" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

109–89 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 1815 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including committee cost estimate] 

MAY 20, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

21–300 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2005

109–89 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 1815 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including committee cost estimate] 

MAY 20, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

KEN CALVERT, California 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan 

CATHY MCMORRIS, Washington 

MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

IKE SKELTON, Missouri 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

ROBERT S. RANGEL, Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Explanation of the Committee Amendments ........................................................ 1 

Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 2 

Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations .................................................. 2 

Summary of Authorization in the Bill ................................................................... 2 

Summary Table of Authorizations ...................................................................... 3 

Rationale for the Committee Bill ........................................................................... 11 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 14 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION .................... 15 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 15 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 15 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 17 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 17 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 20 

AH–64 modern signal processing unit ..................................................... 20 

High-altitude Army National Guard aviation training site ................... 20 

UH–60 aircraft wireless intercom system upgrade ................................ 20 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 21 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 21 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 24 

Advanced precision kill weapon system .................................................. 24 

Patriot system reporting requirements ................................................... 24 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 24 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 24 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 29 

Abrams tank modernization ..................................................................... 29 

Stryker tire second source qualification .................................................. 29 

Ammunition Procurement, Army .................................................................... 30 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 30 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 33 

Kansas army ammunition plant modern munitions enterprise ............ 33 

Lake City army ammunition plant .......................................................... 33 

M19 Modern demolition initiators ........................................................... 33 

Missile propellant/warhead chemical oxidizer recycling ........................ 34 

Rapid wall breaching kit ........................................................................... 34 

Small caliber ammunition manufacturer qualification .......................... 34 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 35 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 35 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 44 

AN/ARS–6A technology upgrade .............................................................. 44 

Best value procurement practices for tactical wheeled vehicles ............ 44 

Cartledge infuser ....................................................................................... 44 

Deployable power generation distribution system .................................. 45 

Heavy expanded mobility tactical truck light equipment transporter .. 45 

Nonsystem training devices ...................................................................... 45 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 46 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 46 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 51 

Crashworthy crew chief seats ................................................................... 51 

EA–6B modifications ................................................................................. 51 

Joint primary air training system ........................................................... 51 

P–3 modifications ...................................................................................... 52 

Shared reconnaissance pod logistics support .......................................... 52 

T–45 training system ................................................................................ 53 

Page

IV 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 53 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 53 

Item of Special Interest ................................................................................ 57 

Tomahawk missile ..................................................................................... 57 

Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps ........................................ 57 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 57 

Item of Special Interest ................................................................................ 60 

MN79 anti-personnel obstacle breaching system ................................... 60 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 60 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 60 

Item of Special Interest ................................................................................ 63 

Navy shipbuilding programs .................................................................... 63 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 64 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 64 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 73 

Joint threat emitter ................................................................................... 73 

Material handling equipment ................................................................... 73 

Mine sweeper re-engining ......................................................................... 73 

Naval tactical fiber switch system ........................................................... 74 

Special Operations swimmer/diver training craft ................................... 74 

Surveillance towed array sensor system twin-line towed arrays .......... 74 

Transportable anti-intrusion pontoon barrier system ............................ 74 

Ultrasonic maintenance tools ................................................................... 75 

National Defense Sealift Fund ........................................................................ 75 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 75 

Item of Special Interest ................................................................................ 75 

Maritime prepositioning ship lease buyout ............................................. 75 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 76 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 76 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 82 

Combat casualty care equipment upgrade .............................................. 82 

Family of construction equipment ........................................................... 82 

Marines tactical remote sensor system ................................................... 82 

Marines topographic equipment ............................................................... 82 

Night vision equipment ............................................................................. 83 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 83 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 83 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 89 

A–10 litening advanced targeting pod ..................................................... 89 

AN/ARS–6 V12 personnel locator system ................................................ 89 

C–17 ............................................................................................................ 89 

C–130 modifications .................................................................................. 90 

F–15E ......................................................................................................... 91 

F–16 bomb rack unit–57 ........................................................................... 91 

Global hawk ............................................................................................... 91 

Joint strike fighter .................................................................................... 92 

KC–130J and C–130J ................................................................................ 93 

Link 16 support and sustainment ............................................................ 93 

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle ........................................................... 94 

Senior scout ............................................................................................... 94 

U–2 senior year electro-optical system focal planes ............................... 95 

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force .............................................................. 96 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 96 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 98 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 98 

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 101 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 101 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 107 

Combat survivor radios ............................................................................. 107 

Digital airport surveillance radar and Department of Defense advanced automations system .................................................................. 107 

Force protection surveillance system ....................................................... 108 

General information technology ............................................................... 108 

Mobile approach control system ............................................................... 109 

Point of maintenance and combat ammunition system initiative ......... 109 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 110 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 110 

Page

V 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 115 

Chemical and biological defense procurement ........................................ 115 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 115 

Force protection ......................................................................................... 117 

Persistent unmanned air vehicle intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance below the brigade level ........................................................ 117 

Special Operations Forces intelligence systems ...................................... 118 

Special weapons observation reconnaissance direct action system ....... 118 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 119 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 119 

Sections 101-104—Authorization of Appropriations .................................. 119 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 119 

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority for UH–60M/MH–60 

Helicopters ................................................................................................. 119 

Section 112—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Apache Modernized 

Target Acquisition Designation Sights and Pilot Night Vision Sensors ............................................................................................................. 119 

Section 113—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Apache Block II 

Conversion ................................................................................................. 119 

Section 114—Acquisition Strategy for Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Programs .......................................................................................................... 119 

Section 115—Limitation on Army Modular Force Initiative ..................... 120 

Section 116—Contract Requirement for Objective Individual Combat 

Weapon-Increment One ............................................................................ 121 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 121 

Section 121—Virginia Class Submarine Program ...................................... 121 

Section 122—LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program ...... 121 

Section 123—Future Major Surface Combatant, Destroyer Type ............. 121 

Section 124—Littoral Combat Ship Program ............................................. 121 

Section 125—Authorization of Two Additional Arleigh Burke Class 

Destroyers .................................................................................................. 122 

Section 126—Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl 

Vinson ......................................................................................................... 122 

Section 127—Report on Propulsion System Alternatives for Surface 

Combatants ................................................................................................ 122 

Section 128—Aircraft Carrier Force Structure ........................................... 122 

Section 129—Contingent Transfer of Additional Funds for CVN–21 

Carrier Replacement Program ................................................................. 123 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 123 

Section 131—Multiyear Procurement Authority for C–17 Aircraft .......... 123 

Subtitle E—Joint and Multiservice Matters .................................................. 123 

Section 141—Requirement that all Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 

use Specified Standard Data Link ........................................................... 123 

Section 142—Limitation on Initiation of New Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

Systems ...................................................................................................... 123 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION ................ 124 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 124 

Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ....................................... 127 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 127 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 139 

Abrams improved track ............................................................................ 139 

Accelerated development of heavy-fuel turbine engine .......................... 139 

Advanced amputee treatment research and development ..................... 139 

Advanced battery technology initiative ................................................... 140 

Advanced carbon nanotechnology ............................................................ 140 

Advanced lightweight composite armor materials for ballistic impact 

and blast protection ............................................................................... 140 

Advanced weapons technology ................................................................. 141 

Aerostat joint project office ....................................................................... 141 

Applied communications and information networking ........................... 141 

Armored systems modernization .............................................................. 141 

Army medical peer-reviewed applied research and advanced technology development initiative ............................................................... 144 

Army space and missile defense architecture analysis program ........... 145 

Center for rotorcraft innovation ............................................................... 145 

Centers of excellence ................................................................................. 145 

Combat vehicle electronics ....................................................................... 146 

Page

VI 

Common remote operating weapon station ............................................. 146 

Communications and electronics cost module ......................................... 146 

Distributed common ground system ........................................................ 147 

Excalibur XM982 ....................................................................................... 148 

Explosive and narcotic detection devices ................................................. 148 

Fire support technology improvement program ...................................... 148 

Flexible display initiative ......................................................................... 149 

Gas-engine driven air conditioning system demonstrations .................. 149 

Geospatial information decision support-single integrated air picture . 149 

Handheld detection systems ..................................................................... 150 

Human systems integration ..................................................................... 150 

Hydrogen proton exchange membrane .................................................... 151 

Hyperspectral longwave imager for the tactical environment ............... 151 

Integrated digital environment service model ........................................ 151 

Joint Common Missile ............................................................................... 152 

JP–8 soldier fuel cell ................................................................................. 152 

Lean munitions .......................................................................................... 153 

Leishmaniasis diagnostics ........................................................................ 153 

Light utility vehicle ................................................................................... 153 

Lightweight patient monitor with defibrillator ...................................... 154 

M5 high performance fiber for personnel armor systems ...................... 154 

Mast mounted common remote stabilized sensor system ...................... 154 

Medium tactical vehicle steering and suspension development ............ 155 

Miniature sensor development for small and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles .............................................................................................. 155 

Missile recycling center capability ........................................................... 155 

Modeling and analysis of the response of structures ............................. 156 

Night vision advanced technology ............................................................ 156 

Night vision enhanced vision goggle ........................................................ 156 

Night vision system air dispensing capability ........................................ 156 

Non-emitting helicopter brownout situational awareness demonstration .......................................................................................................... 157 

Patient status monitor .............................................................................. 157 

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system ................................ 157 

Powdered metal compaction ..................................................................... 158 

Pseudofolliculitis Barbae .......................................................................... 158 

Rugged textile electronic garments .......................................................... 158 

Smart responsive nano-composites .......................................................... 159 

Strategic materials and strategic manufacturing initiative .................. 159 

Tactical wheeled vehicle product improvement program ....................... 159 

Titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering research .......... 160 

Transparent Armor ................................................................................... 160 

UH–60 maintenance improvement program ........................................... 160 

Navy Research, Development, Test & Evaluation ......................................... 161 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 161 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 173 

Advanced mine detection program ........................................................... 173 

Affordable towed array construction ........................................................ 173 

Affordable weapon system ........................................................................ 173 

Air combat environment test and evaluation .......................................... 174 

Airborne reconnaissance systems ............................................................ 174 

Aircraft carrier launch and recovery and support equipment modernization ................................................................................................ 175 

Amorphous metal permanent magnet generator set .............................. 175 

Aviation ship integration center .............................................................. 175 

Biomedical research imaging .................................................................... 176 

Ceramic air deployed sensor ..................................................................... 176 

CH–53X heavy lift replacement ............................................................... 176 

Common submarine radio room ............................................................... 177 

Consolidated undersea situational awareness ........................................ 177 

Cooperative engagement capability ......................................................... 178 

Digital shipboard voice communications ................................................. 178 

Hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier ............................................................ 178 

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous ship propulsion 

motor ....................................................................................................... 179 

Joint integrated systems technology ........................................................ 179 

Marine expeditionary rifle squad ............................................................. 180 

Page

VII 

Marine mammal research program ......................................................... 180 

Metrology ................................................................................................... 181 

Multi-wavelength surface scanning biologics sensor .............................. 181 

Polyimide macro electromechanical systems .......................................... 181 

‘‘Quick Clot’’ hemostatic agent ................................................................. 182 

Remote ocean surveillance system ........................................................... 182 

Retro-reflecting optical communications for special operations ............ 183 

Special beam combining fiber lasers ........................................................ 183 

Superconducting direct current homopolar motor .................................. 183 

Surface Warfare Communications Systems ............................................ 184 

Synthetic aperture sonar commonality .................................................... 184 

Tactical E-field buoy development ........................................................... 185 

Use of out of service torpedo components for unmanned undersea 

vehicle systems ...................................................................................... 185 

Virtual at-sea training initiative .............................................................. 185 

Warfare Protection Advanced Technology ............................................... 186 

Air Force Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ................................. 186 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 186 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 198 

Active feedback flow control technology .................................................. 198 

Advanced engine starter/generator system prototype ............................ 198 

Advanced spacecraft technology ............................................................... 198 

Aerospace propulsion ................................................................................ 199 

Aerospace propulsion and power technology ........................................... 199 

Affordable lightweight power supply development ................................. 199 

Applied research in computing enterprise services program ................. 200 

Assured access to space ............................................................................ 200 

B–2 development ....................................................................................... 200 

Ballistic missile technology ...................................................................... 201 

Biostatic protective clothing ..................................................................... 201 

C–130 airlift squadrons ............................................................................ 201 

Commercial communications bandwidth ................................................. 202 

Cost analysis for space acquisitions ......................................................... 202 

Counter space systems .............................................................................. 202 

Defense research science .......................................................................... 203 

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit program ............................ 203 

Engineering tool improvement program .................................................. 203 

F–16 block 30 AN/APG–68(V)10 radar upgrade ..................................... 204 

Fibrous three dimensional composites for conformal load-bearing antenna structures ..................................................................................... 204 

Fixed-installation x-ray detection system ............................................... 205 

Global positioning system ......................................................................... 205 

Global positioning system user equipment ............................................. 205 

High modulus polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber ........................................... 205 

KC–135 replacement program .................................................................. 206 

Joint battlespace infosphere security inititive ........................................ 206 

Laser threat warning attack reporting .................................................... 207 

Lasers for advanced manufacturing and defense applications .............. 207 

Low profile arresting gear ........................................................................ 207 

Management of black and white space .................................................... 208 

Manned reconnaissance systems .............................................................. 209 

Maui space surveillance system ............................................................... 209 

Metals affordability ................................................................................... 209 

Miniaturized targeting sensor development ........................................... 209 

Missile and space technical collection ..................................................... 210 

Multi-disciplinary space technology ......................................................... 210 

Nanocrystalline diamond coating ............................................................. 210 

Operationally responsive launch .............................................................. 211 

Penetrator Study ....................................................................................... 211 

Project Suter .............................................................................................. 211 

Quick-donning oxygen mask ..................................................................... 212 

Radio frequency identification rapid adoption collaboration initiative . 212 

Rocket systems launch program .............................................................. 212 

Satellite threat evaluation environment development ........................... 213 

Single integrated space picture ................................................................ 213 

Space based infra-red system high .......................................................... 213 

Space cadre ................................................................................................ 214 

Page

VIII 

Space radar ................................................................................................ 214 

Space situational awareness .................................................................... 216 

Space technology ....................................................................................... 216 

Transformational satellite communications system ............................... 216 

Warfighter pocket computer development ............................................... 217 

Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation .......................... 218 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 218 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 229 

Accelerating intelligence analyst education and training ...................... 229 

Accelerating transition and fielding of advance technologies for 

emerging critical operational needs of special operations forces ....... 229 

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations ..................................... 229 

Advanced tactical laser program .............................................................. 229 

Alternative Fuels ....................................................................................... 230 

Army space and missile defense simulation upgrade ............................. 230 

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense ............................................ 231 

Ballistic missile defense ............................................................................ 231 

Boost defense segment .......................................................................... 232 

Core ......................................................................................................... 233 

Midcourse defense segment .................................................................. 233 

Missile Defense Advanced Technology ................................................. 234 

Procurement funding and transition of ballistic missile defense 

systems to services ............................................................................. 234 

Products .................................................................................................. 235 

System interceptor ................................................................................. 235 

Technology .............................................................................................. 236 

Terminal defense segment .................................................................... 237 

Testing .................................................................................................... 237 

Business management and modernization program .............................. 238 

Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation program ........................................................................................... 238 

Chemical/biological defense basic research initiative ......................... 239 

Chemical/biological defense applied research and advanced technology development initiatives .......................................................... 239 

Chemical/biological defense advanced component development and 

prototyping initiative ......................................................................... 239 

Combating terrorism technology support ................................................ 240 

Connectory for rapid identification of advanced technology .................. 240 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ......................................... 241 

Defense integrated military human resources system ........................... 241 

Defense Manufacturing Technology ......................................................... 242 

Defense message system ........................................................................... 242 

