and program for auxiliary ships that is recommended elsewhere in this report. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.9 million in PE 64567N and an increase of $5.9 million in PE 63564N. Advanced amphibious assault vehicle The budget request contained $104.8 million in PE 63611M for the advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV). The AAAV is a self-deploying, high water speed, fully tracked, nuclear biological and chemical warfare protected armored amphibious personnel carrier. The committee is aware that additional funding will permit accelerated development of alternative propulsion system and suspension components which are critical to the AAAV system. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63611M to support these efforts. Advanced anti-radiation guided missile The budget request contained $18.9 million in PE 25601N for the Homing Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) improvement program, including $10.5 million for continued development of the advanced anti-radiation guided missile (AARGM). AARGM is a Phase III Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program for demonstration of an integrated anti-radiation homing seeker, active millimeter wave terminal seeker, and precision mid- course navigation suite within the size constraints of an existing HARM missile. The program is designed to demonstrate that a dual-mode seeker of this type can effectively engage and destroy advanced air defenses even in the presence of system shutdown or other anti-radiation missile countermeasures. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) directed the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an independent assessment of the AARGM program, including the program plan and schedule, program execution, technical performance, and program risk. The Secretary's report, dated April 3, 1998, stated that the Navy had initiated and completed a revised program baseline which significantly reduces program risk, and concluded that the AARGM program is fundamentally sound, is executable with the currently budget resources, and will provide a technology demonstration which will determine technical feasibility and military utility of the AARGM technology. The AARGM demonstration program, if successful, will demonstrate system level capabilitieswhich exceed current Navy tactical missile capabilities. The program schedule includes completion of guided flight tests and the demonstration program by fiscal year 2001. The report states that funding budgeted for the rebaselined program is sufficient to accomplish the technology demonstration, however, the report also states that the current program does not address a number of issues that would be required for a Milestone II development decision. The committee recommends a total of $25.5 million in PE 25601N for the AARGM program, an increase of $15.0 million to address risk reduction and other issues necessary to support a development decision following completion of the demonstration program. Arctic oceanographic observation program The budget request contained $56.7 million in PE 62435N for applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technologies. No funds were requested for continuation of the program for Arctic Climate Observations Using Underwater Sound (ACOUS). ACOUS is a cooperative program for the utilization of underwater acoustic techniques to determine ocean climate and acoustic characteristics in a large ocean basin. The program provides the capability for understanding the large temperature changes occurring in the Arctic Ocean, the potential impact of these changes on the Arctic, and their implications for global climate. As a bilateral program with Russia, ACOUS furthers U.S. national security interests through improved scientific relations and the transfer of Russian defense technology and scientific experience to peaceful uses. The committee encourages the Navy to reprogram funds to continue the ACOUS program in fiscal year 1999 and to include funds for completion of the program in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Automatic target tracker The budget request contained $14.7 million in PE 26623M for Marine Corps ground combat/support systems but included no funding for an automatic target tracker for the M1A1 tank. The committee notes that an automatic target tracker has been successfully tested on National Guard M1A1 tanks. The committee is aware that automatic target tracking could increase the Marine Corps warfighting capability and recommends $3.0 million to evaluate this available capability for Marine Corps use. Autonomous underwater robotics technology The budget request contained $347.9 million in PE 61153N for the Navy's defense research sciences program. Recent research, including software simulations and hardware tests in the water, indicate that the application of autonomous underwater robotic systems has the potential for significant improvements in surveillance, tactical oceanography, and shallow water mine countermeasures. The committee believes that partnerships established among academia, industry, and the Navy's research and development and operational communities would be beneficial in the development and evaluation of the technology and operational concepts for these systems. Such partnerships could develop and evaluate tactics and capabilities, as well as demonstrate the operational utility of these systems in at-sea tests. Of the funds provided in PE 61153N, the committee recommends $4.0 million for continued basic research and development in autonomous underwater robotic systems for surveillance, tactical oceanography, and shallow water mine countermeasures. Autonomous underwater vehicle and sonar development The budget request contained $56.7 million in PE 62435N for oceanographic and atmospheric technology, including $20.3 million for applied research in environmental influences on mine countermeasures systems and littoral oceanography. The committee recommends $66.7 million, an increase of $10.0 million to continue applied research and exploratory development in technologies for advanced sensors and unmanned underwater vehicles applicable to mine countermeasures and other littoral operations. Aviation depot maintenance technology The budget request contained $59.4 million in PE 63721N for environmental protection demonstration and validation, including $3.5 million for Naval aviation pollution prevention. The committee recommends $62.1 million, an increase of $2.7 million for the development and demonstration of aviation depot maintenance technologies that will significantly reduce maintenance and repair costs, and reduce or eliminate hazardous waste and pollution products. Carbon-carbon materials for reentry bodies The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials, electronics, and computer technology. The committee encourages the Navy to continue a robust program for the development of carbon-carbon heatshield and insulation materials to address future Navy reentry body requirements to survive long atmospheric flight trajectories while maintaining a precision strike capability. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62234N for the development of carbon-carbon materials. Common support aircraft The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 64217N for the Common Support Aircraft (CSA), a fiscal year 1999 major new start program to develop the replacement for the Navy's S-3B, ES-3A, E-2C, and C-2 aircraft. The common support airframe would also be a primary candidate for the Navy's organic tanker aircraft mission.The CSA program plan calls for a Milestone 0 decision in fiscal year 1999 to initiate the concept formulation phase and achievement of CSA initial operating capability in 2013. The committee supports the need for a replacement for the Navy's E-2/C-2 and S-3/ES-3 aircraft which represent 1960s and 1970s aviation technology, respectively, and will begin reaching the end of their service lives in the 2010 time-frame. However, based on the projected in-service date for the CSA, the committee believes that the start of the CSA program should be delayed until fiscal year 2000. Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for the CSA program for fiscal year 1999. The committee expects that the program will be included in the fiscal year 2000 defense budget request, and directs the establishment of a separate concept exploration/product definition and risk reduction program element for the program. Cooperative engagement capability The budget request contained $131.6 million in PE 63658N for cooperative engagement capability (CEC) demonstration and validation. The committee is aware of additional funding requirements for the CEC program that developed too late to be included in the fiscal year 1999 defense budget request. These requirements include correction of deficiencies discovered during the initial operational test and evaluation of the system, and support of follow-on testing in preparation for the interoperability test that will involve two carrier battle groups. The committee is also aware of the increasing role that the Navy's CEC system will play in air defense and tactical ballistic missile defense for the fleet and for joint forces. Development and evaluation of these capabilities will require an integrated test and evaluation system that links together major military test and training ranges. Such a system should capitalize on a number of existing government-sponsored high performance computing and high-speed network programs. The committee recommends $157.6 million for the CEC program, an increase of $20.0 million to address funding shortfalls in the program as outlined above, and $6.0 million for continued development of the CEC test and evaluation system and linking that system to the military test and training ranges infrastructure. Cooperative engagement capability frequency spectrum requirements The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) required the Secretary of Defense to review the impact of the loss of portions of the frequency spectrum, previously assigned to the CEC program, due to frequency spectrum sales under title VI of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, and to report on the measures being taken to compensate for any operational degradation that might result from such loss. The DOD report to Congress on spectrum requirements, dated March 1998, states that in addition to the loss of capability resulting from the transfer of 50 megahertz (MHz) from the radio frequency operating band of the CEC, the reallocated spectrum also has the potential for making a substantial portion of the remaining CEC spectrum unusable. The report also states that there is an existing radio frequency interference problem between the CEC and the Light Airborne Multi-purpose System (LAMPS) that impacts the use of the CEC. This interference problem could be accommodated by movement of the LAMPS Mark III data link from C-band to Ku-band at a potential cost of $115.0 million. Of the funds provided in PE 63658N for the CEC program, the committee recommends $5.0 million to continue development activities necessary for the transfer of the LAMPS Mark III data link from C-band to Ku band. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a detailed assessment of the measures required to compensate for the loss of the CEC frequency spectrum and for the CEC/LAMPS Mark III data link interference problem. The Secretary shall report the plan and program required to maintain the CEC operational capability to the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Cryogenic electronics technology The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials, electronics, and computer technology. The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research are demonstrating notable performance gains through the use of cryogenic electronics and high temperature superconductivity technology in analog and digital electronic components, and that such applications may offer the potential for achieving significant improvements in the ability of future radar systems to detect and track low-flying targets in clutter. The committee also understands that these technologies may permit the development of advanced RF receiver/exciter subsystems that could be common to a wide range of radar applications and could result in significant reductions in the cost of future radar systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of superconducting waveform generator and analog-to-digital converter technology, leading to the demonstration of an advanced ``cryo-radar'' with increased performance and clutter rejection and reduced size, power, and weight. Distributed surveillance system The budget request contained $42.0 million in PE 64784N for advanced deployable system (ADS) engineering and manufacturing development. The committee recommends $48.7 million, including an increase of $6.7 million to continue the planned introduction of automation and data fusion capability for the ADS demonstration system. DD-21 land attack destroyer The budget request contained $133.6 million in PE 64567N for ship contract design and live fire test and evaluation design, including a total of $84.9 million for the Navy's DD-21 land attack destroyer program. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) directed the Secretary of the Navy to review the acquisition strategy for the Navy's next-generation surface combatant (SC- 21), determine if a prototyping strategy is appropriate for the program,and report the results of the review to the Congress. The Secretary's report, dated April 1998, describes a phased acquisition process that would culminate in the selection of a single contractor to complete system design, construction, test, delivery, and support of the lead ship for the DD-21 class land attack destroyer. The three-phased program would emphasize active competition among competing contractors during the concept design and initial systems design phases, and identification of a ``second ship builder'' prior to completing the system design in the detailed design and construction phase. The report also identified the following: early contractor involvement, the use of state of the art engineering tools to enable ``virtual prototyping'' and analysis of alternatives prior to beginning construction, and the use of ``cost as an independent variable'' criteria in meeting the affordability goals for the program. Additionally, a risk management process that includes the use of process teams, extensive modeling and simulation, networked land-based engineering sites, lessons-learned from the Maritime Fire Support Demonstrator program, and at-sea testing of DD-21 components and sub- systems would be established. The committee supports the need for a competitive acquisition strategy for the DD-21 and believes that such a strategy is critical to achieve the advanced surface combatant that will meet or exceed the aggressive cost and performance goals established for the DD-21. The committee believes that it is imperative that the Navy and industry make every effort to ensure a competitive environment, even if a brief delay in initiation of the concept phase of the program is necessary. The committee notes that such a delay would affect the Navy's ability to obligate fiscal year 1998 funds, which have been provided for the concept phase, and reduce the requirement for fiscal year 1999 funding for the DD-21 program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in PE 64567N for the DD-21 land attack destroyer. