" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

110–77 

Calendar No. 185 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1547]

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 5, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

35–737 

" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2007

110–77 

Calendar No. 185 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1547]

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 5, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

(110th Congress, 1st Session) 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

MICHAEL V. KOSTIW, Republican Staff Director 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................................... 1 

Committee overview and recommendations .......................................................... 2 

Explanation of funding summary .................................................................... 11 

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 21 

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 21 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 21 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 21 

Rapid Acquisition Fund (sec. 105) ........................................................... 21 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 23 

Multiyear procurement authority for M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Package upgrades (sec. 111) ........................................................ 52 

Multiyear procurement authority for M2A3/M3A3 Bradley fighting 

vehicle upgrades (sec. 112) .................................................................... 52 

Stryker Mobile Gun System (sec. 113) .................................................... 52 

Consolidation of Joint Network Node program and Warfighter Information Network—Tactical program into a single Army tactical network program (sec. 114) ........................................................................ 53 

Budget Items—Army ........................................................................................ 55 

Armed reconnaissance helicopter ............................................................. 55 

CH–47 Chinook helicopter ........................................................................ 56 

Enhanced electronic digital engine control unit ..................................... 56 

Aircraft survivability equipment infrared countermeasures ................. 57 

Aircrew integrated systems ...................................................................... 57 

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 ................................................................. 58 

Stryker Vehicle .......................................................................................... 58 

Improved recovery vehicle ........................................................................ 59 

System enhancement program: SEP M1A2 ............................................ 59 

M240 medium machine gun ..................................................................... 59 

Arsenal support program initiative ......................................................... 59 

Grenades .................................................................................................... 60 

Ammunition outloading test bed .............................................................. 60 

Ammunition plant solvent recovery system ............................................ 60 

Acid containment and storage system ..................................................... 60 

Single channel ground and airborne radio system family ..................... 60 

Information systems .................................................................................. 62 

Installation information infrastructure modernization program .......... 62 

Explosive ordnance disposal equipment .................................................. 62 

Land warrior .............................................................................................. 62 

Recon and navigation system ................................................................... 64 

Army combat training centers .................................................................. 64 

Urban training technologies ..................................................................... 64 

Laser collective combat training system ................................................. 65 

Call for fire trainer .................................................................................... 65 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 65 

Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class submarine program (sec. 131) ....................................................................................... 94 

Budget Items—Navy ........................................................................................ 94 

H–46 modifications .................................................................................... 94 

H–53 modifications .................................................................................... 94 

P–3 modifications ...................................................................................... 94 

Weapons industrial facilities .................................................................... 95 

Ship Self Defense System for carrier replacement program .................. 95 

Virginia class submarine advance procurement ..................................... 95 

DDG–51 program completion costs .......................................................... 96 

Littoral combat ship .................................................................................. 97 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

IV 

Title I—Procurement—Continued 

Budget Items—Navy—Continued 

Outfitting and post-delivery ..................................................................... 100 

LCS modules .............................................................................................. 100 

SPQ–9B radar ............................................................................................ 100 

Sonobuoys .................................................................................................. 100 

Weapons range support equipment ......................................................... 101 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system .................................................. 101 

Submarine training device modifications ................................................ 101 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 101 

Limitation on retirement of C–130E/H tactical airlift aircraft (sec. 

141) ......................................................................................................... 117 

Limitation on retirement of KC–135E aerial refueling aircraft (sec. 

142) ......................................................................................................... 117 

Budget Items—Air Force ................................................................................. 117 

B–2 bomber ................................................................................................ 117 

B–52 bomber aircraft ................................................................................ 118 

Large aircraft infrared countermeasures system ................................... 118 

C–135 global air traffic management ...................................................... 118 

Advanced targeting pod ............................................................................ 119 

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile ...................................................... 119 

Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite ....................................... 119 

Joint threat emitter ................................................................................... 120 

Space-Based Infrared Satellite system mission control station 

backup ..................................................................................................... 120 

Self-deploying infrared streamer ............................................................. 120 

Budget Items—Defense-wide ........................................................................... 129 

Defense Information Systems Network enhancement ........................... 129 

CV–22 procurement .................................................................................. 129 

M291 skin decontamination kit ............................................................... 129 

Collectively protected deployable medical system .................................. 129 

Automatic chemical agent detector and alarm ....................................... 129 

Improved chemical agent monitor ............................................................ 130 

Joint biological point detection system .................................................... 130 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 130 

C–5 Reliability Enhancement Re-engining Program .............................. 130 

DDG–51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer modernization program .......... 131 

MQ–1C Predator/Warrior ......................................................................... 132 

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle reporting requirement ......... 133 

Navy harbor tugs ....................................................................................... 133 

LPD–17 amphibious transport dock ........................................................ 134 

Procurement requests related to increasing the size of the Army 

and the Marine Corps ........................................................................... 134 

Shipboard personal locator beacon .......................................................... 135 

Strike fighter gap ...................................................................................... 135 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 137 

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 137 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 139 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 139 

Advanced Sensor Applications Program (sec. 211) ................................. 139 

Active protection systems (sec. 212) ........................................................ 139 

Obligation and expenditure of funds for competitive procurement of 

propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter (sec. 213) .................. 139 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 140 

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, construction, 

and deployment of missile defenses in Europe (sec. 231) ................... 140 

Limitation on availability of funds for deployment of missile defense 

interceptors in Alaska (sec. 232) .......................................................... 143 

Budget and acquisition requirements for Missile Defense Agency activities (sec. 233) .................................................................................... 143 

Participation of Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, in missile 

defense test and evaluation activities (sec. 234) ................................. 144 

Extension of Comptroller General assessments of ballistic missile 

defense programs (sec. 235) .................................................................. 144 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 145 

Modification of notice and wait requirement for obligation of funds 

for the foreign comparative test program (sec. 251) ........................... 145 

Modification of cost sharing requirement for Technology Transition 

Initiative (sec. 252) ................................................................................ 145 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

V 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued 

Subtitle D—Other Matters—Continued 

Strategic plan for the Manufacturing Technology Program (sec. 253) . 145 

Modification of authorities on coordination of Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research with similar Federal programs (sec. 254) ............................................................................................ 146 

Enhancement of defense nanotechnology research and development 

program (sec. 255) .................................................................................. 146 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 148 

Army ........................................................................................................... 148 

Army basic research ........................................................................... 164 

University research initiatives .......................................................... 164 

Army university research centers ..................................................... 164 

Army materials research ................................................................... 165 

Electronics and space research ......................................................... 165 

Materials for insensitive munitions .................................................. 166 

Sniper detection systems ................................................................... 166 

Army vehicle research ....................................................................... 166 

Recoil mitigation technologies ........................................................... 167 

Unmanned ground vehicle weaponization ....................................... 167 

Army electronics research ................................................................. 167 

Standoff explosives detection technologies ....................................... 168 

Force protection materials research ................................................. 168 

Unmanned air systems ...................................................................... 168 

Army medical research ...................................................................... 168 

Guided airdrop systems ..................................................................... 169 

Army medical technologies ................................................................ 169 

Dengue infection research ................................................................. 170 

Lightweight cannon recoil technologies ............................................ 170 

Combat vehicle armor technologies .................................................. 170 

Unmanned ground vehicle initiative ................................................ 171 

Combat vehicle energy and power technologies .............................. 171 

Combat vehicle reliability and readiness technologies ................... 171 

Leadership training simulators ........................................................ 172 

Fuel cells for military applications ................................................... 172 

Counter rocket, artillery, and mortar radar technologies ............... 172 

Language translation technologies ................................................... 172 

Radiation hardening initiative .......................................................... 173 

Active protection systems development and integration ................ 173 

Undersea chemical weapons assessment program .......................... 174 

Warfighter information network—tactical ....................................... 174 

Future medical shelter systems ........................................................ 174 

Nickel boron metal coating technology for crew served weapons .. 175 

Integrated broadcast service ............................................................. 175 

Family of heavy tactical vehicles ...................................................... 175 

Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles ....................................................... 176 

Future combat systems ...................................................................... 176 

Combat identification ......................................................................... 177 

High energy laser systems test facility ............................................ 178 

HIMARS modular launcher communications system ..................... 178 

Combat vehicle improvement programs ........................................... 178 

Helicopter autonomous landing system ........................................... 179 

Joint tactical ground station ............................................................. 180 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 180 

Navy science and technology educational outreach ........................ 195 

Infrared materials research .............................................................. 195 

Undersea perimeter security technologies ....................................... 195 

Navy energy and power technologies ............................................... 195 

Composites research for special operations craft ............................ 196 

Situational awareness processing technologies ............................... 196 

Navy electronics research .................................................................. 196 

Undersea sensor arrays ..................................................................... 196 

Tactical unmanned air vehicles ........................................................ 196 

Free electron laser research .............................................................. 197 

Force protection advanced technology .............................................. 197 

Ground sensor networks .................................................................... 198 

Navy sensor arrays ............................................................................ 199 

Shipboard system component development ..................................... 199 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

VI 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Navy—Continued 

Surface vessel torpedo tubes ............................................................. 200 

Advanced submarine system development ...................................... 200 

Next generation shipboard monitoring ............................................. 201 

Expeditionary fighting vehicle .......................................................... 201 

Joint light tactical vehicle ................................................................. 202 

Optical interconnect ........................................................................... 202 

Tactical aircraft direct infrared countermeasures development .... 203 

Conventional Trident modification ................................................... 203 

Permanent magnet motor .................................................................. 203 

Wireless encryption technology ......................................................... 204 

Improved towed array handler ......................................................... 204 

Combat information center conversion ............................................. 204 

Submarine electronic chart updates ................................................. 205 

Next generation Phalanx ................................................................... 205 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 205 

Navy medical research ....................................................................... 206 

Joint Strike Fighter research and development .............................. 206 

Navy support of the reliable replacement warhead ........................ 206 

Linear accelerator .............................................................................. 207 

Structural life tracking ...................................................................... 207 

Ultrasonic consolidation technology ................................................. 207 

Anti-sniper infrared targeting system .............................................. 207 

Satellite communications (space) ...................................................... 207 

Internet protocol version 6 ................................................................ 208 

Navy manufacturing research ........................................................... 208 

National Shipbuilding Research Program—Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise ......................................................................... 208 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 208 

Air Force basic research .................................................................... 224 

Carbon fiber research ........................................................................ 224 

Optical components for air vehicles .................................................. 224 

Scramjet technologies ........................................................................ 224 

Network centric collaboration technologies ...................................... 225 

Air Force seismic research for nuclear test monitoring .................. 225 

Acoustic shields for rocket payloads ................................................. 225 

Cyber attack mitigation ..................................................................... 225 

Aerospace metals research ................................................................ 225 

Deployable fuel cell processors .......................................................... 226 

Aerospace titanium research ............................................................. 226 

Thin film amorphous solar arrays .................................................... 226 

High integrity global positioning system ......................................... 226 

Optical interconnects for battlefield communications ..................... 227 

Space control technology .................................................................... 227 

Space radar technology study ........................................................... 227 

Common aero vehicle ......................................................................... 228 

Operationally responsive space ......................................................... 228 

Combat search and rescue replacement vehicle .............................. 228 

Rapid attack identification detection and reporting system ........... 229 

Space control test capability ............................................................. 229 

Space situation awareness systems .................................................. 229 

Space fence ......................................................................................... 229 

Joint space intelligent decision support ........................................... 230 

Space-Based Infrared Satellite System High GEO ......................... 230 

Alternate infrared satellite system ................................................... 230 

Ballistic missile range safety technology ......................................... 231 

MQ–9 Reaper ...................................................................................... 231 

Predator trainer upgrade ................................................................... 232 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system research and development ............................................................................................. 232 

Weather service research and development ..................................... 233 

Classified program ............................................................................. 233 

Global Positioning System user equipment ..................................... 233 

MQ–1 Predator signals intelligence direction finding ..................... 233 

Network-centric collaborative targeting ........................................... 234 

National Security Space Office ......................................................... 234 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

VII 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Air Force —Continued 

Space situational awareness operations ........................................... 235 

C–130 deicing system ........................................................................ 235 

KC–135 tanker replacement ............................................................. 235 

Combat casualty management system ............................................. 235 

Laser processing of materials ............................................................ 236 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 236 

Semiconductor focus center research program ................................ 254 

Superstructural particle evaluation .................................................. 254 

Medical free electron laser ................................................................ 254 

Chemical and biological infrared detector ........................................ 255 

Chemical and biological protective textile fabric ............................. 255 

Verification and validation of chemical agent persistence models . 255 

Blast mitigation and protection ........................................................ 255 

Comprehensive national incident management system .................. 256 

Advanced technologies for special operations .................................. 256 

Directly printed electronic components ............................................ 257 

Semi-conducting metal oxide sensors ............................................... 257 

Improved chemical, biological, and radiological filters ................... 257 

Raman chemical identification system ............................................. 257 

Biometrics technologies ..................................................................... 257 

Manufacturing technologies .............................................................. 258 

Printed circuit board technologies .................................................... 258 

Energy efficiency technologies .......................................................... 258 

Unmanned air vehicle batteries ........................................................ 259 

Water remediation research .............................................................. 259 

High performance computing modeling and simulation ................. 259 

Small craft common operating picture technology .......................... 260 

Active protection systems comparative testing ................................ 260 

Joint warfare experimentation .......................................................... 260 

Range readiness analyses .................................................................. 260 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense .............................................. 261 

Arrow missile defense program ......................................................... 262 

Short-range ballistic missile defense ................................................ 262 

Ground-based midcourse defense in Europe .................................... 262 

Airborne Laser .................................................................................... 263 

Real-time non-specific viral agent detector ...................................... 263 

Ballistic missile defense reductions .................................................. 264 

Aegis ballistic missile defense ........................................................... 264 

Space tracking and surveillance system .......................................... 264 

Space test-bed ..................................................................................... 265 

Surface-to-air missile threat simulators .......................................... 265 

Prompt global strike .......................................................................... 265 

Information systems security program technology development ... 266 

Software assurance education and research .................................... 267 

Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing research ......................... 267 

Manufacturing processes to support surge requirements ............... 268 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 268 

Adaptive optics .......................................................................................... 268 

Advanced cruise missile threats ............................................................... 268 

Analyses of the Air Force test and evaluation proposals ....................... 269 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation workforce study .............. 270 

Ground/air task-oriented radar ................................................................ 270 

National Security Agency acquisition management ............................... 271 

Open Architecture ..................................................................................... 272 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 275 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 275 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 275 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 307 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 

in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses 

Lake, Washington (sec. 311) ................................................................. 307 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 

in connection with the Arctic Surplus Superfund Site, Fairbanks, 

Alaska (sec. 312) .................................................................................... 307 

Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of stipulated penalties 

in connection with Jackson Park Housing Complex, Washington 

(sec. 313) ................................................................................................. 307 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

VIII 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance —Continued 

Subtitle C—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 307 

Availability of funds in Defense Information Systems Agency Working Capital Fund for technology upgrades to Defense Information 

Systems Network (sec. 321) .................................................................. 307 

Extension of temporary authority for contract performance of security 

guard functions (sec. 322) ..................................................................... 307 

Report on incremental cost of early 2007 enhanced deployment (sec. 

323) ......................................................................................................... 308 

Individual body armor (sec. 324) .............................................................. 308 

Subtitle D—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 308 

Extension of authority for Army industrial facilities to engage in 

cooperative activities with non-Army entities (sec. 341) .................... 308 

Two-year extension of Arsenal Support Demonstration Program (sec. 

342) ......................................................................................................... 309 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 309 

Enhancement of corrosion control and prevention functions within 

Department of Defense (sec. 351) ......................................................... 309 

Reimbursement for National Guard support provided to Federal 

agencies (sec. 352) .................................................................................. 310 

Reauthorization of Aviation Insurance Program (sec. 353) ................... 310 

Property accountability and disposition of unlawfully obtained property of the Armed Forces (sec. 354) ...................................................... 310 

Authority to impose reasonable conditions on the payment of full 

replacement value for claims related to personal property transported at Government expense (sec. 355) ............................................ 311 

Authority for individuals to retain combat uniforms issued in connection with contingency operations (sec. 356) ......................................... 311 

Modification of requirements on Comptroller General report on readiness of Army and Marine Corps ground forces (sec. 357) .................. 311 

Budget Items—Army ........................................................................................ 312 

Extended cold weather clothing system .................................................. 312 

Manufacturing engineering training outreach program ........................ 312 

Live fire ranges modernization and improvements ................................ 312 

Budget Items—Navy ........................................................................................ 312 

Naval aircraft depot maintenance ........................................................... 312 

Mk45 mod 5′′ gun depot overhaul ............................................................ 313 

Environmental impact assessment, outlying landing field .................... 313 

Unobligated balances ................................................................................ 313 

Excess cash balances ................................................................................. 314 

Budget Items—Marine Corps .......................................................................... 314 

Extended cold weather clothing system .................................................. 314 

Family of combat equipment support and services ................................ 314 

Rapid deployable shelters ......................................................................... 315 

Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USMC ................................ 315 

Budget Items—Air Force ................................................................................. 315 

National Security Space Institute ............................................................ 315 

Mobile shear .............................................................................................. 315 

Transfer of funds from Air Force centralized asset management program to Air Guard and Air Force Reserve .......................................... 315 

Budget Items—Defense-wide ........................................................................... 316 

Language training shortfalls .................................................................... 316 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency ..................................................... 317 

Defense readiness reporting system and management tools ................. 317 

Readiness and environmental protection initiative ................................ 318 

Strategic communication and integration ............................................... 318 

Budget Items—Army Reserve ......................................................................... 319 

Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USAR ................................. 319 

Budget Items—Army National Guard ............................................................ 319 

Extended cold weather clothing system .................................................. 319 

National Guard interoperability upgrades .............................................. 319 

Integrated disaster and rapid data management systems .................... 319 

Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USARNG ........................... 319 

Operator driving simulator ....................................................................... 319 

Budget Items—Air National Guard ................................................................ 320 

Controlled humidity protection ................................................................ 320 

Weapons skills trainer .............................................................................. 320 

Budget Items—Transfer Accounts .................................................................. 320 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

IX 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance —Continued 

Budget Items—Transfer Accounts—Continued 

Funding for formerly used defense sites ................................................. 320 

Budget Items—Miscellaneous Appropriations ............................................... 320 

Building partnership capacity for humanitarian assistance ................. 320 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 321 

Comptroller General report on depot work ............................................. 321 

Department of Defense foreign language training ................................. 321 

Fee-for-service air refueling services ....................................................... 322 

Next generation enterprise network ........................................................ 322 

Report on Department of Defense personnel access to the internet ..... 323 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 325 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 325 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 325 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 326 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 326 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 326 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 327 

Fiscal year 2008 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 327 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 327 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations ............................................... 327 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 327 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 335 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 335 

Increase in authorized strengths for Army officers on active duty 

in the grade of major to meet force structure requirements (sec. 

501) ......................................................................................................... 335 

Increase in authorized strengths for Navy officers on active duty 

in grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain to 

meet force structure requirements (sec. 502) ...................................... 335 

Expansion of exclusion of military permanent professors from 

strength limitations for officers below general and flag grades (sec. 

503) ......................................................................................................... 335 

Mandatory retirement age for active-duty general and flag officers 

continued on active duty (sec. 504) ...................................................... 335 

Authority for reduced mandatory service obligation for initial appointments of officers in critically short health professional specialties (sec. 505) .......................................................................................... 336 

Increase in authorized number of permanent professors at the United 

States Military Academy (sec. 506) ...................................................... 336 

Expansion of authority for reenlistment of officers in their former 

enlisted grade (sec. 507) ........................................................................ 336 

Enhanced authority for reserve general and flag officers to serve 

on active duty (sec. 508) ........................................................................ 336 

Promotion of career military professors of the Navy (sec. 509) ............. 337 

Subtitle B—Enlisted Personnel Policy ............................................................ 337 

Increase in authorized daily average of number of members in pay 

grade E–9 (sec. 521) ............................................................................... 337 

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 337 

Revised designation, structure, and functions of the Reserve Forces 

Policy Board (sec. 531) .......................................................................... 337 

Charter for the National Guard Bureau (sec. 532) ................................. 337 

Appointment, grade, duties, and retirement of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 533) ............................................................. 338 

Mandatory separation for years of service of Reserve officers in the 

grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral (sec. 534) ........................ 338 

Increase in period of temporary Federal recognition as officers of 

the National Guard from six to twelve months (sec. 535) .................. 339 

Subtitle D—Education and Training .............................................................. 339 

Grade and service credit of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 551) ........................................................ 339 

Expansion of number of academies supportable in any State under 

STARBASE program (sec. 552) ............................................................ 339 

Repeal of post-2007–2008 academic year prohibition on phased increase in cadet strength limit at the United States Military Academy (sec. 553) ......................................................................................... 340 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

X 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued 

Subtitle D—Education and Training—Continued 

Treatment of Southold, Mattituck, and Greenport High Schools, 

Southold, New York, as single institutions for purposes of maintaining a Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps unit (sec. 554) .... 340 

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters ................................... 340 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 561) ..................................... 340 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562) ..................... 340 

Inclusion of dependents of non-Department of Defense employees 

employed on Federal property in plan relating to force structure 

changes, relocation of military units, or base closures and realignments (sec. 563) ..................................................................................... 341 

Authority for payment of private boarding school tuition for military 

dependents in overseas areas not served by Department of Defense 

dependents’ schools (sec. 564) ............................................................... 341 

Subtitle F—Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters ......................... 341 

Authority of judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces to administer oaths (sec. 571) ...................................... 341 

Military legal assistance for Department of Defense civilian employees in areas without access to non-military legal assistance (sec. 

572) ......................................................................................................... 341 

Modification of authorities on senior members of the Judge Advocate 

Generals’ corps (sec. 573) ...................................................................... 342 

Subtitle G—Military Family Readiness .......................................................... 342 

Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (sec. 581) . 342 

Department of Defense policy and plans for military family readiness 

(sec. 582) ................................................................................................. 342 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 343 

Enhancement of carryover of accumulated leave for members of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 591) ........................................................................ 343 

Uniform policy on performances by military bands (sec. 592) ............... 344 

Waiver of time limitations on award of medals of honor to certain 

members of the Army (sec. 593) ........................................................... 344 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 344 

Army company-grade officer retention .................................................... 344 

Comptroller General study of implementation by the military departments of sexual assault policies and mental health issues related 

to sexual assault .................................................................................... 345 

Counter-remote controlled improvised explosive device systems .......... 345 

Explosive ordnance disposal personnel ................................................... 345 

Feasibility of expanding access to mental health professionals in 

military units ......................................................................................... 346 

Implementation of clarifying changes to jurisdiction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice ............................................................... 346 

Report on programs assessing feasibility of hotlines and video surveillance in recruiting stations ............................................................. 347 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 349 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 349 

Fiscal year 2008 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 349 

Allowance for participation of Reserves in electronic screening (sec. 

602) ......................................................................................................... 349 

Midmonth payment of basic pay for contributions of members participating in Thrift Savings Plan (sec. 603) .............................................. 349 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 349 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve 

forces (sec. 611) ...................................................................................... 349 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health 

care professionals (sec. 612) .................................................................. 350 

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers 

(sec. 613) ................................................................................................. 350 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and 

special pays (sec. 614) ........................................................................... 350 

Increase in incentive special pay and multiyear retention bonus for 

medical officers of the Armed Forces (sec. 615) .................................. 350 

Increase in dental officer additional special pay (sec. 616) .................... 350 

Enhancement of hardship duty pay (sec. 617) ........................................ 351 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XI 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits—Continued 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays—Continued 

Inclusion of service as off-cycle crewmember of multi-crewed ship 

in sea duty for career sea pay (sec. 618) .............................................. 351 

Modification of reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 619) ....................................................................................... 351 

Increase in years of commissioned service covered by agreements 

for nuclear-qualified officers extending periods of active duty (sec. 

620) ......................................................................................................... 351 

Authority to waive 25-year active duty limit for retention bonus 

for critical military skills with respect to certain members (sec. 

621) ......................................................................................................... 351 

Codification and improvement of authority to pay bonus to encourage 

members of the Army to refer other persons for enlistment in 

the Army (sec. 622) ................................................................................ 351 

Authority to pay bonus to encourage Department of Defense personnel to refer other persons for appointment as officers to serve 

in health professions (sec. 623) ............................................................. 352 

Accession bonus for participants in Armed Forces Health Professions 

Scholarship and Financial Assistance program (sec. 624) ................. 352 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 352 

Payment of expenses of travel to the United States for obstetrical 

purposes of dependents located in very remote locations outside 

the United States (sec. 641) .................................................................. 352 

Payment of moving expenses for Junior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps instructors in hard-to-fill positions (sec. 642) ........................... 352 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits ............................................ 353 

Modification of scheme for payment of death gratuity payable with 

respect to members of the Armed Forces (sec. 651) ............................ 353 

Annuities for guardians or caretakers of dependent children under 

Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 652) ........................................................... 353 

Expansion of combat-related special compensation eligibility for chapter 61 military retirees (sec. 653) ......................................................... 354 

Clarification of application of retired pay multiplier percentage to 

members of the uniformed services with over 30 years of service 

(sec. 654) ................................................................................................. 354 

Commencement of receipt of non-regular service retired pay by members of the Ready Reserve on active Federal status or active duty 

for significant periods (sec. 655) ........................................................... 354 

Subtitle E—Education Benefits ....................................................................... 354 

Tuition assistance for off-duty training or education (sec. 671) ............ 354 

Expansion of Selected Reserve education loan repayment program 

(sec. 672) ................................................................................................. 354 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 355 

Enhancement of authorities on income replacement payments for 

Reserves experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for active-duty service (sec. 681) .................................................................... 355 

Overseas naturalization of military family members (sec. 682) ............ 355 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 355 

Implementation of limitations on terms of consumer credit extended 

to service members and dependents .................................................... 355 

Survivor Benefit Plan/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 

recoupment procedures .......................................................................... 356 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions ......................................................................... 359 

Inclusion of TRICARE retail pharmacy program in Federal procurement of pharmaceuticals (sec. 701) ...................................................... 359 

Surveys on continued viability of TRICARE Standard and TRICARE 

Extra (sec. 702) ...................................................................................... 359 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 360 

Comptroller General study of post-deployment health reassessment ... 360 

Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Joint 

Executive Council Strategic Plan and Joint Incentive Fund ............. 360 

Mental Health Advisory Team IV findings ............................................. 361 

Reduction in Navy medical personnel and medical efficiency wedge ... 362 

TRICARE program cost sharing increases .............................................. 363 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 365 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 365 

Substantial savings under multiyear contracts (sec. 801) ..................... 365 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XII 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters—Continued 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs— 

Continued 

Changes to Milestone B certifications (sec. 802) .................................... 365 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense organization 

and structure for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 803) ...... 366 

Investment strategy for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 

804) ......................................................................................................... 366 

Report on implementation of recommendations on total ownership 

cost for major weapon systems (sec. 805) ............................................ 367 

Subtitle B—Amendments Relating to General Contracting Authorities, 

Procedures, and Limitations ........................................................................ 367 

Enhanced competition requirements for task and delivery order contracts (sec. 821) ...................................................................................... 367 

Clarification of rules regarding the procurement of commercial items 

(sec. 822) ................................................................................................. 368 

Clarification of rules regarding the procurement of commercial services (sec. 823) .......................................................................................... 368 

Modification of competition requirements for purchases from Federal 

Prison Industries (sec. 824) ................................................................... 369 

Five-year extension of authority to carry out certain prototype 

projects (sec. 825) ................................................................................... 369 

Multiyear procurement authority for electricity from renewable energy sources (sec. 826) ........................................................................... 369 

Subtitle C—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 370 

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 841) ................................... 370 

Management structure for the procurement of contract services (sec. 

842) ......................................................................................................... 370 

Specification of amounts requested for procurement of contract services (sec. 843) .......................................................................................... 370 

Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund 

(sec. 844) ................................................................................................. 370 

Inventories and reviews of contracts for services based on cost or 

time of performance (sec. 845) .............................................................. 371 

Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of 

Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 846) ............................ 372 

Subtitle D—Department of Defense Contractor Matters .............................. 372 

Protection for contractor employees from reprisal for disclosure of 

certain information (sec. 861) ............................................................... 372 

Requirements for defense contractors relating to certain former Department of Defense officials (sec. 862) ............................................... 372 

Report on contractor ethics programs of major defense contractors 

(sec. 863) ................................................................................................. 373 

Report on Department of Defense contracting with contractors or 

subcontractors employing members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 

864) ......................................................................................................... 373 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 373 

Contractors performing private security functions in areas of combat 

operations (sec. 871) .............................................................................. 373 

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in 

Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 872) ........................................................... 374 

Defense Science Board review of Department of Defense policies and 

procedures for the acquisition of information technology (sec. 873) .. 374 

Enhancement and extension of acquisition authority for the unified 

combatant command for joint warfighting experimentation (sec. 

874) ......................................................................................................... 375 

Repeal of requirement for identification of essential military items 

and military system essential item breakout list (sec. 875) ............... 375 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 375 

Exceptional circumstance waivers under the Truth in Negotiations 

Act ........................................................................................................... 375 

Guidance on award and incentive fees .................................................... 376 

Program manager empowerment and accountability ............................. 376 

Protection of strategic materials critical to national security ............... 377 

Regulations on excessive pass-through charges ...................................... 378 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 379 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 379 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XIII 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management—Continued 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management—Continued 

Repeal of limitation on major Department of Defense headquarters 

activities personnel (sec. 901) ............................................................... 379 

Chief management officers of the Department of Defense (sec. 902) ... 379 

Modification of background requirement of individuals appointed as 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec. 903) .......................................................................................... 380 

Department of Defense Board of Actuaries (sec. 904) ............................ 380 

Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for acquisition matters; principal military deputies (sec. 905) .......................................... 380 

Flexible authority for number of Army Deputy Chiefs of Staff and 

Assistant Chiefs of Staff (sec. 906) ....................................................... 381 

Sense of Congress on term of office of the Director of Operational 

Test and Evaluation (sec. 907) ............................................................. 381 

Subtitle B—Space Matters .............................................................................. 381 

Space posture review (sec. 921) ................................................................ 381 

Additional report on oversight of acquisition for defense space programs (sec. 922) ..................................................................................... 381 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 382 

Department of Defense consideration of effect of climate change on 

Department facilities, capabilities, and missions (sec. 931) ............... 382 

Board of Regents for the Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences (sec. 932) .................................................................................. 382 

United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 933) ................................ 382 

Western Hemisphere Center for Excellence in Human Rights (sec. 

934) ......................................................................................................... 382 

Inclusion of commanders of Western Hemisphere combatant commands in Board of Visitors of Western Hemisphere Institute for 

Security Cooperation (sec. 935) ............................................................ 383 

Comptroller General assessment of proposed reorganization of the 

office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (sec. 936) ............ 383 

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 387 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 387 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 387 

Authorization of additional emergency supplemental appropriations 

for fiscal year 2007 (sec. 1002) .............................................................. 387 

Modification of fiscal year 2007 general transfer authority (sec. 1003) 387 

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal 

year 2008 (sec. 1004) ............................................................................. 387 

Financial management transformation initiative for the Defense 

Agencies (sec. 1005) ............................................................................... 388 

Repeal of requirement for two-year budget cycle for the Department 

of Defense (sec. 1006) ............................................................................ 388 

Extension of period for transfer of funds to Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense account (sec. 1007) .................................................. 388 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 389 

Expansion of Department of Defense authority to provide support 

for counter-drug activities to certain additional foreign governments (sec. 1011) ................................................................................... 389 

Subtitle C—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 389 

Enhancement of authority to pay rewards for assistance in combating 

terrorism (sec. 1021) .............................................................................. 389 

Repeal of modification of authorities relating to the use of the Armed 

Forces in major public emergencies (sec. 1022) .................................. 390 

Procedures for Combatant Status Review Tribunals; modification of 

military commission authorities (sec. 1023) ........................................ 390 

Gift acceptance authority (sec. 1024) ....................................................... 391 

Expansion of cooperative agreement authority for management of 

cultural resources (sec. 1025) ................................................................ 391 

Minimum annual purchase amounts for airlift from carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1026) ................................ 391 

Provision of Air Force support and services to foreign military and 

state aircraft (sec. 1027) ........................................................................ 391 

Participation in Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership (sec. 1028) ... 392 

Responsibility of the Air Force for fixed-wing support of Army intratheater logistics (sec. 1029) ................................................................... 393 

Prohibition on sale of parts for F–14 fighter aircraft (sec. 1030) .......... 394 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XIV 

Title X—General Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 394 

Renewal of submittal of plans for prompt global strike capability 

(sec. 1041) ............................................................................................... 394 

Report on threats to the United States from ungoverned areas (sec. 

1042) ....................................................................................................... 395 

Study on national security interagency system (sec. 1043) ................... 395 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 395 

Revised nuclear posture review (sec. 1061) ............................................. 395 

Termination of Commission on the Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the United States (sec. 1062) ..................................... 396 

Communications with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives (sec. 1063) ............................... 396 

Repeal of standards for disqualification from issuance of security 

clearances by the Department of Defense (sec. 1064) ......................... 396 

Advisory panel on Department of Defense capabilities for support 

of civil authorities after certain incidents (sec. 1065) ......................... 397 

Sense of Congress on the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security 

Cooperation (sec. 1066) .......................................................................... 397 

Technical amendments to title 10, United States Code, arising from 

enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 

Act of 2004 (sec. 1067) ........................................................................... 397 

Establishment of National Foreign Language Coordination Council 

(sec. 1068) ............................................................................................... 398 

Qualifications for public aircraft status of aircraft under contract 

with the Armed Forces (sec. 1069) ....................................................... 398 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 399 

Certification of no pecuniary interest ...................................................... 399 

Intelligence community operations .......................................................... 399 

Language and cultural awareness initiatives review ............................. 400 

Nuclear cruise missiles ............................................................................. 401 

Reporting and remediation of Anti-Deficiency Act violations ................ 401 

Ship disposal .............................................................................................. 401 

Transparency of earmarks for additional funding .................................. 402 

Title XI—Civilian Personnel Matters .................................................................... 405 

Compensation for Federal wage system employees for certain travel 

hours (sec. 1101) .................................................................................... 405 

Retirement service credit for service as cadet or midshipman at a 

military service academy (sec. 1102) .................................................... 405 

Continuation of life insurance coverage for Federal employees called 

to active duty (sec. 1103) ....................................................................... 405 

Department of Defense National Security Personnel System (sec. 

1104) ....................................................................................................... 405 

Authority to waive limitation on premium pay for Federal civilian 

employees working overseas under areas of United States Central 

Command (sec. 1105) ............................................................................. 405 

Authority for inclusion of certain Office of Defense Research and 

Engineering positions in experimental personnel program for scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1106) .......................................... 406 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 406 

Increase in authorized number of employees in the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service .......................................................... 406 

Recruitment, hiring, and retention of Department of Defense civilian 

medical personnel and faculty and staff of the Uniformed Services 

University of the Health Sciences ........................................................ 407 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations ................................................... 409 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 409 

Authority to equip and train foreign personnel to assist in accounting 

for missing United States personnel (sec. 1201) ................................. 409 

Extension and enhancement of authority for security and stabilization assistance (sec. 1202) ..................................................................... 409 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (sec. 1203) ...................... 410 

Government Accountability Office report on Global Peace Operations 

Initiative (sec. 1204) .............................................................................. 411 

Subtitle B—Other Authorities and Limitations ............................................. 412 

Cooperative opportunities documents under cooperative research and 

development agreements with NATO organizations and other allied 

and friendly foreign countries (sec. 1211) ............................................ 412 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XV 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations —Continued 

Subtitle B—Other Authorities and Limitations —Continued 

Extension and expansion of temporary authority to use acquisition 

and cross-servicing agreements to lend military equipment for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1212) ................................... 413 

Acceptance of funds from the Government of Palau for costs of military Civic Action Teams (sec. 1213) ..................................................... 413 

Extension of participation of the Department of Defense in multinational military centers of excellence (sec. 1214) .............................. 414 

Limitation on assistance to the Government of Thailand (sec. 1215) ... 414 

Presidential report on policy objectives and United States strategy 

regarding Iran (sec. 1216) ..................................................................... 414 

Limitation on availability of certain funds pending implementation 

of requirements regarding North Korea (sec. 1217) ........................... 415 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 415 

Reports on United States policy and military operations in Afghanistan (sec. 1231) ...................................................................................... 415 

Strategy for enhancing security in Afghanistan by eliminating safe 

havens for violent extremists in Pakistan (sec. 1232) ........................ 416 

One-year extension of update on report on claims relating to the 

bombing of the Labelle Discotheque (sec. 1233) .................................. 416 

Items of Special Interest ........................................................................... 417 

Iraqi refugee crisis .................................................................................... 417 

Joint Forces Command support to NATO International Security Assistance Force ......................................................................................... 417 

United States Africa Command ............................................................... 418 

Title XIII—Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of the Former Soviet 

Union ..................................................................................................................... 419 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds 

(sec. 1301) ............................................................................................... 419 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 419 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in states 

outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 1303) ........................................ 420 

Modification of authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction funds 

outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 1304) ........................................ 420 

Repeal of restrictions on assistance to states of the former Soviet 

Union for cooperative threat reduction (sec. 1305) ............................. 421 

National Academy of Sciences study of prevention of proliferation 

of biological weapons (sec. 1306) .......................................................... 421 

Title XIV—Other Authorizations ........................................................................... 423 

Summary and explanation of table .......................................................... 423 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 426 

Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings from lower inflation (sec. 1407) ....................................................................................... 426 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 426 

Disposal of ferromanganese (sec. 1411) ................................................... 426 

Disposal of chrome metal (sec. 1412) ....................................................... 426 

Modification of receipt objectives for previously authorized disposals 

from the national defense stockpile (sec. 1413) ................................... 426 

Subtitle C—Civil Programs ............................................................................. 427 

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421) ........................................... 427 

Subtitle D—Chemical Demilitarization Matters ............................................ 427 

Modification of termination requirement for Chemical Demilitarization Citizens’ Advisory Commissions (sec. 1431) ................................ 427 

Repeal of certain qualifications requirement for director of chemical 

demilitarization management organization (sec. 1432) ...................... 427 

Sense of Congress on completion of destruction of United States 

chemical weapons stockpile (sec. 1433) ................................................ 428 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 429 

LHA(R) research and development .......................................................... 429 

Defense health program research ............................................................ 430 

Funding for chemical weapons demilitarization ..................................... 430 

Counterdrug advanced concept technology demonstration .................... 430 

Project Athena ........................................................................................... 431 

Department of Defense Inspector General .............................................. 431 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 432 

National Defense Sealift Fund report ..................................................... 432 

Title XV—Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom ............ 433 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XVI 

Title XV—Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom — 

Continued 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional War-Related Appropriations ........ 433 

Overview .................................................................................................... 433 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 434 

Army procurement (sec. 1501) .................................................................. 439 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1502) .................................. 453 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1503) ........................................................... 467 

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1504) .................................... 476 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1505) ....................... 481 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1506) .................................................. 488 

Military personnel (sec. 1507) .................................................................. 503 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1508) ........................................................ 506 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 

1509) ....................................................................................................... 506 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1510) ................. 506 

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1511) ..................................................... 506 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1512) ........................................ 506 

Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1513) ................................................................ 506 

Defense Working Capital Funds (sec. 1514) ........................................... 507 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1515) .............................................. 507 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1516) ..................................................... 507 

Subtitle B—General Provisions Relating to Authorizations ......................... 507 

Purpose (sec. 1521) .................................................................................... 507 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1522) ............................... 507 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1523) ...................................................... 507 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 507 

Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes relating to 

Iraq (sec. 1531) ....................................................................................... 507 

Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to 

United States military operations (sec. 1532) ..................................... 507 

Logistical support for coalition forces supporting operations in Iraq 

and Afghanistan (sec. 1533) .................................................................. 508 

Competition for procurement of small arms supplied to Iraq and 

Afghanistan (sec. 1534) ......................................................................... 508 

Budget Items ............................................................................................. 509 

105MM high explosive rocket-assisted artillery ammunition ................ 509 

Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles .............................................. 509 

Night vision advanced technology ............................................................ 510 

Night vision devices .................................................................................. 510 

Single Army Logistics Enterprise ............................................................ 510 

UH–1Y/AH–1Z helicopters ........................................................................ 511 

Radio systems ............................................................................................ 512 

Joint Strike Fighter .................................................................................. 512 

C–130J aircraft .......................................................................................... 513 

CV–22 Osprey aircraft .............................................................................. 513 

F–15 modifications .................................................................................... 514 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system modifications ................ 514 

Joint light tactical vehicle ........................................................................ 514 

F–16 research and development .............................................................. 515 

Military satellite communication terminals ............................................ 515 

Operation and maintenance funding transfers ....................................... 515 

Military personnel funding transfers ....................................................... 515 

Joint improvised explosive device defeat office ....................................... 516 

Blast injury research ................................................................................. 517 

Counter radio-controlled improvised explosive device electronic warfare .......................................................................................................... 517 

Counter remote-controlled improvised explosive device systems .......... 518 

Directed energy for improvised explosive device defeat ......................... 518 

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 519 

Summary and explanation of funding tables ................................................. 519 

Budget justification material for incrementally funded and phased 

military construction projects ............................................................... 537 

Budget justification material for military construction ......................... 537 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 537 

Title XXI—Army ...................................................................................................... 539 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 539 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 540 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XVII 

Title XXI—Army —Continued 

Summary —Continued 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 540 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) .................. 540 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ................................. 540 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Army projects 

for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 2105) ............................. 540 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2006 project 

(sec. 2106) ............................................................................................... 543 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 

2107) ....................................................................................................... 543 

Technical amendments to the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for 2007 (sec. 2108) ......................................................................... 543 

Ground lease, SOUTHCOM Headquarters Facility, Miami-Doral, 

Florida (sec. 2109) .................................................................................. 543 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 543 

Army budget justification material for military construction ............... 543 

Title XXII—Navy ..................................................................................................... 545 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 545 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 546 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 546 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 546 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 546 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Navy projects 

for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 2205) ............................. 546 

Title XXIII—Air Force ............................................................................................. 549 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 549 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 549 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 549 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 549 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 549 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Air Force 

projects for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 2305) ............... 549 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2006 project 

(sec. 2306) ............................................................................................... 552 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 

2307) ....................................................................................................... 552 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 projects (sec. 

2308) ....................................................................................................... 552 

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies ................................................................................ 553 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 553 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 553 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) ................................................. 553 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) ............. 553 

Termination or modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 

year 2007 Defense Agencies projects (sec. 2404) ................................. 554 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 

2405) ....................................................................................................... 556 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 557 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 557 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 557 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 557 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 559 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 559 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 559 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 559 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 559 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 559 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 559 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XVIII 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities—Continued 

Summary—Continued 

Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) .......... 560 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Guard and 

Reserve projects for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 2607) 560 

Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 2006 Air Force 

Reserve construction and acquisition projects (sec. 2608) .................. 563 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 

2609) ....................................................................................................... 563 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 projects (sec. 

2610) ....................................................................................................... 563 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 563 

Planning and design, Army National Guard .......................................... 563 

Title XXVII—Base Realignment and Closure ....................................................... 565 

Summary and explanation of tables ............................................................... 565 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990 (sec. 2701) ........................................................................... 573 

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded through 

Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 (sec. 2702) ........ 573 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 (sec. 2703) ........................................................................... 573 

Authorized cost and scope of work variations (sec. 2704) ...................... 573 

Title XXVIII—Military Construction General Provisions .................................... 575 

Subtitle A—Effective Date and Expiration of Authorizations ...................... 575 

Effective Date (sec. 2801) ......................................................................... 575 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2802) ................................................................................... 575 

Subtitle B—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 575 

General military construction transfer authority (sec. 2811) ................ 575 

Modifications of authority to lease military family housing (sec. 

2812) ....................................................................................................... 576 

Increase in thresholds for unspecified minor military construction 

projects (sec. 2813) ................................................................................. 576 

Modification and extension of temporary, limited authority to use 

operation and maintenance funds for construction projects outside 

the United States (sec. 2814) ................................................................ 577 

Temporary authority to support revitalization of Department of Defense laboratories through unspecified minor military construction 

projects (sec. 2815) ................................................................................. 577 

Two-year extension of temporary program to use minor military construction authority for construction of child development centers 

(sec. 2816) ............................................................................................... 577 

Extension of authority to accept equalization payments for facility 

exchanges (sec. 2817) ............................................................................. 578 

Subtitle C—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 578 

Requirement to report transactions resulting in annual costs of more 

than $750,000 (sec. 2831) ...................................................................... 578 

Modification of authority to lease non-excess property (sec. 2832) ....... 578 

Enhanced flexibility to create or expand buffer zones (sec. 2833) ........ 579 

Reports on Army and Marine Corps operational ranges (sec. 2834) ..... 579 

Consolidation of real property provisions without substantive change 

(sec. 2835) ............................................................................................... 580 

Subtitle D—Base Closure and Realignment .................................................. 580 

Niagara Air Reserve Base, New York, basing report (sec. 2841) .......... 580 

Subtitle E—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 580 

Land conveyance, Lynn Haven Fuel Depot, Lynn Haven, Florida 

(sec. 2851) ............................................................................................... 580 

Modification to land conveyance authority, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (sec. 2852) ....................................................................................... 580 

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, GSA property, Springfield, 

Virginia (sec. 2853) ................................................................................ 580 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 581 

Report on condition of schools under jurisdiction of Department of 

Defense Education Activity (sec. 2861) ................................................ 581 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Page

XIX 

Title XXVIII—Military Construction General Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle F—Other Matters—Continued 

Repeal of requirement for study and report on impact to military 

readiness of proposed land management changes on public lands 

in Utah (sec. 2862) ................................................................................. 581 

Additional project in Rhode Island (sec. 2863) ....................................... 582 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 582 

Host nation burdensharing ....................................................................... 582 

Military investment strategy in facilities that support training for 

military operations in urban terrain .................................................... 583 

Naval master jet basing ............................................................................ 584 

Temporary facilities .................................................................................. 585 

Title XXIX—War-Related Military Construction Authorizations ........................ 587 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 587 

Authorized war-related Army construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2901) ................................................................................. 590 

Authorizations of war-related military construction appropriations, 

Army (sec. 2902) .................................................................................... 590 

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and 

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 591 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 591 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 591 

Overview .................................................................................................... 591 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 617 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 622 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 623 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) ............................................. 624 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 624 

Reliable Replacement Warhead program (sec. 3111) ............................. 624 

Limitation on availability of funds for Fissile Materials Disposition 

program (sec. 3112) ................................................................................ 627 

Modification of limitations on availability of funds for Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (sec. 3113) ......................................... 627 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 628 

Nuclear test readiness (sec. 3121) ........................................................... 628 

Sense of Congress on the nuclear nonproliferation policy of the 

United States and the Reliable Replacement Warhead program 

(sec. 3122) ............................................................................................... 628 

Report on status of environmental management initiatives to accelerate the reduction of environmental risks and challenges posed 

by the legacy of the Cold War (sec. 3123) ............................................ 628 

Comptroller General report on Department of Energy protective force 

management (sec. 3124) ........................................................................ 629 

Technical amendments (sec. 3125) ........................................................... 629 

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 631 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 631 

Items Funded at the Request of Members ..................................................... 632 

Legislative Requirements ................................................................................ 651 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 651 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 651 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 651 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 651 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 651 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

Calendar No. 185 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–77 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 

YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 5, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1547] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2008 for military 

activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, 

and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 

personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, 

and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2008; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2008; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2008; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

2 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2008; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2008. 

Committee overview and recommendations 

The United States armed forces are fighting wars in Afghanistan 

and Iraq, deployed in other places throughout the globe, or training 

at home for future deployment. Whether fighting in Afghanistan or 

Iraq, delivering humanitarian assistance to the victims of natural 

disasters in Asia or Africa, training foreign national forces in the 

Philippines, or assisting State and federal agencies responding to 

emergencies at home, the men and women of our armed forces, 

both active and reserve, are serving honorably and courageously to 

promote and defend our national interests. They do so often at 

great personal risk and at significant sacrifice to themselves and 

their families. 

After more than 5 years of war, our military, particularly our 

ground forces, and their families are severely stressed. Equipment 

is wearing out faster than anticipated. In many cases a lack of personnel and equipment is hampering the readiness of non-deployed 

forces, both active and reserve. As a result, the Nation lacks the 

strategic depth it enjoyed before the wars began. This lack of depth 

increases our strategic risk to the point that, although we can defeat potential adversaries in various danger spots around the 

world, the time it would take to do so would be longer and the cost 

in casualties to our forces and resources would be higher. 

To date in this First Session of the 110th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services has conducted 41 hearings and numerous briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 

and related defense matters. In order to provide a framework for 

the consideration of these matters, the committee identified seven 

priorities to guide its work on the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008. These priorities are: 

(1) Provide fair compensation and first rate health care, and 

improve the quality of life of the men and women in the armed 

forces (active duty, National Guard, and reserves) and their 

families. 

(2) Provide our service men and women with the resources, 

training, technology, equipment (especially force protection), 

and authorities they need to participate in combat and stability 

operations, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

(3) Reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by starting and, if possible, accelerating the restoration of the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. 

(4) Improve the efficiency of Department of Defense (DOD) 

programs and activities, and apply the savings toward high 

priority programs. 

(5) Improve the ability of the armed forces to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. 

(6) Promote the transformation of the armed forces to meet 

the threats of the 21st Century. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

3 

(7) Conduct aggressive oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer 

dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 

To improve compensation and quality of life for the men and 

women in uniform and to seek to ease the pressure on our overcommitted troops, the committee: 

• Authorized an across the board pay raise of 3.5 percent, a 

half percent above the administration’s request, as well as a 

half percent above the average increase in private sector pay 

raises as measured by the increase in the employment cost 

index. This additional boost in pay is in recognition of the 

strain our military personnel and their families are under. 

• Authorized an end strength of 524,000 for the Army, 

13,000 more than authorized last year, and 189,000 for the 

Marine Corps, 9,000 more than authorized last year. Although 

the administration’s proposal divided this end strength between the base and supplemental budget requests, the mark 

combines them in the base budget. 

• Authorized payment of combat-related special compensation to service members who are medically retired because of 

a combat-related disability. Under current law, only those retired with 20 or more years of service are eligible for this payment. 

• Reduced below age 60 the age at which a member of a reserve component may draw retirement pay by 3 months for 

every aggregate 90 days’ service on active duty under certain 

mobilization authorities. 

• Included a provision to help protect our troops, uphold our 

values, and restore our image around the world by providing 

a fair process for reviewing the status of DOD detainees at 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This provision would require that detainees receive legal representation, provide for legal rulings to 

be made by military judges, and prohibit the use of statements 

that are obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment of a 

detainee. 

• Authorized the use of federal pricing for pharmaceuticals 

dispensed through the TRICARE retail program. 

• Directed the DOD to study and develop a plan to address 

the findings of the Army medical department’s fourth assessment of the mental health and well-being of soldiers and marines in Iraq, including findings that multiple deployments and 

lengthy deployments lead to increased mental health and marital problems and more frequent mistreatment of non-combatants. 

• Rejected the administration’s proposal to give DOD broad 

authority to increase TRICARE program cost sharing amounts 

for military retirees and their dependents. 

The committee included provisions to better assist survivors of 

military personnel by: 

• Modifying the death gratuity statute to allow service members to designate in writing any person as the beneficiary. 

• Modifying the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) to allow guardians or caretakers of dependent children to receive SBP benefits. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

4 

Particular emphasis was placed on addressing the needs of an 

Army stressed and stretched by over 5 years of war, but doing so 

in a way that also positions the Army to meet the challenges of the 

future. 

In a series of legislative and funding actions designed to achieve 

those objectives, the committee: • Authorized multiyear procurement for Abrams tank and 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades. • Fully funded the President’s budget request for the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS), added $90.0 million to restore 

fiscal year 2008 funding for the Armed Robotic Vehicles deleted 

in the recent program restructure, and added $25.0 million to 

accelerate development of the FCS active protection system. • Added $40.0 million for integration of an active protection 

system on the Stryker vehicles. • Added $80.0 million to restore fiscal year 2008 funding for 

the Land Warrior system, ensuring sufficient quantities to field 

the remaining two battalions of the Stryker Brigade Combat 

Team currently equipped with the system in Iraq. • Added $2.7 billion for items on the Army Chief of Staff’s unfunded requirements list, including over $1.5 billion for 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, $775.1 

million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, 

$207.4 million for aviation survivability equipment, $102.4 million for combat training centers, and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night vision devices, and machine 

guns. • Added funding for other major force protection items, in- cluding $430.0 million for MRAP vehicles for the Air Force, 

and fully funded the President’s budget request for $4.5 billion 

for the Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Office (JIEDDO), directing JIEDDO to invest at least $50.0 million in blast injury 

research and over $150.0 million for the procurement of improvised explosive device (IED) jammers for the Army. 

The committee also put particular emphasis on support for marines and naval forces engaged in combat operations and on the 

continuing transformation of the Navy. 

The committee focused on force protection for Marine Corps 

ground forces and on execution of the shipbuilding budget. The 

committee was concerned with the amount of funding in the budget 

request devoted to shipbuilding, and took steps to protect the capability of the Navy to provide necessary global presence into the future. Specifically, the committee: 

• Added almost $2.0 billion for MRAP vehicles. This addition 

will support all known requirements of the Navy and Marine 

Corps for these vehicles that improve protection for our troops 

exposed to the IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

• Authorized construction for five warships and provided 

multiyear procurement authority for fiscal years 2009 to 2013 

for Virginia class submarines. 

• Added $470.0 million in advance procurement funding for 

Virginia class submarines to support buying an additional submarine in fiscal year 2010. There is no requirement that the 

Navy allocate additional funds to buy the second submarine in 

fiscal year 2010. If the Navy chooses not to do that, the funds 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

5 

could be used to support economic order quantity buys of material in fiscal year 2008, which could yield additional savings for 

the multiyear procurement and reduce pressure on the outyear 

shipbuilding budget. 

• Reduced $430.5 million in funding for the Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS) program, requiring that future ships of the program be competitively awarded with added measures to control 

cost. This reflects a response to the more than doubling of the 

price of these ships, schedule delays, and delays in promulgating an acquisition strategy. 

• Reduced title XV war-related funding by $492.5 million for 

five CV–22 Special Operations Command aircraft and $123.4 

million for six UH–1Y / AH–1Z Marine Corps helicopters due 

to concerns about the production cost growth and management 

processes at the contractor plant that builds both of these aircraft. Production in fiscal year 2008 for all V–22s would still 

increase from 16 to 28 and H–1 production would increase 

from 11 to 20 aircraft. 

• Added $78.6 million to Navy and Marine Corps research 

and development programs. 

• Supported critical efforts to efficiently and effectively modernize the force; including C–5 Galaxy strategic airlift aircraft 

Reliability Enhancement Re-engining Program, Arleigh Burke 

(DDG–51) class destroyer modernization, and Navy Open Systems Architecture. 

• Reduced the request for the Marine Corps Expeditionary 

Fighting Vehicle by $100.0 million, since the program has encountered serious technical problems and cost growth, and will 

not be able to spend the funds appropriated for the current fiscal year. 

The committee continued implementing the policy of focusing on 

the development, testing, fielding, and improvement of effective 

near-term missile defense capabilities, particularly to protect forward-deployed U.S. forces and allies against existing threats from 

short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Specifically, the committee: 

• Approved the Army funding request for the Patriot PAC– 

3 program, including the ‘‘Pure Fleet’’ initiative, and added 

$75.0 million to procure 25 additional PAC–3 missiles. 

• Authorized an addition of $75.0 million for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program to increase the production rate of Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptors, procure 15 

additional SM–3 missiles, and accelerate work on the Aegis 

BMD Signal Processor and Open Architecture program. 

• Approved an increase of $105.0 million for the Terminal 

High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to increase the 

missile production rate, begin the upgrade of the evolved 

THAAD interceptor, and to conduct an additional test. 

• Added $25.0 million for co-production of the Arrow missile, 

and added $10.0 million to study the suitability of the THAAD 

missile to serve as a follow-on to Israel’s Arrow system. 

• Authorized an increase of $25.0 million for accelerated 

joint development of a short-range ballistic missile defense 

(SRBMD) system for Israel. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

6 

• Reduced the budget request of $310.4 million for the proposed European missile defense deployment by $85.0 million 

for site activation and construction work, to reflect the schedule of negotiations with the host nations, but authorized the 

remaining budget request, with availability of funding for some 

activities being subject to meeting certain conditions. 

• Reduced funding for the Airborne Laser program by $200.0 

million. 

• Reduced funding for BMD Special Programs by $150.0 million, and for BMD Systems Core by $50.0 million. 

• Reduced the budget request for the Space Tracking and 

Surveillance System by $55.0 million for premature development of follow-on satellites, and authorized no funds for the 

proposed space test-bed. 

• Included legislative provisions that would: 

• Extend by 5 years the requirement for the Comptroller 

General to assess the ballistic missile defense program annually. 

• Require the Department of Defense, starting in fiscal 

year 2009, to submit the budget request for the Missile Defense Agency using regular budget categories (research 

and development, procurement, operation and maintenance, and military construction), and make certain acquisition and oversight improvements. 

• Require a certification from the Secretary of Defense 

that the Block 2006 Ground-Based Midcourse Defense 

(GMD) system is operationally effective before deploying 

more than 40 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) at Fort 

Greely, Alaska. 

• Ensure that the Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation has full access to missile defense test and evaluation data. 

The committee supported improved national security space capabilities for satellite communications, missile warning, space situational awareness and surveillance, space control, and reduced space 

system vulnerability. Specifically, the committee: 

• Added $125.0 million for advanced procurement for a 

fourth Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) communications satellite, and $10.0 million for Ultra High Frequency 

to reduce the risk of communications gaps. 

• Added $15.0 million for sensors for small satellite efforts 

to provide operationally responsive space support capability for 

the warfighter. 

• Added $35.0 million for the Space-Based Space Surveillance System to provide improved situational awareness in 

space. 

• Added $16.8 million for space situational awareness operations, $9.8 million for the space fence, $13.8 million to the 

Rapid Attack Identification Detection and Reporting System 

(RAIDRS), and $50.0 million for space control technology to improve space protection and awareness capabilities. 

• Fully funded the Global Positioning System (GPS) III program and the Transformational Communications Satellite program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

7 

• Provided an additional $100.0 million for the Space-Based 

Infrared Satellite System (SBIRS) GEO–4 and $27.6 million for 

the SBIRS backup control station, but no funding for the Alternative Infrared Satellite System. 

• Provided no funding for the Space Radar program but provided additional funding for research and development of space 

radar capabilities. 

• Included provisions that would direct the Secretary of Defense in the next administration to conduct a space posture review, and direct the Director of the National Reconnaissance 

Office (NRO) to participate in the National Security Space Office. 

The committee addressed strategic systems as follows: 

• Refocused efforts to achieve a prompt global strike capability into a single coordinated program. 

• Added $19.0 million for modernization efforts to sustain 76 

B–52 aircraft. 

• Directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on 

the retirement schedule for remaining nuclear cruise missiles. 

• Included a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense in the next administration to conduct a new nuclear posture review. 

The committee continues to support the Stockpile Stewardship 

Program and modernization of the Nation’s nuclear weapons complex. The committee also supports efforts to enhance the security 

posture of the Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear sites, reduce 

deferred maintenance, and complete the environmental cleanup of 

Cold War legacy sites. Specifically, the committee: 

• Consolidated funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead into one funding line, reduced the total amount requested 

by $43.0 million, and limited fiscal year 2008 program activities to phase 2A activities only. 

• Added $62.4 million to enhance security at DOE nuclear 

sites. 

• Added $36.8 million to reduce deferred maintenance within the nuclear weapons complex. 

• Added $10.0 million for nuclear weapons incident response. 

• Included provisions directing the Comptroller General to 

review issues related to security protection forces at DOE sites 

and to review a report that would be prepared by the Secretary 

of Energy on the future plans and cost of the Environmental 

Management program. 

In the area of science and technology, the committee: 

• Authorized an increase of over $450.0 million for defense 

science and technology (S&T) programs, for a total authorization of $11.2 billion. 

• Increased funding for development of advanced technologies to support current operational needs and develop new 

military capabilities to defeat emerging threats, including: 

• Nearly $85.0 million for advanced manufacturing research and processes to reduce the production costs of 

weapons systems, to improve the Department’s ability to 

surge production of critical items—such as body and vehimmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

8 

cle armor and to preserve the domestic defense industrial 

base; • Over $70.0 million in research and technologies to enhance the force protection of deployed units, including advanced materials for vehicle and body armor, active protection systems that shoot down incoming rocket propelled 

grenades, and sniper detection systems; • Nearly $75.0 million for advanced energy and power 

technologies, including programs to develop fuel cells, hybrid engines, and biofuels for military systems; • Nearly $65.0 million for defense related research performed at our Nation’s universities, which develops next 

generation military capabilities, while training tomorrow’s 

scientists and engineers; and • Nearly $50.0 million for research on combat casualty 

care and military medical technologies, including work to 

address blast injuries and brain trauma. • Authorized a provision that would expand the 

nanotechnology research and development efforts of the Department of Defense, to include enhanced efforts in 

nanomanufacturing and the incorporation of nanotechnologies 

into defense systems. • Authorized a provision that would require the development 

of a strategic plan for defense manufacturing technology development to ensure that the defense industrial base has the most 

advanced manufacturing processes available to support the 

production of defense systems at the lowest cost possible, while 

being responsive to surge production demands driven by military needs. • Authorized a provision to revitalize defense laboratories by 

providing more flexibility in funding construction projects and 

other infrastructure investment to ensure that these laboratories remain world class technical institutions to support the 

engineering and technical needs of operational forces. 

In the area of nonproliferation and cooperative threat reduction, 

the committee: 

• Authorized an increase of $87.0 million to the amount requested for DOE nonproliferation programs. 

• Authorized an increase of $100.0 million for the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. 

• Included provisions that would repeal all of the required 

annual certifications and that would expand the CTR program 

to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. 

In the area of Special Operations Forces and programs, the committee: 

• Authorized an additional $124.0 million to meet unfunded 

requirements of the Special Operations Command for MRAP 

vehicles. 

• Directed the Comptroller General to review the ongoing reorganization of the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy, especially as it pertains to the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity 

Conflict. 

• Added over $25.0 million in funding for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to meet critical language and culmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

9 

tural awareness training requirements, and for various 

SOCOM science and technology programs. 

The committee also took the following steps to promote the development of the Department’s language capabilities: 

• Authorized the creation of a National Foreign Language 

Coordination Council, to ensure that the administration’s current efforts to promote foreign language competency will develop into an organized and concerted effort to improve the Nation’s foreign language capabilities. 

• Directed the Comptroller General to review DOD programs 

to improve language and cultural awareness. 

In the area of counterdrug activities, the committee: 

• Authorized an increase of $22.5 million to support DOD 

drug interdiction activities, primarily those of the U.S. Southern Command. 

• Authorized the Department to provide counterdrug support to Mexico and the Dominican Republic. 

In the area of chemical and biological defense and chemical demilitarization, the committee: 

• Authorized an increase of nearly $70.0 million for enhancements to chemical and biological defense programs, including: 

• $30.0 million for procurement of chemical detection 

equipment for the Army National Guard that can be used 

both for overseas deployments and for domestic consequence management missions; and 

• Nearly $20 million for research and development 

projects to enhance the Department’s ability to detect and 

protect its forces from chemical and biological warfare 

agents. 

• Included a provision stating the sense of Congress that the 

United States should make every effort to meet its legal obligation under the Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy its entire stockpile of chemical weapons by April 2012, or as soon as 

possible thereafter, and that the DOD should budget sufficient 

funds to allow the most expeditious destruction of the chemical 

weapons stockpile, consistent with the legal requirement to 

protect public health, safety, and the environment. 

• Authorized an increase of $36.0 million to restore funds 

that were removed from the chemical demilitarization program 

budget request. These funds would help avoid further delays in 

destroying the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons, as required 

by law. 

In the area of homeland defense, the committee included a provision that would require an advisory panel to assess the capabilities 

of the Department to provide support to civil authorities for consequence management in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive incident in the United 

States. The panel would report its findings and recommendations 

within 1 year from starting its duties. 

To address the readiness and management needs of the military, 

the committee supported the stated requirements of the military 

services for the next fiscal year, including the funds needed for the 

cost of normal operations, war-related operations, and the initial 

operating cost of increasing the size of our ground forces. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

10 

The committee fully funded the Army and Marine Corps request for depot level maintenance. The committee also recommended $4.8 

billion for the procurement of ammunition of all types to support 

the services’ war fighting, training, and war reserve requirements. 

With regard to management and acquisition policy, the committee included a provision requiring, for the first time, that DOD 

have a Chief Management Officer. The Comptroller General has repeatedly stated that the Department needs to do this, to ensure 

that the Department’s many high-risk areas get the top level management attention they deserve. 

In addition, the committee included a number of important acquisition reform provisions. These include: • A provision that would provide the resources that DOD 

needs to address the shortcomings in its acquisition workforce. • A series of provisions that would tighten DOD management of contract services. • A provision that would ensure that our commanders on the 

battlefield have the authority that they need to establish rules 

for armed contractors of all Government agencies in an area of 

combat operations. • A provision establishing guidelines for DOD to use in determining whether savings are ‘‘substantial’’ for the purpose of 

justifying multiyear contracts. • A provision that would require that each of the Assistant 

Secretaries for Acquisition in the military departments be assisted by a three-star military deputy who has significant acquisition experience. 

The committee also proposed the investment of an additional $461.0 million above the budget request in infrastructure to repair, 

replace, and modernize our aging defense facilities and improve the 

quality of life and the productivity of our military. The committee 

has adhered to its traditional criteria for military construction 

projects in this markup. 

The committee continued its longstanding record of supporting 

the implementation of the base closure process without intervening 

or playing favorites in that process. There are no provisions that 

would attempt to overturn any Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) decisions or move some people ahead of others in line for 

BRAC funding. 

The committee also took a number of other important actions, including: 

• Establishing a requirement that the President report to 

Congress on his long-term strategy for engaging with Pakistan 

to eliminate safe havens for the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other 

violent extremists in Pakistan and to stop their cross-border 

movements into Afghanistan. Reimbursements to Pakistan for 

support to U.S. military operations would be restricted unless 

the President certifies that Pakistan is making substantial and 

sustained efforts to eliminate terrorist safe havens on its territory. 

• Extending and enhancing DOD’s authority to provide services or transfer funds to the Department of State for police 

training and stabilization assistance. 

• Extending and expanding DOD’s authority to lease or lend 

equipment for personnel protection and survivability to allies 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

11 

and coalition partners participating in combined military operations with U.S. forces. • Extending the participation of Department personnel in 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military centers of 

excellence. • Directing the Comptroller General to assess the implementation of the Global Peace Operations Initiative, including 

whether it would have an impact on participation in upcoming 

peace operations. • Recognizing the significant changes in the role and missions of the National Guard and reserve, by: • Increasing the grade of the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau from lieutenant general to general and expanding the duties of and eligibility requirements for this 

position. • Requiring the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prescribe the 

charter for the National Guard Bureau. • Enhancing the authority for National Guard and reserve general and flag officers to serve on active duty. • Authorizing federal civilian employees who are in the 

National Guard or reserves to continue their coverage 

under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance for up 

to 24 months when mobilized. • Repealing the existing authority of the Department of 

Defense to establish a new labor relations system under 

the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). This 

would guarantee the rights of DOD employees to union 

representation in NSPS. • Consistent with the committee’s longstanding practice, 

the committee report identifies all funding provided for 

programs, projects, and activities that were not requested 

in the President’s budget. For the first time, the report will 

also identify the name of members requesting such funding. The committee will also make this information available to the general public in an electronically searchable 

format at least 48 hours before consideration of the bill or 

conference report. 

In making its recommendations, the committee realizes that 

much remains to be done, particularly in terms of restoring the 

readiness of the military services. 

Explanation of funding summary 

The administration’s budget request for the national defense 

function of the federal budget for fiscal year 2008 was $505.4 billion for the base budget excluding the costs of operations in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, plus an additional $141.8 billion in emergency 

defense funding requested for those operations and other costs, including some of the cost of the administration’s proposal to increase 

the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. The combined total requested by the President for the national defense budget function 

was $647.2 billion. According to the estimating procedures used by 

the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the amount requested for 

the base budget was $507.0 billion, and the total amount remmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

12 

quested, including the emergency war-related funding, was $648.8 

billion. 

The primary discrepancy between the administration and CBO 

estimates related to assumed savings in the Defense Health program (DHP) account. The funding summary table that follows uses 

the budget authority levels as calculated by CBO, both for the DHP 

and the bill as a whole. 

The following table summarizes both the direct authorizations 

and equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2008 defense 

programs. The columns relating to the authorization request do not 

include funding for items that are not within the jurisdiction of this 

committee or that do not require an annual authorization. The 

table also includes the authorization for spending from the trust 

fund of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is outside the 

national defense budget function. 

Funding for all programs in the national defense function is reflected in the columns related to the budget authority request and 

the total budget authority implication of the authorizations in this 

bill. The committee recommends funding for national defense programs totaling $648.8 billion in budget authority. 

The funding level recommended by the committee is within the combined budget authority levels of $507.0 billion for the national 

defense function (function 050) plus $145.2 billion for defense and 

nondefense expenses related to contingency operations in the new 

overseas deployments and other activities function (function 970) in 

the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. 

Con. Res. 21) adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives on May 17, 2007. As permitted by the budget resolution, the 

committee bill assumes that additional appropriations for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will be made available at the levels 

requested by the President. 

In order to clearly identify the cost of war, the committee bill reallocates funding that the committee believes is not directly related 

to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular funding requested for paying, equipping, and providing facilities for additional Army and Marine Corps personnel, from the war-related 

emergency request portion of the bill into the base budget accounts. 

Such transfers are noted in the detailed tables in this report. Funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is contained in title XV 

(for personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, and other 

costs normally funded in division A of this Act) and title XXIX (for 

military construction projects in Iraq or Afghanistan) of this Act. 

In accordance with views and estimates of this committee to the 

Senate Committee on the Budget and with the conference report on 

the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. 

Con. Res. 21), the committee bill does not designate any of the 

funding authorized by this Act as emergency spending. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

13 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 43 35737.001
14 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 44 35737.002
15 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 45 35737.003
16 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 46 35737.004
17 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 47 35737.005
18 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 48 35737.006
19 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 49 35737.007
20 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 50 35737.008
(21) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title I of this Act. The tables also display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 

2008 budget request for procurement programs, and indicate those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. As in the past, the Department of Defense 

may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables 

or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in 

budget justification documents of the Department of Defense), 

without a reprogramming action in accordance with established 

procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the 

budget request are made without prejudice. 

Rapid Acquisition Fund (sec. 105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$100.0 million for the rapid acquisition fund. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

22 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 52 35737.009
23 

Subtitle B—Army Programs 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

24 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 54 35737.010
25 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 55 35737.011
26 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 56 35737.012
27 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 57 35737.013
28 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 58 35737.014
29 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 59 35737.015
30 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 60 35737.016
31 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 61 35737.017
32 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 62 35737.018
33 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 63 35737.019
34 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 64 35737.020
35 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 65 35737.021
36 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 66 35737.022
37 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 67 35737.023
38 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 68 35737.024
39 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 69 35737.025
40 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 70 35737.026
41 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 71 35737.027
42 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 72 35737.028
43 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 73 35737.029
44 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 74 35737.030
45 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 75 35737.031
46 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 76 35737.032
47 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 77 35737.033
48 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 78 35737.034
49 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 79 35737.035
50 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 80 35737.036
51 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 81 35737.037
52 

Multiyear procurement authority for M1A2 Abrams System 

Enhancement Package upgrades (sec. 111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority to the Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear contract for the upgrade of Abrams tanks to the M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) versions. 

Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, authorizes the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for the purchase of property, but only if six statutory criteria are met. One of 

these criteria is that the use of a multiyear contract must result 

in ‘‘substantial savings’’ compared to the anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. 

The Department estimates that the multiyear contract for the 

M1A2 Abrams SEP upgrades will result in savings of approximately $178.0 million, or a total of approximately 10 percent, compared to the cost of five annual contracts. The committee considers 

these savings to be substantial and concludes that the multiyear 

proposal meets the statutory criteria. 

Multiyear procurement authority for M2A3/M3A3 Bradley 

fighting vehicle upgrades (sec. 112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority to the Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear contract for the upgrade of Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Bradley Fire 

Support Team Vehicles to the M2A3/M3A3/BFIST versions. 

Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, authorizes the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for the purchase of property, but only if six statutory criteria are met. One of 

these criteria is that the use of a multiyear contract must result 

in ‘‘substantial savings’’ compared to the anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. 

The Department estimates that a multiyear contract for the 

Bradley upgrades over 4 fiscal years beginning in fiscal year 2008 

and ending in fiscal year 2011 will result in savings of approximately $131.0 million, or a total of approximately 5 percent, compared to the cost of four annual contracts. Because the Department 

plans to purchase a procurement quantity of 525 in the first year, 

the Department assumes that savings resulting from larger procurement quantities will be achieved in that year regardless of 

whether a multiyear contract is approved. However, the Department estimates that a multiyear contract will result in savings of 

$131.0 million, or a total of 10 percent, compared to the cost of annual contracts over the final 3 years of the contract. The committee 

considers these savings to be substantial and concludes that the 

multiyear proposal meets the statutory criteria. 

Stryker Mobile Gun System (sec. 113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would withhold all 

funding for the procurement of the Stryker Mobile Gun System 

(MGS) until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary of the 

Army certifies to Congress that the results of the initial operational 

test and evaluation indicate that the Stryker MGS is operationally 

effective, suitable, and survivable. The Secretary of Defense may 

waive the limitation on MGS funding if the Secretary determines 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

53 

that further procurement of the Stryker MGS is in the national security interest of the United States, submits to the Congress, in 

writing , a notification of the waiver together with a discussion of 

the reasons for the waiver and the actions that will be taken to 

mitigate any deficiencies which cause the system to be deemed not 

operationally effective, suitable, and/or survivable. 

In January 2007, the Army decided to deploy the Stryker MGS 

with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) that was deploying 

to Iraq as part of the ‘‘surge’’ of units called for by the revamped 

Baghdad security plan. This was done despite the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s concern that planned operational and 

live fire ballistic test and evaluation were not complete and were 

not yet adequate to support a final assessment of MGS crew and 

system survivability, operational effectiveness, and operational 

suitability. The Director expressed concern about the current reliability and operational effectiveness of the vehicle, with mean 

rounds between system aborts being well below the entrance criteria for entry into initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), 

and with significant ‘‘fightability’’ shortfalls, particularly with regard to the functioning of the two machine guns. More troubling 

are the unique survivability concerns expressed by the Director, 

with MGS crews at greater risk than crews in other Stryker configurations, the details of which are classified and cannot be discussed in this report. 

The committee is troubled by the Army’s decision and shares the 

concerns expressed by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and believes that no more Stryker MGS’s should be procured 

until adequate testing shows that the system is operationally effective, suitable, and survivable. The committee notes that the MGS 

IOT&E has been delayed from earlier this year to November 2007, 

because of the SBCT’s early deployment to Iraq, and a full rate 

production decision is not expected until February 2008. 

Consolidation of Joint Network Node program and 

Warfighter Information Network—Tactical program into 

a single Army tactical network program (sec. 114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Army to consolidate the joint network node (JNN) 

and warfighter information network—tactical (WIN–T) programs 

into one Army tactical network program. 

The budget request included $312.6 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for JNN and fiscal year 2008 budget requested 

an additional $2.2 billion in war-related funding in OPA for JNN. 

The combined budget request for JNN totals over $2.5 billion. If 

approved, the Department of the Army would procure 10 JNN 

hubs, 175 JNNs, 557 battalion command post nodes, and would 

sustain all previous JNN units fielded. 

The JNN is a commercially-based Ku-band satellite system that 

supports the Army’s tactical communications requirements for the 

exchange of voice, data, and video from theater to the battalion 

level. The JNN was designed to be operational within 30 minutes 

of the time that the tactical operations center ceases movement and 

sets up in a static position. The Army began the JNN program as 

a quick-start initiative funded by emergency supplemental dollars 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

54 

in response to an urgent operational need statement from U.S. 

Central Command. The committee recognizes the importance of 

this capability in the theater today and notes that the urgent operational need has now been met. The committee notes that the 

budget request would complete the fielding of JNN to the rest of 

the Army. 

The committee is concerned that the Army did not comply with 

title 10 of the United States Code in its acquisition of Lots 1–9 of 

JNN by not adequately testing the JNN platform and its associated 

systems before it was produced and fielded. The committee is also 

concerned that the Army does not own, nor does it have access to, 

the technical data package for JNN. 