Defense science and technology funding ................................................. 243 

Defense technical information center ...................................................... 244 

Emerging/critical interconnection technology ......................................... 245 

Event management visualization and data analysis .............................. 245 

Force transformation ................................................................................. 245 

GeoSAR mission enhancements ............................................................... 246 

Guardrail common sensor ......................................................................... 246 

Information assurance .............................................................................. 246 

Information systems security program .................................................... 247 

Intelligence analyst education and training ........................................... 247 

Large vehicle inspection using magnetic quadrupole resonance ........... 247 

M–291 skin decontamination kits ............................................................ 247 

Man portable air defense system defense program ................................ 248 

Medical free electron laser ........................................................................ 249 

National Defense University technology pilot program ......................... 249 

Operationally responsive space ................................................................ 249 

Project M shock mitigation technology .................................................... 250 

Raincoat ..................................................................................................... 250 

Rapid acquisition incentives ..................................................................... 251 

Scalable active memory processing engines ............................................ 251 

Special operations advanced technology development ........................... 251 

Special Operations Command small weapons acquisition ..................... 252 

Special Operations Command tactical tanker fleet ................................ 252 

Special operations tactical systems development ................................... 252 

Special operations technology development ............................................ 253 

Page

IX 

Tactical exploitation of innovative sensors ............................................. 253 

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 253 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 253 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 256 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 256 

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 256 

Section 202—Amount for Defense Science and Technology ...................... 256 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 256 

Section 211—Annual Comptroller General Report on Future Combat 

Systems Program ...................................................................................... 256 

Section 212—Objective Requirements for Non-line-of-sight Cannon System not to be Diminished to Meet Weight Requirements ...................... 256 

Section 213—Independent Analysis of Future Combat Systems Manned 

Ground Vehicle Transportability Requirement ...................................... 256 

Section 214—Amounts for Armored Systems Modernization Program .... 257 

Section 215—Limitation on Systems Development and Demonstration 

of Manned Ground Vehicles Under Armored Systems Modernization 

Program ...................................................................................................... 257 

Section 216—Testing of Internet Protocol Version 6 by the Naval Research Laboratory ...................................................................................... 257 

Section 217—Program to Design and Develop Next-generation Nuclear 

Submarine .................................................................................................. 257 

Section 218—Extension of Requirements Relating to Management Responsibility for Naval Mine Countermeasures Program ........................ 258 

Section 219—Single Joint Requirement for Heavy Lift Rotorcraft ........... 259 

Section 220—Requirements for Development of Tactical Communications Systems ............................................................................................. 260 

Section 221—Limitation on Systems Development and Demonstration 

of Personnel Recovery Vehicle .................................................................. 261 

Section 222—Separate Program Element Required for Each Significant 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Project ........................... 261 

Section 223—Small Business Innovation Research Phase III Acceleration Pilot Program ..................................................................................... 261 

Section 224—Revised Requirements Relating to Submission of Joint 

Warfighting Science and Technology Plan .............................................. 262 

Section 225—Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement Program for 

Development of Innovative Shipbuilding Technologies, Processes, and 

Facilities ..................................................................................................... 262 

Section 226—Renewal of University National Oceanographic Laboratory System Fleet ...................................................................................... 263 

Section 227—Limitation on VXX Helicopter Program ............................... 263 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 264 

Section 231—Report on Capability and Costs for Operational Boost/ 

Ascent-Phase Missile Defense Systems ................................................... 264 

Section 232—Required Flight-Intercept Test of Ballistic Missile Defense 

Ground-based Midcourse System ............................................................. 264 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 264 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 264 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 292 

Budget Request Adjustments—Readiness ...................................................... 292 

Base Services Related Supplies ................................................................... 293 

Capital Security Cost Share ......................................................................... 293 

Civilian Intern Program ............................................................................... 293 

Distributed Mission Operations ................................................................... 294 

Eagle Vision ................................................................................................... 294 

Expansion of Export Control Database ....................................................... 294 

Joint Initiatives ............................................................................................. 294 

Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan .................................................... 295 

Military-to-Civilian Conversion Program .................................................... 295 

Navy Ship Disposal ....................................................................................... 295 

Operation Tempo Alignment to Account for the Global War on Terrorism ......................................................................................................... 296 

Tank Sonic Dry Clean Filter Systems ......................................................... 296 

Utilities Privatization Implementation ....................................................... 296 

Information Technology Issues ........................................................................ 297 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 297 

Adjustments to Information Technology ..................................................... 297 

Page

X 

Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery ............................................... 298 

Enterprise License Agreement ..................................................................... 298 

High Performance Computing Systems—‘‘Supercomputers’’ ..................... 299 

Live Instrumentation for Air and Missile Defense Units .......................... 299 

Medical Qualification Tracking Visualization and Data Analysis 

Project ........................................................................................................ 299 

Medical Information Systems Architecture ................................................ 300 

Network Device Authentication ................................................................... 300 

Radio Frequency Identification in the Medical Supply Chain .................. 300 

Servicewide Communication—General Fund Enterprise Business Systems ............................................................................................................ 301 

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 301 

Arsenal Support Program Initiative ............................................................ 301 

Base Operating Support Budget Shortfalls ................................................ 301 

Budget Justification Documents for Operation and Maintenance ............ 302 

Evaluation of Department of Defense Policy Prohibiting the Purchase 

of Technical Data to Accompany Acquired Systems ............................... 302 

Food Supplies ................................................................................................ 303 

Naval Oceanographic Command .................................................................. 303 

Pine Bluff Arsenal ......................................................................................... 303 

Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ............................................................ 303 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 304 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 304 

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 304 

Section 302—Working Capital Funds ......................................................... 304 

Section 303—Other Department of Defense Programs .............................. 304 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 304 

Section 311—Revision of Required Content of Environmental Quality 

Annual Report ........................................................................................... 304 

Section 312—Pilot Project on Compatible Use Buffers on Real Property 

Bordering Fort Carson, Colorado ............................................................. 304 

Section 313—Repeal of Air Force Report on Military Installation Encroachment Issues ..................................................................................... 305 

Section 314—Payment of Certain Private Cleanup Costs in Connection 

with Defense Environmental Restoration ............................................... 305 

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 305 

Section 321—Proceeds From Cooperative Activities with Non-Army Entities ............................................................................................................ 305 

Section 322—Public-Private Competition ................................................... 305 

Section 323—Public-Private Competition Pilot Program .......................... 305 

Section 324—Sense of Congress on Equitable Legal Standing for Civilian Employees ............................................................................................ 306 

Subtitle D—Extension of Program Authorities .............................................. 306 

Section 331—Extension of Authority to Provide Logistics Support and 

Services for Weapons Systems Contractors ............................................ 306 

Section 332—Extension and Revision of Temporary Authority for Contractor Performance of Security Guard Functions ................................. 306 

Subtitle E—Utah Test and Training Range ................................................... 306 

Section 341—Definitions .............................................................................. 306 

Section 342—Military Operations and Overflights, Utah Test and 

Training Range .......................................................................................... 306 

Section 343—Planning Process for Federal Lands in the Utah Test 

and Training Range .................................................................................. 307 

Section 344—Designation and Management of Cedar Mountain Wilderness, Utah .................................................................................................. 307 

Section 345—Identification of Additional bureau of Land Management 

Land in Utah as Trust Land for Skull Valley Band of Goshutes .......... 307 

Section 346—Relation to Other Lands and Laws ...................................... 307 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 307 

Section 351—Codification and Revision of Limitation on Modification 

of Major Items of Equipment Scheduled for Retirement or Disposal ... 307 

Section 352—Limitation on Purchase of Investment Items With Operation and Maintenance Funds .................................................................. 307 

Section 353—Provision of Department of Defense Support for Certain 

Paralympics Sporting Events ................................................................... 308 

Section 354—Development and Explanation of Budget Models for Base 

Operations Support Sustainment, and Facilities Recapitalization ....... 308 

Page

XI 

Section 355—Report on Department of the Army Programs for 

Prepositioning of Equipment and Other Materiel .................................. 309 

Section 356—Report Regarding Effect on Military Readiness of Undocumented Immigrants Trespassing Upon Operational Ranges ................. 309 

Section 357—Congressional Notification Requirements Regarding 

Placement of Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities, Pipelines, and Related 

Structures on Defense Lands ................................................................... 309 

Section 358—Report Regarding Army and Air Force Exchange System 

Management of Army Lodging ................................................................. 309 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 310 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 310 

Increases in Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized to 

be on Active Duty for Operational Support ............................................. 310 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 310 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 310 

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 310 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels .............................................................................................. 310 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 311 

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 311 

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support 

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 311 

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ....... 311 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2006 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual 

Satus Technicians ..................................................................................... 312 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized to 

be on Active Duty for Operational Support ............................................. 312 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 313 

Section 421—Military Personnel ................................................................. 313 

Section 422—Armed Forces Retirement Home .......................................... 313 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 313 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 313 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 314 

Advanced Civil School Opportunities for Officers of the Armed Forces ... 314 

Comptroller General Review of Financial Management Programs .......... 315 

Confidentiality Definition for Domestic Violence ....................................... 315 

Coordinating the Activities of the Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Intended 

to Assist Wounded and Injured Service Members and Surviving Family Members of Military Deaths ............................................................... 316 

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center ............................. 316 

Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System .............................. 316 

Family Support, Employment and Transition Assistance Programs for 

Service Members and Their Families ...................................................... 317 

Foreign Area Officers .................................................................................... 317 

Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal ......................................... 318 

Job Corps Recruits ........................................................................................ 318 

Joint Advertising and Market Research ..................................................... 319 

List of Organizations and Agencies Available to Assist Wounded and 

Injured Service Members and Surviving Family Members of Military 

Deaths ........................................................................................................ 319 

Military Spouse Education and Employment ............................................. 320 

Professional Development and Certification of Military Security 

Personnel .................................................................................................... 320 

Reserve Component Family Support Programs ......................................... 321 

Review of Department of Defense and Military Service Policies with 

Regard to the Assignment of Women ...................................................... 321 

Simultaneous Service of Family Members in a Combat Zone ................... 322 

State and Federal Agency Partnerships to Address the Post-Mobilization Needs of Reservists and National Guardsmen and Their Families .............................................................................................................. 323 

Study of Genocide and Its Cultural, Ethical and Moral Impact ............... 323 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 323 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 323 

Section 501—Temporary Increase in Percentage Limits on Reduction 

of Time-In-Grade Requirements for Retirement in Grade Upon Voluntary Retirement ..................................................................................... 323 

Page

XII 

Section 502—Two-Year Renewal of Authority to reduce Minimum Commissioned Service Requirement for Voluntary Retirement as an Officer ............................................................................................................... 324 

Section 503—Separation at Age 64 for Reserve Component Senior Officers ............................................................................................................. 324 

Section 504—Improved Administration of Transitions Involving Officers 

in Senior General and Flag Officer Positions ......................................... 324 

Section 505—Consolidation of Grade Limitations on Officer Assignment 

and Insignia Practice Known as Frocking .............................................. 324 

Section 506—Authority for Designation of a General/Flag Officer Position on the Joint Staff To be Held by Reserve Component General 

or Flag Officer on Active Duty ................................................................. 325 

Section 507—Authority to Retain Permanent Professors at the Naval 

Academy Beyond 30 Years of Active Commissioned Service ................. 325 

Section 508—Authority for Appointment of Coast Guard Flag Officer 

as Chief of Staff to the President ............................................................. 325 

Section 509—Clarification of Time for Receipt of Statutory Selection 

Board Communications ............................................................................. 325 

Section 510—Standardization of Grade of Senior Dental Officer of the 

Air Force With That of Senior Dental Officer of the Army ................... 326 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 326 

Section 511—Use of Reserve Montgomery GI Bill Benefits and Benefits 

for Mobilized Members of the Selected Reserve and National Guard 

for Payments for Licensing or Certification Tests .................................. 326 

Section 512—Modifications to the New Reserve Education Benefit for 

Certain Active Service in Support of Contingency Operations .............. 326 

Section 513—Military Technicians (Dual Status) Mandatory Separation .............................................................................................................. 326 

Section 514—Military Retirement Credit for Certain Service by National Guard Members Performed While in a State Duty Status Immediately After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 ............... 326 

Section 515—Use of National Guard to Provide Military Support to 

Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies for Domestic Counter-Terrorism 

Activities .................................................................................................... 326 

Subtitle C—Education and Training .............................................................. 327 

Section 521—Repeal of Limitation on Amount of Financial Assistance 

Under Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Scholarship Programs ........... 327 

Section 522—Increased Enrollment for Eligible Defense Industry Employees in the Defense Product Development Program at Naval Postgraduate School ......................................................................................... 327 

Section 523—Payment of Expenses to Obtain Professional Credentials .. 327 

Section 524—Authority for National Defense University Award of Degree of Master of Science in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy .. 327 

Section 525—One-year Extension of Authority to Use Appropriated 

Funds to Provide Recognition Items for Recruitment and Retention 

of Certain Reserve Component Personnel ............................................... 328 

Section 526—Report on Rationale and Plans of the Navy to Provide 

Enlisted Members an Opportunity to Obtain Graduate Degrees .......... 328 

Section 527—Increase in Annual Limit on Number of Reserve Officers’

Training Corps Scholarships Under Army Reserve and National 

Guard Program .......................................................................................... 328 

Section 528—CAPSTONE Overseas Field Studies Trips to People’s Republic of China and Republic of China on Taiwan ................................. 328 

Section 529—Sense of Congress Concerning Establishment of National 

College of Homeland Security .................................................................. 328 

Subtitle D—General Service Requirements ................................................... 329 

Section 531—Uniform Enlistment Standards for the Armed Forces ........ 329 

Section 532—Increase in Maximum Term of Original Enlistment in 

Regular Component ................................................................................... 329 

Section 533—Members Completing Statutory Initial Military Service 

Obligation ................................................................................................... 329 

Section 534—Extension of Qualifying Service for Initial Military Service Under National Call to Service Program ........................................... 329 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to Casualties ................................................... 329 

Section 541—Requirement for Members of the Armed Forces to Designate a Person to be Authorized to Direct the Disposition of the 

Member’s Remains .................................................................................... 329 

Page

XIII 

Section 542—Enhanced Program of Casualty Assistance Officers and 

Seriously Injured/III Assistance Officers ................................................. 330 

Section 543—Standards and Guidelines for Department of Defense Programs to Assist Wounded and Injured Members .................................... 331 

Section 544—Authority for Members on Active Duty With Disabilities 

to Participate in Paralympic Games ........................................................ 331 

Subtitle F—Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters ......................... 331 

Section 551—Clarification of Authority of Military Legal Assistance 

Counsel to Provide Military Legal Assistance Without Regard to 

Licensing Requirements ........................................................................... 331 

Section 552—Use of Teleconferencing in Administrative Sessions of 

Courts-Martial ........................................................................................... 331 

Section 553—Extension of Statute of Limitations for Murder, Rape 

and Child Abuse Offenses Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice .............................................................................................................. 332 

Section 554—Offense of Stalking Under the Uniformed Code of Military 

Justice ........................................................................................................ 332 

Section 555—Rape, Sexual Assault, and Other Sexual Misconduct 

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice .......................................... 332 

Subtitle G—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for Defense Dependents Education ...................................................................................... 333 

Section 561—Enrollment in Overseas Schools of Defense Dependents’

Education System of Children of Citizens or Nationals of the United 

States Hired in Overseas Areas as Full-time Department of Defense 

Employees .................................................................................................. 333 

Section 562—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit 

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of 

Defense Civilian Employees ..................................................................... 333 

Section 563—Continuation of Impact Aid Assistance on Behalf of Dependents of Certain Members Despite Change in Status of Member ... 333 

Subtitle H—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 333 

Section 565—Cold War Victory Medal ........................................................ 333 