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committee within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, the measures that will be taken to maintain competitiveness in the DD-21 program. DP-2 thrust vectoring system proof of concept demonstration The budget request contained $48.1 million in PE 63217N for advanced development of air systems and weapons advanced technology. No funds were requested for continuation of the DP- 2 thrust vectoring system (DP-2) proof of concept demonstration. DP-2 is a proof of concept program to demonstrate in a one- quarter scale flight test vehicle the technology for a short take off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft of advanced composite construction using thrust vector control. Following the ground test demonstration of an all-composite, divert thruster system that was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the program and $10.0 million in fiscal year 1997 funds were transferred from DARPA to the Department of the Navy for an 18-month, proof of concept demonstration phase. Roll-out of the one-quarter scale flight test vehicle is scheduled in February 1999 and the first flight test in June 1999. Should the proof of concept demonstration prove successful, the contractor has proposed the construction and test of a full scale aircraft, which would demonstrate an affordable, high performance, vertical take off transport aircraft for ship to shore operation and for ship and shore based reconnaissance. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63217N for completion of the DP-2 proof of concept demonstration. Completion of a successful proof of concept demonstration could provide the basis for the Department of the Navy to proceed with a full-scale aircraft development program. Environmentally safe energetic materials The budget request contained $39.8 million in PE 63609N for conventional munitions demonstration and validation. The committee has supported the elimination of toxic materials and solvents from explosives and other energetic material and the development of new insensitive explosives and other materials that are able to meet increasingly stringent environmental compliance regulations. Such developments could lead to propellants and explosives that could result in higher weapon systems performance and significant savings in overall life cycle costs. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63609N to accelerate the program for the development of propellants and explosives that utilize environmentally compliant energetic materials for undersea, surface, and other weapons systems. Escape system dynamic flow test facility The budget request contained $8.2 million in PE 63216N for the aviation survivability demonstration/validation program. The committee believes that there is a need for improvements in the ability to test the performance of aircraft ejection seats in a realistic environment and to evaluate the interaction between the ejection seat, aircrew equipment, and aircraft cockpit as the seat leaves the aircraft. In recent years, added aircrew equipment and the smaller stature of female crewmembers have raised concerns about the safety of the crew during ejection from an aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63216N for improvements in ejection seat test capabilities. Hybrid electronically scanned antenna The budget request contained $65.0 million in PE 62232N for the Navy's command, control, communications, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance technology program, including $20.8 million for applied research in radar technology. The committee is aware of work at the Naval Research Laboratory leading to a hybrid electronically scanned antenna for potential use with the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). If successful, this antenna development could replace the existing ESSM mechanically scanned illuminator radar dish antenna with a two-dimensional X-band array, and provide a multiple target engagement capability for the ESSM and significant reduction in ship radar cross section at an affordable cost. The committee encourages theSecretary of the Navy to consider reprogramming of fiscal year 1999 funds to accelerate the development and an advanced technology demonstration of the new antenna technology. Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system technology The budget request contained $65.0 million in PE 62232N for applied research in command, control, and communications technology. The committee is aware that command and control functions require a high degree of mobility and security and that current shipboard communication systems cannot simultaneously provide both maximum security and mobility. Wireless systems offer a high degree of mobility, but are susceptible to intercept, and fiberoptic systems offer increased security, but are limited to fixed point-to-point communications. The committee is aware of efforts to develop a shipboard communications system which would combine distributed wireless base stations and fiberoptic networks to achieve increased mobility and security, while reducing the effects of frequency interference. The committee believes that this technology may have the potential for enhanced, secure shipboard command and control systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends $66.0 million, an increase of $1.0 million for development and demonstration of the technology for hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications systems. Inter-cooled recuperated gas turbine engine The budget request contained $58.4 million in PE 63573N for the Navy's advanced service machinery program (ASMP), including $23.5 million for continued development of the inter-cooled recuperated (ICR) gas turbine engine. The ICR engine program is a cooperative development program between the United States, the United Kingdom and France to develop and demonstrate an advanced fuel efficient gas turbine engine that could be the prime power plant for future ship applications. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1110 (H. Rept. 105-304) required the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an assessment of the progress in the ICR engine program, future plans for engine testing and qualifications, and the status of agreements on program conduct and funding with the United Kingdom and other participating countries, and budget estimates of the cost to complete the program. The Secretary's report, dated February 1998, and an earlier report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, responds to these issues and states that testing requirements were under discussion with the United Kingdom and France and that an estimated $95.5 million in U.S. funding would be required to complete the program. The committee is also aware that engine testing to date has demonstrated the ability to achieve 21 percent fuel savings and that 27 percent savings are believed achievable. The committee supports continued development of the ICR engine because of the potential the engine holds for increased performance and improvements in fuel economy for future Navy ships. The committee recognizes that the technical, programmatic, and funding issues must be resolved in order to insure a stable development program which will meet U.S. and allied requirements for an advanced naval prime power plant. The committee recommends the budget request. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide an updated report, which addresses the issues cited above, to the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2000 defense budget request. The committee also directs consideration of the ICR gas turbine engine among the alternatives for the prime power plant for the future DD-21 land attack destroyer. Link 16 improvement program The budget request contained $49.8 million in PE 25604N for the Navy's tactical data link program, including $4.4 million for Link 16 improvements. The committee strongly supports the program that was initiated in fiscal year 1998 for integration of Link 16 into the Joint Maritime Command and Control System (JMCIS) and the Global Command and Control System (GCCS). The committee is aware that Link 16 integration into GCCS will satisfy many DOD data dissemination requirements, including those from the Joint Surveillance Tactical Reconnaissance System (JSTARS). Within the funds provided in PE 25604N, the committee recommends a total of $7.4 million for Link 16 improvements, an increase of $3.0 million for that program. LPD-17 amphibious assault ship self-defense The committee is aware that the Navy is evaluating combat system alternatives for the LPD-17 Class Amphibious Assault Ships. The committee reiterates the need for the LPD-17 to meet the Navy's own ``Capstone'' requirement for ship self-defense and previous congressional direction that the LPD-17 should have no less self-defense capability than other Navy ships. The committee also believes that to do otherwise could unnecessarily place at risk the combat elements which may be deployed on this class ship. In view of the fact that these ships are projected to be in the fleet for 40 years, the committee believes that the Navy should consider combat system commonality and compatibility with other elements of the fleet, life cycle support costs, and growth in combat system capability required to keep pace with future threats. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report the results of the evaluation to the Congressional defense committees before proceeding with procurement of a combat system for the LPD-17. Man overboard indicator technology The budget request contained $6.2 million in PE 64516N for Navy ship survivability program engineering and manufacturing development. The committee has followed closely the Navy's efforts to develop and introduce into the fleet a computer-based, total ship damage control information management system that would enable rapid/coordinated response to wartime and peacetimecasualties, reduce crew manpower requirements, and improve manpower utilization. The committee is aware that the Navy currently has no method other than visual detection for detecting man overboard incidents. The committee is also aware of a commercially available, water-activated man overboard indicator, and believes that integration into such an indicator of a human factors monitor and location- monitoring device could significantly enhance crew safety and survivability and also provide the personnel monitoring capabilities sought in the damage control information management system. The committee urges the Navy to investigate the utility of such a man overboard indicator for fleet use and the feasibility of integrating a human factors monitor and location-monitoring capability into the indicator as outlined above. The committee requests that the Secretary of the Navy report the results of these investigations to the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The committee recommends the budget request for fiscal year 1999. Marine Corps ground combat/support system The budget request contained $37.1 million in PE 63635M, including funds for continued development of the joint Army/ Marine Corps lightweight 155mm howitzer. The lightweight 155mm towed howitzer will be the Marine Corps sole artillery weapon for all forces and missions, replacing the aging and operationally deficient M198 Howitzer. The program is a third of the way through a three year engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). The committee is aware that additional funding is needed for EMD testing and program support, evaluation of a breech mounted laser ignition system, modification to accommodate the Army's new propelling charge system, and perform live fire testing of weapons crew ballistic protection. The committee recommends $39.6 million, an increase $2.5 million for the lightweight 155mm howitzer in PE 63635M. Marine mammal research The budget request contained $347.9 million in PE 61153N for the Navy's defense research sciences program. Of the funds provided in PE 61153N, the committee recommends $500,000 for continuation of the Navy's cooperative marine mammal research program. Molecular design materials science The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) required the Secretary of the Navy to submit an assessment of the Department of the Navy's materials science program, which was initiated in May 1995 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The Secretary's report, dated February 1998, indicates that first phase of the program, in little more than two years and with an initial investment of less than $10.0 million, has clearly impacted materials science at the national and international levels. The program has also contributed to faculty, graduate student, and curriculum development and, through patents, licensing, and technology transfer, has catalyzed industrial activity and state partnerships. The committee notes that the report stated that the funding provided by the Congress for fiscal year 1998 is sufficient to support the next three years of the program, consolidate discoveries made in the first phase, and support other discoveries now in their early stages. At the end of this second phase, a significant part of the science and technology developed in the program will have transitioned to private industry, and the remaining program will be sufficiently well established to be funded by the regular Navy budget process. Multi-function self aligned gate technology The budget request contained $32.1 million in PE 35204D8Z for continued development of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) tactical control system (TCS). The committee notes that the TCS will provide interoperability and commonality for mission planning, command and control, communications, and data dissemination for the current and future family of tactical and medium altitude endurance UAVS. The multi-function self aligned gate (MSAG) technology developed as part of the TCS development has been successfully demonstrated and is now ready for larger scale testing. The committee acknowledges the Departments' plan to transfer funding for this program to the Navy, as lead service for this effort, and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 35204N for fabrication and testing of prototype MSAG active array antennae for TCS UAVS. Multipurpose processor The budget request contained $50.3 million in PE 64503N for submarine system equipment development, including $37.2 million for engineering and manufacturing development of submarine sonar improvements. The committee notes the Navy's selection of the multipurpose processor (MPP) as the cornerstone of sonar upgrades for existing SSN-688, 688I, and TRIDENT submarines and the improvement in sonar systems capability that has resulted from the application of MPP acoustic signal processing technology. The committee also believes that similar improvements in the capability of airborne and surface sonar systems and of undersea surveillance systems would be realized through the use of MPP technology. Therefore, the committee recommends $65.3 million in PE 64503N, an increase of $15.0 million, to continue the research and development necessary for the introduction of MPP technology in submarine and other naval sonar systems. Navy land attack missile program The budget request contained $110.1 million in PE 63795N for land attack technology, including $11.3 million for continued evaluation of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) for adaptation for naval surface ship and submarine use. No funds are included in budget request for the Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM). During fiscal year 1999 budget review briefings, the committee was informed that the Navy's surface warfare community and the Navy's submarine warfare communitywere considering different approaches to fulfilling the requirement for a land attack missile system for naval surface fire support. The former favored selection of the LASM, while the latter favored selection of the Navy Tactical Missile System (NTACMS), a naval variant of ATACMS. The committee was also informed that the Navy surface warfare community intends to move to a Milestone II decision in mid-1999 for the selection of LASM as the land attack missile. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-340) expressed the view that a number of mature systems, sub-systems and components appear to be capable of fulfilling surface fire support requirements and that the Navy needs to conduct the basic analysis required to narrow the field of candidates analytically and to take maximum advantage of developed systems. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) cautioned that a thorough, objective, and independent cost and operational effectiveness analysis of competing system alternatives would be required before the Navy proceeds with any development milestone decision for a land attack missile. The committee is unaware that any such analysis has been completed. The committee strongly believes that the selection of a land attack missile system must reflect the operational requirements of the entire Navy, should capitalize on mature systems, and should also capitalize on future system capabilities. The committee believes that selection of a land attack missile system will be a major defense acquisition decision that will set the direction for future Navy fire support systems capabilities and, as such, should be subject to the rigorous analysis and review associated with such decisions. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that an appropriate analysis of alternatives (AOA) be conducted to support acquisition of a Navy land attack missile program, and that the Navy may not proceed to a Milestone I decision until this AOA and other requirements appropriate to a major acquisition milestone decision have been satisfied. The committee recommends $11.3 million for the Navy Tactical Missile System as contained in the budget request. Navy theater missile defense The budget request contained $190.4 million in PE 63868C for the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) defense system. The committee recognizes the value of leveraging the large investment in the Aegis fleet as the cornerstone of NTW development and continues to support this important effort. The committee notes that in a number of instances, ballistic missile defense development costs are shared between the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and the executing service. Examples include the Air Force Space Based Laser, Navy Area Defense, and the Army Patriot Advanced Capability- Configuration 3 (PAC-3) programs. The committee believes cost sharing is justified if the resulting system serves multiple missions, or if major elements of the resulting system meet other service-unique requirements. The committee understands that while the projected NTW Block I will continue to rely on the existing Aegis SPY-1 radar, the operating frequency of this radar is not adequate to acquire ballistic missile targets without cueing from other sources or to discriminate the threat warhead from other clutter. Further evolution of the Aegis radar will be needed to achieve the capabilities required by the objective NTW Block II system. At the same time, the committee notes that these radar improvements required for missile defense will help meet wider Navy requirements for fleet defense against cruise missile and air attack and that the Navy is pursuing other initiatives to improve current Aegis radar capabilities. The committee believes that the Navy has unique expertise in developing radar capabilities to meet fleet defense requirements, that these requirements overlap with those derived from the ballistic missile defense mission, and the resulting radar system will be inherently multi-mission in nature. Consequently, the committee recommends $50.0 million for a new Navy program element, PE 636XXN, to develop SPY-1 radar upgrades critical to development of the NTW Block II system and to integrate that development with continuing Navy efforts to improve radar capabilities required for fleet defense. In doing so, the committee believes that overall control of the ballistic missile defense architecture must remain with BMDO, and that Navy radar development must remain closely coordinated with BMDO. NSSN advanced technology insertion The budget request contained $218.8 million in PE 64558N for the New Attack Submarine (NSSN) program, including $146.4 million for NSSN hull, mechanical, and electrical systems development, and $72.5 million for NSSN combat systems development. The committee continues to strongly support the development of advanced submarine technologies for the NSSN and the insertion of these technologies into its design at the earliest possible opportunity. The committee has reviewed the Navy's plan for technology insertion in the first four submarines of the NSSN class and notes that the plan falls short in funding for several technologies. Inclusion of these technologies in the NSSN design would result in significant improvements in the capabilities of the NSSN class. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the development of high priority submarine technologies that are currently unfunded and the insertion of these technologies into the NSSN program. The committee is aware that insertion of the technologies will also require a limited amount of procurement funding across the first four submarines (less than $5.0 million) and encourages the Navy to reprogram from within available funds the procurement funding necessary to complete the technology insertion in the appropriate NSSN hulls. Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer The budget request contained $347.9 million in PE 61153N for the Navy's defense research sciences program. In shipboard radar surveillance systems, high instantaneous bandwidth is need to achieve the necessary resolution for theater ballistic missile defense, ship self-defense, and non- cooperative target identification. The committee is aware that the use of optical wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) technology, now being developed in thecommercial sector, may provide the capability for wideband beamforming that could result in the demonstration of a wideband electronically-steered active radar antenna with high instantaneous bandwidth and the resolution necessary for theater ballistic missile defense requirements. Use of optical WDM technology to reduce hardware complexity would permit reductions in system cost and achieve system performance levels that are needed for ship-self defense in a littoral environment. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 61153N to initiate a cooperative program for research, development, and demonstration of a prototype optically multiplexed, wideband, radar beamforming array using optical WDM technology. Parametric airborne dipping sonar The budget request contained $231.1 million in PE 64212N for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and other helicopter development, including $215.5 million for the Light Airborne Multi-purpose System (LAMPS) ASW helicopter. No funds were requested for the parametric airborne dipping sonar (PADS). The PADS project was initiated as a small business innovative research program (SBIR) proposal in 1990 for an advanced acoustic source for helicopter dipping sonar. Following successful demonstration of a parametric projector (acoustic source) beam-forming capability approximating theoretical estimates, funding was added in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104- 201) to initiate a limited PADS onboard helicopter demonstration and at-sea helicopter PADS system test. The test will be conducted in 1999 using funds added in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105- 85). Following completion of the at-sea test in 1999, the Navy plans to review the test results, assess the viability of integrating PADS technology into current or future weapons systems for enhanced shallow water ASW and mine detection capabilities, and report the results of its review and assessment to the Congress. The committee is aware of recommendations for insertion of the PADS technology into the LAMPS ASW helicopter and establishment of an engineering and manufacturing development program for PADS during fiscal year 1999. In view of the time required to complete the PADS testing and follow-on assessment during 1999, the committee believes that this recommendation should be addressed as a part of the fiscal year 2000 defense budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommends no increase in funding for PADS. Power electronic building blocks and power node control centers The budget request contained $39.3 million in PE 63508N for surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical advanced technology. The request included funding to continue the development and demonstration of power electronic building blocks and power node control centers for shipboard electrical power systems. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63508N to continue the program to accelerate the development of power electronic building block technology and the use of virtual prototyping and a virtual test bed to demonstrate and evaluate advanced shipboard electrical power system concepts. The committee also recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63508N to continue the development of power node control centers for advanced electrical distribution system fault detection, switching, reconfiguration, and control of shipboard electrical systems. Project M The committee has followed the progress of Project M--an active approach for noise and vibration cancellation. The results to date have shown that the active machinery raft may provide unprecedented quieting for submarines. Congress appropriated $5.0 million in fiscal year 1998 to be used for only active control of machinery rafts, and the committee notes that Project M is to be tested on a submarine large scale vehicle. However, the committee understands that no funds have been budgeted to develop a prototype system for surface ships. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to program funds to develop a prototype system for surface ships in fiscal year 2000. Reduction to fiscal year 1999 budget request programs The committee has reviewed the Navy's budget request for fiscal year 1999 and, in a number of program elements, identified program growth over fiscal year 1998 projected funding for fiscal year 1999 funding for those programs to the actual requested levels in fiscal year 1999. The committee believes that these increases are not sufficiently justified in comparison to higher priority Navy programs and recommends reductions totaling $9.8 million and listed by program element in the following table. 65152N--Studies And Analysis Support--Navy.................... $-1.0 65853N--Management, Technical & International Support......... -1.0 65863N--RDT&E Ship And Aircraft Support....................... -2.0 65864N--Test And Evaluation Support........................... -5.8 -------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total Reduction......................................... $-9.8 Remote minehunting system The budget request contained $73.5 million in PE 63502N for surface and shallow water mine countermeasures demonstration and validation including $11.0 million for the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). The RMS is a remotely operated system that is being developed to detect and classify mines. This system is the primary element of the Navy's program to provide an organic mine countermeasures means for surface combatants. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63502N to continue the program for accelerated development and fielding of the RMS. This increase, and an increase recommended for the shallow water influence minesweep system (SWIMS)elsewhere in this report, reflect the high priority that the committee places on the mine countermeasures program and on the introduction of an organic mine countermeasures capability into the Navy's battle groups and amphibious ready groups. Shallow water influence minesweeping system The budget request contained $56.8 million in PE 63747N for the Navy's undersea warfare advanced technology program. The committee strongly endorses the need for development and deployment of improved mine countermeasures and believes that systems are needed that have high speed minesweeping capabilities, provide significantly improved area coverage, are effective in all environments, and meet the requirements of the Navy's mine warfare plan for littoral operations. The committee recommends $64.8 million in PE 63747N, an increase of $8.0 million to continue the development and demonstration of advanced magnetic and acoustical minesweeping system technology. Shipboard system component development The budget request contained $27.7 million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development demonstration and validation. The committee is aware that the U.S. manufacturer of the 110-kilowatt static frequency converter for Navy combatant ships has been selected by two foreign navies to develop a new 150-killowatt static frequency converter. The 110-kilowatt unit, which uses 25-year old technology, is both difficult and expensive to maintain. The committee believes that replacement of the older 110-kilowatt unit with the new 150-kilowatt unit in new construction of U.S. Navy ships, such as the LPD-17, could result in significant cost savings. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy assess the feasibility of using the new 150-kilowatt unit in new naval ship construction programs, and, if such use is judged feasible and cost-effective, conduct the necessary U.S. qualification and environmental tests for the new converter. The committee recommends $28.7 million in PE 63513N, an increase of $1.0 million for the qualification and testing program. Shortstop electronic protection system The budget request contained $14.7 million for Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms but included no funding for additional development of the shortstop electronic protection system (SEPS). The committee notes recent completion of successful testing of SEPS, which provides detection and early detonation of incoming artillery, mortar and rocket rounds to protect ground forces. However, SEPS requires upgrading to protect forces from newer weapons. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 26623M, and an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64270A, a total increase of $10.0 million for this purpose. Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials, electronics, and computer technology. Silicon carbide (SiC) is a wide band-gap semiconductor material with unique physical and electrical properties that will make possible the fabrication of the next-generation of microelectronic devices. These devices will be capable of operation in radiation environments and at high temperatures, high voltages, high power levels, and high frequencies in the microwave regime. These capabilities will enable a wide range of applications in military and commercial systems, such as high voltage/high power systems, advanced radar, nuclear, instruments, satellite communications, and advanced sensors. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 62234N to accelerate the development of SiC semiconductor materials and to advance high electrical power control and other applications for next generation military platforms. Standoff land attack missile--expanded response (SLAM-ER) The budget request contained $5.2 million in PE 64603N for the Navy's SLAM-ER program. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) required the Secretary of the Navy to provide an assessment of the SLAM-ER program. The report, dated January 23, 1998, states that SLAM-ER is the missile system that will meet the Navy's requirement for an advanced air-launched, standoff land attack system, that the Navy acquisition objective for SLAM-ER is approximately 700 missiles, and that no further capability is currently anticipated. Accordingly, the committee agrees with the Navy's decision and recommends $5.2 million for SLAM-ER as contained in the budget request. Submarine sonar domes The budget request contained $218.8 million in PE 64558N for the New Design SSN (NSSN) program. The committee is aware of a Navy risk reduction program in which a new structural acoustic sandwich material system composed of glass-reinforced plastic and rubber has been used to fabricate a quarter-scale sonar dome. Although this advanced material system was initially developed for surface ship sonar domes and windows, at-sea testing of the quarter-scale sonar dome indicated potentially significant advantages for the NSSN, including major improvements in sonar performance, enhanced sonar dome durability, and reduced manufacturing and life-cycle costs. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 64558N to complete fabrication of a full-scale sonar dome using this acoustic sandwich material system for further evaluation and testing. Tactical combat training systems development The budget request contained $28.4 million in PE 24571N for the consolidated training system development program, including $6.9 million for continued development of the Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS). The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-132) directed the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to conduct an assessment of the requirement for the JTCTS and execution of the JTCTS program. The Secretary's report, dated February 19, 1998, stated that the joint instrumented range requirement remains valid, that JTCTS meets the requirements of both the Navy and the Air Force, and that the program had been restructured to allow the Services to field a prototype JTCTS mobile, rangeless air combat training capability in 1999, one year sooner than originally scheduled. The report also stated that service priorities have driven the first procurement of JTCTS with an emphasis on replacing existing, less capable and aging air combat range instrumentation systems. However, the report also noted that JTCTS capabilities for joint simulation system integration, ground interoperability, and shipboard weapons system integration had been deferred to later in the program with the full system capability becoming available in fiscal year 2003. The committee notes the existing Navy large area tracking ranges (LATR) and the Air Force's AN/ASQ-34 air combat training system. In view of the projected delay in fielding of the full JTCTS capability, the committee believes that the Navy and the Air Force need to develop an overall strategy for transition from these legacy systems to the full JTCTS capability. The committee believes that such a transition strategy should include potential improvements in the legacy systems, requirements for interoperability with JTCTS as it is fielded, and ultimate replacement of the legacy systems by JTCTS. The committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, conduct a further assessment of the feasibility and desirability of such a transition strategy and report the results of that assessment to the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget request. To accelerate the development of the full capability of JTCTS and to address the recommendations that may result from the assessment, the committee recommends $33.4 million in PE 24571N, an increase of $ 5.0 million and a total of $11.9 million for the JTCTS program. Tactical Tomahawk The budget request contained $66.7 million in PE 24229N for Tomahawk operational system development; $132.9 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy for the Tomahawk Block Improvement Program (TBIP); $94.2 million in Other Procurement, Navy for TBIP; and $117.1 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy for TBIP. In September 1997, during the House-Senate conference on H.R. 1119, the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) advised the conferees of a proposal to upgrade the capability and reduce the production unit cost of the Tomahawk cruise missile. The upgraded missile, ``Tactical Tomahawk,'' would include several enhancements to improve the tactical responsiveness of the Tomahawk missile. In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 103-340), the conferees supported the concept of the Tactical Tomahawk missile system, but raised several issues regarding the acquisition strategy and funding for the system that would need to be addressed before initiation of the Tactical Tomahawk program. In February 1998, following submission of the President's budget request for fiscal year 1999, the committee received a reprogramming proposal from the DOD which would transfer fiscal year 1998 funds provided for TBIP missile procurement to research and development for the Tactical Tomahawk. Following review of the supporting rationale for the reprogramming, the committee approved the proposal in April, 1998. The committee is generally satisfied with the rationale that the Navy and the DOD have provided to support the reprogramming request. The committee is concerned, however, about the Navy's ability to establish a competitive environment for future Tactical Tomahawk procurement. The committee is particularly interested in the measures that will be taken by the Navy to insure a Tactical Tomahawk program that includes the potential for a second source for missile system production and also provides for a qualified second source engine for the production phase of the program. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees by September 30, 1998, the Navy's plan for ensuring competitiveness in the production phase of the Tactical Tomahawk program. To provide the fiscal year 1999 funding required to complete the reprogramming for Tactical Tomahawk, the committee recommends $165.3 million in PE 24229N for Tomahawk operational systems development, an increase of $98.6 million; an increase of $2.8 million in Other Procurement, Navy for TBIP; and reductions of $96.5 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy, and $4.9 million in Operations and Maintenance, Navy, for TBIP. Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials, electronics, and computer technology. The committee is aware that over the last three years the Navy has engaged in a program to significantly advance the use of ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers in high-performance, high-density electronic modules. Through this research, the Navy has concluded that ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers could allow for the expanded use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronic components in military applications, such as avionics, in which the high thermal output of such components has constrained their use. The committee believes that the potential exists for substantial savings if greater use could be made of COTS components in aircraft and avionics systems. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million to determine the feasibility of application of the Navy's recently completed research in ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers. Undersea warfare advanced technology The budget request contained $34.9 million in PE 62633N for applied research in undersea warfare weaponry technology. The committee recommends $36.9 million, an increase of $2.0 million to continue the development and application of micro electromechanical systems (MEMS) technology to Navy undersea weapons systems. Vacuum electronics The budget request contained $77.6 million in PE 62234N for the Navy's materials, electronics and computer technology program, including $10.0 million for applied research in vacuum electronics. The January 1997 Report to the Congress on the Tri-Service Microwave Power Module Project by the Director, Defense, Research, and Engineering, and the April 1997 Industrial Assessment of the Microwave Power Tube Industry by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Affairs and Installations) underscore the importance of vacuum electronics to the Department of Defense (DOD). The assessment cites the requirement for a focused DOD research and development investment strategy to advance the technology and improve manufacturability of vacuum electronics to meet future DOD system performance improvement and cost reduction requirements. The assessment also notes that additional development funding may be necessary to adapt emerging product technologies to meet service-specific requirements. The committee supports continuation of a robust vacuum electronics research and development program, and expects the Navy as DOD executive agent for the program to insure a coordinated vacuum electronics research and development program among the military services and defense agencies, and among the DOD and other U.S. Government agencies, which will meet DOD requirements for advanced vacuum electronics technology. The committee recommends the budget request of $10.0 million for the vacuum electronics program. Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter technology demonstration The budget request contained $23.2 million in PE 62122N for aircraft technology applied research. No funds were requested for the Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller (VTDP) compound helicopter technology demonstration program. The VTDP program is intended to demonstrate the technology for a vectored thrust, ducted propeller in a compound helicopter, which could meet requirements for improvements in future rotor craft performance, survivability and affordability. The funded program includes design, fabrication and ground testing of full-scale VTDP components, control system simulation, and system design focused on the H-60 helicopter as a demonstration platform. If successful, the ground test program would provide a basis for a potential follow-on flight demonstration program. The committee is aware that the Navy expects to address the VTDP technology potential for naval rotary wing aircraft before final preparation of the fiscal year 2000 budget. The committee recommends the budget request. Should the Navy make a decision to begin a flight demonstration phase for the VTDP program in fiscal year 2000, the committee also recommends that the Secretary of the Navy consider reprogramming the fiscal year 1999 funds necessary to transition the program from the ground test phase to the flight test phase. Vectoring ESTOL control tailless operation research The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 63217N for advanced development in air systems and advanced technology, including $7.0 million for the Vectoring Extremely Short Take- off and Landing Control Tailless Operation Research (VECTOR) project, and $11.0 million in PE 63790N, NATO Research and Development, including $5.0 million for the VECTOR project. The committee notes that VECTOR is a new start, international flight demonstration effort that would utilize the X-31 experiment aircraft to demonstrate the feasibility of tailless fighter designs to perform carrier and amphibious ship/land-based strike fighter mission, and also demonstrate extremely short take-off and landing (ESTOL) using thrust vectoring directional control. The committee strongly supports the development of advanced aviation technology, but notes that the VECTOR project represents a new start program that was not included in the fiscal year 1998 defense budget request and that was initiated with a below threshold reprogramming of $3.0 million. Notwithstanding the technical merit of the VECTOR project, the committee believes that many of the operational capabilities sought in the project duplicate those being pursued in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The committee believes that priority should be given to the development of advanced aviation technology in the JSF program and that funding for the VECTOR program should be deferred to fiscal year 2000, following completion of JSF technology maturation demonstrations and assessments. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 million in PE 63217N for VECTOR; and a decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63790N for VECTOR. Vertical gun for advanced ships The budget request contained $110.1 million in PE 63795N for project definition and risk reduction in land attack technology, including $25.2 million for the Vertical Guns for Advanced Ships (VGAS) program. The committee strongly supports the accelerated development and fielding of advanced fire support system capabilities for naval surface fire support and believes that an advanced gun system for the next generation of Naval Surface Combatants (SC- 21) surface combatants will be an integral part of the future system. However, the committee does not believe that the Navy has given sufficient consideration to, nor completed the rigorous analysis of alternative gun system concepts that would justify selection of the VGAS concept as the preferred alternative for the advanced naval gun system for SC-21. Nor, in the committee's opinion, has the Navy given sufficient consideration to the relative technical requirements and operational roles of gun and missile systems. Until such an analysis of alternatives is completed, the committee believes that the Navy is not prepared to proceed to a Milestone I decision for an advanced gun system as described in the fiscal year 1999 budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million for the VGAS project. Air Force RDT&E Overview The budget request contained $13,598.1 million for Air Force RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $13,577.2 million, a decrease of $20.9 million. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 Air Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table and in the classified annex to this report. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Advanced low observable coatings The budget request contained $21.0 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapon systems. The committee is aware of the constantly evolving threats to U.S. aircraft and notes numerous Department of Defense initiatives pursuing survivability enhancements to address these evolving threats. One technology approach which has proven both adaptable and cost effective is that of low observable coatings applied to aircraft and other high value platforms which mask them from evolving battlefield sensors. The committee supports these efforts and recommends $30.0 million, an increase of $9.0 million for continued exploration of advanced low observable coatings. Advanced military satellite communications The budget request contained $54.4 million for the advanced military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) program in PE 63430F. Advanced MILSATCOM is the planned Air Force replacement for the MILSTAR extra high frequency (EHF) communications satellite. The committee notes that the commercial satellite communications industry is taking a strong interest in EHF communications and in greatly increasing the on-board processing capacity of communications satellites. The committee believes that the overlap between these trends and advanced MILSATCOM requirements offers an opportunity for the Air Force to leverage commercially developed technology Therefore, the committee recommends $30.0 million, a decrease of $24.4 million. The authorized funding would support research and development for Air Force-unique requirements in EHF communications, including radiation hardened electronics, compatibility of a new system with the existing EHF communications infrastructure, and interoperability with ground terminals. Aircrew laser eye protection The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63231F for crew systems and personnel protection technology. No funds were requested to support development of the aircrew laser eye protection program. The committee supports the Department of Defense's continued efforts to enhance aircraft crew member protection systems and yet notes, with concern, recent incidences of injuries sustained by crew members due to exposure to lasers. The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to develop dye based aircrew visors and urges the Air Force to continue funding these efforts. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million for aircrew laser eye protection. ALR-69 radar warning receiver The budget request contained $25.6 million in PE 63270F for electronic combat technology. No funds were requested to support development of the ALR-69 radar warning receiver. The committee is aware of continuing efforts by the services to improve situational awareness of the radar threat environment. While modernization of radar warning equipment has progressed for the active forces, the committee remains concerned that modernization of National Guard, Reserve, and Special Forces aviation assets has not kept pace with available technology to address this critical area of vulnerability. The committee is aware of the potential of the ALR-69 radar warning receiver to offer protection to these forces and recommends $34.6 million, an increase of $9.0 million for integration of the ALR-69 radar warning receiver into priority National Guard, Reserve, and Special Forces aviation assets. Ballistic missile technology The budget request contained $1.3 million for the ballistic missile technology (BMT) program in PE 63401F and no funding for a conventional ballistic missile demonstration in PE 63851F. Prior year ballistic missile technology funding has supported several demonstrations of guidance technology, deep earth penetrating warheads, and Global Positioning System (GPS) range safety. This technology has in turn supported a demonstration of a conventional ICBM that could be used for long range precision strike of deeply buried or very hardened targets. Many such targets, which include facilities for command and control and weapons of mass destruction, are currently immune from attack by anything but nuclear weapons. The committee believes that this demonstration should be pursued as part of the wider effort to develop effective non- nuclear means to attack this target set. Last year, the BMT program was funded separately in PE 63311F. The committee believes that funding BMT in PE 63401F, a program element for advanced spacecraft development is inappropriate. The committee recommends $17.3 million, an increase of $16.0 million, for advanced ballistic missile technology and the conventional ballistic missile demonstration. The committee recommends this funding for PE 63311F and believes that combining these efforts in one PE will result in better program coordination. Distributed agent information warfare The budget request contained $8.4 million in PE 33140F for the information systems security program. The committee notes that the Department of Defense is engaged in several development initiatives to mature information security technologies for military purposes. One such effort, the Distributed Agent Information Warfare Framework (DAIWF) has been successfully demonstrated in a small business innovative research program under Air Force supervision. The committee supports this development effort and recommends $10.4 million for continued DAIWF development, an increase of $2.0 million. Ejection seats The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63231F for crew systems and personnel protection and $8.2 million in PE 63216N for aviation survivability. Last year, the committee supported an increase in funding to continue improvements in aircrew ejection seats and to explore alternative technologies leading to injury-free ejection seat designs that can accommodate both male and female pilots. The committee remains supportive of these efforts and recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63231F, and an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63216N. The committee is also aware that the Navy has completed the second phase of a small business innovative research program (SBIR) for stabilizers for Navy fighter ejection seats, which may produce an extraordinary reduction in injuries as well as a dramatic increase in aircrew ability to survive ejection from the aircraft. Based on the results of the feasibility demonstration, the committee encourages the Navy and the Air Force to consider establishing a phase III SBIR or a demonstration/validation program to continue development of this promising stabilization technology. F-16 squadrons The budget request contained $125.1 million in PE 27133F for continued operational system development support for the F- 16 fleet. The committee notes that the budget request reflects an increase of $24.6 million over the level forecast as necessary to support fiscal year 1999 requirements in the fiscal year 1998 budget request. Further, the committee believes that some of the proposed fleet support modifications are not expected to be carried out until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999 and should be considered for incorporation into the fiscal year 2000 program. The committee recommends $100.5 million to continue F-16 fleet support at the level previously forecast for fiscal year 1999, a decrease of $24.6 million in PE 27133F. Flight test safely enhancements The budget request contained $370.2 million in PE 65807F for test and evaluation support. The committee is aware of Air Force efforts to improve the safety of high performance aircraft flight test operations at the Air Force Flight Test Center. The committee notes that upgrades to air traffic control systems and on-board aircraft equipment offer significant improvements in safety of flight test operations and recommends $376.2 million, an increase of $6.0 million to continue these efforts. Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63302F for the integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology (IHPRPT). The IHPRPT program is developing technologies and components for insertion into existing launch vehicles, with the goal of improving launch vehicle performance in a variety of areas and lowering costs of space launch substantially. The committee understands the importance of testing these new technologies to demonstrate their performance. The committee recommends $23.0 million for IHPRPT in PE 63302F, an increase of $4.0 million, to support a Phase I Solid Boost and Orbit Transfer demonstration. Integrated powerhead demonstration The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 63302F for space and missile rocket propulsion. The committee notes that the Air Force is maximizing efforts to integrate advanced propulsion technologies into its highest priority space related programs. Of particular interest, the committee believes that the Integrated Powerhead Demonstration included in this year's request offers potential for significant advances in capability and cost reduction for the Air Force and other service space programs. The committee strongly urges the Air Force to continue this effort and supports the request for space and missile rocket propulsion. Longshot The budget request contained $17.6 million in PE 27590F for the SEEK EAGLE weapons integration flight test program. No funds were requested to support continued testing of the Longshot guided munition adaption kit. The committee notes that the Longshot kit offers the potential for a highly cost effective, precision stand-off adaption kit that could provide a long range glide capability combined with an inexpensive guidance system for increased accuracy, and could be strapped on existing inventory bombs and submunition delivery systems without modification. The committee notes that the system has only received limited testing to date and recommends $19.6 million, an increase of $2.0 million to continue testing of Longshot. Low cost launch technology The budget request contained no funding for low cost launch technology development. Fiscal year 1998 funding was appropriated in PE 63173C and PE 63401F. Congress added funding for low cost launch technology development in both fiscal year 1997 and 1998. The committee continues to believe that these technologies, as embodied in programs such as Scorpius and Excalibur, show considerable promise and deserve additional support. The committee encourages the Department to identify and program funds for these efforts in the future years defense plan. Microsatellite technology The budget request contained no funding for microsatellite technology. Fiscal year 1998 funding for microsatellite technology was appropriated in PE 63401F in the Clementine II program. In congressional testimony, the commander-in-chief of U.S. Space Command, identified the development of microsatellite technology as a high priority. The committee notes that the nation relies heavily on space-based assets for both commercial and military purposes, and that reducing the size and weight and increasing the agility of satellites and space vehicles has the potential to lower costs and improve sustainability. The committee understands that $4.0 million would allow the microsatellite technology development program to fly a satellite inspection mission. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to PE 63401F for this purpose. Military spaceplane The budget request contained no funding for the military spaceplane in PE 63401F and $3.0 million for the space maneuvering vehicle in the space test program, PE 65864F. The committee notes that U.S. military forces are increasingly reliant on space-based capabilities and the Air Force has identified requirements that are best met by a military spaceplane and an associated family of vehicles. The committee understands that any military spaceplane effort should focus on militarily unique requirements and leverage NASA investment in the reusable launch vehicle program. These unique requirements are reflected in development efforts for a space maneuvering vehicle (SMV) that would provide all-orbit access and extended on-orbit dwell time, a low cost expendable upper stage to deploy payloads to all orbits, and a common aero vehicle (CAV) that would serve as a maneuvering reentry vehicle capable of delivering various payloads anywhere on earth within an hour of launch. The committee believes that a military spaceplane and its related elements have the potential to contribute significantly to U.S. military capability. The committee recommends an addition of $15.0 million to PE 63401F to support further SMV and CAV development. More electric aircraft program The budget request contained $69.1 million in PE 62203F for aerospace propulsion, including $17.9 million for More Electric Aircraft (MEA). The committee is encouraged with Air Force efforts to develop advanced electric power technology through the MEA program and urges the Air Force to accelerate this program in future budget requests. The committee recommends the $69.1 million requested. Panoramic night vision goggle The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63231F for crew systems and personnel protection technology. The committee notes the Air Force progress in development of night vision technology for application to existing fighter and tactical aircraft. Of particular note is the panoramic night vision goggle (PNVG) program which significantly broadens the field of view for pilots. The committee supports this effort and recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 63231F to continue development of PNVG. Protein-based memory development The budget request contained $65.2 million in PE 62702F for command, control and communications research. The committee notes the encouraging results of Air Force research in protein-based ultra-high density memory storage. Of particular interest is the progress made in the past year confirming the potential for significant increases in memory storage capacity. The committee urges the Air Force to continue this research and recommends $68.2 million, an increase of $3.0 million. Rocket system launch program The budget request contained $7.9 million for the rocket system launch program (RSLP) in PE 65860F. The committee notes that the Air Force has a requirement for improved high performance missile technology. The committee understands that Advanced Solid Axial Stage (ASAS) technology is potentially valuable for ballistic missile defense interceptors and other future missiles, and that RSLP plays an important role in ASAS development. The committee recommends $18.9 million, an increase of $11.0 million in PE 65860F, for ASAS development and activities related to current and future RSLP flights. Defense Agencies RDT&E Overview The budget request contained $9,591.0 million for Defense Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $9,454.3 million, a decrease of $136.7 million. The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are discussed following the table. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> Items of Special Interest Advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) The budget request contained $116.3 million for advanced concept technology demonstrations in PE 63750D8Z, an increase of $38.8 million over fiscal year 1998. Although the management of the ACTD initiatives appears to have improved, the committee remains concerned that the Department's selection criteria for ACTD candidates lacks specificity and believes such a large increase is not warranted. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million in PE 63750D8Z. Advanced synthetic aperture radar system improvement program The budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 35207D8Z for the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS) Improvement Program (AIP) for the U-2 aircraft. As a result of the termination of the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology sent a letter to the Congress recommending specific redistribution of Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program funding in fiscal year 1999. Included in this recommendation was an additional $2.5 million for AIP research and development. The AIP program will dramatically increase the U-2's radar system with significantly improved synthetic aperture radar imagery, a highly capable moving target indicator tracking capability, and integral onboard processing functions. Unfortunately, the AIP has suffered cost growth and has a fiscal year 1999 shortfall of over $18.0 million. Some of this growth is due to contractor overruns and schedule slips caused by late deliveries of commercial processors. Some of this growth is due to a decision to postpone certain Global Hawk High Altitude Unmanned Aerial Vehicle radar developments that were cost sharing with AIP. This growth has forced the Air Force to make decisions to slip the AIP, thereby further increasing costs. In order to deliver the AIP when required, the Air Force has stated a need to reprogram funding from procurement to research and development in fiscal year 1999. However, such a step would have a significant procurement funding impact in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends an authorization of $13.0 million, an increase of $8.0 million for AIP development. Ballistic missile defense The budget request contained $3.6 billion for ballistic missile defense (BMD). The committee recommends $3.8 billion, an increase of $132.8 million. The committee believes that the budget request represents a reasonable effort to fund BMD priorities more adequately than the budget requests of the past several years. The committee notes specifically that the National Missile Defense (NMD) program request is consistent with the revised estimate of program requirements put forward by the Department last year. The committee also believes that the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program request reflects an effort to restore funding reduced last year as a result of program delays. While the committee is gratified with this commitment of funds, it is concerned that the Administration's commitment to robust research and development and timely deployment in the longer term is still lacking. According to Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) budget documents, BMD funding would decline rapidly in the future years defense plan (FYDP), from $3.6 billion requested in fiscal year 1999 to $2.6 billion in both fiscal years 2002 and 2003. This decline would leave the BMDO with an annual budget shortfall of over $1.0 billion and unable to meet clearly identified and understood BMD requirements. These documents acknowledge that the shortfall is even greater than appears, because several high priority programs are unfunded or underfunded throughout the FYDP, including innovative research and development to support next generation BMD systems, the medium extended air defense system (MEADS), the Navy theater wide defense system, and NMD, should a decision be made to deploy within the FYDP. This projected shortfall would inevitably result in delayed development and deployment schedules for virtually all BMD programs. The committee notes that missile defense remains a very high priority with commanders in the field and that missile threats to the U.S. homeland, deployed troops, and allies continue to grow. The committee believes that the planned reduction of the BMDO budget baseline is completely unjustified and urges in the strongest terms that the Department identify funds in the future year defense plans to meet legitimate missile defense needs. Advanced technology development The budget request contained $166.7 million for Advanced Technology Development in PE 63173C, of which $30.2 million is for Operational Support (project 4000). The committee notes that the $30.2 million request for Operational Support (project 4000) represents an eleven percent increase over the fiscal year 1997 request. The committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for Operational Support. Atmospheric interceptor technology The budget request contained $24.5 million for the atmospheric interceptor technology (AIT) program in PE 63173C. The AIT program has been restructured to develop advanced components for a variety of hit-to-kill vehicles, including advanced high performance divert and attitude control systems, seekers, energy sources, and avionics. The committee notes that BMDO is now pursuing five hit-to-kill missile defense systems which will remain in U.S. inventories for many years. The committee believes that the AIT effort can provide beneficial technology to all of these programs. The committee recommends $46.5 million, an increase of $22.0 million. BMD research and development The committee notes with considerable concern that, according to budget documents provided by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), by fiscal year 2002, BMDO research and development accounts will fall to their lowest levels since fiscal year 1985. This situation would result from the precipitous decline in funding projected by the BMDO budget and from the fact that several programs are transitioning from development to acquisition. The committee believes that this projected level of investment in next generation missile defense technologies is inadequate. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Congressional defense committees by March 1, 1999, on the appropriate level of research and development investment in next generation ballistic missile defense technologies, the BMD budget level required to sustain both acquisition of critical BMD systems and robust R&D, and how the Department of Defense intends to manage the BMDO transition from an R&D organization to one that must manage both R&D and acquisition programs. Ballistic missile defense testing The committee has long expressed frustration with the lack of a robust test program in a number of BMD programs, including the theater high altitude area defense (THAAD), national missile defense (NMD), and navy area defense systems. In its recent report, the Panel on Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Programs criticized BMD flight test programs for accepting excessive risk, in part because of the perceived urgency of speeding BMD capabilities into the field. The panel also argued that BMD flight test programs have incorrectly viewed flight tests as significant advances in technology rather than validations of technical advances and carefully planned efforts to prove technology that cannot be tested on the ground. The report recommended that BMD program schedules be slowed, and that ground testing, modeling and simulation be substantially increased. The committee finds considerable merit in the report, and notes that many of its recommendations had already been incorporated into the THAAD and NMD test programs prior to the report's release. Due in part to funding added to by Congress, the number of integrated ground tests planned in the NMD program has doubled. Nevertheless, the committee believes that the report's implication that the urgency of the need to deploy TMD systems is merely ``perceived'' is seriously mistaken. Both the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command, and the commander of U.S. and United Nations forces in Korea testified this year that theater missile defense is their top priority. This priority is reflected in House passage of H.R. 2786, the Theater Missile Defense Improvement Act of 1998, that would provide additional test and development funds for a number of systems to more effectively and more rapidly address emerging theater missile threats. The committee continues to believe that the earliest possible deployment of theater missile defense capabilities remains a very high priority. The committee believes the report of the panel would have been more valuable had it focused more directly on testing practices that would allow BMDO to minimize development risks while sustaining aggressive schedules, and believes that such a focus would have benefited not only BMD programs and the warfighters, but the test and evaluation community as well. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congressional defense committees by March 1, 1999, on innovative testing concepts, processes, and procedures that have the potential to advance BMD technologies rapidly with minimum risk. Cooperative ballistic missile defense The budget request contained $37.9 million for the Israeli- American Arrow theater missile defense program and $12.8 million for the Russian-American Observation Satellites (RAMOS) program in PE 63875C. The committee continues to endorse cooperative BMD efforts as a means of leveraging U.S. BMD investments, and recommends the requested amount for the Arrow program. The committee understands that the rapid emergence of an Iranian ballistic missile threat capable of threatening Israel requires an effective and timely response. The committee notes that the Israeli government has expressed strong interest in deploying a third Arrow battery to mitigate this emerging threat and that the Administration has recently endorsed U.S. assistance toward that end. The committee urges the Administration to proceed rapidly in determining appropriate funding sources and finalizing appropriate agreements with the government of Israel that would allow such aid to be provided expeditiously. The committee recognizes that the Iranian ballistic missile program has advanced so rapidly in large part due to substantial assistance from Russian sources. The committee recommends $12.8 million for RAMOS, and recommends a legislative provision (sec. 233) that would prohibit obligation or expenditure of $5.0 million until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the Department has acquired detailed information concerning the nature, extent, and military implications of ballistic missile technology transfer from Russian sources to Iran. Joint theater missile defense The budget request contained $176.8 million for Joint TMD in PE 63872C. The committee notes unjustified increases in the cost of various TMD exercises, and recommends $174.8 million, a decrease of $2.0 million in User Interface, project 3265. National missile defense The budget request contained $950.5 million in PE 63871C for the national missile defense (NMD) program. The committee recommends the budget request. The committee is encouraged by the Administration decision to fully fund the NMD program and by the selection of the lead system integrator (LSI). The committee believes that the LSI concept is sound and will provide the necessary management expertise to move the program forward expeditiously. The committee continues to support efforts to develop an NMD system capable of defending all 50 states. The committee believes that the threat of ballistic missile attack on the U.S. homeland continues to grow, and understands that nations hostile to U.S. interests are developing or seeking to acquire long range ballistic missile technologies. Therefore, the committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 231) that expresses the sense of Congress that any deployed national missile defense should defend all fifty states and that U.S. territories should be protected from ballistic missile attack. The committee is aware that defense of all 50 states by an NMD system could require changes to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The committee believes that the United States and Russia should pursue approaches to the ABM Treaty responsive to new strategic requirements that would permit an effective limited defense of U.S. national territory and enhance the security of both Russia and the United States. U.S.-Russian discussions to explore these issues were pursued in the early 1990s but were discontinued in 1993. The committee does not believe that such exchanges should or would restrict the right to deploy an effective limited national missile defense when U.S. interests require such a deployment. The committee recognizes that the Treaty expressly provides for the right of withdrawal, a right that could be exercised if a demarche with Russia fails to produce the necessary agreement concerning the intent or content of the Treaty. Navy theater wide The budget request contained $190.4 million in PE 63868C for the navy theater wide (NTW) defense system. The committee continues to support this important theater missile defense program. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition recently testified that the NTW system could achieve Block I capabilities by fiscal year 2002 if provided with sufficient additional funding above the Administration's request. The committee notes recent analysis performed by BMDO and the Navy indicating that this date would entail very high program risk, very high near term costs, and does not appear reasonably executable. The committee further notes that BMDO and the Navy now support deployment of a Block I capability by fiscal year 2005 as a fiscally plausible and technically achievable goal. However, additional funding in fiscal year 1999 and throughout the future year defense plan will be necessary to achieve this objective. To this end, the committee recommends $260.4 million, an increase of $70.0 million for continued risk reduction, additional testing of the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Interceptor (LEAP) program and Aegis-LEAP integration. The committee urges the Department to identify and support adequate funding in the future years defense plan to sustain Block I NTW deployment. The committee is concerned that the technical evolution of NTW Block I to Block II has not been adequately considered. As a consequence, BMDO has not yet been able to provide assurance to the committee that Block I development efforts are on a path to support the evolution to Block II. The committee believes that the long term success of NTW requires that Block II technology requirements and architecture be well defined to ensure that accelerated Block I development can proceed along that critical path. Patriot advanced capability The budget request contained $343.2 million in procurement and $137.3 million in PE 64865C for the Patriot Advanced Capability-Configuration 3 (PAC-3) program. The committee understands that the PAC-3 development program has experienced cost increases. The committee supports the Department's request to use $40.0 million requested for PAC-3 procurement in fiscal year 1999 to meet this development shortfall and to ensure that the PAC-3 test program is completed. The committee understands that this reduction to procurement will reduce the number of low rate initial production missiles that will be acquired in fiscal year 1999. The committee believes that increasing the initial production rate is an important goal as a means of addressing the threat posed by potential deployment of Iranian theater ballistic missiles to U.S forces, friends and allies in the Persian Gulf and Middle East. The committee understands that an additional $16.0 million would support increasing low rate initial production to six a month. Consequently, the committee recommends $303.2 million for PAC-3 procurement, a reduction of $40.0 million, and $193.3 million for engineering and manufacturing development, an increase of $56.0 million which includes the $40.0 million transfer from procurement and an increase of $16.0 million in PE 64865C. Space based laser The budget request contained a total of $93.8 million for the Space Based Laser (SBL) program, of which $58.8 million is in PE 63173C and $35.0 million is in 63876F. The committee understands that SBL technology has matured to the point where a readiness demonstrator (SBLRD) is a logical next step. However, the committee is concerned that a program leading to an SBLRD launch in 2005 may be too costly and would unnecessarily restrict the technical options open to the program. The committee believes that innovative technical ideas can reduce the cost of the SBLRD, advance the technologies that might be used if a decision were taken to develop and deploy an operational system, and provide valuable proof of concept demonstrations. The committee believes that these goals can be accomplished without an inordinate delay in the launch date. However, the committee does not believe that the best path to achieve these goals has been adequately laid out in the currently proposed SBLRD program. Until the Department proposes a technically achievable program plan and funding in the future years defense plan has been identified, the committee believes that a commitment to higher funding levels is premature. Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million in PE 63173C and a reduction of $10.0 million in PE 63876F. The committee further recommends that BMDO establish a separate SBL program element in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission. Support technology--applied research The budget request contained $86.9 million in PE 62173C for ballistic missile defense support technologies. The committee is concerned with the deep reduction in innovative science and technology for BMD in project 1651, from $60.5 million in fiscal year 1998 to a request of $24.0 million. The committee understands that BMDO seeks to support only those areas of applied research relevant to BMD without duplicating other efforts, but is also aware that a number of such technology efforts are not sufficiently funded. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in project 1651, including $5.0 million for wide bandgap semiconductor research. Furthermore, while the committee is aware and appreciative of the value of involving small business in BMD research, the committee is not convinced that a 35 percent increase in Small Business Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer in project 1660 is justified. Therefore, the committee recommends $50.0 million, a reduction of $12.2 million in project 1660. The committee recommends $89.7 million for PE 62173C, an increase of $2.8 million. Technical operations The budget request contained $190.1 million for BMD technical operations in PE 63874C. The committee notes a significant increase in fiscal year 1999 funding in project 3153, System Architecture and Engineering compared to projections made in fiscal year 1998, and, therefore, recommends $186.1 million, a reduction of $4.0 million. Theater high altitude area defense (THAAD) The budget request contained $497.8 million in PE 63861C for THAAD demonstration and validation, and $323.9 million in PE 64861C for THAAD engineering and manufacturing development. The committee continues its strong support for the THAAD program and recommends authorization of the request. The hiatus in THAAD flight testing has been used for extensive quality control and risk reduction efforts, and has put the program on a firmer technical footing. While THAAD missile development remains an area of risk, the THAAD battle management/command, control, and communications (BMIC3) system and ground based radar have achieved significant progress. The committee strongly encourages the Director of BMDO to proceed with EMD on the elements of the program mature enough to do so, while the THAAD missile continues to evolve. The committee believes that starting EMD for the THAAD radar and BM/C3 will result in more a capable system earlier than if those systems are held back. The committee notes that early deployment of a contingency capability remains a high priority of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to address longer range threat missiles, such as those currently deployed in North Korea and under development in Iran. The committee is aware of concern that a decision to proceed to production of 40 User Operational Evaluation System (UOES) missiles after one successful intercept may be premature. The committee notes that the decision to proceed is based not only on one intercept but three subsequent ``in progress reviews.'' Further funding for THAAD UOES acquisition can be suspended after any of these reviews if problems or difficulties that warrant such an action are discovered. The committee also understands that delaying the commitment to UOES correspondingly delays delivery of a contingency capability to the warfighters, and believes that such a delay would unnecessarily deny them a valuable defensive and deterrent capability. Chemical-biological defense program The budget request contained a total of $620.3 million for the Department of Defense chemical-biological defense program, including $283.9 million for procurement of chemical and biological defense equipment for the military services and $336.4 million for research, development, test and evaluation (RDTE). The budget request also included $88.0 million in PE 62383E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's component of the biological warfare defense program. The committee has repeatedly expressed its concerns about the need for a strong chemical-biological defense program to meet the potential threat posed by the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons in the post-Cold War world. The committee has strongly supported and insisted upon a coordinated and integrated chemical-biological defense program and the need for joint coordination and oversight of the program. The committee notes ongoing research and development activities by the Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories that are addressed elsewhere in this report, including $17.0 million for the DOE Deterrence and Detection Technologies Program and $56.5 million for the DOE Proliferation Detection Program. The committee believes that increased and continuing emphasis should be given to the development of advanced stand- off detectors that employ a range of potential sensing technologies capable of detecting nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon proliferation effluents and agents. The committee also believes that the chemical-biological defense program must incorporate the best efforts of the military services' research and development establishment, defense agencies, national laboratories, federally funded research and development centers, and industry. The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense address this issue, including plans for developing a more fully integrated program with the DOE, as a specific item of interest in the next annual report to Congress on the Department of Defense Nuclear/Biological/ Chemical (NBC) Defense Program. Counterproliferation support The budget request contained $70.6 million for counterproliferation support in PE 63160BR. The committee notes that the requested funding is significantly above last year's projection for fiscal year 1999. The committee believes that maintaining level funding is appropriate and recommends $57.6 million, a decrease of $13.0 million. The committee also recommends a provision (sec. 234) that would prohibit obligation or expenditure of the funds authorized and appropriated in PE 63160BR until the report on the threat posed to the United States by weapons of mass destruction andcruise and ballistic missiles is submitted to Congress as required in section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency The budget request contained $2,040 million for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs. The committee is concerned, as detailed elsewhere in this report, by the increased emphasis given to defense-wide research, science, and technology programs at the apparent expense of those programs within the military departments. Accordingly, the committee recommends the following adjustments in selected DARPA programs and transfer of the funds to the accounts of the military departments: a reduction of $37.0 million in PE 62702E for applied research in tactical technology; a reduction of $27.5 million in PE 63760E for command, control, and communications systems advanced development; a reduction of $13.1 million in PE 63762E for advanced development of sensor and guidance technology; and a reduction of $11.6 million in PE 63764E for land warfare technology advanced development. DARPA marine technology program The committee is also concerned by the overall reduction in funding for the DARPA marine technology program, for which $24.8 million in PE 63763E was requested. The objective of the program is to identify and mature critical enabling technologies for maritime systems, and to develop and demonstrate advanced systems concepts to counter the threat created by the worldwide proliferation of increasingly sophisticated naval technology. The growing threat of quiet diesel/electric submarines, the continuing worldwide proliferation of advanced submarine and weapons capabilities, and the easy availability of modern underwater mines all necessitate the development of solutions for enhancing the operating capabilities and the survivability of U.S. naval forces in the littoral. With the cancellation of the Arsenal Ship program at the beginning of fiscal year 1998 and other adjustments in the marine technology program, the DARPA fiscal year 1999 budget request for marine technology was reduced by $64.0 million and estimated funding for the remainder of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) reduced by $135.2 million. The committee believes that such reductions result in an advanced marine technology program which is not adequate to address the future requirements of U.S. naval forces. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an assessment of the DARPA marine technology program from the standpoint of these requirements and report to the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2000 defense budget request the results of the assessment and recommendations for adjustments to budget projections for the FYDP period. Defense airborne reconnaissance program management The budget request contained $15.7 million for defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP) integration and support in PE 35209D8Z, and $35.0 million in PE 35208D8Z for distributed common ground systems. The committee notes that, subsequent to development of this year's budget request, the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) has been eliminated and its functions absorbed within the reorganized office of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (OASD (C3I)) and within the military services. The committee supports actions which adhere to the Department's stated objective of maintaining very small cadre oversight organizations within OSD, focused on policy level guidance to ensure reconnaissance system interoperability and architectural compliance. The Department provided a report to the Congressional defense committees which included plans to request reprogramming authority to shift DARO funding for DARP integration and support from PE 35209D8Z to program elements within the Air Force and other DOD agencies, as well as to defense-wide operations and maintenance accounts. The committee supports this transfer of funding and, therefore, recommends $7.0 million in Operations and Maintenance, defense-wide for OASD (C3I), $2.5 million in PE 35208F, $2.5 million in PE 35208BQ, $2.5 million in PE 35208G, and $2.0 million in PE 35208L, for a total transfer of $11.0 million, a decrease of $4.7 million in PE 35209D8Z and $5.6 million in PE 35208D8Z. Defense manufacturing, technology program (MANTECH) The budget request contained $14.5 million in PE 78045A, $59.1 million in PE 78011N, $51.0 million in PE 78011F, and $26.2 million in PE 78011S, for the Department of Defense manufacturing technology (ManTech) program. Section 211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare a five-year plan for the manufacturing technology program and to submit the plan annually to the Congress with the President's budget request. The committee has received the first such plan which establishes the goals, milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the manufacturing technology program through fiscal year 2003. The committee commends the Secretary for preparing a comprehensive plan and is encouraged by the positive trends in the five-year budget projection for the ManTech program. However, the committee believes that the budget projections are still inadequate to accomplish the stated goals for the program. In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105-340), the conferees recommended an annual manufacturing technology funding target for each of the military departments and defense agencies of at least 0.25 percent of the total amount budgeted in each service for demonstration and validation, engineering and manufacturing development, operational system development, and procurement programs. The fiscal year 1999 budget request falls short of this recommended minimum funding level. The committee is aware of a number of promising candidate ManTech programs, including electronic circuit board manufacturing development, battery technology, rotary wing sustainment, the Instrumented Factory for Gears, fiber optics, advanced composites,synchronized drive trains, smart production product model, and simulation based design and operational evaluation. The committee believes that each program should compete for funding within the overall priorities of the service ManTech programs. The Army is the single service manager for the defense ammunition program. The committee believes that insufficient attention has been paid to the development of manufacturing technology for this critical commodity and recommends increased funding for munitions manufacturing technology in the Army ManTech program. The committee recommends that munitions manufacturing technology be reflected as an integral part of the ManTech program in the future and directs that this aspect of the program be addressed as a specific item of interest in the annual plan update. Accordingly, to bring the total ManTech program to the level that has been recommended by the Congress, the committee recommends a total of $41.7 million in PE 78045A for the Army ManTech program (including $15.0 million for munitions manufacturing technology), an increase of $27.2 million; $67.7 million in PE 78011N, an increase of $8.6 million; $58.4 million in PE 78011F, an increase of $7.4 million; and $26.2 million in PE 78011S. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a legislative provision that addresses ManTech program cost sharing. Demilitarization of non-nuclear military explosives The budget request contained $11.6 million in PE 63104D8Z for the development of explosives demilitarization technology, including $7.4 million for continuation of the tunnel demonstration program. The committee notes that funding for the conventional munitions demilitarization program has decreased from the original goals that were set when the program was established. The committee also notes the need for increased emphasis on the development of environmentally safe procedures and processes for the disposal of non-nuclear military explosives. Accordingly, the committee recommends $13.6 million in PE 63104D8Z, an increase of $2.0 million to allow continued aggressive development of environmentally safe procedures to safely dispose of military explosives. Electro-optic framing technologies The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 35207D8Z for electro-optic (EO) framing technology. The committee continues to strongly support the state-of- the-art EO framing with on chip forward motion compensation (FMC). This technology is proving itself in operationally deployed systems. The committee recommends $13.4 million, an increase of $8.0 million in PE 35207D8Z for the purposes of furthering the EO with on-chip FMC technologies. Specifically, these additional funds are to be used for continued development of the ultra- high resolution focal plane array and conformance with JPEG 2000 compression standards. These developments should produce form/fit operational insertions into currently deployed CA-260 framing cameras. Further, these funds are to be used to develop infra-red EO framing technologies and image intensified EO framing sensors with FMC for operational insertion into existing Air National Guard tactical reconnaissance aircraft and other aircraft as appropriate. Endurance unmanned aerial vehicle The budget request contained $178.7 million in PE 35205D8Z for endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, and included $40.6 million for the DarkStar stealth high altitude endurance (HAE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), $90.1 million for Global Hawk HAE UAV, and $48.0 million for the common ground segment. The committee is aware that there has been a tendency to describe existing advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) aircraft, such as DarkStar and Global Hawk, as systems that may, in part, replace manned reconnaissance aircraft. The committee notes that Global Hawk has recently completed its first test flight. The committee is also aware that continuing problems with the DarkStar development have prevented any flight test since the previous crash during the attempted second flight test of air vehicle #1. The committee is concerned by continuing delays in the DarkStar flight test schedule and is aware that the DarkStar, as well as other similar ACTD aircraft, require significant redesign and modification before user evaluation can be performed. Such demonstration aircraft are not, nor were they designed to be, operational aircraft. Predator, the first ACTD UAV to transition to production has demonstrated the difficulties inherent to this process. The committee reaffirms its direction that the ACTD program is not to be used to circumvent established acquisition procedures. The committee strongly supports continued development of HAE UAVs as potential replacements for manned reconnaissance aircraft, and recommends $178.7 million in PE 35205F only for HAE UAV and common ground segment development. Facial recognition technology The budget request contained $35.8 million for the DOD counter-terror technical support (CTTS) program in PE 63122D8Z. The CTTS is an interagency program for development and demonstration of surveillance, physical security, and infrastructure protection technology. The committee continues to support use of advanced technology to control access to critical facilities and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63122D8Z for the development and demonstration of biometric access control technology, including the use of authentication software and the principal component method of facial recognition. Flat panel displays The budget request contained $34.0 million in PE 62708E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's integrated command and control technology applied research program. In 1994, the President and the Department of Defense announced a five-year, National Flat Panel Display Initiative (NFPDI) to establish a viable domestic industrialcapability for the manufacture of high definition displays that could develop and produce advanced technology flat panel displays for use by the military services. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (USD(A&T)) recently provided a report, dated March 1988, to the Congressional defense committees that states that the objective of the NFPDI remains valid, that considerable progress has been made in the development of a domestic industrial capability for commercial and military applications of flat panel displays, but the objective of the initiative has not yet been fully achieved. According to the report, the issue facing DOD today is how to allocate its resources most effectively to obtain assured, affordable access to advanced flat panel display technology. The report also cites the need for improved coordination of issues that cut across programs, such as assured sources of supply, commonality, and upgrade and replacement of flat panel display systems over the life cycle of weapon systems. The committee recommends $40.0 million in PE 62708E, an increase of $6.0 million to continue the development of advanced technology for flat panel displays. The committee directs the USD(A&T) to report to the Congressional defense committees with submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget request the actions taken on the recommendations contained in the USD(A&T) report. Global positioning system guidance package The budget request contained $213.2 million in PE 63762E for advanced development of sensor and guidance technology, including $4.5 million for continued development, integration and test of the global positioning system (GPS) guidance package. The GPS guidance package (GGP) is a fiber-optic-gyro-based inertial navigation system which has the potential to lower substantially the cost, size, and weight of military inertial navigation systems. If the objectives of the program are met, the reduced cost of the system would make precise inertial navigation and positioning available for use in a significantly larger number of Army, Navy, and Air Force airborne and ground vehicle systems. Of the funds authorized in PE 63762E, the committee recommends $6.5 million for completion of the GGP program, an increase of $2.0 million to the budget request for that program. Humanitarian demining The budget request contained $17.2 million for humanitarian demining in PE 63920D8Z. The committee does not believe that humanitarian demining is the sole responsibility of the Department of Defense, but rather an initiative that should be conducted in close coordination and shared funding with other agencies and organizations. The committee notes that many of the tasks with the humanitarian demining effort are assessed by the Department as having low to medium utility to the military. Therefore, the committee recommends $12.2 million in PE 63920D8Z, a decrease of $5.0 million. International medical programs global satellite system The budget request contained $2.0 million in PE 11017D8Z for Partnership For Peace activities. The committee notes that the Peace Information Management System (PIMS) is a NATO program to enable efficient, reliable information exchange between partnership countries and NATO members. The committee recognizes that the International Medical Programs Global Satellite System (IMPGSS) is an important part of the PIMS effort and recommends $6.0 million, an increase of $4.0 million to initiate the IMPGSS in PE 11017D8Z. While supportive of this effort, the committee is concerned about continuing loss of radio frequency spectrum allocated to the Department of Defense (DOD) and believes that precautions must be taken to ensure that the radio frequency authorization for IMPGSS does not interfere with or result in the loss of radio frequency spectrum to DOD users. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense shall not obligate any funds provided for the IMPGSS program prior to submitting a report to the Congressional defense committees detailing the impact of the IMPGSS on the DOD radio frequency spectrum. Joint signals intelligence avionics family The budget request contained $80.4 million in PE 35206D8Z for the joint signals intelligence avionics family (JSAF). The committee continues to be concerned by problems with JSAF development. While the committee is encouraged by progress in design of the low band subsystem (LBSS), it is concerned by schedule delays and cost increases that have forced reduction of system performance to remain within budget. Further, the committee remains doubtful that the high band subsystem (HBSS) development can successfully meet its cost and performance goals. The committee's concerns are heightened by the fact that the JSAF development is the only planned upgrade for future airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) reconnaissance. If JSAF fails to provide the needed capabilities, users ranging from theater tactical forces to national policy makers will be severely impacted. Executive Order 12333 charges the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct ``research and development to meet the needs of the United States for signals intelligence. . . .'' To ensure proper joint oversight of JSAF development, the committee recommends the budget request be authorized in PE 35885G, the Defense Cryptologic Program. The committee believes this action will allow the Air Force, as the executive agent for JSAF, to continue to execute the program, while providing joint oversight by NSA. Live fire testing of vulnerability to asymmetric threats The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 65131D8Z for the live fire testing program under the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. The Department of Defense live fire testing program is focused primarily upon assessing the vulnerability of U.S. military systems to the effects of conventional threats, such as projectiles and explosives. The committee is concerned by the potential threat posed to U.S. weapons and supporting defense systems by emerging threats such as those posed by low, medium, and high energy lasers, high power microwave radio frequency weapons, or by weapons capable of generating a high- power electromagnetic pulse. Such weapons might be used by an adversary to exploit a specific area of vulnerability, such as communications, information warfare, or other selected areas, to attack U.S. forces more effectively and efficiently, and thereby achieve an asymmetric advantage. The committee believes that increased attention should be given to the potential threat posed by such weapons and to assessing their potential threat to U.S. military systems. The committee recommends $13.9 million for the live fire testing program, an increase of $4.0 million to expand threat vulnerability testing and evaluation to include the threat of radio frequency weapons. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the requirements for testing of the vulnerability of U.S. military systems to asymmetric threats and to submit the results of the assessment to the Congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Medical free electron laser The budget request contained $9.7 million for the medical free electron laser program (MFEL) in PE 62227D8Z. The committee is aware that the MFEL has undergone rigorous peer review and is now enabling new methods for treating burns and other minimally invasive techniques. The committee supports MFEL and recommends $14.7 million in PE 62227D8Z, an increase of $5.0 million for MFEL. National technology alliance The committee is aware that the National Technology Alliance (NTA) program has demonstrated its worth in over a decade of productive, cooperative efforts with government, industry and academia which have measurably benefited users of information technology. Originated by the intelligence community, the NTA program has focused on advanced technology solutions to address the expanding needs for information of operational users. The committee notes that the program's unique user support activities conducted by the National Media Laboratory, the National Information Display Laboratory, and the new National Center for Applied Technology have saved hundreds of millions of dollars, and have been successful in providing dual-use solutions for the Intelligence Community, Department of Defense and civil agencies, due largely to the organization's ability to work across agency and departmental boundaries on common technological problems and technical standards. The committee believes that the NTA program should expand its efforts to address intelligence and information needs within the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense investigate means to expand the NTA program to focus on cross-agency needs in technology areas such as visualization, video technologies, compression, digital libraries, displays, data storage and operational user support, leveraging on the existing NTA effort. Next Generation Internet revolutionary applications The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 62110E for applied research in the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) component of the Next Generation Internet (NGI) program. NGI is a major national initiative involving DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in a three-year, $100.0 million per year program to development and demonstrate the technologies, protocols, and standards for a very high speed, broad bandwidth NGI that will offer reliable, affordable, secure information delivery. The program has three primary goals: (1) develop the next generation network and connect universities and Federal research institutions with high speed networks that are 100 to 1,000 times faster than today's Internet; (2) promote experimentation with the next generation of networking technologies; and (3) demonstrate new applications that meet important national goals and missions. The committee fully supports the NGI initiative and the concept of working with the applications communities--Federal agencies, the public sector, academia, and private companies-- to incorporate new and existing networking technologies and capabilities developed under the NGI into applications of importance to each community. The committee further supports the formation of cooperative ventures with regional consortia established for this purpose among federal agencies, local governmental authorities, industry, and academic institutions. The committee expects that such initiatives would leverage the application specific funding, knowledge, skills, and methods brought to the venture by the members of the regional consortium. The committee recommends $53.0 million, an increase of $13.0 million for the NGI program. The committee directs that competitive procedures shall be used for awarding all partnership grants and entering into all partnership contracts, cooperative agreements, and other transactions under the program, and encourages the establishment of cost-shared relationships where feasible. Polymer-cased ammunition The budget request contained no funding for polymer-cased ammunition in PE 116404BB. The committee notes that polymer-cased ammunition offers potential cost and weight savings compared to existing munitions. The committee recommends $109.2 million in PE 116404BB, an increase of $3.0 million for polymer-cased ammunition. Operational field assessment program The budget request contained $15.3 million in PE 65118D8Z for the Defense Operational Test and Evaluation program. No funding was requested for the operational field assessment (OFA) program. Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Congressional defense committees a report on the conduct and management of the OFA program. In the statement of managers which accompanied the conference report on H.R. 2266, The National Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1998, (H. Rept. 105-265), the conferees agreed to provide $4.0 million for the operational field assessments program, but expressed concern about the widely differing views within the Department of Defense on this issue and directed the Joint Staff Director for Force Structure, Resources and Assessment (J-8) to conduct a thorough review of all aspects of operational field assessments. The committee has reviewed the Secretary of Defense report on the OFA program, dated April 3, 1998, which was prepared by the DOT&E, and the letter from the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, dated March 30, 1998, which transmits the J-8's findings and recommendations. Based upon the committee's review of these reports, it is clear there is continuing disagreement within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and between OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military departments, regarding the conduct and management of, and funding for, the OFA program. The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense needs to codify the role of the DOT&E and the OFA process in the c