The committee directs the Department to perform an initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) and deliver to the congressional defense committees a low rate initial production report before a full rate production decision has been made by the Department. The committee is concerned that the Army’s investment in 

JNN is not appropriately aligned with its knowledge of its shortcomings and an IOT&E will help the Army develop a better understanding of its investment and the additional investments necessary for the sustainment of JNN. 

In addition to the JNN request, the Army’s fiscal year 2008 baseline budget request included $222.3 million for the continued research and development of the WIN–T program. 

As envisioned, WIN–T will also support the Army’s tactical communications, including video, data, imagery, and voice services, for 

commanders at all echelons at remote locations throughout the battle space. WIN–T is also expected to interface with the Joint Tactical Radio System, which extends to the individual warfighter 

platform level, and will be integral to the Army’s modernization to 

the Future Combat Systems (FCS). The committee believes that 

the Army should move as quickly as possible to incorporate this capability into JNN. 

JNN and WIN–T are duplicate programs. However, WIN–T will 

meet the requirements of JNN, but with greater capability, providing on-the-move capabilities to Army commanders—a longstanding requirement. It is estimated that the Army will require 

well over $2.0 billion to field JNN to all Army units. 

In September 2004, after competitively awarding two contracts 

for the Systems Development and Demonstration phase for the 

WIN–T communications system, the Army received approval to 

merge the winning contractors into a single team to accelerate 

WIN–T development. Since that time, and mostly due to affordability issues, the Army has restructured the WIN–T program, further delaying its fielding. 

According to the Army’s February 2007 ‘‘Report to Congress on 

the Bridge to Future Networks,’’ the Army intends to replace JNN 

with WIN–T beginning in 2014. The committee is concerned that 

the Army cannot afford to field both JNN and WIN–T in such a 

short time period and that the training, logistical, and maintenance 

burdens for the rapid fielding of two highly complex communication 

networks in such a close time frame has not been sufficiently analyzed. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

55 

The committee is also concerned about the Secretary of the 

Army’s January 2007 notification to Congress of the WIN–T breach 

of the Nunn-McCurdy unit cost threshold which was a result of the 

Army’s decision to expand WIN–T’s capability and increase the 

scope of its fielding. The committee shares the concern of the Government Accountability Office that the WIN–T program has been 

operating without a bona fide acquisition program baseline for 18 

months, and may not have a new approved acquisition program 

baseline until well after the June 2007 Nunn-McCurdy certification. 

The committee believes that, should JNN and WIN–T remain as 

two programs on separate and parallel paths, the result may be 

two sub-optimal systems instead of a single, integrated, fully-capable system as currently envisioned. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to consolidate these two programs 

into a single tactical network program which will provide a seamless transition from JNN to WIN–T as soon as possible, and at optimum cost. 

Further, the committee recommends transferring the $2.6 billion 

in title XV, OPA for JNN to title I, OPA for JNN. Further, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 billion in OPA for JNN. 

Budget Items—Army 

Armed reconnaissance helicopter 

The budget request included $468.2 million in the base budget 

request for 37 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters (ARH), and 

$222.6 million in the fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request 

for an additional 29 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters to replace 

OH–58D Kiowa Warrior combat losses. 

In April 2007, the Army issued a ‘‘stop work notice’’ to the contractor, giving the company 30 days to address cost and scheduling 

performance problems for the ARH program. The Army subsequently evaluated the contractor’s response and proposal for executing the ARH program, and after a special meeting of the Army 

Systems Acquisition Review Council on May 18, 2007, decided that 

continuing with the current contractor enables ARH fielding sooner 

and at less cost than re-competing the program. 

The committee recommends a transfer of $131.0 million from 

title I, Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, including $31.0 million to APA for OH–58D 

cockpit display system software upgrades and mast mounted sight 

circuit cards, and $100.0 million to PE 64220A to fund remaining 

research and development requirements for ARH. 

The committee also recommends a reduction of $38.6 million in 

title XV, APA for ARH, and a transfer of $184.0 million—including 

$86.0 million to Operations and Maintenence, Army (OMA) for the 

recapitalization of UH–60A Blackhawk helicopters, $38.0 million to 

APA for the upgrade of UH–60A helicopters to UH–60L models, 

and $60.0 million to APA for common missile warning systems for 

fixed wing aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the long standing Army requirement 

for an ARH and commends the Army for taking a critical look at 

the program as currently structured and executed. The committee 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

56 

urges the Army to continue rigorous oversight of the contractor’s 

performance and expects frequent consultation with the congressional defense committees on the results of that oversight. The 

committee encourages the Army to submit a comprehensive reprogramming that will adequately fund the required restructuring 

of the ARH program. 

CH–47 Chinook helicopter 

The budget request included $157.9 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for six new build CH–47 helicopters and $577.3 

million in PE 23744A for CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications. 

These amounts assumed savings for procurement and modifications 

under a 5–year multiyear contract authority requested by the Department of Defense. 

Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, authorizes the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for the purchase of property, but only if six statutory criteria are met. One of 

these criteria is that the use of a multiyear contract must result 

in ‘‘substantial savings’’ compared to the anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. 

The Department estimates that the multiyear contract will result 

in savings of approximately 3.8 percent for the new build CH–47 

helicopters and 4.3 percent for the modifications. The committee 

does not consider these savings to be substantial and concludes 

that the statutory standard for approval of a multiyear contract 

has not been met. The committee encourages the Department to resubmit its proposal for a multiyear contract in the future, if it determines that more substantial savings can be achieved. 

To meet the cost of an annual contract in fiscal year 2008, the 

committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in APA, a total 

of $163.9 million, for CH–47 helicopters; and an increase of $16.0 

million in APA, a total of $593.3 million, for CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications. 

Enhanced electronic digital engine control unit 

The budget request included $13.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for UH–60 Blackhawk helicopter modifications, 

but no funding for the Enhanced Electronic Digital Engine Control 

Unit (EDECU). 

The common EDECU will standardize engine controls among all 

Army helicopter platforms flying GE–T700–701C and GE–T700– 

701D engines, and provide increased processing capability and 

memory beyond the capacity of the legacy Digital Engine Control 

Unit (DECU). The EDECU provides single channel engine supervisory control for engine governing, over-speed protection, temperature limiting protection, and integral auto relight capability. 

The EDECU is a common engine control unit designed for interchangeable support for UH–60L/M and Apache AH–64D Block II/ 

III aircraft equipped with T700–GE–701C or –701D engines. The 

EDECU has greater reliability, serviceability, and a lower unit cost 

than its legacy predecessor system, the DECU. The EDECU hardware will be common for all platforms, and will be introduced directly to production or fielded through depot level replacement. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

57 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the 

EDECU, for a total of $16.0 million. 

Aircraft survivability equipment infrared countermeasures 

The budget request included $365.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure 

(ATIRCM)/Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) installation 

kits (A–Kits) and mission kits (B-Kits) to provide an integrated 

warning and countermeasure system for aircraft survivability 

against infrared guided missile systems. The committee notes that 

the Chief of Staff of the Army identified additional funds for this 

aircraft survivability equipment among his unfunded priorities for 

fiscal year 2008. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $207.4 million in APA, for a total of $572.9 million. 

Aircrew integrated systems 

The base budget request included $42.7 million for aircrew inte- grated systems, including $2.2 million for an encrypted Aircraft 

Wireless Intercom System (AWIS), but no funding for a nonencrypted version. The budget request also contained no funding 

for the Air Warrior Generation 3 Primary Survival Gear Carrier 

(PSGC). 

The AWIS is a cordless, voice-activated crew intercommunications system integrated with the aircraft communications system. 

The system provides a wireless communication capability between 

crew members in flight and during ground service operations, allows medical personnel freedom of both hands to perform onboard 

medical procedures while communicating with the flight crew, and 

eliminates the operational hazards and operational restrictions inherent to the existing tethered system. Currently there is no integrated or qualified communication system between the crew flying 

medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) aircraft and the medic on the 

ground preparing a patient for transport or suspended beneath the 

hovering aircraft over hazardous terrain during critical rescue hoist 

operations. Hand and arm signals are currently used as the means 

for communication. 

The committee notes that the Army MEDEVAC community has 

requested the immediate fielding of an unencrypted AWIS based 

upon Hurricane Katrina relief experience. Funding appropriated in 

fiscal year 2007 was sufficient to procure only 60 AWIS of the 363 

required for the Army’s UH–60 MEDEVAC aircraft. 

The Air Warrior Generation 3 PSGC is a modular, integrated, 

rapidly reconfigurable combat aircrew ensemble that saves lives 

and maximizes Army aircrew member mission performance. The 

PSGC incorporates first aid, survival, signaling, and communications equipment with body armor, microclimate cooling, and an integrated extraction capability. 

The Generation 3 PSGC incorporates numerous system and safety improvements based upon combat lessons learned, including the 

Universal Camouflage pattern, and will result in a significant signature reduction for a downed aircrew member in a desert environment. 

The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in Aircraft 

Procurement, Army to procure non-encrypted AWIS for the remainmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

58 

ing 303 MEDEVAC aircraft, and $2.0 million to replace over 3,500 

previously-fielded Generation 1 PSGCs with the improved Generation 3, for a total $49.7 million. 

Patriot Advanced Capability–3 

The budget request included $472.9 million in Missile Procurement, Army (MPA) for procurement of 108 Patriot Advanced-Capability–3 (PAC–3) missiles. The committee recommends an increase 

of $75.0 million in MPA to procure an additional 25 PAC–3 missiles. 

The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff included in the 

Army’s fiscal year 2008 unfunded priorities list an initiative to upgrade three Patriot PAC–2 battalions to the most modern and capable PAC–3 configuration. This PAC–3 ‘‘Pure Fleet’’ initiative was 

the number three priority for the Army, for $452.2 million. This upgrade will increase significantly the capability of Patriot battalions 

to defend against longer-range and more complex missile threats 

currently facing forward-deployed U.S. forces, allies, and friends. 

Since the submission of the original budget request, the Army 

clarified its plans for funding the PAC–3 Pure Fleet initiative, and 

prepared a fiscal year 2007 reprogramming proposal for $212.0 million to begin the initiative. Additionally, it has budgeted $208.0 

million in its fiscal year 2008 ‘‘Grow the Army’’ budget plan to complete the initiative. Furthermore, the Grow the Army plan includes 

funding to add two additional PAC–3 battalions to the force structure to meet the requirements of regional combatant commanders. 

This plan, with the Pure Fleet initiative, would bring the Patriot 

force to a total of 15 PAC–3 battalions, which represents a significant increase in capability from today’s force. The committee supports this proposed funding for the PAC–3 system. 

The committee notes that the PAC–3 system is in high demand 

by regional combatant commanders, and that U.S. forces do not 

have a sufficient inventory of PAC–3 missiles to meet the requirements of U.S. military operational plans. The committee commends 

the Army for taking steps to fund the PAC–3 Pure Fleet initiative, 

and urges the Army to plan and budget for increased PAC–3 missile inventory in the future to meet the needs of regional combatant 

commands. 

Section 223 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) named the Patriot 

PAC–3 system as one of the effective, near-term missile defense 

systems that the Department of Defense shall make a missile defense priority. Patriot is the only combat-tested and combat-proven 

missile defense system in the U.S. arsenal. 

Stryker Vehicle 

The base budget request included $1.0 billion and the fiscal year 

2008 war-related budget request included $402.8 million in Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) for Stryker vehicles. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army identified additional funds for Stryker among his unfunded priorities for 

fiscal year 2008, including add-on armor, ballistic shields, remote 

weapons stations, medical evacuation vehicles, and additional 

Stryker vehicles for depot repair cycle floats. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

59 

The committee recommends an increase of $658.1 million in the 

base budget, and an increase of $117.0 million in the war-related 

budget to replace projected Stryker battle losses. 

Improved recovery vehicle 

The budget request included $36.8 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) for the M88A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift and Evacuation System (HERCULES). The HERCULES is the only single-recovery vehicle capable of performing recovery, evacuation, and limited repair of the 

Abrams tank. Without improvements incorporated in the M88A2 

HERCULES, units must use two recovery vehicles to perform the 

spectrum of recovery missions. The committee notes that the Chief 

of Staff of the Army identified additional funds for the HERCULES 

among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2008. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $24.9 million, a total of 

$61.7 million for the M88A2 HERCULES. 

System enhancement program: SEP M1A2 

The budget request included $52.9 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) to upgrade M1A2 Abrams tanks 

to the System Enhancement Package (SEP) configuration. The fiscal year 2007 main supplemental budget request included $325.0 

million for the same purpose. The committee understands that all 

of the remaining M1A2 Abrams tanks will be upgraded to the SEP 

configuration with the fiscal year 2007 funding. Therefore, the committee recommends no funding for upgrading M1A2 Abrams tanks 

to the SEP configuration in fiscal year 2008. 

M240 medium machine gun 

The base budget request included $37.1 million for the M240 medium machine gun and the fiscal year 2008 war-related request included $42.7 million for the same. The committee notes that the 

Chief of Staff of the Army identified additional funds for the M240 

among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2008. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $19.4 million in Weapons 

and Tracked Combat Vehicles, a total of $56.5 million for M240 

medium machine guns in the base budget. 

Arsenal support program initiative 

The budget request included no funding in Weapons and Tracked 

Combat Vehicles (WTCV) for the Arsenal Support Program Initiative (ASPI). 

The military arsenals serve a compelling national security need 

by providing rapid manufacturing capabilities for specialized and 

unique defense manufacturing requirements. The arsenals, however, suffer from underutilization which has affected overhead 

rates, making it increasingly difficult for them to compete with private industry and maintain a base of skilled workers. 

The ASPI was established in 2001 to address that problem. The 

program integrates commercial activity in the arsenals to reduce 

the Army’s cost of ownership and modernize the facilities, while 

maintaining their core competencies in support of national defense 

requirements. The program establishes broad economic goals, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

60 

maintains the viability of the Army manufacturing arsenals, and 

encourages the sharing of manufacturing facilities and unique capabilities on a ‘‘pay as you go’’ basis for non-governmental entities 

performing commercial work at Army manufacturing arsenals. The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the 

ASPI. 

Grenades 

The budget request included $13.9 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army for yellow and green smoke grenades. The committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million in PAA for the procurement of additional yellow and green smoke grenades. 

Ammunition outloading test bed 

The budget request included $11.8 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for ammunition-peculiar equipment, but did 

not include funds necessary to complete an automated ammunition 

outloading test bed. The test bed combines state of the art Gantry 

robotic equipment with conveyor systems allowing ammunition 

plant personnel to outload ammunition directly from trucks to shipping containers. The benefits of the automated outloading capability include increased capacity and increased personnel safety. 

The Army acknowledges that its current outloading capability is 

less than half that required to meet readiness goals. The committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PAA to complete an 

automated ammunition outloading test bed. 

Ammunition plant solvent recovery system 

The budget request included $143.7 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial facilities, 

but included no funds for a centralized solvent recovery system. 

The Army uses ether and alcohol as the primary solvents in the 

manufacture of propellants. A study last year indicated that 5 million pounds of solvents were used for production at one ammunition plant. Of that level, only 1.2 million pounds were recovered by 

the current system. The committee understands that a modern system will significantly increase the amount of solvent recovered, resulting in reduced environmental risks and lower costs of propellent production. The committee recommends an increase of $7.2 

million in PAA for an ammunition plant solvent recovery system. 

Acid containment and storage system 

The budget request included $143.7 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial facilities, 

but included no funds for the modernization and upgrade of acid 

containment and storage systems. The committee understands that 

a modern system will reduce maintenance costs and increase safety. The committee recommends an increase of $13.2 million in PAA 

for an ammunition plant acid storage and containment system. 

Single channel ground and airborne radio system family 

The base budget request included $137.1 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for single channel ground and airborne 

radio system (SINCGARS) hardware units. The fiscal year 2008 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

61 

war-related budget request included $1.4 billion in OPA for the 

SINCGARS hardware units. SINCGARS provides the primary 

means of command and control for combat, combat support, and 

combat service support units in the Army. 

From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2007, the Army received $2.0 

billion to acquire approximately 210,000 SINCGARS hardware 

units. In the fiscal year 2007 supplemental budget, the Army requested an additional $532.5 million for 31,425 hardware units. 

The combined fiscal year 2008 budget request would permit the 

Army to procure an additional approximately 107,000 units of 

SINCGARS radios. According to the Army, the combined budget request is intended to address modular force structure increases, the 

need to equip National Guard units, and support an effort to provide SINCGARS communications in all combat service and combat 

service support tactical wheeled vehicles. 

The SINCGARS program is currently in the third year of a 5– 

year base contract with 2 option years. The largest discount is 

available for orders of 10,000 or more hardware units. The Secretary of the Army recently directed the SINCGARS program office 

to determine if a new competition for SINCGARS radios is warranted, given the increased demand and requirement for radios. 

Given that the government owns the technical data package, additional discounts may be available if a second contractor can be established. Currently, the Army is conducting a market assessment 

to ascertain if there are any potential vendors interested in and capable of meeting the Army’s SINCGARS requirements. In the event 

that there will not be a new competition for SINCGARS, the Army 

could still seek additional quantity discounts through a renegotiation with the current contractor. 

It is the committee’s understanding that the Army plans to make 

a contract award in June 2008, to acquire the over 100,000 

SINCGARS hardware units. The SINCGARS units funded with fiscal year 2008 dollars are expected to be delivered beginning in May 

2009, and continue at a monthly delivery rate of 4,000 to 6,600 

units through October 2010. Based on the contractor’s production 

rates, the Government Accountability Office has determined that 

the Army does not need to acquire all of the radios it is requesting 

in the fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request given supplier 

lead times and delivery schedules. 

The committee is also reluctant to approve the Army’s full 

SINCGARS budget request in light of program uncertainties related to the Army’s requirements for SINCGARS radios. Currently, 

there are Army and Office of Secretary of Defense force structure 

and communications studies underway that may impact requirements for SINCGARS radios. Both studies are scheduled for completion in the summer of 2007. The committee expects these studies will address the Army’s acquisition of commercial off-the-shelf 

radios and the prospects for joint tactical radio systems future production and fielding. 

Therefore, the committee recommends transferring the $1.4 billion in title XV, OPA for SINCGARS family to title I, OPA for 

SINCGARS family. Further, the committee recommends a reduction of $375.0 million in OPA for SINCGARS hardware units. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

62 

Information systems 

The budget request included $156.2 million in Other Procurement, Army for information systems, a 700 percent increase over 

the amount requested in fiscal year 2007. According to Army budget justification materials, $81.4 million of the increase in the base 

budget is for Grow the Army initiative requirements at locations 

such as Forts Carson, Leonard Wood, and Lee. The Army again requested the same amount in its justification materials for Grow the 

Army, duplicating the request of $81.4 million for information systems. While the committee endorses the Army’s need to increase 

force structure, some of the requested funding to support the increase in troop strength is unjustified. The committee recommends 

a decrease of $81.4 million in information systems, leaving only the 

initial base budget request of $156.2 million. 

Installation information infrastructure modernization program 

The budget request included $217.3 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Installation Information Infrastructure 

Modernization program (I3MP). I3MP encompasses the modernization and upgrade of the telecommunications/information infrastructure on Army installations in the continental United States, Europe, and Pacific theaters, and the management of the Army Enterprise Systems. At the installation level, I3MP delivers a secure, 

interoperable network that is capable of passing large data packages at high speeds to a user’s desktop. The committee notes that 

high bandwidth connectivity provides military users with enhanced 

capabilities for data, voice, and video communications. These capabilities enable military organizations to better support deployed 

forces and other Department of Defense activities. The committee 

recommends an additional $1.7 million for hardware enhancements 

to the Defense Information System Network, especially to increase 

network geographic diversity and alternative data pathways. 

Explosive ordnance disposal equipment 

The budget request included $33.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) equipment. Explosive ordnance disposal personnel are in constant contact with 

the most dangerous threats to coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need adequate equipment for operations and training. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army identified 

additional funds for EOD equipment among his unfunded priorities 

for fiscal year 2008. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in OPA for EOD equipment. 

Land warrior 

Many analysts believe that the most prevalent threats the Nation will confront over the next 2 decades will be similar to those 

it currently faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee understands that the Army must be organized, trained, and equipped to 

respond to all threats at any level on the spectrum of conflict. However, the most likely missions the Army will be called upon to conduct will be counterinsurgency and stability and support operations. These missions are infantry-intensive. The Army itself has 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

63 

recognized this and has increased the number of infantry in the 

modular brigade combat teams (BCTs), and plans to do the same 

in the Future Combat Systems BCTs. 

Given that the Army will depend more on infantry, not less, the 

committee is troubled that the Army has not requested funding for 

procurement of the Land Warrior system after 10 years of development at a cost of $2.0 billion. The committee has no clear understanding as to how the Army intends to take advantage of the technologies already developed and ready to field that will give the infantry advantages it needs on the battlefield today. 

Land Warrior, under its latest configuration, gives the infantry 

small unit leaders a suite of capabilities that enhance situational 

awareness and command and control. It includes an advanced combat helmet with an optical display attachment, a modified M–4 

rifle, digital imaging equipment, a 12–hour lithium-ion battery, a 

voice and data radio, a Global Positioning System, a computer subsystem, a multifunction laser, and a control card for identity management. 

The committee is aware that over the years Land Warrior suffered not only from management, cost, performance, and schedule 

problems, but also with requirements growth and the challenges 

associated with so many information technology and softwarebased systems. However, the Department of Defense Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) recently assessed Land 

Warrior during tests with the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry, a 

Stryker unit preparing to deploy to Iraq. The Director, in a carefully worded report to this committee, determined that the system 

was ‘‘on track’’ to be operationally effective and suitable, even 

though it has not completed its Initial Operational Test. 

Although Land Warrior still has two technological issues to address, the committee understands that DOT&E has indicated that 

the system’s test items could deploy with the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry, that the battalion is eager to take the system to Iraq, and 

that the Army has approved the plan. 

The committee notes that funding to support Land Warrior items 

of equipment in Iraq was originally on the Chief of Staff of the 

Army’s unfunded requirements list, but understands that the Army 

has now identified sources of funding for that purpose. 

The committee also understands that the Army intends to take 

the Land Warrior program to a Milestone C acquisition decision to 

begin low rate initial production (LRIP), but does not intend to actually fund LRIP. 

The committee believes that such a decision may be short-sighted, especially in light of the Army’s recognition of the centrality of 

the infantryman to the likely missions the Army will face over the 

next decades. The committee urges the Army to review its decision 

to terminate the Land Warrior program. Accordingly, the committee recommends an addition of $30.4 million in PE 64827A, and 

$49.5 million in Other Procurement, Army, to continue development of the Land Warrior program, and to procure LRIP items of 

equipment to field to the remaining two battalions of the Stryker 

brigade combat team currently equipped with Land Warrior. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

64 

Recon and navigation system 

The budget request included $2.3 billion in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for other support equipment, but included no funds for 

the Recon and Navigation System (RNAV). This navigation system 

supports the mission requirements of Army special operations divers. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in 

Other Procurement, Army for RNAV. 

Army combat training centers 

The budget request included $16.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) to support improvements at the Army’s premier training ranges: the National Training Center (NTC), the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), and the Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC). The committee notes that the Army’s force 

generation and rotation training strategies have strained the time 

available for units to conduct their normal mission rehearsal exercises at either the NTC, JRTC, or JMRC. 

The Army currently plans to invest modestly over the next 3 years and up to $176.7 million through the future-years defense 

plan to upgrade and modernize the combat training centers. The 

committee is concerned that this investment profile is inadequate 

to meet the mid-term demands of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Army’s plans to increase its end strength. The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army identified additional funds for the combat training centers among his unfunded 

priorities for fiscal year 2008. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $102.4 million in OPA for the combat 

training centers. 

Urban training technologies 

The budget request included $94.9 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for training range instrumentation and modernization. 

The committee notes that the Army’s readiness and rotation training strategies call for units to accomplish more of their mission 

training and rehearsals at their local training areas and facilities. 

The Army is using several technologies to increase the flexibility 

and value of local training ranges and facilities including the 

Deployable Range Package, the Homestation Instrumentation System, and the Integrated Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain 

Training System. The committee recommends an increase of $24.8 

million in OPA to accelerate the procurement of these training systems and for the instrumentation of a regional urban operations 

training center. 

The committee understands that the Army’s Force Generation 

model (ARFORGEN) depends heavily on increasing the readiness 

of reserve units prior to mobilization. To accomplish this, in part, 

the Army plans to consolidate equipment at regional training facilities where units rotate through weapons and maneuver qualification then return to their home stations. 

The committee is concerned that the Army has not developed a 

comprehensive modernization plan for local and regional training 

installations, such as Camp Atterbury, Fort Pickett, Camp 

Blanding, Camp Shelby, Fort McCoy, and many others necessary 

to support its reserve component ARFORGEN concept. The commmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

65 

mittee directs the Army to provide the defense committees with its 

regional training facilities modernization plan—including identification of installations, projected training demand, facilities modernization requirements, priorities, costs, and schedules, by January 31, 2008. 

Laser collective combat training system 

The budget request included $201.4 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) but did not include funds for the Laser Collective Combat Training System (LCCATS). This is a laser-based 

marksmanship training system currently in use by National Guard 

units for urban operations, reflexive fire training, close quarters 

marksmanship, and small unit maneuver drills. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the laser collective combat training system for the procurement and fielding of 250 additional systems. 

Call for fire trainer 

The budget request included $4.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the Call For Fire Trainer (CFFT), but included no 

funds for the conclusion of the Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System (JFETS) demonstration project. JFETS is a next generation, 

virtual reality call for fire training simulation. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA to complete this demonstration project. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

66 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 99 here 35737.038
67 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 100 here 35737.039
68 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 101 here 35737.040
69 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 102 here 35737.041
70 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 103 here 35737.042
71 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 104 here 35737.043
72 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 105 here 35737.044
73 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 106 here 35737.045
74 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 107 here 35737.046
75 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 108 here 35737.047
76 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 109 here 35737.048
77 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 110 here 35737.049
78 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 111 here 35737.050
79 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 112 here 35737.051
80 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 113 here 35737.052
81 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 114 here 35737.053
82 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 115 here 35737.054
83 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 116 here 35737.055
84 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 117 here 35737.056
85 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 118 here 35737.057
86 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 119 here 35737.058
87 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 120 here 35737.059
88 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 121 here 35737.060
89 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 122 here 35737.061
90 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 123 here 35737.062
91 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 124 here 35737.063
92 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 125 here 35737.064
93 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphics folio 126 here 35737.065
94 

Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class submarine program (sec. 131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear contract to purchase Virginia class submarines, subject to the Secretary’s providing a certification that all of the criteria in section 2306b of title 

10, United States Code, have been met. 

Navy officials have said that contracting for the next set of Virginia class submarines under a multiyear contract would allow the 

Federal Government to achieve roughly 13 percent savings when 

compared to acquiring the same submarines using annual contracts. 

Budget Items—Navy 

H–46 modifications 

The budget request included $22.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN, line 29) for modifications of H–46 helicopters, 

but included no funding to upgrade H–46 communications equipment. The H–46 helicopter was initially designed for a service life 

of 10,000 hours, but that life has been extended twice, and is now 

expected to reach more than 15,000 hours before the MV–22 will 

replace all of them. Extending this venerable platform has caused 

the Marine Corps to experience critical obsolescence and 

sustainment issues. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 

million for the procurement of H–46 communications upgrades. 

H–53 modifications 

The budget request included $48.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN, line 31) for modifications of H–53 helicopters, of 

which $2.3 million is for the Integrated Mechanical Diagnostics 

Health and Usage Management System (IMDS). Since 2001, the 

Marines have been equipping the fleet of H–53 helicopters with the 

IMDS, and have procured kits for nearly half of the fleet of 148 helicopters. The systems flying have already provided a significant improvement in aircraft readiness rates and ability to maintain the 

aircraft to support high tempo operations, while simultaneously improving the accuracy of the fleet health and material status reporting. The committee recommends an increase of $2.9 million for the 

procurement of additional IMDS systems. 

P–3 modifications 

The budget request included $262.6 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN, line 35) for modifications of P–3 aircraft, but included no funding for the procurement of integrated tactical picture 

(ITP) systems until fiscal year 2009. The P–3 aircraft is the workhorse of the U.S. Navy, providing a wide array of missions from 

conducting anti-submarine warfare to identifying and validating 

targets on the ground or on the ocean’s surface, to participating in 

humanitarian relief operations. The P–3 aircraft host a wide variety of sensors, from video to radars, to antennas and communications, but lack the ability to fuse these inputs into one complete 

tactical picture. Because of this need, the Navy developed an ITP 

system (the automatic fusion of data), but deferred procurement 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

95 

funding for ITP until the fiscal year 2009 budget. The committee 

recommends an increase of $8.9 million for the procurement of ITP 

systems for P–3 aircraft. 

Weapons industrial facilities 

The budget request included $3.7 million for various activities at 

government-owned, contractor-operated weapons industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to accelerate the facilities restoration program at the Allegany Ballistics 

Laboratory. 

Ship Self Defense System for carrier replacement program 

The budget request included $2,879.2 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN, line 1) for the Carrier Replacement program. Within the budget for the CVN–78, the committee notes that 

the unit cost for the Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) is 150 percent greater than the similar system procured for the fiscal year 

2007 amphibious assault ship, LHA(R). The committee has placed 

significant emphasis on the importance of the Navy’s managing 

shipbuilding costs in other sections of this report on costs from the 

shipbuilding prime contractors. Given the high proportion of ship 

costs that accrue from sources other than the prime contractors, 

the committee believes that it is equally important for the Navy to 

manage the cost for Government-furnished equipment. The committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million in SCN 

for the SSDS for CVN–78. 

Virginia class submarine advance procurement 

The budget request included $702.7 million for advance procurement for the Virginia class submarine program. However, the 

budget request included no funding for economic order quantity 

(EOQ) procurement of long lead material in conjunction with the 

fiscal year 2009 multiyear procurement request. The Navy has reported that roughly 13 percent savings will be achieved through 

the multiyear procurement for the seven Virginia class submarines 

programmed in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Further, as reported by the Navy and testified by the Chief of Naval Operations 

and Secretary of the Navy to the Subcommittee on Seapower, additional advance procurement for economic order quantity purchases 

of long lead material would increase multiyear savings, help stabilize the Nation’s critical submarine industrial base, provide greater opportunity to achieve program schedule reductions, and provide 

for an efficient transition to build two submarines per year. The 

Navy estimates that approximately 14 percent savings can be 

achieved on an additional $470.0 million investment in advance 

procurement. 

The Navy has identified the requirement for a fleet of 313 ships, 

including 48 attack submarines. However, the Navy projects that 

attack submarine levels will fall as low as 40 boats, and remain 

below the 48-boat requirement for more than a decade. 

The Navy is now claiming that it will be able to mitigate this 

shortage in forces using three techniques: 

(1) building the new Virginia class submarines faster by reducing the time between the start of construction to delivery 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

96 

from the current level of 86 months for the last boat to deliver 

to a level of 60 months; 

(2) extending the life of some boats currently in the fleet 

from 3 to 24 months; and 

(3) increasing the length of deployments. 

By using a combination of these measures, the Navy claims that 

it will be able to maintain no fewer than 42 boats in the force and 

will be able to maintain the current level of commitments to the 

combatant commanders (roughly 10 boats continuously on deployment). 

The committee commends the Navy for exploring alternatives for 

maintaining the current levels of commitment to the combatant 

commanders. However, these potential actions are not without 

some risk. 

Reducing the construction start-to-delivery time would certainly 

speed the arrival of new construction boats in the fleet. However, 

the committee understands that on the whole SSN–688 class consisting of 62 boats, the contractors were only able to deliver three 

boats with a start-to-delivery interval of 60 months or less. The 

maximum building time was 86 months and the average for all 62 

boats was 72 months. 

In addition, extending the length of deployments would help 

produce more deployed days for meeting requirements, but the 

committee wonders about the price that this could exact. The 

Navy’s previous attempts to extend times on deployment (and reduce the amount of time spent at home) have resulted in retention 

problems. In fact, submarine sailors already spend much more time 

deployed on average than the rest of the Navy. 

But even if one assumes that these measures are successful, current deployments are not sufficient to meet all of the priority national requirements and less than 60 percent of the combatant 

commanders’ overall requirements. 

The committee believes that it is essential for the Navy to increase attack submarine production rates as soon as practicable in 

order to minimize the risk to our national security posture posed 

by the long-term shortfall to the attack submarine force. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of $470.0 million for Virginia class advance procurement, which would support building 

two submarines in fiscal year 2010. 

DDG–51 program completion costs 

The budget request included $78.1 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN, line 13) for DDG–51 program completion 

and production shutdown costs. This request is in addition to approximately $500 million that has been previously appropriated for 

these activities. The committee understands the necessity to properly fund these activities in order to support the efficient and effective delivery of remaining ships in the program, and to transition 

special tooling and program material for in-service support. The 

committee notes that the full scope of the program closeout effort 

continues to be defined as shipbuilders and vendors plan to transition from DDG–51 production to DDG–1000 production. Previous 

appropriations provide sufficient funding to support program completion activities through fiscal year 2008, while the Navy commmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

97 

pletes its determination of the scope of requirements for closing out 

the DDG–51 program. The committee expects the Navy to refine 

estimates for program completion based on the ongoing determination of requirements, and to include remaining funding requirements in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in SCN 

for DDG–51 program completion. 

Littoral combat ship 

The budget request included $910.5 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN, line 15) for the construction of three Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The Navy intends this to be a relatively 

smaller, more affordable vessel that carries modular payloads. The 

Navy concept is that, on one day, an LCS might be configured to 

operate as an anti-submarine vessel. However, as a mission needs 

to change, it could rapidly change the whole mission payload, within a day or so, and operate in an anti-surface warfare or mine warfare mode. 

Each of the two prime contractor teams had contracts to build 

two ships. The prime contractors have teamed with smaller shipyards in both cases in order to keep LCS costs lower than would 

be possible in one of the major yards that normally build Navy 

ships. 

The first ship (LCS–1) was scheduled to deliver in late 2006. The 

Navy is now estimating that the first ship will deliver sometime in 

the middle of 2008. The LCS–1 contractor team had barely started 

on their second ship (LCS–3) when the program ran into major cost 

problems earlier this year. The Navy then issued a stop work order 

on LCS–3 in order to reduce expenditures and limit further cost exposure on the program while it separately re-evaluated program 

cost estimates. 

The Navy entered into negotiations with the LCS–1 team to sign 

up to a fixed price contract on the two ships or face outright cancellation on the second ship. These negotiations occurred during 

this past spring. When the stop work order was nearly ready to expire, the Navy announced that it and the LCS–1 contractor team 

were unable to reach an agreement and that the Navy was terminating the contract for LCS–3 for the convenience of the Government. It is too early to precisely estimate the termination costs, but 

the Navy has reported that significant funds for LCS–3 are on hold 

pending completion of the termination negotiations. 

The second contractor team has a contract to build two LCS vessels of another design (LCS–2 and LCS–4). The Navy awarded this 

contract later, so LCS–2 is roughly 1 year behind the LCS–1. Unfortunately, it appears that this team is experiencing similar cost 

problems. The Navy has not issued the same ultimatum to this 

contractor team, but has claimed that the Navy will do so if the 

cost of LCS–2 continues to grow toward the Navy’s estimate. Meanwhile, the Navy is proceeding with the start of construction on 

LCS–4, although it is not clear that the root causes for early cost 

growth on LCS–2 have been addressed. 

The committee is disappointed that the cost of the lead ship has 

more than doubled and the delivery schedule has slipped several 

times. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

98 

The committee commends the Secretary of the Navy for exercising oversight and for trying to bring cost and schedule discipline 

to this troubled program. The committee is also interested in supporting the Secretary’s efforts to improve the Navy’s acquisition 

process. Reviewing this LCS situation will undoubtedly result in a 

new set of ‘‘lessons learned’’ that the acquisition community will 

dutifully try to implement. However, the committee has previously 

expressed concerns about the LCS concept and the LCS acquisition 

strategy. The LCS situation may be more a case of ‘‘lessons lost.’’ 

Long ago, we knew that we should not rush to sign a construction 

contract before we have solidified requirements. We also knew that 

the contractors will respond to incentives, and that if the incentives 

are focused on maintaining schedules and not on controlling cost, 

cost growth on a cost-plus contract should surprise no one. After 

the fact, everyone appears ready to agree that the original ship 

construction schedule for the lead ship was overly aggressive. 

The Navy has said that the capability that this vessel will bring 

to the fleet is of the utmost urgency for responding to asymmetric 

threats. The committee believes that if the Navy really believed 

that the threat were that urgent, it might have taken more nearterm steps to address it. For example, the Navy might not have 

cancelled the remote minehunting system (RMS) capability on a 

number of the DDG–51 class destroyers, ships that will be available to the combatant commanders much sooner than LCS. The 

Navy might also have taken this modular capability slated for the 

LCS and packaged those modules to deploy sooner on ships of opportunity. Rather, the Navy is waiting on a shipbuilding program 

to deliver that capability (in a useful quantity) at some future date. 

The Navy now proposes to use the funds requested in fiscal year 

2008 to award contracts for two LCS vessels, rather than the three 

originally envisioned. Given the uncertainty about what is happening with the earlier ships in the program and uncertainties 

about the options for an acquisition strategy that will remain available to the Navy next year, the Navy does not intend to award 

these two contracts until late in fiscal year 2008. 

In summary: 

(1) a high degree of cost uncertainty will continue to overshadow the LCS program until the two lead ships execute test 

and trials, starting late in 2007. 

(2) the Navy’s current estimate is that the approximately 

$1.6 billion appropriated for the first six ships will be required 

to complete the three ships currently under contract, with significant additional funding being held for termination of a 

fourth ship. 

(3) if the Navy’s estimates are correct, or low, then the Navy 

will be engaging in fixed price negotiations with the second 

prime contractor for LCS–2 and LCS–4 late in 2007, with the 

distinct possibility that LCS–4 would be terminated. 

(4) if the Navy’s estimates are high, then sufficient funding 

from within previous appropriations should be available for a 

newly procured LCS. 

(5) the Navy has yet to formulate its acquisition strategy for 

the LCS program, however, the challenges inherent to fair 

competition between two dissimilar ship designs have become 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

99 

significantly more complex in light of the recent termination of 

LCS–3 (or potential termination of LCS–4). 

(6) the Navy has announced a delay for conducting a program downselect decision until 2010, at which time it also 

plans to revise the LCS combat system, which raises concerns 

regarding the infrastructure and life cycle support costs for the 

three or four ships of the LCS variant not selected for ‘‘full rate 

production.’’ 

(7) program delays have pushed the next notional contract 

award until late in fiscal year 2008. 

(8) termination negotiations for LCS–3 will likely be proceeding at the same time the prime contractor is being solicited 

for a proposal to build another LCS ship, in which case the material procured for LCS–3 would likely revert back to the contractor for this new procurement. The net effect is that the current LCS–3 obligations that are fenced for termination costs 

would sufficiently cover the contractor’s fiscal year 2008 obligations for a newly procured LCS. The committee recommends $480.0 million for LCS in fiscal year 2008, a decrease of $430.5 million. We cannot relive the early days 

of the LCS program and remember ‘‘lessons learned,’’ but we have 

the opportunity to take positive steps now to right the program. 

Before awarding contracts for additional ships in the LCS program, 

we need to maintain focus on delivering the most capability possible for the $1.6 billion invested thus far for six ships. This would 

require that we impose accountability for the quality of program estimates; halt further changes to program requirements; and ensure 

that the contracts provide effective incentives for cost performance. 

The Secretary of the Navy has advised the committee that the 

Navy’s estimates appear to be quite conservative based on contractor performance over the past quarter, as measured against recently revised baselines. Although further risk is acknowledged, 

the Navy has expressed confidence that the program will be able 

to improve on the Navy’s worst case estimates and avoid further 

termination action. If the Navy and industry are successful in managing costs going forward, this should allow four ships to be delivered within previously appropriated funds. 

The committee notes that the LCS–1 contractor was awarded a 

lead ship contract that targeted a significantly lower price and a 

significantly more aggressive schedule for starting construction. 

The risks inherent in this aggressive schedule were exacerbated by 

changes to Navy requirements. These factors may have contributed 

to the decision to terminate LCS–3—an outcome referred to as 

‘‘winner-loses.’’ The resultant imbalance between the two competing 

shipbuilders jeopardizes the Navy’s ultimate goal for a competitive 

downselect in 2010, followed by full and open competition for the 

winning LCS variant. 

Therefore, the committee directs that funds authorized for a fiscal year 2008 LCS ship may only be used when combined with LCS 

SCN funds appropriated in prior years, to solicit, on a competitive 

basis, bids for two fixed price LCS ship construction contracts, one 

for each of the two competing LCS variants. The Secretary of the 

Navy may waive this requirement only if: he determines that there 

is only one acceptable LCS variant, based on completion of acceptmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

100 

ance trials on the two LCS variants; and he notifies the congressional defense committees 30 days before releasing a solicitation 

based on that waiver determination. 

The committee believes that the history of the LCS acquisition 

strategy has been one of documenting decisions, rather than guiding and informing decisions. Therefore, the Secretary of Defense is 

directed to submit a report on the approved acquisition strategy for 

the LCS program at least 90 days prior to issuing any solicitation 

or requests for proposal, but no later than December 1, 2008. 

Outfitting and post-delivery 

The budget request included $419.8 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN, line 23) for outfitting and post-delivery 

funding. Outfitting and post-delivery is a centrally-managed account for all ship programs funded in the SCN account. Outfitting 

and post-delivery requests are made annually based on projected 

vessel delivery schedules. The Navy has requested funding in the 

fiscal year 2008 budget request for post-delivery purposes in advance of execution requirements because ship delivery schedules 

across multiple programs have been delayed. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $40.0 million in SCN 

for outfitting and post-delivery. 

LCS modules 

The budget request included $80.3 million for assembling and 

outfitting Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) mission modules. The Navy 

intends the LCS to be a relatively smaller vessel that carries modular payloads. The Navy concept is that, using these mission modules, an LCS might be configured to operate as an anti-submarine 

vessel on one day. On the next day, the Navy might change the 

whole mission payload and operate the LCS in an anti-surface warfare mode. 

As described elsewhere in this report, the LCS program has run 

into serious problems. The committee sees no particular reason to 

acquire mission modules at the pace planned by the Navy, since 

there have been significant delays in the ship program. The committee recommends a decrease of $65.0 million for LCS modules. 

SPQ–9B radar 

The budget request included $14.5 million for procurement of 

SPQ–9B radar equipment. The SPQ–9B radar provides surface 

ships with a gunfire control radar that also enhances ship selfdefense capabilities. The Navy plans to buy another SPQ–9B in fiscal year 2010. The committee believes that the Navy could achieve 

more efficient production by combining the procurement of the two 

buys. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 

million to procure an additional SPQ–9B radar. 

Sonobuoys 

The budget request included $67.4 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN, line 88) for sonobuoy procurement. The Navy’s current 

sonobuoy inventory and planned procurement for fiscal year 2008 

fall short of the Navy’s Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirement 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

101 

(NNOR), which was established to support the National Military 

Strategy plus annual training requirements. 

Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) continues to be a core mission of 

the United States Navy. Our naval force could face modern, highly 

capable submarines operating in littoral waters where acoustic conditions are poor and sonobuoy expenditures could greatly exceed 

projections. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for sonobuoy procurement to improve training and readiness. 

Weapons range support equipment 

The budget request included $58.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN, line 89) for the procurement of equipment to implement the Navy fleet training range instrumentation training plan, 

but included no funding for the continued procurement of the 

multi-spectral threat emitter system (MTES). 

The proliferation of lethal surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft 

artillery presents a clear threat to the warfighter. Threat emitters 

replicate the electronic signatures of these threats on training 

ranges. Additional funding would permit the Navy to expand usage 

of MTES capabilities to other fleet training ranges. The committee 

recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the procurement of two 

MTES. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system 

The budget request included $42.4 million for anti-ship missile decoy systems, including $25.5 million for procuring 55 new 

NULKA decoys. Procuring additional NULKA decoys would ensure 

that fleet installations remain on a reasonable schedule, would 

keep production rates above the minimum sustaining level, and 

would achieve more reasonable unit production costs. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for the NULKA procurement program to purchase additional decoys. 

Submarine training device modifications 

The budget request included $32.1 million to procure submarine 

training device modifications. The Navy has critical training requirements to support submarines in the fleet and has been using 

performance support systems (PSS) that would enhance training 

quality opportunities. The committee understands that the Navy 

could expand the development of the oxygen generator and air purification PSS capabilities to be used to support onboard qualifications, operation, and maintenance activities for the submarines. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

to expand the use of performance support systems in conducting 

submarine training. 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

102 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 137 35737.066
103 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 138 35737.067
104 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 139 35737.068
105 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 140 35737.069
106 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 141 35737.070
107 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 142 35737.071
108 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 143 35737.072
109 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 144 35737.073
110 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 145 35737.074
111 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 146 35737.075
112 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 147 35737.076
113 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 148 35737.077
114 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 149 35737.078
115 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 150 35737.079
116 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 151 35737.080
117 

Limitation on retirement of C–130E/H tactical airlift aircraft 

(sec. 141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of the Air Force from retiring any C–130E/H tactical airlift aircraft in fiscal year 2008. 

The committee believes it would be premature to retire C–130 

aircraft until an Air Force Fleet Viability Board has conducted an 

assessment of the C–130E/H fleet of aircraft and the results of the 

Intra-theater Lift Capability Study (ITLCS) and the Force Mix 

Study identify the right mix and number of intra-theater airlift assets, and the results of the assessment and the ITLCS and Force 

Mix studies have been provided to the congressional defense committees. 

Limitation on retirement of KC–135E aerial refueling aircraft (sec. 142) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of the Air Force from retiring any KC–135E aircraft during fiscal year 2008 unless the Air Force provides the congressional 

defense committees with a request to retire KC–135E aircraft during fiscal year 2008 in accordance with established procedures 

similar to those used for prior approval reprogramming requests. 

The Air Force’s number one acquisition priority is to replace its 

aged KC–135E fleet of aircraft with a new tanker, the KC–X. Two 

contractor teams have submitted offers responding to the KC–X request for proposals. The Air Force is currently reviewing those offers. 

The committee notes that multiple studies have been conducted, 

both by the Air Force and independent groups, on service life and 

viability of the KC–135 fleet. These include: (1) ‘‘Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC–135 Assessment Report,’’ September 2005; (2) 

‘‘Defense Science Board Task Force Report on Aerial Refueling Requirements,’’ May 2004; (3) ‘‘The Tanker Requirement Study 2005’’; 

(4) ‘‘KC–135 Economic Service Life Study (ESLS)’’; and (5) ‘‘CNA 

Summary Analysis of the Material Condition of the KC–135 Aerial 

Refueling Fleet,’’ August 2004. 

The committee remains concerned, however, that as recommended in the ‘‘Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC–135 Assessment Report,’’ the Air Force has still not done destructive testing 

on a KC–135E aircraft. In addition, the Air Force has a history of 

retiring aircraft before fielding a replacement, creating its own 

shortfall in capabilities. The committee expects that the retirement 

of KC–135E aircraft should be informed by the progress made on 

the KC–X acquisition strategy and the outcome of the destructive 

testing. 

Budget Items—Air Force 

B–2 bomber 

The budget request included $316.1 million for Aircraft Procure- ment, Air Force (APAF), for the B–2 bomber, of which $270.6 million was for radar modernization. The budget request also included 

$244.0 million for the B–2 bomber in PE 64240F. The fiscal year 

2008 budget requested $45.8 million in war-related funding for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

118 

APAF line 23 for the B–2, of which an additional $10.0 million was 

for B–2 radar modernization. The radar modernization program 

has experienced a number of problems and is in the process of 

being restructured. To address the requirements of the restructured program the committee recommends a decrease of $38.0 million in APAF and an increase of $38.0 million in PE 64240F for the 

restructured B–2 bomber radar modernization program. The committee recommends a further decrease of $10.0 million in APAF 

line 23 due to the delay in the radar program and an additional 

$14.1 million reduction in the fiscal year 2008 budget request for 

war-related funding, which is excess to the restructured program. 

B–52 bomber aircraft 

The budget request included $18.1 million for the B–52 bomber 

in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) line 25 for aircraft modernization, but no funds for the electronic countermeasure improvement (ECMI) program and avionics midlife improvement (AMI) 

program. The committee recommends an additional $19.0 million to 

ensure that AMI and ECMI capabilities are available for all 76 B– 

52 bomber aircraft. The committee urges the Air Force to include 

full funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget request to support 76 

modernized bomber aircraft with 44 combat coded aircraft. 

Large aircraft infrared countermeasures system 

The budget request included $73.7 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 47) for procurement of aircraft installation kits for the large aircraft infrared countermeasures 

(LAIRCM) system for various C–130 aircraft. The LAIRCM system 

provides protection against man-portable air defense systems 

(MANPADS) which are widely available and have been used by terrorists in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom against 

both military and commercial aircraft. Additional funding for 

LAIRCM, including funding for nonrecurring engineering and kit 

production for Special Operations Command (SOCOM) AC–130 and 

MC–130 aircraft, is included on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s 

unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an increase of 

$14.0 million to accelerate LAIRCM upgrades for the SOCOM C– 

130 aircraft. 

C–135 global air traffic management 

The budget request included $118.6 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 49) for modifications to the C–135 and 

KC–135 aircraft, including $103.3 million for the procurement of 

Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) modifications. The GATM 

modification includes avionics upgrades, wiring interfaces, and associated preparation activities for added communications, navigation, and surveillance equipment needed for operations in oceanic 

airspace where there are reduced spacing requirements between 

aircraft. To accelerate this program, the committee recommends an 

increase of $9.0 million for procurement of additional KC–135 

GATM modifications. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

119 

Advanced targeting pod 

The budget request included $683.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 78) for miscellaneous production 

charges, including $105.4 million for the procurement of advanced 

targeting pods (ATPs). Advanced targeting pods provide targeting 

capability for use with precision guided munitions on fighter, bomber, and attack aircraft. The LITENING ATP is currently in use by 

both the active and reserve components of the Air Force. The Air 

Force Chief of Staff included $22.0 million for additional ATPs in 

his unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an increase of $49.5 million for the procurement of 33 additional 

LITENING ATPs. 

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile 

The budget request included $201.1 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF, line 2) for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). The committee notes that the JASSM program 

has recently suffered a series of four unsuccessful flight tests, covering the first four production lots. In addition, the Air Force notified Congress in April that the JASSM program had suffered a 

Nunn-McCurdy breach due to cost growth. Press reports quote the 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition as saying the 

program is currently under review and termination is one possible 

course of action. 

The committee recognizes that JASSM was designed to meet a 

needed capability. However, increasing production from 163 missiles in fiscal year 2007 to 210 missiles in fiscal year 2008 appears 

unwarranted given the program’s current difficulties. The committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in 

MPAF for the JASSM. 

Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite 

The budget request included $0.7 million in Missile Procurement, 

Air Force for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite. The committee recommends an increase of $125.0 million for 

advanced procurement for the fourth AEHF satellite. 

The AEHF is a satellite that provides secure, survivable antijam, anti-scintillation communications for tactical and strategic 

users. It will provide low, medium, and high data rate capability 

to all military services and defense agencies. It is the successor satellite system to the Milstar system, but provides 10 times more capacity. The first AEHF launch is on schedule for the third quarter 

of fiscal year 2008, with follow launches in 2009 and 2010. 

In 2002, the Air Force decided that new technology, particularly 

laser communications, would provide greater communications capability and established the Transformational Satellite Communications system (TSAT) as a successor to AEHF. Originally the first 

TSAT was going to replace the fourth AEHF satellite and launch 

in 2012. As a result of schedule, technical, and other issues the 

TSAT program has been delayed with a first launch now scheduled 

for the first quarter of fiscal year 2016. The fourth AEHF was to 

have launched in 2011. 

With the slip in TSAT there is a gap in projected communications capability that is worrisome. General Cartwright, Commmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

120 

mander of United States Strategic Command testified before the 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that ‘‘the constellation of satellites is critical to us. We cannot afford a gap in that capability.’’ 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended a 

fourth AEHF as a way to mitigate the risk of the communications 

gap. 

The committee notes that in the AEHF program, as in several 

other space modernization programs, early termination of one program in favor of a new, technically complex replacement program 

could increase the risk that gaps in capability might arise when 

there are delays in the new program. While the committee fully 

supports the TSAT program and the significant improvements in 

capabilities that it provides, including communications on the 

move, the committee believes that it is prudent to procure a fourth 

AEHF to mitigate the risk of subsequent delays in TSAT, which 

would result in increasingly significant communications gaps. 

The committee also directs the Air Force to fund TSAT fully to 

minimize any further gaps resulting from future TSAT program 

delays. Delays will surely occur for a variety of reasons that are 

unknown at this time and the Air Force should avoid deliberate 

programmatic delays. The committee is not aware of any satellite 

program that launched on the schedule and budget in place 8 years 

prior to the first launch. 

Joint threat emitter 

The budget request included $9.5 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF, line 28) for the joint threat emitter (JTE) program. This Air Force program provides a state-of-the-art surfaceto-air missile (SAM) threat simulation incorporating commercial 

technology into a modular architecture to maximize diverse capabilities and configurations for joint aircrew training. A transportable, single reprogrammable unit provides multiple (up to three) 

threat presentations, realistic aircraft tracking simulation, and 

video feedback debrief functions. JTE is designed to reduce range 

operations and maintenance requirements up to 80 percent as compared to previous systems. The committee recommends an increase 

of $8.0 million for JTE procurement to allow the Air Force to deploy JTE systems at additional training sites. 

Space-Based Infrared Satellite system mission control station backup 

The budget request included $4.0 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF) line 36 for Space-Based Infrared Satellite 

(SBIRS) system ground control mobile and fixed site communications and electronics upgrades. The committee recommends an additional $27.6 million for the SBIRS backup mission control ground 

station. This additional funding is needed to provide the backup 

ground station with capabilities compatible with both the legacy 

missile warning satellites and both SBIRS elements. This item is 

listed on the Air Force Space Command unfunded priority list. 

Self-deploying infrared streamer 

The budget request included no funding in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF) for personal safety and rescue equipment items 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

121 

less than $5.0 million. The self-deploying infrared streamer 

(SDIRS) system aids in the rescue of downed aircrew at sea. The 

SDIRS system is attached to an ejection seat and automatically deploys and activates upon submergence in the water, making the 

wearer highly visible to search and rescue teams using the naked 

eye during daylight and night vision equipment during hours of 

darkness. The SDIRS installation requires only minimal modification to the existing system without affecting other components of 

the pilot’s survival kit. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for procurement of the self-deploying infrared streamer. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

122 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 158 35737.081
123 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 159 35737.082
124 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 160 35737.083
125 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 161 35737.084
126 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 162 35737.085
127 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 163 35737.086
128 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 164 35737.087
129 

Budget Items—Defense-wide 

Defense Information Systems Network enhancement 

The budget request included $48.9 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), line 18 for Defense Information System Network 

related procurement. The committee notes that high bandwidth 

connectivity provides military users with enhanced capabilities for 

data, voice, and video communications. These capabilities enable 

military organizations to better support deployed forces and other 

Department of Defense activities. The committee recommends an 

additional $14.0 million for enhancements to the Defense Information System Network, especially to increase network geographic diversity and alternative data pathways. 

CV–22 procurement 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $238.6 million in 

Procurement Defense-wide (PDW) for Special Operations Command 

aviation programs for the CV–22 Special Operations Forces modifications. The Navy has been slow to obligate funds for the aircraft. 

Therefore, $8.7 million will not be required in fiscal year 2008 to 

fund procurement for the modifications. The committee recommends a decrease of $8.7 million in PDW 

for Special Operations Command aviation programs for the CV–22 

Special Operations Forces modifications. 

M291 skin decontamination kit 

The budget request included $28.6 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological decontamination 

equipment, of which $13.0 million is to procure M291 Skin Decontamination Kits (SDK) for high threat areas. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million in PDW to procure additional 

M291 SDKs. The committee notes that decontamination capabilities are not sufficiently robust, and the additional funding would 

help to increase the primary personal decontamination system for 

U.S. forces, pending approval by the Food and Drug Administration 

of the follow-on skin decontamination system. 

Collectively protected deployable medical system 

The budget request included $38.9 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for procurement of collective protection equipment to protect U.S. forces from chemical and biological warfare 

agents. Of this amount, $3.5 million is for procurement of collectively protected field hospitals, including the Army’s Collectively 

Protected Deployable Medical system (CP DEPMEDS). The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for procurement of 

an additional Army CP DEPMEDS unit. These systems fill a collective protection capability requirement to sustain medical operations 

in a chemical and biological contaminated environment for 72 

hours. 

Automatic chemical agent detector and alarm 

The budget request included $211.3 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for contamination avoidance equipment to support the procurement of chemical and biological detection, warning 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

130 

and reporting, and reconnaissance systems, such as the M–22 

Automatic Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm (ACADA). The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PDW to meet 

procurement shortfalls in fielding ACADA systems. The committee 

notes that a number of Army National Guard units are deployed 

in support of military operations, but do not have adequate chemical agent detection and warning equipment. These units must 

have the best available equipment for defense against chemical 

warfare threats. Additional ACADA procurement will provide this 

needed equipment. 

Improved chemical agent monitor 

The budget request included $211.3 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological contamination avoidance equipment, but included no funding for the Improved Chemical Agent Monitor (ICAM). The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PDW for procurement of additional ICAM 

units, to increase the Army National Guard’s chemical contamination avoidance capabilities. 

The ICAM is a hand-held, soldier operated, post-attack device 

that provides a means of quickly detecting the presence of chemical 

agent contamination on personnel and equipment. The committee 

notes that Army National Guard units do not all possess the capability to rapidly and effectively detect the presence of chemical 

agents. These units must have the best available force protection 

equipment to detect the presence of chemical threats. 

Joint biological point detection system 

The budget request included $211.3 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological contamination avoidance equipment, including $77.8 million for the Joint Biological 

Point Detection system (JBPDS). The JBPDS provides continuous, 

rapid, and fully automated collection, detection, and identification 

of biological warfare agents. It is configured for a variety of service 

operating platforms and environments. The committee recommends 

an increase of $4.0 million in PDW for procurement of additional 

JBPDS units, which are high-demand, low-density systems. 

Items of Special Interest 

C–5 Reliability Enhancement Re-engining Program 

The 2005 Mobility Capability Study (MCS), submitted with the 

fiscal year 2007 President’s budget request, determined that the 

Department of Defense requires 292 to 383 large aircraft to meet 

the strategic airlift requirements of the National Military Strategy 

(NMS). The quantity and mix of aircraft planned for the strategic 

airlift fleet reflects: (i) the Department’s tolerance for risk associated with accomplishing the strategic airlift mission; (ii) the Department’s plan to augment organic airlift assets with commercial 

assets to meet peak airlift demands; and (iii) the Department’s determination of the mix and utilization of large aircraft that would 

most affordably accomplish the anticipated strategic lift missions. 

The MCS concluded that a strategic airlift force of 112 modernized C–5 aircraft plus 180 C–17 aircraft would meet the NMS remmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

131 

quirements with acceptable risk. The 2006 MCS update, submitted 

with the fiscal year 2008 President’s budget request, further 

verified that the current program plan for 301 strategic airlift aircraft (111 modernized C–5 aircraft plus 190 C–17 aircraft) would 

meet the NMS requirements with acceptable risk. 

The modernization plan for C–5 aircraft includes the Reliability 

Enhancement Re-engining Program (RERP), which intends to increase reliability significantly and reduce operating costs for the C– 

5 fleet. The Air Force’s plan to modernize all 111 remaining C–5 

aircraft reflects the unique capability and critical capacity contributed by the C–5 fleet to the airlift mission, and the affordability 

of modernizing C–5 aircraft as compared to procuring new replacement aircraft. The contractor team has completed the RERP modification on one C–5A and two C–5B aircraft. The Air Force plan is 

to complete operational testing on these three aircraft in fiscal year 

2009. The fiscal year 2008 President’s budget request included 

$253.3 million in procurement funding for the first lot of low rate 

initial production RERP aircraft. The program of record would complete the final C–5 RERP in 2021. 

The committee is aware that the Department is reviewing C–5 

RERP cost performance to determine whether it will incur a NunnMcCurdy breach. Since C–5 RERP is a critical element of all force 

planning scenarios under consideration, inability by the Department to control C–5 RERP cost increases the risk associated with 

the U.S. Transportation Command’s ability to meet U.S. objectives 

in a national emergency. The committee is concerned by the apparent cost growth on the program and the implications of this cost 

growth to airlift capability. The Air Force’s reaction to these potential cost increases appears to be focused on revisiting the ‘business 

case’ for whether to modernize C–5A aircraft or replace them. It is 

not clear to the committee whether the Department has formulated 

an effective strategy for restoring affordability to the critical program. 

In view of these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary of 

the Air Force to submit a report on C–5 RERP within 30 days of 

enactment of this Act. The report shall: provide a current assessment of C–5 RERP qualification testing; estimate projected in-service performance of C–5 aircraft with the RERP modification; and 

outline the current estimated program costs, the causes for cost 

growth, and the Air Force’s strategy to employ lessons learned with 

the developmental RERP aircraft to reduce cost risk for RERP production. 

DDG–51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer modernization program 

The Secretary of the Navy’s fiscal year 2007 report to Congress 

on the long-range plan for construction of naval vessels identified 

the requirement to operate the 62-ship DDG–51 class for a full 35- 

year service life in order to meet the Navy’s surface combatant 

force structure requirements. The DDG–51 modernization program, 

which upgrades the DDG–51 class with key technologies for improved warfighting capability and reduced operating and support 

cost, is essential to achieving this 35-year expected service life. The 

Navy plans to accomplish the modernization at the approximate 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

132 

mid-life point for each ship, commencing with USS Arleigh Burke 

(DDG–51) in 2010. As currently programmed, the 62-ship modernization effort would span approximately 20 years at a cost in excess of $5.0 billion. 

The magnitude of this investment, coupled with the criticality of 

the modernization effort to surface combatant mission effectiveness, warrants a thorough understanding of how the Navy is balancing requirements for system performance, affordability, schedule, competition, quality of life, industrial base factors (including 

consideration of the building yards, other private yards, and the 

Navy shipyards), risk, and other priorities in its procurement of the 

DDG–51 modernization program. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, with the fiscal year 2009 budget request, outlining the alternative acquisition strategies under consideration for the DDG–51 modernization program. The report shall 

address the specific factors identified above, the priorities assigned 

to these factors, and the methodology the Navy is using to optimize 

the DDG–51 modernization program in accordance with its established priorities. 

MQ–1C Predator/Warrior 

The budget request included $45.6 million for development and $118.5 million for procurement of an extended range/multi-purpose 

(ERMP) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). This vehicle is a variant 

of the Air Force MQ–1 Predator A, with 50 percent greater payload 

and other improvements, such as an automatic takeoff and landing 

system and a heavy fuel engine. The Air Force has designated the 

air vehicle as the MQ–1C, and the Army has named it Warrior. 

The budget request also included $278.0 million in procurement for 

the MQ–1 Predator for the Air Force. 

The Air Force has expressed interest in procuring the Army MQ– 

1C. The committee directs that the Air Force attempt to change 

over to MQ–1C production on the existing Predator A production 

line in fiscal year 2008, if possible. As noted elsewhere in this Report, the MQ–1C’s additional payload will allow the Air Force to 

field better signals intelligence payloads. 

The committee notes that the Air Force has proposed that it be 

designated as the executive agent for medium- and high-altitude 

UAVs. The Air Force asserts that an executive agency would provide efficiencies in acquisition and airspace control, and ensure 

interoperability and responsiveness to the joint theater commander. The concern of the Army at this juncture is assuredness 

of support to ground forces. 

The committee does not believe that a service must build and operate its own systems in order to ensure that it is adequately supported. Indeed, the mutual dependencies of each of the specialized 

military services are clear and numerous. At the same time, the 

committee is not naive about how hard it can be at times for one 

service to gain adequate and timely support from the others. 

The committee agrees that the Air Force has raised a legitimate 

issue for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense. However, the committee wants to ensure that all 

pertinent aspects of the issue are considered. For example, the Air 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

133 

Force emphasizes the benefits of tight integration into the Joint 

Force Air Component Command (JFAC) structure, but the Army 

stresses tight coupling into the major elements of its ground and 

helicopter forces. Another example is the cost savings that the 

Army will achieve by using enlisted personnel instead of rated-pilot 

officers to fly the MQ–1Cs. It also appears that the Army may have 

gained a significantly better Predator than the one the Air Force 

planned to continue buying, through a competition that might 

never have occurred under an executive agency. 

The committee expects a careful study of the issue of executive 

agency for UAVs, including different levels of comprehensiveness. 

In the meantime, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Air 

Force, the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Army should strive to 

achieve as much commonality, interoperability, and flexibility as 

possible between UAV acquisitions. 

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle reporting requirement 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days 

after enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter until the 

termination of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), setting forth the respective military services’ requirements for all armored tactical and 

support vehicles, such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP) vehicle, and the extent to which those requirements have 

been met. This report shall be submitted as part of the Up-armored 

High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) reporting 

requirement included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 109–13). 

The committee supports the urgency with which the Department 

of Defense plans to produce and field the MRAP vehicle. However, 

there is concern about how the demands of this new production 

program in addition to the current production of HMMWVs and 

other tactical and support armored vehicles, will impact the availability of raw materials such as suitable steel. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics to provide the congressional defense committees not later than January 31, 2008, and annually thereafter 

until the termination of OIF, an assessment of the Department’s 

ability to acquire suitable steel to meet its armored vehicle production requirement. 

Navy harbor tugs 

Since the mid-1980s, the Navy has been decommissioning its 

aging harbor tug (YTB) fleet at its bases around the world and replacing the YTBs with time-charter contracts with commercial tug 

boat companies. Competition among tug boat operators for these 

contracts has been intense. The Military Sealift Command (MSC) 

has employed contract tug services though the use of performance 

specifications, commercial procurement practices, and communication with the harbor craft industry to ensure our solicitations and 

contracts did not impose unnecessary administrative burdens. By 

requiring commercial firms to provide fully operational tugs, inmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

134 

cluding logistics, maintenance, and management/crewing support, 

the Navy has been able to reassign military personnel previously 

operating these Navy tugs. 

The Navy’s transition from organic to commercial tug services 

holds the promise of achieving additional savings. The committee 

encourages the Navy to review the potential for shifting to commercial tug services in areas where the Navy is still operating YTBs. 

LPD–17 amphibious transport dock 

The budget request for fiscal year 2008 included funding for the 

ninth ship of the USS San Antonio (LPD–17) class amphibious ship 

program. The Secretary of the Navy’s 2007 report to Congress on 

the long-range plan for construction of naval vessels calls for a 

‘‘below threshold’’ expeditionary warfare force. Specifically, the plan 

would reduce expeditionary force size, including a reduction in the 

LPD–17 class from a total of 12 to 9 ships. The committee is concerned that this plan does not provide the total number of amphibious ships needed to support the Department of the Navy’s two Marine Expeditionary Brigade lift requirements for forcible entry operations. In testimony before Congress in fiscal years 2005, 2006, 

and 2007, Marine Corps leadership stated that a class of 10 LPD– 

17 ships was required to meet Marine Corps forcible entry requirements, with acceptable risk. The Chief of Naval Operations has 

identified procurement of a tenth LPD–17 ship in 2008 as the 

Navy’s top unfunded priority. 

The committee is aware that construction for a tenth LPD–17 

ship would not commence until fiscal year 2009, but delaying procurement beyond 2009 would cause significant cost growth and 

jeopardize industrial base stability by introducing production 

breaks in the program. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report not later than November 1, 

2007, that outlines the funding required for a ‘‘smart buy’’ of LPD– 

26, maintaining continuous, uninterrupted production at critical 

vendors’ and shipbuilders’ facilities. 

Procurement requests related to increasing the size of the 

Army and the Marine Corps 

The fiscal year 2008 budget submitted by the President in February included ‘‘placeholder’’ line items totaling $4.1 billion in the 

Army procurement budget and an additional $2.3 billion in the 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement accounts. These amounts 

were set aside for increased equipment procurement to support the 

proposal in the fiscal year 2008 budget to increase the size of the 

Army and the Marine Corps. On April 3, 2007, the Army submitted 

a proposed program, project, and activity level allocation of the $4.1 

billion in Army funds, together with justification material to support that proposal. Later in April the Marine Corps made a similar 

unofficial request and provided justification material to support 

that request. Although neither of these requests were submitted by 

the administration as budget amendments, the committee has reviewed them and incorporated these proposed allocations in this 

legislation where warranted. Reductions in the ‘‘placeholder’’ line 

items, and increases proposed by the services in their detailed proposals to allocate those funds, are reflected in the Army procuremmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

135 

ment tables and the tables relating to Procurement, Marine Corps 

and Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps in this 

report. All such reallocations are designated in the table as relating 

to ‘‘Grow the Force’’ (GTF). 

Shipboard personal locator beacon 

In response to the Naval Safety Center’s recommendation to improve safety for sailors operating topside while underway, the committee has supported increases to the President’s budget request in 

fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the procurement of man overboard 

indicator systems for the fleet. The technology incorporated in such 

personal locator beacons may potentially provide applications for 

improved response to damage control, security alert, or other shipboard actions requiring accountability for personnel location and 

movement. The committee is aware that the Navy is developing 

state-of-the-art damage control information management systems 

for coordination of shipboard response to casualties. Personal locator beacon technology could be integrated with this development effort to provide an automated personnel tracking and monitoring capability for improved casualty response. The committee believes 

that such capability is an intrinsic requirement of the Navy’s overarching effort to reduce shipboard manning. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the 

fiscal year 2009 President’s budget request that provides the 

Navy’s assessment of: (i) the feasibility of developing an automated 

personnel location and monitoring system; (ii) the benefits such a 

system would provide to shipboard operations and safety; (iii) an 

estimate of the cost to develop and integrate such capability; and 

(iv) an estimate of the potential reduction to manpower costs or 

workload provided by such capability. 

Strike fighter gap 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) has not adequately studied the potential risks associated 

with shortages in U.S. strike fighter aircraft over the next decade. 

Last year, Navy witnesses testified before the committee about a 

potential gap in strike fighters that might develop toward the end 

of the next decade, and could reach as high as 50 aircraft. While 

the uncertainties of the service life of the current F–18s and the 

production schedules for the future F–35 were mentioned then, the 

potential gap now under discussion could be as high as 220 Navy 

aircraft by the middle of the next decade. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a study entitled ‘‘Tactical Aircraft: DOD Needs a Joint Integrated Investment Strategy,’’ 

that reached several interesting conclusions. The report concluded 

that DOD does not have a single, integrated investment plan for 

recapitalizing and modernizing its tactical air forces, and without 

a joint, integrated investment strategy, it is difficult to evaluate 

the efficacy and severity of capability gaps or, alternatively, areas 

of redundancy. The GAO report additionally asserts, ‘‘[l]ooking forward over the next 20 years, the Department’s collective tactical 

aircraft recapitalization plans are likely not affordable as currently 

planned.’’ 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

136 

Under the Department’s current plans, the DOD would spend, on average, about $13 billion annually through 2020 developing and 

purchasing tactical combat aircraft. Over the long-term, that demand for funding will coincide with increases needed to execute 

other major Air Force and Navy acquisitions, including space systems, cargo aircraft, and surface combatants. In the near-term, it 

will coincide with the funding needed to ‘‘reset’’ and replace equipment worn out and lost during operations conducted in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

To better understand the challenges DOD faces as it modernizes 

its fleets of tactical combat aircraft, the committee directs the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to conduct a study of alternative 

approaches to structuring and investing in our Nation’s tactical air 

forces. The CBO analysis should include alternatives that address 

shortfalls in the size and composition of tactical aircraft forces relative to the services’ current and past stated requirements. CBO 

should also develop other alternatives that, while not necessarily 

satisfying all current requirements, could require less funding to 

execute than the Department’s current plans. Such options should 

include, but not be limited to, the potential for unmanned air systems to bridge part of the looming gap in strike fighter capability. 

CBO should provide the committee with a briefing describing interim results by April 2008, and a final report no later than October 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(137) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title II of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request for research, development, test, and evaluation programs, and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in 

the past, the Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense), without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

138 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 175 here 35737.088
139 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Advanced Sensor Applications Program (sec. 211) 

Section 211 would require that $20.0 million in funds authorized 

and appropriated for the Foreign Material Acquisition and Exploitation program and for activities of the Office of Special Technology 

in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 

shall be allocated to the Advanced Sensor Applications program 

(ASAP). Section 211 also would require that the ASAP program be 

promptly transferred to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and 

executed by the Navy’s Program Executive Officer for Aviation. Additional information is contained in the classified annex to this report. 

Active protection systems (sec. 212) 

The committee recommends a provision to accelerate the development and evaluation of active protection systems (APS), enabling 

accelerated deployment if APS is determined to be the most effective counter to current and emerging direct- and top-attack threats. 

The committee notes that these systems have the potential to deal 

with the threat of anti-tank guided munitions, rocket propelled grenades, kinetic energy rounds, and other emerging and proliferating 

threats. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 

has undertaken and is currently investing in a number of research 

and development programs for APS. The committee notes that the 

recent independent assessment of APS, as required by section 234 

of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), made a number of specific recommendations that would serve to enhance the Department’s efforts to deploy these systems. 

The committee’s recommended provision includes a number of 

these recommendations, including a requirement for a comparative 

live fire test of appropriate active protection systems; an assessment of current and developing foreign and domestic active protection systems to assess technologies and analyze the operational impact on military forces of the deployment of APS and countermeasures to those systems; and a number of funding increases to 

accelerate the fielding of the systems to United States forces. These 

funding increases are described elsewhere in this report. 

Obligation and expenditure of funds for competitive procurement of propulsion system for the Joint Strike 

Fighter (sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to obligate sufficient annual amounts to develop and procure a competitive propulsion system for the Joint 

Strike Fighter (JSF) program, in order to conduct a competitive 

propulsion source selection, from funds appropriated pursuant to 

an authorization of appropriations or otherwise made available for 

research, development, test, and evaluation, and procurement for 

the JSF program. The committee notes that current plans for the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

140 

competitive JSF propulsion system would complete the development of the competitive propulsion system so that a competition for 

the JSF propulsion system would occur in fiscal year 2012 with the 

sixth lot of low-rate initial production. The budget request contained $1.7 billion in PE 64800N, and $1.8 billion in PE 64800F for development of the JSF, but contained no funds for development of a competitive JSF propulsion 

system. 

The competitive JSF propulsion system program is developing 

the F136 engine, which would provide a competitive alternative to 

the current baseline F135 engine. Section 211 of the John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 

Law 109–364) required that, by March 15, 2007, the Secretary of 

Defense, acting through the Department of Defense Cost Analysis 

Improvement Group, the Comptroller General, and a federally 

funded research and development center, each provide an independent life cycle cost analysis of the JSF propulsion system, which 

would include a competitive engine program. The committee has 

been briefed on the results of these reviews and believes those results were, in the aggregate, inconclusive on whether there would 

be a financial benefit to the Department of Defense in continuing 

to develop a competitive propulsion system for the JSF program. 

However, the committee notes that all studies identified significant non-financial factors of a two-engine competitive program that 

should be considered in deciding between the alternatives. These 

factors include: better engine performance; improved contractor responsiveness; a more robust industrial base; increased engine reliability; and improved operational readiness. The committee believes that the potential benefits from the non-financial factors 

favor continuing the JSF competitive propulsion system program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $480.0 million 

for this purpose, including $240.0 million in PE 64800N, and 

$240.0 million in PE 64800F. 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs 

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, construction, and deployment of missile defenses in Europe 

(sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act from 

being obligated or expended for procurement, site activation, construction, preparation of equipment for, or deployment of a longrange missile defense system in Europe until two conditions have 

been met: (1) the governments of the countries in which major components of the missile defense system (including interceptors and 

associated radars) are proposed to be deployed have each given 

final approval to any missile defense agreements negotiated between such governments and the United States concerning the proposed deployment of such components in their countries; and (2) 45 

days have elapsed following the receipt by Congress of a report required by the provision. 

The provision would also limit funds for the acquisition or deployment of operational interceptor missiles for the proposed longmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

141 

range missile defense system in Europe until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress, after receiving the views of the Director 

of Operational Test and Evaluation, that the proposed interceptor 

to be deployed as part of such a missile defense system has demonstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, 

that it has a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner. 