Section 566—Establishment of Combat Medevac Badge ........................... 334 

Section 567—Eligibility for Operation Enduring Freedom Campaign 

Medal .......................................................................................................... 334 

Subtitle I—Other Matters ................................................................................ 334 

Section 571—Extension of Waiver Authority of Secretary of Education 

With Respect to Student Financial Assistance During a War or Other 

Military Operation or National Emergency ............................................ 334 

Section 572—Adoption Leave for Members of the Armed Forces Adopting Children ............................................................................................... 334 

Section 573—Report on Need for a Personnel Plan for Linguists in 

the Armed Forces ...................................................................................... 334 

Section 574—Ground Combat and Other Exclusion Policies .................... 335 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATIONS AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS ........ 335 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 335 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 335 

Defense Commissary Agency Produce Procurement Test ......................... 335 

Hooked-on-Fishing/Not-on-Drugs Pilot Program ........................................ 336 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 336 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 336 

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2006 ......................... 336 

Section 602—Additional Pay for Permanent Military Professors at 

United States Naval Academy with Over 36 Years Service .................. 337 

Section 603—Basic Pay Rates for Reserve Component Members Selected to Attend Military Service Academy Preparatory Schools .......... 337 

Section 604—Clarification of Restriction on Compensation for Correspondence Courses ................................................................................. 337 

Section 605—Permanent Authority for Supplemental Subsistence Allowance for Low-Income Members With Dependents ............................. 337 

Section 606—Basic Allowance for Housing for Reserve Members ............ 337 

Section 607—Overseas Cost of Living Allowance ....................................... 337 

Section 608—Income Replacement Payments for Reserves Experiencing 

Extended and Frequent Mobilization for Active Duty Service .............. 338 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special Incentive Pays .......................................... 338 

Section 611—Extension or Resumption of Certain Bonus and Special 

Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces ......................................................... 338 

Page

XIV 

Section 612—Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay Authorities 

for Certain Health Care Professionals ..................................................... 338 

Section 613—Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities for Nuclear Officers .............................................................................................. 339 

Section 614—One-year Extension of Other Bonus and Special Pay Authorities ...................................................................................................... 339 

Section 615—Expansion of Eligibility of Dental Officers for Additional 

Special Pay ................................................................................................. 339 

Section 616—Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate Authorized for Hardship Duty Pay ............................................................................................ 339 

Section 617—Flexible Payment of Assignment Incentive Pay .................. 339 

Section 618—Active-Duty Reenlistment Bonus .......................................... 339 

Section 619—Reenlistment Bonus for Members of Selected Reserve ....... 339 

Section 620—Combination of Affiliation and Accession Bonuses for 

Service in the Selected Reserve ............................................................... 339 

Section 621—Eligibility Requirement for Prior Service Enlistment 

Bonus .......................................................................................................... 340 

Section 622—Increase in Authorized Maximum Amount of Enlistment 

Bonus .......................................................................................................... 340 

Section 623—Discretion of Secretary of Defense to Authorize Retroactive Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay ....................................... 340 

Section 624—Increase in Maximum Bonus Amount for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending Period of Active Duty ........................................ 340 

Section 625—Increase in Maximum Amount of Nuclear Career Annual 

Incentive Bonus for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Trained While Serving 

as Enlisted Members ................................................................................. 340 

Section 626-Uniform Payment of Foreign Language Proficiency Pay 

to Eligible Reserve Component Members and Regular Component 

Members ..................................................................................................... 340 

Section 627—Retention Bonus for Members Qualified in Certain Critical Skills or Satisfying Other Eligibility Criteria .................................. 340 

Section 628—Availability of Critical-Skills Accession Bonus for Persons 

Enrolled in Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Who are Obtaining Nursing Degrees ................................................................................. 341 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowance ........................................ 341 

Section 641—Authorized Absences of Members for Which Lodging Expenses at Temporary Duty Location May Be Paid ................................. 341 

Section 642—Extended Period for Selection of Home for Travel and 

Transportation Allowances for Dependents of Deceased Member ........ 341 

Section 643—Transportation of Family Members Incident to Repatriation of Members Held Captive ............................................................... 341 

Section 644—Increased Weight Allowances for Shipment of Household 

Goods of Senior Noncommissioned Officers ............................................ 341 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits ........................................... 342 

Section 651—Monthly Disbursement to States of State Income Tax 

Withheld From Retired or Retainer Pay ................................................. 342 

Section 652—Revision to Eligibility for Nonregular Service Retirement 

After Establishing Eligibility for Regular Retirement ........................... 342 

Section 653—Denial of Military Funeral Honors in Certain Cases .......... 342 

Section 654—Child Support for Certain Minor Children of RetirementEligible Members Convicted of Domestic Violence Resulting in Death 

of Child’s Other Parent ............................................................................. 342 

Section 655—Concurrent Receipt of Veterans Disability Compensation 

and Military Retired Pay .......................................................................... 342 

Section 656—Military Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiaries Under Insurable Interest Coverage .............................................................................. 343 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits .......................................................................................................... 343 

Section 661—Increase in Authorized Level of Supplies and Services 

Procurement From Overseas Exchange Stores ....................................... 343 

Section 662—Requirements for Private Operation of Commissary Store 

Functions .................................................................................................... 343 

Section 663—Provision of Information Technology Services for Accommodations Provided by Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities for 

Wounded Members of the Armed Forces and Their Families ............... 343 

Section 664—Provision of and Payment for Overseas Transportation 

Services for Commissary and Exchange Supplies .................................. 343 

Page

XV 

Section 665—Compensatory Time Off for Certain Nonappropriated 

Fund Employees ........................................................................................ 344 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 344 

Section 671—Inclusion of Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Among Senior Enlisted Members of the 

Armed Forces ............................................................................................. 344 

Section 672—Special and Incentive Pays Considered for Saved Pay 

Upon Appointment of Members as Officers ............................................ 344 

Section 673—Repayment of Unearned Portion of Bonuses, Special Pays, 

and Educational Benefits .......................................................................... 344 

Section 674—Leave Accrual for Members Assigned to Deployable Ships 

or Mobile Units or to Other Designated Duty ........................................ 345 

Section 675—Army Recruiting Pilot Program to Encourage Members 

of the Army to Refer Other Persons for Enlistment ............................... 345 

Section 676—Special Compensation for Reserve Component Members 

Who Are Also Tobacco Farmers Adversely Affected by Terms of Tobacco Quota Buyout .................................................................................. 345 

TITLE VII—HEALTHCARE ................................................................................... 345 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 345 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 346 

Comptroller General Study of the Viability of TRICARE Standard ......... 346 

Cooperative Activities on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ....................... 346 

Dental Readiness of the Reserve Components ........................................... 347 

Depleted Uranium ........................................................................................ 348 

Eligibility for the Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Incurred as a 

Result of Referral for Medical Specialty Care ........................................ 348 

Non-Monetary Benefits Package for the President of the Uniformed 

Services University of the Health Sciences ............................................. 348 

Respiratory Therapists to Serve as Commissioned Officers ...................... 349 

Review of TRICARE Policy Regarding Treatment of Other Health Insurance ....................................................................................................... 349 

Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rates for Obstetrics, Gynecology, 

Pediatrics and Mental Health .................................................................. 349 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 350 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program Improvements ............................................. 350 

Section 701—Services of Mental Health Counselors ................................. 350 

Section 702—Additional Information Required by Surveys on TRICARE 

Standard ..................................................................................................... 350 

Section 703—Enhancement of TRICARE Coverage for Members Who 

Commit to Continued Service in the Selected Reserve .......................... 350 

Section 704—Study and Plan Relating to Chiropractic Health Care 

Services ...................................................................................................... 351 

Section 705—Surviving-Dependent Eligibility Under TRICARE Dental 

Plan for Surviving Spouses Who Were on Active Duty at Time of 

Death of Military Spouse .......................................................................... 352 

Section 706—Exceptional Eligibility for TRICARE Prime Remote .......... 352 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 352 

Section 711—Authority to Relocate Patient Safety Center; Renaming 

MedTeams Program .................................................................................. 352 

Section 712—Modification of Health Care Quality Information and 

Technology Enhancement Reporting Requirement ................................ 352 

Section 713—Correction to Eligibility of Certain Reserve Officers for 

Military Health Care Pending Active Duty Following Commissioning 353 

Section 714—Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical Positions 

to Civilian Medical Positions Until Submission of Certification ........... 353 

Section 715—Clarification of Inclusion of Dental Care in Medical Readiness Tracking and Health Surveillance Program ................................... 353 

Section 716—Cooperative Outreach to Members and Former Members 

of the Naval Service Exposed to Environmental Factors Related to 

Sarcoidosis ................................................................................................. 354 

Section 717—Early Identification and Treatment of Mental Health and 

Substance Abuse Disorders ...................................................................... 354 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 354 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 354 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 356 

Program Cost Increases ................................................................................ 356 

Page

XVI 

Procurement of Ball and Roller Bearings ................................................... 356 

Report on Defense Ethics Programs ............................................................ 357 

Requirements Identification ......................................................................... 357 

Use of Streamlined Acquisition Procedures ................................................ 357 

Utilization of Rapid Acquisition Authority ................................................. 358 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 358 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 358 

Section 801—Requirement for Certification By Secretary of Defense 

Before Major Defense Acquisition Program May Proceed to Milestone 

B .................................................................................................................. 358 

Section 802—Requirement for Analysis of Alternatives to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ...................................................................... 359 

Section 803—Authority for Secretary of Defense to Revise Baseline 

for Major Defense Acquisition Programs ................................................. 360 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 360 

Section 811—Applicability of Statutory Executive Compensation Cap 

Made Prospective ...................................................................................... 360 

Section 812—Use of Commercially Available Online Services for Federal Procurement of Commercial Items ................................................... 361 

Section 813—Contingency Contracting Corps ............................................ 361 

Section 814—Requirement for Contracting Operations To Be Included 

in Interagency Planning Related to Stabilization and Reconstruction . 362 

Section 815—Statement of Policy and Report Relating To Contracting 

With Employers of Persons With Disabilities ......................................... 362 

Section 816—Study on Department of Defense Contracting With Small 

Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by Service-Disabled Veterans ........................................................................................................... 363 

Section 817—Prohibition on Procurement From Beneficiaries of Foreign 

Subsidies .................................................................................................... 363 

Subtitle C—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 363 

Section 821—Increased Flexibility for Designation of Critical Acquisition Positions in Defense Acquisition Workforce .................................... 363 

Section 822—Participation by Department Of Defense in Acquisition 

Workforce Training Fund ......................................................................... 364 

Section 823—Increase In Cost Accounting Standard Threshold .............. 364 

Section 824—Amendments to Domestic Source Requirements Relating 

to Clothing Materials and Components Covered .................................... 364 

Section 825—Rapid Acquisition Authority to Respond to Defense Intelligence Community Emergencies ............................................................. 364 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 365 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 365 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 365 

Section 901—Restoration of Parity in Pay Levels Among Under Secretary Positions ......................................................................................... 365 

Section 902—Eligibility Criteria for Director of Department of Defense 

Test Resource Management Center ......................................................... 365 

Section 903—Consolidation and Standardization of Authorities Relating 

to Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies ........ 365 

Section 904—Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps ........................................... 366 

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 366 

Section 911—Space Situational Awareness Strategy ................................ 366 

Section 912—Military Satellite Communications ...................................... 366 

Section 913—Operationally Responsive Space ........................................... 366 

Subtitle C—Chemical Demilitarization Program .......................................... 367 

Section 921—Transfer to Secretary of the Army of Responsibility for 

Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program ............................ 367 

Section 922—Clarification of Cooperative Agreement Authority Under 

Chemical Demilitarization Program ........................................................ 368 

Subtitle D—Intelligence Related Matters ...................................................... 368 

Section 931—Department of Defense Strategy for Open-Source Intelligence ......................................................................................................... 368 

Section 932—Comprehensive Inventory of Department of Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Programs and Projects ....................... 368 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 369 

Page

XVII 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 369 

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 369 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 369 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 369 

Air Force tanker support .......................................................................... 369 

Budget requests ......................................................................................... 370 

International support ................................................................................ 370 

Joint Task Force North ............................................................................. 370 

Naval Reserve support .............................................................................. 371 

PACOM operations support ...................................................................... 371 

Participating nation support .................................................................... 371 

Report on Department of Defense role in Afghanistan .......................... 371 

Southwest Border fence ............................................................................ 372 

Support to National Security Agency ...................................................... 372 

Financial Matters ............................................................................................. 373 

Congressional Budget Justification Material ............................................. 373 

Other Activities ................................................................................................. 373 

Civilian Casualties ........................................................................................ 373 

Counter Terrorism Surveillance Technologies ............................................ 373 

Emergency Response Coordination ............................................................. 374 

Homeland Defense and Homeland Security ............................................... 374 

Report on Casualties and Damage Caused by Improvised Explosive 

Devices ....................................................................................................... 375 

Separation and Coordination of Information Operations and Public Affairs ............................................................................................................. 375 

Update Future Years Defense Program-Modify Strategic Forces Major 

Force Program to Reflect New Triad ....................................................... 376 

Update to and Guidance for the National Security Strategy .................... 376 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 377 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 377 

Section 1001—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 377 

Section 1002—Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005 ............................................................................................. 377 

Section 1003—Increase in Fiscal Year 2005 General Transfer Authority ................................................................................................................ 377 

Section 1004—Reports on Feasibility and Desirability of Capital Budgeting for Major Defense Acquisition Programs ....................................... 377 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 377 

Section 1011—Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Seattle, Washington ............. 377 

Section 1012—Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Jacksonville, Florida ............ 377 

Section 1013—Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Port Arthur, Texas ............... 378 

Section 1014—Transfer of USS Iowa .......................................................... 378 

Section 1015—Transfer of Ex-USS Forrest Sherman ................................ 378 

Section 1016—Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels ................ 378 

Subtitle C—Counter-drug Activities ............................................................... 378 

Section 1021—Extension of Department of Defense Authority to Support Counter-Drug Civilities ..................................................................... 378 

Section 1022—Resumption of Reporting Requirement Regarding Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign Counter-Drug 

Activities .................................................................................................... 379 

Section 1023—Clarification of Authority for Joint Task Forces to Support Law Enforcement Agencies Conduction Counter-Terrorism Activities ......................................................................................................... 379 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Homeland Security .................................... 379 

Section 1031—Responsibilities of Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense Relating to Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological 

Emergency Response ................................................................................. 379 

Section 1032—Testing of Preparedness for Emergencies Involving Nuclear, Radiological, Chemical, Biological, and High-Yield Explosives 

Weapons ..................................................................................................... 379 

Section 1033—Department of Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives Response Teams .............. 380 

Section 1034—Repeal of Department of Defense Emergency Response 

Assistance Program ................................................................................... 380 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 380 

Section 1041—Commission on the Long-Term Implementation of the 

New Strategic Posture of the United States ........................................... 380 

Page

XVIII 

Section 1042—Reestablishment of EMP Commission ............................... 381 

Section 1043—Modernization of Authority Relating to Security of Defense Property and Facilities .................................................................... 381 

Section 1044—Revision of Department of Defense Counterintelligence 

Polygraph Program ................................................................................... 381 

Section 1045—Repeal of Requirement for Report to Congress Regarding 

Global Strike Capability ........................................................................... 382 

Section 1046—Technical, Clerical, and Conforming Amendments ........... 382 

Section 1047—Deletion of Obsolete Definitions in Titles 10 and 32, 

United States Code ................................................................................... 382 

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ............... 382 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 382 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 383 

Section 1101—Extension of Eligibility to Continue Federal Employee 

Health Benefits .......................................................................................... 383 

Section 1102—Extension of Department of Defense Voluntary Reduction in Force Authority ............................................................................. 383 