The provision would also require a federally funded research and 

development center (FFRDC) to conduct an independent assessment of options for missile defense of Europe. The assessment 

would consider the ballistic missile threat to Europe, particularly 

from Iran, including short-range, medium-range, intermediaterange, and long-range missiles, and would consider a number of related issues, technologies, and factors. The FFRDC would be required to provide the results of its assessment, including any findings and recommendations, in an unclassified report not later than 

180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

The provision makes clear that it would not limit continuing obligation and expenditure of funds for missile defense, including for 

research and development and for other activities not otherwise 

limited by the provision. This would include site surveys, studies, 

analysis, and planning and design for the proposed missile defense 

deployment in Europe. The administration requested $310.4 million in the budget request for planning, design, development, construction and deployment activities for 10 Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) to be deployed in Poland, and a large X-band radar to be deployed in the 

Czech Republic. The committee believes that construction and deployment activities are premature for the reasons explained below. 

The two-stage interceptor proposed for deployment in Europe has 

not yet been developed or tested, and is not currently planned to 

be flight-tested until 2010. It could be several years before it is 

known if the interceptor will work in an operationally effective 

manner. 

The United States is just beginning to negotiate with the Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic on detailed agreements 

for the proposed deployments in their nations. These negotiations 

may not be concluded before the end of this year, and then would 

have to be ratified by the parliaments in each nation. The Missile 

Defense Agency has estimated that such ratification would not take 

place before 2009. Construction and deployment would not begin 

before such ratification. 

The budget request seeks funds to deploy up to 10 GBIs at a 

third deployment site, either in Europe or at Fort Greely, Alaska. 

The budget request anticipates the possibility of not deploying the 

interceptors in Europe, and both deployment options are under consideration. 

The proposed European deployment would not defend all of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) European territory. 

Additional missile defense systems, such as those described below, 

would be needed to provide coverage of all NATO European territory against all ranges of Iranian ballistic missiles. NATO, which 

has not yet decided to pursue missile defense of its territory, has 

not endorsed or rejected the proposed deployment. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

142 

The proposed deployment is intended to counter a potential future threat to the United States or Europe from Iranian long-range 

or intermediate-range ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads. There is uncertainty about whether Iran will have such 

long-range missiles, or nuclear warheads that could work on such 

missiles, by 2015. 

However, there is no doubt that Iran currently has the largest 

inventory of short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles in the 

Middle East, and is working to increase their number, range, and 

capability. It is also clear that forward-deployed U.S. forces and 

some NATO allies are currently within range of those missiles, and 

that the United States does not have adequate regional missile defense capability in place today to protect our forward-deployed 

forces. 

There are a number of near-term missile defense options to provide such defenses against short-range and medium-range missiles 

(and future intermediate-range missiles), including the Patriot 

PAC–3 system, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system 

and its Standard Missile-3 (SM–3) interceptor, and the Terminal 

High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. 

General James Cartwright, the Commander of U.S. Strategic 

Command, who has operational responsibility for global integrated 

missile defense, testified to the committee that his missile defense 

focus this year is to expand ‘‘beyond long-range intercontinental 

ballistic missiles to start to address those that hold at threat our 

forward deployed forces, or allies and our friends. Those are more 

in the short and medium-range ballistic missiles, things that Patriot, Standard Missile-2 and [Standard Missile]-3 will be able to 

address, and THAAD as it comes on.’’ All such options should be 

considered as Congress makes decisions on what missile defense 

capabilities are appropriate for Europe. 

The current Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system deployed in the United States already has the range to provide defense of the United States against a potential future long-range 

missile threat from Iran. 

Russia has expressed strong concerns about the proposed deployment, and it will take time to work through these issues in a manner that ensures improved security, rather than reduced security 

in Europe. The administration is planning high-level talks with the 

Russian Government starting in the fall of 2007. 

The proposed European missile defense deployments would cost 

an estimated $4.0 billion through fiscal year 2013, all of which the 

United States would be expected to pay. 

Given these considerations, the committee believes that it is premature to authorize the appropriation of funds for construction or 

deployment of the proposed system without conditions. The committee notes that fiscal year 2008 research, development, test and 

evaluation funds authorized and appropriated for this proposed deployment would remain available for two years, during which time 

negotiations and development activities could move forward. 

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 

a reduction of $85.0 million proposed for site activation and construction activities for the proposed European GMD deployment. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

143 

Limitation on availability of funds for deployment of missile 

defense interceptors in Alaska (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act from 

being obligated for the deployment of more than 40 Ground-based 

Interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, until the Secretary of Defense 

certifies to Congress, after receiving the views of the Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation, that the Block 2006 Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile 

Defense system (BMDS) has demonstrated, through operationally 

realistic end-to-end flight testing, that it has a high probability of 

working in an operationally effective manner. 

The committee notes that section 234 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) required the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to provide 

to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress an assessment of the 

operational capability of each block of the BMDS, starting with the 

2006 block, at the completion of test and evaluation for each block. 

This assessment will be available well before any additional interceptors would be ready to deploy in Alaska. If the Department of 

Defense decides it wants to deploy additional interceptors at Fort 

Greely beyond the 40 already planned, it would have to certify that 

the Block 2006 GMD system is operationally effective. If the system is not operationally effective, then it would not make sense to 

deploy more interceptors. 

Budget and acquisition requirements for Missile Defense 

Agency activities (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to submit its annual budget request, starting in fiscal year 2009, using all of the major categories 

of funding: research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E); 

procurement; operation and maintenance; and military construction. The provision would also establish acquisition objectives for 

MDA to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight of its 

budget and programs. To accomplish these objectives, the provision 

would establish a number of specific acquisition improvements, including acquisition baselines for cost, schedule, and performance 

for those missile defense elements that have either entered the 

equivalent of the System Development and Demonstration phase of 

acquisition, or are being produced and fielded for operational use. 

The extraordinary flexibility granted to the MDA to use exclusively RDT&E funds for all its activities, including such nonRDT&E activities as procurement, operation and maintenance, and 

military construction, was sought and granted in order to permit 

MDA to implement the President’s December 2002 decision to deploy an initial missile defense system for the United States within 

2 years, and without any of the normal acquisition or testing rules 

that apply to all other major defense acquisition programs. Now 

that the system has been developed and deployed, the rationale for 

this extraordinary flexibility, and the resultant lack of accountability, has expired. 

As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 

March 2007, the extraordinary acquisition flexibility granted to the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

144 

MDA has resulted in a lack of accountability, transparency, and 

oversight, such that it is not possible for GAO to determine the cost 

of a 2-year block of work performed on the Ballistic Missile Defense 

(BMD) system, nor to determine the unit cost for such a fundamental item as the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) element. 

After studying the MDA acquisition program and process, GAO 

concluded that there were a number of improvements that MDA 

should make. GAO recommended several steps designed to improve 

accountability, transparency, and oversight of the BMD program, 

including that MDA should use procurement funding for missile defense elements that are in the equivalent of the System Development and Demonstration phase, or are being fielded for operational 

use. GAO also recommended that MDA should establish acquisition 

baselines for cost, schedule, and performance for these elements, 

and that it should provide unit cost data, and other information 

that would help improve accountability. The committee agrees with 

the GAO recommendations and believes that MDA should make 

significant progress in accomplishing these objectives. 

Participation of Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, 

in missile defense test and evaluation activities (sec. 

234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide authorities for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to 

have the same access to information concerning ballistic missile defense test and evaluation activities that exists for test and evaluation information for all other major defense acquisition programs 

under section 139 of title 10, United States Code. 

The committee commends the Missile Defense Agency and the 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation for establishing a constructive and cooperative relationship. This provision is intended to 

ensure that this important and necessary cooperation continues in 

the future. 

Extension of Comptroller General assessments of ballistic 

missile defense programs (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 5 

years the period during which the General Accountability Office 

(GAO) would continue to assess and report to Congress annually on 

the progress of the Missile Defense Agency to meet its annual goals 

for cost, schedule, testing, and performance of the ballistic missile 

defense system. 

The committee has found the previous GAO annual assessments 

and reports to be valuable sources of oversight and insight into the 

ballistic missile defense program. This provision would ensure that 

such valuable assessments would continue for the period of the current future-years defense program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

145 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Modification of notice and wait requirement for obligation 

of funds for the foreign comparative test program (sec. 

251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would enhance the 

efficiency of the Foreign Comparative Test program by modifying 

the congressional reporting requirement associated with the program, so that obligation of funds can occur after Congress reviews 

the program’s intended action for 7 days. The committee understands that Congress has never utilized its current statutorily 

mandated 30 day review period to change a Foreign Comparative 

Test funding recommendation. This proposed change to the statute 

will expedite the execution of the Foreign Comparative Testing program, allowing contracting officers to enter into negotiations with 

potential vendors earlier and funds to be obligated and expended 

more quickly. 

Modification of cost sharing requirement for Technology 

Transition Initiative (sec. 252) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the Department of Defense more flexibility in its execution of the Technology Transition Initiative, but would remove restrictions on the 

types of cost sharing arrangements allowed between a service or 

agency and the initiative manager in funding technology transition 

projects. The committee notes that this program, originally established by the committee in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) has successfully 

transitioned a number of technologies from the Department’s 

science and technology programs into fielded systems. 

The committee notes that the Department has expressed concern 

that the current statute requires the Office of the Secretary of Defense through the initiative manager to provide no less than 50 

percent of funds towards a transition project, with the balance coming from the sponsoring service or agency. This has restricted the 

number of projects that the program could support and on occasion 

prevented the sponsoring service or agency from contributing more 

funding to the projects. The committee’s recommended proposal 

would allow the initiative manager complete flexibility in determining the appropriate cost sharing arrangement for each technology transition initiative project. 

Strategic plan for the Manufacturing Technology Program 

(sec. 253) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and publish a biennial strategic 

plan for the manufacturing technology program. The committee 

notes that advanced manufacturing technologies are the key to a 

vital defense industrial base, as well as a support for United States 

economic competitiveness. The manufacturing technology program 

has traditionally been the activity through which the Department 

of Defense has pursued defense-related manufacturing technologies 

that serve to improve the performance and reduce the life cycle 

costs of defense systems. The committee commends the Department 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

146 

for attempting to expand the scope and reach of the program, 

through the creation of the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel, the utilization of manufacturing readiness assessments as metrics on acquisition programs, and the establishment 

of a manufacturing science and technology initiative. 

The committee notes that the 2006 Defense Science Board Task 

Force on the Manufacturing Technology Program recommended 

that the Department ‘‘must not only publish a strategic plan, but 

also ensure its implementation with periodic reviews of the plan’s 

execution.’’ The committee provision would implement the DSB’s 

recommendation. The committee encourages the Secretary to consider the other strategic planning recommendations of the DSB 

task force described in their report. 

Modification of authorities on coordination of Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

with similar Federal programs (sec. 254) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the Department of Defense more flexibility in its execution of the Defense 

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

(DEPSCoR) program. The provision would enable the Department 

to award merit-based grants and other support under the program’s authority directly to entities in participating DEPSCoR 

states, or by using the existing mechanism of awarding contracts 

through state planning committees. 

The committee notes that the DEPSCoR program funds defenserelated research in eligible states where educational institutions 

historically performed less well in full and open competitions, with 

the intent of enabling them to become more successful in meritbased competitions. The committee notes that the Department 

plans to terminate its support for the program in fiscal year 2010, 

due to an inability to identify any DEPSCoR award ‘‘which led to 

any application used by, or supportive of, the warfighter,’’ due to 

resource constraints on science and technology programs and due 

to the need to provide more resources for the activities of the National Defense Education Program (NDEP). The Department has 

indicated that it intends to work with researchers in DEPSCoR 

states through NDEP. 

The committee believes that the flexibility provided by this provision will enable the Department to better utilize DEPSCoR funding 

to support warfighter needs, including potentially supporting educational activities, while still preserving the important role of state 

planning committees to coordinate activities with other similar federal programs and state-based efforts where appropriate. 

Enhancement of defense nanotechnology research and development program (sec. 255) 

The committee recommends a provision to assist in the acceleration of the development, integration, and fielding of appropriate 

nanotechnology-based capabilities in defense systems. This recommendation is consistent with a series of actions taken by Congress over the past few years to highlight the importance that the 

growing nanotechnology research area can help both our national 

security and global competitiveness. Previously, with the intent to 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

147 

ensure that the United States had global superiority in 

nanotechnology necessary for meeting national security requirements, the committee established the defense nanotechnology research program in section 246 of the Bob Stump National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), 

which this provision updates and enhances. Later, Congress also 

passed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Public Law 108–153) to coordinate Federal Government 

investments and activities related to nanotechnology. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has invested roughly $2.0 billion in nanotechnology research and development since fiscal year 2000. These investments have been in areas 

such as advanced sensors, structural materials, and electronic systems based on the unique properties enabled by nanotechnology. 

The Department has also established a number of nanotechnologyfocused research centers, including the Institute for Nanoscience at 

the Naval Research Laboratory and the Army’s Institute for Soldier 

Nanotechnologies. These investments are developing technologies 

that will soon be integrated into deployed systems, and enable advanced capabilities that will enhance our forces’ battlefield superiority. 

The committee believes that nanotechnology is at the stage 

where the Department needs to focus more on transitioning technologies to demonstrate the return of the significant research investment made thus far. Therefore, the committee’s provision directs the Department to focus more closely on the manufacturing 

of nanotechnologies and ensuring the vitality of the nanotechnology 

industrial base, since these are key to adoption of new technologies 

in defense systems. The committee notes that the Department 

should conduct state-of-the art research on nanomanufacturing involving collaborations between academic institutions, Department 

of Defense laboratories, and industry partners, as well as working 

through the Department’s manufacturing technology programs. 

Further, the committee notes that there would be significant value 

in collaborating with National Science Foundation centers working 

on nanomanufacturing and working toward a national 

nanomanufacturing enterprise that encourages extensive industrial 

collaboration, in order to maintain United States global leadership. 

The committee’s recommended provision also strengthens the 

connection between Department nanotechnology efforts and the 

Government-wide National Nanotechnology Initiative, by requiring 

participation in coordination activities, as well as in participation 

in and support of the mandatory external reviews of the program. 

The committee also recognizes the need for metrics and goals to ensure that the Department’s nanotechnology program is well structured and successfully developing needed defense technologies. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a review by the Government 

Accountability Office of the overall Department nanotechnology 

program. 

Finally, the committee is concerned that the United States may 

be losing its lead in the development of defense nanotechnologies 

to international competitors and partners. Therefore, the committee’s recommended provision strengthens the monitoring and asmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

148 

sessment of international nanotechnology research and development capabilities in areas of interest to the Department of Defense. 

Budget Items 

Army 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

149 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 188 35737.089
150 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 189 35737.090
151 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 190 35737.091
152 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 191 35737.092
153 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 192 35737.093
154 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 193 35737.094
155 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 194 35737.095
156 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 195 35737.096
157 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 196 35737.097
158 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 197 35737.098
159 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 198 35737.099
160 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 199 35737.100
161 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 200 35737.101
162 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 201 35737.102
163 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 202 35737.103
164 

Army basic research 

The budget request included $137.7 million in PE 61102A for defense research sciences. The committee notes that the National Research Council’s 2005 ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ report 

highlighted the important role that basic research funding plays in 

areas like global competitiveness and national security. The report 

noted that with respect to basic research funding ‘‘ . . . the Department of Defense research picture is particularly troubling in this 

regard.’’ It went on to note that the Department of Defense funds 

40 percent of the engineering research performed at universities, 

including more than half of all research in electrical and mechanical engineering and 17 percent of basic research in mathematics 

and computer science. 

The committee supports increasing investments in basic research 

typically performed at universities to develop next generation military operational capabilities. The committee recommends increases 

of: $2.0 million for research on the development of vaccines to combat respiratory infections; $1.0 million for research on organic 

semiconductor materials for use in military flexible electronics; and 

$1.5 million for research on nanomaterials that can speed the deicing of Army rotary wing vehicles. 

University research initiatives 

The budget request included $64.8 million in PE 61103A for 

Army university research initiatives. The committee notes that this 

is down by approximately 20 percent in constant dollars from the 

fiscal year 2004 request, when the program was originally transferred to the services from the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD). The committee notes that all of the service university research initiatives programs are below the original fiscal year 2004 

request in constant dollars, despite OSD assurances to Congress 

that the programs would at least keep pace with inflation. 

To continue to preserve the Department of Defense efforts to support the valuable defense research undertaken at universities, the 

committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 61103A 

for Army university research initiatives, an increase of $9.0 million 

in PE 61103N for Navy university research initiatives, and an increase of $10.0 million in PE 61103F for Air Force university research initiatives. 

Army university research centers 

The budget request included $84.0 million in PE 61104A for university and industry research centers. The committee notes that 

basic research investments by the Army serve the dual purpose of 

developing next generation military capabilities through the exploration of fundamental scientific issues, as well as training the next 

generation of scientists, engineers, and technology entrepreneurs at 

our nation’s academic institutions. The committee also notes that 

the National Research Council’s committee on Department of Defense Basic Research recommended that the Department ‘‘should 

redress the imbalance between its current basic research allocation, 

which has declined critically over the past decade, and its need to 

better support the expanded areas of technology, the need for increased unfettered basic research, and the support of new researchmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

165 

ers.’’ In support of that recommendation, the committee recommends a number of increases to the Army basic research program. The committee recommends increases of: $1.5 million for information assurance research; $2.5 million for nanotechnology-based 

biosensors to detect biological threats; $3.0 million for military 

automotive research; $2.0 million for research on wireless optical 

communications systems; $1.4 million for research on training and 

simulation in urban terrain; $2.0 million for military network security research; $1.5 million for research on soldier health monitoring 

systems; $300,000 for nanocomposite transparent armor materials 

research; $2.0 million for research on nanotechnologies for advanced lightweight armor systems; and $2.0 million for research on 

the low temperature performance of Army vehicles. 

Army materials research 

The budget request included $18.6 million in PE 62105A for applied research on materials technologies. The committee notes that 

the development of modular protective systems for future force assets and the development of vehicle armor technology are two of 

the official Army Technology Objectives (ATO). This includes the 

development of ‘‘advanced composite materials with properties 

tailorable for blast and ballistic protection . . . ’’ Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development 

of composite armor materials for Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles and an additional $3.0 million for research on advanced composite materials for Army air and ground vehicles. The Army’s soldier protection technologies ATO focuses on the development of innovative materials for improved individual armor systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for development of armor for soldier torso and extremity protection, and 

an additional $4.0 million for the development of lightweight armor 

systems designed to reduce casualties due to improvised explosive 

device blast effects. 

The committee notes that the interagency National 

Nanotechnology Initiative has identified nanomanufacturing as one 

of its program component areas of emphasis. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in a May 2006 report to Congress 

entitled ‘‘Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development,’’ indicated that increased support of nanomanufacturing was recommended ‘‘in order to facilitate transitioning and the sustained 

supply of research results for defense technologies.’’ Therefore, the 

committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of advanced nanomanufacturing capabilities for sensors and 

other defense needs. 

Electronics and space research 

The budget request included $39.8 million in PE 62120A for applied research on sensors and electronic survivability. The committee notes that the National Research Council’s report ‘‘Materials 

Research to meet 21st Century Defense Needs’’ highlights the need 

for continued defense research on electronic microsystems. The report listed fabrication of microsystems for displays as a high priority research area for the Department of Defense. Consistent with 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

166 

this analysis, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on advanced microelectronics manufacturing for 

Army display applications. 

The committee understands the Department of Defense’s need to 

track hundreds of moving targets in space or terrestrial environments, including space debris or chemical and biological agents. 

The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research 

on integrated remote sensing technologies. 

The committee established the Joint Program Office for Operationally Responsive Space in the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) with 

the responsibility to pursue innovative approaches to the development of operationally responsive space capabilities. In coordination 

with the efforts of that office, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for operationally responsive space research 

efforts. 

Materials for insensitive munitions 

The budget request included $53.0 million in PE 62303A for applied research on missile technology. The Army’s Insensitive Munitions Technology Objective seeks to develop energetic materials and 

system-level innovations to maintain and improve munitions safety 

at lower weight and cost. The committee also notes that the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense has initiated new research efforts specifically aimed at improving capabilities in insensitive munitions. 

In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of advanced materials for 

munitions protection in missile systems. 

Sniper detection systems 

The budget request included $16.7 million in PE 62308A for advanced concepts and simulation technologies. The committee notes 

that urgent operational needs statements have called for the development of sniper detection systems for potential use in urban environments. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $4.0 

million for the development of wearable sniper detection systems to 

aid in localizing sniper fire and mortar launches. 

Army vehicle research 

The budget request included $53.3 million in PE 62601A for applied research on combat vehicles and automotive technology. The 

committee notes that research in this area will lead to: enhanced 

survivability for Army ground vehicles, including against improvised explosive devices and other threats; improved energy efficiency for vehicles—resulting in extended ranges and combat capability, as well as life cycle cost savings; and the development of 

more capable unmanned systems to extend the reach and capabilities of Army forces, while reducing the risks to soldiers. 

The committee notes that the Army is developing a fuel cell 

strategy that is exploring the use of fuel cells in vehicles in tactical 

and support missions. In coordination with that effort, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development 

of hydrogen fuel cells for medium and heavy Army vehicles. Consistent with the efforts of the Department of Defense’s Energy and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

167 

Power Technology Initiative to examine the utility of alternative 

fuels for military platforms, the committee recommends an increase 

of $2.0 million for research on alternative military fuels. 

The Army’s Vehicle Armor Technology Objective is developing a 

comprehensive solution to threats to Future Combat Systems 

ground vehicles. In coordination with these efforts, as well as similar efforts in the Army’s small business innovative research program, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for 

nanotechnology research to develop transparent armor for Army 

vehicles. 

Recoil mitigation technologies 

The budget request included $7.0 million in PE 62623A for the 

joint service small arms program. The committee notes that the research goal of this program is to develop ‘‘new technologies for improved accuracy and greater lethality . . . while reducing the 

weight of the Soldier’s weapon.’’ To support these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on recoil mitigation technologies which reduce small arms weight while 

maintaining and improving weapons lethality. 

Unmanned ground vehicle weaponization 

The budget request included $40.5 million in PE 62624A for 

weapons and munitions technology. The committee has been supportive of the development of unmanned ground systems to reduce 

casualties and to enable new operational concepts and capabilities. 

The committee notes that the Near Autonomous Unmanned Systems Army Technology Objective is developing robotic technologies 

for future unmanned systems, and working to transition technologies to programs such as Future Combat Systems and the 

Armed Robotic Vehicle. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to develop remotely controlled 

unmanned systems with lethal and non-lethal capabilities. 

Army electronics research 

The budget request included $43.4 million in PE 62705A for applied research on electronics and electronic devices. The committee 

notes that all of the services are developing needs for higher frequency and high power systems, as well as systems that operate 

at higher temperatures. These systems will require the development of semiconductor materials that operate efficiently at these 

power levels and temperature ranges. Accordingly, the widebandgap technology development Defense Technology Objective includes specific technical challenges for the development of new 

semiconductor materials and devices to meet military missions. In 

support of these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million for research on high frequency, high power electronic 

and optoelectronic devices. 

The Army’s effort to reduce the load on soldiers includes a desire 

to develop smaller, lightweight battery technologies to power radios, computers, and other man-portable equipment. The Mounted/ 

Dismounted Soldier Power Army Technology Objective addresses 

these challenges through the development of novel power technologies. In support of those efforts, the committee recommends an 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

168 

increase of $3.0 million for the development of high capacity portable battery technologies. 

Standoff explosives detection technologies 

The budget request included $21.8 million in PE 62712A for applied research on countermine systems. The committee notes that 

the standoff detection of explosives is a capability that is of critical 

concern to the Department of Defense as it seeks to combat the use 

of improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Research Council’s 2004 report entitled ‘‘Existing and Potential Standoff Explosives Detection Techniques’’ recommended that 

‘‘research into both new sensor types and new systems of real-time 

integration and decision making is needed.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 62712A for the 

development of standoff explosives detection technologies. 

Force protection materials research 

The budget request included $23.1 million in PE 62786A for applied research on warfighter technologies. The committee notes 

that the Army is developing requirements documents that call for 

the development of advanced modular force protection systems for 

base camps, which are coming under attack from mortars and improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee 

also notes that the Army’s Modular Protective Systems for Future 

Force Assets Technology Objective is seeking to develop advanced 

composite materials with properties tailorable for blast and ballistic protection. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for research on advanced materials for enhanced ballistic protection of assets. 

Unmanned air systems 

The budget request included $53.9 million in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology. The committee is supportive of efforts to 

explore the use of unmanned systems in a variety of roles and missions on the battlefield, as was indicated in the requirements of 

section 941 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). To support the development of new capabilities for unmanned systems, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the development of unmanned systems for the precision delivery of supplies to friendly 

forces. 

In section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) the committee also established the goal that by 2010, one-third of all operational deep strike force aircraft will be unmanned. Further, the 

committee notes that the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 

calls for development of weapons optimized for concept of employment from unmanned systems. In order to support this goal, the 

committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for development 

of advanced munitions for unmanned air systems. 

Army medical research 

The budget request included $76.5 million in PE 62787A for applied research on medical technologies. The committee notes that 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

169 

research in this area contributes significantly to the successful 

treatment of battlefield injuries. The committee recommends a 

number of increases in this account to address a variety of medical 

issues resulting from current operations. The committee recommends increases of $1.0 million for advanced battlefield head injury diagnostic tools; $2.0 million for biomechanics research to address head, neck, and chest injuries; $1.5 million for bioengineering 

research to support combat casualty care missions; and $2.0 million 

for the development of advanced wound dressings. 

Guided airdrop systems 

The budget request included $47.1 million in PE 63001A for advanced warfighter technologies. The committee notes that the 82nd 

Airborne Division recently submitted an operational needs statement for guided airdrop systems. The committee also notes that the 

Army and United States Joint Forces Command are investing in 

the Joint Precision Airdrop System to meet urgent needs in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. In support of those efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on guided airdrop 

systems. 

Army medical technologies 

The budget request included $53.3 million in PE 63002A for advanced medical technologies. The committee recognizes the critical 

need to advance military medical technologies to address battlefield 

injuries. The committee has taken a number of steps to advance 

those efforts, including the establishment of a Department of Defense-wide initiative to prevent, mitigate, and treat blast injuries 

in section 256 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). To support these and similar efforts, as well as to support a number of Army Technology Objectives in medical technologies, the committee recommends a number 

of increases in medical research investments. 

The committee notes that improvised explosive devices have created a new set of challenges for medical personnel in dealing with 

soft tissue and bone damage. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on the treatment of combat 

wounds. To help address the treatment of blast injuries, in coordination with the Blast Mitigation Initiative, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the development of technologies to efficiently detect blunt trauma injuries, and an increase 

of $2.0 million for remote vital signs monitoring systems. 

The committee recognizes the continuing need to develop advanced lower limb prostheses for battlefield amputees. The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for the development 

of advanced lower limb prosthesis technologies. 

The committee notes that the Battlefield Treatment of Fractures 

and Soft Tissue Trauma Care Defense Technology Objective includes a specific challenge to improve tissue viability technologies. 

In support of this goal, the committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million for research on novel tissue regeneration techniques to 

treat battlefield injuries. In addition, to support advances in military capabilities to treat battlefield injuries, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of admmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

170 

vanced technologies to support telesurgery applications in battlefield environments. 

Dengue infection research 

The budget request included $53.3 million in PE 63002A for advanced medical technology. The committee notes that dengue viruses have proven highly debilitating to U.S. military personnel in 

a number of past operational deployments, and that the military 

has long pursued a vaccine against all four types of dengue viruses. 

The committee also notes that the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council has identified the Army as the lead agent to develop capabilities to address the Initial Capabilities Document for Infectious 

Disease Countermeasures. To support these efforts, the committee 

recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 63002A for research 

on the development of vaccines and therapeutics for dengue infections. 

Lightweight cannon recoil technologies 

The budget request included $59.4 million in PE 63004A for advanced weapons and munitions technologies. The committee notes 

that the Army has a goal to reduce the size and weight of weapon 

systems associated with Future Combat Systems (FCS) to maintain 

lethality while being rapidly transportable. The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for the development of technologies to reduce the weight of FCS cannon systems using advanced recoil reduction technologies. 

Combat vehicle armor technologies 

The budget request included $131.4 million in PE 63005A for advanced combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The Vehicle 

Armor Technology Army Technology Objective (ATO) seeks to provide comprehensive solutions for Future Combat System (FCS) 

ground vehicles to address a variety of threats, including mines, 

rocket propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, and other 

ballistic threats. In conjunction with that objective, the Army’s long 

term armoring strategy, and the need for armor technologies to be 

robust, lightweight, and affordable, the committee recommends a 

number of increases for armor technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development of composite armored cabs, $1.0 million for research on ceramic composite 

materials for armor, and $4.0 million for development of windshield 

armor systems. 

The committee continues to be concerned about the development 

of technologies to support force protection missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, including defenses against snipers and rocket propelled 

grenades. To enhance the force protection capabilities of our deployed forces, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development of counter sniper detection systems in coordination with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

and an additional $7.5 million for the development and testing of 

vehicle-based active protection systems (APS) for use on light tactical vehicles. The committee notes that the recent independent 

technical assessment of APS indicated that the best possible sysmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

171 

tem ‘‘may be based on ‘best of breed’ solutions developed within 

multiple programs.’’ 

Unmanned ground vehicle initiative 

The budget request included $131.4 million in PE 63005A for advanced combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The committee 

notes that section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) established a goal that by 2015, one-third of the operational ground combat vehicles acquired through the Army’s Future Combat Systems 

(FCS) program will be unmanned. The committee understands that 

the Army believes that given current development and fielding 

schedules for the FCS program, this goal will be met. Significant 

technical challenges remain in the development of unmanned 

ground vehicles, including development of propulsion systems, intelligent navigation systems, human-machine interfaces, and reliability. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 

million for this initiative. 

Combat vehicle energy and power technologies 

The budget request included $131.4 million in PE 63005A for advanced combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The committee 

notes that the Department of Defense’s Energy & Power Technology Initiative includes a thrust on energy storage technologies 

to support hybrid electric vehicle mobility, including research on 

batteries, fuel cells, and safety issues. The committee also notes 

that the Army is developing hybrid systems for use on Future Combat Systems vehicles and other vehicle applications. The committee 

recommends a number of funding increases which will demonstrate 

the viability of hybrid technologies in military environments and 

explore the feasibility of deploying hybrid engines for military applications. The committee recommends increases of $10.0 million 

for a program to develop advanced hybrid vehicle technologies including research on engine technology, power electronics, control 

technology, and other areas; $4.0 million for advanced solid hydrogen storage technologies for military vehicles; $3.0 million for research on improving the reliability and reducing the cost for fuel 

cells in military materiel handling equipment applications; and 

$1.5 million for developing manufacturing processes needed to reduce fuel cell costs to the military. 

Combat vehicle reliability and readiness technologies 

The budget request included $131.4 million in PE 63005A for advanced combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The 

Prognostics and Diagnostics for Operational Readiness and Condition-based Maintenance Army Technology Objective has a goal to 

improve near-term and Future Combat Systems commodity readiness and maintainability through improvements in the capability 

to detect and predict equipment health status and performance. In 

coordination with this objective and as part of efforts to improve 

the readiness of Army forces, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for research on computer models and simulations to better predict military vehicle reliability, and an increase 

of $3.0 million for the development of test facilities to evaluate admmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

172 

vanced combat vehicle power train designs. Further, the committee 

notes that the Army is planning an initiative to invest in research 

activities that develop advanced mechanical fastening and joining 

technologies that will increase vehicle reliability and performance. 

In support of that effort, the committee recommends an additional 

$1.5 million for ground vehicle fastening and joining research. 

Leadership training simulators 

The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 63015A for next 

generation training and simulation systems. The committee understands that the Army’s Learning with Adaptive Simulation and 

Training Technology Objective is developing virtual training simulations that incorporate political and cultural effects of the environment and behaviors of adaptive enemies. The committee also 

notes that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 

heard testimony indicating that leadership training that improves 

cultural awareness will enhance operational performance in the future. To support efforts to improve leadership training of this type, 

and in conjunction with efforts at the Army’s Institute for Collaborative Technologies, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 

million for the development of leadership training models and simulations. 

Fuel cells for military applications 

The budget request included $6.8 million in PE 63734A for military engineering advanced technology. The committee notes the Department of Defense’s efforts to develop technologies to support 

continuity of operations missions. The committee also notes that 

under the Department’s Energy and Power Technology Initiative, 

one of the technical challenges in power distribution technologies 

is the improvement of component and system reliability and availability. In support of these challenges, the committee recommends 

an increase of $3.0 million for the development of fuel cell systems 

that support continuity of operations missions. 

The committee also notes that the Energy and Power Technology 

Initiative identified an objective of developing fuel cell portable 

power systems using methanol as a fuel. In support of that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the 

development of direct methanol fuel cells. 

Counter rocket, artillery, and mortar radar technologies 

The budget request included $67.0 million in PE 63772A for advanced tactical computer science and technology. The committee 

understands that the Extended Area Protection and Survivability 

Army Technology Objective (ATO) has a goal to develop concepts 

and supporting technologies for a system capable of providing extended area protection and distributed survivability from rocket, 

artillery, and mortar (RAM) threats. To support this effort, the 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to develop radar 

systems to support counter RAM missions. 

Language translation technologies 

The budget request included $67.0 million in PE 63772A for advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology developmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

173 

ment, $76.3 million in PE 63122D8Z for combating terrorism technology support, and $137.7 million in PE 61102A for defense research sciences. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities received testimony highlighting the need for the Department of Defense to significantly improve its language translation 

capabilities for a variety of operational missions—including intelligence analysis and peace and stability operations. Technologies 

being developed by the Department include speech and text translators, including handheld and bidirectional systems being designed to assist in translating a growing number of target languages. The committee notes that the Defense Science Board recently emphasized the need to advance these capabilities in its recent ‘‘21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors’’ study. To support 

these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63772A to continue the development of handheld translation systems, $2.0 million in PE 63122D8Z for research on Arabic 

language analyses, and $3.0 million in PE 61102A for research on 

document exploitation systems to assist intelligence analysts. 

Radiation hardening initiative 

The budget request included $14.4 million in PE 63305A, Army 

Missile Defense Systems, but no funds for radiation hardening integration. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

for a radiation hardening initiative to improve understanding of radiation transport and effects, modeling and simulation tools, and 

radiation-hard design approaches. This activity should be closely 

coordinated with the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight Council. 

Active protection systems development and integration 

The budget request contained $142.5 million in PE 63653A for 

the advanced tank armament system, which includes funding for 

the integration of a suitable active protection system (APS) onto 

Stryker vehicles. The committee notes a recent December 2006 decision to restructure the Future Combat System (FCS) and designate the APS as a key spin out component, with a plan for fielding available systems on Stryker vehicles first. The committee 

notes that a recent independent assessment has expressed concern 

over the Army’s chosen technological approach to APS and the feasibility of its fielding as planned by 2010. 

Given the likely acceleration of a number of threats, the committee supports the acceleration of the best possible protection systems to the current force, including tactical vehicles, and considers 

this a top force protection priority for the Army. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Army, in conjunction with the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, to closely monitor the development and deployment of foreign and domestic APS, including where appropriate 

through the establishment of data exchange agreements and joint 

exercises and demonstrations. 

To accelerate the fielding of operationally suitable APS onto 

Stryker vehicles, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 

million in PE 63653A for technology integration efforts. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a detailed technical plan and schedule for efforts related to the technological matmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

174 

uration of APS technologies and the integration of APS onto current force vehicles, prior to the obligation of any of these additional 

authorized funds. Further, the committee directs the Army to include sufficient funding in its future years budget, beginning with 

the fiscal year 2009 budget, to accomplish the stated goal of integration on Stryker by fiscal year 2010, which may require additional funding for both technological maturation of the APS technologies as well as funding for integration issues. The budget request included $142.5 million in PE 64660A for 

FCS manned ground vehicles and common ground vehicle. Given 

concerns about the maturity of APS currently under development, 

the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 

64660A to support the development and testing of APS for FCS 

manned ground vehicles. 

Undersea chemical weapons assessment program 

The budget request included $6.1 million in PE 63779A for environmental quality technology, but did not provide any funds for the 

Undersea Chemical Assessment program. This program will provide a comprehensive definition of risks presented by chemical 

weapons disposed of by the Department of Defense in selected undersea locations. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 

million in PE 63779A for the Undersea Chemical Assessment program. 

Warfighter information network—tactical 

The budget request included $222.3 million in PE 63782A for the 

continued research and development of the Warfighter Information 

Network—Tactical (WIN-T) program. The committee notes with 

concern that this program has been troubled for a number of years, 

culminating in its January 2007 Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach. 

In title I of this Act, the committee has directed the Secretary 

of the Army to consolidate the joint network node program and the 

WIN-T program into one single Army tactical network program. 

The committee believes the Army can incrementally provide WINT capabilities to the warfighter in the near-term. However, the 

committee believes the Army cannot spin into the force these incremental improvements without funding support. Therefore, the committee recommends a $100.0 million increase in funding for WINT research, development, test, and evaluation. 

The committee also directs the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and 

Information Integration and the Secretary of the Navy, to report to 

the committee, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this 

bill, on whether the Marine Corps should also be part of the single 

Army tactical network program. The committee is concerned that 

the two military services are not working in concert on the development of this important and expensive communications technology. 

Future medical shelter systems 

The budget request included $12.5 million in PE 63807A for advanced development of medical systems. The committee notes that 

the Army is in the process of evaluating technologies for advanced 

combat support hospitals. These systems are vitally important for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

175 

the care of military casualties in theater, as well as for responding 

to domestic natural disasters. The committee recommends an additional $7.5 million for the next phase of combat support hospital 

development. 

Nickel boron metal coating technology for crew served 

weapons 

The budget request included $18.2 million in PE 63827 for soldier systems advanced development, but no funding for nickel 

boron metal coating technology for crew served weapons. 

Blowing dust and sand as experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan 

penetrate weapon mechanisms and contribute to accelerated wear 

rates and reduced reliability. Worse, these conditions can result in 

weapons jamming in the middle of combat at great risk to the soldiers. Applying lubricious coatings to selected high-wear parts will 

significantly reduce or eliminate wear, while doing so to the entire 

weapon system will allow weapons to be operated without lubrication. 

Funding is required to complete development and evaluate performance of nickel boron coatings on the M249 Squad Automatic 

Weapon to minimize the amount of lubricant needed during weapon functioning. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million for that 

purpose. 

Integrated broadcast service 

The budget request included $38.2 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for the Integrated Broadcast 

Service program within the Army. This line item funds development of improvements for the Joint Tactical Terminals (JTT) used 

to receive the broadcast service. The fiscal year 2008 request reflects an increase of $37.1 million over the fiscal year 2007 funding 

level, and the projected request for fiscal year 2009 falls back to 

$13.7 million. The large single-year rise apparently reflects a decision by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to almost fully fund 

in 1 year a series of upgrades to all JTT radios. The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million to fund higher priorities because the remaining requirement can be deferred until next year. 

Family of heavy tactical vehicles 

The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 64622A for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army for 

work associated with the family of heavy tactical vehicles, which 

includes the variants of the heavy expanded mobility tactical truck. 

This program element will fund the development of the Army’s 

next generation tactical truck, as part of the Army’s Tactical 

Wheeled Vehicle Modernization Strategy. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to fund the RDT&E of oil and 

thermal management systems. Oil and thermal management systems have proven to extend the life of vehicle engines and other engine components, particularly in vehicles designed for long-haul 

missions. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

176 

Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles 

The budget request included $82.3 million in PE 64642A for technology development for Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles. Under 

this account, the Army pursues survivability, mobility, communications, energy and power, and autonomous technology improvements 

for the High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 

and the next generation HMMWV, known as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million in PE 64642A for fuel cell vehicle propulsion research. 

This funding will permit the Army to pursue potential advanced 

fuel cell technologies and applications in the development of the 

JLTV. 

Future combat systems 

The budget request included $3.6 billion for the Future Combat 

Systems (FCS). The committee has been, and continues to be, a 

strong supporter of Army transformation, and believes that the 

FCS program is the centerpiece of that transformation. 

For many years the committee has expressed concern about the 

lack of strategic mobility for ground combat forces. This issue was 

illustrated by the problems the Army faced in projecting forces rapidly into the Balkans during the Kosovo crisis, and also by the 

length of time required to build up ground combat forces and the 

required logistical stockpiles for both Operation Desert Storm and 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. These latter operations were aided to 

some degree by the availability of pre-positioned equipment and by 

an adversary who failed to take advantage of the risk to U.S. forces 

from a slow build-up of combat power by launching a pre-emptive 

strike. Those conditions may not be present the next time ground 

combat forces must be quickly inserted into a hostile environment. 

While strongly supporting the Army’s plan to build the Objective 

Force, which was the term for the transformed force nearly a decade ago, the committee was admittedly skeptical of the Army plan 

to buy several brigades of interim armored vehicles. The committee 

believed at the time that the Army should indeed reorganize a 

number of its units into lighter, more mobile brigades, but believed 

that could be accomplished using combat vehicles currently in the 

inventory, such as the upgraded M113A3 armored personnel carrier. The committee was concerned that the added cost of acquiring 

‘‘off-the-shelf’’ interim armored vehicles might eventually put the 

transformation to a new fleet of modern medium-weight combat vehicles at risk. 

Responding to committee concerns, the Army did extensive analyses and comparative testing, and reconfirmed its decision, backed 

by the Secretary of Defense, to build new Interim Brigade Combat 

Teams with a new family of vehicles—the Strykers. 

The committee notes that the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 

(SBCT), by all reports, have been very successful in Iraq, and has 

supported additional funding for Strykers elsewhere in this report. 

The committee has also expressed concern about the Stryker Mobile Gun System elsewhere in this report, but believes that the 

SBCTs have provided a hint as to the future potential that the 

vastly more capable FCS Brigade Combat Teams will bring to the 

Army. However, adding seven SBCTs has provided only a hint, and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

177 

it would be a critical mistake to abandon the Army’s core modernization effort, believing that seven Stryker Brigade Combat 

Teams solve the strategic mobility problem the Army continues to 

confront, or that marginal modernization of the current force postures the Army for the challenges of the future. 

The committee believed that the original FCS program was much 

too risky, and was fully in agreement with the first program restructure, and in particular supported the addition of previously 

deferred systems and the spin out of promising FCS technologies 

to the current force. 

Consequently, the committee is concerned about the most recent 

restructure, which now eliminates or defers four of the systems and 

stretches the fielding of FCS Brigade Combat Teams over a longer 

period of time. The committee believes this decision was purely a 

result of budgetary concerns, and does not reflect either a change 

in requirements or programmatic difficulties. The committee believes FCS is a well-run program which is well within cost and 

schedule parameters of the earned value management system. 

Most troubling in the latest restructure is the elimination of the 

Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV), both the Assault and Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition (RSTA) variants, which 

will provide a survivable means for the commander to sense and 

deliver desired effects on the enemy without jeopardizing the lives 

of soldiers. The ARV is highly mobile and well suited for both 

mounted and dismounted forces—the only robotic platform that is 

capable of maneuvering with the FCS manned ground vehicles, 

survivable in direct engagements, and lethal enough to defeat the 

enemy. The committee believes that it is short sighted to eliminate 

such a capability. 

The committee also believes that any proposals or decisions to 

further curtail or stretch out the FCS program are also extremely 

short sighted. The Nation cannot afford to mortgage the future to 

pay current bills by curtailing Army transformation to meet the demands of the current conflict. History teaches that, while we do not 

know precisely the nature of future conflict, we do know that future conflict will come. If history is a guide, the Americans most 

at risk will be those who engage in direct ground combat. 

The committee believes that the FCS program, the centerpiece of 

Army transformation and modernization, will provide the American 

soldier with lethal and survivable systems, and a versatile organization which will allow him to prevail no matter the nature of future conflicts. 

The committee recommends an increase of $90.0 million in PE 

64663A to restore the ARV to the FCS program, and encourages 

the Army to include adequate funding in the future years defense 

program for that purpose. 

Combat identification 

The budget request included $11.3 million in PE 64817A for combat identification. Under this account, the Army seeks to maximize 

overall combat effectiveness by mitigating incidents of fratricide 

and maximizing the situational understanding of the warfighter. 

This is achieved by rapid, reliable identification of friends, foes, 

and neutrals in the battle space. To accelerate research in this 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

178 

area, the committee recommends an increase in PE 64817A of $2.0 

million for the research and development of a single channel 

ground and airborne radio system-based combat identification technology. 

High energy laser systems test facility 

The budget request included $2.8 million in PE 65605A for the 

Department of Defense High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility 

(HELSTF). The committee understands that this low level of funding will result in a reduction in contractor support personnel and 

reduces the Department’s ability to adequately test planned high 

energy laser weapon systems such as the Airborne Laser and the 

High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator, as well as support 

for work of the Joint Technology Office for High Energy Lasers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million for operations at HELSTF. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, the Director of 

the Test Resource Management Center, and the Director of the 

High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office to report jointly to Congress on a plan, including required funding over the Future Years 

Defense Program, to develop and maintain adequate personnel, resources, and facilities to test current and future high energy laser 

systems, no later than March 1, 2008. 

HIMARS modular launcher communications system 

The budget request included $54.1 million in PE 63778A for the 

Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) product improvement program, but no funding for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System 

(HIMARS) Modular Launcher Communications System (MLCS). 

The HIMARS Operational Requirements Document (ORD) contains a requirement for a sensor-to-effects capability using the 

M142 HIMARS launchers assigned to active component and National Guard HIMARS units. Sensor-to-effects capability significantly reduces target engagement timelines, improves combat effectiveness, and increases flexibility associated with attacking timesensitive, high value targets. 

The committee notes that work is currently on-going for this system upgrade and additional funding is required in fiscal year 2008 

to accelerate this needed capability. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

63778A for HIMARS MCLS to accelerate the development, integration, and testing of sensor-to-effects. 

Combat vehicle improvement programs 

The budget request included $27.6 million in PE 23735A for combat vehicle improvement programs, but no funding for Vehicle 

Health Management systems development or for combat vehicle 

transmission improvement. 

Vehicle Health Management is a set of maintenance processes 

and capabilities derived from real-time assessments of weapon system conditions obtained from embedded sensors and software. The 

goal of Vehicle Health Management is to perform maintenance only 

upon evidence of need and to limit the time it takes to troubleshoot 

failures. Vehicle Health Management represents a conscious effort 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

179 

to shift equipment maintenance from a reactive, preventive approach at the time of failure to a more routine and predictive approach using real-time vehicle information. It will improve maintenance and readiness, and reduce major sustainability costs. 

Funding is needed to support design efforts and to prototype data 

collection systems on-board the Heavy Brigade Combat Team 

(HBCT) vehicles, to design and procure network systems to offload 

the vehicle data, and to analyze the vehicle data to perform failure 

analysis and failure prediction. 

Tank and armored personnel carrier transmissions have not significantly changed in 30 years and are the second largest cost driver in terms of operation and support costs. 

Funding is needed for electronic controls for the Abram tank 

X1100 series transmission. These controls immediately make available a wealth of information and data that can be mined by a Vehicle Health Management system to monitor transmission function 

and health. Proper diagnosis of faults prior to transmission removal offers one of the most effective means of reducing operating 

and support costs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for Vehicle Health Management systems development, and $4.9 million for 

combat vehicle transmission improvement, for a total of $38.5 million. 

Helicopter autonomous landing system 

The budget request included $325.6 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modifications and product improvement programs, but no 

funding for the Helicopter Autonomous Landing System (HALS). 

Utility flight operations are accomplished today using best available training, tactics, and procedures to minimize flight in degraded visual conditions. However, this is not always possible —for 

example, one recent unofficial study of all 251 U.S. Army Class A– 

B rotary wing mishaps ascribed to ‘‘human factors’’ from fiscal 

years 1985 to 2005 counted 52 landing mishaps. These 52 landing 

mishaps involved a total of 8 fatalities and 20 major injuries. All 

these fatalities and all these major injuries except one occurred in 

degraded visual conditions (brownout, whiteout, or instrument 

flight rules). Materiel solutions, to include hover symbology and 

fully coupled flight directors, are being integrated into the UH– 

60M helicopter and will significantly improve operations in degraded visual conditions. 

The materiel solution to counter brownout conditions consists of 

a three-phase approach. Phase–1 or Brownout Situational Awareness Upgrade (BSAU) is precision hover symbology cockpit display; 

Phase–2 is two-axis automated hover hold; Phase–3 or Helicopter 

Autonomous Landing System (HALS) is a visual based ‘‘seethrough’’ capability based on radar and/or forward looking infrared 

technology. Additional funding is needed to bring the HALS Phase– 

3 design achieved through funding in fiscal year 2006 to a level capable of production for potential application onto both legacy and 

modernized UH–60 helicopters. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 

HALS, for a total of $330.6 million. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

180 

Joint tactical ground station 

The budget request included $23.5 million in PE 28053A for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) of the Joint 

Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS). Army and Air Force plans for 

mobile ground stations to receive and exploit the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) are not synchronized and are not funded 

across the future-years defense program. The committee recommends a reduction to the request of $10.0 million, to offset higher funding priorities. 

Navy 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

181 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 224 here 35737.104
182 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 225 here 35737.105
183 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 226 here 35737.106
184 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 227 here 35737.107
185 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 228 here 35737.108
186 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 229 here 35737.109
187 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 230 here 35737.110
188 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 231 here 35737.111
189 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 232 here 35737.112
190 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 233 here 35737.113
191 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 234 here 35737.114
192 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 235 here 35737.115
193 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 236 here 35737.116
194 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 237 here 35737.117
195 

Navy science and technology educational outreach 

The budget request included $374.1 million in PE 61153N for defense research sciences. The committee notes that many expert 

studies, including efforts by the services and the National Academies of Sciences have concluded that a greater emphasis must be 

placed on K–12 educational activities in math and science in order 

to increase the likelihood that the nation will have enough scientific and engineering talent to meet its future needs. The need 

for a highly qualified pool of technical specialists is particularly 

acute for the Department of Defense, given its need for clearable 

scientists and engineers. To support initiatives to stimulate math 

and science education and outreach efforts by Navy scientists and 

engineers, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 

for naval science and technology educational outreach activities. 

Infrared materials research 

The budget request included $83.4 million in PE 62114N for applied research in power projection technologies. The committee 

notes that the Navy and Marine Corps have a number of initiatives 

developing infrared seeker technologies, and that the Army has official technology objectives in third-generation infrared technologies 

and low-cost, high-resolution infrared focal plane arrays. In support 

of these efforts, and in conjunction with ongoing efforts of the 

Army’s small business innovative research program, the committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for infrared materials research for military applications. 

Undersea perimeter security technologies 

The budget request included $155.9 million in PE 62123N for applied research on force protection technologies. The Navy’s Maritime Domain Awareness science and technology focus area has a 

specific technology objective of improving homeland and port defense monitoring capabilities by developing ‘‘new systems and protocols for target identification and tracking using fixed and 

deployable cueing systems.’’ Consistent with this technology objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for the 

development of a deployable undersea threat detection, classification, and response system; and an increase of $2.0 million for the 

development of deployable, rapid under-hull inspection capabilities. 

Navy energy and power technologies 

The budget request included $155.9 million in PE 62123N for applied research on force protection technologies. The committee 

notes that the Navy is seeking to develop next generation shipborne directed energy weaponry, which will require advanced 

power and energy systems, as well alternative energy technologies 

for a variety of platforms. Consistent with the Navy’s High Energy 

and Pulse Power Technology Objective which seeks to develop energy storage power system architectures and pulsed power control 

systems, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million to 

develop energy delivery technologies for advanced naval weapons 

systems. Consistent with the Navy’s Energy Storage Technology 

Objective to provide reliable power sources for all non-nuclear systems, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

196 

development of fuel cells for unmanned aerial vehicle applications, 

and an additional $3.0 million for propulsion systems for unmanned surface vessels. 

Composites research for special operations craft 

The budget request included $155.9 million in PE 62123N for applied research on force protection technologies. The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for critical composites technologies for special operations forces medium range endurance 

craft. 

Situational awareness processing technologies 

The budget request included $26.8 million in PE 62131M for applied research on force protection technologies. The committee 

notes that one of the Marine Corps’ science and technology objectives is the development of ‘‘improved situational awareness for 

warfighters at all echelons.’’ Consistent with that objective, the 

committee recommends an additional $4.5 million for applied research on the distribution of tactical information to individual 

warfighters. 

Navy electronics research 

The budget request included $45.5 million in PE 62271N for 

radio frequency systems applied research. The committee notes 

that next generation Navy radars, communications, and electronic 

warfare systems will all depend on advanced high power microelectronics. The Navy’s Power and Energy science and technology focus 

area includes the specific objective of developing new materials to 

increase the efficiency and power density of Navy systems. To complement these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million for research on advanced semiconductor radio frequency power technologies. 

Undersea sensor arrays 

The budget request included $68.5 million in PE 62747N for applied research on undersea warfare technologies. The committee 

notes that the Navy’s Maritime Domain Awareness science and 

technology focus area has a vision to ‘‘locate and track any target 

of interest on, under or above the water . . . using integrated networks of persistent sensors.’’ This focus area has a specific technology objective of developing tactical sensor networks that are secure, survivable, self-healing, and adaptable. The committee further notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has indicated that 

critical anti-submarine warfare enhancements are among the 

Navy’s highest unfunded priorities. Consistent with those priorities 

and goals, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million 

for the development of advanced sensor arrays to enhance maritime domain awareness. 

Tactical unmanned air vehicles 

The budget request included $49.7 million in PE 63114N for advanced power projection technologies. The committee has long supported the efforts of the services to increase the number of unmanned air systems being used for military operations. The commmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

197 

mittee notes that the Marine Corps’ highly responsive loitering munitions science and technology objective seeks to develop munitions 

which can be deployed aboard an unmanned air vehicle. In support 

of this goal, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 

for development of tactical unmanned air vehicles in coordination 

with Army efforts in this area. 

Free electron laser research 

The budget request included $49.7 million in PE 63114N for advanced technologies for power projection. The committee notes that 

the Navy has explored the use of free electron lasers as a weapons 

system, as well as for industrial manufacturing applications. The 

committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for research on 

the use of free electron lasers for manufacturing of military systems. 

Force protection advanced technology 

The budget request included $70.8 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology. This program addresses applied research associated with providing force protection capability 

for all naval platforms. 

The budget request included no funding for development of a 

transportable manufacturing and repair cell. This cell would reduce 

operating and support costs, while maintaining equipment readiness in theater. The cell would be deployable by ships and large 

ground vehicles, and would provide precision, on-demand manufacturing of critical parts for the Navy and Marine Corps. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the development 

of a transportable manufacturing and repair cell. 

The budget request included no funding for continuing the development of wide band gap semiconductor substrate materials. These 

materials offer capability for higher power and higher frequency 

operation in high temperature environments across a broad spectrum of applications. The committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million for the continued development of wide band gap semiconductor substrate material. 

The budget request included no funding for any initiative to leverage rapidly developing ongoing advances in hydrogen-powered 

fuel cell vehicle technology to enable revolutionary changes in the 

Department of the Navy non-tactical vehicle fleet. Fuel cells powered by hydrogen could totally change the present dependence on 

petroleum as the logistics fuel and could offer the ability to run 

systems silently and with significantly reduced thermal signatures 

for missions requiring low probability of detection. In previous 

years, the Department of the Navy conducted several short-term 

demonstrations of hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $4.9 million for an expanded 

demonstration of fuel cell vehicles, to include an extended vehicle 

range refueling capability enhancement to include testing that 

could establish the basis for a potential full qualification of a hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle for fleet operations. 

The budget request included no funding for development of autonomous superconducting fault current limiting systems. Modern 

electric power generation and distribution systems on naval ships 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

198 

are susceptible to catastrophic high current surges (i.e., fault currents) that may result in permanent equipment damage and total 

power system shutdowns. Efficient, reliable, and stable shipboard 

power systems are critical to the operation of present and future 

naval surface combatants. Conventional hardware systems (e.g., 

fuses, circuit breakers, etc.) provide some degree of protection, but 

are insufficient to meet the critical requirements for reliable, uninterrupted power under the most adverse conditions of warfare. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to develop a current limiting system to help address current and future shipboard 

power systems issues. 

The budget request included no funding for continued development of an electrochemical field-deployable system for generating 

potable water. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–289) provided $1.0 million to accomplish Phase I objectives to develop, establish, and demonstrate 

an economical process to make sodium hypochlorite, and team with 

potential industrial and medical end users. If the program is to 

succeed, the Navy needs to complete Phase I and begin Phase II 

of the program which would: (i) conduct long-term testing of subscale electrochemical cell membrane modules; (ii) demonstrate a 

sub-scale technology unit; and (iii) begin concept design of full-scale 

electrochemical cell membrane modules. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to complete Phase I and begin 

Phase II of this activity. 

The budget request included no funding for improving the capability to manufacture fuel cells to help accelerate the application of 

fuel cells for a wide range of Department of Defense electrical 

power needs, including ships and submarines, ground vehicles, mobile electric power for bases and other field equipment, and aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million to enable the Department of the Navy to advance fuel cell manufacturing feasibility and readiness for field testing. 

The budget request included no funding for development of a 

lithium battery technology that could replace one of the three generators normally in operation or reserve aboard all large Navy 

ships. The primary purpose would be to save the costs of fuel consumed by the primary reserve generator, which must operate constantly as a back-up source of power for the ship’s primary propulsion and electrical systems. Such a battery system could provide a 

lower cost, higher quality source of electrical power that would replace redundant back-up power sources dedicated to subsystems 

throughout the ship. The battery would also eliminate the possibility of a ship experiencing a catastrophic loss of power (‘‘going 

dark’’) due to a cascading failure of generators and an inability to 

restart the main engines following a loss of main power. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to enable the development of such lithium battery technology. 

The committee recommends a total authorization of $100.1 million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology. 

Ground sensor networks 

The budget request included $71.0 million in PE 63640M for Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations. The committee 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

199 

notes that small arms fire accounts for a large number of coalition 

casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that a number of services 

and defense agencies are pursuing technological solutions to meet 

urgent needs of deployed forces. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the development 

of ground sensor networks that can detect and locate hostile fire. 

Navy sensor arrays 

The budget request included $16.0 million in PE 63506N, but included no funding to develop new technology sensors that would exploit the advantages of these sensors in arrays and integrate them 

into micro-arrays. The committee understands that there have 

been some innovative developments in sensor technology that offer 

significant promise for the fielding of better sensor arrays for torpedo defense and for other potential applications on the battlefield. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million to pursue 

better array technology. 

Shipboard system component development 

The budget request included $9.4 million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development, but included no funding for 

Smart Valve development, power conversion equipment for high 

density power generation packages, high temperature superconductor alternating current (HTS–AC) synchronous marine propulsion motor development, or shipboard flywheel energy storage 

systems. 

Smart Valve is an advancement in control system technology applied to the design for bleed air regulating, control, and relief 

valves on existing and future gas turbine naval vessels. Existing 

bleed air valves for gas turbine ships are subject to high maintenance costs and reliability concerns. Smart Valve provides an advanced linear electro-mechanical actuator design for accurate and 

quick response, and includes self-diagnostic capability for preventive, condition-based maintenance. Increased service life and improved functional design with Smart Valves results in reduced 

maintenance and reduced life cycle cost. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to complete development and 

testing of a prototype Smart Valve. 

The development of component technologies for power system 

management is critical to the success of the Navy’s efforts to field 

the all-electric warship. Power conversion equipment for high density power generation is one of the key enabling capabilities required by the integrated power distribution systems required by 

the all-electric warship. The committee is aware that ongoing efforts to develop next generation power conversion equipment for 

the DDG–1000 destroyer and CG(X) cruiser programs requires 

funding to complete the proof of concept. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million to complete development of 

power conversion equipment for an advanced high density power 

generation system. 

The Navy has been developing and testing a 36.5 megawatt prototype HTS–AC synchronous propulsion motor. The Navy will take 

delivery of a prototype of such a motor for final testing during fiscal year 2007. Additional funding is required in fiscal year 2008 to 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

200 

support full power testing of the prototype motor, and to complete 

the preliminary design for militarization of the HTS–AC motor and 

associated drive system for potential application to a future surface 

combatant. The committee recommends an increase of $14.4 million to continue development and testing of the HTS–AC synchronous marine propulsion motor. 

Flywheels have long been targeted as an energy storage technology for emerging applications, and as such, are included in the 

Militarily Critical Technologies list. In particular, the Navy has 

identified a list of critical shipboard applications of flywheel energy 

storage systems that includes: ‘‘Dark Start,’’ uninterrupted power 

to essential loads, leveling loads faced by the electrical system, and 

single generator operation. Additional efforts would develop and 

test a flywheel energy storage system with greater power density 

and output that is fully adapted to the shipboard environment. The 

committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million to continue development and testing of a flywheel energy storage system. The committee recommends a total authorization of $38.8 million 

in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development. 

Surface vessel torpedo tubes 

The budget request included no funds in PE 63513N for developing better torpedo tube technology for surface ships. The Navy 

has been managing a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) 

project to develop a modular, gas generator launch canister. This 

project is employing commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS), automobilestyle air bags for launch energy. Employing such long shelf life 

COTS components could greatly reduce the maintenance burden of 

keeping air flask-based torpedo tubes in operational condition. Additional funding in fiscal year 2008 would continue fabrication and 

testing of two advanced development models (ADMs) that could 

launch lightweight torpedoes from unmanned surface vessels (USV) 

planned for the Littoral Combat Ship. These ADMs could also serve 

as the basis for an option to backfit during the Arleigh Burke class 

destroyer modernization program. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63513N to continue development of an improved launch capability for surface vessel torpedo tubes. 

Advanced submarine system development 

The budget request included $134.9 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development. The design and development efforts in these programs are to evaluate a broad range of 

system and technology alternatives to directly support and enhance 

the mission capability of current submarines and future submarine 

concepts. 

The budget request included no funding to begin studies that 

would lead to developing a replacement for the Ohio class strategic 

missile submarine program which was designed in the 1970s. The 

Navy has begun low level studies under a program called the Undersea Launch Missile Study (ULMS). The efforts within ULMS 

will involve exploring new technologies, conceptual design of ship 

configurations, supporting ship systems, consideration of strategic 

payloads, and development of other payloads. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

201 

However, there appears to be insufficient work to maintain the 

skill set among submarine designers until the Navy would otherwise start designing a replacement for the Ohio class. A recent report by the RAND Corporation evaluating the submarine design industrial base concluded that it would be less expensive to sustain 

some number of workers in excess of those needed to meet the residual design demands during such a gap. One means of achieving 

this goal would be to begin the more extensive design activities earlier than the Navy would otherwise start them to support a specific 

date to start building the next class. The committee believes that 

the Navy should start that effort in fiscal year 2008 and recommends an increase of $25.0 million for that purpose. The budget request included $13.5 million for a variety of advanced submarine sensors, including the twin line, thin line towed 

array. Twin line towed array geometries lead to improved gain and 

better target motion analysis by resolving the right-left ambiguity 

of a single line array without the need for ship maneuvering. This 

approach would provide an efficient means of achieving significant 

improvement in detection, fire control, and self-defense capabilities. 

The committee recommends an additional $4.5 million to demonstrate twin line, thin line towed array technology. The committee recommends a total authorization of $164.4 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine system development. 

Next generation shipboard monitoring 

The budget request included $30.9 million in PE 63563N for Ship 

Concept Advanced Design, but included no funding for next generation shipboard monitoring. The Navy has placed a priority on reducing operating and maintenance costs for in-service and future 

ship classes, which requires that all ships in the fleet transition to 

condition-based maintenance. Condition-based maintenance requires ships to be equipped with a system that effectively monitors 

equipment performance, performs diagnostics, and provides predictive analysis for plant operation and maintenance. Additional 

funding for next generation shipboard monitoring is necessary to 

integrate and implement open system diagnostic data infrastructure and monitoring systems for shipboard equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63563N for 

next generation shipboard monitoring. 

Expeditionary fighting vehicle 

The budget request included $288.2 million in PE 63611M for the 

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). The EFV is a high speed, 

amphibious, armored tracked vehicle for transporting marines from 

amphibious ships over the horizon to shore and inland. The Department of Defense Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation directed a reduction to the Marine Corps’ acquisition objective, which 

was reduced from 1,013 to 573 vehicles in fiscal year 2006. 

The EFV program entered the system development and design 

phase in December 2000, and was scheduled to award a Low Rate 

Initial Production (LRIP) contract late in fiscal year 2006. Operational assessment of the vehicle’s performance during 2006 determined that the EFV, while meeting most key performance parameters, fell critically short of requirements for system reliability. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

202 

Therefore, the Department deferred LRIP and conducted an independent review, which determined that redesign of the EFV would 

be required in order to correct significant system engineering deficiencies. 

The compounding impacts of a 45 percent reduction to the EFV 

program’s acquisition objective and a 3 or 4 year further delay to 

the LRIP decision resulted in a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach. The 

committee is awaiting the Secretary of Defense’s determination on 

whether the EFV program meets the certification requirements 

under section 2433 of title 10, United States Code. 

The Department’s reliance upon the EFV test program to reveal 

failures in fundamental systems engineering for this major program reflects a disturbing trend in systems acquisition. Equally 

troubling is the belated acknowledgment that the vehicle design 

has been overly-influenced by performance requirements that are 

unreasonable and unnecessary. 

If the EFV program is certified by the Secretary of Defense, it 

would resume development in the third quarter of the current fiscal year. The resultant under-execution in fiscal year 2007 provides 

significant carryover of funding into fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends a reduction of $100.0 million in fiscal year 

2008 in PE 63611M. 

The committee is aware that the Department’s corrective action 

plan includes production of new vehicles, which adds significant 

cost and schedule to the development effort. The committee is concerned that the Department arrived at this decision independent of 

root cause analysis of the operational assessment results. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees providing the root cause analysis 

for the EFV reliability failures prior to obligation of funding toward 

production of a new prototype EFV. The report shall include the 

Department’s assessment correlating the reliability failures to the 

requirement to produce new test vehicles. 

Joint light tactical vehicle 

The budget request included $80.4 million in PE 63635M for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Marine 

Corps Ground Combat/Support Systems. The war-related budget 

request for fiscal year 2008 also included $35.8 million for the same 

program element. Of this $35.8 million, $20.0 million is requested 

for acceleration of the development of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). The JLTV development program has nothing to do with 

ongoing military operations and should be funded exclusively in the 

base budget. The committee recommends a reduction to the warrelated budget request for JLTV of $20.0 million and an increase 

of $20.0 million for JLTV development in the base budget. 

Optical interconnect 

The budget request included $3.5 million in PE 63739N for Navy 

logistics productivity initiatives, but include no funding to develop 

low cost, high quality fiber optic interconnect technology for military aerospace application. The Department of Defense continues to 

demand increasing data processing, communication, and system 

control capabilities. The next generation data and communication 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

203 

management systems needed for weapons systems will depend 

upon tightly integrated optical fiber solutions, also known as optical interconnect. This solution optimizes space utilization while 

achieving high bandwidth, decreased weight, immunity to electromagnetic interference, resistance to corrosion, and improved safety 

and security. The Navy has requirements for next generation optical interconnect technology for several aircraft platform systems, 

and anticipates that this technology could be applied to Navy vessels as well. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

to develop this important technology. 

Tactical aircraft direct infrared countermeasures development 

The budget request included $27.6 million in PE 64272N for developing and testing airborne electronic attack systems under the 

tactical aircraft direct infrared countermeasures (TADIRCM) development. The TADIRCM program develops electronic warfare systems for the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, and 

the United States Army tactical aircraft, Marine Corps helicopters, 

Navy surface combatants, data link vulnerability assessments, 

Navy and Marine Corps jammers, and electronic warfare devices 

for emerging threats and emergency contingencies. The Navy down 

selected to one contractor in fiscal year 2005 for the pointer/tracker/laser systems to ensure the project did not exceed the budget. 

Therefore, the budget request for TADIRCM included no funding 

for taking advantage of different technical approaches potentially 

resulting from recent successful testing of a high power fiber laser 

(HPFL). 

Given the seriousness of the threat posed by missiles with infrared seekers, the committee believes that the Department of Defense should pursue promising new approaches whenever such new 

testing results become available. The committee believes that a 

demonstration could provide important information to the Navy, 

which would permit accelerating initial operational capability by 

several years. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$4.0 million for conducting an HPFL demonstration. 

Conventional Trident modification 

The budget request included a total of $175.0 million for the conventional Trident modification (CTM), with $126.4 million in hard 

and deeply buried target defeat systems, PE 64327N; $36.0 million 

in Trident II modifications, Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) 

line 1; and $13.0 million in strategic systems missile equipment, 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) line 108. The committee recommends no funding for the CTM and further recommends that all 

of the funding for CTM be transferred to PE 65104D8Z for common 

prompt global strike concepts, discussed elsewhere in this title. 

Permanent magnet motor 

The budget request included $621.5 million in PE 64300N for 

DD–1000 destroyer total ship systems engineering. The budget request included no funding for completing the development and testing of the permanent magnet motor (PMM). 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

204 

Present Navy and Marine Corps electric propulsion and power 

generation systems are several times larger and heavier than mechanical drive equivalents, limited by very heavy generation equipment and propulsion motors. The PMM was developed to resolve 

this. Congress provided funding in fiscal year 2006 which the Navy 

and the contractor team used to complete factory testing, ship the 

PMM engineering development model to the Navy’s land based test 

site, and begin testing. 

Because of the promise of this technology for future ship applications, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to incorporate changes resulting from land based testing, repackage 

PMM design to reflect evolving DDG–1000 requirements, and perform shock analysis. 

Wireless encryption technology 

The budget request included $621.5 million in PE 64300N for 

DD–1000 destroyer total ship systems engineering, but included no 

funding to develop wireless encryption technology. With the reduced manning planned on the DDG–1000 and other vessels, the 

Navy will have to place greater reliance on automation and having 

the crews stay connected to the ships’ computing environment. Absent better wireless encryption technology, the goal of being connected to all information systems will be problematic for very sensitive information. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 

million to develop better wireless encryption technology for use 

aboard Navy vessels. 

Improved towed array handler 

The budget request included $114.8 million for SSN–688 and Trident submarine modernization, but included no funding for developing or testing improved handling gear for submarine towed arrays. The committee understands that additional funding this year 

would complete the initial phase of the program. The Navy has 

now gathered data about stresses encountered by arrays during 

reeling cycles. The next step is to use this data to design engineering changes to both the handling system and the array that would 

preserve system performance while increasing system reliability 

and lowering life cycle costs of the combined system. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million to complete the design, and develop and test prototype system changes to 

improve thin-line towed array system reliability. 

Combat information center conversion 

The budget request included $17.1 million in PE 64518N for 

Combat Information Center Conversion. The Combat Information 

Center Conversion is an essential upgrade for Navy anti-submarine 

warfare (ASW), including development of net-centric capabilities, 

improved command and control, incorporation of an open architecture computing environment, and upgrades to signal processing 

and display technologies. The Chief of Naval Operations has included critical ASW enhancements on the Navy’s unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to 

PE 64518N to accelerate the development of the ASW dead-reckmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

205 

oning table and other display requirements, in conjunction with the 

Combat Information Center Conversion. 

Submarine electronic chart updates 

The budget request included $224.0 million in PE 64558N, but 

include no funding for a program to update electronic charts for 

submarines. 

Navy instructions mandate the use of electronic chart display 

products across the Navy. This requirement was conceived in 

stand-alone, display workstation applications, which no longer represent the state-of-the-practice of net-ready, web-service environments. The committee is aware that the Navy conducted a Small 

Business Innovative Research (SBIR) effort that focused on the 

demonstration of net-ready, web-service updates of electronic 

charts for submarines. The committee recommends an increase of 

$6.0 million to: (i) obtain certification of the common geographic 

display processing improvements already developed for submarines; 

(ii) adapt the results of this effort to Navy-wide applications; (iii) 

evaluate Navy instructions on the use of electronic chart systems 

to compare those requirements with best commercial practices; and 

(iv) establish a Navy certification benchmark for state-of-the-practice of net-ready, web-service environments. 

Next generation Phalanx 

The budget request included $67.4 million in PE 64756N for ship 

self-defense (hard kill), but included no funding for next generation 

Phalanx. The Phalanx weapon system is the Navy’s principal closein weapon system for ship self-defense, and has proven to be extremely adaptive for performance against emerging air and surface 

target sets. The continually evolving nature of the threat, unique 

challenges posed by operations in the littorals, increased emphasis 

on single ship probability of raid annihilation, and fact of life technology obsolescence require continued development effort to sustain 

the superior performance of this critical ship self-defense system. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million in PE 

64756N for the continued development of the next generation Phalanx. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system 

The budget request included $34.3 million for ship self-defense 

soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including $6.0 million 

for various development activities related to the NULKA anti-ship 

missile decoy system. 

The Navy has identified a series of development activities associated with the NULKA system that are required to understand and 

deal with emerging threats: 

(1) an improved payload that would provide radio frequency 

coverage of more than one band of the spectrum to deal with 

anti-ship missiles; 

(2) better countermeasures techniques for advanced anti-ship 

cruise missiles with advanced seekers; 

(3) an improved guidance and propulsion system to allow 

more precise positioning of the decoy during operations; 

(4) increased duty cycle; and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

206 

(5) additional systems engineering and software support. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for the 

NULKA development program to continue these efforts. 

Navy medical research 

The budget request included $8.0 million in PE 64771N for medical development activities. The committee notes that field reports 

indicate that many battlefield deaths are caused by uncontrolled 

hemorrhage. The Navy’s Warfighter Performance and Protection 

science and technology focus has a specific objective to improve casualty care and prevention. In support of that effort, the committee 

recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the development of 

technologies to control internal hemorrhage due to battlefield injuries. 

Joint Strike Fighter research and development 

The budget request included $1,707.4 million in PE 64800N and 

$1,708.9 million in PE 64800F to continue development and testing 

of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). 

In recent analysis, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

investigated the size of award fees that the JSF program was not 

awarding, but retaining to provide additional incentives in future 

periods. Portions of this ‘‘roll over’’ amount can be awarded to the 

contractor at the discretion of the Government to provide performance incentives in designated target areas. However, March 2006 

Department of Defense (DOD) guidance states that ‘‘rolling over’’ 

unearned award fees should be the exception rather than the rule. 

Since the March 2006 guidance, the JSF program has continued 

the practice of rolling over 100 percent of unearned award fees for 

the air system contract. The air system contract has a balance of 

$58.4 million in its cumulative reserve award fee pool. In addition, 

there is a balance of $22.1 million in the cumulative reserve award 

fee pool for ‘‘subjective’’ criteria for the F135 propulsion contract. 

The size of the award fee ‘‘roll over’’ has been growing steadily 

since the first award fee period in 2001, as unearned award fees 

were rolled over into the cumulative reserve award fee pool. 

Given the 2006 DOD guidance and past award fee reserve pool 

activity for both contracts, GAO believes that a balance of $36.0 

million in the air system contract and $5.0 million in the F135 propulsion contract cumulative award fee reserve pools would provide 

sufficient funding for future target areas. Therefore, approximately 

$39.5 million in previously unearned award fees should be excess 

to requirements in fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends a 

decrease of $19.7 million in each of these two budget lines. 

Navy support of the reliable replacement warhead 

The budget request included $81.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), PE 101221N, for strategic submarine and weapons system support of which $15.0 million was for phase 3 support to the reliable replacement warhead 

(RRW). The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million. 

The committee recommends no funds for RRW activities beyond 

phase 2A in fiscal year 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

207 

Linear accelerator 

The budget request included $81.3 million in PE 11221N, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), but no 

funding for the Crane linear accelerator (LINAC). The committee 

recommends an increase of $9.0 million for the LINAC to simulate 

the high radiation environment in space. The committee directs the 

Navy to develop and use this in conjunction with the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight Council. 

Structural life tracking 

The budget request included $2.2 million in PE 25633N for the 

Navy’s Aircraft Equipment Reliability and Maintainability Improvement program (AERMIP). The AERMIP effort is the only 

Navy program that provides engineering support for in-service, outof-production aircraft equipment, and provides increased readiness 

at reduced operational and support cost. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 25633N to fund initiatives for parts fatigue tracking for military rotary-wing aircraft 

through structural life tracking of Navy and Marine Corps helicopters. 

Ultrasonic consolidation technology 

The budget request included $57.2 million in PE 26623M for the 

development of Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms 

systems, but no funding for the Sense and Respond Support system. The committee understands that the Marine Corps will be entering the final year of a study to determine whether ultrasonic 

consolidation technology can be embedded in a variety of components of the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) as part of a Sense and 

Respond system for vehicle health monitoring. The committee recommends an increase of $3.9 million for the LAV Sense and Respond system. 

Anti-sniper infrared targeting system 

The budget request included $6.2 million in PE 26623M for the 

development of joint and Marine Corps unique improvements to infantry weapons technology, but included no funding for the AntiSniper Infrared Targeting System (ASITS). 

The system employs infrared thermal targeting technology to 

passively detect and locate sources of fire in real-time, and may be 

mounted on ground vehicles or low flying aircraft, or permanently 

emplaced. ASITS is particularly effective against incoming fire 

from concealed positions, and provides a unique capability to enhance survivability for urban operations and countersniper applications. Funding for accelerated development and fielding of a prototype system has been included on the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps’ unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million in PE 

26623M for ASITS. 

Satellite communications (space) 

The budget request included $746.5 million in PE 33109N for 

satellite communications (space) including $611.6 million for the 

Multiple User Objective System (MUOS) satellite. MUOS is the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

208 

Navy’s next generation ultra high frequency (UHF) satellite. The 

first MUOS satellite is currently scheduled to launch in fiscal year 

2010. The Ultra High Frequency Follow-on (UFO) satellite, the legacy UHF satellite system, is failing at a somewhat faster pace than 

anticipated. At the current failure rate, there will be a UHF communications capability gap beginning in January 2008 and continuing for approximately 23 months, until the launch of the first 

MUOS satellite. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 

million to evaluate the option to purchase UHF payloads that could 

be flown on commercial satellites to see if reducing the communications gap would be feasible. 

Internet protocol version 6 

The budget request included $736.6 in PE 33109N, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN) for satellite communication space, but no funds for internet protocol version 6 

(IPv6). The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for 

IPv6 efforts to determine benchmarks, validate network 

connectivity, and test next generation warfighter applications in a 

service orientated architecture for transitioning from the current 

internet protocol version 4 (IPv4), to IPv6. 

Navy manufacturing research 

The budget request included $56.4 million in PE 78011N for industrial preparedness activities. The committee notes that the 

Navy’s Affordability, Maintainability, and Reliability science and 

technology focus area has a specific objective to develop conditionbased maintenance systems in order to reduce acquisition and life 

cycle costs of Navy platforms through intelligent diagnostics. In 

support of that goal, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 

million for systems to measure stress on airframe structures during 

maintenance and manufacturing. 

National Shipbuilding Research Program—Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise 

The budget request included no funding in PE 78730N for maritime technology. The National Shipbuilding Research Program/Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP–ASE) is a collaborative effort between the Navy and industry which has yielded significant 

productivity improvements for Navy ship construction and repair. 

Under this program the Navy provides funding which is matched 

and exceeded by industry investment. Using this approach, the 

Navy has achieved a high return on investment by providing nearterm savings and avoiding significant future costs. The committee 

believes that continuation of the NSRP–ASE effort is a vital element of the overarching objective of improving the affordability of 

naval warship construction and maintaining a healthy, innovative 

shipbuilding industrial base. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 

78730N for the NSRP–ASE. 

Air Force 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

209 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 255 35737.118
210 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 256 35737.119
211 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 257 35737.120
212 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 258 35737.121
213 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 259 35737.122
214 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 260 35737.123
215 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 261 35737.124
216 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 262 35737.125
217 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 263 35737.126
218 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 264 35737.127
219 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 265 35737.128
220 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 266 35737.129
221 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 267 35737.130
222 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 268 35737.131
223 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 269 35737.132
224 

Air Force basic research 

The budget request included $104.3 million in PE 61103F for 

university research initiatives. The committee notes that this is a 

reduction from the fiscal year 2007 requested levels and is concerned about the commitment of the Air Force to protecting the 

funding levels of previously devolved science and technology, including the joint high energy laser programs and university research initiatives. At the same time, as the Air Force is reducing 

its investments in basic research, it is increasing investments in biological sciences, while not sufficiently supporting university research in areas of critical concern to the Air Force including propulsion and information sciences. To enhance investments in the 

development of necessary future Air Force capabilities and to support the training of the next generation of technical, military, and 

business leaders, the committee recommends a number of increases 

to Air Force basic research programs. The committee recommends 

an increase of $3.0 million for research on high energy lasers for 

detection, inspection and non-destructive testing applications; an 

increase of $3.0 million for research to improve the security of critical military networks; and an increase of $3.0 million for research 

on reducing military decision making cycle times. 

Carbon fiber research 

The budget request included $122.8 million in PE 62102F for applied research on materials. The committee notes that t is a growing need for advanced composite materials to support a number of 

next generation air platforms. As indicated by the 2006 JASON report ‘‘Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel Dependence,’’ reducing vehicle 

weight through the use of advanced materials such as carbon reinforced polymers could lead to significant enhancements in the fuel 

efficiency of military platforms. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research on advanced carbon fiber materials for Air Force applications. 

Optical components for air vehicles 

The budget request included $131.9 million in PE 62201F for applied research on aerospace vehicle technologies. The committee 

notes that the National Research Council, in its recent study ‘‘Future Air Force Needs for Survivability,’’ highlighted the need for 

better control of electronic emissions as an important element in 

reducing aircraft signatures. Therefore, consistent with current Air 

Force Small Business Innovative Research efforts, the committee 

recommends an additional $1.5 million in PE 62201F for research 

on optical components to replace electric components for potential 

use in onboard aircraft communications and flight control systems. 

Scramjet technologies 

The budget request included $179.2 million in PE 62203F for applied research on aerospace propulsion. The committee notes the 

role that hypersonic technologies can play in future Air Force operations, by enabling capabilities such as prompt global strike and 

space access. The committee notes the need for robust research 

funding and flight test schedules, clearly established technical 

goals for demonstration programs, and well-defined transition 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

225 

pathways to formal acquisition programs. The committee believes 

that it is the role of the Hypersonics Joint Technology Office, established in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), to oversee and ensure that 

all of the Department of Defense’s research, development, test, and 

evaluation programs in hypersonics are executed in this manner. 

In order to enhance Department efforts in developing hypersonic 

strike capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 

million for scramjet research. 

Network centric collaboration technologies 

The budget request included $108.1 million in PE 62204F for applied research on aerospace sensors. The committee notes that the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list included research on collaboration for sensor technology to allow a network of 

sensors to work securely in hostile operating environments. To support this need, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for the development of secure collaborative sensor grids for 

military operations. 

Air Force seismic research for nuclear test monitoring 

The budget request included $109.6 million in PE 62601F, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), 

for space technology including $6.8 million for seismic technologies 

to support national requirements for monitoring nuclear explosions. 

The committee recommends an additional $11.8 million to improve 

operational seismic capability. The recent North Korean nuclear 

test highlighted a need for additional monitoring capability. 

Acoustic shields for rocket payloads 

The budget request included $109.6 million in PE 62601F for 

space technology. The committee notes the need to develop robust 

space technologies for use as the Department of Defense tries to develop operationally responsive space systems. The committee recommends an increase of $400,000 for research on acoustic shielding 

technology to protect rocket payloads. 

Cyber attack mitigation 

The budget request included $116.7 million in PE 62702F for applied research on command, control, and communications. The Information Assurance and Survivability Technology Base Defense 

Technology Objective includes the specific technical challenge of designing sensors to detect highly sophisticated, stealthy, distributed 

attacks spread out over time; detecting subtle integrity attacks; 

and developing algorithms for self-repair. In support of this objective, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the 

development of advanced systems for the detection and defeat of 

malicious software on military networks and information systems. 

Aerospace metals research 

The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapons systems. The committee notes that 

the Fighter/Attack/Strike Propulsion Defense Technology Objective 

has identified a technical challenge of improving a number of airmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

226 

craft engine performance parameters with advanced materials and 

designs, as well as with lower cost manufacturing processes. In 

support of that effort, the committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million to support advanced aerospace metals research and 

manufacturing. 

Deployable fuel cell processors 

The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapons systems. The committee has supported efforts to develop energy efficient technologies specific to 

military applications that can increase operational performance 

while reducing energy costs and reducing logistics burdens on deployed forces. The committee notes that the Department of Defense 

has a number of ongoing efforts, including the Energy and Power 

Technology science and technology initiative, that seek to develop 

deployable energy and power systems. To support those efforts, the 

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the development of deployable fuel cell processors as part of systems intended 

to replace conventional generators and provide efficient, reliable, 

and environmentally safe power to bare base and Air Expeditionary 

Force operations. 

Aerospace titanium research 

The budget request included $64.9 million in PE 63211F for aerospace technology development and demonstration. The Department 

of Defense’s Materials and Processes Defense Technology Objectives (DTO) include a focus on materials and processes for affordable aircraft structures. The committee notes that the cost of next 

generation platforms such as the F–35 and unmanned air vehicles 

will be reduced through the development of low cost, reliable titanium structures. Therefore, in coordination with the Affordable Aircraft Structures DTO, the committee recommends an increase of 

$2.5 million for research on affordable aerospace titanium structures. 

Thin film amorphous solar arrays 

The budget request included $78.7 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology. The committee recommends an increase of $5.6 million. Fiscal year 2008 will be the last year of a 

successful development and demonstration program of advanced 

solar arrays for space systems using thin film amorphous substrates. These solar arrays are 10 times cheaper, 3 to 5 times lighter, and significantly more efficient than current solar arrays. The 

recently launched TacSat–2 has included these innovative solar 

cells as part of its suite of research and demonstration activities. 

The committee believes these solar cells could be a key element of 

future TacSats and other small operational responsive satellites 

where weight and power efficiency are key program requirements. 

High integrity global positioning system 

The budget request included $70.8 million for the High Integrity 

Global Positioning System (IGPS) technology concept demonstrator 

in PE 63422F. The committee recommends no funding for IGPS in 

PE 63422F. The budget request also included $10.0 million for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

227 

IGPS in PE 1160403BB. The committee recommends the amount 

of the budget request in PE 116040BB. 

The committee believes that the IGPS, if successful, could provide a limited set of users an enhanced jam resistant and accurate 

Global Positioning Signal (GPS). The committee is nevertheless 

concerned that the potential development, transition, and user 

equipment costs, coupled with a rather limited useful life, make 

IGPS a low priority given the other demands on space systems 

funding. If, however, the Department of Defense can identify a specific user community that would share in the development costs 

and that would make a commitment to the purchase of user equipment, the committee would reconsider a request for IGPS in the future. 

Optical interconnects for battlefield communications 

The budget request included $27.4 million in PE 63789F for command, control, communications, and information (C3I) advanced 

development. The committee notes that the most recent Defense 

Technology Objectives (DTO) endorsed by the Department of Defense include the development of optical networking technology 

with a potential payoff of developing networks for controlling vehicle actuators and flight control computing. Consistent with that objective and with efforts in the Air Force Small Business Innovative 

Research program, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 

million for the development of optical interconnects for battlefield 

communications. 

Space control technology 

The budget request included $37.6 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 63438F, for 

space control technology. The committee recommends an increase 

of $50.0 million for the self-awareness space situational awareness 

program to develop a suite of sensors to detect and locate threats 

to a satellite and provide notification and characterization of nearby objects. This program is included on the Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force’s unfunded priority list. 

Space radar technology study 

The budget request included no funds in Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 63858F. The committee recommends an increase of $80.0 million for space radar 

technology evaluation, testing, and development. 

The committee supports the need to develop a single common 

radar system to support space radar capabilities, which would support equally the intelligence community and the warfighter. The 

committee is concerned, however, that the current program is 

unaffordable and may not provide the persistent capabilities for 

surface moving target indications that are desired. Radar options 

other than the current option may be more affordable and could 

provide some advantages when compared with the current program 

in the near-term. The approach to the near-term space radar capability should be joint so that the requirements of both the 

warfighter and the intelligence community are met, and the concepts of operations and tasking are developed jointly. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

228 

Work on the longer-term approach to space radar capabilities is 

equally important. These longer-term approaches should be based 

on new radar applications that are affordable and timed to fit within longer-term planning for space budgets and programs. Using the 

funds recommended, the committee directs that the Secretary of 

the Air Force and the Director of National Intelligence, acting 

through the Joint Program Office (JPO) established by the Air 

Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), explore future radar technologies in a science and technology environment 

with a focus on reducing the cost of space radars and increasing 

utility. The JPO should continue to validate operational concepts 

for both the near- and longer-term space radar systems. 

Common aero vehicle 

The budget request included $32.8 million for the Common Aero 

Vehicle (CAV) in PE 64856F. The committee recommends no funding for the CAV and further recommends that all of the funding for 

the CAV be transferred to PE 65104D8Z for common prompt global 

strike concepts, discussed elsewhere in this title. 

Operationally responsive space 

The budget request included $87.0 million for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), in PE 64857F. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to have a more balanced program. The budget request supports launch and space vehicle work, 

but the committee believes additional attention is needed on sensor 

development as well. 

The new ORS office is in the process of standing up with good 

participation by all of the military services and laboratories. This 

new office will work with the United States Strategic Command to 

explore fully the potential opportunities for ORS capabilities. Like 

many new ideas, such as Global Positioning Systems, the uses and 

benefits are unknown at the outset. The committee continues to believe that the ORS concept holds considerable promise and is encouraged by the increased interest which has developed over the 

past 2 years. Some recent successes, such as the launch of TacSat 

2, have begun to demonstrate potential applications of small, responsive, low cost satellite and launch vehicles. 

The committee directs the new ORS program to submit to the 

congressional defense committees at the conclusion of the first 6 

months of operations, a report outlining any issues that the office 

has encountered, progress made, and highlighting any legislative or 

other requirements that the office needs in order to be successful. 

Combat search and rescue replacement vehicle 

The budget request included $280.0 million in PE 64261F for the 

Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Vehicle (CSAR–X). The 

primary mission of the CSAR–X is to recover downed aircrew and 

isolated personnel from hostile or denied territory. 

The Air Force anticipated beginning CSAR–X system integration 

and demonstration activities in early fiscal year 2007, immediately 

after awarding the system development contract. However, these 

activities have been delayed because bid protests by competitors 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

229 

were sustained, requiring the Air Force to reopen the competition. 

These delays have affected the program’s funding needs in two 

areas. First, $165.3 million in fiscal year 2007 funding apparently 

exceeds current needs as integration and demonstration activities 

slip into the next fiscal year. This funding, however, will still be 

available to support activities that occur in fiscal year 2008. Also, 

many development activities originally planned for fiscal year 2008 

are likely to move into future fiscal years, thus making up to $80.0 

million of the fiscal year 2008 request premature to needs. As a result, the fiscal year 2008 budget request could be reduced by $245.3 

million, were it not for the fact that the Air Force already intends 

to reprogram $92.0 million of the fiscal year 2007 funds to other 

high priority programs. 

Although the committee strongly supports the CSAR–X program, 

there is no need to authorize more funding for the program than 

is necessary to keep it on the revised schedule. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $153.3 million. 

Rapid attack identification detection and reporting system 

The budget request included $53.4 million in PE 64221, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), 

for counterspace systems, including $13.8 million for Rapid Attack 

Identification Detection and Reporting system (RAIDRS) Block 20. 

The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million for RAIDRS 

Block 20. RAIDRS is a sensor system that will be able to detect 

and assess attacks on satellites. This program is on the Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priority list. 

Space control test capability 

The budget request included $53.4 million in PE 64421F, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), 

for counterspace systems, but no funds for the space control test capability. The committee recommends an additional $5.2 million for 

the space control test capability to continue the capability to test 

future space control options and determine costs in a simulated environment. 

Space situation awareness systems 

The budget request included $187.8 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 64425F, for 

Space Situation Awareness. The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million for Space-based Space Surveillance (SBSS) 

Block 10. SBSS is a program to develop a constellation of optical 

sensing satellites to find and track objects in Earth orbit, primarily 

those in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO). The additional funding would support the first SBSS satellite. This program is on the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priority list. 

Space fence 

The budget request included $187.8 million in Space Situation 

Awareness systems Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 

Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 64425F, including $4.1 million to develop 

and field a new space fence. The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million for the space fence. The space fence is a netmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

230 

work of ground radars that detect and track small objects in Earth 

orbit with a primary focus on objects in low Earth orbit. The new 

system should increase by an order of magnitude the number of 

space particles that can be detected and tracked to avoid collision 

and damage to space satellites. This program is on the Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priority list. 

Joint space intelligent decision support 

The budget request included $187.8 million in PE 64425F, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), 

for Space Situation Awareness systems, but no funds for joint space 

intelligent decision support (JSIDS). The committee recommends 

an additional $7.5 million for JSIDS to support space situational 

awareness data analysis. 

Space-Based Infrared Satellite System High GEO 

The budget request included $587.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 64441F, for 

Space-Based Infrared Satellite System (SBIRS) High. The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to address nonrecurring and other obsolescence issues to support SBIRS High 

GEO satellites three and four. As a result of the time elapsed between the acquisition of the SBIRS High GEO satellites one and 

two and the planned acquisition of satellites three and four, some 

significant redesign work is necessary. This gap has served to highlight an issue in the allocation between research and development 

funding for constellations with a small number of satellites. While 

the committee does not support incremental funding of satellite 

programs, production or acquisition gaps in these small constellations, in certain limited circumstances may dictate treatment of 

these later satellites as research and development satellites. This 

problem is limited to constellations of no more than four satellites 

and occurs when substantial nonrecurring costs are incurred. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report no later than August 1, 2007 outlining the budgetary and programmatic implications of utilizing Research and Development 

funds for small constellations of satellites in limited circumstances, 

including when such a funding approach might be appropriate. The 

committee also directs the Secretary to address in the report alternative approaches and options to fund satellite development and 

testing, including the establishment of a single Air Force budget 

line for space research, development, and testing. 

Alternate infrared satellite system 

The budget request included $230.9 million for the Alternate Infrared Satellite System (AIRSS) in PE 64443F. The committee recommends no funding for the AIRSS. 

The AIRSS was initiated in fiscal year 2007 to provide an alternative approach for overhead non-imaging infrared (ONIR) for missile attack early warning at a time when the Spaced-based Infrared 

Satellite System (SBIRS) was suffering from repeated cost and 

schedule overruns. When the SBIRS program generated two NunnMcCurdy breaches in a 2-year period, there was serious concern 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

231 

about whether the SBIRS–GEO portion of the program was salvageable. 

Early missile attack warning is an essential capability that was 

to be performed by the SBIRS combination of highly elliptical orbit 

(HEO) and geosynchronous orbit (GEO) satellites as a replacement 

to the Defense Satellite Program (DSP). With the uncertainty in 

the SBIRS program, the Air Force wanted to explore alternatives 

in the event SBIRS–GEO was canceled after the first two GEO satellites. Since that time, and through the significant efforts of Air 

Force program managers and leadership, the SBIRS–GEO, while 

still facing a number of technical and cost challenges, has significantly improved. 

With the improvement in the SBIRS–GEO program the Air Force 

started to look at AIRSS as a follow-on to SBIRS. The committee 

does not believe that AIRSS is appropriately structured at this 

point to be a follow-on satellite program and that the SBIRS–GEO 

should be able to provide the necessary missile attack early warning, technical intelligence, and battle space characterization for the 

next decade. The committee does support the Air Force’s desire to 

explore next generation ONIR technologies in a science and technology environment, and urges the Air Force to include a request 

for such a technology development program in its fiscal year 2009 

budget request. 

Ballistic missile range safety technology 

The budget request included $15.1 million in PE 65860F, Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, Air Force 

(RDTEAF), for Rocket Systems Launch Program, but no funds for 

the Ballistic missile range safety technology (BMRST). The committee recommends an additional $13.7 million for BMRST to continue certification of integration of additional units requested by 

several space launch ranges, including the Eastern and Western 

ranges, White Sands Missile Range, Pacific Missile Range, and 

Wallops Island launch facilities. 

MQ–9 Reaper 

The budget request included $61.1 million for development of the 

MQ–9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in PE 25219F. Military forces operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere today are 

reliant on a small number of greatly over-taxed airborne systems 

that are able to provide signals intelligence intercept and precise 

direction-finding (SIGINT–DF). In addition, some specialized aircraft not designed or intended for direct support to tactical forces 

currently must be used heavily for this purpose. 

The Air Force is completing development of the scaleable Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload (ASIP). The so-called ‘‘2-box’’ 

configuration provides intercept and DF capabilities. This system 

would enable the MQ–9 Reaper to conduct area surveillance and 

use the SIGINT–DF capability to locate targets accurately enough 

to find them with on-board imaging systems. This in turn would 

enable the Reaper hunter-killer to prosecute the targets. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to integrate the ASIP 2-box payload on the existing MQ–9s for use in ongoing operations. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

232 

Predator trainer upgrade 

The budget request included $61.1 million in 25219F for research 

and development for the MQ–9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle 

(UAV), including $0.5 million for developing an operator simulator. 

The MQ–9 is a derivative of the MQ–1 Predator UAV, and, hence, 

much of the ground support and training equipment for the MQ– 

9 will be the same equipment or product-iRTIProved versions of 

similar Predator equipment. The committee believes that the Air 

Force should be proceeding more rapidly to develop and field upgrades to the Predator trainer system to ensure that operators and 

ground support personnel will develop and maintain the necessary 

skills to conduct effective operations when the MQ–9 systems are 

delivered. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

to develop an upgraded Predator trainer to support the MQ–9 

Reaper with iRTIProved performance, visual systems, and sensors. 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system research and 

development 

The budget request included $65.9 million in PE 27581F for research and development projects for the E–8 joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) and $291.6 million requested in 

fiscal year 2008 war-related research and development for JSTARS. 

In addition, the budget request included $39.7 million in PE 

27450F for the E–10 aircraft program and $178.4 million requested 

in fiscal year 2008 war-related research and development for E–10 

development. 

The funding requested for the war-related JSTARS research and 

development included $251.0 million that would not be needed 

until fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010. Although the committee 

strongly supports the JSTARS program, there is no need to authorize more funding for the program than is necessary to maintain the 

obligation schedule within the Air Force’s own plans. Therefore, the 

committee recommends a decrease of $251.0 million in war-related 

research and development funding. 

The E–10 aircraft was supposed to be a test bed for the multiplatform radar technology insertion program (MP–RTIP). The Air 

Force intends to field this MP–RTIP sensor suite on a number of 

air vehicles, including the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle 

(UAV). The Air Force has now decided to cancel the E–10 program, 

but has not yet decided what to do instead. One possibility, which 

the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has discussed, would be to begin 

a program to modernize some or all of the existing E–8 JSTARS 

aircraft with an MP–RTIP radar system. In fact, the original Air 

Force plan was to backfit some number of these aircraft with the 

iRTIProved radar. 

With the cancellation of the E–10 program, the committee believes that the Air Force should pursue another path to fielding the 

capability that would be provided by having the MP–RTIP radar on 

a platform larger than the Global Hawk. Therefore, the committee 

recommends a decrease of $178.4 million in the war-related funding for E–10 research and development and an increase in PE 

27851F of $275.4 million, consisting of $178.4 million from the cancelled E–10 program and an additional $97.0 million to begin the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

233 

effort to backfit MP–RTIP radar technology to the E–8 JSTARS 

aircraft. 

Weather service research and development 

The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 35111F for research and development projects for the Air Force weather weapon 

system (AFWWS), but included no funding to develop operations 

risk management visualization and integration (ORM–VIZ) upgrades for the system. 

AFWSS and its warfighter application are charged with providing regional and tactical weather observations and forecasts to 

Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems used by commanders, planners, and operators throughout the world. The Air 

Force needs to upgrade AFWWS to provide commanders and mission planners with a better appreciation of the uncertainty of 

weather forecasts and observations. Such an upgrade should enable 

them to better determine the risk of ongoing and planned operations. The AFWWS is currently capable of calculating the needed 

uncertainty but is unable to provide computer-to-computer transfer 

of such information. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to upgrade the AFWSS and integrate all vital 

information (terrain, weather, risk assessment) into one visual display. 

Classified program 

The committee recommends an increase of $190.0 million to PE 

35172F, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force 

(RDTEAF) for a classified item on the Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force’s unfunded priority list. 

Global Positioning System user equipment 

The budget request included $120.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 3516F, for 

Global Positioning System (GPS) user equipment. The committee 

recommends an increase of $60.0 million to develop the next generation of GPS user equipment that could utilize the GPS M code. 

There are already two GPS IIR–M satellites on orbit, there will be 

a third one launched by the end of fiscal year 2007, and four additional satellites will be launched in fiscal year 2008 and there is 

no user equipment available to utilize the M code. This program is 

on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priority list. 

MQ–1 Predator signals intelligence direction finding 

The budget request included $22.3 million in PE 35219F for development of the Predator MQ–1 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). 

In another section of this report, the committee presented a rationale for equipping many more tactical reconnaissance and hunterkiller aircraft with signals intelligence (SIGINT) and precise direction-finding (DF). The committee recommended integrating the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload (ASIP) ‘‘2-box’’ SIGINT–DF on 

the MQ–9 Reaper UAV. The same logic applies to the Predator 

UAV. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

234 

The MQ–1 Predator that the Air Force is currently procuring 

does not have the payload capacity to carry the 2-box configuration 

of ASIP. However, the MQ–1C Warrior that the Army is preparing 

to produce will be able to support the full 2-box payload. In another 

section of this report, the committee directs that the Air Force convert the MQ–1 production line to the MQ–1C variant in fiscal year 

2008. In conjunction with that changeover, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to integrate the ASIP 2-box 

on the MQ–1C. 

Network-centric collaborative targeting 

The budget request included $8.6 million in PE 35221F for the 

Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) program. This innovative program networks airborne and national systems to enable tipping and cueing in near real-time based on commander’s 

guidance to prosecute time-sensitive or otherwise critical targets. 

This networking program is necessary because it is usually impossible for a single sensor to provide all the data necessary to perform wide-area surveillance, detection, identification, localization, 

tracking, and support to target attack—but combinations of existing sensors can accomplish these tasks if properly networked. The 

speed of collaboration required, however, can exceed the ability of 

human operators to coordinate. Instead, ‘‘machine-to-machine’’ communication and automatic action are necessary, based on rules and 

guidance established in advance by appropriate authorities. 

An example of such interactions might be using one signal’s intelligence platform to automatically cue others to tune receivers to 

assist in geolocating a hostile emitter, then tipping an imagery system to locate and positively identify the target for attack. 

The NCCT capability is being fielded to Rivet Joint, Senior 

Scout, the Distributed Common Ground System, air and space operations centers, and the Airborne Overhead Interoperability Office. Through these systems, many of the most important collection 

sensors will be able to participate and contribute—but not all. For 

example, the Joint STARS, Guardrail, EP–3, and Compass Call 

platforms are not tied into this network. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to integrate these platforms 

into the NCCT network. In the future, the signals intelligence and 

imagery systems on Global Hawk, Predator, and Reaper should be 

integrated as well. 

National Security Space Office 

The budget request included $10.8 million for the National Security Space Office (NSSO) in PE 35924F. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to increase the capabilities of 

the NSSO. NSSO is a multidisciplinary multiservice office within 

the Department of Defense (DOD) that was established to provide 

independent technical and other advice with respect to space systems and space architectures. All DOD space programs, including 

the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), were to support and 

participate in the work of this office to ensure close coordination 

and integration of white and black space. In the past year the NRO 

decided not to participate in this office. The committee believes 

that this decision is shortsighted and in the long run will serve 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

235 

only to exacerbate the differences between the two space communities. The committee directs the Director of the NRO to resume 

full participation in the NSSO in fiscal year 2008 and to submit a 

notification to the congressional defense committees by December 

1, 2007, describing the participation and the number of NRO personnel who are assigned to the NSSO office. 

Space situational awareness operations 

The budget request included $23.9 million in PE 35940F for 

space situational awareness operations. The committee recommends an increase of $16.8 million. The increase would provide 

additional funding for a variety of increases in operating costs for 

space situational awareness capabilities, including providing funds 

for the commercial and foreign entities program. This program is 

on the Commander of the Air Force Space Command’s unfunded 

priority list. 

C–130 deicing system 

The budget request included $188.1 million in PE 41115F for the 

developing and testing modifications to the Air Force’s fleet of 434 

C–130 aircraft. The C–130 is the primary intra-theater airlift aircraft in the U.S. military’s inventory, and its continued viability is 

critical to the success of current and future operations. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 41115F for 

ground-based engine testing, flight testing, and certification of 

metal fiber brushes in the C–130 aircraft’s propeller deicing system. 

KC–135 tanker replacement 

The budget request included $314.5 million in PE 41221F for a 

KC–135 replacement, called the KC–X. This program is intended to 

produce the Air Force’s next generation aerial refueling aircraft. 

The committee notes that prior year unobligated appropriations of $173.5 million are available for the execution of the KC–X development program. The Air Force’s request for proposals issued to industry on January 30, 2007, identified $250.0 million as the likely 

funding level available for KC–X developmental activities in fiscal 

year 2008. The committee fully supports the recapitalization of the 

KC–135 fleet and understands that a reduced funding request for 

fiscal year 2008 should not have a significant effect on the program 

execution. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $140.0 million in PE 

41221F for KC–X development. 

Combat casualty management system 

The budget request included $5.2 million in PE 48011F for research and development projects for improving the capability of the 

battlefield airman, but included no funding to improve the ability 

of combat medical personnel to operate more effectively within the 

personnel recovery system. The improvements needed to operate on 

today’s battlefield include the capability to remotely activate communications links to tactical command centers or from low flying 

aircraft such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Such improvements would involve providing combat medical personnel with onmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

236 

going situational awareness of the total battle space and aid in: 

minimizing the risk of exposure of personnel recovery aircraft and 

crews to battlefield threats; providing the ability to bring supplies 

to a medic where needed; increasing signal strength for distance 

and non-line-of-sight detection; and locating and tracking multiple 

survivors within the battle space. The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million to develop 

such improvements to the combat casualty management system. 

Laser processing of materials 

The budget request included $39.9 million in PE 78011F for industrial preparedness activities. The committee notes that advanced aircraft will incorporate advanced composite materials. Reducing the manufacture and processing costs of these materials can 

reduce the life cycle costs of many future major acquisition programs. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 

million for development of advanced laser manufacturing tools for 

polymer composite materials. 

Defense-wide 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

237 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 286 here 35737.133
238 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 287 here 35737.134
239 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 288 here 35737.135
240 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 289 here 35737.136
241 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 290 here 35737.137
242 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 291 here 35737.138
243 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 292 here 35737.139
244 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 293 here 35737.140
245 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 294 here 35737.141
246 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 295 here 35737.142
247 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 296 here 35737.143
248 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 297 here 35737.144
249 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 298 here 35737.145
250 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 299 here 35737.146
251 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 300 here 35737.147
252 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 301 here 35737.148
253 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 302 here 35737.149
254 

Semiconductor focus center research program 

The budget request included no funding in PE 61111D8Z for 

Government/Industry Cosponsorship of University Research 

(GICUR) in semiconductor technology. This is despite the fact that 

in the January 2007 report to Congress entitled ‘‘Response to Findings and Recommendations of the Defense Science Board Task 

Force on High Performance Microchip Supply,’’ the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics indicated that the GICUR program ‘‘is a shared commitment between 

industry and the Department to sponsor next generation semiconductor electronics research,’’ which ‘‘capitalizes on university-based 

research, education, and training in technologies of strategic importance to national defense and also to industry.’’ The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 61111D8Z for the semiconductor focus center research program. The committee directs 

that the Director of Defense Research and Engineering ensures 

that this funding is combined with an adequate cost-sharing investment from industry partners, and is executed in coordination with 

similar authorized funding requested in PE 61101E. 

Further, the committee directs the Director of Defense Research 

and Engineering to comply with the recommendation of the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip 

Supply to develop an ‘‘. . . estimate of Department of Defense 5- 

and 10-year future microelectronics needs (including processes and 

design methods)’’ as well as to ‘‘collect and organize known and 

projected technology requirements.’’ This estimate shall be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than October 

1, 2008. 

Superstructural particle evaluation 

The budget request included $72.0 million in PE 61384BP for 

chemical and biological defense basic research. This basic research 

improves the understanding of the scientific processes for protecting against chemical and biological agents. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 61384BP to continue 

work in superstructural particle evaluation and characterization 

with targeted reaction analysis. This program shows potential as 

an enabling technology for other efforts in the chemical and biological defense area. 

Medical free electron laser 

The budget request included no funding for the Medical Free 

Electron Laser (MFEL) program. The Department of Defense describes the program as developing ‘‘advanced, medical laser-based 

technology applications focusing on rapid diagnosis and treatment 

of battlefield medical problems,’’ while addressing ‘‘military mission 

and unique medical challenges on the battlefield.’’ The Department 

further noted that ‘‘most laser-based medical procedures used in 

surgery . . . for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom casualties have a research base and lineage’’ from the 

MFEL program. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE 62227D8Z for the continuation of competitive research awards under the MFEL program. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic plan 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

255 

for the continuation of militarily relevant medical laser research, 

technology development, and technology transition to operational 

users, and to deliver that plan to the congressional defense committees along with the fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

Chemical and biological infrared detector 

The budget request included $305.3 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but did not include any funds to develop miniaturized infrared detection technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 

PE 62384BP to continue development and miniaturization of an advanced infrared detection system for chemical and biological 

agents. The objective is to demonstrate a functional prototype that 

operates at high speed and sensitivity with minimal false alarm 

rates. This technology may provide an end product with significantly lower logistical burden than other technologies. 

Chemical and biological protective textile fabric 

The budget request included $305.3 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funds for research and development of protective fabrics based on 

advanced molecular matrices. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 62384BP for development of novel textile fabrics for protection against exposure to chemical and biological warfare agents. The committee notes that development of novel 

protective fabric concepts is currently a major thrust of the Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program, and 

this research could lead to important contributions in future protective fabric development. 

Verification and validation of chemical agent persistence 

models 

The budget request included $305.3 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funding for the verification and validation of chemical agent persistence models. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 

million in PE 62384BP, to complete verification and validation of 

chemical agent persistence models to help ensure U.S. forces are 

capable of operating effectively in a chemically contaminated environment. 

The committee notes that the agent fate program is a joint service program that focuses on the acquisition of chemical warfare 

agent data and the development of models from that data. The continuation of the agent fate effort to validate and verify chemical 

agent persistence models meets a Defense Technology Objective, 

and will help U.S. military forces protect themselves and their 

equipment in a chemically contaminated environment. 

Blast mitigation and protection 

The budget request included $182.4 million in PE 62718BR for 

technologies to defeat weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The 

committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 62718BR 

for blast mitigation and protection analysis and software development to improve the Vulnerability Assessment and Protection Opmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

256 

tion analytic tool used by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to 

predict the effects of explosive blasts on buildings, and to design 

mitigation and protection options for military facilities. Terrorist 

attacks using high explosives have become more sophisticated and 

powerful. This requires improved analytic and predictive capabilities for external and internal blast effects, identification of critical 

vulnerabilities, and designing protective measures against blast. 

Comprehensive national incident management system 

The budget request included $182.4 million in PE 62718BR for 

technologies to defeat weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The 

committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62718BR 

for the Comprehensive National Incident Management system 

being developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) 

to improve national capabilities to analyze potential catastrophic 

events such as pandemic influenza and terrorist attacks using 

weapons of mass destruction. This technology has the potential to 

significantly improve the ability of the Department of Defense to 

analyze and plan for such catastrophic events, including its ability 

to provide support to civil authorities for consequence management 

of such events. 

Advanced technologies for special operations 

The budget request included $21.3 million in PE 1160401BB, 

$2.4 million in PE 1160407BB, and $29.9 million in PE 1160402BB 

for science and technology efforts to support the development of 

special operations capabilities. The committee notes that United 

States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has highlighted 

‘‘tagging, tracking, and locating’’ as a key technology challenge and 

plans to invest $17.6 million in the fiscal year 2008 budget in related research. The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE 1160401BB for the development of multi-sensor data fusion systems to enhance detection and discrimination of targets 

hidden in foliage. 

Special Operations Command has also highlighted the development of ‘‘alternative and advanced lightweight power sources’’ as a 

priority technology challenge. Consistent with that assessment, and 

with efforts in the SOCOM Small Business Innovative Research 

program, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in 

PE 1160402BB for research on systems to produce mobile electric 

power from a variety of fuels. Further, the committee recommends 

an additional $3.0 million in PE 1160402BB for the development 

of portable fuel cell systems for battlefield communications equipment. Special Operations Command has identified the development 

of systems that can reduce signatures across the spectrum without 

mission impact to enhance clandestine operations capability as a 

major technology challenge. To support efforts to address this challenge, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 

1160402BB to reduce antenna signatures and improve performance 

on airborne platforms. To support SOCOM’s urgent need to enable 

precision fires in urban terrain and other operational settings, the 

committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

1160402BB for development of standoff precision guided munitions. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

257 

Directly printed electronic components 

The budget request included $118.6 million in PE 63175C for 

ballistic missile defense technology development. The committee 

recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63175C for development of directly printed electronic components for missile defense 

applications. Such components could have increased performance, 

greater reliability, and smaller size than currently available technology. 

Semi-conducting metal oxide sensors 

The budget request included $232.3 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63384BP to 

develop miniaturized semi-conducting metal oxide sensor array 

technology for chemical warfare agents and toxic industrial chemicals. This technology effort meets the Department of Defense 

Chemical and Biological Defense Program objective to develop 

small, integrated chemical vapor sensors by targeting permissive 

exposure levels. 

Improved chemical, biological, and radiological filters 

The budget request included $232.3 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced technology development, 

but included no funds for developing improved chemical, biological, 

and radiological (CBR) filtration capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63384BP for design, engineering, and prototyping of improved CBR filters. Improved filters would fill a requirement for enhanced collective protection capability against a wider spectrum of threat agents. Such filters 

would be multi-use and multi-platform configurable, for use in 

buildings, ships, and shelters. 

Raman chemical identification system 

The budget request included $232.2 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced technology development, 

but included no funding to develop a miniaturized Raman chemical 

agent identification system. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63384BP for development of a handheld Raman chemical identification system that is smaller and 

more reliable than existing systems, in order to improve the ability 

of U.S. forces to rapidly identify unknown chemical agents and substances. 

Biometrics technologies 

The budget request included $8.0 million in PE 63665D8Z for 

biometrics science and technology. The 2007 ‘‘Report of the Defense 

Science Board Task Force on Defense Biometrics’’ highlighted the 

need for improvements in the ability to perform biometric identification at standoff ranges, and recommended support of research 

efforts into ‘‘extended-range human biometric identifiability and 

tracking.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $4.0 

million for the development of systems to perform clandestine identification of moving subjects at variable distances. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

258 

Manufacturing technologies 

The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 63680D8Z for 

defense-wide manufacturing science and technology programs. The 

committee commends the Department of Defense for understanding 

the need to advance manufacturing technologies to support the defense industrial base, improve the performance of defense systems, 

and reduce life cycle costs. In title II, subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), 

the committee established the high performance defense manufacturing technology research and development program with a goal 

to identify and transition advanced manufacturing processes and 

technologies whose utilization would create significant productivity 

and efficiency gains in the defense manufacturing base. The committee notes that this legislation has been endorsed by the Defense 

Science Board (DSB) Task Force on the Manufacturing Technology 

Program. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million 

in PE 63680D8Z to continue activities under this program, including development of test beds and prototypes of advanced manufacturing technologies, diffusion of advanced manufacturing processes 

throughout the industrial base, and the development of technology 

roadmaps to ensure that the Department can access required manufacturing and technology capabilities in critical defense technologies. 

The committee notes that the DSB recommended an increased 

investment in research on ‘‘disruptive’’ manufacturing technologies, 

which can radically alter traditional manufacturing processes and 

change the industrial base. These types of innovations would allow 

the Department to gain easier access to affordable low-volume, 

state-of-the-art production capabilities, as is often needed in the acquisition of defense unique technologies of low density, high demand systems. The DSB indicated that investments in areas such 

as nanomanufacturing and flexible manufacturing processes would 

be of high value to the Department. To support these efforts, the 

committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63680D8Z for longer-term research into disruptive manufacturing 

techniques. 

Printed circuit board technologies 

The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations. The committee notes that the National Research Council 

Committee on Manufacturing Trends in Printed Circuit Technology 

recommended that the Department of Defense ‘‘should ensure access to new printed circuit board (PrCB) technology by expanding 

its role in fostering new PrCB design and manufacturing technology.’’ In support of that recommendation the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the development of emerging critical interconnect and printed circuit board technology. 

Energy efficiency technologies 

The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics research and development (R&D) technology demonstrations. The committee is aware of a growing number of studies from organizations including the JASONs technical study 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

259 

group, the Defense Science Board, and the Energy Security Task 

Force that highlight the need for the Department of Defense to 

closely examine its energy use and technologies for improving energy efficiency. The use of energy efficient technologies by the Department can result in cost savings, enhanced operational performance, and reduce dependence on foreign oil. The committee also 

notes that the Marine Corps submitted an urgent request for renewable energy systems to be deployed in Iraq. Finally, the committee notes that Executive Order 13423 calls on federal agencies 

to increase their use of renewable energy for power, and for federal 

fleets to increase their consumption of non-petroleum-based fuels 

by 10 percent annually. 

The committee supports efforts by the Department to invest in 

energy efficient and alternative energy technologies. To support 

these efforts the committee recommends increases of $10.0 million 

to continue the Vehicle Fuel Cell Program established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 

107–314), $6.0 million for research on solid hydrogen storage materials and systems appropriate for military applications, $3.0 million 

for research on the production and use of biofuels for military operations, and $3.0 million for the development of deployable 

microgrid systems that can utilize a variety of energy sources to 

produce installation and vehicle power. 

Unmanned air vehicle batteries 

The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics technology demonstrations. The committee has 

strongly endorsed the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for 

a growing number of military missions. The committee notes that 

one limiting factor in the use of UAVs on the battlefield is the limited power available on the platforms, which can limit both UAV 

flight range as well as the specific missions of each platform. In 

order to address this issue, the committee recommends an increase 

of $2.0 million for research on advanced battery technologies for 

UAVs. 

Water remediation research 

The budget request included $68.9 million in PE 63716D8Z for 

the strategic environmental research program. The committee understands that the Department of Defense has identified a large 

number of active and formerly used defense sites with issues of 

groundwater contamination. Many of these sites will require environmental remediation. To support those efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for water remediation research. 

High performance computing modeling and simulation 

The budget request included $187.6 million in PE 63755D8Z for 

the high performance computing modernization program. The committee notes that one of the Army’s major future force technology 

areas is advanced simulation technologies. These technologies are 

being developed to provide increasingly realistic training and mission rehearsal environments to support military operations and acquisition efforts. In order to support those efforts, the committee 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

260 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million for high performance computing modeling and simulation research. 

Small craft common operating picture technology 

The budget request included $109.5 million in PE 63826D8Z for 

quick reaction special projects. The committee notes that the 

Navy’s assymetric and irregular warfare science and technology 

focus area has a specific technical objective of improving riverine 

surveillance capabilities, through the development of a ‘‘common 

and persistent maritime picture on and below the surface and 

shore.’’ To support those efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for the development of technology to provide 

a common tactical operating picture to riverine craft. 

Active protection systems comparative testing 

The budget request included $109.5 million in PE 63826D8Z for 

quick reaction special projects. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the comparative testing of foreign and 

domestic active protection systems as required elsewhere in this report. The committee further recommends an increase of $1.0 million for the assessment of current and future active protection systems as described elsewhere in this report. 

Joint warfare experimentation 

The budget request included $112.0 million in PE 63828D8Z for 

joint experimentation. The committee notes that Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) is playing the lead role in the development of joint 

operational concepts and in the development of joint experiments 

and wargames to test new operational concepts, capabilities, and 

technologies. The committee notes that JFCOM is conducting experiments to understand how multiple federal agencies, including 

the Department of Defense, should interact with each other and 

state and local entities in carrying out homeland defense missions. 

To support these efforts the committee recommends an increase of 

$1.5 million for wargaming and experimentation to simulate terrorist attacks against domestic military facilities. The committee 

also is supportive of JFCOM efforts to enhance Department language and cultural awareness capabilities and recommends an increase of $3.2 million to continue the development of cultural and 

societal modeling and simulation tools. The committee also commends JFCOM efforts in the development of urban operations concepts and capabilities and recommends an increase of $1.5 million 

to fund the JFCOM unfunded requirement for the development of 

a joint urban fires prototype. 

Range readiness analyses 

The budget request included $62.9 million in PE 63941D8Z for 

test and evaluation science and technology. The committee notes 

that the ‘‘Annual Report of the Test Resource Management Center’’ 

highlighted the fact that Department of Defense test facilities and 

ranges need to be protected against diminution in mission capability as an unintended consequence of environmental laws and encroachment. The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

261 

for analysis of issues that may affect military mission readiness 

and test activities on and between installations and ranges. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

The budget request included $858.3 million in PE 63881C for the 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. The committee recommends an increase of $105.0 million in PE 63881C, of 

which $40.0 million is to begin development of the Evolved THAAD 

Interceptor, $40.0 million is to increase the missile production rate 

to four per month, and $25.0 million is to conduct additional flight 

testing of the THAAD system. 

The THAAD system is expected to have significant capability to 

defend against short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic 

missiles, including potential Iranian missiles that could be 

launched at Europe. With evolutionary upgrades to the THAAD interceptor, the system would increase significantly its defensive area 

and its capability, to include the possibility of defending against 

some intercontinental ballistic missiles. The additional funding recommended would permit the Evolved THAAD Interceptor upgrade 

to begin development so that it could be tested and demonstrated 

on an accelerated schedule. This is not intended to interfere with 

the existing THAAD program of record. 

The committee notes that the THAAD system is designed to have 

nine launchers per fire unit, but that initially the system will have 

only three launchers per fire unit, with eight interceptors per 

launcher. The Commander of the Joint Force Component Command 

for Integrated Missile Defense told the committee in April 2007 

that recent analyses indicate a need to nearly double the number 

of planned THAAD interceptors, currently 96. The committee believes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) should plan and 

budget for a significantly larger number of THAAD interceptors to 

meet the needs of regional combatant commanders, as well as for 

a robust flight test program. The additional funding recommended 

to increase the interceptor production rate would permit production 

at rates that better meet the needs of combatant commanders. 

The committee is disappointed that the MDA eliminated three 

flight tests from the THAAD testing program for budget reasons 

and because of difficulty delivering targets on time. This reduction 

is contrary to the direction provided by Congress last year for the 

Department of Defense to place priority on the development, testing, fielding, and improvement of effective, near-term ballistic missile defense systems, specifically including the THAAD system. 

The testing reduction adds risk to the THAAD program, and increases the number of critical factors that must be accomplished in 

individual tests. It also eliminates two near-term flight tests. The 

additional funding recommended by the committee is intended to 

restore a THAAD flight test to reduce risk and allow a more measured pace of demonstrating critical factors in each test. 

The committee is disappointed that the THAAD flight test program has suffered from target failures and target delivery delays, 

despite the availability to MDA of considerable sums of money for 

the targets program. The committee urges MDA to improve its performance on supplying reliable targets to the THAAD program and 

other element and system flight tests. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

262 

Arrow missile defense program 

The budget request included $73.6 million in PE 63881C for the Israeli Arrow missile defense program, including $55.0 million for 

the Arrow System Improvement program, and $12.4 million for coproduction of the Arrow interceptor missile. The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 63881C for the Arrow 

missile defense program, including $25.0 million for increased coproduction of the Arrow interceptor missile, and $10.0 million for 

the United States and Israel to conduct a detailed analysis of the 

potential for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) 

system to serve as a follow-on to the Arrow system to provide an 

upper tier defense of Israel against longer-range and more advanced ballistic missiles armed with unconventional warheads. 

The Arrow co-production program provides a means to increase 

the near-term inventory of operational Arrow interceptors. The 

Arrow system provides defense of Israel and defense of U.S. forces 

deployed in the region, thus allowing U.S. freedom of action in future contingencies. The Arrow system is designed to be interoperable with deployed U.S. missile defense assets. 

The committee notes that the THAAD system is planned to have 

the capability to defend an area the size of Israel against regional 

ballistic missiles that could leak through Israel’s improved Arrow 

weapon system. The committee believes that Israel should consider 

seriously the option of purchasing the THAAD system, rather than 

beginning a development program for a new upper tier interceptor 

system that would replicate the capabilities of THAAD. The committee urges the Department of Defense to assist in this effort. 

Short-range ballistic missile defense 

The budget request included $962.6 million in PE 63881C for ter- minal-phase missile defense efforts, of which $7.0 million is for 

short-range ballistic missile defense (SRBMD) research and development cooperation between the United States and Israel on the 

Israeli ‘‘David’s Sling’’ weapon system. The committee recommends 

an increase of $25.0 million in PE 63881C for acceleration of the 

SRBMD development effort. 

The short-range missile and rocket attacks by Hezbollah against 

Israel in the summer of 2006 reinforced the importance of developing affordable and effective short-range ballistic missile defense 

capabilities. The Missile Defense Agency wants to ensure that the 

technology developed for the David’s Sling weapon system can be 

fully interoperable with the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense system. 

The program seeks to produce an interceptor missile costing 

$350,000, which is less than 15 percent of the cost of a Patriot missile. 

This program development objective is on an accelerated schedule to allow rapid demonstration and fielding of an initial capability by Israel starting as early as 2009. 

Ground-based midcourse defense in Europe 

The budget request included $2.5 billion in PE 63882C for midcourse ballistic missile defense, including $85.0 million for construction of facilities in Europe for the proposed deployment of 

Ground-based Interceptors in Poland and a midcourse X-band 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

263 

radar in the Czech Republic. As noted elsewhere in this report, the 

committee believes this proposed deployment request is premature. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $85.0 million in PE 

63882C, the entire amount for site activation and construction activities for the proposed European deployment. 

Should the international agreements be reached before or during 

fiscal year 2008, the Department of Defense could then seek a reprogramming request to fund site activation and construction activities. 

Airborne Laser 

The budget request included $548.8 million in PE 63883C for the 

Airborne Laser boost-phase missile defense technology demonstration program. The committee recommends a reduction of $200.0 

million to PE 63883C for the Airborne Laser. The committee notes 

that the Airborne Laser (ABL) program has had a history of schedule delays and cost overruns since its inception in 1996. The Department of Defense previously told Congress that the system 

would be available for an emergency capability in 2003. The current schedule has delayed the first demonstration shoot-down flight 

test until 2009 and, if all the technology worked as hoped, the system would likely not be operational until 2018, or later. 

The committee has concerns about the many technical challenges 

still facing the Airborne Laser program, as well as its operational 

constraints and very considerable cost. For example, the ABL demonstration program is expected to cost $5.0 billion dollars to get 

through the first demonstration of the proof of principle in a shootdown flight test in 2009. Even if that flight test were to work, it 

would not demonstrate that the system could be made operationally effective. And it is unclear that the system would be affordable. The Congressional Budget Office has provided an initial estimate that an operational ABL system of 7 aircraft could cost as 

much as $36.0 billion. 

Although the MDA says that the ABL program is a knowledgebased program, it did not meet all its knowledge points in 2006 before moving forward to the next knowledge point. This indicates too 

high a degree of technical risk, and an undue effort to meet a 

schedule for the flight test demonstration, rather than demonstrating all necessary knowledge point steps before proceeding to 

the next step. 

The committee notes that near-term capabilities to defend 

against existing threats are a higher priority than far-term, high 

risk technology demonstrations. The committee urges the Department to consider restructuring the ABL program as a technology 

demonstrator. 

Real-time non-specific viral agent detector 

The budget request included $57.2 million in PE 63884BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced component development 

and prototypes, but included no funds for development of a mobile 

non-specific viral agent detector. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63884BP for development of a mobile 

real-time non-specific viral agent detector that would improve current capabilities. The committee notes that this effort would prommaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

264 

vide a significant upgrade to the current Joint Biological Agent 

Identification and Diagnostic system (JBAIDS). This technology, 

which would add the capability to detect infectious diseases, would 

be useful both for forward-deployed forces and for domestic consequence management missions. 

Ballistic missile defense reductions 

The budget request included $482.0 million in PE 63890C for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems Core; and $323.3 million 

in PE 63891C for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Special Programs. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million in PE 

63890C for BMD systems Core; and a decrease of $150.0 million in 

PE 63891C for MDA Special Programs to partially offset the additional funding needed for the Patriot PAC–3, Aegis BMD, and 

THAAD programs, described elsewhere in this report. The committee notes that the proposed funding reductions are for projects 

that are of lower priority than the near-term capabilities provided 

by these three near-term programs, which meet the needs of combatant commanders to defend against existing short-range and medium-range missile threats to forward-deployed U.S. forces. 

Aegis ballistic missile defense 

The budget request included nearly $1.1 billion in PE 63892C, 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for 

the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, including the 

Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptor. The committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million in PE 63892C for the Aegis 

BMD system, of which $20.0 million is for increasing the SM–3 interceptor production rate to four per month; $45.0 million is for 

long lead production of an additional 15 SM–3 interceptors; and 

$10.0 million is for accelerating the development of the Aegis BMD 

Signal Processor (BSP) and Open Architecture software for the 

Aegis weapon system. 

The committee notes that the Aegis BMD system, and its SM– 

3 interceptor, is deployed today and provides an important missile 

defense capability against short- and medium-range missiles deployed widely in theaters where U.S. forces are forward deployed. 

The system is planned for significant capability improvements in 

the future. 

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) increased the planned funding for SM–3 missiles in fiscal year 2008 to fund missiles it had 

previously cut for budget reasons. Currently MDA plans to procure 

only some 147 SM–3 missiles of all Block I varieties. The Commander, Joint Forces Component Command for Integrated Missile 

Defense (JFCC–IMD) testified in April 2007 that recent analyses 

indicate a need to nearly double the number of planned SM–3 

interceptors. The committee urges MDA to plan and budget for increased numbers of SM–3 interceptors to meet the needs of regional combatant commanders, as indicated by the Commander, 

JFCC–IMD. 

Space tracking and surveillance system 

The budget request included $331.5 million in PE 63893C for the 

Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS). The committee 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

265 

recommends a reduction of $55.0 million in PE 63893C for STSS, 

the amount requested for product development of the follow-on satellites that will not be deployed until 2016. The committee notes 

that the STSS program is preparing to deploy two experimental 

STSS satellites to learn how the system works, and what changes 

or improvements are needed for the operational system. It is premature to plan to spend funds on developing the follow-on operational satellites before the Missile Defense Agency knows how the 

experimental satellites work, and what changes are needed in the 

follow-on satellites. 

Space test-bed 

The budget request included $27.7 million in PE 63895C for Bal- listic Missile Defense system space programs, including $10.0 million for a new ‘‘space test-bed.’’ The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63895C, the entire amount requested 

for the space test-bed. 

The committee notes that the space test-bed is intended to be the 

initial step toward deploying space-based interceptors. There is no 

threat that justifies such a deployment, and therefore no justification to create such a test-bed. There are, however, numerous real 

missile threats for which near-term missile defense capabilities are 

needed, as Congress made clear in section 223 of the John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 

Law 109–364). The committee believes it is more appropriate to 

support funding for those effective, near-term systems that meet 

current combatant commander needs against existing threats. 

Surface-to-air missile threat simulators 

The budget request included $133.8 million in PE 64940D8Z for 

central test and evaluation investment development. The committee notes the need to develop simulators for the large variety 

of threats that may face warfighters in the future. The fiscal year 

2006 annual report of the Director of the Test Resource Management Center identified digital modeling and simulation of targets 

and threats as a test and evaluation gap. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an additional $4.0 million for the development of surface-to-air missile hardware simulators. 

Prompt global strike 

The budget request included a total of $175.4 million for the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM), with $126.4 million in hard 

and deeply buried target defeat systems, PE 64327N; $36.0 million 

in Trident II modifications, Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) 

line 1; and $13.0 million in strategic systems missile equipment, 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) line 108. The budget request also 

included $32.8 million for the Common Aero Vehicle, PE 64856F. 

The committee believes that a coordinated look at a variety of kinetic non-nuclear concepts is necessary to address the feasibility of 

a prompt global strike (PGS) capability and to review, in a coordinated fashion, technologies that would be common to such a capacity, including thermal protection, guidance navigation, and control 

issues. The committee recommends that the funds identified above 

be transferred to technical studies, support, and analysis, PE 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

266 

65104D8Z, to be used to establish an integrated PGS research program. Requirements for the program should be provided by the 

United States Strategic Command as informed by the ongoing analysis of alternatives for PGS and the PGS technology roadmap. 

In addition to the research areas mentioned above, research 

should include advanced propulsion, payload delivery and dispensing mechanisms, weapon system command and control, and 

advanced non-nuclear, kinetic, and other enabling capabilities. 

The committee is aware of several potential options for non-nuclear prompt global strike, including the Army’s advanced 

hypersonic weapon technology demonstrator program, which is included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priority list in 

the amount of $41.7 million. The committee recommends that of 

the funds provided for PGS, $41.7 million be provided to begin 

sounding rocket and flight vehicle tests, and to support booster development for the Army’s advanced hypersonic weapon. 

Other service program elements, including PE 63216F, aerospace 

propulsion and power technology, also include research and development areas that could be applied to the PGS mission. Included 

in the propulsion research and development efforts is the versatile, 

affordable advanced turbine engine high speed turbine engine demonstrator (HiSTED). The budget request included $2.5 million for 

this effort. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million 

to allow the PGS effort to coordinate research and development activities with the Air Force HiSTED project. 

The committee continues to believe that it is essential to maintain a bright line between legacy nuclear capabilities and any future PGS capability, and therefore recommends no funds for the 

CTM or other similar capability that could raise any nuclear ambiguity issues. The committee believes that PGS should be clearly 

and unambiguously non-nuclear. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Commander of the Strategic Command, to submit a research plan for PGS for fiscal year 2008, including a funding plan, 

prior to initiating any PGS research. 

Information systems security program technology development 

The budget request included $394.3 million in PE 33140G for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for the Information Systems Security program at the National Security Agency 

(NSA). The committee is concerned that the NSA information assurance program does not have a dedicated program for developing 

a technology base for future requirements for advanced products 

like high-speed encrypters for space and terrestrial applications. 

Multiple Department of Defense and national intelligence major 

acquisition programs have been adversely affected by delays in the 

development of security features. These delays are in part the result of NSA security technology lagging behind the constant, rapid 

advance of communications technology. 

The committee believes it is unwise for a critical mission area 

such as this to receive no tech base funding, especially in the current era when the communications technology that must be protected is growing relentlessly. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

267 

Accordingly, the committee directs the establishment of an anticipatory technology development program for advanced information 

assurance capabilities. The committee recommends an authorization of $30.0 million for this purpose. 

The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Network and Information Integration to develop a technology development plan that describes key challenges, critical capabilities, 

and technical goals for information assurance over the future-years 

defense program. This plan must delineate how the Department intends to structure the anticipatory development program, and to 

utilize commercial expertise and investments. This plan, as well as 

a spending plan for fiscal year 2008, must be submitted to the congressional defense committees prior to obligation and expenditure 

of authorized funds. 

Software assurance education and research 

The budget request included $394.3 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in PE 33140G for the Information Systems Security program (ISSP), but no funds for the 

development and integration of secure software design practices in 

curricula of higher education institutions that teach computer 

science and software engineering. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for this 

purpose at one of the institutions designated as a national Center 

of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education by the 

National Security Agency. 

Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing research 

The budget request included $20.1 million in PE 78011S for industrial preparedness programs of the Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA). The committee notes that efforts to adopt fuel cell technology by the military are inhibited by cost barriers. The reduction 

of fuel cell cost is a specific technical goal of the Department of Defense’s Energy and Power Technology Initiative. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for the improvement of manufacturing processes to reduce the cost of fuel cells for 

use in military applications. The committee directs that these activities will be undertaken in coordination with the efforts of the 

Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel. The DLA has indicated that a disproportionate share of equipment backorders are 

due to an unavailability of critical cast parts. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to develop systems 

to accelerate the manufacturing and procurement of high priority 

castings. Further, the committee notes that the DLA has set an objective to improve supply chain performance through a number of 

improvements including supply chain integration. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for continued 

improvements in supply chain integration and accelerating response times to equipment backorders. Finally, the committee 

notes that DLA and the Army have a need for shelf stable combat 

rations, especially items sensitive to heat, such as produce and 

eggs, and recommends an increase of $4.0 million for development 

of equipment to improve processing of rations to enhance their 

produceability, quality, and shelf life. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

268 

Manufacturing processes to support surge requirements 

The budget request included $20.1 million in PE 78011S for Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology programs. The 

committee notes that this is part of the overall Department of Defense manufacturing technology program which has total funding of 

$193.3 million in the budget request. The committee notes that the 

2006 Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on the Manufacturing Technology Program called for increased funding levels for 

the program over a 5-year period to a level of ‘‘one percent of the 

RDT&E budget,’’ to align the Department with the level of manufacturing technology investments in the early 1980s. The committee notes that 1 percent of the requested RDT&E budget in fiscal year 2008 would be approximately $750.0 million. 

The committee recommends that the Department seriously consider implementing the DSB recommendations for increased manufacturing research funding and has recommended a series of investments throughout this bill to support the ramp up in this important area. 

As part of that effort the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 78011S for the establishment of an industrial 

base innovation fund. The committee directs that these funds be 

executed in coordination with the Joint Defense Manufacturing 

Technology Panel and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Industrial Policy to ensure that investments are made to develop 

manufacturing processes and technologies to support both longterm and short-term needs of the Department. The committee has 

noted that the surge production requirements of current operations 

have stressed the industrial base and lead to intolerable wait times 

for the delivery of some much needed materiel to the battlefield. 

The committee believes that this recommended increased investment should be used to begin the development of advanced manufacturing technologies that can reduce the time required to produce 

high demand items during surges in military operations. 

Items of Special Interest 

Adaptive optics 

The committee notes that adaptive optics are an important enabling technology for a wide variety of military applications, including laser weapons and space surveillance systems. The committee 

is concerned that the domestic research and industrial base may 

not be able to meet the innovation and production demands of the 

Department of Defense in the future. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a report not later than 

September 1, 2008, analyzing and recommending a multiyear funding requirement and a set of technical challenges for research to 

maintain a viable domestic manufacturing base for adaptive optics 

that can support the meeting of military requirements. 

Advanced cruise missile threats 

The committee is concerned about the limited effort that the 

Navy is undertaking in developing test resources that can adequately simulate emerging advanced cruise missile threats to Navy 

platforms. The committee is aware that the lack of this test capammaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

269 

bility has been raised specifically by the Director of Operational 

Test and Evaluation as potentially impacting the operational testing of a number of major Navy acquisition programs. The committee also notes that the Deputy Secretary of Defense is currently 

reviewing Navy plans to address this shortfall. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, jointly with the 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and the Director of the 

Test Resource Management Center to report on plans to develop 

test resources to adequately test naval assets against advanced 

cruise missile threats. The report should include a classified analysis of the current and projected future threat, required funding 

and schedule for the development and acquisition of relevant test 

resources, and impacts on test schedules and adequacy of testing 

for specific relevant Navy systems. Further, the Secretary of the 

Navy shall provide the committee with a report containing an assessment of international advanced cruise missile capabilities relative to the United States’ capabilities and the feasibility, cost, and 

schedule for developing similar capabilities for the Navy. The committee directs that these two reports shall be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than April 15, 2008. 

Analyses of the Air Force test and evaluation proposals 

The committee notes that both the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–289) and the 

statement of managers accompanying the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 

364) expressed concern over proposed realignments and closures of 

Air Force test and evaluation facilities. In response to these concerns, the Air Force has delivered an analysis of one such proposal 

to Congress, and has undertaken a second overall assessment of 

Air Force test and evaluation activities. 

The committee continues to monitor this situation and the 

iterations of Air Force proposals and strategies to appropriately resource critical test and evaluation functions within a constrained 

budget. The committee has been concerned in the past with the 

preservation of a robust test and evaluation capability, leading to 

establishment of the Test Resource Management Center in the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(Public Law 107–314), to provide oversight over proposed budgets 

and expenditures for the Major Range and Test Facility Base and 

to be cognizant of other test and evaluation facilities and resources. 

In order to ensure that any reductions in test and evaluation 

workforce or capabilities are only undertaken after comprehensive 

and careful analyses of the costs, benefits, and impacts of such decisions on the Department of Defense, the committee directs the 

Air Force to provide planned actions, criteria used to determine acceptable risk, and supporting data to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Director of 

the Test Resource Management Center. The committee directs the 

Director of the Test Resource Management Center to review and 

analyze existing and ongoing test and evaluation studies being conducted by the Air Force after their completion and to submit a report that provides the committee with any appropriate conclusions 

and recommendations on the studies, findings, or planned actions 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

270 

that affect the capabilities and capacity of the Major Range and 

Test Facility Base. The committee directs that this report shall be 

delivered to the congressional defense committees as soon as practicable after the completion of the Air Force studies, and that no 

implementation of proposed plans be initiated before 60 days after 

receipt of the Director of the Test Resource Management Center’s 

report by Congress. 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation workforce 

study 

The committee notes that the Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation plays a critical role in determining that weapons systems are operationally effective. The Director’s efforts help ensure 

that acquisition programs deliver systems that provide deployed 

forces with battlefield superiority. The committee notes that the 

duties of the office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation have expanded into areas such as information assurance, force 

protection, and non-lethal weapons, while continuing the extensive 

oversight and reporting functions required by statute and regulation. The committee is concerned that the office may not have the 

workforce required to perform its assigned duties. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director of Operational Test 

and Evaluation to undertake a comprehensive review and analysis 

of his workforce requirements and report back to the congressional 

defense committees no later than April 1, 2008. The report shall include an assessment of projected future workforce requirements, resources required to meet those requirements, and recommendations 

on additional personnel hiring and retention authorities that would 

support the Director in the conduct of his required duties. 

Ground/air task-oriented radar 

The budget request included $104.4 million in PE 26313M to develop a multi-function radar that would replace five existing singlepurpose Marine Corps radar systems used for air defense surveillance and weapons engagement, counter-battery fire, and air traffic 

control. 

The committee is aware that the Marine Corps requirements 

specified for this system resulted in selection of an S-band radar, 

and that the first of the four planned increments of the ground/air 

task-oriented radar (G/ATOR) program includes weapon cueing. Sband radar can do many tasks well, but it is not optimal for weapons engagement. Furthermore, the Marine Corps has terminated 

its planned weapons engagement system, the Complementary LowAltitude Weapons System based on the Advanced Medium-Range 

Air-to-Air Missile. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy has 

embarked on the development of a new radar system which may 

be poorly suited for the system’s primary functions. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an independent assessment and submit a report to the congressional defense committees, with the fiscal year 2009 budget request, on the 

Marine Corps acquisition of the G/ATOR system. The report shall 

address: (1) the Marine Corps requirement for weapons engagement, and verify that the planned S-band radar design will support 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

271 

that requirement; (2) an assessment of the phasing for planned increments, recognizing that the Marine Corps does not yet have a 

defined weapons engagement requirement (other than cueing of 

terminal weapons such as Stinger); and (3) an examination of the 

technical and program management resources needed to effectively 

execute this complex state-of-the-art development program. 

National Security Agency acquisition management 

The National Security Agency (NSA) has experienced significant 

problems over the last decade in transforming itself from the Cold 

War era to operate effectively in today’s global information environment. The Congress and the executive branch concluded that poor 

acquisition management was a major cause of the NSA’s relative 

lack of success, and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) prohibited the delegation of 

Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) to the NSA Director and designated the ongoing transformation program, TRAILBLAZER, as a 

major defense acquisition program (MDAP). 

The Congress intended this action to cause the Senior Acquisition Executives (SAEs) in the Department of Defense (DOD) and 

the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to take 

vigorous action to improve the Agency’s acquisition management 

capabilities, and to enforce acquisition discipline and accountability 

through process controls and milestone reviews. 

Although some progress is evident, the TRAILBLAZER program 

was essentially abandoned, and its successor has significant problems. One of the most serious problems is that the NSA chose to 

structure the TURBULENCE architecture, a major element of its 

new Transformation 3.0 activity, as a series of loosely connected 

projects, not one of which met the threshold for designation as a 

major systems acquisition. This decision, while permitting the NSA 

to avoid external acquisition oversight, exacerbated the Agency’s 

weaknesses in systems engineering and systems integration. The 

Department and the ODNI have tolerated this situation for almost 

1.5 years. 

The committee directs that TURBULENCE be designated as a 

major systems acquisition requiring milestone review and approval, 

and formal oversight, by the DOD and DNI MDAs. In addition, the 

committee directs that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation exercise oversight over all major elements of the Agency’s 

Transformation 3.0 architecture, including TURBULENCE and the 

remaining activities under TRAILBLAZER. 

The committee supports the Agency’s recent decision to create 

the position of Chief Technology Officer (CTO), whose responsibilities will include ensuring that all the major elements of the Transformation 3.0 effort are integrated at the enterprise level. The committee is concerned, however, that the Agency still lacks the skills 

necessary to manage a systems engineering and integration challenge of this size and complexity. 

The committee directs that the TURBULENCE program may not 

proceed to Milestone B without a certification to the congressional 

defense and intelligence committees from the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), 

and the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Acquisition 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

272 

(DDNI(A)), that: (1) the program managers for TURBULENCE and 

TRAILBLAZER are qualified and have the authority and resources 

necessary to carry out effective program management; and (2) the 

CTO has the authorities, personnel, funding, and plans necessary 

to effectively integrate the Agency’s Transformation 3.0 activities. 

Open Architecture 

The Navy has made considerable investments over the past several years in an effort to transition development of surface ship 

systems to an open business model, commonly referred to as Open 

Architecture (OA). OA systems are characterized by modular design, public access to design specifications, software reuse, common 

interface standards, and seamless interoperability between system 

hardware and software applications. By rejecting proprietary and 

closed solutions, OA promises to bring to bear the critical elements 

of competition and innovation to achieve improved system performance and affordability. 

Absent an open business model, the ability to modernize the surface force effectively, affordably, and routinely to keep pace against 

future threats becomes highly problematic. This is well exemplified 

by the challenges confronting the Navy with a protracted, 20-year 

plan to modernize the weapon system for Aegis cruisers and destroyers. However, the challenges with implementing OA for surface ship systems are highly problematic in their own right. Absent 

a comprehensive OA implementation plan that keeps faith with underlying OA principles, the Navy will expend critical financial, 

technical, and management resources without achieving measurable improvement to system performance or life cycle cost. 

The Navy’s success in building a future force of 313 ships, and 

with that, the Navy’s ability to meet its long-range warfighting requirements, is directly linked to its success in implementing OA. 

However, despite having made significant OA investments to date, 

the Navy’s overall progress in transitioning into OA business processes is disappointing. In view of the criticality of this overall effort, Congress needs a clear understanding of the full scope of the 

effort, the investment required, and the progress achieved towards 

the objectives outlined above. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees, commencing with the fiscal year 2009 budget request, to be updated 

quarterly, that outlines the Navy’s plan and progress with implementing OA. The report shall include: (i) an integrated schedule 

outlining OA development and the related surface ship fielding 

plan; (ii) an assessment of OA development, test, procurement, installation, and operating and support costs; (iii) the Navy’s acquisition strategy for leveraging competition in software development; 

and (iv) the Navy’s performance to the plan. Additionally, the report shall: (i) identify software that is intended to be available for 

reuse by third parties in support of the OA implementation plan; 

(ii) describe the Navy’s progress in making that software and related documentation available through the Navy’s Software, Hardware Asset Reuse Enterprise (SHARE) Library; (iii) describe how 

the Navy is assuring quality for software and related documentation deposited in the SHARE Library; (iv) describe how the Navy 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

273 

is driving reuse of SHARE Library software; (v) outline contracts 

which have reused third party software from the SHARE Library; 

and (vi) identify the impediments to entering outstanding Navy 

system software into the SHARE Library and the plan for managing these impediments. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(275) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title III of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request for operation and maintenance programs, 

and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past, the 

Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized amounts (as 

set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents of the Department of Defense), without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

276 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 328 here 35737.150
277 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 329 here 35737.151
278 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 330 here 35737.152
279 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 331 here 35737.153
280 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 332 here 35737.154
281 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 333 here 35737.155
282 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 334 here 35737.156
283 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 335 here 35737.157
284 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 336 here 35737.158
285 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 337 here 35737.159
286 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 338 here 35737.160
287 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 339 here 35737.161
288 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 340 here 35737.162
289 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 341 here 35737.163
290 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 342 here 35737.164
291 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 343 here 35737.165
292 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 344 here 35737.166
293 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 345 here 35737.167
294 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 346 here 35737.168
295 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 347 here 35737.169
296 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 348 here 35737.170
297 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 349 here 35737.171
298 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 350 here 35737.172
299 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 351 here 35737.173
300 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 352 here 35737.174
301 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 353 here 35737.175
302 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 354 here 35737.176
303 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 355 here 35737.177
304 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 356 here 35737.178
305 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 357 here 35737.179
306 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 358 here 35737.180
307 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

certain costs in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield 

Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental Protection 

Agency for its costs incurred in connection with the former Larson 

Air Force Base, Moses Lake Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington, as requested by the Department of Defense. 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

certain costs in connection with the Arctic Surplus 

Superfund Site, Fairbanks, Alaska (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental Protection 

Agency for costs incurred in connection with the Arctic Surplus 

Superfund Site, Fairbanks, Alaska, as requested by the Department of Defense. 

Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of stipulated 

penalties in connection with Jackson Park Housing 

Complex, Washington (sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to pay a stipulated penalty assessed by the 

Environmental Protection Agency against the Jackson Park Housing Complex, Washington, as requested by the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle C—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Availability of funds in Defense Information Systems Agency Working Capital Fund for technology upgrades to Defense Information Systems Network (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to use up to $500,000 

of working capital funds to pay for any project directly related to 

technology upgrades to the Defense Information System Network 

(DISN). The committee appreciates that the rate of technological 

advances in information systems challenges the ability of DISA to 

keep pace with the opportunities to upgrade the system and provide better service to its users. Increasing the level of authorized 

investment from the working capital fund would allow DISA greater flexibility to technically refresh the system. The committee 

notes, however, that this increased authority is not intended to 

fund major technical insertions that substantially change the form, 

fit, or function of the DISN, which should continue to be funded 

through appropriated accounts. 

Extension of temporary authority for contract performance 

of security guard functions (sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would continue the 

orderly phase-out of the temporary authority for contract performmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

308 

ance of security guard functions under section 332 of the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(Public Law 107–314). Under the provision, the Department of Defense would be required to continue reducing the number of contract security guards employed under section 332 from the baseline 

number of such personnel as of October 1, 2006. In 2010, the Department would be permitted to employ 70 percent of the baseline 

number; in 2011, 60 percent of the baseline number; and in 2012, 

50 percent of the baseline number. 

Report on incremental cost of early 2007 enhanced deployment (sec. 323) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 323 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to include a reporting 

requirement on the incremental increase in reset costs related to 

the deployment of additional forces to Iraq. The committee remains 

concerned that the services accurately capture the costs and fully 

fund the reconstitution or reset of forces committed to the war in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. This provision requires the military departments to identify and project the increase in costs of reset based 

on the increase of forces under the new strategy in Iraq. 

Individual body armor (sec. 324) 

The committee notes the continuing controversy over the technical capabilities of commercially available individual body armor 

and whether it fails, meets, or exceeds the military’s ballistic protection requirements. This kind of controversy can undermine peoples’ confidence in the quality of the equipment we provide our 

troops. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that 

would require, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, a joint technical assessment and classified and unclassified reports by the Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE) and the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOTE) of individual body 

armor systems currently available in the domestic market. 

Subtitle D—Workplace and Depot Issues 

Extension of authority for Army industrial facilities to engage in cooperative activities with non-Army entities 

(sec. 341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4544 of title 10, United States Code, to extend, until September 30, 2014, the authority for any working capital funded 

Army industrial facility to enter into a contract or cooperative arrangement with a non-Army entity to carry out specified military 

or commercial projects. The committee encourages and supports 

public-private industrial cooperation and partnerships to increase 

efficiency, reduce costs, and get the most out of public industrial 

capacity. However, the Army does not appear to have effectively 

used existing authority upon which to base a business case assessment of potential costs, benefits, or risks associated with these 

partnerships at its manufacturing facilities. Accordingly, the committee recommends extending the current authority for 5 years, almmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

309 

lowing the Army additional time to enter into no more than eight 

long-term cooperative arrangements or partnerships. The provision 

would also provide for an annual report by the Secretary of the 

Army explaining how the Army is using this extended authority. 

The committee further recommends that not later than September 

30, 2012, the Army submit a business case analysis on the advisability of making this authority permanent. 