Section 1103—Extension of Authority to Make Lump Sum Severance 

Payments .................................................................................................... 383 

Section 1104—Authority for Heads of Agencies to Allow Shorter Length 

of Required Service by Federal Employees After Completion of Training ............................................................................................................... 383 

Section 1105—Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on Total Compensation Paid to Federal Civilian Employees ....................................... 384 

Section 1106—Transportation of Family Members Incident to Repatriation of Federal Employees Held Captive ............................................... 384 

Section 1107—Permanent Extension of Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Defense Scholarship Program ..................... 384 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS .............................. 384 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 384 

Annual Report on Threat Posed to the United States by Weapons 

of Mass Destruction, Ballistic Missiles, and Cruise Missiles ................ 384 

Report on Implementation of the American Servicemembers’ Protection 

Act ............................................................................................................... 385 

Report on Military and Defense Aspects of the Proliferation Security 

Initiative ..................................................................................................... 385 

Security and Stabilization Assistance ......................................................... 386 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 386 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 386 

Section 1201—Extension of Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Provided to Host Nations in Conjunction with Military Operations .......... 386 

Section 1202—Commanders’ Emergency Response Program .................... 386 

Section 1203—Military Educational Exchanges Between Senior Officers 

and Officials of the United States and Taiwan ...................................... 387 

Section 1204—Modification of Geographic Restriction Under Bilateral 

and Regional Cooperation Programs for Payment of Certain Expenses 

of Defense Personnel of Developing Countries ....................................... 387 

Section 1205—Authority for Department of Defense to Enter Into Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreements With Regional Organizations of Which the United States is not a Member ................................ 388 

Section 1206—Two-Year Extension of Authority for Payment of Certain 

Administrative Services and Support for Coalition Liaison Officers .... 388 

Subtitle B—Nonproliferation Matters and Countries of Concern ................ 388 

Section 1211—Report on Acquisition by Iran of Nuclear Weapons .......... 388 

Section 1212—Procurement Sanction Against Foreign Persons that 

Transfer Certain Defense Articles and Services to the People’s Republic of China .......................................................................................... 389 

Section 1213—Prohibition on Procurements From Communist Chinese 

Military Companies ................................................................................... 390 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 390 

Section 1221—Purchase of Weapons Overseas for Force Protection Purposes ........................................................................................................... 390 

Section 1222—Requirement for Establishment of Certain Criteria Applicable to On-Going Global Posture Review .......................................... 390 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF 

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION ........................................................................ 391 

Page

XIX 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 391 

Funding Overview ............................................................................................ 391 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 391 

Border Security ............................................................................................. 391 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 392 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 

and Funds .................................................................................................. 392 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 392 

Section 1303—Authority to Obligate Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation Prevention Funds for Nuclear Weapons Storage Security .... 393 

Section 1304—Extension of Limited Waiver of Restrictions on Use of 

Funds for Threat Reduction in States of the Former Soviet Union ...... 393 

Section 1305—Report on Elimination of Impediments to Nuclear 

Threat-Reduction and Non-Proliferation Programs in the Russian 

Federation .................................................................................................. 393 

TITLE XIV—CONTRACT DISPUTE ENHANCEMENT ..................................... 394 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 394 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 394 

Subtitle A—General Provisions ....................................................................... 394 

Section 1411—Definitions ............................................................................ 394 

Subtitle B—Establishment of Civilian and Defense Boards of Contract 

Appeals .......................................................................................................... 394 

Section 1421—Establishment ...................................................................... 394 

Section 1422—Membership .......................................................................... 395 

Section 1423—Chairmen .............................................................................. 395 

Section 1424—Rulemaking Authority ......................................................... 396 

Section 1425—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 396 

Subtitle C—Functions of Defense and Civilian Boards of Contract Appeals ............................................................................................................... 396 

Section 1431—Contract Disputes ................................................................ 396 

Section 1432—Enhanced Access for Small Business ................................. 396 

Section 1433—Applicability to Certain Contracts ...................................... 396 

Subtitle D—Transfers and Transition, Savings, and Conforming Provisions ............................................................................................................... 397 

Section 1441—Transfer and Allocation of Appropriations and Personnel ......................................................................................................... 397 

Section 1442—Terminations and Savings Provisions ................................ 397 

Section 1443—Contract Disputes Authority of Boards .............................. 397 

Section 1444—References to Agency Boards of Contract Appeals ............ 397 

Section 1445—Conforming Amendments .................................................... 397 

Subtitle E—Effective Date; Regulations and Appointment of Chairmen .... 398 

Section 1451—Effective Date ....................................................................... 398 

Section 1452—Regulations ........................................................................... 398 

Section 1453—Appointment of Chairmen of Defense Board and Civilian 

Board .......................................................................................................... 398 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF INCREASED COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM ...... 398 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 398 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................... 398 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 405 

Budget Realignment ..................................................................................... 405 

Procurement .................................................................................................. 405 

Operations and Maintenance ....................................................................... 405 

Military Personnel ........................................................................................ 406 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 406 

Subtitle A—General Increases ........................................................................ 406 

Section 1501—Purpose ................................................................................. 406 

Section 1502—Army Procurement ............................................................... 406 

Section 1503—Navy and Marine Corps Procurement ................................ 406 

Section 1504—Defense-Wide Activities Procurement ................................ 406 

Section 1505—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, DefenseWide Activities ........................................................................................... 406 

Section 1506—Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 406 

Section 1507—Defense Working Capital Funds ......................................... 406 

Section 1508—Defense Health Program ..................................................... 406 

Section 1509—Military Personnel ............................................................... 407 

Section 1510—Iraq Freedom Fund .............................................................. 407 

Page

XX 

Section 1511—Classified Programs ............................................................. 407 

Section 1512—Treatment as Additional Authorization ............................. 407 

Section 1513—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 407 

Section 1514—Availability of Funds ........................................................... 407 

Subtitle B—Personnel Provisions .................................................................... 407 

Section 1521—Increase in Active Army and Marine Corps Strength 

Levels ......................................................................................................... 407 

Section 1522—Additional Authority for Increases of Army and Marine 

Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 2007 Through 

2009 ............................................................................................................ 407 

Section 1523—Military Death Gratuity Enhancement .............................. 408 

Section 1524—Permanent Prohibition Against Requiring Certain Injured Members to Pay for Meals Provided by Military Treatment 

Facilities ..................................................................................................... 408 

Section 1525—Permanent Authority To Provide Travel and Transportation Allowances for Dependents to Visit Hospitalized Members Injured in Combat Operation or Combat Zone ........................................... 408 

Section 1526—Permanent Increase in Length of Time Dependents of 

Certain Deceased Members May Continue to Occupy Military Family 

Housing or Receive Basic Allowance for Housing .................................. 409 

Section 1527—Availability of Special Pay for Members During Rehabilitation From Combat-Related Injuries ...................................................... 409 

Section 1528—Allowance to Cover Monthly Deduction From Basic Pay 

for Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Coverage for Members 

Serving in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom ............................................................................................................. 409 

Subtitle C—Matters Involving Support Provided by Foreign Nations ........ 410 

Section 1531—Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support 

Provided to United States Military Operations ...................................... 410 

TITLE XVI—CONTRACTORS ON THE BATTLEFIELD REGULATORY 

ACT ....................................................................................................................... 410 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 410 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 410 

Section 1601—Short Title ............................................................................ 410 

Section 1602—Findings ................................................................................ 410 

Section 1603—Definitions ............................................................................ 411 

Section 1604—Requirements for Commanders of Combatant Commands 

Relating to Contractors Accompanying and Not Accompanying the 

Force ........................................................................................................... 411 

Section 1605—Requirements for Contractors Relating to Possession of 

Weapons ..................................................................................................... 412 

Section 1606—Battlefield Accountability .................................................... 412 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 413 

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 413 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW ......... 413 

TITLE XXI—ARMY ................................................................................................. 431 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 431 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 431 

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 431 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 431 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 431 

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 431 

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 431 

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 432 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2004 Projects ..................................................................................... 432 

TITLE XXII—NAVY ................................................................................................ 432 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 432 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 433 

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 433 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 433 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 433 

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 433 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 433 

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 433 

Page

XXI 

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2004 Projects ..................................................................................... 433 

Section 2206—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2005 Projects ..................................................................................... 433 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE .................................................................................... 434 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 434 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 434 

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 434 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 435 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 435 

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 435 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 435 

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 435 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES .................................................................. 435 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 435 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 436 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ....................................................................................... 436 

Section 2402—Energy Conservation Projects ............................................. 436 

Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 436 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY 

INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................. 436 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 436 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 436 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 436 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 437 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 437 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 437 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 437 

Planning and Design, Army National Guard ............................................. 437 

Planning and Design, Air National Guard ................................................. 437 

Planning and Design, Army Reserve .......................................................... 438 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 438 

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 438 

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS ..... 438 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 438 

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to 

be Specified by Law ................................................................................... 438 

Section 2702—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2003 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 438 

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2002 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 439 

Section 2704—Effective Date ....................................................................... 439 

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................... 439 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 439 

Alternative Methods of Providing Access to Fitness Facilities for Service Members and Dependents ................................................................... 439 

Employment and Training Programs to Assist Communities Affected 

by Base Realignment and Closure Actions ............................................. 440 

Facilities-Related Reporting Requirements ................................................ 440 

Facility Projects During the Base Realignment and Closure Process ...... 441 

Inclusion of Analysis of Excess Capacity at Military Medical Facilities 

in GAO Report on DOD’s Process and Recommendations for the 

2005 BRAC Round ..................................................................................... 441 

Medical Treatment Facility Construction ................................................... 442 

Use of Authorities to Privatize Unaccompanied Housing ......................... 443 

Use of Electronic Marking Systems to Document Underground Infrastructure Systems ...................................................................................... 443 

Use of Temporary Facilities to Support Long-Term Military Requirements .......................................................................................................... 443 

Utilities Privatization ................................................................................... 444 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 445 

Page

XXII 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ...................................................................................................... 445 

Section 2801—Modification of Congressional Notification Requirements 

for Certain Military Construction Activities ........................................... 445 

Section 2802—Improve Availability and Timeliness of Department of 

Defense Information Regarding Military Construction and Family 

Housing Accounts and Activities .............................................................. 445 

Section 2803—Expansion of Authority to Convey Property at Military 

Installations to Support Military Construction ...................................... 446 

Section 2804—Effect of Failure to Submit Required Report on Need 

for General and Flag Officers Quarters in National Capital Region .... 446 

Section 2805—One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority 

to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects 

Outside the United States ........................................................................ 446 

Section 2806—Clarification of Moratorium on Certain Improvements 

at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico ................................................................ 447 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 447 

Section 2811—Consolidation of Department of Defense Land Acquisition Authorities and Limitations on Use of Such Authorities ............... 447 

Section 2812—Report on Use of Utility System Conveyance Authority 

and Temporary Suspension of Authority Pending Report ..................... 447 

Section 2813—Authorized Military Uses of Papago Park Military Reservation, Phoenix, Arizona ....................................................................... 448 

Subtitle C—Base Closure and Realignment ................................................... 448 

Section 2821—Additional Reporting Requirements Regarding Base Closure Process and Use of Department of Defense Base Closure Accounts ......................................................................................................... 448 

Section 2822—Termination of Project Authorizations for Military Installations Approved for Closure in 2005 Round of Base Realignments 

and Closures .............................................................................................. 448 

Section 2823—Expanded Availability of Adjustment and Diversification 

Assistance for Communities Adversely Affected by Mission Realignments in Base Closure Process ................................................................ 448 

Section 2824—Sense of Congress Regarding Consideration of National 

Defense Industrial Base Interests During Base Closure and Realignment Commission Review of Department of Defense Base Closure 

and Realignment Recommendations ........................................................ 448 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 449 

Part I—Army Conveyances .............................................................................. 449 

Section 2831—Modification of Land Conveyance, Engineer Proving 

Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia ................................................................. 449 

Section 2832—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Bothell, Washington ......................................................................................................... 449 

Part II—Navy Conveyances ............................................................................. 449 

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, 

San Diego, California ................................................................................ 449 

Part III—Air Force Conveyances .................................................................... 449 

Section 2851—Purchase of Build-To-Lease Family Housing, Eielson Air 

Force Base, Alaska .................................................................................... 449 

Section 2852—Land Conveyance, Air Force Property, Jacksonville, Arkansas ........................................................................................................ 449 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 450 

Section 2861—Lease Authority, Army Heritage and Education Center, 

Carlisle, Pennsylvania .............................................................................. 450 

Section 2862—Redesignation of McEntire Air National Guard Station, 

South Carolina, as McEntire Joint National Guard Base ..................... 450 

Section 2863—Assessment of Water Needs for Presidio of Monterey 

and Ord Military Community .................................................................. 450 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ................................... 450 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY 

PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................... 450 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 450 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 463 

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 463 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 463 

Weapons Activities ........................................................................................ 463 

Page

XXIII 

Directed Stockpile Work ........................................................................... 463 

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator ........................................................ 463 

Reliable Replacement Warhead Program ............................................ 463 

Stockpile Stewardship Campaigns ........................................................... 465 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities ............................................ 467 

Environmental Projects and Operations ................................................. 467 

Safeguards and Security ........................................................................... 468 

National Nuclear Security Administration Advisory Committee .......... 469 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................................... 469 

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development ............. 469 

International Materials Protection and Cooperation ............................. 470 

Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production .......................... 470 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility ........................................................................ 470 

Thorium Fuel Project ................................................................................ 471 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative .......................................................... 472 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 473 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 473 

Environmental Management Authority Transfer ...................................... 473 

Hanford Defense Site Acceleration Completion Activities ......................... 473 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ................................................................. 474 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 475 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 475 

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 475 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Management ................................ 475 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 475 

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................ 475 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 475 

Section 3111—Reliable Replacement Warhead Program .......................... 475 

Section 3112—Report on Assistance for Comprehensive Inventory of 

Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons ................................................. 475 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 476 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 476 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ..................................................................... 476 

Waste Treatment Plant ................................................................................ 476 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ............................................................................... 476 

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 476 

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE ........................................ 476 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 476 

Sale of Strategic and Critical Materials ...................................................... 476 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ............................................................................... 477 

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds .... 477 

Section 3302—Revisions of Fiscal Year 1999 Authority to Dispose of 

Certain Materials in the National Defense Stockpile ............................ 477 

Section 3303—Revision of Fiscal Year 2000 Authority to Dispose of 

Certain Materials in the National Defense Stockpile ............................ 477 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 477 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 477 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 477 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 477 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 477 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Maritime Administration for Fiscal Year 2006 ..................................................................... 477 

Section 3502—Payments for State and Regional Maritime Academies ... 478 

Section 3503—Improvements to the Maintenance and Repair Reimbursement Pilot Program .......................................................................... 478 

Section 3504—Tank Vessel Construction Assistance ................................. 479 

Section 3505—Improvements to the Maritime Administration Vessel 

Disposal Program ...................................................................................... 479 

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 480 

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 480 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 481 

Communications From Other Committees ............................................................ 481 

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 491 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 491 

Committee Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 491 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 492 

Page

XXIV 

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 492 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 493 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 493 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 494 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 503 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 504 

Additional views of Ike Skelton, Lane Evans, John Spratt, Marty Meehan, 

Loretta Sanchez, Silvestre Reyes, Jim Cooper, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, 

Jim Langevin, Steve Israel, Tim Ryan, Ellen O. Tauscher, Neil Abercrombie, Adam Smith, Robert A. Brady, Vic Snyder, Rick Larsen, Mark 

E. Udall, Susan A. Davis, Solomon P. Ortiz, Kendrick B. Meek, Mike 

McIntyre, Robert E. Andrews, G.K. Butterfield, Gene Taylor ...................... 504 

Additional views of Ike Skelton, Vic Snyder, John Spratt, Silvestre Reyes, 

Loretta Sanchez, Ellen O. Tauscher, Rick Larsen, Lane Evans, Dan 

Boren, Kendrick B. Meek, Jim Cooper, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Jim 

Langevin, Steve Israel, Marty Meehan, Neil Abercrombie, Adam Smith, 

Robert A. Brady, Mark E. Udall, Susan A. Davis, Solomon P. Ortiz, 

Tim Ryan, Robert E. Andrews, G.K. Butterfield ........................................... 508 

Additional views of Ike Skelton, Silvestre Reyes, John Spratt, Loretta 

Sanchez, Ellen O. Tauscher, Marty Meehan, Neil Abercrombie, Tim Ryan, 

Kendrick B. Meek, Adam Smith, Robert A. Brady, Vic Snyder, Rick 

Larsen, Robert E. Andrews, Lane Evans, Jim Langevin, Steve Israel, 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Mark E. Udall, Susan A. Davis, Solomon P. Ortiz, 

Gene Taylor, G.K. Butterfield ......................................................................... 511 

Additional views of Terry Everett, Curt Weldon, and Mike D. Rogers ........... 515 

Additional views of John M. Spratt, Jr. ............................................................. 516 

Additional views of Jim Gibbons ........................................................................ 518 

Additional views of K. Michael Conaway ........................................................... 519 

Additional views of Susan A. Davis .................................................................... 521 

Dissenting views of Cynthia McKinney ............................................................. 522 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–89 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2006 

MAY 20, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1815] 

[Includes committee cost estimate] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1815) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with 

amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill 

and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported 

bill. 