Two-year extension of Arsenal Support Demonstration Program (sec. 342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 343 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), to extend until September 30, 2010 the Arsenal Support Program Initiative. The committee notes that this demonstration program was created in fiscal 

year 2001 and was extended to fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends a 2–year extension of this program to allow for consideration of a report from the Secretary of the Army, due not later than 

July 1, 2007, on the results of the demonstration program. The Secretary’s report will include the Army’s views regarding the benefits 

of the program as well as an assessment of the success of the program in achieving the purposes specified in section 343. The report 

will also contain a comprehensive review of contracting at the 

Army manufacturing arsenals covered by the program and such 

recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate regarding 

changes to the program. The committee recommends an extension 

of the Arsenal Support Program Initiative demonstration to allow 

for consideration of the Secretary of the Army’s report and suggested changes. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Enhancement of corrosion control and prevention functions 

within Department of Defense (sec. 351) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2228 of title 10, United States Code, to provide for a permanent Director of the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight reporting directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics (USD-ATL). The committee is concerned 

that the Department of Defense continues to place a low priority 

on the management, oversight, and funding of corrosion control 

policies and programs. The fiscal year 2008 budget request included only $12.0 million for projects to address the Department’s 

estimated $380.0 million corrosion prevention and control-related 

requirements. With aggressive investment in corrosion control the 

Department could realize an industry standard 49 to 1 return on 

investment. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports 

that many Department weapons systems experience significant corrosion-related cost, readiness, and safety problems. Corrosion prevention and control planning is the most effective way to reduce 

these problems. However, the committee is concerned that the Department and military services have not comprehensively or effectively incorporated corrosion control planning in major defense acquisition or maintenance programs for both older and new systems. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

310 

The committee believes that the establishment of a Director for 

the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and placing this function directly under the USD–ATL will result in a more comprehensive and aggressive approach to corrosion prevention and control 

throughout the Department. The committee also recommends provisions that would give the Director additional authorities for oversight of corrosion-related training, development of directives, and 

interaction with non-Department activities including taking advantage of opportunities for cooperative efforts in science and technology research and development. Finally, the committee recommends that the Department submit an annual report on the implementation of its corrosion control strategy. 

Reimbursement for National Guard support provided to 

Federal agencies (sec. 352) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 377 of title 10, United States Code, to require federal agencies 

that receive law enforcement support or support to a national special security event provided by National Guard personnel performing duty under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 

to reimburse the Department of Defense for the costs of that support. The provision would continue to exempt from the requirement 

for reimbursement support that is provided in the normal course 

of military training or operations, or when the support results in 

an operational or training benefit to the element of the Department 

providing the support. 

Reauthorization of Aviation Insurance Program (sec. 353) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 44310 of title 49, United States Code, relating to the expiration of chapter 443, Aviation Insurance program. The provision 

would extend the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to 

provide insurance and reinsurance which would otherwise expire 

during fiscal year 2008. This government-provided insurance program for commercial air carriers supporting Department of Defense 

transportation activities is an essential requirement for activating 

the Civil Reserve Air Fleet during wartime. 

Property accountability and disposition of unlawfully obtained property of the Armed Forces (sec. 354) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 661 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of the Navy to prescribe regulations for the accounting of Navy and 

Marine Corps property and to fix responsibility for such property. 

The provision would also add a new section for the Navy and Marine Corps similar to existing laws applicable to the Army and Air 

Force that prohibit improper disposition of military equipment and 

authorize seizure of such unlawfully transferred government property. The provision would also modify sections 4836 and 9836 of 

title 10, United States Code, to clarify the meaning and intent of 

those sections pertaining to property accountability in the Army 

and Air Force. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

311 

Authority to impose reasonable conditions on the payment 

of full replacement value for claims related to personal 

property transported at Government expense (sec. 355) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2636a(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to require compliance with reasonable conditions 

for a military member or civilian employee of the Department of 

Defense to receive full replacement value for personal property lost 

or damaged while being transported at government expense. 

The committee believes that the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command, and the military departments must take more effective measures to ensure that accurate 

data about the performance of household goods movers is collected 

from service members and civilian employees of the Department of 

Defense following permanent change of station moves. Imposing a 

duty on service members and civilian employees to complete simple 

surveys about the quality of the moves is a key factor in measuring 

the relative merits of household goods movers and should be monitored and enforced. 

Authority for individuals to retain combat uniforms issued 

in connection with contingency operations (sec. 356) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the secretary of a military department to authorize members of the armed 

forces under their jurisdiction to retain combat uniforms issued as 

organizational clothing and individual equipment in connection 

with their deployment in support of contingency operations. 

Modification of requirements on Comptroller General report 

on readiness of Army and Marine Corps ground forces 

(sec. 357) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 

expand the assessment and report required of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) by section 345 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109–364). The committee notes that in January of this year the 

President announced a new strategy for Operation Iraqi Freedom 

(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) that requires the 

deployment of additional combat and support forces to Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee remains concerned about the impact of 

sustained high operational tempo due to ongoing operations on the 

readiness of our ground forces and their ability to respond to other 

threats or contingencies. 

The committee notes that the GAO has nearly completed its 

analysis and report as directed by section 345. The GAO has provided the committee with useful interim reviews of their initial 

findings. The committee looks forward to receiving the next report 

on June 1, 2007. However, the decision to increase the commitment 

of U.S. ground forces to OIF and OEF and the subsequent deployment of additional combat brigades and support units to Iraq and 

Afghanistan indicate that the GAO should continue its assessment 

to account for these changes to the underlying reality of ground 

forces commitment. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

312 

The committee directs the GAO to include in its continuing analysis an assessment of the Army and Marine Corps ability to provide forces to meet specific contingency plans of the regional combatant commands. While detailed information on readiness and 

contingency plans are classified, the issues being assessed in this 

report are of enormous importance to the Department of Defense 

and the Congress and should be available for open discussion to the 

extent that classification rules allow. Therefore, this report should 

be provided in both classified and unclassified form. The various 

elements required by this report, as with the report required in 

section 345, may be provided separately, as long as all the required 

elements are submitted before March 1, 2008, and the information 

used to satisfy the reporting requirement is current. 

The committee expects that the Department of Defense will cooperate fully with the Government Accountability Office throughout its assessment of ground forces readiness. 

Budget Items—Army 

Extended cold weather clothing system 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) for the Extended Cold Weather Clothing system (ECWCS). The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in OMA for the ECWCS. 

Manufacturing engineering training outreach program 

The budget request included $2.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) for force readiness operations support, but 

no funds were provided for the Manufacturing Engineering Training Outreach program (METOP). This program assists the Department of Defense to meet the challenge of finding and preparing the 

next generation of manufacturing engineers. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OMA for the METOP. 

Live fire ranges modernization and improvements 

The budget request included $2.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) for operating forces facilities sustainment, 

restoration, and modernization. The committee notes that the 

Army will continue to depend upon home station ranges to prepare 

units for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. The heavy use of existing range and training support equipment accelerates wear and 

tear, undermining the quality of pre-deployment training. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in 

OMA for live fire training range upgrades. 

Budget Items—Navy 

Naval aircraft depot maintenance 

The budget request included $40.0 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) but only $1.1 billion for aircraft depot 

maintenance. The Chief of Naval Operations identified a shortage 

of resources for aircraft depot maintenance as an unfunded priority 

for fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends an increase of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

313 

$77.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy for aircraft 

depot maintenance. 

Mk45 mod 5′′ gun depot overhaul 

The budget request included $486.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for weapons maintenance. The committee recommends an increase of $29.5 million in OMN for Mark45 gun system overhauls. 

Environmental impact assessment, outlying landing field 

The committee is aware of growing opposition to the placement 

of an outlying landing field (OLF) at the Washington County, 

North Carolina site proposed by the Navy as the preferred alternative in their environmental impact statement. At the same time, 

the committee appreciates the need to establish an OLF within a 

suitable range of both Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Accordingly, 

the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to fund a 

follow-on supplemental environmental impact statement to assess 

the feasibility of alternative sites in the region. 

Unobligated balances 

The Department of Defense continues to underexecute its Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations for the active and reserve components. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department returned an annual average of $185.7 

million in unexpended balances to the U.S. Treasury for fiscal 

years 1997 through 2001. The Department had $180.4 million in 

average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal years 2002 through 

2006. The military departments, including their reserve components, returned an average of $1.0 billion in unexpended balances 

to the U.S. Treasury for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. The military departments had $942.8 million in average yearly unobligated 

balances for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. While the trend continues to improve, the committee remains concerned about the Department’s inability to manage the funds which it is authorized 

and appropriated. 

The committee recalls that 2 years ago the Department began to 

reduce the O&M portion of its annual funding request and futureyears defense program before submission to Congress based, in 

part, on the GAO analysis of unobligated balances. The Department did not, however, reduce the fiscal year 2008 amounts in full 

accordance with the analysis, or as significantly in the out-years. 

The committee notes that the challenges associated with the increased scope and pace of ground force operations in Iraq and Afghanistan create an unusually difficult fiscal management situation, especially for the Army and Marine Corps. This does not, however, relieve the Department or the services from their obligation 

to provide the best possible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $174.6 million to the 

Department’s O&M accounts, as follows: Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $60.6 million; Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 

$60.0 million; and Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, $54.0 

million. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

314 

Excess cash balances 

An analysis of the defense working capital fund budgets shows 

that the Department of Defense significantly underestimated its 

fiscal year 2006 ending cash balance. Although the Army, Navy, 

Air Force, and defense-wide fiscal year 2007 budgets estimated 

that the year-end cash balance would be $3.4 billion, the actual 

cash balance, as reported in the fiscal year 2008 budget, was $4.9 

billion—a difference of $1.5 billion, or 44 percent. These working 

capital funds provide important financial flexibility for critical defense support activities. When working capital fund activities earn 

a profit—revenues exceeding expenses—fund activities are supposed to adjust future rates charged to customers to reduce the excess. The working capital fund, however, needs sufficient levels of 

cash in order to meet its obligations and ensure its ability to provide uninterrupted services to the military departments and agencies. Department of Defense policy requires the working capital 

fund to maintain 7 to 10 days of cash. 

Last year, the committee noted that the global war on terror, and 

especially operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, had created increased workflow in and out of working capital funds well over 

peacetime projections. This was especially true for the Army and 

defense-wide working capital fund activities that had high end-ofyear positive operating balances and excess cash balances. 

The committee’s analysis of last year’s budgets shows that the 

military departments significantly underestimated their fiscal year 

2006 working capital fund cash balances. Specifically, the Army, 

Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide working capital funds reported 

actual cash balances in excess of the estimated budgeted cash balances by at least $300.0 million for each of the four funds—or a 

total of $1.2 billion. For example, while the Air Force estimated 

that it would end fiscal year 2006 with a cash balance of $1.0 billion, the reported actual cash balance was $1.4 billion. This indicates that the Department continues to base projections of their net 

operating result for fiscal year 2008 on low revenue estimates. 

To ensure proper management of the funds, the committee rec- ommends a decrease of $208.0 million in Operation and Maintenance accounts as follows: Operation and Maintenance, Navy, 

$80.0 million; Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, $88.0 million; 

and Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, $40.0 million. 

Budget Items—Marine Corps 

Extended cold weather clothing system 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for the Extended Cold Weather 

Clothing system (ECWCS). The committee recommends an increase 

of $6.0 million in OMMC for the ECWCS. 

Family of combat equipment support and services 

The budget request included $867.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces. The 

Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified an unfunded requirement in this account for the Family of Combat Equipment 

Support and Services. The committee recommends an increase of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

315 

$10.0 million in OMMC for the Family of Combat Equipment Support and Services. 

Rapid deployable shelters 

The budget request included $876.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) but does not include funds for 

rapid deployable shelters. Tents and shelters are an essential 

deployable element of an expeditionary force. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OMMC for rapid deployable 

shelters. 

Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USMC 

The budget request included $502.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for field logistics activities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.1 million in OMMC 

for mobile corrosion protection and abatement. 

Budget Items—Air Force 

National Security Space Institute 

The budget request included $17.3 million for the National Security Space Institute (NSSI) in Operation and Maintenance, Air 

Force (OMAF) line 90, Global C3I and Early Warning. The committee recommends an additional $3.3 million for the NSSI. The 

NSSI is the Air Force school for space professionals, serving Air 

Force and other military services’ space training requirements. The 

additional funding will allow the NSSI to expand the number of 

classes and students, accelerate development of the advanced space 

course, and undertake other educational activities. This program is 

on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priority list. 

Mobile shear 

The budget request included $845.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for other service wide activities, 

but provides no funding for Mobile Shear. This equipment will assist Air Force installations to comply with environmental and Department of Defense demilitarization regulations. The committee 

recommends an increase of $525,000 in OMAF for Mobile Shear. 

Transfer of funds from Air Force centralized asset management program to Air Guard and Air Force Reserve 

The budget request included $41.4 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force. Within this amount the Air Force consolidated $543.6 million of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve 

Operation and Maintenance funds into a ‘‘Centralized Asset Management’’ (CAM) initiative. 

The committee is concerned that consolidation of funds that support Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve operations, readiness, and facilities denies the Congress required visibility into the 

distribution and utilization of reserve component resources. Therefore, the committee recommends the transfer of $129.7 million to 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve, and $413.9 million 

to Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard from Operation 

and Maintenance, Air Force. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

316 

Budget Items—Defense-wide 

Language training shortfalls 

The budget request did not include any funding to cover costs associated with improving the language and cultural awareness 

training of Special Operations Forces (SOF). Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million 

for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) language training 

needs in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, Budget Activity 1. $6.4 million of the total amount would fund a shortfall at the 

John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School to pay for instructor hours, homework books, and reproduction of language and 

culture training CDs and books. The training programs are components of the Special Forces Qualification Course and are already 

operated on a very lean basis. This funding will allow for an increase in student load from 772 (Special Forces, Civil Affairs, and 

Psychological Operators) in 2004, to 1,500 personnel over several 

years, trained at a higher standard. This funding ensures that the 

growing training population in Special Forces, Civil Affairs, and 

Psychological Operations, authorized in the Quadrennial Defense 

Review, will continue to be trained to the higher 1/1/1 standard. 

This standard was raised in 2004 by the Commander of U.S. Army 

Special Operations Command (USASOC) and validated by the 

Commander of SOCOM as necessary in direct response to global 

war on terrorism-related capability shortfalls. $526,000 of the total would be used to fund the foreign language 

proficiency sustainment training for USASOC units. This includes 

maintaining proficiency in unit core languages via unit-run training (classroom and live environmental training (LET)). All language requirements directly support SOCOM and regional combatant commander requirements. The 4th Psychological Operations 

Group (Airborne) and the 95th Civil Affairs Brigade require 

$526,000 to fund sustainment training. This includes: $277,600 for 

Foreign Language Training Center Europe and LET events in Bahrain, Colombia, China, Peru, Korea, Russia, France, Indonesia, and 

Costa Rica; $158,000 for additional instructor contract hours in 

unit language training facilities; $68,200 for training aids, books, 

supplies, and internet services; and $21,800 for travel to attend 

SOCOM training seminars. Without this funding, the command 

will be unable to fully support training of SOF for unconventional 

warfare missions, which are a critical SOF core competency. This 

funding allows units to conduct mission language training in support of operational deployments, and helps ensure that soldiers 

maintain and increase their language proficiency (part of the SOF 

for Life/Region for Life concept). 

$950,000 of the total amount would fund language training for 

joint SOF personnel in tailored internet classes. Funding would be 

used to train about 16 students in full-length 1/1/1 courses and 

about 56 students in tailored sustainment and enhancement 

courses. This training would help SOCOM increase its ability to 

sustain and increase the proficiency of SOF across their careers regardless of their location, and it facilitates full-time courses for 

SOF teams that are ‘‘remissioned’’ and need a different language 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

317 

capability. Without this funding many operators would have little 

or no access to language training conducted by a qualified instructor due to geographic location and work schedule. These regionallyfocused operators, preparing for deployment often, are faced with 

adding a lengthy temporary duty/temporary additional duty in 

front of a long mission deployment in order to take language classes. This further increases time away from family. Funding internet 

classes and similar initiatives begins to address this issue. 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request included $673.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Of this amount, $500.0 million was requested for 

the Global Train and Equip program to build the capacity of foreign forces. The committee notes that the amount requested for the 

Global Train and Equip program exceeds the existing authority 

under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), as amended by section 

1206 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), which is limited to $300.0 

million of Operation and Maintenance funds in fiscal years 2007 

and 2008. 

The committee also notes that the request for the Defense Secu- rity Cooperation Agency included $7.4 million for the Center for 

International Issues Research (CIIR) program, which provides updates of open-source media reports. The committee recommends the 

elimination of this program as an unnecessary duplication of reporting available from other sources. 

The request for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency in- cluded $5.0 million for the Stability Operations Fellowship program 

(SOFP). The committee notes that no authority currently exists for 

the Department of Defense to conduct this fellowship program. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $212.4 million to the Department’s Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 

account for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, as follows: 

Global Train and Equip—decrease of $200.0 million; CIIR—decrease of $7.4 million; and SOFP—decrease of $5.0 million. 

Defense readiness reporting system and management tools 

The budget request included $4.9 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide for the Defense Readiness Reporting System 

(DRRS). The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million 

for DRRS including $2.0 million only for the acceleration of the 

Global Force Management Visibility Toolkit in support of U.S. 

Joint Forces Command requirements. 

The committee notes the challenges associated with the accurate, 

reliable, and timely measurement and reporting of the readiness of 

military forces. The current readiness reporting system, Global Status of Resources and Training System (GSORTS), is inadequate to 

the demands of the force rotation strategy that supports operations 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Defense, Joint Staff, 

and U.S. Joint Forces Command, the joint force provider, lack the 

visibility of deployed and non-deployed forces’ capabilities and 

readiness required to manage global military commitments. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

318 

The committee supports the Department’s development of DRRS 

as a management modernization and replacement for the current 

system. DRRS is scheduled to achieve full operational capability at 

the end of fiscal year 2007. Additional funds will accelerate the delivery of the basic system, programmed functionality expansion, 

support for system operations, training, and sustainment. The committee recommendation also supports the development and fielding 

of capabilities within the system that allow near real-time force 

management for contingencies including capability-gap analysis, 

risk mitigation, and the Global Force Management Visibility Toolkit. 

Readiness and environmental protection initiative 

The budget request included $30.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). The committee is encouraged that this is $10.0 million more than requested in fiscal year 

2007. 

The committee believes that the military departments should 

continue to pursue voluntary agreements with other public and private entities as authorized under section 2684a of title 10, United 

States Code, to prevent the development or use of property that 

would be incompatible with the mission of an installation, and preserve habitat that is compatible with environmental requirements 

that might otherwise result in current or anticipated environmental restrictions on military bases. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 

OMDW for the REPI and directs that the military departments 

should give priority to projects that benefit critical mission training 

sites that have the greatest potential to prevent or reduce encroachment through the creation of a compatible use buffer zone. 

Strategic communication and integration 

The budget request included $3.0 million for the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense for Strategic Communication and Integration. 

This funding would support a contractor to help institutionalize 

strategic communications and complete the implementation of the 

Strategic Communication Execution Roadmap. 

Responsibility for strategic communication and public diplomacy 

rests with the President and Secretary of State, and any Department of Defense efforts to formulate a message should be informed 

and framed by those efforts. Moreover, public diplomacy, public affairs, and information operations are separate and distinct functions, with different purposes and guidelines for their use. Any attempt to integrate them could compromise the integrity of each of 

these functions. Nonetheless, the committee supports the use of the 

Operation and Maintenance funds of the respective offices conducting communications activities in order to improve the Department’s communication efforts, including updating regulations and 

other activities being conducted as part of the strategic communication and integration effort. The level of funding requested is unjustified. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 

million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

319 

Budget Items—Army Reserve 

Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USAR 

The budget request included $84.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) for land forces readiness support activities. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in OMAR for mobile corrosion protection and abatement. 

Budget Items—Army National Guard 

Extended cold weather clothing system 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for the Extended Cold 

Weather Clothing system (ECWCS). The committee recommends 

an increase of $4.0 million in OMARNG for the ECWCS. 

National Guard interoperability upgrades 

The budget request included no funds for command and control 

interoperability upgrades for the Army National Guard. The committee notes that interoperable communications are required for 

adequate command and control of federal, state, and local responses to domestic emergencies. The committee recommends an 

increase of $1.3 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard for command and control interoperability upgrades. 

Integrated disaster and rapid data management systems 

The budget request included $309.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for force readiness 

operations support, but did not include funds for the Integrated 

Disaster Management system (IDMS) or Rapid Data Management 

system (RDMS). These systems provide near real-time data management and analysis to and from field operators through 

deployable hand-held and cellular devices. The integration of IDMS 

and RDMS increases speed and efficiency of command and control 

during domestic emergencies. The committee recommends an increase of $6.9 million in OMARNG for IDMS and RDMS. 

Mobile corrosion protection and abatement USARNG 

The budget request included $109.5 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces systems readiness activities. The committee recommends an increase 

of $4.0 million in OMARNG for mobile corrosion protection and 

abatement. 

Operator driving simulator 

The budget request included no funding for operator driving simulators for the Army National Guard. The committee notes that a 

number of casualties have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan as a 

result of vehicle accidents, including single vehicle accidents. Ensuring vehicle operators have quality training is vital to the readiness of the armed forces as well as their safety. These driving simulators would ensure that training time for soldiers is maximized, 

even with limited vehicle assets. The fielding plan includes 79 simulator units at 27 sites, including Army National Guard sites at 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

320 

nine states. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, for operator 

driving simulators. 

Budget Items—Air National Guard 

Controlled humidity protection 

The budget request included $3.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for aircraft operations, but 

included no funds for controlled humidity protection. The committee notes the high readiness costs associated with corrosion and 

that it is particularly harmful to sensitive and expensive aircraft 

components. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OMANG for controlled humidity protection. 

Weapons skills trainer 

The budget request included $540.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for mission support 

operations, but included no funds for the Weapons Skills Trainer 

(WST). The committee notes the high mobilization rates of members of the Air National Guard and their occasional use in non-traditional ground force roles. Individual and unit weapons training is 

enhanced by the availability of a multilevel weapons simulator 

such as the WST. The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 

million in OMANG for the Weapons Skills Trainer. 

Budget Items—Transfer Accounts 

Funding for formerly used defense sites 

The budget request included $250.2 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for environmental restoration 

of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). The committee notes that 

the budgeted amount is below the level authorized for this program 

in fiscal year 2007. The committee understands that it is the Department of Defense’s goal to achieve a remedy in place or response 

complete at all FUDS by 2020 under the Installation Restoration 

program for hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. It 

is also the Department’s goal to complete preliminary assessments 

at all FUDS by 2007, and complete site inspections at all FUDS by 

2010, under the Military Munitions Response program for clean-up 

of unexploded ordnance. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 

OMDW to expedite the clean-up of FUDS and to move more aggressively to achieve the Department’s goals. The committee expects the Department to demonstrate its commitment to these 

goals, and improve on them where it is possible to do so, by steadily increasing the amount of funding budgeted for this effort. 

Budget Items—Miscellaneous Appropriations 

Building partnership capacity for humanitarian assistance 

The budget request included $103.3 million for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid (OHDACA). Of this amount, $40.0 

million was included for building partnership capacity for humanimmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

321 

tarian assistance. However, no authority was requested by the Department of Defense for this new program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends that Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, Budget Activity 4 be decreased by $40.0 

million. 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General report on depot work 

Section 2466 of title 10, United States Code, requires the Department of Defense to report annually on the expenditures for service 

contract and organic depot maintenance. This report contains the 

actual expenditures for the previous fiscal year, as well as projections for the current and future years. The committee directs the 

Comptroller General to review and make recommendations with respect to the current system of reports, assessments, analysis, or 

documents required by law or regulation to determine the compliance of the Department of Defense and military departments with 

the percentage limitation in section 2466(a) of title 10, United 

States Code. The committee is particularly interested to learn if 

there are better methods than the current system for meeting its 

oversight responsibilities of Department compliance with the requirements of this section. This report is due not later than March 

1, 2008. 

Department of Defense foreign language training 

The budget request included $10.4 million for the Defense Language Institute in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), specifically for satellite communications language training activities 

(SCOLA). 

SCOLA is a unique and innovative satellite-based language 

training activity that provides television programming in a variety 

of languages from around the world. SCOLA also has an internetbased streaming video capability that greatly increases the availability of this training medium to military and civilian linguists, 

virtually anywhere they can obtain an internet connection. In addition, SCOLA is developing a digital archive that will allow users 

anywhere to review and sort language training on demand. 

In the Senate report accompanying S. 2744 (S. Rept. 109–254) of 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the committee commended the 

Department of Defense for increasing investment in language technology. That report noted that SCOLA can help sustain and improve foreign language skills and cultural understanding of military and civilian linguists in the Department. 

The committee understands, unfortunately, that the Department 

has failed to obligate the funds that were authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2007. There are indications that the Department may intend to wait until the last month of the fiscal year before doing so. The committee fails to understand what could have 

caused a delay in obligating funds for this important activity and 

encourages the Department to move more expeditiously to do so 

with the fiscal year 2008 funds. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

322 

Fee-for-service air refueling services 

The committee remains concerned about the ability of the Department of the Air Force to provide adequate air refueling services 

to support all operational and training requirements. While the average age of the KC–135 fleet is more than 45 years old, the next 

generation KC–X aircraft is not scheduled to begin low-rate initial 

production until 2011. The committee is concerned about our ability to meet our air refueling requirements in the immediate future. 

At a time of historically low readiness levels, the Air Force cannot 

afford further degradation in air refueling capacity. 

The committee is aware of several commercial providers of feefor-service air refueling. Such an option was one of the alternatives 

considered in the analysis leading to the release of the KC–X request for proposals. In fact, Air Force officials have indicated a desire to investigate using fee-for-service air refueling services for 

some portion of their mission. They have referred to this as ‘‘Part 

B’’ of the KC–X acquisition strategy. This potential commercial capability has been estimated by some to save the Air Force up to 

50 percent over current methods of organic air refueling operations. 

Due to the technological maturity of commercial concepts, the 

promising business cases presented by several of the commercial 

providers, and the growing capability gap in the air refueling 

arena, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to initiate a competitive fee-for-service air refueling pilot program, utilizing currently available Operation and Maintenance funds. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 

seek ‘‘Part B’’ proposals to determine the practicality of relying on 

fee-for-service air refueling services for satisfying some portion of 

the Air Force refueling mission. 

Next generation enterprise network 

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy is 

attempting to develop the Next Generation Enterprise Network 

(NGEN) as a follow-on to the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. This endeavor depends on seamless coordination between the Department 

of Defense’s Chief Information Officers, the Department’s Senior 

Acquisition Executives, the Navy and Marine Corps, and various 

other elements of the Department of Defense. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy coordinate the NGEN 

initiative with these relevant entities. The committee directs the 

Secretary of the Navy, jointly with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration; the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation; to produce a report for Congress describing the plans and schedule, including 

planned funding for the NGEN initiative. The report should include 

a description of NGEN’s compliance with the policies and architectures of the Business Transformation Agency, testing plans and 

procedures, and review and coordination mechanisms with all relevant oversight agencies. The report should be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

323 

Report on Department of Defense personnel access to the 

internet 

The committee is concerned with the recent Department of Defense policy changes that seek to limit the access of military personnel to certain popular internet web sites. While the committee 

understands the need to preserve available bandwidth for military 

needs and the necessity of ensuring operational security, the potential negative effects on morale must also be carefully considered. 

Those deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the 

world, sometimes for more than a year, deserve every opportunity 

to connect with their friends and family on a frequent basis. Social 

networking web sites facilitate that communication for this generation, in the same way letters, phone calls, and telegrams did for 

previous ones. The committee believes that access to the commercial internet can promote strong morale among personnel in the 

field as well as family members on the home front. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a report that includes a detailed description of the measurable effect 

that the use of these sites has had on operations and a detailed 

analysis of any bandwidth or security challenges that their use 

poses, as well as a description of any policies and procedures in 

place for the provision of internet access for deployed personnel 

when operational security requires denial of access via Government 

systems. The report should be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than September 1, 2007. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(325) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2008, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2007 authorization 2008 request 2008 recommendation 

Army .......................................................................................... 512,400 489,400 525,400 

Navy .......................................................................................... 340,700 328,400 328,400 

Marine Corps ............................................................................. 180,000 180,000 189,000 

Air Force .................................................................................... 334,200 328,600 328,600 

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) authorized active-duty end 

strength for the Army at 512,400 and for the Marine Corps at 

180,000. Additional authority was also provided in section 403 of 

that Act to increase active-duty end strength for the Army by up 

to 20,000 and for the Marine Corps by up to 4,000 above the fiscal 

year 2007 authorized levels of 512,400 and 180,000, respectively. 

The committee recommends combining the base budget end 

strength with the end strength funded in recent years in emergency supplementals. Although the Department of Defense has 

again divided its fiscal year 2008 end strength request between its 

base and war-related budget requests, the committee believes that 

it is more appropriate to authorize the total end strengths available 

to the military services in an integrated manner without regard to 

whether they are ‘‘permanent’’ or war-related. In the committee’s 

view, the total end strength that is needed to accomplish the military mission should be authorized in this section in a way that 

does not obscure the true cost that the actual end strength presents. 

The committee remains concerned that the planned growth in 

ground forces will come too late to impact the war in Iraq, and 5 

years from now, when the planned growth is scheduled to be complete, the requirements for a larger force may not remain. Nevertheless, the committee supports the planned increases in the 

ground forces for the coming fiscal year, but will continue to assess 

this growth on a year-to-year basis. The committee recommends an 

active-duty end strength for fiscal year 2008 for the Army and Marine Corps of 525,400 and 189,000, respectively. 

The Navy and the Air Force continue large manpower reductions 

achieved through major changes in organizational structure, including deleting redundancies, retiring manpower-intensive platforms, incorporating new technology, and shifting non-core military 

functions from military personnel to civilians. These efforts conmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

326 

tinue to be challenging and will be monitored closely by the committee. The committee is concerned that the Navy and the Air 

Force may be cutting personnel too far and too fast, opting to spend 

money on procurement programs and weapons systems to the detriment of personnel. The committee recommends an active-duty 

end strength for the Navy and Air Force of 328,400 and 328,600, 

respectively. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2008, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2007 authorization 2008 request 2008 recommenda- tion 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 350,000 351,300 351,300 

The Army Reserve ..................................................................... 200,000 205,000 205,000 

The Navy Reserve ...................................................................... 71,300 67,800 67,800 

The Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 39,600 39,600 39,600 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 107,000 106,700 106,700 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 74,900 67,500 67,500 

The Coast Guard Reserve ......................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2008, as shown 

below: 

Fiscal year 

2007 authorization 2008 request 2008 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 27,411 29,204 29,204 

The Army Reserve ..................................................................... 15,416 15,870 15,870 

The Navy Reserve ...................................................................... 12,564 11,579 11,579 

The Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 2,261 2,261 2,261 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 13,291 13,936 13,936 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 2,707 2,721 2,721 

The committee recommends increases of 1793 in the Army National Guard, 454 in the Army Reserve, 645 in the Air National 

Guard, and 14 in the Air Force Reserve over levels approved for fiscal year 2007. The committee supports increases in full-time support manning consistent with requested levels to increase readiness 

in the reserve components. 

The committee also recommends a decrease from the fiscal year 

2007 level of 985 in the Navy Reserve, consistent with reductions 

in both active Navy and Navy Reserve end strength. The committee recommends an end strength for the Marine Corps Reserve 

equal to the fiscal year 2007 level, consistent with the budget request. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

327 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize end 

strengths for military technicians (dual status) for fiscal year 2008, 

as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2007 authorization 2008 request 2008 recommendation 

The Army Reserve ..................................................................... 7,912 8,249 8,249 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 26,050 26,502 26,502 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 10,124 9,909 9,909 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 23,255 22,553 22,553 

Fiscal year 2008 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2008, as 

shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2007 authorization 2008 request 2008 recommenda- tion 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 

The Army Reserve ..................................................................... 595 595 595 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 350 350 350 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 90 90 90 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, as of September 30, 2008, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2007 authorization 2008 request 2008 recommenda- tion 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 

The Army Reserve ..................................................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 

The Navy Reserve ...................................................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 

The Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 3,000 3,000 3,000 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

following amounts for military personnel for fiscal year 2008: (1) 

for the Army, $34,952,762,000; (2) for the Navy, $23,300,841,000; 

(3) for the Marine Corps, $11,065,542,000; (4) for the Air Force, 

$24,091,993,000; (5) for the Army Reserve, $3,701,197,000; (6) for 

the Navy Reserve, $1,766,408,000; (7) for the Marine Corps Remmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

328 

serve, $593,961,000; (8) for the Air Force Reserve, $1,356,618,000; 

(9) for the Army National Guard, $5,914,979,000; and (10) for the 

Air National Guard, $2,607,456,000. 

The total authorized amount of $109,351,757,000 is 

$3,948,059,000, or 3.7 percent, above the base budget request. This 

increase includes a shift of funds from the supplemental budget to 

the base budget for the end strength requested in the supplemental 

budget, and an additional $302,000,000 for an across-the-board 3.5 

percent pay raise, versus the budget request of 3 percent. 

The Department of Defense has consistently underexecuted its 

military personnel funding authorization and appropriation since 

fiscal year 1995 for the active and reserve components. According 

to the Government Accountability Office, from fiscal years 2002 

through 2005, the lowest annual unobligated balance was $271.2 

million and the highest was $2,169.0 million. The committee recommends a decrease of $507.2 million to military personnel accounts to reflect anticipated unobligated balances, as described in 

the following table. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

329 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 384 here 35737.181
330 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 385 here 35737.182
331 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 386 here 35737.183
332 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 387 here 35737.184
333 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 388 here 35737.185
mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(335) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Increase in authorized strengths for Army officers on active 

duty in the grade of major to meet force structure requirements (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

table in section 523(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to increase 

the authorized strength limits for active-duty Army officers in the 

grade of major to meet the Army’s requirement for additional majors in its new modular structure. 

Increase in authorized strengths for Navy officers on active 

duty in grades of lieutenant commander, commander, 

and captain to meet force structure requirements (sec. 

502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

table in section 523(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to increase 

the authorized strength limits for active-duty Navy captains, commanders, and lieutenant commanders to meet the Navy’s force 

structure requirements for additional officers in these grades. 

Expansion of exclusion of military permanent professors 

from strength limitations for officers below general and 

flag grades (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 523 of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 50 to 85 

the number of permanent professors for each of the United States 

Military Academy and the United States Air Force Academy and 

professors of the United States Navy who are career military professors who may be excluded from the authorized number of commissioned officers who may be serving on active duty in that grade. 

Mandatory retirement age for active-duty general and flag 

officers continued on active duty (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 637(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, relating to deferral 

of retirement and continuation on active duty of regular officers to 

conform with recently enacted extended age limits for mandatory 

retirement of general and flag officers serving on active duty included in section 502 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

336 

Authority for reduced mandatory service obligation for initial appointments of officers in critically short health 

professional specialties (sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 651 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to waive the 8-year minimum service obligation for initial appointments of commissioned officers in critically short health 

professional specialties. The minimum period of service under such 

a waiver would be the greater of 2 years or the period of obligated 

service associated with receipt of an accession bonus or special pay. 

Increase in authorized number of permanent professors at 

the United States Military Academy (sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4331(b) of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 22 to 

28 the authorized number of permanent professors at the United 

States Military Academy. Although the Military Academy has 

made numerous changes to the structure of the academic departments, the authorized number of permanent professors has not 

been increased since 1978. The additional authorization for permanent professors would allow assignment of a permanent professor 

as deputy department head for each academic department and as 

Vice-Dean. 

The committee understands that the performance of permanent 

professors at the Military Academy is formally reviewed every 5 

years. The committee is concerned that a formal review every 5 

years is not sufficient to document the quality of performance and 

potential for increased responsibility expected of officers in their 

positions. The committee directs that permanent professors receive 

a formal evaluation at least annually, consistent with the practice 

for evaluating other Army officers. 

Expansion of authority for reenlistment of officers in their 

former enlisted grade (sec. 507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3258 and 8258 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 

regular Army and Air Force officers to reenlist under certain conditions in their former enlisted grade. Under current law, only reserve officers are authorized to reenlist in their former grade. 

Enhanced authority for reserve general and flag officers to 

serve on active duty (sec. 508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 526(d) of title 10, United States Code, to exclude from the limitations on the number of general and flag officers on active duty 

certain reserve general and flag officers serving on active duty for 

not more than 365 days. The total number of these officers could 

not exceed 10 percent of the number of reserve component general 

and flag officers authorized to be in an active status under section 

12004 of title 10, United States Code. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

337 

Promotion of career military professors of the Navy (sec. 

509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

promotion of Navy permanent professors to the grade of captain or 

colonel pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Navy. The regulations would include a competitive selection board 

process to identify those permanent professors best qualified for 

promotion. The promotion would be effective not earlier than 3 

years after the selection of the officer as a permanent professor. 

Subtitle B—Enlisted Personnel Policy 

Increase in authorized daily average of number of members 

in pay grade E–9 (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 517(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize an increase to the upper limit on the authorized daily average of activeduty enlisted members in pay grade E–9 from the current 1 percent of the enlisted force to 1.25 percent. 

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Management 

Revised designation, structure, and functions of the Reserve 

Forces Policy Board (sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10301 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate the Reserve Forces Policy Board as the Reserve Policy Advisory Board 

and restructure it to provide the Secretary of Defense with independent advice and recommendations on matters relating to the reserve components. 

This provision implements a recommendation of the Commission 

on the National Guard and Reserves to reconstitute the Reserve 

Forces Policy Board with a goal of generating and providing the 

best possible advice to the Secretary of Defense on reserve policy 

matters. 

Charter for the National Guard Bureau (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10503 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, to prescribe a charter for the National Guard Bureau. 

This provision implements a recommendation of the Commission 

on the National Guard and Reserves that the Secretary of Defense 

be responsible for drafting the charter for the National Guard Bureau to accurately reflect the full scope of the Bureau’s required 

duties and activities. 

The committee recognizes that the role of the National Guard in 

performing federal missions at home and overseas and in assisting 

governors in responding to State and local emergencies has grown 

significantly. This dual role and the competing demands for National Guard forces underscores the vital role of the National 

Guard Bureau as a channel of communication with the States, and 

of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as an advisor to the Secmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

338 

retary of Defense, the Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff of the Army 

and Air Force, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, and State governors on National 

Guard matters. The committee believes that an updated charter 

which takes into account the various missions being performed by 

the National Guard is essential and urges the Secretary to complete this at the earliest possible time. 

Appointment, grade, duties, and retirement of the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10502(d) of title 10, United States Code, to increase the grade 

of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from lieutenant general 

to general and to require that an officer appointed to this position 

be recommended by his or her Governor and by the Secretary of 

the Army or the Air Force, have at least 10 years of federally recognized commissioned service in an active status in the National 

Guard, be in the grade of major general or above, have significant 

joint duty experience, and have successfully completed such other 

assignments and experiences so as to possess a detailed understanding of the status and capabilities of National Guard forces 

and the missions of the National Guard Bureau. The provision 

would also designate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as an 

advisor to the Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, on matters involving the National Guard not 

employed in a federal status and would amend section 14512(a) of 

title 10, United States Code, to authorize the President to defer the 

mandatory retirement age of an officer serving as Chief of the National Guard Bureau until age 68. 

This provision implements a recommendation of the Commission 

on the National Guard and Reserves to increase the grade of the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau to general and serve as a senior advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, 

through the Chairman, to the Secretary of Defense, for matters 

pertaining to the National Guard in its non-federal role. 

The committee believes that this provision reflects the increasing 

importance of the role of the National Guard in homeland defense 

and civil support missions, as well as an operational force. The 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau would be able to provide the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense with 

valuable advice across a broad spectrum of issues related to the use 

of non-federalized National Guard forces in these missions. 

Mandatory separation for years of service of Reserve officers in the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral 

(sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14508 of title 10, United States Code, to require transfer of reserve officers to the Retired Reserve or discharge from the officer’s 

reserve appointment 30 days after completion of 38 years of commissioned service. This change is consistent with the requirement 

for mandatory separation for years of service of regular officers in 

the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

339 

Increase in period of temporary Federal recognition as officers of the National Guard from six to twelve months 

(sec. 535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 308(a) of title 32, United States Code, to increase from 6 to 12 

months the period of temporary federal recognition as an officer of 

the Army or Air National Guard that can be granted to an individual during the period that the individual’s appointment as a reserve officer of the Army or Air Force is pending. This provision 

would allow additional time for processing of appointments for permanent federal recognition and avoid hardships resulting from 

delays in appointment. 

Subtitle D—Education and Training 

Grade and service credit of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code, to require 

that medical students at the Uniformed Services University of the 

Health Sciences and persons participating in the armed forces 

Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Programs 

who have prior commissioned service, serve, while on active duty, 

in pay grade 0–1, or in pay grade 0–2 if they meet specified promotion criteria prescribed by the service secretary. The provision 

would also amend section 2004a of title 10, United States Code, to 

impose the same limitations regarding the pay grade and service 

credit exclusion on officers on active duty with prior commissioned 

service who are detailed as students at medical schools under section 2004a. 

The committee believes that limiting the amount of prior service 

commissioned officer credit for purposes of rank for medical students in military-sponsored programs is necessary in order to 

achieve career progression objectives. The limitations should be 

uniformly applied in various programs for medical students. The 

committee notes that the services have not implemented the authority extended in section 2004a of title 10, United States Code, 

despite ongoing difficulty in achieving health professional recruiting goals. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

a review of all health professional commissioning programs with 

the objective of identifying and remedying impediments to successful recruiting of the most highly qualified students. 

Expansion of number of academies supportable in any State 

under STARBASE program (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2193b(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to support, with Department of Defense funds, 

the establishment and operation of up to four STARBASE academies in a State. 

The committee recognizes the Department of Defense 

STARBASE program as an effective educational program focused 

on science, math, technology, and engineering. It has reached over 

350,000 youths at 54 locations associated with active, guard, and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

340 

reserve commands throughout the United States. The STARBASE 

program seeks to heighten the interest of students in pursuing careers requiring skills in science, technology, math, and engineering 

that are in high demand in the Department of Defense. Raising the 

limit on the number of Department of Defense-funded STARBASE 

academies per state would enable expansion of this program in 

States where there is a particularly strong justification for establishing new STARBASE programs. 

Repeal of post–2007–2008 academic year prohibition on 

phased increase in cadet strength limit at the United 

States Military Academy (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4342 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority 

of the Secretary of the Army to increase by up to 100 cadets per 

year the size of the Corps of Cadets at the United States Military 

Academy to a maximum of 4,400 cadets. This would afford the Secretary of the Army the flexibility to respond to the Army’s requirement for additional company grade officers to support the Army’s 

projected increased end strength and force structure. 

Treatment of Southold, Mattituck, and Greenport High 

Schools, Southold, New York, as single institutions for 

purposes of maintaining a Junior Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps unit (sec. 554) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Southhold, Mattituck, and Greenport High Schools, located in 

Southold, New York, to be treated as a single institution for the 

purposes of maintaining a Navy Junior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps (JROTC) unit. This provision would allow the Navy to continue a very successful JROTC program in a unique setting. 

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$35.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 

(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance 

program to local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The committee also recommends authorization of $10.0 million in OMDW, for assistance 

to local educational agencies with significant changes in enrollment 

of military and civilian school-aged dependent children due to base 

closures, force structure changes, or force relocations. 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities under section 

8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

341 

(20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in section 363 of 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for continuation of the Department of Defense’s assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents with severe disabilities. 

Inclusion of dependents of non-Department of Defense employees employed on Federal property in plan relating 

to force structure changes, relocation of military units, 

or base closures and realignments (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 574(e)(3) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), to include dependents of personnel who work on federal property but are not members of the armed forces or civilian employees of the Department 

of Defense in the plan and annual reports required to identify and 

assist local educational agencies experiencing growth in enrollment 

due to force structure changes, relocation of military units, or base 

closure and realignments. The provision would make the definition 

of ‘‘military dependent students’’ consistent with the definition used 

for purposes of computation of payments under the Federal Impact 

Aid program authorized in section 7703 of title 20, United States 

Code. 

Authority for payment of private boarding school tuition for 

military dependents in overseas areas not served by Department of Defense dependents’ schools (sec. 564) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to pay tuition for attendance at private boarding schools in the United States for military dependents in overseas areas not served by Department of Defense schools. Under 

current law, such dependents are sent to other overseas schools 

rather than to boarding schools in the United States. 

Subtitle F—Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters 

Authority of judges of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces to administer oaths (sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 936 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize judges of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to administer 

oaths. 

Military legal assistance for Department of Defense civilian 

employees in areas without access to non-military legal 

assistance (sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

authority of the service secretaries to provide legal assistance to civilian employees of the Department of Defense in locations where 

legal assistance from non-military legal assistance providers is not 

reasonably available. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

342 

Modification of authorities on senior members of the Judge 

Advocate Generals’ corps (sec. 573) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force 

serve in the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral, and would 

exclude them from the authorized number of officers serving in 

grades above major general or rear admiral. The provision would 

also authorize the position of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, and would require that the officer appointed 

to this position serve in the grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) and be recommended by a board of officers convened by the Secretary of Defense. 

The need for enhanced authority and independence by the most 

senior military attorneys of the services has become increasingly 

apparent during the global war on terrorism. The committee believes that the Judge Advocates General and the Legal Counsel to 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should serve in higher 

grades than presently assigned, commensurate with the vital importance of their duties and responsibilities. 

Subtitle G—Military Family Readiness 

Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council 

(sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council to review and make recommendations on Department of Defense policy 

and plans for the support of military family readiness; to monitor 

requirements for the support of military family readiness; and to 

evaluate and assess the effectiveness of military family readiness 

programs and activities of the Department of Defense. The council 

would consist of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, who would serve as chair, one representative from each 

of the services, and three individuals from representatives of military family organizations. 

The committee has received testimony of senior leaders from 

throughout the Department of Defense stressing the importance of 

support for military families. Yet, from a Department-wide perspective, many of these efforts appear to be independent and ad hoc. 

Creation of the council authorized by this provision would facilitate 

a coordinated approach across all services for the development and 

sustainment of such programs and improved oversight by the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense. The committee strongly recommends 

that the Department move toward the creation of structures similar to the Army Family Action Plan, which has proven to be singularly successful in identifying family readiness needs at the highest levels of Army leadership in a systematic and effective manner. 

Department of Defense policy and plans for military family 

readiness (sec. 582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a policy and plans for the support 

of military family readiness. The policy would ensure that military 

family readiness programs and activities are comprehensive, effecmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

343 

tive, and supported; continuously available to military families in 

peacetime and in war; available to military families of the regular 

and reserve components; included in Department of Defense plans, 

programs, and budgeting activities; and that they undergo continuous evaluation. The plans would include an ongoing identification 

and assessment of the effectiveness of military family readiness 

programs and activities; a description of the resources required to 

support them; an ongoing identification of gaps in the programs 

and activities and resources required to address those gaps; and a 

summary of the allocation of funds for major categories of military 

family readiness programs and activities. The provision would also 

require the Secretary of Defense to conduct surveys of service members, family members, and survivors beginning in fiscal year 2009, 

and not less frequently than once every 3 years thereafter. 

The committee has received testimony on numerous Department 

of Defense and service-specific programs which support military 

families in important and effective ways. However, these programs 

appear to be independent and ad hoc. 

The committee believes that family readiness is an enduring 

need and is concerned that many support programs, such as nonmedical counseling and family support services, are funded primarily, or completely, by supplemental appropriations. 

The committee expects that the policy and plans required by this 

provision will ensure that effective family readiness support programs will be included in the basic planning, programming, and 

budgeting activities of the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Enhancement of carryover of accumulated leave for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 591) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to increase for all service 

members the number of days of accumulated leave they may carry 

over from one fiscal year to the next from 60 to 90 days. The provision would also increase by 1 year the amount of time available to 

service members to use leave accumulated under the special leave 

accrual provisions of section 701(f) of title 10, United States Code. 

Finally, the provision would amend section 501(b) of title 37, 

United States Code, to allow enlisted service members who have 

accumulated more than 120 days of leave under section 701(f)(1) of 

title 10, United States Code, to sell back, on a one-time basis, up 

to 30 days of such leave in excess of 120 days. 

The committee recognizes that the ongoing high operations 

tempo has resulted in many service members accumulating more 

leave than they can use or carry over into the next fiscal year. In 

section 542 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), Congress authorized service 

members deployed in certain areas to accumulate up to 120 days 

of leave and allowed those service members 3 additional years to 

use that leave. Unfortunately, even under these conditions, some 

service members eligible for this benefit have lost leave. This provision would enable these members, on a one-time basis, to sell back 

up to 30 days of that leave in excess of 120 days. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

344 

The committee believes it is essential for military and civilian 

leaders to ensure that their subordinates maintain adequate leave 

balances for emergencies but that they are encouraged, if not required, to take leave whenever possible for their good and the good 

of their service. While the enhanced leave carryover authorized by 

this provision is needed in today’s operational environment, the 

committee expects the services to ensure that all officer and enlisted personnel understand the need to plan to use their excess 

leave so as to avoid losing this important benefit or to adversely 

affect their unit’s mission. 

Uniform policy on performances by military bands (sec. 592) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide uniform policy for Department of Defense bands regarding when public performances are permitted, the conditions under which band 

members may perform in their personal capacities, and recording 

of music for distribution to the public. 

Waiver of time limitations on award of medals of honor to 

certain members of the Army (sec. 593) 

The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 

statutory time limits and authorize the President to award the 

Medal of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble for valor during the Korean 

War; Leslie H. Sabo, Jr., for valor during the Vietnam War; Philip 

G. Shadrach for valor during the Civil War; Henry Svehla for valor 

during the Korean War; and George D. Wilson for valor during the 

Civil War. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army company-grade officer retention 

The committee is concerned about the increasing attrition rate 

among company-grade officers in the Army, particularly graduates 

of the United States Military Academy and the Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps scholarship program, and the potential effects of 

this trend on the capabilities of the officer corps. This trend is particularly alarming as the Army strives to increase its end strength 

in a time of war. 

The committee applauds the Army’s initiatives to improve retention of high caliber company-grade officers, and particularly notes 

the promising response to the Army’s advanced civilian education 

program. This program has value beyond increased officer retention, expanding the intellectual and professional growth of officers, 

allowing respite from operational demands, and laying the foundation for the future senior leaders of the Army. The committee urges 

the Army to continue this program and to explore expanding its 

use. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review the 

programs and incentives in place to increase company-grade officer 

retention, including identifying additional opportunities to increase 

the use of advanced civilian education options in exchange for increased service obligations and the use of the critical skills retention bonus to retain officers serving in designated critical branches. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

345 

The committee further directs the Secretary to report on this review to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2008. 

Comptroller General study of implementation by the military departments of sexual assault policies and mental 

health issues related to sexual assault 

The committee is concerned about reports of sexual assaults on 

service members during deployment and the impact on the mental 

health of victims of such assaults. The committee expects the military departments to continue to examine ways to ensure that applicable policies aimed at preventing and rapidly and effectively responding to sexual assault are properly executed at all levels of 

command, in deployed areas as well as on installations in the 

United States. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a review of the policies and systems in place within the military departments in response to section 577 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375) and in response to the comprehensive policies on sexual 

assault put in place by the Department of Defense. In particular, 

the Comptroller General should assess the adequacy of mental 

health resources available to victims of sexual assault, both in deployed environments and on installations in the United States, and 

whether current Department of Defense policies, surveys, assessments, and training of military and civilian personnel are effective 

and adequate to identify and respond to such needs. The Comptroller General should report on this review by August 2008. 

Counter-remote controlled improvised explosive device systems 

The committee is concerned that the Joint Improvised Explosive 

Device (IED) Defeat Office has become too dependent on a single 

source of supply for counter-Remote Controlled IED (RCIED) jamming systems and system components, thereby limiting innovation 

and potentially preventing more effective systems from being fielded. The committee further believes the Joint IED Defeat Office 

(JIEDDO) should consider identifying and qualifying additional 

sources for counter-RCIED systems. The committee therefore directs the JIEDDO and the military departments to identify and, as 

appropriate, qualify additional sources for counter-RCIED systems 

and system components. 

Explosive ordnance disposal personnel 

The committee recognizes the strains experienced by explosive 

ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee applauds the professionalism, dedication, and 

skill of these highly proficient technicians and acknowledges the 

tremendous danger associated with bomb disposal missions. The 

committee notes that, in addition to frequent combat tours with 

limited dwell time in the Unites States, EOD personnel are performing backfill requirements at military installations, as well as 

supporting the United States Secret Service in their mission to protect the President and other officials. The committee is concerned, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

346 

however, that EOD personnel are being stretched too thin for their 

various missions. 

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on the health and viability of the EOD force by March 1, 2008. The report shall: (1) 

evaluate whether the EOD force is properly sized, trained, and 

equipped for the tasks assigned; (2) analyze the sufficiency of pays 

and incentives available to EOD personnel in light of force requirements and recruiting and retention trends; (3) identify means to reduce operational demands on EOD units; (4) evaluate the need, feasibility, and costs associated with increasing the number of EOD 

units and personnel in the National Guard; and (5) evaluate the 

current placement of EOD units within each respective service, 

specifically evaluating whether EOD units and personnel are more 

properly organized under a joint command or the U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Feasibility of expanding access to mental health professionals in military units 

The committee is concerned about the stigma associated with 

seeking mental health services in the military, the availability of 

mental health care to service members, and the ability of military 

leaders to identify service members with mental health conditions. 

Access to mental health care is generally not available at the unit 

level, requiring service members to go to a military hospital or to 

a combat stress control team to receive such care. 

The committee is interested in the potential value of embedding 

military mental health professionals in units in a manner similar 

to the current utilization of military chaplains. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the efficacy of creating positions within subordinate military organizations, particularly at 

the battalion level, in which mental health care professionals would 

serve. The Secretary’s assessment shall include, but not be limited 

to, an evaluation of: (1) the impact on force structure of such a program; (2) the potential value of increasing the number of military 

mental health professionals; (3) the value of embedding military 

mental health professionals in subordinate units, particularly at 

the battalion level; (4) the appropriate professional skills that 

would be required of mental health professionals placed in such positions; (5) whether such a program would reduce the stigma for 

service members seeking mental health care; and (6) whether such 

a program would increase the capability of unit leaders to identify 

service members with mental health needs. The committee directs 

the Secretary to submit the results of the assessment, including 

findings and recommendations, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 

2008. 

Implementation of clarifying changes to jurisdiction under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

Section 552 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) amended section 

802(a)(10) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the application 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

347 

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to persons serving 

with or accompanying an armed force in the field. 

Prior to the enactment of section 552, section 802(a)(10) provided 

that ‘‘[i]n time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an 

armed force in the field’’ would be subject to the UCMJ. In the 

1970 case of United States v. Averette, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 363, the 

United States Court of Military Appeals interpreted the phrase ‘‘in 

time of war’’ to mean a war formally declared by Congress. Section 

552 modified the provision to apply ‘‘in time of declared war or a 

contingency operation.’’ 

A number of contractor groups have expressed the view that this 

provision is ‘‘both broad and vague.’’ According to these groups: 

The Secretary of Defense is unilaterally authorized to 

declare any military activity a ‘contingency operation;’ in 

addition, national disaster declarations made by the President also trigger the ‘contingency operation’ function. Hurricane Katrina was a military ‘contingency operation.’ 

Most of the homeland security operations of the Defense 

Department’s Northern Command are considered ‘contingency operations.’ 

In fact, section 101(13) of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 

the Secretary of Defense to declare a military operation a ‘‘contingency operation’’ only if members of the military are or may become involved in ‘‘military actions, operations, or hostilities against 

an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military 

force.’’ A national emergency may also trigger a ‘‘contingency operation,’’ but only if it results in the call or order to active duty (in 

federal status) of the reserve components. This authority was not 

used in the response to Hurricane Katrina and has never been 

used in the case of any other natural disaster. Moreover, section 

802(a)(10) applies, by its terms, only to persons accompanying an 

armed force ‘‘in the field.’’ The phrase ‘‘in the field’’ has been consistently interpreted to mean in the face of an enemy force. None 

of the hypothetical situations raised by contractor groups meet any 

of these tests. 

The contractor groups have also expressed concern that the Department of Defense has yet to issue guidance or regulations as to 

which provisions of the UCMJ will apply to contractor employees 

accompanying an armed force in the field, and under what circumstances. This issue is appropriately addressed through revisions to the Manual for Courts Martial implementing the new legislation. The committee urges the Department of Defense to expeditiously issue such revisions. The committee expects that the Manual for Courts Martial will implement the provision in a manner 

that is consistent with the longstanding definitions of terms such 

as ‘‘contingency operations’’ and ‘‘in the field’’ and mindful of U.S. 

Supreme Court precedent regarding the application of the UCMJ 

to civilians. 

Report on programs assessing feasibility of hotlines and 

video surveillance in recruiting stations 

In response to a requirement contained in the statement of managers accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorizammaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

348 

tion Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the Secretary 

of Defense submitted a report on programs designed to prevent recruiter misconduct. Two methods for preventing incidents of recruiter misconduct used by individual services include use of ‘‘hotline’’ numbers for recruits to call and report violations and employment of video surveillance in recruiting stations. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review these 

programs to determine their efficacy in preventing recruiter misconduct, increasing safety and comfort of potential recruits visiting 

recruiting stations, and improving the performance and security of 

military recruiters. The Secretary should also assess the cost of the 

programs and their impact, if any, on recruiting success. The committee directs the Secretary to submit the results of this review 

and assessment, including findings, conclusions and recommendations, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives by March 1, 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(349) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL 

BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2008 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise for the members of the uniformed services of 3.5 percent 

effective on January 1, 2008. This across-the-board pay raise is 0.5 

percent above the budget request. 

The committee believes that the 3 percent requested in the budget should be increased by half a percent in order to recognize the 

outstanding service and sacrifice of the men and women of the 

armed forces and their families. 

Allowance for participation of Reserves in electronic screening (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a new 

section 433a in title 10, United States Code, authorizing the military services to pay a member of the Individual Ready Reserve a 

stipend for participation in electronic screening performed pursuant to section 10149 of title 10, United States Code. The aggregate 

amount of the stipend paid to a member may not exceed $50 in any 

calendar year. 

The provision would also prohibit a member of the Individual 

Ready Reserve from receiving compensation under section 206 of 

title 37, United States Code, for screening for which the member 

received a stipend under the new section 433a. Finally, the provision would clarify that members may not receive retirement credit 

for participating in screening, regardless of whether the member 

received a stipend. 

Midmonth payment of basic pay for contributions of members participating in Thrift Savings Plan (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1014 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense to make twice monthly payments to the Thrift 

Savings Plan on behalf of participating service members. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus; 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus; the special 

pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high priority units; 

the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior servmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

350 

ice; the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service; and the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus 

for persons with prior service. 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus; the repayment of education loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve; the accession bonus for 

registered nurses; incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists; special pay for Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short 

wartime specialities; the accession bonus for dental officers; the accession bonus for pharmacy officers; the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties; and the accession bonus for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 

specialties. 

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active service; the nuclear career accession bonus; and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays (sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus; the 

reenlistment bonus for active members; the enlistment bonus; the 

retention bonus for members with critical military skills or assigned to high priority units; the accession bonus for new officers 

in critical skills; the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage; and the accession 

bonus for officer candidates. 

Increase in incentive special pay and multiyear retention 

bonus for medical officers of the Armed Forces (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

authorized limits on incentive special pay and the multiyear retention bonus for medical officers from $50,000 to $75,000. 

Increase in dental officer additional special pay (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 302b of title 37, United States Code, to increase the amount 

of additional special pay for dental officers. Under current law, a 

dental officer with less than 3 years of creditable service is eligible 

for a $4,000 bonus, and a dental officer with more than 3 but less 

than 10 years of creditable service is eligible for a $6,000 bonus. 

This provision would increase the maximum authorized amounts 

for those officers to $10,000 and $12,000, respectively. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

351 

Enhancement of hardship duty pay (sec. 617) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 305 of title 37, United States Code, to raise the maximum 

monthly amount of hardship duty pay to $1,500. The provision 

would also authorize the payment of hardship duty pay in a lump 

sum, subject to the member executing a written agreement. 

Inclusion of service as off-cycle crewmember of multicrewed ship in sea duty for career sea pay (sec. 618) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 305a of title 37, United States Code, to authorize off-cycle 

crewmembers of multi-crewed ships to be eligible for career sea 

pay. 

Modification of reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 619) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 308b of title 37, United States Code, to provide the Department of Defense with more flexibility in administering the reenlistment bonus. 

The provision would eliminate the 3- and 6-year options currently in law, and require only that the period of reenlistment be 

at least 3 years. Similarly, the provision would eliminate the tiered 

bonus structure and require only that the bonus not exceed 

$15,000. 

Increase in years of commissioned service covered by agreements for nuclear-qualified officers extending periods of 

active duty (sec. 620) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 312 of title 37, United States Code, to extend the eligibility for 

the nuclear officer continuation pay from 26 to 30 years of commissioned service. 

Authority to waive 25-year active duty limit for retention 

bonus for critical military skills with respect to certain 

members (sec. 621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 323 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense, or the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to 

the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, 

to waive the 25-year service limitation on eligibility to receive the 

retention bonus for certain members with designated critical military skills. 

Codification and improvement of authority to pay bonus to 

encourage members of the Army to refer other persons 

for enlistment in the Army (sec. 622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a new 

section 331 in title 37, United States Code, that would codify section 645 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163), as amended by section 624 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364), which authorized a bonus to encourage 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

352 

Army personnel to refer other persons for enlistment in the Army. 

The provision would extend the authority for the program to December 31, 2008. 

Authority to pay bonus to encourage Department of Defense 

personnel to refer other persons for appointment as officers to serve in health professions (sec. 623) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 331a to title 37, United States Code, that would authorize 

the payment of up to $2,000, paid in two installments of not more 

than $1,000, to certain individuals who refer a person to a military 

recruiter, when such referral leads to an appointment as a commissioned officer in a health profession. The provision would authorize 

such payments through December 31, 2008. 

Accession bonus for participants in Armed Forces Health 

Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance program (sec. 624) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2127 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to pay an accession bonus of not more than $20,000 to 

participants in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship 

and Financial Assistance Program (HPSP). 

The committee remains concerned that the Army and Navy continue to underfill their HPSP quotas, having failed to achieve recruiting goals in both fiscal years 2005 and 2006. This bonus, in 

conjunction with existing benefits, is intended to make the HPSP 

more attractive to prospective medical and dental school students 

who desire military service. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Payment of expenses of travel to the United States for obstetrical purposes of dependents located in very remote 

locations outside the United States (sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1040 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to pay travel expenses for purposes of childbirth to a location in the United States of a pregnant dependent of a service 

member assigned to a very remote location outside the United 

States. 

Under current law, payment of travel expenses is authorized for 

travel to the nearest medical facility in which adequate medical 

care is available. In many cases, dependents of service members assigned to very remote locations outside the United States are afforded travel expenses to Germany or Japan, but not to the United 

States where they might receive support from extended family during childbirth. 

Payment of moving expenses for Junior Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps instructors in hard-to-fill positions (sec. 

642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2031 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Departmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

353 

ment of Defense to reimburse moving expenses for certain Junior 

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) instructors. The instructor would receive reimbursement from the institution concerned, 

which would then receive reimbursement from the military department concerned. To be eligible to receive the reimbursement, an instructor must execute a written agreement to serve a minimum of 

2 years. 

The committee supports the Department’s efforts to maximize 

enrollment and enhance administrative efficiency in the management of the JROTC program. This provision is intended to attract 

highly qualified instructors to geographically or economically hardto-fill positions. 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits 

Modification of scheme for payment of death gratuity payable with respect to members of the Armed Forces (sec. 

651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1477 of title 10, United States Code, to allow a service member 

to designate in writing any individual to receive the death gratuity 

benefit. 

The committee believes that service members must receive adequate pre-deployment counseling on survivor benefits, including 

counseling on the options available to them in order to ensure that 

their decisions with respect to beneficiaries are well informed and 

properly recorded. As service members prepare to deploy, their 

focus may understandably be drawn away from the long-term planning that is necessary to ensure their families are taken care of in 

the event of serious injury or death. The military departments 

must focus on providing accurate, timely, and effective pre-deployment counseling. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review pre-deployment counseling and services provided by the military departments to members of the armed forces and to identify best practices among such counseling and services. The committee directs 

the Secretary to review specifically the counseling and services directed toward unmarried service members with one or more dependent children. The review should include an assessment of 

counseling and services related to survivor benefits; dependency 

and indemnity compensation benefits; Servicemembers’ Group Life 

Insurance; traumatic injury protection under section 1980A of title 

38, United States Code; the Survivor Benefit Plan; and Social Security benefits. The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on this review to the congressional defense committees by May 

1, 2008. 

Annuities for guardians or caretakers of dependent children 

under Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 652) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1448 of title 10, United States Code, to allow an unmarried 

service member with a dependent child or children to elect a guardian or caretaker of that dependent child or children as the beneficiary of the service member’s Survivor Benefit Plan annuity. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

354 

Expansion of combat-related special compensation eligibility for chapter 61 military retirees (sec. 653) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1413a of title 10, United States Code, to expand eligibility of 

combat-related special compensation to all service members eligible 

for retirement pay who have a combat-related disability, including 

service members who were retired under chapter 61 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

Clarification of application of retired pay multiplier percentage to members of the uniformed services with over 

30 years of service (sec. 654) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1402 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize, in the case 

of a member who became a member of the armed services prior to 

September 8, 1980, and who was recalled to active duty for a period of more than 2 years, recomputation of that member’s retirement pay according to the provisions of section 1409 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

The provision would also amend section 6333 of title 10, United 

States Code, to conform that section to the provisions of section 

1409 of title 10, United States Code. 

Commencement of receipt of non-regular service retired pay 

by members of the Ready Reserve on active Federal status or active duty for significant periods (sec. 655) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age at 

which a member of the Ready Reserve could draw retired pay 

below the age of 60 by 3 months for every aggregate 90 days of active duty performed under certain mobilization authorities. Under 

this provision, a member of the Ready Reserve could not reduce the 

age at which they draw retired pay below the age of 50. The provision would apply to service after the date of enactment. 

Subtitle E—Education Benefits 

Tuition assistance for off-duty training or education (sec. 

671) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2007 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority 

to pay tuition and related expenses to members of the Ready Reserve, whether enlisted or officer, who agree to serve for 4 years 

after completion of the education or training for which tuition or 

expenses are paid. The provision would also authorize the secretaries of the military departments to pay tuition and related expenses of members of the Individual Ready Reserve, in designated 

military occupational specialties. 

Expansion of Selected Reserve education loan repayment 

program (sec. 672) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 16301 of title 10, United States Code, to include additional 

types of loans incurred for educational purposes by members of the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

355 

Selected Reserve that would be eligible for repayment by the Department of Defense. The provision would also make both officer 

and enlisted personnel eligible for loan repayment under this program. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Enhancement of authorities on income replacement payments for Reserves experiencing extended and frequent 

mobilization for active-duty service (sec. 681) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 910 of title 37, United States Code, to clarify the eligibility criteria for payments under the reserve income replacement program. 

The provision would change the method for measuring cumulative 

periods of qualifying service by counting cumulative days, rather 

than months. 

In order to qualify for income replacement payments under current law, a service member must complete 24 out of the previous 

60 months. The provision would substitute the equivalent number 

of days for the number of months in current law. This would correct an inequity affecting reservists who serve a month’s worth of 

days, but who do not actually complete an entire calendar month 

of service. 

The provision would also authorize the continuation of income replacement payments in the case of service members who are retained on active duty to receive authorized medical care or to be 

evaluated for disability. 

Overseas naturalization of military family members (sec. 

682) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 319 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1430), 

to allow certain permanent-resident spouses and children of members of the armed forces who reside in foreign countries to be naturalized. Under the provision, upon compliance with other requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the spouse or child’s 

physical presence in a foreign country while accompanying the 

member would be treated as residence in the United States or any 

State for the purpose of satisfying the continuous presence requirements of the Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Implementation of limitations on terms of consumer credit 

extended to service members and dependents 

The committee notes the progress of the Department of Defense 

in drafting rules to implement section 670 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109–364), which provided protections for service members and their 

dependents against predatory lending. The rules were published on 

April 11, 2007, in the Federal Register (72 Fed. Reg. 18,157). Eliminating predatory lending is a complex problem, and the committee 

recognizes the need for sound discretion in ensuring service memmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

356 

bers have access to credit while also ensuring that barriers to predatory lending practices are implemented as Congress intended. 

The rules proposed by the Department excluded military installment loans, a form of predatory lending singled out in the Department’s ‘‘Report on Predatory Lending Practices Directed at Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents’’ of August 9, 2006. 

The committee expects the Department to carefully consider the 

risks involved in its approach as it finalizes its rules, to make regulatory changes when appropriate, and to recommend statutory 

changes when needed to eliminate predatory lending. 

The committee is also concerned about the Department’s heavy 

reliance on the States for enforcement in its proposed rules. The 

committee will look to the Department to monitor enforcement nationally to ensure consistent treatment of service members regardless of where they are stationed. The Department should continue 

to work with State legislatures to achieve fair and uniform enforcement for the benefit of military personnel and their dependents. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees by April 1, 2008 on the Department’s implementation of section 670 of the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 

364), including any recommendations for regulatory or statutory 

change. 

Survivor Benefit Plan/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation recoupment procedures 

The committee is concerned about reports that many survivors of 

deceased military personnel are experiencing inadequate service 

and adverse financial consequences associated with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service’s (DFAS) procedures for implementing offsets of Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), including refunds of 

SBP premiums. Survivors have reported extended delays in notification by DFAS of the deduction requirement, resulting in larger 

than necessary recoupment amounts. Some beneficiaries report receiving virtually no explanation from DFAS of the complicated calculation process for the offset and no statements detailing the deductions recouped versus premiums refunded. They report receiving multiple different recoupment notices, while premium refunds 

have been processed separately, so that widows first had to pay one 

or two large recoupment bills and later received large premium refunds, rather than being allowed to deal with much more modest 

net payments or refunds that would have caused far less disruption 

to their finances. 

Of greatest concern, some beneficiaries report that their inquiries 

to DFAS have required extended waiting times that led to 

unhelpful and occasionally rude feedback from representatives who 

could not answer their specific questions about what was happening to their annuities and why. Many SBP beneficiaries believe 

they are subjected to an automated and impersonal process that 

imposes dramatic financial consequences on them at a time when 

they already are undergoing great emotional and financial stress. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the processes and resources in place for managing the collection of SBP/ 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

357 

DIC recoupments and issuing refunds of SBP premiums. As part 

of this review, the committee directs the Secretary to survey annuitants who have experienced offsets of their SBP benefits by DIC 

in order to determine what shortcomings were experienced, what 

improvements can be made, and to perform an independent evaluation of the adequacy of the system in place for these dependents 

to receive timely, courteous assistance. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to report the results of this study to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(359) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Inclusion of TRICARE retail pharmacy program in Federal 

procurement of pharmaceuticals (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, stating that with respect 

to any prescription filled on or after October 1, 2007, the TRICARE 

retail pharmacy network will be covered by the federal pricing limits applicable to covered drugs under section 8126 of title 38, 

United States Code. 

Surveys on continued viability of TRICARE Standard and 

TRICARE Extra (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through 2011 the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to conduct surveys to determine health care and mental health care provider acceptance of the TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra 

benefit. The provision would require surveys of beneficiaries in addition to surveys of health care and mental health care providers 

and would require the Secretary of Defense to establish benchmarks for primary and specialty care providers, including mental 

health care providers, to determine the adequacy of providers available to TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries. The provision would also 

require the Comptroller General to review the processes, procedures, and analyses used by the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

determine the adequacy of the number of health care and mental 

health care providers available to TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries 

and to submit a report on the results of this review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on a bi-annual basis. 

The committee is pleased that DOD surveys in 2005 and 2006 

have consistently found a high level of awareness by physicians of 

the TRICARE program, and relatively high acceptance of new 

TRICARE Standard patients in many areas. However, the committee believes that DOD needs additional information about the 

relationship between acceptance of TRICARE and Medicare, as required by section 711 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), to fully assess options for 

increasing provider participation in TRICARE. The committee remains concerned about reports by military families that mental 

health services are difficult to access under the TRICARE program. 

The committee is also concerned about the availability of 

TRICARE Standard to members of the Selected Reserve. According 

to DOD, more than 40 percent of eligible members of the Selected 

Reserve reside beyond TRICARE Prime service areas in the United 

States. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on its implementation of the program known as 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

360 

TRICARE Reserve Select for members of the Selected Reserve, as 

authorized by section 706 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), with 

the first report due by March 1, 2008. This report should describe 

programs and activities to inform members of the Selected Reserve 

of the option to enroll in TRICARE, the number of enrollees, and 

the actual DOD costs for implementation of TRICARE for members 

of the Selected Reserve in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to submit additional 

reports by March 1 of each subsequent year that update the original report and include the projected DOD costs for the TRICARE 

Reserve Select benefit for the next fiscal year. 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General study of post-deployment health reassessment 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for directing the military departments, in March 2005, to conduct a post-deployment reassessment of health status, with a specific emphasis 

on mental health, between 3 and 6 months after a service member 

returns from deployment. However, the committee is concerned 

that there is a need for further evaluation of the effectiveness of 

this reassessment and its implementation by the military departments. In particular, the committee is concerned about the effectiveness of the web-based Post-Deployment Health Reassessment 

(PDHRA), and whether the services are consistently providing face 

to face followup, referrals for further evaluation, and completion by 

the service members of follow-on evaluations if applicable. The 

committee is also concerned about the extent to which the PDHRA 

is included in the Department’s quality assurance program for 

medical tracking, required by section 1074f of title 10, United 

States Code. 

The committee is aware that the Comptroller General intends to 

include analysis of the PDHRA in ongoing Comptroller General 

studies to assess compliance by the Department of Defense with requirements in law and policy concerning pre- and post-deployment 

medical examinations of military personnel who served in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. The committee directs that the analysis of the 

PDHRA include members of the active and reserve components and 

those service members who served in Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom and have subsequently separated 

from military service. 

Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 

Joint Executive Council Strategic Plan and Joint Incentive Fund 

The committee believes that it is imperative that the Department 

of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) include in their joint strategic planning process the identification of 

specific goals, strategies, and initiatives designed to better understand effective ways to diagnose and treat traumatic brain injury 

and urges the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work 

together toward this end. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

361 

The committee strongly urges the Departments to revise the 

Joint Strategic Plan and guidelines for the DOD–VA Health Care 

Sharing Incentive Fund and to place a priority on programs to improve the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury. In 

particular, the Departments should consider a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using telehealth technology 

to assess cognitive functioning of members and former members of 

the armed forces who have sustained head trauma. In addition, the 

committee recognizes that there is a great need for clinical data on 

effective treatment approaches for brain-injured patients and 

strongly urges the Departments to establish a high priority for 

funding such projects under its Joint Incentive Fund program for 

fiscal years 2008 through 2010. 

Mental Health Advisory Team IV findings 

The committee commends the Army medical department for conducting a fourth assessment of the mental health and well-being of 

soldiers and marines in Iraq, the Mental Health Advisory Team 

(MHAT) IV, and for including, at the request of the Commanding 

General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, uniquely developed questions 

addressing attitudes toward the treatment of insurgents and battlefield ethics. 

The committee is especially concerned over the MHAT findings 

that (1) multiple deployments directly correlate with higher levels 

of acute stress, and that lengthy deployments lead to higher rates 

of mental health and marital problems; (2) suicide rates for soldiers 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2003–2006 are 16.1 per 100,000 

soldiers versus an Army average of 11.6 per 100,000; (3) approximately 10 percent of soldiers and marines reported mistreating 

non-combatants, or damaging their property unnecessarily; (4) soldiers who experienced high levels of combat, or screened positive 

for mental health problems, were nearly twice as likely to mistreat 

non-combatants; and (5) although the majority of soldiers and marines surveyed reported receiving ethical training, nearly one third 

reported encountering ethical situations in Iraq in which they did 

not know how to respond. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to continue to 

assess the mental health of the force and to explore ways to address mental health issues that arise from military service, including the impact on families. The committee is concerned that extending Army deployments to 15 months while failing to meet necessary dwell times for returning units may exacerbate the mental 

health issues facing our soldiers and marines. The committee also 

believes the Department should do more to address the risk of soldiers and marines under combat stress, or who are already at risk 

for mental health problems, to violate battlefield ethics. 

The committee directs the Department of Defense to study and 

develop a plan to address the MHAT IV findings, and their implications, on all Department policies concerning length and frequency 

of deployment, and resources needed to address the mental health 

issues the MHAT IV identified. The committee expects the Department’s plan to include specific strategies to improve battlefield ethics and training. The committee directs the Department to report 

to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2008 the remmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

362 

sults of this study and its plan to address the MHAT IV findings 

and recommendations. 

The committee notes with great concern that nearly 6 months 

elapsed from the date of completion of the report, November 17, 

2006, until public release of the report’s findings on May 4, 2007. 

During that period, on April 11, 2007, Secretary Gates announced 

that tours of duty for soldiers serving in Iraq would be extended 

from 12 to 15 months. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by June 20, 

2007 on the extent to which the MHAT IV findings that deployment length was related to higher rates of mental health and marital problems were taken into consideration by the Department in 

the decision to extend Army tours. 

Reduction in Navy medical personnel and medical efficiency wedge 

The committee is deeply concerned about proposed reductions in 

Navy military medical end strength. The committee is aware that 

Navy military end strength is projected to decline in future years 

by approximately 30,000 personnel. However, the Department of 

Defense has announced an increase of 22,000 personnel for the Marine Corps. As the Navy medical department will continue to have 

responsibility for medical care for Navy and Marine Corps personnel and their families, it is essential that the Navy medical 

military manpower authorization and funding for Navy hospitals 

be increased to ensure quality health care for the additional marines and their families. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to reevaluate its previous decision to eliminate more than 900 

medical billets during fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The same 

formula used by the Department to calculate reduced requirements 

for downsizing the Navy should be used to determine new requirements to appropriately fund operation and maintenance for Navy 

medical treatment facilities and restore up to 900 billets in Navy 

medical end strength in support of the Marine Corps growth. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees no later than July 1, 2007 on the results 

of that evaluation. 

The committee continues to be very concerned about the Department’s policy of reducing Operation and Maintenance funding of 

military medical treatment facilities by use of an ‘‘efficiency 

wedge.’’ According to the Department of Defense, an efficiency 

wedge of $486.0 million was assessed against the budgets of military hospitals and clinics for fiscal year 2008. Although the committee agrees that efficiency in health care delivery is desired, it 

strongly disagrees with an arbitrary reduction of funding for military hospitals and clinics during a time of war. Shortages of equipment, supplies, and personnel in military medicine cannot be alleviated by further funding reductions. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to reassess the validity of the proposed efficiency wedge and any other decrement in funding for fiscal year 

2008 and to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by June 30, 2007, on plans to fund military treatment facilities 

in fiscal year 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

363 

TRICARE program cost sharing increases 

Section 711 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) established a Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of Military Health 

Care. The task force is required to assess and make recommendations on the beneficiary and Government cost structure required to 

sustain military health benefits over the long-term. An interim report addressing this issue is required by May 31, 2007. 

Section 713 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) required the Comptroller General to conduct audits of Department health care costs 

and cost saving measures proposed by the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2007 in an initiative known as ‘‘Sustain the 

Benefit.’’ The Comptroller General is required to submit a report 

on the audits conducted under this authority to the congressional 

defense committees no later than June 1, 2007. 

The Department of Defense requested that legislation be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 that would give the Department broad authority to increase 

TRICARE program cost sharing amounts for military retirees and 

their dependents, after first considering the recommendations of 

the Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care. 

During his nomination hearing to become the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Health Affairs on March 27, 2007, S. Ward Casscells, 

M.D., acknowledged the concern that ‘‘increasing copays and 

deductibles, particularly at this time, runs the risk of making it 

harder for us to recruit and retain the very best.’’ Dr. Casscells also 

stated his belief that ‘‘there are other efficiencies which can be 

sought,’’ such as disease management and prevention. 

The committee concluded that this legislative proposal is premature and believes that any increase in TRICARE program cost 

sharing should be made on the basis of the comprehensive analyses 

required by Congress and after implementation of efficiencies in 

the health care program. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to consult with 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives on reasonable adjustments in TRICARE program 

cost sharing following receipt of the final reports required in Public 

Law 109–364 and following consultation with military beneficiary 

advocates. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(365) 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Substantial savings under multiyear contracts (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the 

term ‘‘substantial savings’’ for the purposes of authorizing 

multiyear contracts and require the Secretary of Defense to report 

to the congressional defense committees on an annual basis on the 

savings actually achieved under such contracts. The provision 

would also require the head of the agency seeking the multiyear 

contract to report to the congressional defense committees, prior to 

legislative authorization, the specific facts demonstrating that the 

statutory criteria for entering such a contract have been met. 

Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, authorizes the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for the purchase of property, but only if six statutory criteria are met. One of 

these criteria is that the use of a multiyear contract must result 

in ‘‘substantial savings’’ compared to the anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. 

Under the provision recommended by the committee, savings 

that exceed 10 percent of total anticipated program costs would be 

considered to be substantial. Savings that exceed 5 percent of total 

anticipated program costs, but do not exceed 10 percent of such 

costs could be considered substantial, but only if the agency head 

makes an exceptionally strong case that the statutory criteria have 

been met and a multiyear contract is in the interest of the Department and the taxpayers. Savings that do not exceed 5 percent of 

total anticipated program costs would not qualify as a basis for entering a multiyear contract. 

Changes to Milestone B certifications (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

program manager for a major defense acquisition program (MDAP) 

that has received Milestone B certification under section 2366a of 

title 10, United States Code, to immediately notify the milestone 

decision authority of any changes to the program that are: (a) inconsistent with such certification; or (b) deviate significantly from 

the material provided to the milestone decision authority in support of such certification. The provision would also require that the 

milestone decision authority receive a business case analysis prior 

to making a certification under section 2366a. 

Section 2366a prohibits Milestone B approval for an MDAP until 

the milestone decision authority certifies that the technology in the 

program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment and certain other key criteria have been met. However, many MDAPs unmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

366 

dergo significant changes in technology, funding, or requirements 

after Milestone B approval. In some cases, such changes could result in the continuation of the program on a basis that would be 

inconsistent with the certification of the milestone decision authority. 

The provision recommended by the committee would ensure that 

the milestone decision authority is promptly notified of any such 

changes and is in a position to take appropriate action including, 

if necessary, withdrawal of the certification or rescission of Milestone B approval. 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense organization and structure for major defense acquisition 

programs (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees on potential modifications to the organization and structure of 

the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems. 

Investment strategy for major defense acquisition programs 

(sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on Department of Defense organizations, procedures, and approaches for the allocation of funds and other resources under 

major defense acquisition programs. 

The Secretary’s report should specifically address the Department’s strategy for allocating funds in the cases of joint requirements and requirements that could be met by more than one military department or defense agency. In a March 2007 report, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended that the 

Department implement an enterprise-wide portfolio management 

approach to making weapon system investments that integrates 

the assessment and determination of warfighting needs with available resources and cuts across the services by functional or capability area. The GAO report recommends that the Secretary establish a single point of accountability at the department level with 

the authority, responsibility, and tools to ensure that portfolio management for weapon system investments is effectively implemented 

across the Department. 

In this regard, the committee notes that the Department has already developed a portfolio management process for certain capability areas, including Joint Command and Control, Joint Net Centric Operations, Battlespace Awareness, and Joint Logistics. In 

each area, the Department has designated an enterprise-wide capability portfolio manager, who is charged with developing strategic 

objectives, projected capability mixes, performance metrics, and actions required to meet objectives and mitigate risk. The capability 

portfolio managers have direct access to the Deputy’s Advisory 

Working Group, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the 

Defense Acquisition Board. They also provide input to the Concept 

Decision Tri-chair (which includes the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Vice Chairman of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

367 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director, Program Analysis and 

Evaluation) on capability issues. 

The committee urges the Department to consider expanding the 

portfolio management process to include additional portfolios of 

joint requirements and requirements that could be met by more 

than one military department or defense agency. The committee expects the Secretary’s report to specifically address GAO’s recommendations regarding portfolio management. 

Report on implementation of recommendations on total 

ownership cost for major weapon systems (sec. 805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on the extent to which the Department of Defense has implemented the recommendations set forth in the February 2003 report 

of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled ‘‘Setting 

Requirements Differently Could Reduce Weapon Systems’ Total 

Ownership Costs’’. 

The GAO report states that some major weapon systems, such as 

the Apache helicopter and the Abrams tank, have experienced costly maintenance problems and low readiness rates, which persisted 

even after the systems were fielded. The report recommends that 

the Department address this problem by: incorporating operating 

and support costs and weapon system readiness rates as key performance parameters in the requirements development process; requiring product developers to establish firm estimates of a weapon 

system’s reliability by no later than the end of the system integration phase; and structuring contracts for major weapon systems so 

that at Milestone B, the product developer has incentives to ensure 

that proper trades are made between reliability and performance 

prior to the production decision. 

The GAO report indicates that the Department ‘‘partially concurred’’ with each of these recommendations, but ‘‘for the most 

part, found no further action was needed to lower total ownership 

cost.’’ The elimination of readiness problems and the reduction of 

total ownership costs for major weapon systems would yield significant benefits for the Department. Accordingly, the provision recommended by the committee directs the Secretary to report to the 

congressional defense committees on specific measures taken to implement the GAO recommendations. 

Subtitle B—Amendments Relating to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Enhanced competition requirements for task and delivery 

order contracts (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) require 

that task or delivery order contracts for or on behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD) in excess of $100.0 million be awarded to 

multiple contractors, with certain exceptions; and (2) establish enhanced competition requirements (including requirements for 

debriefings and authorization of bid protests) for task or delivery 

orders in excess of $5.0 million under such multiple award contracts. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

368 

At the committee’s April 19, 2007 hearing on DOD’s management 

of costs under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program 

(LOGCAP) contract in Iraq, Senator Levin asked why the Army 

had waited 5 years to split the LOGCAP contract among multiple 

contractors, allowing for the competition of individual task orders. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics responded: ‘‘I don’t have a good answer for you.’’ The 

provision recommended by the committee would ensure that future 

contracts of this type provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. 

The committee notes that the enhanced task and delivery order 

competition requirements in the provision would implement the 

recommendations of the Acquisition Advisory Panel chartered pursuant to section 1423 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). 

Clarification of rules regarding the procurement of commercial items (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would address recent Inspector General reports regarding the use of questionable 

commercial item designations to deny the Department of Defense 

information that it needs to determine price reasonableness for 

sole-source purchases. The provision would: (1) clarify the circumstances in which a subsystem, component, or spare part for a 

major weapon system may be purchased as a commercial item; (2) 

clarify that the terms ‘‘general public’’ and ‘‘nongovernmental entity’’ do not include federal, state, local or foreign governments, or 

contractors acting on behalf of such governments for the purpose 

of determining whether an item qualifies as a commercial item; 

and (3) require the contractor offering a major weapon system, subsystem, component, or spare part as a commercial item to provide 

information other than certified cost or pricing data that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the proposed price. 

Clarification of rules regarding the procurement of commercial services (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the use 

of time and materials contracts to purchase commercial services for 

or on behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD). 

Time and materials contracts for commercial services are potentially subject to abuse because the limited information the Department receives under commercial contracts makes it very difficult to 

ensure that prices are fair and reasonable. Section 1432 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 

108–136) authorized the following categories of commercial services 

to be purchased under time and materials contracts: (1) commercial 

services procured in support of a commercial item; and (2) any 

other category that is designated by the Administrator of the Office 

of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) based on a determination 

that the commercial services in such category are commonly sold 

to the general public through time and materials contracts and it 

is in the best interest of the Federal Government to use time and 

materials contracts for such purchases. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

369 

OFPP determined that ‘‘a few types of services are sold predominantly on a [time and materials] basis—specifically, emergency repair services.’’ OFPP determined that other categories of commercial services are commonly sold to the general public on a time and 

materials basis only ‘‘when requirements are not sufficiently well 

understood to complete a well-defined scope of work and risk can 

be managed by maintaining surveillance of costs and contractor 

performance.’’ OFPP did not determine that these circumstances 

commonly occur in sales to the general public. Nonetheless, a final 

rule was published in the December 12, 2006 Federal Register, designating ‘‘all categories of services (i.e., any service) as being available for acquisition on a [time and materials] basis.’’ 

The committee concludes that the December 12, 2006 rule exceeds the authority provided by Congress in section 1432. Accordingly, the provision recommended by the committee would authorize the purchase of only the following categories of commercial 

services under time and materials contracts: (1) services procured 

in support of commercial items; and (2) emergency repair services. 

Under the provision, other categories of services may be purchased 

under time and materials contracts for or on behalf of the Department of Defense only if such contracts are entered in accordance 

with rules applicable to non-commercial items. 

Modification of competition requirements for purchases 

from Federal Prison Industries (sec. 824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

competition requirements for Department of Defense (DOD) purchases from Federal Prison Industries (FPI). 

Section 2410n of title 10, as added by section 811 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107– 

107) and amended by section 819 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), 

gives DOD procurement officials discretion whether to purchase a 

product from FPI. If DOD officials conclude that an FPI product is 

not comparable to the best products available from the private sector in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery, the product may 

be purchased only on a competitive basis. 

Despite the enactment of this legislation, FPI officials continue 

to argue that DOD is required to purchase FPI products on a solesource basis. The provision recommended by the committee would 

clarify the competition requirements in section 2410n to ensure 

that DOD purchases from FPI are made on a competitive basis. 

Five-year extension of authority to carry out certain prototype projects (sec. 825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 5 

years the authority to carry out transactions other than contracts 

and grants in accordance with section 845 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160). 

Multiyear procurement authority for electricity from renewable energy sources (sec. 826) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts for a period not to exmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

370 

ceed 10 years for the purchase of electricity from sources of renewable energy, as defined in section 203(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852(b)(2)). 

Subtitle C—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) establish 

that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 

serve as advisors to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

(JROC) on matters within their authority and expertise; and (2) require the Secretary of Defense to consult with the JROC on matters relating to program requirements before certifying a program 

to Congress under section 2433(e)(2) of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Management structure for the procurement of contract 

services (sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments to establish Contract Support Acquisition Centers to serve 

as executive agents for the acquisition of contract services, should 

they choose to do so. The provision would authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to accept the transfer of all or part of any organizational 

unit from another department or agency that is primarily engaged 

in the acquisition of contract services on behalf of the Department 

of Defense (DOD) to help staff such centers. 

The committee understands that DOD has considered the possibility of accepting transfer of a unit of the Department of the 

Treasury engaged in the acquisition of contract services on behalf 

of DOD, but determined that it did not have the legal authority to 

do so. The provision recommended by the committee would provide 

the legal authority to accept such a transfer, if DOD determines 

that it is in the Department’s best interest. 

Specification of amounts requested for procurement of contract services (sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to clearly and separately identify in its 

budget justification materials the amounts requested in each budget account for the procurement of contract services. 

Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 

Fund (sec. 844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish an Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (the ‘‘Fund’’) to ensure that the Department of Defense (DOD) has the workforce capacity, in both personnel and 

skills, needed to properly perform its mission, provide appropriate 

oversight of contractor performance, and provide the best value for 

the expenditure of public resources. The fund would be financed 

through quarterly remittances by the military departments and demmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

371 

fense agencies, based on amounts spent for contract services in the 

previous fiscal quarter. 

Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel chartered pursuant to section 1423 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) reported that ‘‘curtailed investments in human capital have produced an acquisition workforce that often lacks the training and resources to function effectively.’’ As a result, ‘‘The Federal Government does not have the capacity in its current acquisition workforce necessary to meet the 

demands that have been placed on it.’’ The failure of DOD and 

other federal agencies to adequately fund the acquisition workforce, 

the Panel concluded, is ‘‘ ‘penny wise and pound foolish,’ as it seriously undermines the pursuit of good value for the expenditure of 

public resources.’’ 

During the same period in which the acquisition workforce has 

been allowed to atrophy, DOD contracts for services have grown 

without constraint. Over the last 5 years, DOD has almost doubled 

its spending on service contracts, while the number of procurement 

personnel available to oversee these contracts has dropped by more 

than 25 percent. As a result, the Department has become increasingly reliant upon contractors to help manage and oversee the work 

of other contractors. The provision recommended by the committee 

would endeavor to reverse this trend by taking money currently 

spent to hire service contractors and spending it instead to reinvigorate the DOD acquisition workforce. 

Inventories and reviews of contracts for services based on 

cost or time of performance (sec. 845) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

secretary of each military department and the head of each defense 

agency to maintain an inventory of activities performed pursuant 

to contracts for services (other than contracts that provide a fixed 

price for specific tasks to be performed). Within a reasonable time 

after an inventory is compiled, the military department or defense 

agency compiling the inventory would be required to review the inventory and develop a plan to ensure that the activities listed are 

performed in a manner consistent with the interests of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the taxpayers. 

Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) required DOD to conduct spending 

analyses of its purchases of contract services. As explained in the 

committee’s report on this provision: ‘‘[T]he Department has never 

conducted a comprehensive spending analysis of its services contracts and has made little effort to leverage its buying power, improve the performance of its services contractors, rationalize its 

supplier base, or otherwise ensure that its dollars are well spent.’’ 

Five years later, the Department’s expenditures for contract services have nearly doubled, but DOD still has not conducted a comprehensive analysis of its spending on these services. The specific 

criteria and timelines established in this provision for the inventory and review of activities performed by contractors would ensure 

that such analyses are conducted. 

The committee notes that DOD and other federal agencies are already required to maintain inventories of activities performed by 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

372 

federal employees and to review those inventories and develop 

plans to conduct public-private competitions for appropriate activities on those lists. The provision recommended by the committee 

would require the Department to develop a comparable inventory, 

and conduct a comparable review and planning effort, for activities 

performed for the Department by service contractors. 

Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 

846) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) prohibit 

the Department of Defense (DOD) from making purchases through 

a non-defense agency unless the head of the other agency certifies 

that the agency will comply with defense procurement requirements; and (2) require joint reviews to determine whether procurements conducted by non-defense agencies on behalf of DOD have 

been conducted in compliance with defense procurement requirements. 

Section 802 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), section 811 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163), and section 817 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109–364) required joint reviews by the DOD Inspector General and 

the inspectors general of non-defense agencies to determine whether procurements conducted by those agencies were conducted in 

compliance with defense procurement requirements. 

These joint reviews revealed significant deficiencies in interagency procurements conducted by other agencies on DOD’s behalf. 

They also resulted in increased attention to these problems by both 

DOD and other agencies, leading to a number of improvements. 

The provision recommended by the committee would require followup reviews and certifications, to ensure continued progress in compliance with defense procurement requirements. 

Subtitle D—Department of Defense Contractor Matters 

Protection for contractor employees from reprisal for disclosure of certain information (sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would strengthen 

the statutory protections available to contractor employees who disclose fraud, waste, and abuse with regard to Department of Defense contracts. The provision would establish a private right of action for contractor employees who are subject to reprisal for their 

efforts to protect the taxpayers’ interests. 

Requirements for defense contractors relating to certain 

former Department of Defense officials (sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require contractors that receive defense contracts in excess of $10.0 million, 

other than contracts for the procurement of commercial items, to 

report to the Department of Defense on an annual basis on certain 

former senior Department officials who receive compensation from 

the contractor. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

373 

Report on contractor ethics programs of major defense contractors (sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to report to the Armed Services Committees 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the internal ethics programs of major defense contractors. The report would address the extent to which major defense contractors have internal 

ethics programs in place, the content of such ethics programs, the 

extent to which the Department of Defense monitors or approves 

the programs, and the advantages and disadvantages of legislation 

requiring the implementation of such programs. 

Report on Department of Defense contracting with contractors or subcontractors employing members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 864) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on contracting with companies who employ members of the Selective Reserve. The report 

would address: (1) the extent to which companies contracting with 

the Department of Defense employ members of the Selective Reserve; (2) the extent to which such companies are disadvantaged 

when members of the Selective Reserve are mobilized as a part of 

U.S. military operations overseas; and (3) actions that could be 

taken by the Department to address any such disadvantage. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Contractors performing private security functions in areas 

of combat operations (sec. 871) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations on the selection, 

training, equipment, and conduct of personnel performing private 

security functions in an area of combat operations. The provision 

would also require that the Federal Acquisition Regulation be revised to ensure that all contractors and subcontractors in a combat 

area are subject to such regulations. 

Section 1205 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) required the 

Secretary of Defense to issue guidance for contractor personnel who 

support deployed forces. This requirement was implemented 

through Department of Defense Instruction 3020.41, ‘‘Contractor 

Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces,’’ dated 

October 3, 2005. However, section 1205 and DOD Instruction 

3020.41 apply only to Department of Defense contractors. 

Many contractors perform private security functions in Iraq and 

elsewhere under contracts or subcontracts with the Department of 

State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other 

federal agencies. The presence of armed contractor employees on 

the battlefield can have a direct impact on military operations, regardless of the agency that employs them. Since the beginning of 

the Iraq war, there have been several reported incidents in which 

contractor employees have exchanged fire, or threatened to exchange fire, with U.S. forces. Moreover, misconduct by even a few 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

374 

armed contractor employees may reflect badly on the United States 

and could undermine the chances of success for military missions. 

The provision recommended by the committee would address this 

problem by ensuring that the Department of Defense and its combatant commanders are in a position to regulate the conduct of all 

armed contractors in the battlespace, regardless whether they are 

employed under contracts of the Department of Defense or other 

federal agencies. 

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 872) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for the acquisition of 

products and services that are produced in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

if the Secretary determines that: (1) the product or service is to be 

used by military forces, police, or other security forces in Iraq or 

Afghanistan; (2) the preference is necessary to provide a stable 

source of jobs and employment in Iraq or Afghanistan; and (3) the 

preference will not have an adverse effect on U.S. military operations or the U.S. industrial base. 

Defense Science Board review of Department of Defense 

policies and procedures for the acquisition of information technology (sec. 873) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to direct a Defense Science Board review of 

Department of Defense (DOD) policies and procedures for the acquisition of information technology. 

The Clinger-Cohen Act (Division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106)) and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (chapter 35 of title 44, United States 

Code) form the statutory framework for the management of information resources in the Federal Government. These statutes have 

not been significantly modified for more than 10 years. In addition, 

the DOD acquisition and testing regulations for major defense acquisition programs do not always allow for the most effective acquisition of information technology systems. The committee believes 

that it is appropriate to reexamine these statutes and regulations 

in light of rapid advances in commercial information technology 

and evolving Department of Defense requirements. 

At the same time, the Department’s structure and organization 

do not always appear to be well-suited to the effective planning and 

administration of information technology acquisition programs. The 

committee is particularly concerned about the roles and responsibilities of the acquisition executives and chief information officers 

of the Department in the acquisition of information technologies 

that are embedded in weapon systems. The Defense Science Board 

review should specifically examine the issue of whether the acquisition officials who have overall responsibility for the acquisition of 

weapons and weapon systems might be better able to develop and 

implement information technology policies for such weapons and 

weapon systems than the Department’s chief information officers. 

The committee is also concerned about future policies and procedures for ensuring information security in commercial microelecmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

375 

tronics, software, and networks. While it would be prohibitively expensive for the Department to rely upon defense-unique suppliers 

to replicate commercially available technologies, there may be some 

applications for which it is necessary for the Department to develop 

‘‘trusted’’ suppliers. The Defense Science Board study should specifically examine the trade-offs between the Department’s needs for 

information security and its continued reliance upon commercial 

sources for information technology. 

Enhancement and extension of acquisition authority for the 

unified combatant command for joint warfighting experimentation (sec. 874) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

acquisition authority provided to the U.S. Joint Forces Command 

(JFCOM) by: (1) providing for both the acquisition and sustainment 

of equipment; and (2) extending the authority for an additional 2 

years. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) requested that JFCOM acquisition authority be made permanent. In 

April 2007, however, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

reported that shortly after Congress provided JFCOM acquisition 

authority, the Secretary of Defense created the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC). According to GAO, JRAC and JFCOM acquisition authority may be redundant. By a letter dated April 11, 2007, 

the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy concurred with the GAO recommendations and agreed to ‘‘reassess 

JFCOM acquisition authority in light of the expanding Joint Rapid 

Acquisition Cell process.’’ 

The provision recommended by the committee would extend 

JFCOM acquisition authority to ensure that the authority does not 

expire before DOD completes its reassessment and Congress has an 

opportunity to consider the results of that reassessment. 

Repeal of requirement for identification of essential military items and military system essential item breakout 

list (sec. 875) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136), which requires the Secretary of Defense to 

submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees 

listing essential items, assemblies, and components of military systems and identifying where they are produced. 

Items of Special Interest 

Exceptional circumstance waivers under the Truth in Negotiations Act 

Section 817 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) permits the use of 

an ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ waiver to the Truth in Negotiations 

Act (section 2306a of title 10, United States Code) only if the property or services could not reasonably be obtained without the waiver. Under section 817, the Department’s belief that sufficient information could be obtained to support the contractor’s prices without 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

376 

complying with the Truth in Negotiations Act is not sufficient to 

support a waiver. 

Earlier this year, the Department of Defense reported that the 

Navy had exercised an exceptional-circumstances waiver for a 

multi-year contract, valued at more than $8.0 billion, for the procurement of F/A–18E/F and EA–18G airframes. The report did not 

indicate that the Navy would not have been able to obtain F–18 air 

frames without a waiver, as required by section 817. As a result, 

the Navy failed to obtain cost or pricing data and put itself at risk 

of paying higher prices on an $8.0 billion contract because of its 

failure to obtain the most recent and relevant cost and pricing information. 

On March 23, 2007, the Director for Defense Procurement and 

Acquisition Policy issued a memorandum addressing exceptionalcircumstances waivers under the Truth in Negotiations Act. The 

memorandum states that ‘‘it is DOD policy to apply this waiver authority only to situations where the Government could not otherwise obtain the needed product or service without the waiver.’’ In 

addition, the memorandum also establishes a schedule of regular 

meetings within the Department to assist in the early identification of potential waiver issues and to ensure that the policy is applied appropriately. 

The committee concludes that the March 23, 2007 memorandum 

appropriately addresses the use of exceptional-circumstances waivers and, if consistently applied throughout the Department, should 

preclude the need for further legislation on this issue. 

Guidance on award and incentive fees 

Section 814 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) required the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations linking award and incentive 

fees to acquisition outcomes. 

On April 24, 2007, the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy issued a memorandum for the secretaries of the 

military departments and directors of the defense agencies requiring that, whenever possible, the Department use objective criteria 

to measure contract performance. The memorandum establishes 

specific criteria for linking award fees to performance. The memorandum states that the policies included in the memorandum will 

be incorporated into the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS). 

The committee concludes that the Director’s memorandum, together with guidance previously issued by the Department of Defense on award and incentive fees, appropriately reflects the requirements of section 814. Accordingly, the incorporation of the 

principles reflected in section 814, the Director’s memorandum, and 

previously issued guidance into the DFARS should preclude the 

need for further legislation on this issue. 

Program manager empowerment and accountability 

Section 853 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive strategy for enhancmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

377 

ing the role of Department of Defense program managers in carrying out defense acquisition programs. 

Section 853(c) requires that the Secretary issue guidance on, 

among other things, the authority available to program managers 

to object to the addition of new program requirements. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report states the 

conferees’ view that the Secretary’s guidance should include ‘‘the 

assurance that program requirements will not be modified in a way 

that would be inconsistent with the business case, the Milestone B 

decision, and any performance agreement entered without a written determination by a senior Department official that the modifications are necessary in the interest of the national defense’’ and 

‘‘program manager authority to make trade-offs between cost, 

schedule, and performance or to redirect funding within the program, provided that such tradeoffs or redirections of funds are consistent with the parameters established for the program and with 

applicable requirements of law.’’ 

A September 4, 2001 memorandum signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) states 

that ‘‘Program Managers are responsible for developing budgets 

that fully fund their programs, and reasonably reflect the projected 

cost of incorporating necessary contract modifications.’’ The memorandum states that change proposals have introduced unplanned 

new scope and capability improvements on shipbuilding programs, 

contributing to unbudgeted cost growth on those programs. The 

memorandum seeks to address this problem by requiring program 

managers to reject change orders that would increase program cost, 

except in narrowly defined circumstances. 

The committee believes that this memorandum may serve as a 

helpful model for the Department of Defense as it implements the 

requirements of section 853. The committee directs the Secretary 

to report to the congressional defense committees on how the guidance required by section 853(c) addresses the matters discussed in 

the memorandum. 

Protection of strategic materials critical to national security 

Section 842 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) modified statutory 

requirements for the procurement of specialty metals from domestic sources and codified these requirements in a new section 2533b 

of title 10, United States Code. Section 2533b contained a nonavailability exception to address circumstances in which compliant 

materials are not available in the required form when and as needed for the national defense. 

On January 17, 2007, the Director of Defense Procurement and 

Acquisition Policy issued a memorandum implementing the nonavailability exception in section 2533b. The January 17, 2007 

memorandum states: 

Several factors can and should be taken into consideration in making a determination that compliant specialty 

metal is not available. Are compliant parts, assemblies or 

components available in the required form as and when 

needed? What are the costs and time delays if requalification of certain parts of the system is required? What will 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

378 

be the impact on the program’s delivery schedule, program 

costs and mission needs? 

On April 10, 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics applied this exception to make a determination of non-availability of specialty metals in fasteners in 

certain federal stock classes. The April 10, 2007 determination 

states: 

[The Defense Contract Management Agency] verified 

that lead times for compliant material is long, ranging in 

length from 50 weeks for stainless steel to over 100 weeks 

for titanium. The lead times for procuring compliant fasteners are similarly lengthy . . . . These delays are impacting the Department’s ability to meet requirements. 

The committee expects the Department to take advantage of the 

flexibility provided in section 2533b, including the non-availability 

exception in that provision, when and as needed to ensure that it 

can purchase weapon systems and parts in a timely manner for the 

national defense. For this reason, the committee supports the interpretation of this provision in the January 17, 2007 memorandum 

of the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy and 

the application of the exception in the April 10, 2007 determination 

of non-availability. 

Regulations on excessive pass-through charges 

Section 852 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) required the Secretary of Defense to modify Department of Defense (DOD) regulations to prohibit excessive pass-through charges on contracts or 

subcontracts that are entered into for or on behalf of the Department. 

On April 26, 2007, DOD published an interim regulation in the 

Federal Register to implement this requirement. The interim regulation: (1) prohibits the payment of excessive pass-through charges; 

(2) requires contractors to identify in its proposal the percentage of 

work it intends to perform and the percentage it expects subcontractors to perform; (3) requires the contractor to demonstrate 

that its charges are consistent with the amount of value-added in 

any case where the contractor expects subcontractors to perform 

more than 70 percent of the work on the contract; (4) provides for 

these requirements to apply at the subcontractor level; and (5) provides for the recovery of excessive pass-through charges in appropriate cases. 

The committee concludes that the interim regulation appropriately reflects the requirements of section 852 and, if effectively 

implemented, should protect DOD against the payment of excessive 

pass-through charges. The committee notes that the Department 

received approval from the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to implement this rule until the end of the fiscal year. 

Should DOD fail to request, or OMB fail to grant, an extension of 

this approval, further legislation may be required. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(379) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management 

Repeal of limitation on major Department of Defense headquarters activities personnel (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

130a of title 10, United States Code, which imposes a limitation on 

the number of Department of Defense (DOD) headquarters activities personnel. 

Section 130a, which limits the number of DOD headquarters personnel to 85 percent of the number of such personnel as of October 

1, 1999, was enacted in section 921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). Since 

that time, the events of September 11, 2001 and the wars in Iraq 

and Afghanistan have resulted in a doubling of the defense budget 

and substantial new demands on DOD headquarters personnel. 

Because section 130a precludes DOD from meeting these new demands by increasing the number of headquarters personnel, the 

Department has turned to contractor employees to meet these demands. The administration’s legislative proposal notes that section 

130a limits the Department’s ability to ‘‘manage its workforce 

based upon workload’’ and ensure that it has ‘‘the most cost-effective workforce’’ to respond to the challenges posed by the current 

security environment. The committee concludes that section 130a is 

outdated and should be repealed. 

Chief management officers of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense the Chief Management Officer (CMO) 

of the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision would also: (1) 

establish a new position of Under Secretary of Defense for Management (Deputy Chief Management Officer); and (2) designate the 

under secretaries of the military departments the CMOs of those 

departments. 

The Comptroller General has testified on numerous occasions 

that DOD is unlikely to successfully address the management challenges facing it without a CMO to lead the effort. In November 

2006, the Comptroller General told the Subcommittee on Readiness 

and Management Support: 

DOD lacks the sustained leadership at the right level 

needed to achieve successful and lasting transformation. 

Due to the complexity and long-term nature of DOD’s business transformation efforts, we continue to believe DOD 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

380 

needs a chief management officer (CMO) to provide sustained leadership and maintain momentum. 

Section 907 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) required DOD to provide for one 

or two independent studies of the feasibility and advisability of establishing a CMO to oversee the Department’s business transformation process. In May 2006, the Defense Business Board endorsed the concept of a CMO. In January 2007, the Institute for 

Defense Analysis (IDA) recommended that the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense be designated as CMO, with a full-time deputy devoted to 

management issues. The provision recommended by the committee 

would take the approach recommended by IDA. 

Modification of background requirement of individuals appointed as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

background requirement for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to delete the requirement that 

a nominee have extensive management background ‘‘in the private 

sector.’’ The committee concludes that management experience in 

the Department of Defense and other federal agencies can be as 

valuable as management experience in the private sector. 

Department of Defense Board of Actuaries (sec. 904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 

the Department of Defense Retirement Board of Actuaries and the 

Department of Defense Education Benefits Board of Actuaries into 

the Department of Defense Board of Actuaries. 

Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for acquisition matters; principal military deputies (sec. 905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

appointment of a three-star principal military deputy for the service acquisition executive in each of the military departments. The 

provision would require that the principal military deputy be appointed from among officers who have significant experience in the 

areas of acquisition and program management and that they keep 

the respective chiefs of staff informed of the progress of major defense acquisition programs. 

At present, the acquisition executives for the Army and the Air 

Force have military deputies. However, the officers selected to 

serve in these positions often lack significant experience in the key 

areas of acquisition and program management. The acquisition executive for the Navy does not have a military deputy. 

The appointment of qualified principal military deputies for the 

service acquisition executives should: (1) strengthen the performance of the service acquisition executives; (2) improve the oversight 

provided to military officers serving in acquisition commands; and 

(3) strengthen the acquisition career field in the military. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

381 

Flexible authority for number of Army Deputy Chiefs of 

Staff and Assistant Chiefs of Staff (sec. 906) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3035(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to determine the number of Deputy Chiefs of 

Staff and Assistant Chiefs of Staff on the Army Staff, not to exceed 

eight total positions. Current law provides for up to five Deputy 

Chiefs of Staff and three Assistant Chiefs of Staff. 

Sense of Congress on term of office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (sec. 907) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the term of office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation should be not less than 5 years. The 

committee believes that this minimum term will strengthen the 

statutorily intended independence of the position, ensuring adequate operational testing of weapons systems and thereby saving 

lives and resources. 

Subtitle B—Space Matters 

Space posture review (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National 

Intelligence, to conduct a comprehensive review of the space posture of the United States. The review would cover a 10-year period 

beginning February 1, 2009. The Secretary would be required to 

submit the report on December 1, 2009. 

The committee is concerned that most military space capabilities 

are being modernized simultaneously. All of these modernization 

programs have exceeded their schedule and cost estimates, some 

significantly. The growth in and demands on the space budget are 

occurring at a time when Air Force Space Command is trying to 

improve its space situational awareness capabilities, and the military and commercial space community in general is concerned 

about possible threats to space systems. The review in the recommended provision would emphasize the increased focus on space 

awareness and control activities. In completing the review the committee directs the Secretary and the Director to look at the comparative funding levels for both the space situational awareness 

and satellite protection programs and the satellite modernization 

programs. 

Additional report on oversight of acquisition for defense 

space programs (sec. 922) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

due date for the report on the oversight of defense space acquisition 

programs required by section 911 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

382 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Department of Defense consideration of effect of climate 

change on Department facilities, capabilities, and missions (sec. 931) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to assess the risks of projected climate 

change to the Department’s facilities, capabilities, and missions. 

Board of Regents for the Uniformed Services University of 

the Health Sciences (sec. 932) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to appoint the members of the Board of Regents for the 

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) 

without a requirement for the advice and consent of the Senate. 

The provision would also redesignate the Dean of USUHS as the 

President of USUHS, consistent with current practice, and would 

amend section 2114 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the 

$100 per day limit on per diem for members of the Board of Regents when they perform their duties. 

The committee believes that the Board of Regents should play a 

key advisory role to the Secretary of Defense through the President 

of USUHS and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. There is a need for a rapid and flexible process for the identification and appointment of highly qualified civilian experts in 

fields relating to military medicine and medical education who are 

willing to voluntarily serve. This requirement would be better accomplished by giving the Secretary of Defense the authority to appoint the members of the Board. 

United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 933) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a United States Military Cancer 

Institute in the Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences. The center would be authorized to establish a data clearinghouse on the incidence of cancer among members and former 

members of the armed forces, and to conduct research that contributes to early detection or treatment of cancer among military personnel. The committee recognizes that the United States Military 

Cancer Institute is currently operated and funded by the Department of Defense. In the committee’s view, this institution should be 

authorized in statute in order to ensure its continued viability and 

service to military members and their families. 

Western Hemisphere Center for Excellence in Human 

Rights (sec. 934) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a Western Hemisphere Human 

Rights Center to continue and expand the work begun under U.S. 

Southern Command’s Human Rights Initiative. 

The U.S. Southern Command established a human rights policy 

in 1990, a human rights office in 1995, and began to promote a 

human rights initiative, ‘‘Measuring Progress in Respect for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

383 

Human Rights,’’ with the military forces of the nations in its area 

of responsibility in 1997. By 2002, every Western Hemisphere nation except Cuba had contributed to the initiative’s consensus 

statement that respect for human rights is a fundamental component of a democracy and a precondition for true security. Since 

then, the ministers of defense of eight Western Hemisphere nations 

have committed to implement the Human Rights Initiative within 

their military forces. 

The Department of Defense requested this authority. The committee understands that this center would not duplicate any work 

that the Command or the U.S. Government is already conducting. 

Inclusion of commanders of Western Hemisphere combatant 

commands in Board of Visitors of Western Hemisphere 

Institute for Security Cooperation (sec. 935) 

The Board of Visitors (BOV) of the Western Hemisphere Institute 

for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), established in 2001 as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2001 (Public Law 106–398) includes in its membership the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, which has responsibility 

for the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. On October 

1, 2002 the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) was 

established. This command has responsibility for the continental 

United States, Canada, Mexico, and adjoining waters to approximately 500 nautical miles (including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Cuba, and the Bahamas). NORTHCOM is also responsible 

for theater security cooperation with Canada and Mexico. Participation by Mexican military personnel in classes at WHINSEC is 

part of the military-to-military contact between the United States 

and Mexico, and since NORTHCOM was established, a component 

of the command’s security cooperation with Mexico. 

In order to reflect the fact that there are now two geographic 

commands with responsibility in the Western Hemisphere, the 

committee recommends a provision that would ensure that all combatant commanders with responsibility for the Western Hemisphere are members of the WHINSEC BOV. 

Comptroller General assessment of proposed reorganization 

of the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 

(sec. 936) 

Last year the committee was informed that the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Policy had approved a reorganization of his office. In 

support of his reorganization, the Department of Defense (DOD) requested authority from Congress to establish an additional Assistant Secretary position. In section 901 of the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 

364), Congress granted this authority. However, the conference report noted the committee’s concerns regarding several components 

of the proposed reorganization. 

These concerns included: (1) the role of a global war on terrorism 

task force that reports directly to the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy; (2) the placement of ‘‘Strategic Capabilities’’ under the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for Special Operations and 

Low Intensity Conflict (SOLIC); (3) the placement of ‘‘Forces Transmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

384 

formation and Resources’’ under the ASD for SOLIC; (4) the very 

large span of responsibilities for a Deputy ASD (DASD) for ‘‘Counternarcotics, Counterproliferation, and Global Threats’’; (5) the potential impact on the counternarcotics program execution; (6) the 

unique placement of both functional and regional issue responsibilities under one ASD for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security 

Affairs; and (7) the role of the DASD for ‘‘Building Partnership Capacity Strategy,’’ relative to a DASD for ‘‘Security Cooperation Operations.’’ The committee directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to the defense committees by February 1, 2007, a report on the 

reorganization. 

On February 1, 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 

provided the report mandated by the conferees. Although the report 

provides additional detail on the background and rationale for the 

reorganization, it does not fully address the committees’ concerns 

about whether the reorganization will improve oversight of issues 

within the purview of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 

nor does it dispel all of the specific concerns enumerated in the 

conference report regarding section 901. 

On March 26, 2007, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 

Capabilities held a briefing on the reorganization, focusing primarily on the impact on the Office of the ASD SOLIC and U.S. 

Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The briefing raised further questions regarding whether the Department’s policy management of special operations and low intensity conflict activities is 

currently consistent with the intent, if not the letter, of section 

138(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, which mandates the principal duty of the ASD SOLIC. 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Governmental Accountability Office to assess the impact of the reorganization of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy. This report should assess: 

(1) Whether the reorganization furthers its stated purpose, 

in the short- and long-term—namely the Department’s ability 

to address current security priorities including the war in Iraq 

and the global war on terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, 

the management of geopolitical defense relationships, and to 

anticipate future strategic shifts; 

(2) Whether, and to what extent, the proposed reorganization 

adheres to generally accepted principles of effective organization such as establishing clear goals, identifying clear lines of 

authority and accountability, and developing an effective 

human capital strategy; 

(3) The extent to which DOD has developed detailed implementation plans, and the status of the implementation of all 

aspects of the reorganization; 

(4) The extent to which DOD has worked to mitigate congressional concerns and address other challenges that have 

arisen since the reorganization was announced; 

(5) How the Department plans to evaluate progress in 

achieving the stated goals of the proposed reorganization and 

what metrics, if any, it has established to assess results; 

(6) the impact on the ability of the ASD SOLIC to carry out 

his/her principal duty as mandated by title 10; and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

385 

(7) the impact of the seven issues identified in the conference 

report for the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Conference Report 109–702). 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(387) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in Division A 

of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with 

normal reprogramming procedures. This is the amount proposed in 

the administration’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. Transfers of 

funds between military personnel authorizations would not be 

counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

Authorization of additional emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2007 (sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional supplemental appropriations for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for other purposes, for fiscal year 2007. 

Modification of fiscal year 2007 general transfer authority 

(sec. 1003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

transfer authority provided in section 1001 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109–364) by exempting the transfer of funds previously approved 

by the committee for the training of Iraqi security forces (FY07–07– 

R PA) and for the Joint Improvised Explosives Defeat Device Fund 

(FY7–11 PA), and the future transfer of funds to restore the 

sources used in those two reprogrammings, from the dollar limitation in that provision. The transfers of funds in these 

reprogrammings were intended to advance funding for these purposes pending the passage of a supplemental appropriations act. 

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal year 2008 (sec. 1004) 

The resolution of ratification for the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary, and the 

Czech Republic contained a provision (section 3(2)(c)(ii)) requiring 

a specific authorization for U.S. payments to the common-funded 

budgets of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for each 

fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 1999, in which U.S. payments 

exceed the fiscal year 1998 total. The committee recommends a provision to authorize the U.S. contribution to NATO common-funded 

budgets for fiscal year 2008, including the use of unexpended balances from prior years. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

388 

Financial management transformation initiative for the Defense Agencies (sec. 1005) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to carry out an initiative for financial management transformation in the defense agencies. 

The Department initiated a Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) for 

this purpose in October 2006. The provision recommended by the 

committee would codify the DAI, to ensure that this effort does not 

lapse at the end of the current administration. 

Repeal of requirement for two-year budget cycle for the Department of Defense (sec. 1006) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99–145) for the Department of Defense to submit a biennial budget as part of the President’s budget 

request for even-numbered fiscal years. 

While the committee remains supportive of the concept of biennial budgeting and the potential it has to improve congressional 

oversight, the committee also recognizes that for biennial budgeting 

to deliver these potential benefits, there must be a comprehensive 

biennial federal budget process, including biennial budget resolutions and appropriations acts. Although the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives have produced biennial defense authorization bills, most notably in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 

(Public Law 100–180), no progress has been made on the conversion of the entire federal budget process to biennial budgeting during the two decades since the enactment of this requirement for a 

biennial defense budget. Under these circumstances the committee 

believes the existing requirement no longer serves a useful purpose. 

Extension of period for transfer of funds to Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense account (sec. 1007) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend from 

2 to 5 fiscal years the length of time by which funds can be transferred back to the ‘‘Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense’’ 

(FCFD) appropriation account to offset losses caused by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. This would better align 

the time frame for the transfer of funds to the FCFD appropriation 

with the time frames needed for the completion or close-out of contracts and projects. 

Section 2779 of title 10, United States Code, authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer funds to the FCFD account to offset losses caused by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange 

rates. Funds previously transferred out of the FCFD account to pay 

such obligations may be transferred back into the FCFD when 

those funds are not needed. Unobligated amounts of funds appropriated for operation and maintenance and military personnel also 

may be transferred to the FCFD account. Current law authorizes 

the Secretary of Defense to transfer funding for no more than 2 

years prior to the current fiscal year. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

389 

Projects and contracts may take longer than 2 years to complete. 

As a result, it may not be possible to determine, with any degree 

of certainty, that funds previously transferred out of the FCFD account will no longer be needed to meet obligations associated with 

foreign currency fluctuations. This provision would expand the time 

frame to 5 years, thus allowing additional time for the completion 

or close-out of projects and contracts and the identification of funds 

available for return to the FCFD account. 

Similarly, because more than 2 years may be needed to complete 

contracts and liquidate claims, 2 years may not be sufficient to 

identify unobligated amounts of funds appropriated for operation 

and maintenance and military personnel funds that would be available for transfer to the FCFD account. Therefore, this provision 

would also extend the transfer time frame to 5 years for these 

funds. This would allow for more certainty in the identification of 

funds available for transfer and reduce the risk that there will be 

insufficient funds to cover foreign currency fluctuation requirements. 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities 

Expansion of Department of Defense authority to provide 

support for counter-drug activities to certain additional 

foreign governments (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision to extend authority to 

the Department of Defense to provide support to Mexico and the 

Dominican Republic for their counterdrug activities. 

According to the Department of Defense, over 90 percent of the 

drugs entering the United States come from or via Mexico. Mexican 

President Felipe Calderon has made fighting the drug cartels and 

corruption a focus of his administration. The Mexican military 

lacks the ability to monitor and control air, maritime, and land approaches to Mexico and the security forces need better intelligencesharing capabilities, among other things. 

The Dominican Republic has become, over the last 2 years, a 

more significant transshipment point for cocaine traveling to the 

United States from Venezuela. The Dominican security forces lack 

air, land, and sea mobility, as well as communications and information processing. 

The committee, therefore, recommends that counterdrug training 

and equipment be provided for Mexico and Venezuela under the existing law governing such Department of Defense activities. 

Subtitle C—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Enhancement of authority to pay rewards for assistance in 

combating terrorism (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase, for 

1 year, the amounts of the monetary rewards that are available to 

the Department of Defense for assistance in combating terrorism. 

The maximum reward amount available to the Secretary of Defense or a delegated Under Secretary of Defense would be $5.0 million, and the maximum amount available to combatant commanders would increase to $1.0 million. The Secretary of Defense 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

390 

would be required to consult with the Secretary of State regarding 

a reward over $2.0 million. 

Repeal of modification of authorities relating to the use of 

the Armed Forces in major public emergencies (sec. 

1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) and revive the provisions 

amended by that section as they were in effect prior to the effective 

date of that act. Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act clarified the Insurrection Act, section 333 of title 

10, United States Code; authorized the provision of supplies, services, and equipment necessary for the immediate preservation of 

life and property under chapter 152 of title 10, United States Code; 

and amended section 12304(c) of title 10, United States Code, to remove a restriction on the use of the Presidential Selected Reserve 

Callup Authority in chapter 15 or natural disaster situations. 

The intent of section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act was to clarify and update the so-called Insurrection Act. Section 1076 was never intended to provide additional authority to the President to employ the armed forces inside the 

United States to restore public order when domestic violence occurred to such an extent that State authorities were not able to enforce the laws and protect the legal rights of its people beyond 

what existed under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, 

that were updated. However, concerns have been expressed by governors of the States and others that this provision expanded the 

President’s authority to federalize the National Guard during certain emergencies and disasters. The committee recommends repeal 

of this provision to allow further examination of this issue. 

The committee directs the Commission on the National Guard 

and Reserves to examine the clarity of section 333 of title 10, 

United States Code, and the related provisions of law amended by 

section 1076, as they would be restored by this provision, and assess whether section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act inadvertently expanded this authority in any 

way. The Commission should include its findings and any recommendations in its final report to Congress, which is due no later 

than January 31, 2008. 

Procedures for Combatant Status Review Tribunals; modification of military commission authorities (sec. 1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title X of Public Law 109–148) by 

requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct Combatant Status 

Review Tribunals to determine the status of detainees who have 

been held by the Department of Defense as unlawful enemy combatants for more than 2 years. The provision would establish requirements for the procedures to be used by such tribunals. 

In addition, the provision recommended by the committee would 

amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–366) to 

clarify: (1) the definition of the term ‘‘unlawful enemy combatant’’; 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

391 

(2) the rules regarding statements in which the degree of coercion 

is disputed; and (3) the admissibility of hearsay evidence. 

Gift acceptance authority (sec. 1024) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) make permanent the gift acceptance authority in section 2601(b) of title 10, 

United States Code; and (2) require the Secretary of Defense to 

prescribe regulations prohibiting the solicitation of any gift by the 

Department of Defense (DOD) if the nature or circumstances of the 

solicitation would compromise the integrity or the appearance of integrity of any DOD program or official. 

Section 374 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) added a new subsection (b) to section 2601, authorizing DOD to accept gifts on behalf of wounded 

members of the military, civilian employees, and their dependents. 

This authority is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007. The 

provision recommended by the committee would make the new gift 

acceptance authority permanent, while requiring the issuance of 

regulations regarding the solicitation of gifts to ensure that the authority is not abused. 

Expansion of cooperative agreement authority for management of cultural resources (sec. 1025) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the authority of the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department to enter into a cooperative agreement for the preservation, management, maintenance, and improvement of cultural 

resources extends to cultural resources located off a military installation, if the cooperative agreement would relieve or eliminate current or anticipated restrictions on military training, testing, or operations. 

Minimum annual purchase amounts for airlift from carriers 

participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1026) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to guarantee higher minimum levels of business than are currently authorized by law to United States air carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). Awarding 

sufficient guaranteed amounts of the Department’s peacetime business has been an essential method of strengthening the Department’s partnership with industry participants in the CRAF program. Opportunities to increase the long-term viability of the 

CRAF program are possible through low risk increases to guaranteed minimum levels of business. This provision would authorize 

the Department to guarantee a minimum level of peacetime business for the CRAF participants, based on annual forecast needs, 

capped at a maximum of 80 percent of the annual average expenditures of peacetime airlift for the prior 5-year period. 

Provision of Air Force support and services to foreign military and state aircraft (sec. 1027) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of the Air Force permanent authority to provide supplies 

and services to military and state aircraft of a foreign country. Supmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

392 

plies and services would be provided to a foreign country on a reimbursable basis without an advance of funds if similar supplies and 

services are furnished to U.S. military or other state aircraft by 

that country. The provision would provide that routine airport services may be provided on a non-reimbursable basis at no cost to the 

foreign country if providing those services does not result in any direct costs to the Air Force, or the services are provided under an 

agreement by which the foreign country has agreed to provide on 

a reciprocal basis routine airport services to U.S. military or other 

state aircraft without reimbursement. The provision would stipulate that if routine airport services are provided by a working capital fund activity of the Air Force to a foreign country on a nonreimbursable basis under an agreement with that country, the 

working capital fund activity will be reimbursed for the costs of 

those services out of Air Force Operation and Maintenance funds. 

Participation in Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership 

(sec. 1028) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into a multilateral memorandum of 

understanding authorizing the Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership for the purposes of acquiring, operating, and supporting strategic airlift aircraft. The provision would permit the Secretary of 

Defense to pay the U.S. share of the costs of the activities and operations of the Partnership from funds available to the Department 

of Defense for this purpose. The provision provides that the Secretary of Defense, in carrying out the terms of the memorandum 

of understanding, is authorized to waive reimbursement of the 

United States for the cost of certain functions performed by Department personnel for the Partnership and waive imposition of surcharges for administrative services provided by the United States 

that otherwise would be charged to the Partnership. The provision 

would also authorize the payment of salaries and other expenses of 

Department personnel assigned to the Partnership without reimbursement or cost sharing for those expenses. The provision provides for the crediting of amounts received by the United States in 

carrying out the memorandum. The provision would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer one strategic airlift aircraft to the 

Strategic Airlift Capability Partnership under the terms and conditions to be agreed to in the memorandum of understanding. The 

provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 

to the congressional defense committees not later than 30 days before transferring a strategic airlift aircraft to the Partnership. The 

report would include information on the type and tail number of 

the aircraft to be transferred. 

The committee notes the growing strategic airlift requirements of 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members and coalition 

partners, including those resulting from NATO’s International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe’s Minimum Military Requirements study for the NATO Response Force (NRF) identifies an 

NRF requirement for the equivalent of eight C–17 aircraft to meet 

airlift needs. The committee expects the Strategic Airlift Capability 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

393 

Partnership to give priority to meeting airlift requirements associated with NATO missions. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees evaluating the alternatives for strategic airlift aircraft to be transferred to the Partnership not later than 30 days prior to the transfer of a strategic airlift aircraft under this section. The report should include the extent 

to which each aircraft would meet the Partnership requirements, 

and the total cost to the United States Government associated with 

the transfer of each aircraft. The committee believes that total cost 

should be determined based on procurement, operating, and support costs. The committee further believes that for aircraft that are 

excess to United States Transportation Command inventory requirements, procurement costs should be limited to those costs necessary to refurbish and upgrade the aircraft to meet the Partnership’s requirements. 

The committee notes that establishment of the Strategic Airlift 

Capability Partnership would require the creation of new organizational structures within NATO. The committee expects to be kept 

informed on the progress of negotiating and concluding the memorandum of understanding authorized under this provision and any 

agreement establishing a subsidiary body within NATO to carry 

out that memorandum. 

Responsibility of the Air Force for fixed-wing support of 

Army intra-theater logistics (sec. 1029) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, to prescribe directives or instructions to provide 

that the Air Force will be responsible for the missions and functions of fixed-wing support for Army intra-theater logistics. The budget request included $157.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA, line 1) for buying the Joint Cargo Aircraft 

(JCA). The budget request also included $42.4 million in PE 

41138F for Air Force activities related to joint Live Fire Test and 

Evaluation (LFT&E) and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation 

(IOT&E) programs, initiating an Air Force mission equipment integration design/development program, buying test aircraft, and engineering, training, and logistics support studies and analysis. The 

budget request did not include any funding in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for the JCA program. 

The Army and the Air Force established the JCA program to correct operational shortfalls to cargo mission requirements, provide 

commonality with other aviation platforms, and replace multiple 

retiring aircraft systems. In the Senate report accompanying S. 

2744 (S. Rept. 109–254) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the 

committee noted that the appropriate aircraft mix and the number 

of intra-theater aircraft assets required for this mission had not 

been determined and had not been addressed in the Mobility Capabilities Study. The Department of Defense has been conducting an 

Intra-Theater Lift Capability Study and Force Mix Study to identify the right mix and number of intra-theater aircraft assets required, but has not yet produced any results from those efforts. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

394 

Whatever those analyses show, however, the more fundamental 

question is whether this should be a joint program between the 

Army and the Air Force, or whether this fixed-wing, intra-theater 

lift mission should be assigned solely to the Air Force. 

The committee has heard frequent anecdotes from Army officials 

about the lack of logistics support they feel has been provided by 

the Air Force operating the C–130 aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

However, when invited to provide concrete examples that would 

give substance to the assertions, the Army was not forthcoming. 

Without concrete examples, there is no way to tell if the perceived 

shortage of support was due to other Air Force priorities, or whether the Air Force operators were fully engaged in supporting the priorities of the overall ground component commander. If there were 

a pattern of the joint forces air component commander (JFACC) 

providing support that did not match the priorities of the joint 

forces land component commander (JFLCC), that would certainly 

argue for intervention of the joint forces commander to correct the 

situation. It would not be a persuasive argument that the JFLCC 

should have his own air force. 

Unfortunately, these arguments have a familiar ring—‘‘I can’t 

count on it in wartime if I don’t own it all the time.’’ These were 

among the loudest arguments against making the reforms included 

in the Goldwater-Nichols Act. 

The committee believes that the Air Force is better positioned to 

provide this type of support in wartime and in peacetime, and believes that the Army would be better served to focus its scarce resources on those missions and functions for which it is uniquely 

qualified and which are demonstrably underfunded. 

The committee, therefore, recommends this provision, a decrease 

of $157.0 million in APA, and an increase of $157.0 million in 

APAF to continue the JCA program in the current schedule. 

Prohibition on sale of parts for F–14 fighter aircraft (sec. 

1030) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

sale of F–14 fighter aircraft parts, with an exception for sales to 

museums or other such organizations involved in restoring F–14 

aircraft for historical purposes. 

The provision would also prohibit the issuance of any export license for such parts. 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Renewal of submittal of plans for prompt global strike capability (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 3 

fiscal years—2007, 2008, and 2009—the annual report on prompt 

global strike capabilities required by section 1032 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108– 

136). 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

395 

Report on threats to the United States from ungoverned 

areas (sec. 1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, in coordination 

with the Director of National Intelligence, to report on the threat 

posed to the United States by ungoverned areas, especially as they 

relate to terrorist groups and individuals who aim their activities 

at the United States and its allies. 

The report should describe the intelligence capabilities and the 

skills that the U.S. Government must have to support U.S. policy 

aimed at managing these threats, the extent to which the Departments of Defense and State already have these capabilities, and 

what if anything needs to be done to improve the two departments’ 

capabilities in this area. 

The committee notes, on a related subject, that section 1035 of 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) directed the President to submit 

a report on improving interagency civil-military support for U.S. 

national security missions, including peace and stability operations. 

The report was due on April 1, 2007, but the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services has not received it. 

Study on national security interagency system (sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization to conduct a study 

on the national security interagency system. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Revised nuclear posture review (sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, 

to conduct a review of the nuclear posture of the United States for 

the next 5 to 10 years. The new nuclear posture review (NPR) 

would be submitted to Congress in December 2009. 

The last NPR was conducted at the outset of the Bush administration in December 2001. The committee believes that it is imperative that the next administration clearly articulate its nuclear policy at the outset of its tenure. The new NPR would include a review of the policy objectives with respect to nuclear forces and 

weapons and include the relationship among United States nuclear 

deterrence policy, targeting strategy, and arms control objectives. 

In addition the new NPR would look at the role that missile defense capabilities and conventional strike forces play in determining the size and role of nuclear forces. 

The elements in the provision recommended by the committee 

are identical to the elements that were required to be addressed in 

the December 2001 NPR. The committee notes that the provision 

would also direct the Secretary of Defense to submit the new NPR 

in an unclassified form with a classified annex as necessary. Although the Secretary of Defense was directed to submit the December 2001 NPR in an unclassified form, unfortunately this never 

happened. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

396 

Termination of Commission on the Implementation of the 

New Strategic Posture of the United States (sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1051 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163). The provision directed the Secretary of 

Defense to enter into a contract with a federally funded research 

and development center to provide for the organization, management, and support of the commission on the implementation of the 

new strategic posture. The commission was charged with looking at 

the programmatic requirements of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to achieve the goals of the December 2001 Nuclear Posture 

Review (NPR), including the requirements process, and the ability 

of the current nuclear stockpile to address the evolving strategic 

threat environment through 2008. The commission’s report was 

originally due on June 30, 2007, and in the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 

364) the due date was extended to November 2007. 

The DOD has not yet entered into this contract. The committee 

believes that the intended scope and focus of the report, which are 

actions of this administration and threats through 2008, the fact 

that the commission has not yet started its work, and the short 

time remaining until the term of the commission expires, means 

that the commission’s report would no longer be timely or meaningful. In lieu of this commission the committee has recommended a 

provision that would direct the next administration to prepare a 

new NPR. This document will provide forward-looking policy guidance for the actions of the next administration. 

Communications with the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives (sec. 1063) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the organizations within the U.S. intelligence community provide 

timely responses to requests by the Armed Services Committees of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives for intelligence assessments, reports, estimates, legal opinions, and other information. The provision would also require that intelligence officials be 

able to provide testimony before the Armed Services Committees of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives without having to 

seek approval or clearance of such testimony as a way of ensuring 

that Congress receives the independent views of such officials. 

Repeal of standards for disqualification from issuance of security clearances by the Department of Defense (sec. 

1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

986 of title 10, United States Code, which establishes mandatory 

standards for the disqualification of individuals from the issuance 

of security clearances. The Department of Defense requested the 

repeal of this provision on the basis that the mandatory standards 

‘‘unduly limit the ability of the Department to manage its security 

clearance program and may create unwarranted hardships for individuals who have rehabilitated themselves as productive and trustworthy citizens.’’ 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

397 

Advisory panel on Department of Defense capabilities for 

support of civil authorities after certain incidents (sec. 

1065) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to establish an advisory panel to carry out a 

12 month assessment of the capabilities of the Department of Defense to provide support to civil authorities in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive 

(CBRNE) incident. 

The committee notes that although the Department has met the 

U.S. Northern Command requirements for forces to be made available to support civil authorities should a domestic CBRNE incident 

occur, the Department acknowledges that it has become increasingly difficult to meet all expected requirements because of the 

high pace of current military operations overseas. These operations 

may include the forces that would be directed to support civil authorities for CBRNE incidents. In addition, the Government Accountability Office recently reported that even though 12 of the 15 

National Planning Scenarios issued by the Homeland Security 

Council involve CBRNE response, the ability of Army chemical and 

biological units, especially National Guard and reserve units, to 

concurrently perform both their original warfighting mission and 

their homeland defense mission is doubtful. 

Sense of Congress on the Western Hemisphere Institute for 

Security Cooperation (sec. 1066) 

The committee recommends a provision that expresses the sense 

of Congress that the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) is an invaluable training and education facility. 

WHINSEC was established in 2001 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 

106–398) to provide training and education for eligible military personnel, law enforcement officials, and civilians from the United 

States and other nations of the Western Hemisphere. The primary 

language of instruction is Spanish, which makes the institute potentially accessible to a broader group of officials in Latin America 

and the Caribbean than most other U.S. professional military education institutions. The institute supports military-to-military and 

political-military relations between the United States and the governments of the Western Hemisphere, which today, with the exception of Cuba, are all democratic. The new institute, established 

when the School of the Americas closed in December 2000, incorporates issues of human rights and democracy in its curriculum, 

and has a Board of Visitors providing oversight, as mandated by 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398). 

Technical amendments to title 10, United States Code, arising from enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (sec. 1067) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical amendments to title 10, United States Code, to reflect 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

398 

changes made in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 

Act of 2004. 

Establishment of National Foreign Language Coordination 

Council (sec. 1068) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

National Foreign Language Coordination Council to develop and 

monitor the implementation of a comprehensive national foreign 

language strategy. The strategy shall include: (1) an identification 

of priorities to expand foreign language skills in the public and private sectors; (2) recommendations for improving coordination of foreign language programs and activities among federal agencies, enhancing foreign language programs and activities, and allocating 

resources appropriately to maximize the use of resources; (3) effective ways to increase public awareness of the need for foreign language skills and career paths in the public and private sectors that 

can employ those skills; (4) recommendations for incentives for developing related educational programs, including foreign language 

teacher training; and (5) effective ways to coordinate public and 

private sector efforts to provide foreign language instruction and 

acquire foreign language and area expertise. The Council shall prepare and transmit the strategy to the President and the relevant 

committees of Congress not later than 18 months after the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

The committee recognizes that deficits in foreign language and 

regional expertise undermine U.S. national security. On January 5, 

2006, the President launched the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) to increase the number of Americans learning critical foreign languages through new and expanded programs from 

kindergarten through university and into the workforce. The committee acknowledges that the NSLI is a positive step toward immediately expanding critical foreign language skills to strengthen national security. However, the committee believes that a longer-term 

strategic effort is needed to increase language and cultural competency in the United States, and that NSLI needs to be administered by a formalized council in order to ensure continued progress. 

Qualifications for public aircraft status of aircraft under 

contract with the Armed Forces (sec. 1069) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense the flexibility to determine whether an operational support mission can be conducted as a civil operation in 

compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations. The applicable 

part of the current definition of public aircraft under section 40102 

of title 49, United States Code, would be expanded to include such 

operational missions. These could include flights involving activities such as parachute training, carriage of sling loads, or target 

towing. 

The provision would also amend section 40125 of title 49, United 

States Code, to reference such missions. The Secretary of Defense 

currently has the authority to determine when chartered transportation is a civil or public aircraft operation through a designation 

under section 40125(c)(1)(C). 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

399 

With adoption of this provision, the Secretary of Defense would 

have the same authority regarding operational support missions. If 

the Secretary were not to designate an aircraft chartered to provide 

operational support as being in the national interest (and thus a 

public aircraft operation), such operation would be a civil operation 

and would have to comply with applicable Federal Aviation Administration civil safety regulations. 

Items of Special Interest 

Certification of no pecuniary interest 

The committee notes that the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (S. 1) would require a Senator who requests an earmark to certify that neither the Senator (nor his 

spouse) has a pecuniary interest in such earmark in violation of 

Senate Rule XXXVII(4). Although S. 1 has not yet been enacted, 

the committee has requested that each member requesting funds in 

this bill provide the certification that would be required by S. 1. 

The committee has received the requested certification from each 

Senator requesting funding for a program, project, or activity that 

is provided in this bill. 

The committee takes no position as to which of these items, if 

any, constitute earmarks under the definition in S. 1 or any other 

definition. The committee directs the Department of Defense to use 

all applicable competitive, merit-based procedures in the award of 

any new contract, grant, or other agreement entered into with 

funds authorized to be appropriated by this bill. No provision in the 

bill or report shall be construed to direct funds to any particular 

location or entity unless the provision expressly so provides. 

Intelligence community operations 

In March 2005, and April 2006, respectively, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) established the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (JFCC– 

ISR) and the Defense Joint Intelligence Operations Center 

(DJIOC). These organizations are co-located at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s (DIA) headquarters and are becoming highly integrated. Together they serve as a ‘‘J–3’’ (operations) for DOD intelligence. They perform collection management, asset allocation, situational awareness, intelligence campaign planning, assessments of 

intelligence operations, tasking, and coordination with the Office of 

the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and other elements of 

the U.S. Government. 

The capabilities of these organizations appear to be maturing 

rapidly, but there is a major impediment to the full realization of 

their potential: the lack of any similar organization under the DNI. 

The DNI has tasking authority by law and executive order for both 

collection and analysis of national intelligence, but has limited and 

fragmented resources for exercising this vital role. 

As a result of intelligence reforms since 9/11, the DNI has established additional community centers and a series of ‘‘mission managers’’ to focus resources on specific missions or targets and to integrate activities and capabilities across the intelligence agencies and 

disciplines (e.g., signals intelligence, human intelligence, and immmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

400 

agery intelligence). However, there does not appear to be a structure or a process for allocating scarce resources among these joint 

entities. Analysis and collection similarly only come together at the 

level of the DNI himself. Single-discipline tasking organizations are 

located within individual agencies, and in some cases are further 

fragmented. 

The Commander of United States Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM) has expressed concern that the absence of a coherent 

and integrated operations structure on the DNI side makes the job 

of the DJIOC and JFCC–ISR more difficult. 

The DNI now has representation at the DJIOC, and his staff is 

gaining an understanding of the value of such structures and the 

role they are playing. However, much more needs to be done to enable the national intelligence community to operate more efficiently, effectively, and jointly, both across the national intelligence 

community and with the Department of Defense. 

The committee requests that the DNI, in coordination with the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Commander of 

STRATCOM, examine ways to enhance the effectiveness of the 

DNI’s tasking authorities by creating a joint operations organization that centralizes and integrates community tasking operations, 

resource allocations, situational awareness, collection management, 

and crisis response. This operations organization could build on the 

DOD DJIOC/JFCC–ISR model and organization. The committee requests that a summary of the DNI’s conclusions on this matter be 

provided to the congressional defense and intelligence oversight 

committees by January 15, 2008. 

Language and cultural awareness initiatives review 

The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities received testimony which highlighted the growing need for our operational forces to have improved language and cultural awareness 

capabilities. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has undertaken a set of high level studies on this issue, including through the Defense Science Board, and established initiatives in this area—including the Defense Language Roadmap and 

a number of training and technology development programs. The 

committee is supportive of these efforts in general and believes 

that a combination of training and education and research and 

technology will have the best chance of producing deployable forces 

with the requisite language and cultural awareness skills. The 

committee remains concerned that the Department’s efforts are not 

as effective as they could be and may be underresourced. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to review Department plans for the development of language and cultural awareness capabilities and report to the congressional defense committees no later than December 31, 2008. The review 

should include an assessment of Department long- and short-term 

programs and plans; funding allocations; establishment and use of 

metrics for success; and plans for training, acquisition, and research programs to address needs in current operations. The review should examine the consistency of Department efforts with 

high level vision and mission statements and validated requiremmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

401 

ments, as well as recommendations by major independent studies 

of the Department’s language and cultural awareness capabilities. 

Nuclear cruise missiles 

In fiscal year 2007 the Department of Defense decided to retire 

the Air Force’s Advance Cruise Missile (ACM) and a portion of the 

Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM). These are two of three 

types of cruise missiles that carry the same nuclear warhead. The 

third nuclear cruise missile is the Navy’s nuclear Tomahawk 

(TLAM–N). The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the remaining nuclear cruise missiles and submit 

a plan with a time line to retire these remaining missiles. The plan 

should be submitted with the budget request for fiscal year 2009. 

Reporting and remediation of Anti-Deficiency Act violations 

On January 17, 2007, the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) testified before the Subcommittee on 

Readiness and Management Support that his office had identified 

107 potential Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) violations in DOD contracting through four non-defense agencies. As of the date of the 

hearing, a follow-up audit of DOD contracting through the Department of the Interior had identified at least 250 additional potential 

ADA violations, 189 of which occurred after officials had been 

warned against the continued use of expired funds. 

The committee is concerned about the volume of potential ADA 

violations in these interagency transactions, the pace and transparency of investigations of these potential violations, and the procedures used to elevate findings of initial investigations. For example, the committee understands that the preliminary investigation 

of a potential violation may be carried out by personnel within the 

organizational unit responsible for the violation. 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to review DOD procedures for identifying, reporting, preventing, and investigating potential ADA violations, including: (1) 

the adequacy of current procedures utilized for preliminary and formal investigations of potential ADA violations; (2) the transparency 

both inside and outside DOD of the investigation process; (3) the 

independence and qualifications of personnel utilized at each stage 

of an investigation of potential ADA violations; (4) the timeliness 

of investigations of potential ADA violations; (5) the adequacy of 

ADA training provided to the Department’s military and civilian 

personnel; (6) the effectiveness of existing measures for the prevention of ADA violations; and (7) the use and adequacy of available 

disciplinary measures for ADA violations. The committee expects 

GAO to report its findings and recommendations to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act. 

Ship disposal 

Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, requires that the Secretary of Defense submit an annual report on the long-range plan 

for Navy shipbuilding. This naval vessel construction plan is to include a description of the necessary naval vessel force structure to 

meet the requirements of the national security strategy of the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

402 

United States. The ‘‘Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of 

Naval Vessels’’ report to Congress submitted with the President’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2008, describes the Department of 

the Navy’s requirements for a force of ‘‘about 313 ships.’’ The report 

identifies that the Navy will experience shortfalls to expeditionary 

warfare, aircraft carrier, attack submarine, and surface combatant 

ship classes for various durations throughout the 30-year period of 

the long-range plan. 

Section 7308 of title 10, United States Code, requires the Chief 

of Naval Operations to certify, prior to disposal of a combatant vessel of the Navy, that the combatant vessel to be disposed is not essential to the defense of the United States. In calendar year 2006, 

the Navy conducted sinking exercises on two recently-decommissioned major combatant ships, the ex-Valley Forge (CG–50) and the 

ex-Belleau Wood (LHA–3). The decision for decommissioning these 

ships reflected the Navy’s determination that the operating and 

support cost for maintaining these ships in the active fleet could 

not be justified based on their respective contributions to national 

security requirements. However, the Navy’s decision to sink these 

ships, each with relatively significant remaining service life and 

measurable mission relevance, while older and less relevant combatant ships are maintained as mobilization assets, raises concerns 

regarding the decision process used to manage the Navy’s inactive 

ships. 

In view of these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to include, as an addendum to the annual report on the 

construction of naval vessels, commencing with submission of the 

report for fiscal year 2009, the future-years defense program for 

the Navy’s inactive ships. The addendum shall address: (i) hull 

numbers of ships that are to be disposed by dismantling or sinking 

within the future-years defense plan; (ii) hull numbers of ships that 

are to be decommissioned within the future-years defense program; 

(iii) gaps in capability that will occur upon the decommissioning of 

each ship, including duration of that capability gap; and (iv) disposition proposed for each ship upon decommissioning. 

In view of the Navy’s current inability to meet amphibious lift requirements in support of the Marine Corps, the committee directs 

the Navy to maintain decommissioned LHA–1 class amphibious assault ships in a reduced operating status until such time that the 

active fleet can deliver 2.0 Marine Expeditionary Brigade forcible 

entry lift capability in response to a national emergency. Total forcible lift entry capability shall be assessed under the assumption 

that no less than 10 percent of the force will be unavailable due 

to extended duration maintenance availabilities. 

Transparency of earmarks for additional funding 

The committee notes that section 2304(k) of title 10, United 

States Code, states that it is the policy of Congress that any new 

contract for a program, project, or technology identified in legislation be entered into through merit-based selection procedures. Section 2374 of title 10, United States Code, establishes the same policy for the award of any new grant for research, development, test, 

or evaluation to a non-federal entity. Under each statute, the presumption in favor of competitive, merit-based awards may only be 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

403 

overcome by a provision of law that specifically refers to section 

2304 or section 2374, that specifically identifies the particular nonFederal Government entity involved, and that specifically states 

that award to the entity is required notwithstanding the policy favoring merit-based selection. 

Although the statutory policy requiring the Department of Defense to use merit-based selection processes and the presumption 

in favor of competitive awards for new contracts and grants date 

from 1989 and 1994, respectively, these statutes have done little to 

stem the growing number of earmarked projects requested by Congress since their enactment. Moreover, these statutes do not address a common form of earmark, which is additional funding for 

existing procurement or research and development programs beyond what was requested in the President’s budget or included on 

the unfunded priorities lists of the military services. 

Therefore, the policy of this committee shall be one of disclosure 

of additional funding for projects and items that were not requested in the President’s budget, in supplemental requests for 

emergency funding, or on the unfunded priorities lists of the military services that are included in the bill and conference report. 

Disclosure shall not be required for additional funding that is consistent with the criteria for additional funding for military construction projects in section 2856 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337) or for additional funding directed to pay, bonuses, pensions, or other personnel or health care benefits for service members or that have a 

direct benefit for service members’ families. Information on such 

additional funding shall be provided in the committee report on the 

bill and in the conference report, by electronic means easily accessible by the public, and shall include, if applicable: the budget account, a description of the project or item, the authorized amount, 

and the name of the requesting member for any funding included 

in the bill as reported by the committee, or agreed to by the conferees. Such information shall be made available to the general 

public in an electronically searchable format at least 48 hours before consideration of the bill or conference report. 

The information provided in this report does not include the intended location or intended recipient of such additional funding because the committee does not have a complete database of that information at this time. It is the committee’s intent to collect such 

information from members and to provide it with regard to items 

funded in the conference report on this Act and for future years’ 

National Defense Authorization Acts. 

By collecting and reporting information on the locations and recipients intended by requesting members, the committee does not 

intend in any way to require that funding be directed to such locations or entities. The committee intends that the Department comply with all applicable competitive and merit-based procedures. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(405) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Compensation for Federal wage system employees for certain travel hours (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5544(a) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize compensation of federal wage system employees for hours spent traveling 

while returning from an event that cannot be scheduled or controlled administratively. Under current law, these employees can 

be compensated for time spent traveling to the event, but not for 

the return because return travel can be scheduled. 

Retirement service credit for service as cadet or midshipman at a military service academy (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 8331(13) and 8401(31) of title 5, United States Code, to clarify 

an existing practice of awarding retirement service credit for time 

in service as a cadet or midshipman at a military service academy. 

Continuation of life insurance coverage for Federal employees called to active duty (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8706(b) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize federal civilian employees who are members of a reserve component of the 

armed forces called or ordered to active duty to continue coverage 

under Federal Employees Group Life Insurance for a period not to 

exceed 24 months. 

Department of Defense National Security Personnel System 

(sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would revise the 

National Security Personnel System (NSPS) authorized by section 

1101 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2004 (Public Law 108–136) by: (1) excluding wage-grade employees 

of the Department of Defense from NSPS; (2) accelerating by 2 

years the expiration of the Department’s authority to modify statutory labor relations requirements; and (3) clarifying the treatment 

of rates of pay established or adjusted in accordance with the requirements of the statute. 

Authority to waive limitation on premium pay for Federal 

civilian employees working overseas under areas of 

United States Central Command (sec. 1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

head of an executive agency to waive limitations on total compensation to an employee who performs certain work while in an 

overseas location within the area of responsibility of the Commander of the United States Central Command. The total commmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

406 

pensation payable to an employee pursuant to such a waiver would 

be limited to $212,100 per calendar year. 

Authority for inclusion of certain Office of Defense Research and Engineering positions in experimental personnel program for scientific and technical personnel 

(sec. 1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) to utilize 

more flexible hiring practices to recruit and retain high quality scientific talent. The committee notes that this authority has been 

used very successfully by the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency to preserve a world-class technical government workforce. 