The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the 

text of the bill. 

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS 

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1815. The title of the bill 

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The 

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. 

2 

PURPOSE 

The bill would—(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation 

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) 

Authorize for fiscal year 2006: (a) the personnel strength for each 

active duty component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed forces; (c) the military training student loads for 

each of the active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military 

personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military construction and family 

housing; (6) Authorize emergency appropriations for increased costs 

due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; 

(7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions 

related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the Maritime Administration. 

RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS 

The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts provide 

budget authority. The bill addresses the following categories in the 

Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance; working 

capital funds, military personnel; and military construction and 

family housing. The bill also addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and the Maritime Administration. 

Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in this 

bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel 

determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization 

of specific dollar amounts for personnel. 

SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL 

The President requested budget authority of $441.8 billion for 

the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2006. Of this 

amount, the President requested $421.1 billion for the Department 

of Defense, including $12.1 billion for military construction and 

family housing. The defense budget request for fiscal year 2006 

also included $16.4 billion for Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The committee recommends an overall level of $441.6 billion in 

budget authority. This amount represents an increase of approximately $19.5 billion from the amount authorized for appropriation 

by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375). 

In addition, the committee recommends $49.1 billion in budget 

authority for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006, in addition to amounts otherwise authorized by this Act, to provide 

funds for additional costs due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

3 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS 

The defense authorization act provides authorization for appropriations but does not generally provide budget authority. Budget 

authority is provided in appropriations acts. In order to relate the 

recommendations to the budget resolution, matters in addition to 

the dollar authorizations contained in this bill must be taken into 

account. A number of programs in the national defense function are 

authorized in other legislation. The following table summarizes authorizations included in the bill for fiscal year 2006 and, in addition, summarizes the implications of the committee action for the 

budget authority totals for national defense (budget function 050). 

4 


Insert offset folio 30 here HR89.001
5 


Insert offset folio 31 here HR89.002
6 


Insert offset folio 32 here HR89.003
7 


Insert offset folio 33 here HR89.004
8 


Insert offset folio 34 here HR89.005
9 


Insert offset folio 35 here HR89.006
10 


Insert offset folio 36 here HR89.007
11 

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL 

H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 recognizes the United States is a nation entering its 

fifth year in the global war on terrorism (GWOT). During that 

time, the sacrifices of the men and women of the United States 

armed forces have contributed to a number of critical victories. In 

the past year alone, the United States has witnessed democratically elected governments taking power in Afghanistan and Iraq, 

the swearing in of Iraq’s first democratically elected assembly and 

cabinet in over thirty years, an Iraqi security force currently numbering over 160,000 and growing rapidly, plans to transition responsibility for internal security operations to the Iraqis by late 

2005, and the capture of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the alleged third most 

senior member of al Qaeda. While these developments are highly 

encouraging, the committee believes that the GWOT will be long 

and success will require a continuing national commitment. 

The committee’s top priority is ensuring that the men and 

women of the armed forces receive the best equipment, weapons 

systems, and training available to accomplish their mission. To 

that end, H.R. 1815 would address the structural obstacles that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) must overcome to expeditiously meet 

requirements established by combatant commanders engaged in 

continuing combat and post-conflict operations. While the committee is proud of the adaptability and resilience of our soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, and marines, it believes that more can be done to 

rapidly field the equipment and systems required to meet the needs 

of the 21st century military. 

Military personnel 

The committee continues to be concerned with the size of the 

force and recommends measures to ensure the size of our armed 

forces is sufficient to sustain our efforts in the GWOT. For fiscal 

year 2006, the committee recommends additional active duty 

growth of 30,000 in the Army and 4,000 in the Marine Corps above 

the budget request. These recommendations would bring the Army 

end strength to 512,400 and the Marine Corps to 179,000. In addition, the committee recommends providing the authority to the Secretary of Defense to grow the Army to a total force of 532,400 and 

the Marine Corps to 184,000. 

Recognizing the continuing sacrifices of our armed forces, the 

committee recommends making permanent several wartime-related 

pay and benefits that were temporarily established in the recently 

enacted Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 

the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 

109–13). Principal among these wartime related measures is the increase in death gratuity to $100,000 and an expansion of travel 

authorizations for families of service members hospitalized in the 

United States. 

Increasing costs of major procurement programs 

The committee is deeply concerned with the skyrocketing costs of 

weapon systems that cannot be explained by inflation or by reduced economies of scale. In many instances, these increases result 

from the addition of costly, and often unneeded, requirements to 

12 

the Department’s most expensive platforms. To affect the changes 

proposed in this bill, both the Department and Congress must accept that current DOD acquisition culture and processes are no 

longer affordable. 

Rampant increases in costs across the procurement spectrum are 

widely evident. In the fourth quarter of calendar year 2004, the Department reported that costs of major procurement programs increased from $1.37 trillion to $1.47 trillion, a 7.3 percent gain. 

These costs reflect actual program costs to date, as well as future 

anticipated costs. In response, the Department must take aggressive action to contain procurement costs. Individual platform designs must seek to achieve a critical balance between maximizing 

capability and ensuring that the Department can afford to procure 

a sufficient quantity of platforms to maintain a global military 

presence. 

The committee believes that one of the primary reasons for the 

increase in weapon systems procurement costs is the proliferation 

of programs dependent on immature technology. Therefore, the system development and demonstration phase of the acquisition process should not be entered until mature technologies are demonstrated to ensure that costs do not grow and schedules are not 

delayed. 

The committee believes that the Department should examine all 

platforms performing a specific mission to determine if it is affordable across the joint battlefield. Joint doctrine requires the Department to minimize duplication of efforts, to avoid procuring redundant systems, and to facilitate interoperability. The committee believes that joint operations will dominate the battlefield in the future. While the desire of military departments to develop independent weapons platforms is longstanding, this approach to force 

structure is no longer sustainable. The committee believes that this 

fundamental concept should be fully incorporated into DOD’s acquisition process. 

The committee is particularly concerned by the Navy’s rising 

shipbuilding costs and by recent statements from the Navy’s officials that they are uncertain about what to do about the problem. 

With an annual shipbuilding budget of approximately $10.0 billion, 

the committee is concerned with the amount of capability and military presence that can be maintained with new weapons systems. 

For example, the proposed Future Major Surface Combatant 

(DD(X)), has price estimates of over $3.0 billion per ship. The committee is also concerned with the effect the Navy’s procurement 

strategy will have on the shipbuilding industrial base. These rising 

costs threaten to undermine the Navy’s shipbuilding program, putting future naval capabilities in jeopardy. 

This year, the committee asks the fundamental question of how 

the Navy’s appetite for ‘‘mega-ships’’ will affect the industrial base 

and sustain production rates necessary to deploy an operational 

fleet of sufficient size to meet global commitments. The committee 

believes that early designs for many platforms successfully addressed the missions of the global war on terrorism by being light, 

agile and cost-effective. However, the committee notes with dismay 

that costly features redundantly supported by other platforms and 

systems are now contributing to spiraling program costs. 

13 

The committee is also concerned with the rising costs of the 

Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) and Modularity programs. The combined cost of these programs currently exceeds $99.0 billion in the Future Years Defense Program, an amount well above 

the expected Army funding profile. The committee notes that between fiscal years 2004 and 2009, the estimated cost of FCS rose 

from $19.0 billion to $30.3 billion. 

In addition, the committee believes that over the past decade the 

acquisition of space systems has been plagued by cost overruns and 

schedule delays. The lack of enforcement of internal DOD procurement rules results in systemic problems leading to multiple space 

acquisition failures. These problems include reliance on immature 

technology, overdependence on contractors for program management, and a lack of government systems engineering and cost analysis expertise. As a result, H.R. 1815 supports action that lowers 

the technical risk level associated with space programs and focuses 

on efforts that improve cost estimates, space acquisition workforce 

issues, and acquisition processes. 

Acquisition reform 

The committee believes that the rampant increases in the costs 

of major defense acquisition programs result, in large part, from 

the failure of the Department to comply with internal regulations 

and directives related to acquisition. The intent of DOD Directive 

5000.1 ‘‘The Defense Acquisition System’’ and DOD Instruction 

5000.2 ‘‘Operation of the Defense Acquisition System’’ is to capture 

a series of ‘‘best practices’’ derived from years of experience in 

major systems procurement activities. In particular, DOD Instruction 5000.2 lists numerous criteria designed to ensure technological 

maturity, approved requirements, and funding for a major defense 

acquisition program prior to Milestone B approval, which serves as 

the official start of an acquisition program and entry into the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the acquisition life-cycle. The committee is concerned that the Department, in 

large part, ignores these regulations in a rush to advance major defense acquisition programs toward the increased funding associated 

with the SDD phase of procurement. In fact, the committee is concerned that such behavior has become institutionalized in the Department. Therefore, the committee recommends the implementation of a series of procedural steps to ensure that entry into the 

SDD phase is not premature. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2006, H.R. 1815 would require the Department of Defense to evaluate and monitor changes to its original 

baseline cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs 

(MDAPs) continually and to provide the Secretary of Defense and 

Congress alternatives to pursuing a system that proves to be technologically unachievable or fiscally impractical. H.R. 1815 would 

hold the Department more accountable for the significant decision 

to enter the acquisition process for an MDAP and establish strict 

standards related to accounting and cost management. 

The committee is also concerned with the ability of the Department to react rapidly to urgent requirements issued by operational 

combatant commanders. Recently, the Department took over six 

months to utilize the rapid acquisition authority created in section 

811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

14 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). This authority allows 

the Secretary ‘‘to waive any provision of law, policy, directive, or 

regulation’’ to purchase the equipment that is ‘‘urgently needed to 

eliminate a combat capability deficiency that has resulted in combat fatalities.’’ Between approval of this authority and its utilization in late April 2005 the committee received volumes of information and testimony in hearings describing critical shortfalls for requirements such as armored High Mobility Multi-Wheeled Vehicles; body armor, including small arms protective insert plates; 

and, improvised explosive device jammers. 

In response to these delays, and to other perceived deficiencies 

in DOD’s ability to rapidly meet the needs of today’s warfighter, 

the bill would require the Secretary to create a standing contingency contracting corps. This corps would operate under joint doctrine in wartime and peacetime to meet the needs of commanders 

on the battlefield. The committee believes that this corps will develop the expertise necessary to utilize such emergency authorities 

as the section 811 authority, as well as other laws, regulations and 

directives related to contracting in a combat, post-conflict, or reconstruction environment. The committee believes that this corps will 

facilitate the rapid acquisition of critically needed goods and services ultimately improving the process by which the needs of the 

warfighter are met. 

Bridge supplemental 

The committee recommends authorization of $49.1 billion in 

funds to be appropriated, and made available upon enactment of 

this Act, to support the defense activities principally associated 

with Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). These funds are designated for emergency contingency 

operations to support the force protection equipment, operational 

needs, and military personnel requirements of the units deployed 

and engaged in the global war on terrorism. Included in the force 

protection recommendation is funding for Up Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), tactical wheeled vehicle recapitalization, and modernization of the most heavily used 

vehicles in OIF and OEF, night vision devices, and improvised explosive device jammers. Incorporated in the day-to-day operation 

recommendation is funding to pay for food, fuel, spare parts, maintenance, transportation, base expenses, as well as costs incurred by 

stateside installations for increased mobilizations and demobilizations due to OIF and OEF. Over the past three years, the committee has recommended increases in the active component manpower to sustain the full range of capabilities required for the global war on terrorism. The committee recommends funding an active 

component increase of 30,000 for the Army and 4,000 for the Marine Corps above the budget request and supports benefit increases 

to the death gratuity and Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. 

HEARINGS 

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 results from hearings that began on February 9, 2005, and that were completed on April 15, 2005. The full 

committee conducted seven sessions. In addition, a total of 19 sesVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.001 HR089
15 

sions were conducted by 6 different subcommittees on various titles 

of the bill. 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $78.0 billion 

for procurement. This represents a $3.8 billion increase from the 

amount authorized for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommends authorization of $79.1 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion from the fiscal year 2006 request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 procurement program are identified in the table below. Major issues are 

discussed following the table. 

16 


Insert graphic folio 042 HR89.008
17 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $2.8 billion for 

Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $2.9 billion, an increase of $60.5 million, for fiscal year 

2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Aircraft 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 

18 


Insert graphic folio 044 HR89.009
19 


Insert graphic folio 045 HR89.010
20 

Items of Special Interest 

AH–64 modern signal processing unit 

The budget request contained $580.4 million for AH–64 modifications, but no funds were requested for the modern signal processing unit (MSPU) initial integration and production for the AH– 64. 

The MSPU is an embedded digital vibration diagnostic technology already developed by the Army for the AH–64A Apache and 

the AH–64D Longbow to monitor the tail rotor gearbox, the intermediate gearbox, and the auxiliary power unit (APU) clutch for incipient failures. The MSPU is a direct replacement for the 30-yearold analog signal processing unit which is known to experience 

high failure rates and shown to be unreliable in detecting incipient 

gearbox failures. The improved diagnostics of the MSPU will improve flight safety and reduce maintenance test costs. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to integrate the modern signal processing unit into the AH–64A and AH– 64D production line and to procure the MSPU for fielding as spares 

for both the active Army and National Guard Apache and Longbow 

aircraft. 

High-altitude Army National Guard aviation training site 

The committee is aware that the High-altitude Army National 

Guard (ARNG) Aviation Training Site (HAATS) at Eagle, Colorado, 

operated by the Colorado Army National Guard, is the primary site 

for training military aviators operations in all seasoned weather 

conditions in hostile, high altitude, power limited environments. 

The training site currently uses UH–1 Huey and OH–58 Kiowa aircraft that are being phased out of the inventory within the future 

years defense plan. Concurrently, deployments of the Colorado 

Army National Guard limit the ability of HAATS instructor pilots 

to obtain the number of flying hours necessary to maintain their 

instructor status. 

The committee is concerned that the combination of these factors 

could degrade HAATS ability to train pilots in the kinds of high altitude operations that are increasingly relevant in military operations. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to evaluate the type of aircraft available in the Army’s inventory most suitable to the performance of HAATS mission, and the most appropriate schedule for assigning these aircraft to HAATS. The Secretary of the Army is directed to provide a report of his findings 

to the congressional defense committees no later than December 

15, 2005. 