The committee notes that the Defense Science Board (DSB) in its 

study entitled ‘‘Roles and Authorities of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering’’ noted that its ‘‘serious concern . . . about 

DDR&E being able to fulfill its responsibilities stems . . . from the 

thinness of the staff.’’ The DSB recommended fostering ‘‘an initiative to improve the technical competence and industrial management experience of the leadership and staff in the office . . .,’’ and 

recommended that this could be accomplished by using the authority created by the recommended provision, as well as other mechanisms. 

Items of Special Interest 

Increase in authorized number of employees in the Defense 

Intelligence Senior Executive Service 

Section 1102 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) required the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic plan to shape and improve 

the senior management, functional, and technical workforce of the 

Department of Defense (DOD), including persons serving in the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service (DISES). The provision 

required DOD to submit a report on this strategic plan to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2007. The required report has not yet been provided. 

The DOD legislative proposal for fiscal year 2008 included a provision that would increase by 100 the number of DISES billets. The 

requested legislation was justified by the observation that civilian 

personnel levels in the defense intelligence components have increased substantially since September 11, 2001, while the number 

of DISES billets has not. 

The assertion that the ratio between DISES billets and overall 

civilian employment numbers should be closer to former levels is 

not alone sufficient to justify the increase. The committee notes 

that the ratio of DISES billets to civilian employees on September 

11 may not be the appropriate benchmark. The increase in civilian 

employment in the defense intelligence components since September 11 followed a decade of decline in such employment, but 

DOD has provided no figures about ratios between DISES billets 

and civilian employment during that period. 

In addition, there is a wide variation across the intelligence components in the ratio of DISES billets to civilian employees. The Nammaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

407 

tional Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), with civilian populations comparable to that 

of the National Security Agency, have only two-thirds the number 

of DISES that NSA does. NSA has a far higher percentage of 

DISES than any other component, and yet would receive a majority 

of the additional billets requested by DOD. 

Moreover, civilian employment has increased throughout DOD 

since September 11, 2001. The number of contractor employees performing functions that have previously been performed by federal 

employees has increased even more dramatically. Yet, DOD has not 

proposed any significant increase in the number of senior executive 

personnel outside the intelligence community. The committee believes that any increase in the senior management, functional, and 

technical workforce of the Department should be made on the basis 

of sound data and strategic planning, not on a piecemeal basis with 

limited data. 

Accordingly, the committee concludes that it would be premature 

to approve the Department’s request for additional DISES billets 

until the Department: (1) provides the strategic plan required by 

section 1102; (2) presents a comprehensive proposal that addresses 

the need for senior personnel across the entire Department, rather 

than addressing the needs of a single community; and (3) justifies 

the proposed allocation of DISES billets within the intelligence 

community. 

Recruitment, hiring, and retention of Department of Defense civilian medical personnel and faculty and staff of 

the Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences 

The committee recognizes that the total force capability of military medicine is a combination of uniformed medical personnel 

needed for medical readiness, government civilian health care providers, and civilian providers under Department of Defense contracts. Military hospital staff at numerous locations report that 

their goal of hiring government civilian employees whenever possible is frequently frustrated by low salaries and antiquated hiring 

procedures. For example, one Navy facility reported that, while 

waiting more than 7 months for approval to hire a civilian medical 

professional, qualified candidates sought private sector employment 

elsewhere. This pattern, which is repeated throughout military hospitals in the United States, hurts military medical readiness and 

compounds shortfalls in uniformed medical personnel. The committee is concerned that in many cases, hospital commanders are 

not aware of the civilian hiring tools available to them. The committee commends the Office of Personnel Management for promptly 

responding to the Department’s request for direct hiring authority 

for certain positions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, but believes that the need for such authority is greater than one facility. 

The committee is also concerned by reports that the Uniformed 

Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) is experiencing significant challenges in recruitment and retention of high 

quality faculty and staff because of a cap on civilian salaries. The 

committee believes that recruitment and retention of high quality 

faculty and staff for USUHS is essential to ensure that future milimmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

408 

tary physicians are adequately prepared to provide quality medical 

care and services for military members and their families, in peacetime and in war. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Director, Office of Personnel Management, to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, not later than September 15, 2007, on all hiring 

authorities currently available to the Department of Defense for 

the hiring of government civilian medical personnel and faculty 

and staff for USUHS. The report should identify specific salary, allowance, and bonus levels that can be offered for each skill level 

and provide an analysis of the appropriateness of such compensation levels when compared to compensation offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Health and Human 

Services, and private sector employers. In particular, the report 

should address the appropriateness of amounts available for physicians comparability allowances under section 5948 of title 5, United 

States Code, and whether expansion of such allowance to additional categories of health care professionals and to faculty and 

staff at USUHS would be beneficial to the Department of Defense. 

The report should include an analysis of hiring challenges at 

USUHS, its impact on the mission of the University, how USUHS 

salary caps compare to other federal agency salaries for medical 

faculty and staff, and recommendations for addressing the recruiting and retention challenges USUHS is experiencing. The report 

should assess whether additional direct hiring authority for certain 

medical and related positions is needed and include a plan to inform medical leadership and human resource personnel in the military departments of all available hiring authorities and best practices in efficient hiring of civilian medical personnel. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(409) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Authority to equip and train foreign personnel to assist in 

accounting for missing United States personnel (sec. 

1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to equip and train foreign personnel to assist in the recovery 

of, and accounting for, missing U.S. personnel. 

The U.S. Pacific Command’s Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) is an operational agency responsible for worldwide 

research, investigation, evacuations, and remains identifications relating to those unaccounted for from past conflicts. Since 2001, 

JPAC has identified the remains of over 400 missing service members from previous conflicts. Of the approximately 88,000 missing 

from World War II to Vietnam, about 19,000 can be recovered. In 

some instances, foreign governments will not allow U.S. personnel 

to conduct recovery and identification missions on their territory. 

In these cases, foreign nations are asked by the United States to 

assist in recovery and accounting efforts, provided the nations have 

trained and equipped personnel. 

No more than $1.0 million in assistance may be provided per fiscal year for this purpose. 

Extension and enhancement of authority for security and 

stabilization assistance (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 

enhance the authority for security and stabilization assistance provided under section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). That section authorizes 

the Secretary of Defense to provide the Secretary of State with 

services, defense articles, or funding to facilitate the provision by 

the Secretary of State of reconstruction, security, or stabilization 

assistance to a foreign country. 

The provision recommended by the committee would extend the 

authority of section 1207 for 1 year until September 30, 2008, and 

increase the aggregate value of all services, defense articles, and 

funds that may be provided or transferred under this section to 

$200.0 million. The provision would also add a requirement for the 

Secretary of State to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense in 

the formulation and implementation of assistance programs that 

involve the provision of services or transfer of defense articles or 

funds under the authority of this section. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has the authority to build the capacity of partner nations’ military forces 

under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

410 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), as amended by section 

1206 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). Section 1206 authorizes 

the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to use up to $300.0 million of Operation and Maintenance 

funds to conduct or support a program to build the capacity of foreign nations’ military forces to conduct counterterrorism operations 

or to participate in or support military or stability operations in 

which the United States is a participant. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has stated 

a need to build the capacity of foreign security forces other than 

military forces, such as gendarmerie, constabulary, and internal 

defense forces. The committee notes that the Department of State 

has existing authority to provide assistance for these purposes. To 

date, the Department of Defense and the Department of State have 

failed to coordinate in using the authority provided in section 1207 

except in a limited number of programs. The committee believes 

that assistance for foreign countries to build the capacity of their 

security forces other than military forces could be facilitated by the 

authorities provided in section 1207, and encourages the Department of Defense and Department of State to improve coordination 

between the departments to use this authority more effectively in 

the future. 

The committee notes that the authorities of sections 1206 and 

1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 were provided in the spirit of a pilot program. Consistent with 

the statement of managers accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the committee intends to review the implementation of these authorities 

carefully to determine whether, and if so, in what manner, to reauthorize these or provide other authorities at the conclusion of the 

pilot program. 

The committee stresses that an important factor in its consideration of these matters will be the report required by subsection 

1206(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006. That report addresses recommended changes, if any, to current laws governing the provision of capacity building assistance; 

any organizational or procedural changes required to improve the 

conduct of such assistance programs; and the resources and funding mechanisms required to adequately fund such programs. The 

committee emphasizes that this report is overdue and directs that 

it be provided expeditiously. 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to use up to $977,441,000 in Operation and 

Maintenance funding in fiscal year 2008 for the Commanders’ 

Emergency Response Program (CERP), under which commanders 

in Iraq receive funds for use in small humanitarian and reconstruction projects in their areas of responsibility that provide immediate 

assistance to the Iraqi people, and for a similar program in Afghanistan. The provision would require the Secretary to provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees on the source, 

allocation, and use of funds pursuant to this authority. The commmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

411 

mittee expects the quarterly reports to include detailed information 

regarding the amount of funds spent, the recipients of the funds, 

and the specific purposes for which the funds were used. 

The committee directs that funds made available pursuant to 

this authority be used in a manner consistent with the CERP guidance issued by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in a 

memorandum dated February 18, 2005. This guidance directs that 

CERP funds be used to assist the Iraqi and Afghan people in the 

following representative areas: water and sanitation; food production and distribution; agriculture; electricity; healthcare; education; 

telecommunications; economic, financial and management improvements; transportation; irrigation; rule of law and governance; civic 

cleanup activities; civic support vehicles; repair of civic and cultural 

facilities; and other urgent humanitarian or reconstruction projects. 

The provision would require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees any modification to the February 18, 

2005, guidance. 

Government Accountability Office report on Global Peace 

Operations Initiative (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Government Accountability Office, not later than March 1, 2008, to 

examine the President’s Global Peace Operation Initiative (GPOI). 

The report would include an assessment of whether, and to what 

extent, the initiative has met the goals set by the President at the 

inception of the program in 2004, and recommendations as to any 

additional measures that could be taken to enhance the program 

in terms of: (1) achieving its stated goals; and (2) ensuring that 

GPOI-trained individuals and units are regularly participating in 

peace operations. 

The GPOI is a 5-year presidential initiative that was unveiled at 

the June 2004 G–8 summit at Sea Island, Georgia and is aimed at 

increasing the number of capable peacekeepers and stability police 

units, to develop means to help countries deploy to peace operations. The goal was to train, over 5 years, 75,000 personnel from 

various countries—initially focused on Africa. At its inception, the 

committee was informed that for each year about 10 battalions 

would be trained in Africa and about five in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Asia. Follow-on training to maintain skills 

would also be planned, a new transportation and logistics support 

arrangement would be created, and a constabulary training center 

would be established. Fifty-six to seventy percent of the funding 

would come from non-U.S. international resources, solicited via the 

G–8. 

In 2005 the existing African Contingency Operations Training 

and Assistance (ACOTA) program (a successor program to the African Crisis Response Initiative, or ACRI) was subsumed into GPOI 

and the Italian Government established an international training 

center—the Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units—in 

Vincenza, Italy. As of December 2006, about 15,000 peacekeepers 

had been trained under the program, and according to the Department of State about 21,000 have been trained as of April 2007. An 

additional 54,000 must be trained by the end of 2009, when authority for the program will expire. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

412 

It is unclear whether the readiness of these troops is being monitored or maintained. No depot for caching equipment has been established, though this was a program objective and there is no 

transportation logistics support arrangement, as originally 

planned. GPOI appears to remain heavily U.S.-funded, focused on 

the old ACRI–ACOTA program. Participation among the G–8 members is uneven and there appears to be no effort to solicit partnership with non-G–8 countries such as India, which has rich peacekeeping experience and the resources to participate in training and 

other activities. One possible challenge to obtaining greater contributions or participation in GPOI may be the fact that at the Department of State, GPOI appears to be mainly administered by the 

Africa Bureau, rather than the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. 

Given the increasing demand for peacekeeping troops—especially 

for the United Nations Mission in Sudan—and the likelihood that 

new missions will emerge in the near future, it is especially critical 

to have trained forces in Africa ready to respond. The committee’s 

expectation is that troops trained by the United States and its 

partners under GPOI should be volunteered by their states to the 

United Nations, and that they would be trained and equipped to 

deploy, with GPOI partners ready to assist via a transportation-logistics support arrangement. When the Department of Defense 

originally sought authority and funding for GPOI from the committee, its officials asserted that past U.S. training programs— 

mainly focused on African militaries—have resulted in bettertrained militaries who are also more likely to participate in subsequent peace operations. The committee hopes to strengthen the 

likelihood that GPOI will be administered in such a fashion and 

that there will be an expectation, if not a requirement, that GPOI 

training recipient countries contribute troops to U.N. missions in 

the near-term, and that GPOI will increase the number of peacekeepers who can remain ready via sustained training and equipping programs. 

Subtitle B—Other Authorities and Limitations 

Cooperative opportunities documents under cooperative research and development agreements with NATO organizations and other allied and friendly foreign countries 

(sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical corrections to the statute governing the development of international cooperative research and development agreements. The 

committee notes that the provision would make the statutory language more consistent with current acquisition program terminology and enable the Department of Defense to evaluate appropriate international cooperative opportunities at an early stage in 

an acquisition program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

413 

Extension and expansion of temporary authority to use acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend military equipment for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand and 

extend the authority provided under section 1202 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). Under current law, section 1202 provides the 

Secretary of Defense temporary authority to treat certain significant military equipment as logistical support, supplies, and services under Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements in order to 

lend such equipment to military forces of foreign nations participating in combined operations with the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan. The military equipment provided under the authority of 

that section may be used by the foreign military forces solely for 

personnel protection or to aid in the personnel survivability of 

those forces. 

The provision would expand the temporary authority provided by 

that section to permit the use of such equipment by military forces 

of a nation participating in combined operations with the United 

States as part of a peacekeeping operation under the Charter of the 

United Nations or another international agreement, such as the 

Multinational Force and Observers under the Treaty of Peace Between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel of March 

26, 1979. The provision would also extend the authority provided 

under that section until September 30, 2008. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has expressed an interest in making the temporary authority provided 

under section 1202 permanent. The committee does not believe it 

is desirable to change the definition of the term ‘‘logistic support, 

supplies, and services’’ as that term applies to Acquisition and 

Cross-Servicing Agreements, which are not intended to facilitate 

the transfer of significant military equipment. 

Acceptance of funds from the Government of Palau for costs 

of military Civic Action Teams (sec. 1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to accept from the Government of Palau 

$250,000 to defray Department of Defense (DOD) Civic Action 

Team costs, provided it is credited to the specific appropriation or 

account available for the DOD Civic Action Teams. 

Under current law, the United States makes available U.S. military Civic Action Teams to help Palau and the Marshall Islands, 

in recognition of their development needs. Additionally, the Government of Palau was authorized to use $250,000 annually of the 

current account funds provided under section 211, title 2 of the 

Compact of Free Association with the Marshall Islands to defray 

expenditures attendant to the operation of the Civic Action Teams. 

This $250,000 is currently returned, annually, to the U.S. Treasury. This provision would ensure that the funds would be returned 

to the DOD Civic Action Team account. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

414 

Extension of participation of the Department of Defense in 

multinational military centers of excellence (sec. 1214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2008 the authority provided under section 1205 

of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), permitting Department of Defense civilian and military personnel to participate in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) multinational military centers of 

excellence. The provision would also modify the reporting provisions under that section to require the Secretary of Defense to provide the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives an annual report on the use of this authority 

not later than October 31 of each of 2007 and 2008. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has proposed expanding the authority to participate in multinational centers of excellence beyond those accredited and approved by NATO. 

To further consider this request, the committee urges the Department to provide additional information regarding what would constitute a ‘‘center of excellence’’ outside the NATO context; where 

such centers exist or would be established; what their purpose 

would be; and what additional amount of funds would be required 

to facilitate U.S. participation in such centers. 

Limitation on assistance to the Government of Thailand 

(sec. 1215) 

On September 19, 2006, the Royal Thai Commander-in-Chief led 

a bloodless coup against the democratically elected prime minister. 

The new leaders of Thailand declared their intent to hold parliamentary elections in December 2007. 

The coup automatically triggered section 508 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations 

Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–102), which suspends U.S. Department of State assistance to ‘‘the government of any country whose 

duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.’’ Department of Defense (DOD) funds for operations appropriated under section 1206 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) were 

also suspended, because the limitations on that funding include a 

ban on funding to any country that is otherwise prohibited from receiving military assistance under any other provision of law. These 

programs can be reinstated after the President determines and certifies that a democratically elected government has again taken office. 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit DOD 

funding to Thailand in fiscal year 2008 until the President certifies 

to the defense committees that a democratically elected government has taken office in Thailand. The provision would exclude humanitarian or emergency assistance to Thailand, and provide a national security interest waiver to the President. 

Presidential report on policy objectives and United States 

strategy regarding Iran (sec. 1216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from obligating more than 75 percent of the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

415 

funds available for fiscal year 2008 to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy until the report on United States policy 

for Iran, required by section 1213(b) of the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 

364), is submitted to Congress. 

Limitation on availability of certain funds pending implementation of requirements regarding North Korea (sec. 

1217) 

Section 1211 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) directed by the 

President to appoint a senior coordinator on U.S. policy towards 

North Korea by December 16, 2006. The President has not made 

this appointment. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from obligating 

or expending any funds authorized to be appropriated under section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) until the administration has fully implemented section 1211 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Reports on United States policy and military operations in 

Afghanistan (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on U.S. policy and military operations in Afghanistan not later 

than 60 days after enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter through the end of fiscal year 2009. 

The provision would require each report to include detailed information on: (1) a comprehensive, interagency strategy for achieving 

the objectives of U.S. policy and military operations in Afghanistan; 

(2) efforts to train and equip Afghan Security Forces, including key 

criteria for measuring the capability and readiness of such forces; 

(3) efforts by the United States to strengthen the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO)-led International Security Assistance 

Force; (4) efforts to improve governance and expand economic development in the provinces of Afghanistan, including through Provincial Reconstruction Teams; (5) current counternarcotics efforts 

in Afghanistan, including a description of the U.S. counternarcotics 

plan for Afghanistan and a statement of priorities among U.S. 

counterdrug activities within that plan; (6) efforts to aid the Government of Afghanistan in fighting public corruption and strengthening the rule of law; and (7) diplomatic and other efforts to encourage and assist the Government of Pakistan in eliminating safe 

havens for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other violent extremists 

within the territory of Pakistan which threaten the stability of Afghanistan. Each report would be submitted in unclassified form to 

the maximum extent practicable, but may include a classified 

annex. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

416 

Strategy for enhancing security in Afghanistan by eliminating safe havens for violent extremists in Pakistan 

(sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to submit to the congressional defense committees, not 

later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a report describing 

the U.S. strategy for engaging with the Government of Pakistan to 

prevent the movement of Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other violent extremist forces across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and to eliminate their safe havens on the territory of Pakistan. The provision 

would, for each fiscal quarter of fiscal years 2008 and 2009, prohibit reimbursement of the Government of Pakistan for logistical, 

military, or other support provided to the United States unless the 

President certifies to the congressional defense committees that for 

that fiscal quarter the Government of Pakistan is making substantial and sustained efforts to eliminate safe havens for the Taliban, 

Al Qaeda, and other violent extremists in areas under Pakistan’s 

sovereign control. The certification would be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. The provision would 

allow the President to waive the limitation on reimbursements 

under this section if the President determines and certifies to the 

congressional defense committees that doing so is important to U.S. 

national security interests. 

One-year extension of update on report on claims relating 

to the bombing of the Labelle Discotheque (sec. 1233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report on the status of negotiations between the Government of Libya 

and United States claimants in connection with the bombing of the 

Labelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany that occurred in April 

1986, regarding resolution of their claims. The reporting requirement is an extension of section 1225 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). 

On April 5, 1986, Libya directed its agents to execute a terrorist 

attack in West Berlin for the sole purpose of killing as many American military personnel as possible. Libya’s agents selected the 

Labelle Discotheque because it was known to be frequented by 

large numbers of U.S. military personnel. Libya’s agents placed a 

bomb in the discotheque at a time when 260 people, including U.S. 

military personnel, were present. When the bomb detonated, two 

U.S. soldiers were killed and over 90 soldiers were severely injured. 

In 2002, the victims and the families of deceased soldiers filed a 

lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Since that time, the Libyan Government has settled the 

claims of the German victims of the LaBelle bombing and the 

claims of the victims of the Libyan bombing of Pan Am flight 103 

over Lockerbie, Scotland. 

The committee continues to closely monitor the details surrounding the case of Labelle claimants against the Libyan Government. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

417 

Items of Special Interest 

Iraqi refugee crisis 

The committee continues to monitor closely the ongoing refugee 

crisis in Iraq, a crisis resulting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR), there are approximately 1.9 million Iraqis displaced internally and 2.0 million more in neighboring states, particularly 

Jordan and Syria. 

The committee notes that the continuing violence across much of 

Iraq is forcing thousands more to leave their homes every month. 

Shiites in Sunni controlled areas, Sunnis in Shiite controlled areas, 

and non-Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan are particularly susceptible to 

displacement, and stateless individuals and Iraqi Christians are 

vulnerable throughout the country. Given its role and its stake in 

the conflict, the committee believes the United States must play an 

international leadership role to promote a responsibility sharing 

approach to address the plight of displaced Iraqis. As noted by the 

Iraq Study Group (ISG), events in Iraq were set in motion by U.S. 

decisions and actions. The committee concurs with the ISG’s conclusion which stated that if this refugee crisis is not addressed, 

Iraq and the region could further destabilize. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense has a 

special responsibility in the case of Iraqis that have assisted the 

United States to sustain and manage its presence. To date, the Department has not provided any information to the committee to 

quantify the size of this group, but the committee remains interested in learning how many Iraqis are currently working for the 

United States, how many Iraqis are currently working for contractors and subcontractors on U.S. contracts, and how many Iraqis 

have served in either capacity but who no longer work with the 

United States or its contractors. The committee fears these groups 

are particularly vulnerable given their support of the United 

States. 

Further, the committee directs the Department, in coordination 

with the U.S. Department of State and UNHCR, to report, no later 

than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on: (1) what work, if 

any, has been done with the Government of Iraq and neighboring 

countries to protect internally displaced people that were forced to 

flee their homes; (2) how it is working with the Department of 

State to promote safe passage and resettlement to protect those refugees in the region who remain vulnerable, as well as to promote 

family reunification for those refugees with parents, sons, daughters, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings who are lawfully 

residing in the United States; and (3) what contingency planning 

is being done to promote refugee protection in the region once there 

has been a draw down of U.S. troops from Iraq. 

Joint Forces Command support to NATO International Security Assistance Force 

The committee recognizes that the United States Joint Forces 

Command has developed advanced capabilities, including innovative technologies that may enhance battle management, command 

and control, intelligence analysis, and communications. Many of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

418 

these capabilities would be useful to the U.S. forces assigned to the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF-X) in Afghanistan, including modeling 

and simulation tools and the ability to conduct operational net assessments. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense, to the 

maximum extent practicable, to provide the NATO-led ISAF-X in 

Afghanistan with these capabilities and, on a temporary basis, to 

provide appropriate training support to ensure fielded forces sustain these capabilities, as required by the Commander of ISAF-X. 

United States Africa Command 

The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Defense 

to stand up a new United States Combatant Command for the continent of Africa (AFRICOM). The committee commends the Department for its acknowledgment of the strategic and humanitarian importance of Africa to the interests of the United States. Currently, 

three U.S. regional commands—U.S. European Command, U.S. 

Central Command, and U.S. Pacific Command—share responsibility for U.S. security issues in Africa. The committee agrees that 

one combatant command for Africa will promote greater unity of effort across the Government. 

The committee understands that the Department is still in the 

process of determining the allocation of military and civil functions 

within AFRICOM. It is the committee’s understanding that 

AFRICOM will be led by a four star general officer, but that the 

Department may also seek to designate a Department of State official at a senior level within the command. 

While the Department has discussed with the committee its 

plans for incorporating staff from other agencies into the new command, the Department has not provided the committee with details 

on the planned staffing levels and funding mechanisms for interagency staff, or on the authorities to be exercised by such staff. The 

committee urges the Department to inform it if new authorities 

will be needed to stand up and staff AFRICOM. The committee 

also expects to be consulted early and often on the matter of potential locations for the command’s headquarters and the anticipated 

costs associated with establishing the command. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(419) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH 

STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 

and funds (sec. 1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs; define the funds as 

authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill; and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $448.0 million, an increase of $100.0 million above the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This 

provision would also authorize specific amounts for each CTR program element, require notification to Congress 30 days before the 

Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2008 funds, 

and require notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary 

of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2008 funds in excess 

of the specific amount authorized for each CTR program element. The committee recommends an additional $25.0 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia, $50.0 million for biological threat reduction, $14.0 million for weapons of mass destruction 

proliferation prevention to support the Black Sea Initiative, $10.0 

million for new activities in states outside the former Soviet Union, 

and $1.0 million for additional expenses associated with Russian 

chemical weapons destruction activities. The committee recommends an additional $25.0 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia to accelerate the completion of activities at sites in Russia where the materials and weapons are stored—and to address potential threats while these materials are moving to facilitate consolidation, dismantlement, and disposition. The committee recommends an additional $50.0 million for biological threat reduction to support threat reduction programs 

throughout the former Soviet Union and accelerate the highest priority programs. One of the key efforts is to consolidate, or destroy 

as appropriate, various strain collections and provide safe and secure storage of the consolidated collection. The committee notes the 

expansion of this work is one area where the Department of Defense (DOD) would like to expand its work beyond the former Soviet Union. The committee expects DOD to provide a cost-effective 

plan for this expansion with the fiscal year 2009 budget request. The committee recommends an additional $14.0 million for proliferation prevention initiative efforts to support the Black Sea and 

other regional initiatives to detect and prevent weapons of mass destruction that might be smuggled across international borders. 

Smuggling across remote and unprotected borders is particularly 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

420 

difficult and must involve the joint efforts of many nations to stop. 

The proliferation prevention effort must also be coordinated with 

other elements of the DOD as well as other agencies of the U.S. 

Government. The committee is interested in the plan that will coordinate the CTR efforts with other activities and directs the Secretary to include in the CTR annual report for fiscal year 2008 

DOD’s plan for synchronizing the various areas of activity. 

The committee believes that one of the highest priorities in the 

CTR programs is to ensure that the facility to destroy Russian 

chemical munitions in Shchuch’ye, Russia is completed, the workforce is adequately trained, and the new facility successfully passes 

initial systems integration and startup testing. Once startup is successful, the Russian Government will assume all responsibility for 

completing destruction of the chemical munitions. To reach the goal 

of facility hot startup in 2009, the committee urges the Secretary 

to ensure the project is appropriately managed and funded, and to 

report promptly to the congressional defense committees any indication that the 2009 startup date will not be met. 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in 

states outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 1303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1501 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1997 (Public Law 104–201) by adding a new subsection that would 

authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out Cooperative Threat 

Reduction (CTR) programs in states outside of the former Soviet 

Union. The programs authorized would include elimination, transportation, and storage of biological or chemical weapons or materials, or related materials or components; nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons proliferation prevention programs; and programs to 

facilitate detection and reporting of certain pathogenic diseases 

that could impact the armed forces of the United States or its allies. 

The committee believes that the CTR program has been key to 

preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological 

weapons within and from the states of the former Soviet Union and 

that the CTR model should be expanded to address threats beyond 

the states of the former Soviet Union. The committee recommends 

$10.0 million in section 1302 of this Act to allow the Secretary to 

begin to address emerging threats through cooperative programs 

with new state partners. The committee notes that this new authority would be subject to the CTR notification requirements, 

which require the Secretary to notify Congress 30 days in advance 

of obligation of any fiscal year 2008 funds. 

Modification of authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction funds outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 1304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2004 (Public Law 108–136) to allow the Secretary of Defense, with 

the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to exercise the emergency 

authority to use prior year balances in the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (CTR) for a proliferation threat reduction project 

or activity outside of the former Soviet Union. Section 1308 curmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

421 

rently requires a presidential certification. The committee believes 

that secretarial certification would allow a more rapid response in 

an emergency situation. 

Repeal of restrictions on assistance to states of the former 

Soviet Union for cooperative threat reduction (sec. 1305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal certain 

provisions of the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991 

(Public Law 102–228), the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 

1993 (22 U.S.C. 5952), and section 1305 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) that 

require a number of annual certifications before any Cooperative 

Threat Reduction (CTR) funds can be obligated in any fiscal year. 

In addition, the provision would also repeal section 1303 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, which authorized the President to waive the annual certification requirements. 

These certifications are no longer meaningful and serve only to 

delay the implementation of the CTR programs. 

National Academy of Sciences study of prevention of proliferation of biological weapons (sec. 1306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) under which the NAS would 

carry out a study to identify areas for cooperation with states other 

than states of the former Soviet Union under the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction (CTR) program to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons and dual-use materials. A report on the study 

would be due to the United States Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Armed Services on December 31, 2008. The 

report would also include the Secretary’s assessment of the study 

and any recommendations for action. If the Secretary determines 

that legislation is necessary to implement any actions, the committee urges the Secretary to include in the report a description of 

the necessary legislation. 

The NAS study recommended in this provision would be a followon study to the NAS study required by section 1304 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364). The original study focused on actions under 

the CTR program that could be taken to address biological weapons 

and dual-use materials in the states of the former Soviet Union. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(423) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of table 

This title contains funding authorizations for working capital and 

revolving funds, the Defense Health program, the destruction of 

chemical munitions, drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, 

and funding for the Department of Defense Inspector General and 

other programs which contain elements of more than one type of 

traditional funding account (such as procurement or operation and 

maintenance) inside a single account. 

This title also reflects savings from lower inflation that affect 

multiple accounts and titles within this Act, legislative proposals 

regarding the national defense stockpile, and authorizes trust fund 

expenditures for the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is outside the national defense budget function. 

The following table provides the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title XIV of this Act. The table also 

displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request for these programs, and indicates those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. As in the past, the Department of Defense 

may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the table 

or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in 

budget justification documents of the Department of Defense), 

without a reprogramming action in accordance with established 

procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the 

budget request are made without prejudice. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

424 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 489 here 35737.186
425 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 490 here 35737.187
426 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings from 

lower inflation (sec. 1407) 

The Office of Management and Budget assumed an inflation rate 

of 2.4 percent in its fiscal year 2008 budget submission. However, 

the Congressional Budget Office’s March 2007 estimate of inflation 

for 2008 is 1.8 percent, or 0.6 percentage points lower than the administration’s estimate. The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. Con. Res. 21) adopted by the Senate and 

the House of Representatives on May 17, 2007, was based on the 

economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office. The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the amounts authorized in division A of this Act by $1.6 billion to bring the inflation assumptions applicable to purchases by the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2008 in line with the economic assumptions 

previously adopted by the Senate. 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile 

Disposal of ferromanganese (sec. 1411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would place limitations on the amount of ferromanganese that can be sold by the Department of Defense from the Defense National Stockpile. The provision grants the Secretary of Defense authority to sell 

ferromanganese beyond specified limitations, provided that the 

United States Senate and House of Representatives Committees on 

Armed Services receive certification that certain national security 

and market conditions were met. The committee believes that this 

provision would ensure steady and predictable prices on global 

markets, while continuing stockpile sale levels that are in keeping 

with the mission and goals of the Defense National Stockpile. 

Disposal of chrome metal (sec. 1412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would place limitations on the amount of chrome metal that can be sold by the Department of Defense from the Defense National Stockpile. The provision grants the Secretary of Defense authority to sell chrome 

metal beyond specified limitations, provided that the United States 

Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Armed Services receive certification that certain national security and market 

conditions were met. The committee believes that this provision 

would ensure steady and predictable prices on global markets, 

while continuing stockpile sale levels that are in keeping with the 

mission and goals of the Defense National Stockpile. 

Modification of receipt objectives for previously authorized 

disposals from the national defense stockpile (sec. 1413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3402(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) to increase the Department of Defense’s stockpile commodity disposal authority from $600.0 million 

to $729.0 million. The committee understands that the National 

Defense Stockpile Center anticipates that under current market 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

427 

conditions, it will exceed its current authority before the end of fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2009 for various commodities. Without these additional authorizations, the Department will stop selling from the stockpile and no longer generate revenues. Moreover, 

uncertainty about the Department’s reliability as a supplier of materials will drive buyers to other sources, thereby jeopardizing future revenue goals. Uncertainty about whether or not the Department will be able to remain in the market could also lead to market disruption and instability. 

Subtitle C—Civil Programs 

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$61,624,000 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 from the Armed 

Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation and maintenance of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Subtitle D—Chemical Demilitarization Matters 

Modification of termination requirement for Chemical Demilitarization Citizens’ Advisory Commissions (sec. 

1431) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

requirements for terminating the chemical demilitarization Citizens’ Advisory Commissions that were authorized in section 172(h) 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 

(Public Law 102–484). Instead of terminating a commission after 

the chemical weapons stockpile in a State has been destroyed, the 

provision would allow a commission to remain in existence, at the 

discretion of the Governor of the State, until after completion of 

closure activities of that State’s chemical agent destruction facility, 

or upon the request of the Governor, whichever is earlier. The provision would also provide a technical correction to an outdated reference to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. 

The committee notes that the Citizens’ Advisory Commissions 

have served an important purpose in permitting public involvement 

in the issues related to chemical demilitarization in their States. 

This provision would allow such citizen involvement to continue 

until the closure of each chemical demilitarization facility. 

Repeal of certain qualifications requirement for director of 

chemical demilitarization management organization 

(sec. 1432) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement that the Army’s Director of the Chemical Materials 

Agency must be trained in chemical warfare defense operations. 

The committee believes this requirement is no longer essential to 

the position of managing the chemical demilitarization program for 

the Army, acting as executive agent for the Department of Defense. 

It is important to allow the best qualified individuals to be considered for this critical position, which requires senior program management and acquisition experience. Perpetuating the requirement 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

428 

for training in chemical warfare defensive operations would limit 

the ability of the Secretary of the Army to select from among the 

most qualified individuals. 

Sense of Congress on completion of destruction of United 

States chemical weapons stockpile (sec. 1433) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the United States is, and must remain, committed to making every effort to safely dispose of its entire chemical weapons stockpile by the Chemical Weapons Convention extended deadline of April 29, 2012, or as soon thereafter as possible, 

and that the Secretary of Defense should request adequate funding 

for chemical demilitarization to complete the elimination of the 

United States chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with U.S. 

obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The provision 

would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a biannual report 

to Congress providing: (1) the anticipated schedule for completion 

of chemical weapons destruction at each of the chemical demilitarization facilities in the United States; (2) a description of options 

and alternatives for accelerating the completion of chemical weapons destruction, particularly to meet the Chemical Weapons Convention destruction deadline; (3) a description of the level of funding that would be required to achieve those accelerated options; 

and (4) a description of steps being taken to accelerate the completion of destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 

agents, munitions, and materiel. 

The committee is disappointed that the administration does not 

expect to meet the United States’ obligation under the Chemical 

Weapons Convention to destroy all its chemical weapons by even 

the extended deadline of April 29, 2012. In order to meet the destruction deadline under the Chemical Weapons Convention at 

most of its chemical demilitarization facilities, the United States 

would need to consider options for accelerated destruction and increased funding levels. 

It appears that Department of Defense funding limits for the 

chemical demilitarization program currently preclude the possibility of meeting the destruction deadline at facilities that might be 

able to meet the deadline with additional funding. Furthermore, 

shortly before submitting the President’s budget request to Congress, the Department of Defense reduced the planned level of 

funding for the Chemical Materials Agency in the fiscal year 2008 

budget request by $53.6 million, thus risking further delay to the 

destruction schedule. This calls into question the priority the Department places on meeting, or making every reasonable effort to 

meet, United States treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. 

The committee notes that in a letter to Congress dated April 10, 

2006, the Secretary of Defense made a commitment to ‘‘continue 

working diligently to minimize the time to complete destruction 

without sacrificing safety and security’’ and to ‘‘continue requesting 

resources needed to complete destruction as close to April 2012 as 

practicable.’’ The committee urges the Department to fulfill this 

commitment by requesting increased funding in future budget requests to accelerate the chemical weapons stockpile destruction 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

429 

schedule to meet the United States’ legal obligations under the 

Chemical Weapons Convention. 

Budget Items 

LHA(R) research and development 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $96.6 million within 

the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for various research and 

development activities, including $67.8 million for the Maritime 

Prepositioning Force (Future), MPF(F). This amount includes $4.9 

million for amphibious assault replacement ships which are to be 

assigned to the MPF(F), designated MPF(F) LHA(R). 

The Navy’s concept for MPF(F) operations indicates that these 

ships will be multi-mission vessels capable of afloat prepositioning, 

sea basing operations in support of amphibious assault, and routine operations in support of lesser contingencies. MPF(F) ships are 

planned to be operated by a Military Sealift Command crew. However, the MPF(F) concept of operations differs sharply from current 

maritime prepositioning ships as a result of the MPF(F) contribution to the Navy’s sea basing capability. 

The MPF(F) role to embark and deploy marines ashore while 

sustaining expeditionary warfare operations potentially exposes 

these ships and embarked marines to hostile fire. The Navy plans 

to protect the MPF(F) ships through employment of the naval ‘‘sea 

shield,’’ and therefore the Navy does not plan to outfit MPF(F) 

ships with self defense features. The committee has expressed concern regarding the Navy’s MPF(F) survivability concept and, in 

particular, the Navy’s proposal to eliminate the self defense features for the MPF(F) LHA(R). The restoration of the ship’s combat 

system would allow the MPF(F) LHA(R) to fill current shortfalls to 

the Navy’s forcible entry lift capability. 

The committee is aware that the Department of the Navy is continuing to review the military features for the MPF(F), and that 

the Navy expects to present the program plan to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) later in fiscal year 2007. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees within 30 days of 

the JROC MPF(F) decision outlining the findings of the JROC. The 

report shall include a detailed vulnerability assessment of MPF(F) 

for major combat operations. 

The committee has been advised by the Navy that the Department of the Navy will need to rephase into fiscal year 2009 certain 

MPF(F) research and development efforts. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million for MPF(F) research 

and development. Furthermore, the committee does not agree with 

funding development and procurement for amphibious assault 

ships within the NDSF. 

This ship type is specifically not included within the scope of sealift vessels eligible for NDSF, defined within section 2218 of title 

10, United States Code. Therefore, the committee recommends a 

decrease of $4.9 million in PE 48042N, and a corresponding increase of $4.9 million in PE 64567N for MPF(F) LHA(R). 

The committee recommends a total authorization of $32.9 million 

in PE 48042N for MPF(F). 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

430 

Defense health program research 

The budget request included $34.8 million in PE 63115HP for 

medical development within Defense Health program research, development, test, and evaluation activities. The committee notes 

that these programs are vitally important in their development of 

new processes, technologies, and systems that improve combat casualty care capabilities, as well as care for injured service members, 

retired military personnel, and the general populace. 

The committee understands that motor vehicle crashes are the 

leading cause of non-combat accidental deaths in theater, and the 

leading cause of accidental death for active-duty personnel in the 

continental United States. The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million to study military motor vehicle crashes and resulting injuries for the purpose of developing new safety technologies, tactics, techniques, and operational procedures. 

Funding for chemical weapons demilitarization 

The budget request included $1.5 billion for chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense, including $1.2 billion for operation 

and maintenance; $274.8 million for research, development, test, 

and evaluation; and $18.4 million for procurement. The committee 

notes its disappointment that funding for the Chemical Materials 

Agency was reduced by $53.6 million shortly before the submission 

of the budget request. This reduction will increase the risk of delaying the destruction of chemical weapons, which are required 

under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention to be destroyed no later than April 29, 2012. In order to increase the possibility of maintaining the best possible destruction schedule, and 

thus to meet United States obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the committee recommends an increase of $36.0 

million for the Chemical Materials Agency, including $24.0 million 

in operation and maintenance, and $12.0 million in procurement. 

The committee notes that in a letter to Congress dated April 10, 

2006, the Secretary of Defense committed to ‘‘continue working diligently to minimize the time to complete destruction without sacrificing safety and security’’ and to ‘‘continue requesting resources 

needed to complete destruction as close to April 2012 as practicable.’’ The budget request calls into question the priority assigned by the Department of Defense to meeting the commitment 

of the Secretary. The committee urges the Department to fulfill 

this commitment by planning and budgeting sufficient funds to 

maintain the most timely chemical weapons destruction schedule, 

consistent with the requirement to protect public health, safety, 

and the environment, in order to meet the Chemical Weapons Convention destruction deadline, or to come as close thereto as possible. This issue is also addressed elsewhere in a separate legislative provision. 

Counterdrug advanced concept technology demonstration 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $936.8 million for 

Department of Defense Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities. However, it did not include any funding for an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) to support drug interdiction efforts in the Western Hemisphere. The committee recmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

431 

ommends an increase of $15.0 million for Drug Interdiction and 

Counterdrug Activities for a counterdrug ACTD. The ACTD would 

have the following capabilities: (1) electro-optical/infrared/radar to 

detect and identify small high-speed craft in open water; (2) an extended dwell time of more than 10 to 12 hours; (3) detection of 

small-to-medium craft wake patterns or variances; (4) geo-location 

of high frequency and very high frequency low power emitters and 

other special communications devices; (5) detection and monitoring 

of semi-submersibles; (6) tracking and monitoring; (7) long-range 

detection and monitoring of mother-ship operations; (8) on-station 

airborne early warning for 1,280 hours; and (9) on-station maritime 

patrol aircraft for 1,420 hours. A successful counterdrug ACTD 

with these capabilities will allow the U.S. Government to get closer 

to achieving its goal of disrupting 40 percent of the drugs headed 

to the United States in the Western Hemisphere transit zone. 

Project Athena 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $936.8 million for 

Department of Defense Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, including $2.5 million for Project Athena, a domain awareness 

system that provides a common operational picture (COP) to national, regional, and local users. 

Project Athena fuses real-time downlinks from surveillance sensors, multiple databases, and other sources of intelligence reporting 

into a COP that can be unclassified, or tailored to multiple security 

levels. It is therefore capable of providing a COP to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. 

Coast Guard, first responders, and partnered nations in a relatively 

timely and simultaneous manner. The Department of Defense 

Counternarcotics Technology Program Office is responsible for the 

project and has successfully tested Project Athena in maritime 

tracking in the United States. In fiscal year 2006, Project Athena 

was used at the Joint Interagency Task Force South in Florida and 

jointly with the Colombian Navy and the Sri Lankan Navy. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million to Defense Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities for Project 

Athena. 

Department of Defense Inspector General 

The budget request included $214.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG). This is slightly less than the $216.3 million requested and the $218.0 million provided for fiscal year 2007. The 

committee is concerned that funding levels for this important independent audit and investigative function is not keeping pace with 

the demands for the Inspectors’ General services in the global war 

on terror. 

The OIG audits, investigates, inspects, and evaluates the programs and operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), and 

recommends policies and process improvements that promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in DOD programs and 

operations. For the last 3 years, the OIG has achieved $27.5 billion 

in savings and $1.7 billion in recovery for the nation. The committee notes that in that same 3 years the exponential growth in 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

432 

the number and cost of Department contracts for operations, procurement, research, and construction within the United States and 

around the world. The nation’s annual defense costs have crossed 

the $500.0 billion mark, well beyond the annual budgets of just 

over $200.0 billion before the start of the global war on terror in 

2001. Despite this growth, the personnel strength of the OIG has 

remained nearly constant. The committee is concerned that the capabilities of the OIG are not keeping pace, in terms of qualified 

personnel, with the growth in the size of the defense budget and 

the numbers of contracts. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in OMDW for the OIG to start and accelerate the growth of 

the OIG. The committee directs the Inspector General to provide to 

the defense committees, by March 31, 2008, an analysis of the current and future personnel, organization, technology, and funding 

requirements of the OIG. This report shall also include a comprehensive and detailed master plan, with annual objectives and 

funding requirements, that will provide the fastest possible increase in audit and investigative capabilities. 

Item of Special Interest 

National Defense Sealift Fund report 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $96.6 million within 

the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for various research and 

development activities. The Navy could use this Fund to conduct 

research and development for investigating promising technologies 

or developing capabilities, such as: 

(1) agile port, rapid deployment and distribution, and agile 

sustainment process transformation; 

(2) high speed strategic sealift mobility; 

(3) advanced cargo and passenger vessel hull design, alternative propulsion systems, and construction employing national defense features; 

(4) global logistics network and expeditionary warfare security; 

(5) net-centric warfare and logistics, including sense and respond logistics; and 

(6) dual use technologies, including information management 

technology and security employing best practices from the commercial sector. 

The committee also understands that there may be opportunities 

to join with industry or academia to explore or develop these technologies. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 

not later than January 1, 2008, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the future viability and availability 

of defense-related university-based research and development capabilities and the future opportunities for industry collaboration in 

support of military strategic sealift mobility. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(433) 

TITLE XV—OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND 

OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional War-Related 

Appropriations 

Overview 

The President’s budget requested $141.8 billion in emergency 

funding in the National Defense budget function for Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and for 

other purposes, including some of the ‘‘grow the force’’ costs of increasing Army and Marine Corps active-duty personnel levels. 

The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 

adopted by the Senate on March 23, 2007, fully funded these requested amounts. However, the budget resolution adopted by the 

Senate concurred with the committee’s recommendation to the 

Committee on the Budget that these costs no longer be treated as 

‘‘emergency’’ spending. 

The administration’s budget proposal met the requirements of 

section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), which required an 

estimate of the full-year costs to be incurred during the fiscal year 

to support these operations. The committee believes that subjecting 

these expenditure requests to the full authorization and appropriation process will improve the effectiveness and the accountability 

of spending on these operations. 

The committee believes that treating these requests as non-emergency funding complies with both the spirit and the letter of section 1008. The committee’s views and estimates letter to the Committee on the Budget stated the committee’s intent to differentiate 

carefully between the cost of war and the so-called ‘‘base budget’’. 

That letter stated, in part: 

Because we intend to keep the ‘‘base’’ budget clearly delineated from the ‘‘war’’ budget, it is important that costs 

be accurately assigned to these categories. 

The bill reported by the committee carries out this commitment. 

Where appropriate, the committee has transferred funding requested in the base budget that is directly related to operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan (for example, the costs of running the Joint 

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization) to this title. As 

described later in this title, the committee has also transferred 

funding (for example, the funds for Army and Marine Corps personnel that were requested as a cost of war but which reflect the 

cost of personnel that are intended to become part of the permanent force) structure back into the base budget where appropriate. 

The detailed funding tables contained in this report identify such 

transfers. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

434 

The summary table that follows summarizes the funding requested as emergency spending for these operations, together with 

the committee’s action on these requests. Funding for Department 

of Defense operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the exception 

of funding for military construction projects to support these operations, is included in title XV of this Act. Funding for military construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan is included in title XXIX 

of this Act. 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title XV of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request for war-related programs, and indicate 

those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past, the Department of 

Defense may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the 

tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set 

forth in budget justification documents of the Department of Defense), without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to 

the budget request are made without prejudice. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

435 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 502 35737.188
436 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 503 35737.189
437 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 504 35737.190
438 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 505 35737.191
439 

Army procurement (sec. 1501) 

This section would authorize an additional $17.7 billion for fiscal 

year 2008 procurement of war-related items for the Army. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

440 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 507 35737.192
441 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 508 35737.193
442 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 509 35737.194
443 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 510 35737.195
444 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 511 35737.196
445 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 512 35737.197
446 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 513 35737.198
447 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 514 35737.199
448 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 515 35737.200
449 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 516 35737.201
450 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 517 35737.202
451 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 518 35737.203
452 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 519 35737.204
453 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1502) 

This section would authorize an additional $9.3 billion for fiscal 

year 2008 procurement of war related items for the Navy and the 

Marine Corps. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

454 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 521 35737.205
455 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 522 35737.206
456 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 523 35737.207
457 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 524 35737.208
458 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 525 35737.209
459 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 526 35737.210
460 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 527 35737.211
461 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 528 35737.212
462 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 529 35737.213
463 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 530 35737.214
464 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 531 35737.215
465 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 532 35737.216
466 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 533 35737.217
467 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1503) 

This section would authorize an additional $6.3 billion for fiscal 

year 2008 procurement of war related items for the Air Force. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

468 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 535 35737.218
469 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 536 35737.219
470 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 537 35737.220
471 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 538 35737.221
472 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 539 35737.222
473 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 540 35737.223
474 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 541 35737.224
475 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 542 35737.225
476 

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1504) 

This section would authorize an additional $593.8 million for fiscal year 2008 procurement of war related items for the defense 

agencies and the United States Special Operations Command. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

477 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 544 35737.226
478 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 545 35737.227
479 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 546 35737.228
480 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 547 35737.229
481 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1505) 

This section would authorize an additional $2.0 billion for fiscal 

year 2008 war-related research and development expenses. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

482 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 549 35737.230
483 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 550 35737.231
484 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 551 35737.232
485 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 552 35737.233
486 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 553 35737.234
487 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 554 35737.235
488 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1506) 

This section would authorize an additional $72.9 billion for fiscal 

year 2008 war-related operation and maintenance expenses of the 

military services, the defense agencies, and the United States Special Operations Command. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

489 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 556 35737.236
490 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 557 35737.237
491 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 558 35737.238
492 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 559 35737.239
493 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 560 35737.240
494 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 561 35737.241
495 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 562 35737.242
496 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 563 35737.243
497 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 564 35737.244
498 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 565 35737.245
499 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 566 35737.246
500 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 567 35737.247
501 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 568 35737.248
502 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 569 35737.249
503 

Military personnel (sec. 1507) 

This section would authorize an additional $12.9 billion for fiscal 

year 2008 war-related military personnel expenses of the active 

and reserve components, including mobilization costs for reserve 

and National Guard forces. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

504 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 571 35737.250
505 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 572 35737.251
506 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1508) 

This section would authorize an additional $1.0 billion for fiscal 

year 2008 war-related expenses of the Defense Health program. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1509) 

This section would authorize an additional $257.6 million for fiscal year 2008 war-related drug interdiction and counterdrug expenses. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$4.5 billion for the fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses of the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. The provision 

would also specify the authorized use of these funds, authorize the 

transfer of funds from this account to other accounts of the Department of Defense, require a plan for the use of these funds, and require quarterly reports on the specific use of the funds. 

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

additional $2.0 billion for the fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses 

of the Iraq Security Forces Fund. The provision would also specify 

the authorized use of these funds, authorize the transfer of funds 

from this account to other accounts of the Department of Defense, 

provide for prior notice to Congress before obligation of these funds, 

and require quarterly reports on the specific use of these funds. 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$2.7 billion in fiscal year 2008 for the Afghanistan Security Forces 

Fund transfer account. These funds would be available to the Secretary of Defense for the provision of equipment, supplies, services, 

training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, construction, and for the Afghanistan Security Forces. The provision would 

require the concurrence of the Secretary of State for the provision 

of assistance under this section. The provision would also authorize 

the Secretary of Defense to receive contributions of funds from any 

person, foreign government, or international organization for the 

purposes of the fund. The provision would require the Secretary of 

Defense to notify the congressional defense committees in writing 

5 days prior to the use or transfer of funds from the Afghanistan 

Security Forces Fund, and to provide quarterly reports summarizing the details of the use or transfer of funds. 

Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1513) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

additional $107.5 million for the fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses of the Iraq Freedom Fund. The provision would also authorize the transfer of funds from this account to other accounts of the 

Department of Defense and require prior notice to Congress before 

obligation of these funds. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

507 

Defense Working Capital Funds (sec. 1514) 

This section would authorize an additional $1.7 billion for the fiscal year 2008 war-related working capital fund expenses of the Department of Defense. 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1515) 

This section would authorize an additional $5.1 million for the 

fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses of the National Defense Sealift Fund. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1516) 

This section would authorize an additional $4.4 million for the 

fiscal year 2008 war-related expenses of the Defense Inspector General. 

Subtitle B—General Provisions Relating to Authorizations 

Purpose (sec. 1521) 

This section states the purpose of this title which is to authorize 

additional appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom for the Department of Defense for fiscal 

year 2008. 

Additional war-related authorizations for military construction 

programs are contained in title XXIX of this Act. 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1522) 

This section would provide that the amounts authorized for warrelated purposes in this title are in addition to the amounts otherwise authorized in this Act for the base budget. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of up to $3.5 billion of war-related funding authorizations 

in this title among the accounts in this title. This special transfer 

authority is in addition to the general transfer authority contained 

in section 1001 of this Act, but the same reprogramming procedures applicable to transfers under section 1001 would also apply 

to transfers under this section. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes relating to Iraq (sec. 1531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds appropriated pursuant to authorizations in this Act to 

establish permanent bases in Iraq or to exercise United States control over the oil resources of Iraq. This provision would effectively 

extend the prohibition already in effect during fiscal year 2007. 

Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States military operations (sec. 1532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation for 

logistical and military support provided by that nation to, or in conmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

508 

nection with, U.S. military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

or Operation Enduring Freedom. The total amount of payments 

made under the authority of this section during fiscal year 2008 

may not exceed $1.2 billion. The provision would prohibit the Secretary from entering into any contractual obligation to make a reimbursement under the authority provided by this section. The provision would require the Secretary to prescribe standards for determining the kinds of logistical support that could be reimbursed 

under this section, and to submit those standards to the congressional defense committees no less than 15 days before those standards take effect. The provision would also require the Secretary to 

notify the congressional defense committees no less than 15 days 

before making any reimbursement under this section, and to report 

to those committees quarterly on reimbursements made during the 

reporting period under the authority provided by this section. 

Logistical support for coalition forces supporting operations 

in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

use of Operation and Maintenance funds for fiscal year 2008 to provide supplies, services, transportation, and other logistical support 

to coalition forces supporting U.S. military and stabilization operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary of Defense may provide logistical support under the authority of this section only if he 

makes a determination that the coalition forces to be supported are 

essential to the success of the U.S. military or stabilization operation and that those forces would not be able to participate in the 

operation without the provision of that support. The provision 

would also require that logistical support provided under this section comply with the Arms Export Control Act and other U.S. export control laws. The total amount of logistical support provided 

under this section during fiscal year 2008 may not exceed $400.0 

million. The provision would require the Secretary to submit quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees on the recipients of logistical support provided under the authority of this section and the type and value of support provided. 

Competition for procurement of small arms supplied to Iraq 

and Afghanistan (sec. 1534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a full 

and open competition for procurement of small arms (pistols and 

other weapons less than 0.50 caliber) supplied to Iraq and Afghanistan, ensuring that no responsible U.S. manufacturer is excluded 

and that products manufactured in the U.S. are not excluded from 

the competition. 

The Multi-National Security Transition Command—Iraq 

(MNSTC–I) is the principal Department of Defense (DOD) activity 

which supports the training and equipping of Iraqi Security Forces 

(ISF). DOD awards contracts, using U.S. appropriated Iraq Security Forces Funds (ISSF) in support of the Iraqi Government, specifically, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior (police forces) and Ministry 

of Defense (military forces). According to DOD, the Iraqi Government, with MNSTC–I advice, has determined that the Glock Model 

19 and Beretta 9m pistols are the weapons of choice for the ISF. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

509 

DOD has awarded five Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity contracts for these pistols. U.S. manufactured weapons are not available under these contracts. 

The committee believes that U.S. manufacturers should not be 

excluded from competing for contracts funded by the American taxpayers for procurement of small arms supplied to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Budget Items 

105MM high explosive rocket assisted artillery ammunition 

The fiscal year 2008 budget requested $10.0 million in war-related funding in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for 

105MM High Explosive Rocket Assisted (HERA) artillery ammunition. The committee notes that this is a new, developmental program for artillery ammunition that the Army has not procured 

since fiscal year 1999. Army budget materials lack justification for 

a new start and fails to explain this ammunition’s relationship to 

war costs or any plans for procurement of this ammunition in the 

future. The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in 

war-related PAA for the procurement of 105MM HERA artillery 

ammunition. 

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicles 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $441.0 million in 

the war-related budget request and no funding in the base budget 

request for the procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP) vehicles. Based on the most current information provided 

by the military services, the Department of Defense has an unfunded requirement of approximately $4.1 billion to procure 7,700 

MRAP vehicles. 

A May 2007 memorandum from the Secretary of Defense to the 

Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Navy identifies the procurement of MRAP vehicles as the Department’s highest priority. 

The Department’s failure to include any funding in the fiscal year 

2008 base budget request and a minor percentage of the requirement in the fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request for the procurement of MRAPs is very troubling in view of the criticality of 

rapidly fielding this force protection system. 

Further, the committee is concerned with the separate and diverging paths the Army and Marine Corps have taken regarding 

the fielding of MRAP vehicles. At present, the Army projects a requirement of roughly one MRAP for every seven Up-armored High 

Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (UAH) in theater, while 

the Marine Corps intends to replace UAHs with MRAPs. The Department has not provided an adequate explanation for these divergent fielding strategies. 

The committee recognizes the challenges the Department faces 

with regard to this matter given the number of contractors manufacturing MRAP vehicle variants. However, the committee is concerned that the service has not formulated its long-term plan for 

logistic support to maintain the MRAPs. The committee expects the 

Army and Marine Corps to evaluate the effectiveness of continuing 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

510 

contractor logistic support and develop a transition plan to assume 

the logistics and sustainment of these systems. 

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) remain the number one 

threat to troops in theater. For this reason, it is critical that the 

Department deploys the survivability enhancements to our 

warfighters afforded by MRAPs as quickly as possible. The committee recommends an increase of $4.1 billion in title 

XV, including: $1.6 billion in Other Procurement, Army (OPA); $2.0 

billion in Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC); $430.0 million in 

Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF); $21.0 million in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN); and $124.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for MRAP vehicles. Additional guidance is contained in the classified annex to this report. 

Night vision advanced technology 

The budget request included $35.9 million in PE 63710A for 

night visions advanced technology. The committee recognizes the 

benefits of night vision devices, including the improved situational 

awareness it provides soldiers and soldiers’ enhanced ability to operate at night. The committee funded the Army’s $33.0 million unfunded requirement for over 11,000 monocular night vision devices. 

In addition to procuring these critical devices, the Army must continue to develop more technologically capable and agile night vision 

devices. To accelerate these developments, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63710A, including $7.5 

million for research and development of short-range electro-optic 

sensors, and $2.5 million for the continued research and development of intelligence surveillance and detection sensors. 

Night vision devices 

The budget request included $278.6 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for night vision devices. The committee recognizes the benefits of night vision devices, including the improved 

situational awareness it provides soldiers and their enhanced ability to operate at night. According to the Chief of Staff of the Army’s 

unfunded requirement list submitted to the committee, the Army 

has an unfunded requirement for over 11,000 monocular night vision devices. These additional night vision goggles would permit 

the Army to fulfill the equipment shortages of military police and 

combat engineer units. The additional funding would also provide 

the Stryker force with a night vision capability, thereby increasing 

its mobility and situational awareness in times of low light and at 

night. The committee recommends an increase of $33.0 million in 

OPA for night vision devices to fulfill the Army’s remaining unfunded requirement. 

Single Army Logistics Enterprise 

The Army’s fiscal year 2008 base budget request included $53.6 

million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Single Army Logistic Enterprise (SALE). The fiscal year 2008 war-related budget 

request included $602.8 million in OPA for the SALE. Over the 

next several years, the Army plans to invest billions of dollars to 

develop and field the General Fund Enterprise Business System 

(GFEBS), the Global Combat Support System-Army, Field/Tactical 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

511 

(GCSS-Army), and the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP). 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that 

these three systems will replace about 120 legacy logistics information management systems. 

The committee is not satisfied by the Army’s progress in implementing these three systems. Last year, based upon its concerns 

about the cost performance and schedule delays, Congress prohibited the expenditure of funds on LMP until the Secretary of Defense certified that the LMP had addressed its many shortcomings. 

While the Department of Defense did approve the LMP for further 

development, the GAO continues to raise concerns that the Army 

is investing in systems without the benefit of an overarching Army 

business enterprise architecture. The committee shares the GAO’s 

concerns. The Army’s attempt to implement major information 

technology modernization efforts absent a guiding enterprise architecture could result in systems that are duplicative, are not well integrated, and do not effectively optimize mission performance. 

Additionally, the GAO has reported that GCSS-Army and LMP 

have already experienced significant delays and, as currently structured, there is no certainty that additional delays will not occur. 

The GAO has determined that GFEBS and LMP will not be fully 

fielded until fiscal year 2010, and GCSS-Army will not be fully deployed until fiscal year 2014. Further, budget justification materials provided in the fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request 

fail to relate the costs associated with these information technology 

modernizations to the current global war on terror. Similarly, the 

Army’s Grow the Force budget request contains an additional 

$159.0 million for these information technology upgrades, without 

sufficient justification. Attempts to have the Army provide further 

detailed justification materials have gone unheeded. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $552.5 million in title XV, OPA for SALE. 

UH–1Y/AH–1Z helicopters 

The budget request included $518.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) to procure 20 UH–1Y/AH–1Z helicopters and 

$123.4 million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related APN to 

procure six more UH–1Y/AH–1Z helicopters. Total production orders in fiscal year 2007 consisted of 11 UH–1Y/AH–1Z helicopters. 

The Marine Corps has been developing upgrades and replacements for its existing fleet of attack (AH–1) and utility (UH–1) helicopters. These programs, the AH–1Z and UH–1Y, are being conducted by the same manufacturer. Unfortunately, both programs 

have experienced delayed deliveries and increasing costs. These 

problems appear, at least in part, to have been caused by deficient 

cost control and cost accounting procedures by which the contractor 

manages the programs and through which Department of Defense 

acquisition officials can manage the Government’s equities in the 

programs. 

This raises concerns with the committee, since these same procedures have been used on other existing programs and could be used 

on future programs as well. The Marine Corps’ MV–22, U.S. Special Operations Command’s CV–22, and the Army’s Armed Reconmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

512 

naissance Helicopter (ARH) programs will all be acquired in whole 

or in part from the same contractor. 

The committee strongly supports modernizing the forces with the 

UH–1Y and AH–1Z, but doubts that the contractor team will be 

able to expand production rapidly enough to more than double production in 1 year given these recent problems. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease in war-related APN of six aircraft 

and $123.4 million. 

Radio systems 

The budget request included $644.4 million for procurement of 

radios for the Marine Corps in the base budget, the war-related 

budget, and the ‘‘Grow the Force’’ initiative. For fiscal year 2007, 

between the base budget and supplementals, the Marine Corps is 

slated to receive $1,294.3 million for radio procurement. The Marine Corps, like the Army, faces a serious shortage of radios due 

in part to delays in developing the Joint Tactical Radio System 

(JTRS). The Marine Corps also urgently requires new versions of 

current radios that are resistant to self-jamming in operations 

against radio-controlled improvised explosive devices. 

Obligations of funds have been delayed because the Marine 

Corps temporarily reprogrammed significant amounts from radio 

procurement to production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, which the committee agrees was a wise decision. In addition, the Marine Corps will not receive the funds to repay these 

borrowed funds and for additional radio procurement until almost 

the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2007, which will further impact 

budget execution. The committee therefore recommends a reduction 

of $165.0 million to the request for fiscal year 2008. The committee believes that the roughly $1.9 billion budgeted for 

legacy radio system procurement across fiscal years 2007 and 2008 

is driven by continued delays in developing and fielding the JTRS. 

The committee is aware that this joint program was restructured 

in fiscal year 2006 to improve cost and schedule performance, 

which seems to have successfully stabilized the program. However, 

some concerns still persist regarding the JTRS program’s ability to 

achieve a series of critical milestones scheduled in 2008 and 2009, 

which will lead to operational testing and production. The committee is also concerned about the availability of resources for both 

the sustainment of legacy radio systems and development of JTRS, 

and intends to closely monitor the program’s progress in achieving 

upcoming critical milestones. 

Therefore, the Secretary of Defense is directed to ensure that detailed quarterly updates are provided to the congressional defense 

committees, commencing in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, 

that describe the JTRS program schedule and progress in completing the critical design, technical, integration, test, and production milestones leading to initial operational capability. 

Joint Strike Fighter 

The budget request included $1,421.7 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to purchase six Air Force Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) aircraft in fiscal year 2008 and a budget request of 

$230.0 million in war-related APAF funding to purchase an addimmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

513 

tional JSF aircraft. In addition, the budget request included 

$1,232.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) to purchase 

six Marine Corps JSF aircraft. 

The committee believes that producing 12 aircraft in fiscal year 

2008 would be adequate to support the planned production expansion and subsequent deliveries to the JSF testing and training activities, and that there are higher priorities for using these funds 

for other programs in the war-related budget. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $230.0 million in the fiscal year 

2008 war-related APAF budget. 

C–130J aircraft 

The budget request included $686.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to procure nine C–130J tactical airlift aircraft and $1,356.3 million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related 

APAF to procure 17 C–130Js. The budget request also included 

$256.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) to procure four 

KC–130J aerial refueling aircraft, and $495.4 million in war-related APN to procure seven KC–130Js. This would result in procuring a total of 37 C–130J aircraft for all Department of Defense 

requirements. 

The committee notes that production of the C–130 aircraft has 

not been at those levels in recent years. In fiscal year 2006, the Air 

Force and the Navy bought 18 C–130Js and, in fiscal year 2007, 

the total will be 15 aircraft at most. 

The committee strongly supports modernizing the forces with the 

C–130J, but doubts that the contractor team will be able to expand 

production rapidly enough to more than double production in 1 

year after several years of producing at current rates. Therefore, 

the committee recommends a decrease in war-related APAF of four 

aircraft and $468.0 million. 

CV–22 Osprey aircraft 

The budget request included $495.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to procure five CV–22 aircraft and $492.5 

million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related APAF to procure 

five more CV–22 aircraft. The budget request also included 

$1,959.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) to procure 21 

MV–22 aircraft, and $140.5 million in war-related APN to procure 

two more MV–22 aircraft. This would result in procuring a total of 

33 V–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2008 for all Department of Defense 

requirements. 

The committee notes that the budget request would cause production of the V–22 to increase dramatically. In fiscal year 2006, 

the Navy and the Air Force bought 14 V–22s and, in fiscal year 

2007, the total will be 17 aircraft at most. 

The committee strongly supports modernizing the forces with the 

V–22, but doubts that the contractor team will be able to expand 

production rapidly enough to more than double production in 1 

year after several years of producing at current rates. The committee has expressed similar concerns elsewhere in this report 

about the production rate increase for the Marine Corps’ UH–1Y 

and AH–1Z helicopters, which are built in the same facility. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

514 

Additionally, CV–22 initial operational test and evaluation is 

scheduled for the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. Ramping up production from two or three aircraft in fiscal year 2007 to a level of 

five aircraft in fiscal year 2008 would show a strong commitment 

to the program, while avoiding any risk of unpleasant surprises in 

testing. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease in warrelated APAF of five aircraft and $492.5 million. 

F–15 modifications 

The budget request included $19.2 million for modifications to 

the F–15 aircraft in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 

28) and $152.9 million in fiscal year 2008 war-related APAF for F– 

15 modifications, including $22.0 million for tactical targeting network technology (TTNT) upgrades. 

The Air Force request for $22.0 million to buy and install TTNT 

is premature. According to the budget justification material, the 

Air Force would not place these procurement funds on contract 

until fiscal year 2010. The TTNT system development for the F– 

15 program is a 3-year effort, expected to begin in fiscal year 2008. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $22.0 million 

for the TTNT modification. 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system modifications 

The budget request included $79.7 million for modifications to 

the E–8 joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) 

aircraft in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 55) and 

$41.3 million in fiscal year 2008 war-related APAF for JSTARS 

modifications. The war-related request would be used to replace 

components of the JSTARS system affected by vanishing vendors, 

sometimes known as a diminishing manufacturing sources (DMS) 

problem. 

The Air Force budget justification material indicates that the Air 

Force could award a research and development contract for the 

JSTARS DMS program by the end of the third quarter of fiscal 

year 2008 or at the latest, the beginning of the fourth quarter of 

fiscal year 2008. Given that circumstance, awarding procurement 

contracts in fiscal year 2008 would be premature. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $41.3 million for JSTARS DMS procurement. 

Joint light tactical vehicle 

The budget request included $82.3 million in PE 64642A for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army (RDTEA) for 

Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles. The war-related budget request 

for fiscal year 2008 also included $20.0 million for the same program element. This $20.0 million is requested for acceleration of 

the development of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). The 

JLTV development program has nothing to do with ongoing military operations and should be funded exclusively in the base budget. The committee recommends a reduction to the war-related 

JLTV request of $20.0 million and an increase of $20.0 million for 

JLTV development in the base budget. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

515 

F–16 research and development 

The budget request included $90.6 million in PE 27133F for re- search and development projects for the F–16 and $55.3 million requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related research and development 

for the F–16 to develop secure, beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) capability. The F–16 needs a BLOS capability to communicate over long 

distances with command and control nodes and ground forces in 

mountainous terrain. 

In the near-term, to develop a capability to fill an urgent need, 

the Air Force plans to modify 72 aircraft with ARC–210 or equivalent radios and associated hardware to provide the secure line-ofsight (SLOS) capability using funds from the fiscal year 2006 budget. The F–16 BLOS program would build on that effort. The committee supports achieving this BLOS capability. However, only $7.7 

million of the war-related request is needed in fiscal year 2008 to 

support the BLOS effort. Therefore, the committee recommends a 

decrease of $47.6 million for F–16 BLOS development. 

Military satellite communication terminals 

The fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request included $79.8 

million in PE 33601F for military satellite communications terminals. No justification was provided by the Air Force for this request. The committee recommends that no funds for military satellite communication terminals be included in the war-related request. 

Operation and maintenance funding transfers 

The budget request included $689.4 million in operation and 

maintenance funding for the Army as emergency funding to support modular conversions and the so-called ‘‘overstrength’’ personnel levels above the levels contained in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 482,000 active-duty Army personnel. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget now proposes a permanent increase 

in the Army’s personnel level. Under these circumstances the committee does not believe it is appropriate to continue to budget for 

the costs of personnel we know we will have and intend to retain 

as emergency war costs. Funding for these support costs has been 

transferred to the base budget and is included in title III of this 

Act. 

The funding tables for this title and for title III reflect these 

transfers. 

Military personnel funding transfers 

The budget request included $3.4 billion in military personnel funding for the Army and an additional $784.4 million for the Marine Corps in emergency funding for the cost of so-called ‘‘overstrength’’ personnel levels above the levels contained in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 482,400 active-duty Army personnel and 

175,000 active-duty Marine Corps personnel. Both services have 

maintained and funded personnel ceilings above these levels for the 

past several years, on a recurring year-to-year ‘‘temporary’’ basis, 

using emergency funding. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget now proposes a permanent increase 

in these personnel levels. Under these circumstances the committee 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

516 

does not believe it is appropriate to continue to budget for personnel we know we will have and intend to retain as an emergency 

war cost. Funding for these personnel, including funding for bonuses that apply to the entire force and not specifically to personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been transferred to the 

base budget and is included in title IV of this Act. 

The following table lists the specific amounts transferred. 

Joint improvised explosive device defeat office 

The budget request included $500.0 million in the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fund and the war-related 

budget request included $4.0 billion in OPA for the Joint IED Defeat Fund. 

The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office (JIEDDO) 

was created by the Department of Defense in February 2006 to defeat the IED threat, train the force in tactics and techniques to defend against the IED threat, and to attack the networks that enable IEDs to be used against American service members. In its first 

year, the organization undertook a number of counter-IED initiatives costing approximately $2.8 billion, as well as hiring staff, establishing a financial management function, and developing performance metrics. 

The committee is aware of the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) March 2007 assessment of the JIEDDO which stated 

that it has not developed a strategic plan to clearly articulate its 

mission and, as a result, JIEDDO cannot effectively assess whether 

it is making the right investment decisions or whether it has effectively organized itself to meet its mission. The Senate Committee 

on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense has expressed similar 

concerns. 

The committee is also concerned that JIEDDO does not have full 

visibility over all of the services’ counter-IED efforts, which has resulted in duplication of efforts. Moreover, according to the GAO, 

JIEDDO has not finalized guidance for how and when sustainment 

costs for all proven counter-IED initiatives will be transitioned to 

the services. 

In addition to concerns about JIEDDO’s investment strategy and 

organizational structure, the committee is concerned about the 

gaps that exist in training the force. According to the GAO, training efforts do not reach all deploying personnel who may be exposed to the IED threat. This training gap is a serious force protection issue that must be addressed by JIEDDO. 

The committee awaits the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task 

Force on IEDs’ next quarterly report on the ongoing program and 

activities in the context of a strategic campaign to address the IED 

threat. The committee expects that the DSB will address the matter of duplication of effort among the services’ respective research 

and development communities, relevant defense agencies, and 

JIEDDO. Further, the committee expects the DSB will examine 

JIEDDO’s approach to short- and long-term investments in technology development. 

The committee expects that JIEDDO will implement the recommendations already provided to it by the GAO and will implement quickly the recommendations of the DSB Task Force once the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

517 

report has been completed. Additional directive guidance to 

JIEDDO is contained in the classified annex. 

The committee views JIEDDO as a war-related expense and, 

therefore, recommends transferring the funding provided in the 

base budget to title XV of the bill. To accomplish this, the committee recommends a reduction of $500.0 million in the base budget for the Joint IED Defeat Fund, and an increase of $500.0 million 

in the fiscal year 2008 war-related budget request for the Joint 

IED Defeat Fund. 

Blast injury research 

Blast injury from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) continues 

to be the most significant cause of American casualties in Iraq. The 

committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has not appropriately allocated resources provided for the defeat of IEDs to 

the ‘‘full range of efforts necessary to defeat the IED threat,’’ including much needed research and training on the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of blast injuries. Section 256 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109– 

163) established a Department of Defense-wide program to prevent, 

mitigate, and treat blast injuries. The committee expects that the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office (JIEDDO), in accordance with the 2006 Act, will be a partner in the Departmentwide efforts to coordinate, manage, and fund research efforts for 

medical blast research. 

To support these efforts, the committee directs that JIEDDO 

fund blast-related medical research, training, and programmatic 

activities which have been identified as high priorities by the DOD 

executive agent at a level of not less than $50.0 million in fiscal 

year 2008. These include: research and development of diagnostics, 

training, and treatment for traumatic brain injury; collection, storage, and integration of operational, medical, and protective equipment performance data associated with wounding and non-wounding events; body surface wound mapping for investigation of 

wounding patterns to be included in body armor design; research 

and training to prevent traumatic eye injury, cranial-facial injury, 

and burns; and enhanced research on hemorrhage control. 

Further, the committee directs JIEDDO to report to the executive agent and to the congressional defense committees on actions, 

including funding, to fulfill these requirements, no later than 

March 1, 2008. 

Counter radio-controlled improvised explosive device electronic warfare 

The Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded requirements list included a request for $152.9 million in Other Procurement, Army for 

the acquisition of counter radio-controlled improvised explosive device electronic warfare (CREW) systems. According to the budget 

request submitted to the committee by the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office (JIEDDO), the JIEDDO’s budget includes 

over $745.0 million to assist the military services with urgent requests from in theater. In light of these funds, the committee directs the JIEDDO to provide the Army with the funds necessary 

to procure 1,000 CREW–2 systems and 8,131 CREW trainers. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

518 

Counter-remote controlled improvised explosive device systems 

The committee is concerned that the Joint Improvised Explosive 

Defeat (IED) Office has become too dependent on a single source 

of supply for counter-Remote Controlled IED (RCIED) jamming 

systems and system components, thereby limiting innovation and 

potentially preventing more effective systems from being fielded. 

The committee further believes the Joint IED Defeat Office 

(JIEDDO) should consider identifying and qualifying additional 

sources for counter-RCIED systems. The committee therefore directs the JIEDDO and the military departments to identify and, as 

appropriate, qualify additional sources for counter-RCIED systems 

and system components. 

Directed energy for improvised explosive device defeat 

The committee is heartened that the Joint Improvised Explosive 

Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is starting to invest significant resources in research, development, and production of technologies to counter a broader spectrum of electronics used in improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The committee is concerned that 

JIEDDO has taken a short-term view of this technology area, looking for off-the-shelf solutions. Not finding fully mature technologies 

or properly engineered prototypes, JIEDDO has chosen not to invest, expecting the services or the private sector to make the necessary investments. For their part, service advocates have not persuaded their management to invest because the prevailing view is 

that JIEDDO has the responsibility. 

The IED problem is obviously severe and our exposure in Iraq 

has endured. These devices are almost certainly here to stay as a 

threat to U.S. and allied military forces. It is incumbent on the Department of Defense to develop robust solutions even if that takes 

considerable time and resources. JIEDDO, the services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering, and the Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should be 

working together to develop a rational investment strategy. 

More specifically, the committee is persuaded that technology advances in photonic switches and transformers provide potential 

pulse-power/directed energy capabilities far better than what is 

currently available. On behalf of JIEDDO, the Technical Support 

Working Group (TSWG) is rapidly maturing technology for compact, single-cycle, very high peak power, ultra-wideband, extremely 

short pulse, very fast discharge, and high pulse rate from low 

prime power sources. The possibility exists that a multiple cycle 

terawatt system could be built for fielding on an airborne platform. 

The committee directs that, of the amounts authorized and appropriated for JIEDDO, $20.0 million be used for a competitive award 

through the TSWG to accelerate ongoing projects and to develop 

multiple cycle technology. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(519) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense. It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military family 

housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, environmental cleanup, and other activities required to 

implement the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The following tables provide the project-level authorizations for 

the military construction funding authorized in division B of this 

Act and summarize that funding by account. Funding for base closure projects is explained in additional detail in the table included 

in title XXVII of this report. 

The budget request for fiscal year 2008 included authorization of 

appropriations for military construction and housing programs totaling $21.2 billion. Of this amount, $9.8 billion was requested for 

military construction, $2.9 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $8.4 for base closure activities, including $8.2 billion to implement the results of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. 

The budget also proposed an additional $907.9 million in emergency spending for Army military construction projects in Iraq and 

Afghanistan and Navy military construction projects in the United 

States related to the administration’s proposal to grow the size of 

the Marine Corps. Additional funding for the Army projects is contained in title XXIX of this Act. The funding requested for Marine 

Corps projects has been included in title XXII of this Act. 

Including all funding in division B of this Act, the committee recommends authorization of appropriations for military construction 

and housing programs totaling $22.6 billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects this committee’s continuing 

commitment to invest in the recapitalization of Department of Defense facilities and infrastructure. The committee recommends an 

increase of $600.0 million for additional construction projects, and 

a reduction of $139.1 million in unjustified or lower priority 

projects, for a net increase of $460.9 million to the amount requested for military construction and family housing. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

520 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 591 here 35737.252
521 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 592 here 35737.253
522 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 593 here 35737.254
523 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 594 here 35737.255
524 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 595 here 35737.256
525 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 596 here 35737.257
526 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 597 here 35737.258
527 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 598 here 35737.259
528 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 599 here 35737.260
529 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 600 here 35737.261
530 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 601 here 35737.262
531 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 602 here 35737.263
532 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 603 here 35737.264
533 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 604 here 35737.265
534 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 605 here 35737.266
535 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 606 here 35737.267
536 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 607 here 35737.268
537 

Budget justification material for incrementally funded and 

phased military construction projects 

The committee defines an incrementally funded military construction project as having received an authorization for the full 

amount of the requirement in the first year, but only a partial authorization of appropriation for the project to provide funds for expected outlays against the project for that specific year. In contrast, 

a phased project receives authorization for a complete and useable 

facility or facilities as part of a total requirement, which may need 

more than one military construction project to complete. 

The committee notes that the military departments and defense 

agencies do not always use the same format to submit budget justification material to the Congress. With respect to each phased requirement, or each incrementally funded military construction 

project, the committee requests that the budget justification documents for military construction projects (known as the DD1391 

form) include, with respect to a phased requirement or any increment of an incrementally funded project, the entire cost of the requirement as well as the cost, by fiscal year, of each past and future phase or increment, in addition to the amount requested for 

the phase or increment contained in the budget request. 

In the fiscal year 2008 budget request, the DD1391 forms for incrementally funded Army and Air Force projects generally contained all this information, while those for the Navy and certain 

defense agencies, such as the National Security Agency, did not. 

The committee suggests the table included in the justification material provided by the Air Force for increment 3 of the Main Base 

Runway project at Edwards Air Force Base, California as a model 

for presenting this information. 

Budget justification material for military construction 

The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) prepares and 

transmits budget justification material to the Congress describing 

the budget request of the Department of Defense. Among these documents are line item level descriptions of the budget request for 

military personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, research and development, and military construction accounts, 

known respectively as the M–1, O–1, P–1, R–1, and C–1. With the 

exception of the C–1 for military construction, all of these documents include a listing of the funding amounts by program for the 

prior year as well as the current year and the budget year. The C– 

1 includes information only for the current year and the budget 

year. However, prior to the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the C– 

1 also included information for the prior year. The committee believes a public record of the amounts actually obligated as of the 

end of the fiscal year serves a useful purpose and requests that beginning with the budget request for fiscal year 2009 the C–1 once 

again include information on the prior year amounts for each line 

item. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(539) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $4.0 billion for military construction and $1.2 billion for family 

housing for the Army for fiscal year 2008. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $4.1 billion for military construction and $1.2 billion for family 

housing for fiscal year 2008. 

The budget request included ‘‘placeholders’’ in the Army’s mili- tary construction and family housing budget accounts of $2.4 billion related to facilities to support the administration’s ‘‘Grow the 

Force’’ proposal to increase the size of the Army. On March 30, 

2007, the Army provided a detailed breakout and supporting budget justification materials to the committee requesting a specific allocation of these funds. While this was not an official administration budget amendment, the committee has reviewed this request 

and included these proposed changes in the committee recommendation. These projects are identified in the State list table 

included in this report. 

The committee recommends the following reductions and modifications to projects requested by the Army. The committee has deleted $1.0 million included in a defense access road project at Fort 

Carson, Colorado which was unrelated to the project for which 

funds were requested. 

The committee has also reduced the amounts authorized to be 

appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for two projects requested to support the stationing of a full brigade complex at Vicenza, Italy. The 

budget requested $86.0 million for a barracks and community facilities project and an additional $87.0 million for an operations 

support complex. The committee values the strong relationship between the United States and Italy, but notes with concern that the 

proposal to expand into these facilities at Dal Molin has yet to receive the required approvals from the Government of Italy. Therefore, the committee recommends these projects be incrementally 

funded at $50.0 million each in fiscal year 2008. Should host nation 

approval not be forthcoming in a timely manner, further reductions 

in this funding may be warranted. 

The congressional defense committees and the Department of Defense have traditionally analyzed requirements and funding for 

mission projects and quality of life projects as important and distinct categories. Several projects requested by the Army blur these 

traditional distinctions. The funding requested for a headquarters 

facility for the U.S. Southern Command in Miami included funding 

for a child development center inside the overall project cost for the 

headquarters. Funding requested for a brigade complex maintenance facility at Fort Drum, New York combined funding for a dining facility with funding for mission-oriented projects such as vehimmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

540 

cle maintenance shops. The committee has separated these mission 

and quality of life requests into separate projects. The committee 

accepts the practice of combining dining facilities with other quality of life projects such as unaccompanied housing. However, the 

committee directs the Army, and the other elements of the Department of Defense, to refrain from combining mission facilities and 

quality of life facilities into single project requests in future budget 

submissions. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2008. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Army for fiscal year 2008. It would also authorize funds for 

facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2008 to improve existing Army family housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2008 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Army. The State list contained in this report is the binding list of 

the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Army 

projects for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 

2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 for which 

no funds were appropriated. No appropriations were provided in 

fiscal year 2007 for projects that were authorized but were not included in the President’s original budget request. The entire list of 

fiscal year 2007 active Army projects for which the authorizations 

would be repealed follows. The committee has provided new authorizations for some of these projects for fiscal year 2008. Details 

on the projects that received new fiscal year 2008 authorizations 

can be found in the State list of fiscal year 2008 projects contained 

in this report. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

541 

The committee urges the Department of Defense and the military 

departments to review any projects on this list that are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 and re-insert those 

projects, if the requirements are still valid, in the fiscal year 2009 

future-years defense program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

542 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 613 here 35737.269
543 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2006 project (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109–163) to increase the 

project authorizations for Fort Bragg, North Carolina by $7.0 million. This increase was requested by the Department of Defense in 

its legislative proposal to the Congress. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 

projects (sec. 2107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Army fiscal year 2005 military construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an 

act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2009, 

whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the Department of Defense in their legislative proposal to the Congress. 

Technical amendments to the Military Construction Authorization Act for 2007 (sec. 2108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make two 

corrections to the table of project authorizations in section 2101 of 

the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(division B of Public Law 109–364). One amendment would modify 

the name of a specific location of a project in Romania to reflect 

a modification of the original plan. This modification was proposed 

by the Army and understood by the conferees prior to the adoption 

of the fiscal year 2007 legislation. The second amendment would 

correct an enrolling error and align the text of the public law with 

the text of the conference report. 

Ground lease, SOUTHCOM Headquarters Facility, MiamiDoral, Florida (sec. 2109) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require 

amendments to the existing ground lease agreement between the 

United States Government and the State of Florida for the land 

proposed as the site of a new headquarters for the U.S. Southern 

Command (SOUTHCOM) before the Secretary of the Army could 

begin construction of the headquarters. The committee is concerned 

that the existing agreement does not allow sufficient flexibility for 

the use of this facility by other federal agencies in the event future 

requirements change, and that the lease term should be a more 

standard 50-year period, rather than 20 years with options for extensions as under the current agreement. The committee understands the State is willing to make these modifications to the lease 

agreement. 

Item of Special Interest 

Army budget justification material for military construction 

The military departments and defense agencies prepare detailed 

justification documents for each military construction project and 

transmit these to the Congress as part of the annual budget justification materials. These documents are known as DD1391 forms. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

544 

The budget justification materials submitted by the Army in February in support of the fiscal year 2008 budget contained, in 44 different projects, an assertion that ‘‘Title to utility infrastructure constructed as a result of this MILCON project may be transferred to 

the utility privatization contractor notwithstanding any other provision of law.’’ 

The committee appreciates any attempt to make the DD1391 

forms as informative as possible. However, the committee notes 

that an executive branch assertion in a budget justification document of a right to take an action ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision of law’’ has no force and effect and does not create any such 

right. Committee approval in this Act of funding for any Army military construction project containing this phrase does not constitute 

an endorsement or acceptance of any right by the Army to take actions contrary to existing law. The committee directs the Army to 

refrain from inserting such an assertion into DD1391 forms in the 

future. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(545) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $2.1 billion for military construction and $669.7 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2008 in the 

base budget request, plus an additional $169.1 million in emergency funding for projects to support increasing the size of the Marine Corps. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $2.4 billion for military construction and $671.5 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2008. Included in this amount is the $169.1 

million which was requested as emergency funding. The committee 

has transferred funding for these projects from title XXIX of this 

Act and included these projects in the regular State list on a nonemergency basis. These transfers are identified in the State list. 

The budget request also included ‘‘placeholders’’ in the Navy’s military construction and family housing budget accounts of $382.9 

million related to facilities to support the administration’s ‘‘Grow 

the Force’’ proposal to increase the size of the Marine Corps. On 

April 20, 2007, the Navy provided a detailed breakout and supporting budget justification materials to the committee requesting 

a specific allocation of these funds. While this was not an official 

administration budget amendment, the committee has reviewed 

this request and included these proposed changes in the committee 

recommendation. These projects are identified in the State list 

table included in this report. 

The committee recommends the following reductions and modifications to projects requested by the Navy. The committee has deleted $18.1 million requested for an infantry squad battle course at 

Camp Pendleton, California. The budget justification material for 

this project indicated that only about 9 percent of the cost of this 

project was for the primary facility, while the rest was for supporting facilities and extensive site work and mitigation. The committee urges the Navy to find a more efficient way to construct this 

project. 

The committee has also deleted funding requested for the Outlying Landing Field (OLF) project in Washington County, North 

Carolina. The committee is aware that the Navy is in the process 

of reconsidering the siting for this project. The committee has 

added funding for an expanded environmental impact statement 

that would evaluate other potential sites in title III of this Act. The committee is concerned by the cost of the $45.3 million request for a fitness center in Guam. In particular, the committee 

considers the $5.3 million requested for an outdoor running track 

to be excessive in light of the $7.9 million already included in the 

project for a lighted synthetic field, which would appear to be a 

suitable alternative for jogging. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

546 

The committee is also concerned by the cost of proposed family housing construction in Guam. The budget requests $57.2 million 

for just 73 units in Guam, which equates to a per unit cost of 

$783,198 per building including site work and utilities. The average unit cost of the dwelling units alone is $437,562. The committee understands that construction costs in Guam are very high, 

but finds these unit costs unacceptable and has accordingly reduced this request by $10.0 million. The proposal to relocate 8,000 

marines from Okinawa to Guam over the next several years will 

not be affordable, even with cost sharing between the United 

States and the Government of Japan, at these prices. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2008. The authorized amounts are listed on an installationby-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Navy for fiscal year 2008. It would also authorize funds for 

facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2008 to improve existing Navy family housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2008 in this Act. This provision 

would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for 

military construction and family housing projects for the activeduty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The State list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Navy 

projects for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 

2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 for which 

no funds were appropriated. No appropriations were provided in 

fiscal year 2007 for projects that were authorized but were not included in the President’s original budget request. 

The entire list of fiscal year 2007 active Navy projects for which 

the authorizations would be repealed follows. The committee has 

provided new authorizations for some of these projects for fiscal 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

547 

year 2008. Details on the projects that received new fiscal year 

2008 authorizations can be found in the State list of fiscal year 

2008 projects contained in this report. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense and the military 

departments to review any projects on this list that are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 and re-insert those 

projects, if the requirements are still valid, in the fiscal year 2009 

future-years defense program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

548 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 619 35737.270
(549) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $912.1 million for military construction and $1.1 billion for family 

housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2008. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1.0 billion for military construction and $1.1 billion for family 

housing for fiscal year 2008. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2008. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Air Force for fiscal year 2008. It would also authorize funds 

for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2008 to improve existing Air Force family 

housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2008 in this Act. This provision would also provide 

an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Air Force. The State list contained in this report is the binding list 

of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Air 

Force projects for which funds were not appropriated 

(sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 for which 

no funds were appropriated. No appropriations were provided in 

fiscal year 2007 for projects that were authorized but were not included in the President’s original budget request. The entire list of 

fiscal year 2007 active Air Force projects for which the authorizammaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

550 

tions would be repealed follows. The committee has provided new 

authorizations for some of these projects for fiscal year 2008. Details on the projects that received new fiscal year 2008 authorizations can be found in the State list of fiscal year 2008 projects contained in this report. The committee urges the Department of Defense and the military departments to review any projects on this 

list that are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 

and re-insert those projects, if the requirements are still valid, in 

the fiscal year 2009 future-years defense program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

551 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 622 35737.271
552 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2006 project (sec. 2306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109–163) to increase the 

project authorizations for MacDill Air Force Base, Florida by $25.0 

million. This increase was requested by the Department of Defense 

in its legislative proposal to the Congress. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 

projects (sec. 2307) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2005 military construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2009, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the 

Air Force. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 

projects (sec. 2308) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2004 military construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2009, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the 

Department of Defense in their legislative proposal to the Congress. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(553) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.8 billion for military construction for the defense agencies, $49.3 

million for family housing for the defense agencies and the Family 

Housing Improvement Fund, and $86.2 million for chemical demilitarization construction in fiscal year 2008. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1.9 billion for military construction and $49.3 million for family 

housing for the defense agencies and the Family Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2008. These amounts include the funding 

for chemical demilitarization construction. 

The Department of Defense requested funding for chemical demilitarization as a new separate funding title. The committee bill 

funds this program in title XXIV, as in previous years. The funding 

tables reflect the elimination of the $86.2 million request from the 

proposed new title, the transfer of these funds into title XXIV, the 

net increase of $18.0 million to this program, and the total of 

$104.2 million authorized in this title for chemical demilitarization 

construction. 

The committee does not agree to authorize the $18.5 million requested by the Washington Headquarters Service for electrical upgrades for the Pentagon Reservation. The committee invites the 

Department of Defense to resubmit a modified version of this 

project in future years once the Department has reached agreement 

with the relevant electric utility companies on a more comprehensive approach that fulfills all the objectives this project was intended to address. 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2008. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2008 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

554 

and family housing projects for the defense agencies. The State list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Termination or modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2007 Defense Agencies projects (sec. 

2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 for which 

no funds were appropriated. The provision would also increase the 

authorized amount for prior year base realignment and closure 

(BRAC) funding for fiscal year 2007 to authorize the additional 

amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2007. 

No appropriations were provided in fiscal year 2007 for projects 

that were authorized but were not included in the President’s original budget request. The entire list of fiscal year 2007 projects of 

the defense agencies for which the authorizations would be repealed follows. 

The committee has provided new authorizations for some of these 

projects for fiscal year 2008. Details on the projects that received 

new fiscal year 2008 authorizations can be found in the State list 

of fiscal year 2008 projects contained in this report. The committee 

urges the Department of Defense and the military departments to 

review any projects on this list that are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2008 and re-insert those projects, if the requirements are still valid, in the fiscal year 2009 future-years defense program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

555 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 628 35737.272
556 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 

projects (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain defense agency fiscal year 2005 military 

construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

year 2009, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by 

the Department of Defense in their legislative proposal to the Congress. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(557) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 

SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriation of $201.4 million for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2008. The 

committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $201.4 

million for this program. The committee notes that a significant 

portion of the NATO Security Investment Program is currently devoted to support of the NATO mission in Afghanistan, and expects 

that a significant portion of the funding for fiscal year 2008 would 

be used to continue those efforts. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program in an 

amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in 

section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the 

United States for construction previously financed by the United 

States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $201.4 million for the United States’ contribution to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(559) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $695.2 million for military construction in fiscal year 2008 

for National Guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends a total of $895.3 million for military construction for the 

reserve components. The detailed funding recommendations are 

contained in the State list table included in this report. 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2008. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-bylocation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2008. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location 

basis. 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2008. The authorized amounts are 

listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2008. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2008. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

560 

Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2008 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The State list contained 

in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 

at each location. 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2007 Guard 

and Reserve projects for which funds were not appropriated (sec. 2607) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

project authorizations and authorization of appropriations for military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2007 for which 

no funds were appropriated. No appropriations were provided in 

fiscal year 2007 for projects that were authorized but were not included in the President’s original budget request. The entire list of 

fiscal year 2007 reserve component projects for which the authorizations would be repealed follows. The committee has provided 

new authorizations for some of these projects for fiscal year 2008. 

Details on the projects that received new fiscal year 2008 authorizations can be found in the State list of fiscal year 2008 projects 

contained in this report. The committee urges the Department of 

Defense and the military departments to review any projects on 

this list that are not authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 

2008 and re-insert those projects, if the requirements are still 

valid, in the fiscal year 2009 future-years defense program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

561 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 633 here 35737.273
562 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 634 here 35737.274
563 

Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 2006 Air 

Force Reserve construction and acquisition projects 

(sec. 2608) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the authorization for a fiscal year 2006 Air Force Reserve project to convert a hanger into a headquarters for a C–17 unit at Elmendorf Air 

Force Base, Alaska. Earlier this year, the Air Force submitted a reprogramming request to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives seeking to use this $3.1 

million in funding for a project supporting the F–22 program rather 

than the C–17 program. The committee does not believe that construction of facilities not authorized by law is an appropriate use 

of existing authorities. The reprogramming was not approved, and 

the Air Force later turned to an existing statutory authority to construct the F–22 project. Therefore, the funding proposed by the Air 

Force as a source of funds is no longer required. The committee has 

included a separate legislative provision to address the reprogramming process more generally. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 

projects (sec. 2609) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain guard and reserve fiscal year 2005 military construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2009, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the Department of Defense in their legislative proposal 

to the Congress. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 

projects (sec. 2610) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain guard and reserve fiscal year 2004 military construction projects until October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2009, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the Department of Defense in their legislative proposal 

to the Congress. 

Items of Special Interest 

Planning and design, Army National Guard 

The committee directs that the amount of $3.5 million, added to 

the authorization of appropriations for planning and design for the 

Army National Guard, be used to complete the design of the Joint 

Forces Headquarters for the Minnesota National Guard at the 

Arden Hills Army Training Site, and that $960,000 added to this 

account be used to complete the design of a readiness center in The 

Dalles, Oregon. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(565) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $220.7 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. The committee has authorized the amount requested for these activities in section 2701 of 

this Act. 

In addition, the budget requested an authorization of appropriations of $8.2 billion for implementation of the 2005 BRAC round. 

Section 2703 of this Act authorizes the full $8.2 billion requested 

for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2008. Included in the $8.2 billion 

requested for BRAC is an authorization of appropriations for $6.4 

billion in military construction projects that would be initiated in 

fiscal year 2008. The full project authorization amount of these 

projects is $8.7 billion. Section 2702 of this Act provides the authorization for these projects. 

The following table provides the specific amount authorized for 

each BRAC military construction project as well as the amount authorized for appropriations for all BRAC activities, including military construction, environmental costs, relocation and other operation and maintenance costs, permanent change of station costs for 

military personnel, and other BRAC costs. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

566 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 638 here 35737.275
567 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 639 here 35737.276
568 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 640 here 35737.277
569 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 641 here 35737.278
570 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 642 here 35737.279
571 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 643 here 35737.280
572 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert offset folio 644 here 35737.281
573 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990 (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 

1995 base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds. 

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded 

through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 

2005 (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for fiscal year 2008 that are required 

to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. The table included in this title of the report 

lists the specific amounts authorized at each location. 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 (sec. 2703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal year 2008 

that are required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. This provision would also 

provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for BRAC military construction projects. The State list contained in this report is 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Authorized cost and scope of work variations (sec. 2704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

each Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) military construction 

project carried out with amounts authorized for appropriations by 

sections 2701 and 2703 of this title be subject to the limits on cost 

and scope variations contained in section 2853 of title 10, United 

States Code. Furthermore, this provision would establish, as a 

baseline for the determination of variations, the cost and scope contained in the military construction project data for each project provided to the congressional defense committees annually in justification material accompanying each President’s budget request. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(575) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL 

PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Effective Date and Expiration of Authorizations 

Effective Date (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX of this 

Act take effect on October 1, 2007 or the date of enactment of this 

Act, whichever is later. 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program, as October 1, 2010, or the date of 

enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. 

Subtitle B—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

General military construction transfer authority (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a 

transfer authority for military construction authorizations similar 

to that already in use by the Committees on Appropriations of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. The provision would provide that up to $200.0 million could be transferred among the military construction authorizations available to a particular military 

department or defense agency for fiscal year 2008. Funds could be 

transferred only to cover cost or scope changes on previously authorized and appropriated projects, not to create ‘‘new start’’ construction projects. 

This provision is more limited than the general transfer authority provided in section 1001 for funds in division A of this Act, 

which allows funds to be transferred between military departments. The committee is willing to consider such additional flexibility, in consultation with the other congressional defense committees, in the future. 

At present, military construction reprogrammings are presented 

only to the Committees on Appropriations, while notifications of 

cost and scope changes are provided to the Committees on Armed 

Services. The committee believes that it should have the same information on the proposed reprogramming of funds used as sources 

to cover cost and scope increases as the Committees on Appropriations. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

576 

The committee is concerned by the proposal made by the Air 

Force to the Committees on Appropriations in January 2007 to use 

the existing reprogramming process to carry out a ‘‘new start’’ military construction project that had not been authorized by law. The 

committee does not see a need at this time for a military construction transfer authority that would allow the Department of Defense 

to construct ‘‘new start’’ construction projects through the reprogramming process. At a minimum, all four congressional defense committees would have to agree on a common reprogramming 

procedure before the committee would entertain such an expansion 

of the reprogramming process. 

Modifications of authority to lease military family housing 

(sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

existing authorities in section 2828 of title 10, United States Code, 

regarding the leasing of family housing by the Department of Defense. The provision would grant the Secretary of the Army additional authority to enter into high cost leases for up to 600 units 

in the United States. The provision would also set an annual perunit cap on high cost leases overseas. The provision would combine 

and consolidate the existing authorities for high cost leases in Italy 

for the Army and the Navy into a single limit applicable to the entire Department of Defense. The provision would also raise the 

threshold for which congressional notification of overseas leases is 

required to $1.0 million in annual rental payments. 

The provision would also modify one of the limits on high cost 

housing leases in Korea. The committee values the strong alliance 

between the United States and the Republic of Korea, and supports 

the implementation of the Land Partnership Plan and the Yongsan 

Relocation Plan. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to proceed 

with an economic analysis comparing the life cycle cost of military 

construction to build-to-lease construction of family housing units 

in Korea as soon as possible, in order to assess the likely size and 

quality of units that could be constructed in a competitive bidding 

situation. The committee also strongly urges the Secretary of the 

Army to issue a request for information to help inform this analysis. Taking these steps expeditiously would better inform the conferees of the need for any specific changes in the cost ceilings. The 

committee does not believe that the full increase in the leasing unit 

cost ceilings proposed by the Department is affordable, and urges 

the Secretary of the Army to review all the alternatives identified 

in the economic analysis, and then proceed with a request for proposals for a full and open competition for leasing or military construction in order to find the most economical means to provide 

suitable family housing units. 

Increase in thresholds for unspecified minor military construction projects (sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2805(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by raising the 

threshold of the cost of a construction project authorized by this 

section from $1.5 million to $2.5 million. This provision would also 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

577 

raise the threshold of the cost of a construction project intended 

solely to correct a deficiency that is life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening from $3.0 million to $4.0 million. 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office, 

in a report released in February 2004 entitled ‘‘Long-term Challenges in Managing the Military Construction Program,’’ estimated 

that construction costs for the military have increased by an average of 41 percent since the thresholds amended by this provision 

were last adjusted. 

An identical provision was included in the last three defense authorization bills reported by the committee and passed by the Senate. The committee continues to believe that this change is necessary and appropriate. 

Modification and extension of temporary, limited authority 

to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects outside the United States (sec. 2814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would further 

amend section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), as amended, to extend for 

1 year, through the end of fiscal year 2008, the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated 

for operation and maintenance to carry out construction projects intended to satisfy certain operational requirements in support of a 

declaration of war, national emergency, or other contingency. The 

provision would also remove the authority in current law to waive 

the annual dollar limitation on this authority. 

Temporary authority to support revitalization of Department of Defense laboratories through unspecified minor 

military construction projects (sec. 2815) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Department of Defense (DOD) with additional authority to improve 

DOD laboratories using minor construction authorities similar to 

those already contained in section 2805 of title 10, United States 

Code. The temporary authority would expire on September 30, 

2012. The Department of Defense requested similar language in 

their fiscal year 2008 legislative proposal to the Congress. DOD 

laboratories are generally funded with research and development 

funds and do not have the same access to military construction 

funds as other types of DOD facilities. 

Two-year extension of temporary program to use minor 

military construction authority for construction of child 

development centers (sec. 2816) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2810 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109–163) to extend by 2 years 

the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of Defense to 

use higher thresholds contained in section 2805 of title 10, United 

States Code, for the construction of child development centers. This 

provision would also require the Secretary to report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2009, on the use of this 

temporary program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

578 

Extension of authority to accept equalization payments for 

facility exchanges (sec. 2817) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority provided in section 2809 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375) by an additional 3 years, until September 30, 2010. This 

provision was requested by the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle C—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Requirement to report transactions resulting in annual 

costs of more than $750,000 (sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2662 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense, the secretaries of the military departments, or their 

designees, to notify Congress prior to entering into a transaction or 

contract action that results in or includes the acquisition, lease or 

license, or any other use by entities of the Department of Defense 

of real property if the estimated annual rental or cost is more than 

$750,000. 

In hearings before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support earlier this year, the committee received testimony 

that elements of the Department of Defense may have violated existing law through the use of service contracts to acquire office 

space without providing the required notifications to Congress regarding what was a lease under another name. The provision recommended by the committee is in no way intended to imply that 

such actions were or are legal or appropriate under existing law. 

Rather, this provision is intended to clarify that elements of the 

Department of Defense are required to notify Congress before entering into any type of contract, including service contracts, for the 

use of real property or facility space. 

Modification of authority to lease non-excess property (sec. 

2832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to require the secretary 

of a military department to use competitive procedures to select 

lessees for transactions authorized by paragraph (a) of section 

2667. The provision would also eliminate the authority for the secretary concerned to receive in-kind consideration or to use rental 

and other proceeds for facility operation support. 

The committee is concerned that the authority granted to the 

secretary of a military department by section 2667 to provide an 

opportunity to gain benefit for underutilized real or personal property may be used to acquire services beyond that intended by Congress. The committee urges the military departments to use the 

proceeds gained in transactions carried out under this authority 

prudently to address military facility requirements directly related 

to maintenance, repair, improvements, and construction. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

579 

Enhanced flexibility to create or expand buffer zones (sec. 

2833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Department of Defense (DOD) with additional flexibility in entering into partnerships with non-federal entities to protect or enhance the capability of DOD installations. The provision would 

allow such agreements to provide for the ongoing upkeep and management of buffer zones bordering defense installations, in addition 

to the authority to acquire the property provided under current 

law. The committee also recognizes that the military value of such 

buffer zones may exceed the appraised value of the real property. 

The provision would provide additional authority in such cases for 

DOD entities to acquire an interest in property where the cost of 

acquiring the interest exceeds the fair market value of the property, if the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department provides a certification to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that the 

military value of the acquisition provides benefits that justify a 

payment in excess of the fair market value. 

Reports on Army and Marine Corps operational ranges (sec. 

2834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify a reporting requirement on changing requirements for Army training 

ranges that was contained in section 2827 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (division B of Public 

Law 109–364). This report, which was due on February 1, 2007, 

has not been submitted. The provision would expand this reporting 

requirement to include the impact of the proposal contained in the 

fiscal year 2008 budget to permanently increase the size of the active-duty component of the Army by 65,000 personnel. The report 

by the Secretary of the Army would also include an assessment of 

the potential expansion of the Joint Readiness Training Center at 

Fort Polk, Louisiana, and an assessment of the available training 

capacity in Germany. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

might propose to base these additional 65,000 personnel in a way 

that would not effectively utilize the existing training capacity the 

Army already has in Germany. The committee expects a full assessment of this issue, including the cost of constructing any facilities that would duplicate any existing underutilized capacity in 

Germany, as part of this report. The report should also incorporate 

the analysis done for, and if possible the results of, the programmatic environmental impact statement the Army plans to conduct on the growth of the Army. 

The provision would also add a similar reporting requirement 

with respect to the proposal in the fiscal year 2008 budget request 

to expand the size of the Marine Corps by 27,000 personnel. This 

report would include an analysis of a proposal under consideration 

by the Marine Corps to expand the training range at Marine Corps 

Base Twentynine Palms, California. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

580 

Consolidation of real property provisions without substantive change (sec. 2835) 

The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 

the real property authorities provided under sections 2663 and 

2677 of title 10, United States Code. This provision was requested 

by the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle D—Base Closure and Realignment 

Niagara Air Reserve Base, New York, basing report (sec. 

2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional defense 

committees on the current and future missions planned for Niagara 

Air Reserve Base in Niagara, New York. 

Subtitle E—Land Conveyances 

Land conveyance, Lynn Haven Fuel Depot, Lynn Haven, 

Florida (sec. 2851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to convey, for consideration, a parcel of 

approximately 40 acres, including real property, at the Lynn Haven 

Fuel Depot in Lynn Haven, Florida. The committee expects the 

consideration received by the Air Force to approximate the fair 

market value of the property to be conveyed. 

Modification to land conveyance authority, Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina (sec. 2852) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 2836 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) to authorize the Secretary of the 

Army to convey without consideration to Harnett County, North 

Carolina, a parcel of real property totaling 137 acres at Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, for educational purposes and the construction of 

public school structures. The provision would also authorize the 

Secretary to require the County to cover administrative and other 

costs for the conveyance. 

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction, GSA property, 

Springfield, Virginia (sec. 2853) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to 

transfer control of a parcel of property adjacent to the Springfield 

metro station in Springfield, Virginia to the Secretary of the Army 

in return for fair market value compensation from the Army. The 

compensation provided by the Army could be provided through a 

combination of property or services. The property transferred to the 

Army would become part of Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

The committee believes the use of this GSA site to accommodate 

a portion of the workforce relocating to Fort Belvoir under the Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process would greatly benefit the 

Army and the workforce by allowing a much greater use of public 

transportation. The committee believes that the relocation of Washmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

581 

ington Headquarters Service employees to this site should be given 

priority consideration. The committee is aware that the parties 

may be able to reach an agreement on such a transfer under current law, but that the provision recommended by the committee 

would provide additional benefits and authorities. The committee 

urges the Army and the GSA to assess the terms and conditions 

available under current law and those available under this legislation and conclude an agreement that is fair to both parties as 

quickly as possible. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Report on condition of schools under jurisdiction of Department of Defense Education Activity (sec. 2861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report by March 1, 2008 on the condition of schools under 

the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense Education Activity 

(DODEA). 

The committee is concerned that the recent and proposed 

amounts of investment for the maintenance, repair, and recapitalization of DODEA school facilities are not adequate to sustain acceptable conditions for the education of the dependents of military 

personnel. In addition, the committee is concerned that the proposed amounts for the construction of new schools and the elimination of temporary trailers are inadequate to address the requirements resulting from the 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure process, the Global Defense Realignment Plan, and initiatives 

by the Army and Marine Corps to increase their respective end 

strengths. 

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to establish standards for acceptable sizes and conditions of DODEA school 

facilities, to assess the existing inventory of facilities, and to develop a master plan and investment strategy to quickly correct 

identified deficiencies. Finally, this provision would require the 

Secretary to submit this plan to the congressional defense committees to facilitate further oversight and diligence to ensure the timely investment of resources to bring the entire DODEA school system up to acceptable standards. 

Repeal of requirement for study and report on impact to 

military readiness of proposed land management 

changes on public lands in Utah (sec. 2862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a reporting requirement and associated restriction contained in section 

2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2000 (Public Law 106–65). This provision of law restricted the actions of the Department of the Interior until the Secretary of Defense submitted a report. The Department of Defense has failed, for 

over 6 years, to submit this report, and has not given the committee any indication the report will ever be submitted. The committee does not believe it is fair for one government agency to restrict the actions of another agency indefinitely simply through inaction. Furthermore, circumstances have changed in the intermmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

582 

vening years, and the committee sees no further need for this restriction. 

Additional project in Rhode Island (sec. 2863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

terms and conditions applicable to an Army Corps of Engineers 

project in Rhode Island contained in section 2866 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to an additional project in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. 

Items of Special Interest 

Host nation burdensharing 

The committee notes that the United States Government has entered into separate agreements with the Governments of the Republic of Korea and Japan to share the costs of relocating United 

States military forces away from urban areas onto new bases to be 

constructed over the next 5 years. In Korea, two initiatives to consolidate over 14,000 U.S. military personnel, 11,000 family members, and 9,000 other civilians at Camp Humphreys from 59 smaller locations and the U.S. Army post in Seoul will cost approximately $9.0 billion through fiscal year 2012. In Japan, over 8,000 

U.S. marines and their families are planned to be relocated from 

Okinawa to Guam by 2015 at a current estimated cost of over 

$10.0 billion. 

For both countries, the United States Government currently 

maintains cost sharing arrangements for the sustainment and support of U.S. forces contributing to the common defense of each 

country. In Korea, for non-personnel stationing costs of U.S. forces, 

the U.S. goal is a 50–50 cost sharing arrangement for the total estimated amount of $1.8 billion annually. Unfortunately, the Korean 

Government’s contribution fell short in 2006, funding only 38 percent of the total costs, and the contribution for 2007 is expected to 

be 41 percent for a total of $770.0 million. The Government of 

Japan contributes approximately $4.0 billion annually for the support and operations of U.S. forces stationed throughout Japan and 

on Okinawa. 

The committee is concerned that host nation plans to share costs 

specifically for the initiatives to relocate U.S. forces in each country 

will be funded from amounts already agreed to in existing burdensharing arrangements. Since these amounts are required to sustain 

the entirety of U.S. forces in each country, the net effect of this arrangement would be to defer or cancel other U.S. forces mission 

critical requirements in each country while host nation funding is 

diverted to pay for the relocations. The committee is concerned that 

this deferment would result in either a decrease in the readiness 

and mission effectiveness of forces in each country, or an increase 

of requirements to be funded through U.S. Department of Defense 

appropriations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 

December 31, 2007 that details the sources of funds to be used to 

fund the relocation of U.S. forces in the Republic of Korea and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

583 

Japan, by year, through completion of each initiative as well as the 

anticipated costs each year to sustain remaining forces and the expected contribution from the host nation to share in these costs. 

The committee further directs the Secretary to assess the impact 

on the readiness, training, and operations of U.S. forces stationed 

in each country of any deferment of facility and support requirements as a result of the funding proposed to be provided by the 

host nation in each agreement for the relocation of U.S. forces to 

be from amounts provided in existing burden-sharing arrangements. 

Military investment strategy in facilities that support training for military operations in urban terrain 

The committee continues to be concerned that the current range 

and facilities and infrastructure supporting U.S. military forces 

around the world for military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) 

does not comprehensively simulate the type of environment encountered by military units in the battlefield. This concern remains 

despite a proliferation of military construction projects over the 

past 5 years to construct new MOUT facilities and shoot houses. 

In addition, the committee believes that the current practice for the 

development and construction by each military service of MOUT 

complexes to serve their specific training requirements does not 

adequately account for the battlefield integration of joint operations 

and combined arms. 

The committee is aware that, in response to consistent congressional oversight, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness established on April 13, 2007 a formal process to synchronize individual Department of Defense (DOD) Component efforts and to establish policies and responsibilities for evaluating 

and certifying military construction projects to upgrade existing or 

to construct new urban training facilities. The committee commends the Secretary of Defense’s initiative to establish the Urban 

Training Facilities Review Group (URFRG) responsible for the implementation of the DOD policy to evaluate all proposals for new 

construction or modifications to MOUT complexes. Another positive 

step is the formal distinction of MOUT’s that acknowledges the difference between regional urban training facilities to serve as national assets for complex large unit maneuvers and operations involving integrated components, and local urban training facilities 

to support individual and small unit basic skills training. But despite this progress, the committee notes that the Department still 

lacks a joint, future- year plan to combine resources from all components to construct and sustain a national infrastructure consisting of a varied range of MOUT complexes offering military 

units of all sizes, and from all components, a series of options to 

accomplish critical combined arms training in realistic settings 

truly simulating the atmosphere and conditions of a challenging 

urban battlefield. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to use 

the framework recently adopted to develop a comprehensive joint 

investment strategy, including an integrated priority list, to address the combined arms training needs and challenges of the 

warfighter for 21st century urban operations. The Secretary would 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

584 

then be able to certify that military construction projects to construct MOUT complexes are in compliance with the adopted investment strategy to ensure the most efficient use of resources to establish and maintain this critical asset. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing the MOUT facility investment strategy by 

March 1, 2008. 

Naval master jet basing 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) continues to be inundated with requests to reconsider decisions made by the 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) Commission, which were approved by the President of the 

United States and reviewed by Congress without further action in 

November 2005. These requests are made without regard to the resources and manpower required within the military services to 

faithfully and fully respond with the required information. Furthermore, the requests serve to undermine the intent and integrity of 

the 2005 BRAC process by requiring the military services to justify 

decisions made by an independent commission, which was established by Congress to reduce the political influence on DOD’s efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its domestic basing. 

As an example, the Secretary of the Navy was recently encouraged to assess the viability and costs of relocating the east coast 

master jet base from Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia to 

numerous other locations around the country. This request came 

after the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations 

stated in testimony to the Committee on Armed Services in the 

House of Representatives on March 1, 2007 that ‘‘[t]he service is 

committed to staying at Oceana as long as these things continue 

to go well.’’ 

The committee notes that DOD previously conducted an assessment of naval master jet bases in 2004 in preparation of recommendations submitted to the BRAC Commission in May 2005. 

At that point, the Department recommended no realignment or closure actions for the master jet base at NAS Oceana. The BRAC 

Commission further studied alternate locations for the master jet 

base and also concluded that no viable alternative existed within 

the current inventory of Navy and Marine Corps installations. Finally, the Chief of Naval Operations received a report on December 

9, 2005, entitled ‘‘Master Jet Base Assessment,’’ which assessed 

NAS Oceana to have the highest score for operational training support due to its ‘‘proximity to the offshore training areas and ranges 

a Master Jet Base requires.’’ 

The 2005 Defense BRAC Commission did recommend a series of 

actions to be undertaken by the local community around NAS 

Oceana to control encroachment upon the airfield. As the Navy 

leadership indicated to the Committee on Armed Services in the 

House of Representatives, these actions have been successful to 

date in establishing a cooperative relationship between the community and the Navy for the preservation of safe flying operations at 

NAS Oceana, and, if continued, will allow for compatible airfield 

operations into the future. Therefore, a request to the Secretary of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

585 

the Navy to readdress a decision of the 2005 Defense BRAC round 

in order to satisfy parochial interests is not in the best interests 

of the United States Navy or the Department of Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, if 

deciding to conduct the study, to expend the absolute minimal 

amount of manpower and resources necessary to satisfy the request 

to assess, once again, basing alternatives for naval air jet basing 

on the east coast of the United States. The committee also directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the congressional defense 

committees, prior to the commencement of the study, an estimate 

of the cost to satisfy the request, and a list of the activities deferred or cancelled in order to direct manpower and resources to 

the request. Furthermore, this committee strongly encourages the 

Secretary of the Navy to include in the Navy’s assessment, as required, a review of the actions taken to date by the Commonwealth 

of Virginia and the community of Virginia Beach to work collaboratively with the Navy to proactively address encroachment concerns at NAS Oceana, with the intent that this review will serve 

as a positive example to the local communities around the country 

supporting naval and Marine Corps aviation operations. 

Temporary facilities 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) continues to allow the proliferation on military installations 

worldwide of the use of non-permanent or temporary facilities, defined as having a useful design life of less than 25 years. The military services are using temporary structures to respond to the increased operational pace of our military and the realignment of 

U.S. forces, including the modular conversion of the U.S. Army. 

The committee also notes that the DOD is not adhering to internal 

policy requiring the approval of the use of temporary facilities only 

as an interim solution and accompanied by a plan for replacement 

with permanent facilities as quickly as possible. Temporary facilities do not offer the same level of durability, security, and safety 

from severe climatic events. The potential that non-permanent facilities would eventually be considered an acceptable working or 

living standard increases the risk over time of possible harm to 

military and DOD civilian personnel due to less sturdy construction. 

The committee is also concerned about the use of procurement or 

operation and maintenance funding to lease or acquire temporary 

facilities. The practice of using a service contract to lease space in 

temporary buildings provided by a contractor on a military installation can be viewed as a deliberate attempt to circumvent federal 

statutes pertaining to the authorization of military construction. In 

addition, entering into a lease of non-permanent, temporary space 

with an option to purchase the building is equally problematic 

when it leads to overpayment for an inadequate facility over its life 

cycle. The committee is also concerned that the initial costs of acquiring and installing non-permanent facilities are eclipsed by increased sustainment requirements over the life cycle of the facility. 

These costs may not be readily apparent as they are included in 

a service contract or lease of a temporary building. In addition, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

586 

when temporary facilities are replaced by permanent facilities, the 

taxpayer ends up paying twice. 

Therefore, in order for this committee to provide diligent oversight on the use of temporary facilities, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD–ATL) is directed to report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the use 

of non-permanent, temporary facilities within the Department of 

Defense. Specifically, the Under Secretary shall report on: (1) a list 

of the acquisition or leasing actions of temporary facilities in each 

service over the past 5 years; (2) amounts spent on temporary facilities in the following categories: (a) operation and maintenance 

funding obligated in service contracts; (b) operation and maintenance funding obligated solely for non-permanent, temporary facility construction or procurement; (c) operation and maintenance 

funding obligated for leases of non-permanent, temporary facilities; 

and (d) procurement funding spent to procure non-permanent, temporary facilities; (3) the plan for the construction of permanent facilities to replace each temporary facility acquired or leased in the 

DOD inventory to include project title, planned budget year, and 

estimated cost; and (4) the number of non-permanent, temporary 

facilities previously leased by the Department or the military services that were later purchased, and the costs associated with these 

arrangements. The Under Secretary shall include within the report 

recommendations for improvements, as appropriate, in each area 

reported on. Non-permanent or temporary facilities used overseas 

at forward operating sites or cooperative security locations are exempted from this reporting requirement. 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to analyze and report on the findings of the Under Secretary 

90 days after the receipt of the Under Secretary’s report. The GAO 

may conduct independent research, make independent findings, 

and make independent recommendations as required. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(587) 

TITLE XXIX—WAR-RELATED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary 

The committee bill would fund the $752.7 million requested by 

the Department of Defense for military construction projects for the 

Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The President’s budget also requested, as emergency funding, 

$169.1 million in military construction funds for projects for the 

Department of the Navy. However, because those projects were inside the United States and related to the proposal to increase the 

size of the Marine Corps rather than to operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, the committee has authorized funding for those projects 

in title XXII of this Act. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

588 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 661 35737.282
589 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 662 35737.283
590 

Authorized war-related Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

war-related military construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan 

for the Army for fiscal year 2008. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorizations of war-related military construction appropriations, Army (sec. 2902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for war-related military construction projects of the 

Army authorized for construction for fiscal year 2008 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for the Army. The 

project list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(591) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2008, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry 

out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act 

(Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in four categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); (2) 

defense environmental cleanup; (3) other defense activities; and (4) 

defense nuclear waste disposal. 

The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the 

Department totaled $15.9 billion, a less than 1 percent increase 

above the fiscal year 2007 appropriated level. Of the total amount 

requested: 

(1) $9.4 billion is for NNSA, of which 

(a) $6.5 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $1.7 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; 

(c) $808.2 million is for naval reactors; and 

(d) $394.7 is for the Office of the Administrator; 

(2) $5.4 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; 

(3) $764.0 million is for other defense activities; and 

(4) $292.0 million is for defense nuclear waste disposal. 

The budget request also included $5.9 million within energy supply. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget requested $50.0 million in war-related funding for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities. 

The committee recommends $15.9 billion for atomic energy defense activities at the Department, a decrease of $5.0 million below 

the budget request. 

Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: 

(1) $9.5 billion for NNSA, of which 

(a) $6.5 billion is for weapons activities, a decrease of $39.1 

million below the budget request; 

(b) $1.8 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, including the fiscal year 2008 funds requested for war-remmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

592 

lated funding, an increase of $87.0 above the combined budget 

request; (c) $808.2 million is for naval reactors, the amount of the 

budget request; and (d) $399.7 million is for the Office of the Administrator, an 

increase of $5.0 million above the budget request; (2) $5.4 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities, an increase of $47.0 million above the budget request; (3) $663.1 million for other defense activities, a decrease of 

$100.9 million below the budget request; and (4) $242.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease of $50.0 million below the budget request. 

The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a reduc- tion of $5.9 million. 

The following table summarizes the budget request and the authorizations: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

593 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 667 35737.284
594 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 668 35737.285
595 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 669 35737.286
596 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 670 35737.287
597 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 671 35737.288
598 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 672 35737.289
599 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 673 35737.290
600 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 674 35737.291
601 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 675 35737.292
602 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 676 35737.293
603 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 677 35737.294
604 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 678 35737.295
605 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 679 35737.296
606 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 680 35737.297
607 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 681 35737.298
608 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 682 35737.299
609 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 683 35737.300
610 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 684 35737.301
611 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 685 35737.302
612 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 686 35737.303
613 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 687 35737.304
614 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 688 35737.305
615 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 689 35737.306
616 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 690 35737.307
617 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a total of $9.5 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal 

year 2008 for the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to national security. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $6.5 billion for weapons activities, a decrease of $39.1 million below the budget request. The committee 

authorizes the following activities: $1.5 billion for directed stockpile 

work; $1.8 billion for campaigns; $1.6 billion for readiness in the 

technical base; $215.6 million for the secure transportation asset; 

$171.7 million for nuclear weapons incidence response; $943.5 million for safeguards and security; $293.7 million for facilities and infrastructure recapitalization; and, $17.5 million for environmental 

projects and operations. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $1.5 billion for directed stockpile work, an increase of $66.3 million above the amount of the budget 

request. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to support planned life extension programs and the 

reliable replacement warhead. This account also includes fabrication and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies, 

weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and support equipment. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for 

weapons dismantlements to sustain the pace of dismantlements. 

The committee congratulates the NNSA on its Pantex throughput 

initiative, which has maintained nuclear operating safety and resulted in more efficient operations. Funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) is reduced by $43.0 million and is discussed later in this report. The committee recommends a reduction 

of $60.0 million for the W–76 life extension program. The reduction 

brings the funding for the W–76 life extension program to the fiscal 

year 2008 funding level that was planned in fiscal year 2007. The 

additional funds were included in the budget request to accelerate 

the W–76 life extension. The committee supports the W–76 life extension program, but sees no justification for an accelerated program. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $1.8 billion for campaigns, a decrease of $114.6 million below the amount of the budget request. 

The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving 

the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and 

the weapons production plants. Each campaign is focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the nuclear stockpile without 

full-scale underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form 

the scientific underpinning of the Department’s certification that 

the stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear 

weapons testing. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

618 

The reductions in the engineering campaigns reflect a shift in 

funds that were requested for the RRW but were included in the 

engineering campaigns, from the engineering campaigns to the 

RRW account. The committee also recommends an increase of $9.7 

million in the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield campaign for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) to fully fund the national ignition campaign, consistent with the approved baseline 

plan. The committee supports the goal of ignition in 2010 and 

urges the NNSA to utilize the NIF as soon as possible to conduct 

stockpile stewardship experiments. 

Readiness in the technical base 

The committee recommends $1.6 billion for readiness in the technical base and facilities (RTBF), a decrease of $13.2 million below 

the budget request. This account funds facilities and infrastructure 

in the nuclear weapons complex to ensure the operational readiness of the complex and includes construction funding for new facilities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $36.8 million for deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs at Pantex, including 

operations of facilities and critical infrastructure and nuclear safety 

upgrades, including replacement of nuclear facility hoists and high 

pressure fire loop lead-ins. The committee further recommends a 

$50.0 million decrease in the Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility 

Replacement project (CMRR), Project 04–D–125, at the Los Alamos 

National Laboratory as a result of changing project requirements 

of the nuclear facility component of the CMRR. The NNSA has 

taken a pause in the design activities for the nuclear facility component of the CMRR while continuing with the design of the radiological laboratory. 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $215.6 million for the secure transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The secure 

transportation asset is responsible for the transportation of nuclear 

weapons, weapons materials and components, and other materials 

requiring safe and secure transport. The committee commends the 

secure transportation asset and its federal agents for increasing the 

number of secure convoys in recent years, under constrained funding. The committee is aware that workload requirements for the secure transportation asset will escalate significantly as the Department proceeds with the consolidation of its nuclear materials and 

deals with increased weapons dismantlements. The committee 

urges the DOE and the NNSA to budget adequate funding to undertake this important activity. The committee is concerned that as 

the workload increases the NNSA maintains a robust training program, which is essential to the long-term effectiveness of the federal agents. 

Nuclear weapons incident response 

The committee recommends $171.7 million for nuclear weapons 

incident response, an increase of $10.0 million above the budget request, to address shortfalls in the ability to attribute an incident 

to a state or non-state actor. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

619 

Safeguards and security 

The committee recommends $943.5 million for weapons safe- guards and security, an increase of $62.4 million above the budget 

request. The committee recommends the additional funds to address training and equipment shortages at many of the NNSA 

sites. 

Sites that store and use weapons grade fissile materials must 

meet the defined, rigorous Design Basis Threat (DBT) standards 

for security. The committee urges the NNSA to work with the DOE 

to consolidate these nuclear materials at a minimum number of 

sites. The consolidation effort should go forward independent of any 

plans to restructure the nuclear weapons complex. The committee 

questions the wisdom of moving nuclear materials numerous times, 

which appears to be the current plan. The committee continues to 

be concerned with the lack of results coming from the Department’s 

nuclear materials consolidation coordinating committee and the 

length of time needed to decide on and implement a comprehensive 

consolidation. The extended delay can only serve to reduce the security posture in the long-term. As a result, the NNSA and the 

DOE must either invest significant resources to maintain the required level of security, or defer the necessary upgrades to meet 

the DBT at sites that are to be de-inventoried, thus calling into 

question the security posture at those sites. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable or responsible. 

The NNSA has initiated the Complex 2030 study to review the 

nuclear weapons complex and decide on the design for the complex 

of the future. The committee is troubled by the scope and timing 

of the study and the options under consideration. The study does 

not include any options that would significantly reduce the size of 

the complex or that would consolidate operations and NNSA sites. 

The committee urges the NNSA to expand the scope of the Complex 2030 study to look at site consolidation, including the possibility of closing NNSA sites that are surplus to mission needs. 

Facilities and infrastructure 

The committee recommends $293.7 million for the Facilities and 

Infrastructure Recapitalization program (FIRP), the amount of the 

budget request. FIRP is a capital renewal program which was established to reduce the approximately $2.4 billion backlog of NNSA 

deferred maintenance which developed during the 1980s and 

1990s. While the FIRP program has been successful, the committee 

is concerned that at some sites, particularly the Pantex site, the 

ongoing routine maintenance activities are once again lagging and 

a new backlog of deferred maintenance is being created. 

Environmental projects and operations 

The committee recommends $17.5 million for environmental 

projects and operations, the amount of the budget request. 

The committee was cautious in its support of the creation of the 

environmental projects and operations account and office, and was 

concerned that activities that are appropriately within the scope of 

the Defense Environmental Management (EM) program would be 

transferred to the NNSA. The DOE fiscal year 2008 budget request 

made clear that the EM program will continue to assume responsimmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

620 

bility for dismantlement of excess contaminated facilities. As a result, the committee believes that this new organization is a valuable addition to support long-term NNSA environmental stewardship responsibilities. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program 

The committee recommends $1.8 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program, an increase of $87.0 million above the 

total amount of the fiscal year base budget request and the amount 

requested in fiscal year 2008 war-related funding. The National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has management and 

oversight responsibilities for the nonproliferation programs of the 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program. The committee recommends funding for these programs as follows: $315.3 million for 

nonproliferation and verification research and development—an increase of $50.0 million for next generation nuclear detection technologies, the nuclear explosion monitoring program, and technologies to support improved nuclear material forensic capabilities, 

including a nuclear forensic library, research on improvised nuclear 

explosive devices, and new nuclear energy production concepts; 

$137.9 million for nonproliferation and international security—an 

increase of $8.0 million for global initiatives for proliferation prevention, and an increase of $5.0 million for international regimes 

and agreements, including technical assistance to the International 

Atomic Energy Agency for enhanced safeguards activities; $381.8 

million for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation—an increase of $10.0 million for the second line of defense 

core program; $195.6 million for elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production—an increase of $14.0 million to accelerate shutdown of the plutonium producing reactor at Zheleznogorsk, Russia; 

$609.5 million for fissile materials disposition—the amount of the 

request, including a $14.0 million reduction in U.S. surplus materials disposition and a $14.0 million increase in Russian surplus 

materials disposition for the U.S./Russia partnership in Gas Turbine-Modular Helium reactor technology; and $169.6 million for the 

global threat reduction initiative—the amount of the budget request, including funds in the fiscal year 2008 war-related funding 

budget request. 

Nuclear Forensics 

In the event that a non-state actor would ever detonate a nuclear 

device or explode a dirty bomb in the United States, correctly 

ascertaining the responsible party would be a difficult task, complicated by the fact that the nuclear material or weapon used 

would most likely be stolen. The committee supports the efforts in 

the NNSA, in conjunction with the Air Force and the intelligence 

community, to develop the tools to determine the source of the materials or weapons. There are two key aspects to successful 

forensics and attribution: technical capabilities to assess and collect 

samples, and the ability to compare them with material of known 

origin. The committee includes additional funding for research and 

development to develop the necessary collection and analytic capabilities, both pre-detonation and post-detonation, and to support 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

621 

the development of the Department of Energy (DOE) forensic library of nuclear materials. 

An additional element of the nuclear forensics capability is the 

nuclear explosion monitoring program. Attention to these technologies has lagged in recent years. New capabilities for ground 

and space monitoring technologies, as well as analytic capabilities 

are needed to detect low level, uncoupled, clandestine underground 

nuclear explosions. Such technologies would include hydroacoustic 

and signature element detection capabilities as well as other technologies. 

Radiation Detection 

The committee also recommends additional funding for work on 

basic nuclear detection technologies. The NNSA is responsible for 

all of the U.S. Government’s basic nuclear and radiation detection 

research and development. Today the ability to detect the most 

dangerous nuclear materials, weapons-grade plutonium and highly 

enriched uranium, is limited. The consequences of a terrorist using 

these materials in a nuclear explosive device would be catastrophic. 

The committee believes that additional effort should be focused on 

research that could detect these largely undetectable materials. 

Fissile Materials Disposition program 

The committee notes its continuing and serious concerns regarding the Russian and U.S. Fissile Materials Disposition programs. 

The program consists of three separate functional areas, the Mixed 

Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility, the plutonium pit disassembly facility, and the waste solidification facility. The MOX facility total project cost is estimated by the NNSA to be $4.7 billion, 

and the pit disassembly and waste solidification facilities total 

project cost (TPC) is estimated to be $2.7 billion. All of these 

projects have focused on the effort to disposition 34 metric tons of 

plutonium over a 13–year period without respect to the need to disposition all the many additional tons of excess plutonium that will 

be excess as the nuclear weapons stockpile draws down significantly in the future. Even with the $7.4 billion TPC for the disposition facilities there are still tons of plutonium that are not sufficiently pure to be used in the MOX process. The fate of this plutonium is unknown and not included in the $7.4 billion TPC. Given 

all of the other demands on the defense budget, the committee is 

becoming more concerned about the entire approach to disposition. 

The committee also recognizes that long-term storage is not a good 

long-term option, given cost, security and environmental concerns. 

The committee notes that the NNSA has failed to conduct an 

independent cost estimate of the MOX facility and directs the 

NNSA to conduct an independent cost estimate of the pit disassembly and waste solidification facilities. 

The committee further notes that the United States and Russia 

have still not finalized an agreement whereby each country agrees 

to complete disposition of the original 34 metric tons of excess plutonium by a date certain. 

The committee directs the Department of Energy to look at all 

of the plutonium that is currently excess or that could be declared 

excess in the next 15 years and develop a complete plan that inmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

622 

cludes a comprehensive, coordinated disposition path for all of the 

excess plutonium. The plan should be provided to the congressional 

defense committees by March 1, 2008. 

International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear fuel bank 

The committee recommends a provision that would recommend $50.0 million for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 

nuclear fuel bank. As described by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, the fuel bank would have four key aspects: 

(1) provide assurance of supply of reactor technology and nuclear fuel; 

(2) accept a time-limited moratorium (of perhaps 5 to 10 

years) on new uranium enrichment and plutonium separation 

facilities—at the very least for countries that do not currently 

have such technologies; 

(3) establish a framework for multilateral management and 

control of the ‘‘back end’’ of the fuel cycle (i.e. spent fuel reprocessing and waste disposal); and 

(4) create a similar framework for multilateral management 

and control of the ‘‘front end’’ of the fuel cycle (i.e. enrichment 

and fuel production). 

The committee notes that the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) 

has contributed $50.0 million to the IAEA to jump-start the nuclear 

fuel bank and to help create a low enriched uranium stockpile to 

support nations that make the sovereign choice not to build indigenous nuclear fuel cycle capabilities. This grant to the IAEA was 

contingent on two conditions: that the IAEA takes the necessary 

actions to approve establishment of this reserve, and that one or 

more member states contribute an additional $100.0 million in 

funding or an equivalent value of low enriched uranium to jumpstart the reserve. The committee believes that the U.S. should lead 

the way and match the NTI funding. 

Naval reactors 

The committee recommends $808.2 million for Naval reactors, 

the amount of the budget request. 

Office of the Administrator 

The committee recommends $399.7 million for program direction 

for the NNSA, an increase of $5.0 million above the the budget request, to support increased nonproliferation program activities. 

This account provides program direction funding for all elements of 

NNSA, except for the Naval reactors program and the secure transportation asset. 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $5.4 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 

2008 for environmental cleanup activities, an increase of $47.0 million above the budget request. 

The committee recommends an increase of $37.0 million above 

the budget request for 2035 completion projects at the Savannah 

River Site that would reduce long-term costs, avoid the possible asmmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

623 

sessment of fines and penalties for failing to meet enforceable milestones, and would allow the site to package and ship additional 

transuranic waste. The committee also recommends an increase of 

$10.0 million above the budget request for technology development 

to address new technologies for treating liquid wastes and increasing the ability to remove additional sludge from high level radioactive waste tanks cost effectively. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$663.1 million for the Department of Energy for other defense activities, $100.9 million below the budget request. 

Health, safety, and security 

The committee recommends $427.4 million for health, safety, and 

security, $1.9 million below the budget request. The committee 

notes that in late 2006 the Department of Energy established a 

new Office of Health, Safety, and Security, combining elements of 

the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health and the Office of Security and Safety Performance Assessment. The committee remains 

concerned that this important office, which is responsible for a 

broad range of oversight, was not established under the direction 

of an assistant secretary. This new account supports the operation 

of this new office. 

Office of Legacy Management 

The committee recommends $159.1 million for the Office of Legacy Management, the amount of the budget request. The Office of 

Legacy Management is responsible for ensuring pension and benefit continuity to the Department’s former contractor work force. 

This work force was formerly employed at seven of the Department’s sites at which cleanup has now been completed. As additional sites are cleaned up and closed down, and their benefit programs transferred to the Office of Legacy Management, the budget 

for the Office of Legacy Management is expected to increase sharply. The committee encourages the Department to avail itself of the 

ready expertise existing in the private sector specializing in administering health and pension benefit programs instead of ‘‘reinventing the wheel’’ inside the Department. 

Nuclear energy 

The committee recommends $75.9 million for nuclear energy, the 

amount of the budget request. 

Defense-related administrative support 

The budget request included $99.0 million for defense-related administrative support. The committee recommends no funds for 

these activities. The committee views these administrative support 

activities as inherently part of the nondefense activities of the Department and resists their categorization as defense-related. The 

committee does not support the use of atomic energy defense funds 

for nondefense activities. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

624 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

The committee recommends $4.6 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount of the budget request. 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $242.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease of 

$50.0 million below the budget request. The committee notes that 

the Department of Energy is currently unable to provide a predicted timetable for either when a Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

license for the geologic repository would be granted, or a prediction 

of when a repository might begin operating. In addition, there is 

uncertainty about the disposition of the administration’s legislative 

proposal that would permanently withdraw the land for the repository and would eliminate the administrative cap on the total 

amount of waste placed in the repository. The committee remains 

supportive of the effort to establish a geologic repository as delays 

in the repository delay the ability of the Defense Environmental 

Management program to complete its work with respect to high 

level waste and spent nuclear fuel, and increase the overall cost of 

cleanup. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Reliable Replacement Warhead program (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$195.1 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, a decrease of $43.0 million from the budget request. In addition, the provision would restrict the RRW program to activities in 

phase 2A and below and limit the funds that could be used in fiscal 

year 2008 for the RRW program to $195.1 million. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal year 

2008 for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) included a specific line item for the RRW that included $88.8 million. 

Additional funds for the RRW program were included in: the NNSA 

budget in the engineering campaigns, $86.4 million; the pit manufacturing and certification campaign, $37.9 million; and the readiness campaign, $25.0 million; for a total of $238.1 million. The 

budget request included funds that could be used for activities up 

to and including early phase 3 activities, although there was no 

specific request for phase 3 funding. 

The committee does not support RRW activities beyond the phase 

2A level at this time. Moreover, authorizing funds for the RRW 

phase 2A study does not signal support to manufacture or deploy 

an RRW. Phase 2A is at the beginning of the nuclear weapons acquisition process and the committee believes that many years of research are necessary before any such decision can be made or even 

meaningfully discussed. 

Section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) directed the Secretary of Energy 

to carry out an RRW program and established eight enumerated 

objectives. In November 2006, the NNSA completed a feasibility 

study for an RRW and in February 2007, the Nuclear Weapons 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

625 

Council (NWC) approved a candidate design and authorized the 

NNSA and the Navy to begin phase 2A of the nuclear weapons acquisition process to see if the objectives in section 3111 were 

achievable. 

The nuclear weapons acquisition is comprised of eight well-understood, numbered steps, referred to as phases (1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 

6, and 7), that cover the life cycle of a nuclear weapon. This process 

starts at phase 1, which is a concept development study, and ends 

with phase 7, which is retirement, storage, and dismantlement. 

Phase 2A, the phase that the provision recommended by the committee would authorize, is the design definition and cost study. 

Phase 3 is the full scale engineering development phase. This 

phase, like phase 2A and all subsequent phases, must be approved 

by the NWC, and the activities and funding must be specifically 

authorized and appropriated by Congress. 

The RRW as envisioned by the NNSA and the NWC would be a 

new warhead, designed to fit within a current weapon and delivery 

system, the Trident D–5 ballistic missile carried on the Trident ballistic missile submarines. The RRW design approved by the NWC 

is planned to replace the current W–76 warhead and meet the 

same military requirements as the W–76. As a new warhead, there 

are many policy questions, concerns, and issues that must be 

raised, discussed, and resolved before any decision can be made to 

move to phase 3 or beyond. The committee urges the administration to begin to address these policy issues while concurrently addressing the technical and cost issues for the RRW. 

The current nuclear weapons stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable and the Stockpile Stewardship program (SSP), established 15 

years ago, has been extremely successful. With the new computational and analytic tools developed under the SSP, nuclear weapons 

scientists and engineers are able to understand nuclear weapons 

performance and behavior with more fidelity than was possible 

prior to the cessation of nuclear weapons testing. With the experience gained through the SSP, these weapons scientists and engineers have high confidence that the nuclear weapons could be 

maintained through stockpile life extension programs well into the 

next decade. 

The life extension programs are designed to anticipate, identify, 

and fix or replace the non-nuclear components and fix, if necessary, 

the nuclear components. Most of the non-nuclear components have 

a relatively limited lifetime and will eventually have to be replaced 

as part of a life extension program. 

Currently the life extension programs are not designed to replace 

the nuclear components, the plutonium, primary and the uranium 

secondary, and have somewhat limited latitude with respect to the 

manner in which non-nuclear components can be replaced with 

more modern components. 

Recent studies have determined that one of the most troublesome 

nuclear components of a nuclear weapon, the plutonium primary, 

or pit, will have minimum lifetimes of at least 85 years. Given that 

most of the weapons in the stockpile were put into the inventory 

between 1960 and 1989, this determination is particularly important in making future stockpile decisions. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

626 

The NNSA is, however, on the verge of regaining the ability to 

make an identical pit that could be used to replace a pit in an existing weapon. Even if this effort is successful, a life extension program would be limited to replacing a pit with an identical pit. 

An RRW would not be so constrained, as the design approved by 

the NWC would incorporate new nuclear and non-nuclear components. As such it could be designed to be more safe and secure, to 

avoid many hazardous materials during manufacture, to be periodically dismantled, and to eliminate any need to resume testing. 

Equally, if not more important, an RRW would enable substantial 

reductions in the total number of nuclear weapons in the stockpile 

by restoring confidence in the nuclear complex. Maintaining multiple levels of redundancy would no longer be necessary to ensure 

reliability, as is currently the case. Today the stockpile ensures reliability through redundant types of nuclear weapons and through 

redundant numbers of nuclear warheads. The result of these levels 

of redundancy is that there are between three and four nuclear 

warheads in some form of reserve for every deployed weapon. The 

RRW could have the potential to shrink these ratios to 1 to 1 or 

lower. 

In spite of these potential advantages, however, there are several 

potential draw backs to the RRW. A new warhead has not been 

placed in the inventory without testing since the earliest days of 

the nuclear weapons program. There is significant concern that 

placing a new, untested weapon in the inventory could reduce reliability or increase the possibility of a return to nuclear weapons 

testing. Some have suggested it is an option that should not even 

be considered. As a January 15, 2007, editorial in the New York 

Times questioned, ‘‘while experts debate whether the lab can really 

build a weapon without testing it, the more important question is 

whether any president would stake America’s security on an untested arsenal.’’ 

Historically, the United States has sought to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear weapons states by being 

the world leader for nonproliferation. Many critics and skeptics of 

the RRW, including former Senator Sam Nunn, are deeply concerned that if Congress gives a green light to this program, such 

an action will be ‘‘misunderstood by our allies, exploited by our adversaries, complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons . . . and make resolution of the Iran and North 

Korea challenges all the more difficult.’’ 

The idea of a new nuclear warhead and leadership in nonproliferation are distinctly at odds in the absence of additional 

steps and policies to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons, accelerate reductions in the size of the stockpile, formalize the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, strengthen the nonproliferation 

regime, and renew commitments to all aspects of the Treaty on the 

Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 

As Dr. Sidney Drell, a preeminent expert in nuclear weapons and 

policy, testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, ‘‘a 

clear decision on our long-term nuclear policy goals is needed in 

order to decide on the appropriate size and scope’’ of the new complex as well as the size of the stockpile and the role of nuclear 

weapons in U.S. defense planning. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

627 

The committee believes that the technical work must go forward 

apace with the policy discussion and before any decision on RRW 

development, manufacturing, or deployment. This dual track process must be undertaken cautiously, openly, and with the goals of 

the RRW clearly stated and well understood. Technical evaluations 

and conclusions must be reviewed by experts in the DOE laboratories, in the military services, and by outside experts. A consensus 

in the technical community is necessary to inform the policy discussion. There is no rush on either front. 

The committee believes that whether the future decision is to 

support or not to support an RRW, there may be opportunities presented through the technical work on the RRW to address and improve the safety and security of the existing stockpile as well as for 

an RRW. 

Before this country can collectively come to a thoughtful decision 

on the RRW, many questions must be answered. Today there are 

goals and objectives for the RRW, but no answers. Determining 

whether the goals can be met will be a daunting technical and policy challenge but the committee believes it is worth the effort to 

try, for now. 

The committee notes that section 1061 would direct the next administration to undertake a new nuclear posture review, one of the 

steps necessary to evaluate the RRW in a policy context. 

Limitation on availability of funds for Fissile Materials Disposition program (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Energy to certify to the congressional defense committees what portions of the fiscal year 2008 and prior fiscal years’ 

funding for the fissile materials disposition program will be obligated and expended in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, before any of 

the fiscal year 2008 funds are obligated or expended. In the event 

that any of the fiscal year 2008 funds will not be obligated in fiscal 

years 2008 or 2009, the provision would authorize the Secretary to 

use the fiscal year 2008 funds that would not be obligated in fiscal 

years 2008 and 2009 for fissile materials disposition to be obligated 

for any other nonproliferation program in which the funds could be 

obligated and expended in the 2 fiscal years. 

Modification of limitations on availability of funds for Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3120 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to strike the requirement for the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to review the earned value management system (EVMS) to be used by 

the construction contractor at the Department of Energy (DOE) 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization plant (WTP) under construction at the DOE Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. The provision would direct the Secretary of Energy to have the EVMS reviewed by an independent entity chosen by the Secretary. 

The committee has learned that subsequent to the passage of 

section 3120, the DCMA changed its approach to reviewing EVM 

systems. Furthermore, the committee believes that the change in 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

628 

approach is not practical for large, technically complex construction 

projects. The committee notes that the WTP is the largest construction project in the United States. A change in the EVMS at this 

late stage would delay the construction of the WTP and place the 

people and the environment in Washington State at prolonged risk 

of contamination from high level radioactive waste. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Nuclear test readiness (sec. 3121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

3152 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1996 (Public Law 104–06), as amended, and section 3113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 

108–136). The recommended provision would reconcile several competing provisions of legislation and report language and is consistent with current test readiness posture. The provision would retain the requirement for a test readiness report, which is due in 

every odd-numbered year, and allow the Secretary of Defense and 

the Secretary of Energy to establish the appropriate level of test 

readiness. In the most recent test readiness report, dated March 

2007, the Secretary of Energy reported that at the end of 2006, the 

Department of Energy had achieved a 24–month level of test readiness. 

Sense of Congress on the nuclear nonproliferation policy of 

the United States and the Reliable Replacement Warhead program (sec. 3122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would set forth the 

sense of the Congress that the United States should take a number 

of actions to restore its leadership in nonproliferation matters. 

These actions outlined in the provision should be taken or initiated 

before any decision is made to manufacture or deploy a reliable replacement warhead. 

Report on status of environmental management initiatives 

to accelerate the reduction of environmental risks and 

challenges posed by the legacy of the Cold War (sec. 

3123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report on the status of environmental management initiatives, and 

would expand the scope of the report to include the status of enforceable milestones and plans for the future. When the report is 

completed the Government Accountability Office would be allotted 

180 days to review and assess the required report and then submit 

a report setting forth the results of the review. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management 

program has taken significant steps to streamline and accelerate 

the rate of cleanup at DOE sites. In February 2002, the DOE completed a top-to-bottom review of the Environmental Management 

program that set out new approaches for cleanup. Congress received the first environmental status report in 2003. 

Some notable progress, such as the closure of the Rocky Flats, 

Fernald, and Columbus Plants has occurred in the last several 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

629 

years. Fiscal year 2008 marks the first year in which the DOE Environmental Management budget request does not include funds for 

any of these three sites. The committee notes that without the need 

to fund these sites, and with progress at other sites, the fiscal year 

2008 budget request is approximately $1.0 billion less than fiscal 

year 2006 funding. The committee believes that it is appropriate to 

get a wrap-up of the accomplishments in the 5 years since the last 

report and an estimate of what remains to be done. As the Department completes the report the committee would like the DOE to 

address the method and status of efforts to establish final cleanup 

and end-state standards. 

Comptroller General report on Department of Energy protective force management (sec. 3124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the 

security protection forces at Department of Energy (DOE) sites on 

which category I nuclear materials are maintained. 

The Department of Energy is in the process of changing the nature of its security protective forces from defense focused forces to 

offensive forces functioning in small, military-like, tactical units. 

These small tactical response units are necessary to meet the most 

recent Design Basis Threat issued by the DOE. 

Protective forces at DOE sites are civilians provided by contractors through individual contracts administered at each site. Both 

the contractors and the contracting mechanisms differ from site to 

site, with varying subcontractor and prime contractor arrangements. At a time when threats to nuclear materials and weapons 

are escalating, the committee wants to make sure that the protective forces are managed, trained, equipped, organized, and compensated in the most appropriate and cost-effective manner to ensure a continued high level of security at DOE sites. 

The committee notes that in April the guard force at the Pantex 

site went on strike on a variety of issues including issues associated with the change in approach to security. 

Technical amendments (sec. 3125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical amendments to the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 

2521 et seq.). 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

(631) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY 

BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$27.5 million—an increase of $5.0 million—to the budget request 

for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). The 

DNFSB has the responsibility to ensure that the health and safety 

of the public and workers at Department of Energy (DOE) defense 

nuclear facilities is adequately protected. 

Currently, the DNFSB is evaluating 25 defense nuclear facility 

design activities with a total project cost of about $20.0 billion. 

Many of these new facilities have significant safety and technical 

challenges, and are often first of a kind or one of a kind projects. 

Staffing for the DNFSB is authorized by statute at 150 full-time 

staff, but the DNFSB fiscal year 2008 budget request supports just 

98 full-time staff to ensure adequate protection of public health and 

safety of nuclear operations at all DOE defense nuclear facilities as 

well as the construction projects. The committee is concerned that 

the DNFSB is not sufficiently staffed to meet the challenges presented by the growth in DOE nuclear facility construction and nuclear operations. As a result, the committee believes that additional 

technical staff are needed. 

The committee notes that the statement of managers accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) directed the DOE and the 

DNFSB to submit a joint report to the congressional defense committees on efforts to ‘‘improve the timeliness of issues resolution, 

including recommendations, if any, for legislation that would 

strengthen and improve technical oversight of the Department’s 

nuclear design and operational activities’’ (H. Rept. 109–702). 

Eight months have elapsed since the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) 

was enacted and the DOE and DNFSB have yet to submit the required report. The committee directs the DOE and the DNFSB to 

submit the report no later than July 1, 2007. 

The committee finds the DNFSB quarterly reports, which were 

also required in the statement of managers, to be very useful and 

directs the DNFSB to continue those reports until October 1, 2008. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS

632 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 708 35737.308
633 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 709 35737.309
634 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 710 35737.310
635 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 711 35737.311
636 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 712 35737.312
637 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 713 35737.313
638 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 714 35737.314
639 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 715 35737.315
640 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 716 35737.316
641 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 717 35737.317
642 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 718 35737.318
643 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 719 35737.319
644 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 720 35737.320
645 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 721 35737.321
646 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 722 35737.322
647 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 723 35737.323
648 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 724 35737.324
649 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 725 35737.325
650 


mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUSInsert graphic folio 726 35737.326
651 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

By letter dated February 6, 2007, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed legislation ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 

for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 

military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.’’ The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 743 to the Committee 

on Armed Services on February 12, 2007. 

Executive Communication 743 is available for review at the committee. 

Committee Action 

The committee ordered reported a comprehensive original bill 

and a series of original bills for the Department of Defense, military construction and Department of Energy authorizations by 

voice vote. The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 was by unanimous rollcall 

vote, 25–0. 

The rollcall votes on motions and amendments to the bill which 

were considered during the course of the markup have been made 

public and are available at the committee. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2008. 

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 

Æ 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with MISCELLANEOUS