UH–60 aircraft wireless intercom system upgrade 

The budget request contained $29.4 million for aircrew integrated systems, but included no funds for procurement of nonencrypted aircraft wireless intercom system (AWIS) upgrades for 

active and reserve UH–60 medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) helicopters. 

The committee notes there is no integrated or qualified wireless 

communication system on board UH–60 rotorcraft for use by crewmembers. Consequently, this does not allow onboard medical personnel, while in flight or during ground operations, freedom to use 

21 

both hands to perform emergency medical procedures while communicating with the flight crew. Early fielding of non-encrypted 

AWIS would eliminate the operational hazards and restrictions inherent in the existing tethered system for MEDEVAC crews. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for nonencrypted AWIS for active and reserve UH–60 MEDEVAC helicopters. 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.3 billion for 

Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.2 billion, a decrease of $27.9 million, for fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Missile 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 

22 


Insert graphic folio 048 HR89.011
23 


Insert graphic folio 049 HR89.012
24 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced precision kill weapon system 

The budget request contained $27.9 million for the procurement 

of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). 

The committee notes that the APKWS program has been curtailed by the Army. Subsequently, the Army Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space has directed a contract recompetition for 

APKWS. 

Therefore, the committee recommends no funding for procurement of the APKWS, a decrease of $27.9 million. 

Patriot system reporting requirements 

The Patriot system provides defense against short to medium 

range theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial 

vehicles, and other air breathing threats as part of the Ballistic 

Missile Defense System. The committee notes that the congressional defense committees provided the Department of the Army 

with $43.4 million in reprogrammed funds in fiscal year 2004 to 

correct Patriot system deficiencies that contributed to fratricide incidents in Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the Department 

of the Army, these corrective actions are scheduled to be completed 

in fiscal year 2007. The committee directs the Secretary of the 

Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

by February 1, 2006, and annually thereafter until all corrective 

actions are complete, on the status of completing these Patriot system corrective actions. This report should include the results of 

operational tests conducted to verify that corrective actions have 

been satisfactorily tested as well as any findings of additional problems that require correction, and funding proposed to address these 

deficiencies. 

The committee also notes that a January 2005 Defense Science 

Board Task Force report on Patriot system performance highlighted the need for the Department of Defense to identify and correct identification friend or foe (IFF) problems and to improve situational awareness of U.S. air defense systems in order to prevent 

future fratricide incidents. The committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

on its plan to identify and correct IFF deficiencies and to improve 

situational awareness of U.S. air defense systems by February 1, 

2006. This report should also provide recommendations on how to 

improve situational awareness of air defense systems when working with allies and the cost associated with correcting these deficiencies. 

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.7 billion for 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.6 billion, a decrease of $58.2 million, 

for fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are identified in 

25 

the table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 

following the table. 

26 


Insert graphic folio 051 HR89.013
27 


Insert graphic folio 052 HR89.014
28 


Insert graphic folio 053 HR89.015
29 

Items of Special Interest 

Abrams tank modernization 

The budget request included no funds for the M1A2 SEP retrofit 

program. The M1A2 SEP tank is an upgraded, fully digitized, first 

generation M1A2 Abrams tank which enhances lethality, survivability, and mobility as well as providing improved situational 

awareness for its crew. 

In the past years, the committee has raised explicit concerns regarding the Army’s tank modernization program and associated 

funding. Operation Iraqi Freedom has demonstrated that there are 

few conflicts where main battle tanks do not play a significant role 

in ensuring the survivability and offensive firepower of the armed 

forces. The committee remains resolute in its assessment that the 

Army should pure fleet its active component heavy forces and selected Army National Guard brigades with the M1A2 SEP tank. 

The conversion to 35 heavy armor modular brigade combat teams 

(BCTs) underscores the need for Abrams tank modernization. The 

committee understands the Army’s modularity initiative puts a 

premium on not just quantity of equipment such as tanks but also 

quality of equipment. The committee understands the Army is pursuing a strategy that purports several pure fleet options for these 

heavy BCTs and notes the most optimal option has 18 heavy BCTs 

outfitted with the M1A2 SEP tank. The committee notes the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global 

War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13) 

funds modernization of one 3rd Infantry Division BCT. The committee commends the Army for recognizing the need to equip one 

of the Army’s premier armor units with M1A2 SEP tanks. But 

there remains a requirement for 180 additional M1A2 SEP tanks 

just to complete pure fleeting of the 3rd Infantry Division. 

The committee is concerned about the Army’s plans to resource 

Abrams tank modernization. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Army to procure at least one heavy armor modular 

brigade combat team of M1A2 SEP tanks annually, beginning in 

the fiscal year 2007 budget request until a minimum of 18 BCTs 

are equipped with the M1A2 SEP tank. 

Stryker tire second source qualification 

The budget request included $878.4 million for the procurement 

of the Stryker Family of Vehicles and associated costs, but included 

no funds to qualify a second source for the production of the existing Stryker tire. 

The committee recognizes that tires are currently the highest demand item in sustainment and deployment for the Stryker. The 

majority of tire failures are being caused by wear-out from high 

operational tempo, from increased pressure due to the weight associated with the addition of Slat add-on armor for protection against 

rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), and damage from RPG and improvised explosive devices attacks. 

The committee suggests qualifying a second source for tire production in order to maintain timely military supply needs and domestic industrial base capabilities. The committee assumes that 

tires would be purchased from both sources only as needed to supply increased requirements in production, sustainment, and deployVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.001 HR089
30 

ment. The committee understands cost savings could be realized 

due to competition and that historically second source situations 

can produce cost savings in unit price up to 25 percent. The committee recommends $893.4 million, an increase of $15.0 

million to qualify a second source supplier for the existing Stryker 

tires. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.7 billion for 

Ammunition Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.8 billion, an increase of $29.9 million, for fiscal 

year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Ammunition Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed following 

the table. 

31 


Insert graphic folio 056 HR89.016
32 


Insert graphic folio 057 HR89.017
33 

Items of Special Interest 

Kansas army ammunition plant modern munitions enterprise 

The budget request contained $33.5 million for provision of industrial facilities, but included no funds for the flexible load, assemble and pack (LAP) modern munitions enterprise at the Kansas 

Army Ammunition Plant. In fiscal years 2004 and 2005 Congress 

appropriated $3.5 million and $6.5 million, respectively, for the 

flexible LAP modern munitions enterprise. 

The committee recognizes there are significant critical challenges 

making modern munitions during the LAP phase. Transforming an 

existing, high volume production facility to a flexible LAP installation can support both the latest explosive formulations and smart 

component assembly needed to meet these critical challenges. The 

flex-line concept would provide upgrade and modernization of obsolete plant infrastructure and production equipment by taking the 

manufacturing technologies at the Armament Research Development and Engineering Center and applying them to the Kansas 

Army Ammunition Plant for implementation. In doing so, the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant would be better able to meet the future needs of smart munitions programs for the Department of Defense. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for continuation of the flexible LAP modern munitions enterprise at the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant. 

Lake City army ammunition plant 

The budget request contained $144.6 million for ammunition production base support, of which $33.5 million is for the provision of 

industrial facilities. However, no funds were requested to continue 

the modernization and transformation program at the Lake City 

Army Ammunition Plant. 

The committee is aware that a significant investment in new 

equipment and facilities at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is 

required to provide the quantities of small caliber ammunition necessary to support ongoing operations in the global war on terror. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to continue the modernization and transformation of the Lake City Army 

Ammunition Plant during fiscal year 2006. 

M19 modern demolition initiators 

The budget request contained $29.7 million for demolition munitions (all types), but contained no funds for M19 modern demolition 

initiators (MDI). 

The committee understands the M19 MDI is currently in use by 

combat engineers for ongoing operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The M19 MDI is smaller 

and lighter than previous designs and is easier for the soldier to 

employ. Consequently, it substantially reduces the soldier’s time on 

target, thereby reducing the risk of potential casualties resulting 

from enemy attack. The committee notes that the budget request 

contained no funds for the procurement of M19 modern demolition 

initiators to replace initiators already utilized, thereby reducing the 

war time reserve available. 

34 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million 

for procurement of M19 modern demolition initiators. 

Missile propellant/warhead chemical oxidizer recycling 

The budget request contained $102.9 million for all conventional 

munitions demilitarization, but contained no funds for missile recycling capability (MRC) energetics processing module (EPM) commissioning. 

The committee notes the MRC EPM project supports Department 

of Defense sustainability objectives through demilitarization of ammonium perchlorate (AP), cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine 

(HMX) and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX) based rocket 

motor propellants/warhead chemical oxidizers. Due to the expensive nature of these oxidizers, this is a critical technology to the 

overall success of the resource, recovery and recycling. The EPM 

liquefied anhydrous ammonia based demilitarization approach is a 

key component requirement for the recycling of AP and HMX/RDX 

materials for reuse in new solid propellants and warheads. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

to fund commissioning of the EPM capability at the Aviation and 

Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center. 

Rapid wall breaching kit 

The budget request contained $29.7 million for demolition munitions (all types), but contained no funds for the rapid wall breaching kit (RWBK). 

The committee notes that military operations urban terrain 

(MOUT) missions are extremely dangerous due to field construction 

of expedient explosive charges and unreliable methods of attachment which expose the assault team to direct enemy fire for unnecessary extended periods of time. The RWBK is a one-man portable, 

fully integrated and engineered kit containing all the necessary 

items to complete the breaching mission. The RWBK system is employable within three minutes of target acquisition and does not require extensive training or special skills to operate. The RWBK can 

reduce the factors of time on target, blast overpressure, and excess 

collateral damage, resulting in improved safety for the warfighter. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

for procurement of the rapid wall breaching kit. 

Small caliber ammunition manufacturer qualification 

The committee notes that Lake City Army Ammunition Plant 

(LCAAP) is and should remain the primary Department of the 

Army qualified manufacturer of small caliber ammunition for Department of Defense use. LCAAP is currently operating at 100 percent capacity for small caliber ammunition production and the current Department of the Army small caliber ammunition requirement is exceeding the domestic-based production rate. The committee believes that in order to alleviate any potential procurement 

shortfalls of small caliber ammunition due to wartime surge requirements and increased small caliber ammunition qualification 

training requirements above the maximum rate capability of 

LCAAP, a second-source, domestic-based manufacturer of small caliber ammunition is needed. 

35 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

qualify and secure a second-source, domestic-based manufacturer of 

small caliber ammunition, exclusively for surge production requirements above the LCAAP capacity. 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $4.3 billion for 

Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $4.0 billion, a decrease of $259.3 million, for fiscal year 

2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Other 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 

36 


Insert graphic folio 061 HR89.018
37 


Insert graphic folio 062 HR89.019
38 


Insert graphic folio 063 HR89.020
39 


Insert graphic folio 064 HR89.021
40 


Insert graphic folio 065 HR89.022
41 


Insert graphic folio 066 HR89.023
42 


Insert graphic folio 067 HR89.024
43 


Insert graphic folio 068 HR89.025
44 

Items of Special Interest 

AN/ARS–6A technology upgrade 

The budget request contained $15.7 million to procure combat 

survivor evader locator (CSEL) radios, but contained no funds for 

the technology upgrade and modification for the AN/ARS–6 V3 personnel locator system for Army special operations forces (SOF) 

MH–60 and MH–47 helicopters. The committee notes that Congress appropriated $2.2 million for 

procurement of the AN/ARS–6A system for the Army in fiscal year 

2005. The committee is aware of the need to modify the Army’s AN/ 

ARS–6 V3 system to the updated AN/ARS–6A. Army SOF helicopters routinely perform search and rescue operations with all 

components of the U.S. armed forces, as well as with the disparate 

elements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization member militaries. Many of these organizations are migrating to modern survival radios and beacons such as the CSEL radio, the PRC–112 B/ 

G radio and the 406 emergency locator transmitter (ELT) which 

are incompatible with current combat search and rescue communications equipment installed on Army SOF aircraft. The AN/ARS– 6A upgrade will have the ability to interface and communicate with 

CSEL, PRC–112B, 406 ELT, and potentially the PRC–112G. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.2 million 

for procurement of the AN/ARS–6A. 

Best value procurement practices for tactical wheeled vehicles 

The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to 

apply best value procurement practices to the acquisition of critical 

components installed on tactical wheeled vehicles (TWV). As noted 

elsewhere in this report, the Army and Marine Corps TWV fleets 

compose the critical logistical and maneuverable backbone of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current operations demand that these vehicles serve as combat systems not just 

logistical vehicles. The committee is concerned that certain TWV 

components are procured based on the lowest price rather than 

more important features such as performance, quality and durability. Given the role of TWVs, the rule of best value should be applied to procurement of select TWV critical components. 

Cartledge infuser 

The budget request contained $10.7 million for procurement of 

combat support medical equipment, but included no funds for the 

Cartledge Infuser. 

In battle, trauma causes the majority of casualties to our servicemen and women and death often results from uncontrolled bleeding 

and reduced oxygen delivery to vital organs. In treating a casualty, 

medical personnel infuse blood or volume-expanding fluids to rapidly replace lost blood. In cases of severe shock and severe bleeding, 

however, current devices and infusion techniques are often insufficient. The committee notes the demonstrated effectiveness of the 

Cartledge Infuser, which is capable of infusing fluids at rates ranging from 20 ml/hour to 1200 mil/minute, giving a surgeon the time 

necessary to treat the patient. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for procurement of the Cartledge Infuser. 

45 

Deployable power generation distribution system 

The budget request contained $43.1 million for generators and 

associated equipment, but contained no funds for the 920kW 

Deployable Power Generation Distribution System (DPGDS), a 

joint program to replace older generators for Air Force expeditionary airfields and Army engineer battalions. The budget request 

would terminate production of DPGDS without filling the Army’s 

requirement. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million to continue production of the 920kW DPGDS in order to address the 

Army’s requirements. 

Heavy expanded mobility tactical truck light equipment transporter 

The budget request included $207.1 million for the family of 

heavy tactical vehicles, but included no funds for the heavy expanded mobility tactical truck (HEMTT) light equipment transporter (LET), the M893 A2 LET. 

The M893 A2 LET will be the primary vehicle for the engineer 

battalions of the Army National Guard, who support the Army’s 

modular units of action and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 

(SBCTs). Although the Army has begun to deploy Guard engineer 

battalions to support units of action and SBCTs, the M893 A2 LET 

is not yet fielded to many units. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure the M893 A2 LET for the Army National Guard. 

Nonsystem training devices 

The budget request contained $184.5 million to procure nonsystem training devices, but included no funds to procure the Laser 

Marksmanship Training System (LMTS) for the Army National 

Guard; Bullet Sensor Livefire Trainer for the active force and Army 

National Guard; Virtual Training Demonstration Project; or the 

America’s Army Future Soldier Trainer (AA–FST) for the active 

force and Army National Guard. The committee notes that each of 

these systems provides needed training for military personnel. 

The committee recognizes the Army National Guard has immediate, urgent requirements for LMTS to maintain highly effective 

marksmanship training skills for recent deployments to Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. The Bullet Sensor Livefire Trainer is a wireless, 

battery operated, automated, lightweight, portable training tool 

that provides soldiers with instant, precise and computerized feedback of bullet strikes on paper targets and can maximize training 

proficiency of the active, guard and reserve components. The Virtual Training Demonstration project initiates an immersive group 

simulation training demonstration project to provide additional 

training opportunities for active, reserve, and guard components; 

and to effectively assess and identify potential resource savings associated with the conduct of virtual training as a supplement to 

live training. The AA–FST program has proven to be a valuable 

tool to lower attrition among future soldiers prior to their entry 

into initial training and the committee notes that phase 2 of the 

AA–FST program will expand the program to 12 battalion sets for 

the active force. 

The committee recommends $7.5 million for LMTS for the Army 

National Guard, $5.6 million for the Bullet Sensor Livefire TrainVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.001 HR089
46 

ers, $3.0 million for the Virtual Training Demonstration project, 

and $13.7 million for phase 2 of the AA–FST program; an increase of $29.8 million for nonsystem training devices. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $10.5 billion 

for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $10.0 billion, a decrease of $474.6 million, for fiscal 

year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 

47 


Insert graphic folio 072 HR89.026
48 


Insert graphic folio 073 HR89.027
49 


Insert graphic folio 074 HR89.028
50 


Insert graphic folio 075 HR89.029
51 

Items of Special Interest 

Crashworthy crew chief seats 

The budget request contained $14.9 million for CH–53 Cargo 

Helicopter Modifications, but no funds were requested for the 

crashworthy crew chief seats. 

The crashes of CH–53s due to hostile fire and non-hostile fire incidents in Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrate the need for 

crashworthy crew chief seats. The installation of crashworthy seats 

would increase crewmember mission efficiency and effectiveness 

while significantly reducing the risk of death or injury during a 

hard landing or controlled crash. Survivability equipment is an essential part of force protection, which is the committee’s highest 

priority. The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million for the 

procurement of crashworthy crew chief seats for the CH–53 aircraft. 

EA–6B modifications 

The budget request contained $120.6 million for EA–6B modifications, of which $52.2 million was included for improved capabilities 

(ICAP) III modification kits and associated equipment, and $9.6 

million was included for one low-band transmitter pod. The Department of the Navy’s fleet of EA–6B aircraft is currently the Department of Defense’s only aircraft configured to provide the electronicjamming capability to deny and degrade the detection of friendly 

forces by enemy air defense systems. 

The ICAP III modification significantly improves the EA–6B’s 

ability to suppress and destroy modern enemy air defenses by accurately identifying the specific emitter type, and by providing the 

enemy emitter’s range and bearing, thereby allowing timely employment of suppression or destruction weapons. The committee 

notes that the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has included additional ICAP III modification kits among his unfunded priorities for 

fiscal year 2006, and therefore recommends an increase of $73.0 

million for seven additional ICAP III modification kits and associated equipment. 

The low-band transmitter pod replaces the current ALQ–99 tactical jamming system (TJS) and provides the EA–6B with an expanded jamming capability against the early warning and acquisition radars of modern integrated air defense systems. The low-band 

transmitter pod also provides significantly improved reliability and 

maintainability compared to the ALQ–99 TJS. The committee notes 

that the CNO included the procurement of 11 additional low-band 

transmitter pods among his highest unfunded priorities for fiscal 

year 2006, and therefore recommends an increase of $16.4 million 

for this purpose. 

In total, the committee recommends $210.0 million for EA–6B 

modifications, an increase of $89.4 million. 

Joint primary air training system 

The budget request contained $2.4 million for Joint Primary Air 

Training System (JPATS) program support, but included no funds 

to procure T–6A aircraft or associated ground- based training systems. 

52 

The JPATS, consisting of both the T–6A aircraft and a groundbased training system, will be used by the Navy and Air Force for 

primary pilot training. The T–6A will replace both the Navy’s T– 34 and Air Force’s T–37B fleets, providing safer, more economical 

and more effective training for student pilots. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy does not 

plan to continue JPATS procurement until fiscal year 2007, and, 

continues to believe that JPATS procurement for the Navy would 

not only reduce procurement costs for both the Navy and the Air 

Force, but would also reduce operations and maintenance costs. Accordingly, the committee recommends $37.4 million for JPATS, an increase of $35.0 million for six T–6A aircraft and associated 

ground-based training systems. 

P–3 modifications 

The budget request contained $163.3 million for P–3 series modifications, but included no funds for procurement of high resolution 

digital recorders for P–3C aircraft equipped with the anti-surface 

warfare improvement program (AIP) upgrade, or for a communications for real-time intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance 

support (CURTIS) program for block modification upgrade (BMUP) 

P–3C aircraft. 

The AIP upgrade improves the P–3C’s surveillance, communications, survivability, and over-the-horizon targeting capabilities 

through the installation of commercial-off-the-shelf components. 

The committee understands that current recorders used to record 

electro-optical, infra-red, and radar on AIP-equipped P–3C aircraft 

have limited information storage capability, and have high failure 

rates resulting in the loss of mission-critical intelligence data. To 

address this situation, the committee believes that AIP-equipped 

P–3C aircraft should be upgraded with high resolution digital re- corders, therefore recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this 

purpose. 

The CURTIS program for BMUP P–3C aircraft would provide 

improved satellite communication radios and a capability to videolink imagery to ground forces. Additionally, the CURTIS program 

would allow an operator to fuse intelligence data from all existing 

systems to provide a more comprehensive picture to operational 

commanders and ground personnel. Since the committee believes 

that the CURTIS program would improve the viability of the 

BMUP P–3C aircraft fleet, it recommends an increase of $2.0 million to procure a CURTIS production demonstration kit and to conduct CURTIS aircraft flight certification. 

In total, the committee recommends $170.3 million for P–3 series 

modifications, an increase of $7.0 million. 

Shared reconnaissance pod logistics support 

The budget request contained $2.7 billion for 38 F/A–18E and F/ 

A–18F aircraft, but included no funds for the shared reconnaissance pod (SHARP) logistics support. 

The SHARP is an electro-optical and infra-red podded system, 

mounted on the F/A–18E and F/A–18F aircraft, which is capable of 

collecting long- and medium-range imagery to provide data-linked 

information to combatant commanders about potential enemy targets. The committee understands that without an increase for 

53 

SHARP logistics support, full operational capability of the Department of the Navy’s 21 SHARPs will not be achieved, and the committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations included SHARP 

logistics support among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2006. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million 

for SHARP logistics support, and understands that this increase 

will complete development of maintenance manuals and training 

products. 

T–45 training system 

The budget request contained $239.2 million for procurement of 

six T–45C aircraft and associated training systems. The T–45 

training system (TS) is an integrated training system that combines the T–45 aircraft, simulators, and computer-based training 

for the Navy’s intermediate-level undergraduate pilot training. 

The committee understands that the quantity of six aircraft 

budgeted for fiscal year 2006 is less than the most economical minimum sustaining procurement rate, and notes that the Chief of 

Naval Operations has included the procurement of three additional 

T–45C aircraft among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2006. 

The committee also understands that an increase of three aircraft 

procured in fiscal year 2006 would save approximately $4.0 million 

in reduced unit costs. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $297.8 million for the 

T–45TS, an increase of $58.6 million for three additional T–45C 

aircraft. 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $2.7 billion for 

Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $2.8 billion, an increase of $67.2 million, for fiscal year 

2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 

54 


Insert graphic folio 079 HR89.030
55 


Insert graphic folio 080 HR89.031
56 


Insert graphic folio 081 HR89.032
57 

Item of Special Interest 

Tomahawk missile 

The budget request contained $353.4 million for 379 tactical 

tomahawk (TACTOM) missiles. 

The TACTOM missile is a long-range, precision-strike cruise missile launched from surface ships or submarines. Currently, 

TACTOM maximum production capacity is 456 missiles per year. 

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy’s 

programmed budget for TACTOM missiles would result in an inventory that is significantly below the Navy’s stated Tomahawk requirement inventory level, and believes that an increase to the 

maximum TACTOM production capacity in fiscal year 2006 is warranted to help restore expenditures from the recent Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $420.6 million for the Tomahawk missile, an increase of $67.2 million for 77 additional 

TACTOM missiles. The committee believes that this increase 

should be distributed to procure an additional 57 surface and 20 

subsurface TACTOM variants, and understands that this increase 

will result in a production net savings of at least $10,000 per missile. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY & MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $872.8 million 

for Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $869.8 million, a decrease of 

$3.1 million, for fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps program are identified 

in the table below. Major changes to the Navy & Marine Corps request are discussed following the table. 

58 


Insert graphic folio 083 HR89.033
59 


Insert graphic folio 084 HR89.034
60 

Item of Special Interest 

MN79 anti-personnel obstacle breaching system 

The budget request contained $38.8 million for linear charges (all types), including $32.0 million for procurement of the MN79 AntiPersonnel Obstacle Breaching System (APOBS). 

The APOBS is a two-man, portable, rocket propelled mine and 

obstacle clearing line charge system designed to clear a footpath 

through anti-personnel mines and wire obstacles during assaultbreaching operations. The APOBS system is one of the first systems to fully comply with the insensitive munitions requirements 

and is also being tested for use on unmanned ground vehicles and 

robotic platforms to further enhance assault-breaching capabilities 

and warfighter protection. Lastly, the committee understands an 

APOBS shortage exists in war and training reserve stockpiles. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

to sufficiently fund procurement requirements of the APOBS. 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $8.7 billion for 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee recommends 

authorization of $10.8 billion, an increase of $2.1 billion, for fiscal 

year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following 

the table. 

61 


Insert graphic folio 086 HR89.035
62 


Insert graphic folio 087 HR89.036
63 

Item of Special Interest 

Navy shipbuilding programs 

The committee is greatly concerned about the dramatic increase 

in Navy shipbuilding costs, the viability of the Navy’s future force 

structure, and the ambiguity and volatility in the Navy’s shipbuilding plans. 

The spiraling growth in the costs of modern military systems has 

reached a point where it directly places at risk the ability of the 

United States to field weapons platforms in sufficient numbers to 

support U.S. military strategy and national security requirements. 

Nowhere, is this risk more apparent than in naval shipbuilding. 

Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, when testifying before the committee on the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the 

Department of the Navy stated, ‘‘As we seek greater combat capability and greater operational efficiencies through upgraded power, 

propulsion, and computing technologies, we find a ratio of cost 

growth beyond our seeming control, which may not be fully explainable solely by reduced economies of scale.’’ The committee 

agrees that general inflation, raw material cost increases, and reduced overhead absorption due to shipbuilding rate decreases cannot fully explain the dramatic increase in shipbuilding costs. 

Admiral Clark, in his posture statement before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense stated, ‘‘We 

need to partner with Congress and industry to regain our buying 

power. Acquisition and budget reforms, such as multi-year procurement, economic order quantity, and other approaches help to stabilize the production path, and in our view, reduce the per unit cost 

of ships and increase our shipbuilding rate.’’ The committee does 

not agree that creative financing methodologies that delay recognizing the true cost of shipbuilding or that provide ever-increasing 

amounts of funding to cover the explosion in ship costs are responsible actions. Incremental funding, advanced procurement, multiyear procurement, and various creative shipyard work allocation 

arrangements have failed to control the cost growth of vessel classes such as the Virginia class submarine, the replacement amphibious assault ship (LHA(R)), the future major surface combatant 

ship (DD(X)), and the future aircraft carrier CVN–21. 

The committee believes the lack of discipline in both the requirements development process and the systems design and demonstration phase process are the largest contributors to the spiraling cost 

growth in naval vessels. The capabilities defined in the requirements development process must be constrained by an appropriate 

amount of overmatch capability, acknowledgement that some missions may be better served by other platforms in the joint battle 

space and by costs that permit the continued deployment of sufficient naval force structure. With the cost of a destroyer having potentially grown to be greater than 50 percent of the cost of the 

Nimitz class aircraft carrier, this class of new ships is simply not 

affordable. Further, the latest reports indicate that the CVN–21 

aircraft carrier may cost as much as $13.0 billion. 

The committee supports increased funding for naval shipbuilding. However, the committee recognizes that fiscal constraints 

will not permit the continued funding of dramatically more expensive vessels that will only further reduce force structure of the fleet 

64 

and expedite the atrophy of our shipbuilding capability. Accordingly, the committee has included in this Act provisions that constrain the unit cost of the Virginia class submarine, the DD(X), the 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), and the LHA(R). Further, these provisions are intended to force the Navy to assess the trade-off between 

military requirements and affordability and to stabilize ship designs prior to construction. In the interim, the committee recommends that the construction of two additional Arleigh Burke 

class (DDG–51) destroyers be authorized with funds, in part, from 

the cost savings derived from the aforementioned alterations to the 

DD(X) program. 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $5.5 billion for 

Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $5.6 billion, an increase of $146.5 million, for fiscal year 

2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Other 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 

65 


Insert graphic folio 090 HR89.037
66 


Insert graphic folio 091 HR89.038
67 


Insert graphic folio 092 HR89.039
68 


Insert graphic folio 093 HR89.040
69 


Insert graphic folio 094 HR89.041
70 


Insert graphic folio 095 HR89.042
71 


Insert graphic folio 096 HR89.043
72 


Insert graphic folio 097 HR89.044
73 

Items of Special Interest 

Joint threat emitter 

The budget request contained $46.6 million for weapons range 

support equipment but included no funds to procure the joint 

threat emitter (JTE). 

The JTE is an advanced, mobile, rapidly reprogrammable electronic warfare threat simulator that generates all known groundbased electronic warfare threats. The committee notes that the 

budget request includes JTE procurement by the Department of 

the Air Force, understands that the Department of the Navy’s 

Fallon Training Range requires upgraded threat simulations which 

can be met by the JTE, and believes that JTE unit costs can be 

reduced for both Departments by providing an increase for Department of the Navy JTE procurement. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $56.6 million for weapons 

range support equipment, an increase of $10.0 million for procurement of the JTE. 

Material handling equipment 

The budget request contained $12.9 million for materials handling equipment (MHE), of which $1.2 million was included to procure seven C–130 transportable scoop loaders with six-ton MHE capability for the Naval Construction Force (NCF) Seabees. 

The scoop loader with six-ton MHE capability is versatile, demonstrates commonality with Marine Corps MHE, and provides NCF 

Seabees the capability to reliably, safely, and cost effectively meet 

critical reconstruction mission requirements in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. 

The committee is aware the NCF Seabees are in the process of 

recapitalizing their fleet of construction equipment and MHE. The 

committee supports this initiative and notes that the high operational tempo coupled with the harsh environment of Iraq has consequently resulted in some equipment becoming uneconomical to 

either repair or to rebuild through service life extension programs 

or recapitalization programs. The committee understands construction equipment and MHE constitute the backbone of the NCF Seabees. 

The committee recommends $23.9 million for materials handling 

equipment, an increase of $11.0 million for 66 transportable scoop 

loaders with six-ton MHE capability in order to accelerate the replacement of obsolete, worn out MHE. 

Mine sweeper re-engining 

The budget request contained no funding in ship propulsion 

equipment to re-engine ships one and two of the mine sweeper 

MCM–1 class. 

The committee notes that except for ships one and two, ships of 

the mine sweeper MCM–1 class have been base-lined with upgraded diesel engines. The committee is aware that re-engining has 

improved performance and simplified the logistics tail and fleet 

maintenance by having common engines. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

to re-engine the first two ships of the class. 

74 

Naval tactical fiber switch system 

The budget request contained $98.9 million for AEGIS support 

equipment, but included no funds to replace the existing high speed 

data switches at the AEGIS Computer Center (ACC), AEGIS Training and Readiness Center (ATRC), and Surface Combat Systems 

Center (SCSC). 

The committee is aware that high speed switches at these three 

centers are critical enablers which allow for rapidly reconfigurable 

training, simulation, and testing on all 84 AEGIS combat system 

configurations. The existing switch systems represent single point 

failure modes, which due their age and limitations could substantially degrade readiness. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.9 million for the upgrade of switches at ACC, ATRC, and SCSC to the 

Naval Tactical Fiber Switch System. 

Special operations swimmer/diver training craft 

The budget request contained $15.7 million for standard boats, but included only $1.8 million to procure special operations swimmer/diver training craft. The committee understands that the Navy 

requires a total of 64 new craft to replace today’s aging training 

craft fleet and accommodate the increased training requirements of 

the Naval Special Warfare Command. The committee recommends $21.7 million for standard boats, an 

increase of $6.0 million for the procurement of an additional 24 

special operations swimmer/diver training craft. 

Surveillance towed array sensor system twin-line towed arrays 

The budget request contained $3.8 million for Surveillance 

Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) procurement, but included 

no funds for procurement of SURTASS twin-line towed arrays. 

SURTASS is the mobile, tactical and strategic arm of the Navy’s 

undersea surveillance capability that provides deep ocean and littoral acoustic detection and cueing for tactical weapon platforms 

against diesel and nuclear submarines, as well as surface vessels 

in any given area of operations worldwide. The committee notes 

that the limited number of thin-line towed array operational spares 

affects the preventive maintenance capability of the Navy’s towed 

array maintenance and support infrastructure and the operational 

capability of the anti-submarine warfare tactical-auxiliary general 

ocean surveillance ships for collection of undersea acoustic data. 

The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval Operations identified the procurement of additional TB–29A twin-line array ship 

sets as a priority unfunded requirement. 

The committee recommends $18.7 million for SURTASS procurement, including $14.9 million for the procurement of two TB–29A 

twin-line towed array ship sets. 

Transportable anti-intrusion pontoon barrier system 

The budget request contained $238.3 million for procurement of 

physical security equipment for the Navy. 

The committee notes that the need exists for a transportable barrier system that can be used to protect U.S. Navy ships and other 

government assets while in port at home and abroad, and the absence of such systems in general use throughout the fleet. The comVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.001 HR089
75 

mittee is aware of the development by a Navy-industry team of a 

concept for such a transportable barrier system, and plans for development and evaluation of the system. The committee believes 

that such a system could significantly improve the safety and security of our ships and port facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for development and evaluation of the transportable anti-intrusion pontoon 

barrier system. 

Ultrasonic maintenance tools 

The budget request contained no funds for ultrasonic maintenance tools. 

The committee is aware that the introduction of ultrasonic maintenance tools throughout the Navy has the potential to reduce 

maintenance man-hours by eliminating several time consuming 

maintenance procedures that are used to locate leaks, find bearing 

anomalies, and identify clogged fuel injectors. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for ultrasonic maintenance tools. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.6 billion for 

National Defense Sealift Fund. The committee recommends authorization of $1.7 billion, an increase of $48.5 million, for fiscal year 

2006. 

Item of Special Interest 

Maritime prepositioning ship lease buyout 

The budget request, within the National Defense Sealift Fund, contained $749.8 million to exercise purchase options on 13 Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS). Because of the continuing need 

for these ships beyond the original 25-year lease term, the committee recommends the purchase of six ships in this fiscal year, at 

a total cost of $414.0 million. The committee also recommends a 

$103.0 million increase to the Navy’s operation and maintenance 

account for the purpose of continuing the ‘‘capital hire payments’’

on the seven ships that are not being purchased. The committee expects that the Navy will exercise these options to purchase the following ships: MV SGT William R. Button, MV 1st LT Jack 

Lummus, MV 1st LT Baldomero Lopez, MV PFC Dewayne T. Williams, SS Maj Stephen W. Pless, and MV 2nd Lt John P. Bobo. The 

committee also expects that the funds provided in this Act will not 

be used to purchase fewer than the six ships enumerated above. 

The purchase of these ships will provide the Navy with the newest 

vessels within the total complement of Maritime Prepositioning 

ships, and ultimately provide the Navy with the greatest capability 

until the new Marine Prepositioning Force (Future) ships come on 

line. 

While the Navy negotiated for purchase options on all 13 of the 

MPS, the exact option price is the greater of the termination value, 

which is set forth in the lease, and the current fair market value. 

The contract language provides that the ‘‘fair market value shall 

76 

mean the price that a willing purchaser, that is not the charterer 

(Navy) or an affiliate of the charterer would pay to purchase the 

vessel in an arm’s-length transaction.’’ If negotiations do not result 

in an agreement on the buy-out value, the market value is determined by an arbitration panel made up of three appraisers. The 

committee understands, on the first ships in the purchase process, 

that the appraised market value will be determined before the end 

of September 2005. 

The committee expects, in the event that these appraised market 

values exceed in any significant way the termination values in the 

leases, that the Navy will withdraw its purchase notifications to 

the owners, and the congressional defense committees will be notified immediately of the Navy’s future plans with respect to the 

MPS. 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.4 billion for 

Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $1.4 billion, an increase of $29.9 million, for fiscal year 

2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Marine Corps request are discussed following 

the table. 

77 


Insert graphic folio 102 HR89.045
78 


Insert graphic folio 103 HR89.046
79 


Insert graphic folio 104 HR89.047
80 


Insert graphic folio 105 HR89.048
81 


Insert graphic folio 106 HR89.049
82 

Items of Special Interest 

Combat casualty care equipment upgrade 

The budget request contained $2.5 million for procurement of 

field medical equipment, but included no funds for the upgrade of 

combat casualty care equipment. 

The committee notes that the U.S. Marine Corps combat casualty 

care equipment upgrade program provides improved field medical 

equipment to meet requirements highlighted by today’s combat operations and littoral warfare. It permits Navy Medical Department 

corpsmen supporting Fleet Marine Force battalions to move quickly 

to stabilize and evacuate casualties during the critical ‘‘golden 

hour’’ after initial traumas, thereby vastly improving survival rates 

and recovery times. The program procures state-of-the-art, lightweight, standard litters and litter load carriage tools, pelvic stabilization devices, tactical airway tools, trauma gloves, and other 

kits, and on-board, life-saving medical kits for tactical vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million for the 

combat casualty care equipment upgrade program. 

Family of construction equipment 

The budget request contained $19.7 million for family of construction equipment, but contained no funds for procurement of the 

Mobi-Mat Helipad System. 

The Mobi-Mat Helipad System is a commercial-off-the-shelf 55′ x 

100′ helicopter landing pad made out of 12 rolls/panels of a lightweight, patented, polyester mesh that is anchored to the ground 

and is designed to reduce sand clouds and foreign object damage 

by creating a safe landing platform for all types of aircrafts, including rotorcraft. The committee recognizes this system decreases 

maintenance costs of rotorcraft engines and rotor blades while also 

enhancing the safety, reliability, and performance of rotorcraft operating in harsh, desert environments. The committee notes this 

system is being used extensively and successfully in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $23.7 million, an increase 

of $4.0 million to replace worn out Mobi-Mat Helipad Systems. 

Marines tactical remote sensor system 

The budget request contained $18.4 million for the Tactical Remote Sensor System (TRSS). 

The committee recognizes the importance of TRSS to provide 

state-of-the-art ground surveillance for continuous, unattended, allweather detection, location and monitoring of enemy activity. The 

committee notes the product improvement plan for TRSS to replace 

inventories of obsolete sensors with those that autonomously provide better classification of targets and enemy activity. The committee also notes TRSS is an unfunded Marine Corps requirement. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.9 million for TRSS 

product improvement. 

Marines topographic equipment 

The budget request contained no funding for the Topographic 

Production Capability Components (TPCC), an unfunded Marine 

Corps requirement. 

83 

The committee recognizes the importance of TPCC to provide geographic and geospatial analysis and production to marines on the 

move, and to the Joint Task Force Commander and the Marine 

Component Commander through a system of highly transportable 

modular systems. The committee notes that the continuous deployment of intelligence battalions in support of the global war on terrorism has reduced the equipment life of the topographic gear. Additionally, the committee notes that marines rely on TPCC products more and more, and this has lead to an increasing requirement for TPCC systems in the field. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $1.8 million for the Marine Corps TPCC program. 

Night vision equipment 

The budget request contained $20.8 million for night vision 

equipment, but included no funds to procure the Close Quarters 

Battle Sight (CQBS) system. 

The Marine Corps mission needs statement states the M4 Close 

Quarter Battle (CQB) Weapon must be capable of effective employment in all environments. The CQBS system is a day/night weapon 

sight that can be outfitted on the M4 CQB. The CQBS employs 

thermal technology which increases the effectiveness of the M4 

CQB in all weather conditions, to include the penetration of light 

foliage, smoke, dust, and camouflage. The committee understands 

that the CQBS augments M4 CQB capability and acts as a critical 

combat enabler for marines participating in the global war on terrorism. 

The committee notes 54 CQBS systems were procured by the Marine Corps in fiscal year 2005 for use in an initial operational assessment. The committee recognizes the initial findings of this 

operational assessment have exceeded the Marine Corps expectations and the Marine Corps now requires additional funds to expand this initial operational assessment to a more realistic testbed, to include further testing of the CQBS thermal capability. 

The committee supports this expansion and therefore, the committee recommends $30.8 million for night vision equipment, an increase of $10.0 million to procure an additional 715 CQBS systems 

to expand the ongoing operational assessment. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $12.0 billion 

for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends 

authorization of $12.8 billion, an increase of $819.8 million, for fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 

84 


Insert graphic folio 109 HR89.050
85 


Insert graphic folio 110 HR89.051
86 


Insert graphic folio 111 HR89.052
87 


Insert graphic folio 112 HR89.053
88 


Insert graphic folio 113 HR89.054
89 

Items of Special Interest 

A–10 litening advanced targeting pod 

The budget request included $644.2 million for other production 

charges, but contained no funds for the Litening advanced targeting pod. The committee is aware that the Litening advanced targeting pod has been used extensively in the global war on terrorism 

for precision targeting, and that the Air Force is seeking to maximize the procurement of advanced targeting pods and accelerate 

pod delivery to meet urgent requirements. The A–10 has been one 

of the weapon systems most heavily called upon for close air support during recent combat operations, yet many of the Air Force 

Reserve A–10s do not have advanced targeting pods. The Litening 

advanced targeting pod is the Air Force’s preferred solution for upgrading the precision targeting capabilities of the A–10. 

The committee recommends $35.4 million for 24 pods for Air 

Force Reserve A–10s. 

AN/ARS–6 V12 personnel locator system 

The budget request contained $50.5 million for modifications of 

the HH–60 helicopter, but included no funds for the AN/ARS–6 

version 12 (V12) personnel locator system (PLS) modification for 

MH–60 combat search and rescue helicopters of the Air National 

Guard (ANG). 

The committee notes that Congress appropriated $2.8 million in 

fiscal year 2004 for the AN/ARS–6 V12 PLS modification for the 

ANG MH–60 rotorcraft as part of a two phased approach. The $2.8 

million in the first phase provided the necessary resources to integrate, test, evaluate and certify the new AN/ARS–6 V12 PLS 

aboard the MH–60 helicopter, as well as modify six Air National 

Guard MH–60 helicopters. The second phase would leverage $3.0 

million to complete integration and procure the necessary AN/ARS– 6 V12 PLS units to outfit the remaining 12 ANG MH–60 helicopters. The current version, the AN/ARS–6 V3, is unable to communicate with newer combat survival radios/beacons such as the 

combat survivor evader locator radio, the PRC–112 family of radios, and the 406 emergency locator transmitter. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $53.5 million for HH–60 

modifications, an increase of $3.0 million to meet an unfunded requirement of the Air National Guard for MH–60 AN/ARS–6 V12 

PLS upgrades. 

C–17 

The C–17 is a strategic cargo aircraft, capable of rapid delivery 

to main operating bases, or directly to forward bases in the deployment area. The aircraft is also capable of performing tactical airlift 

and airdrop missions when required. The C–17 is currently procured under a multiyear procurement contract, in which the funding for the last aircraft is planned to be appropriated in fiscal year 

2007 with the last deliveries under the existing contract scheduled 

for fiscal year 2008. The budget request includes $2,709.9 billion 

for 15 C–17 aircraft and $445.4 million for advance procurement of 

the final 12, of the current 60-aircraft multiyear procurement contract. The Department of the Air Force currently plans for an inventory of 180 C–17 aircraft. 

90 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 108–491) accompanying the 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), the committee strongly urged the 

Department of the Air Force to budget for continued C–17 procurement through a multiyear procurement program to procure at least 

42 additional C–17 aircraft. The Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command testified to the Projection Forces Subcommittee on 

March 17, 2004, that at least 42 additional C–17 aircraft will be 

required to meet future airlift needs. To maintain the current 15- 

per year production rate beyond fiscal year 2007 for additional C–

17 aircraft, the Department of the Air Force requires authorization 

for a follow-on multiyear contract beginning in fiscal year 2006. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (Section 131) 

that authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into a 

multiyear contract beginning in fiscal year 2006 for 42 additional 

C–17 aircraft in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United 

States Code. 

C–130 modifications 

The budget request contained $185.7 million for C–130 modifications, of which $7.2 million was for the procurement and installation of the large aircraft infra-red counter-measures (LAIRCM) system on active duty C–130 aircraft, but included no funds to procure 

or install the LAIRCM system on the Air Force Reserve Command’s (AFRC) HC–130 and C–130 fleets. Additionally, $4.3 million of the C–130 modifications budget request was for procurement 

and installation of the APN–241 radar on Air Force Special Operations Command C–130s, but the budget request included no funds 

to procure or install the APN–241 on the AFRC’s C–130 aircraft 

fleet. 

The LAIRCM system consists of ultra-violet missile warning sensors, a missile tracking system, small laser turret assemblies, and 

processors to detect, track and counter incoming infra- red (IR)- 

guided missiles. The committee notes that the LAIRCM system 

provides a significantly improved defensive capability for large aircraft to counter the IR man-portable air defense system threats, 

and believes that this capability should be installed on the AFRC’s 

HC–130 and C–130 fleets as soon as possible. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $32.0 million for procurement 

and installation of the LAIRCM system on the AFRC’s HC–130 and 

C–130 fleets. 

The AN/APN–241 is a weather and navigation radar that replaces the 1950’s-era AN/APN–59 radar currently installed on the 

AFRC’s C–130 aircraft fleet. The committee understands that the 

AN/APN–59, in addition to being obsolete, has a mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) rate of 50 hours and is very costly to maintain, while the AN/APN–241 radar has significantly improved performance capabilities, and has a MTBF rate of 1000 hours. The 

committee also understands that procurement and installation of 

the AN/APN–241 radar is the second highest C–130 unfunded priority for the AFRC. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $19.7 million for this purpose. 

In total, the committee recommends an increase of $51.7 million 

for C–130 modifications. 

91 

F–15E 

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of F– 15E aircraft. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–287) appropriated $110.0 million 

for the procurement of two additional F–15E aircraft, but understands that the Department of the Air Force requires additional 

funds for this purpose. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $65.0 million for F–15E procurement, understands that an additional $65.0 

million will be required to complete the procurement of two F– 15Es, and encourages the Department of the Air Force to budget 

for this amount in future budget requests. 

F–16 bomb rack unit–57 

The budget request contained $24.1 million for war consumables, 

but included no funds to procure the F–16 bomb rack unit (BRU)– 57 for the Air National Guard (ANG). 

The BRU–57 allows the F–16 aircraft to carry and employ four 

one thousand pound precision guided munitions (PGMs), twice as 

many as its current capabilities. The committee understands that 

the ANG has identified a requirement to equip its F–16 fleet with 

the BRU–57, and believes that this action will enhance the value 

of the F–16 ANG units that are deployed as part of the Air Force’s 

Air Expeditionary Forces. The committee recommends $29.4 million for war consumables, 

an increase of $5.3 million for procurement of the F–16 BRU–57 for 

the ANG. 

Global hawk 

The budget request contained $398.4 million in Air Force aircraft 

procurement for the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 

program. 

The committee is extremely concerned with the elevated costs of 

the Global Hawk UAV program, which has resulted in a recent 

congressional notification of an overall cost overrun of 18 percent. 

Since 2001, the Air Force has restructured the Global Hawk program twice and these poorly designed restructurings have resulted 

in significant cost growth, which is three times higher now than before the program restructure. 

The committee strongly supports the Global Hawk program and 

believes that it is an essential element of our national intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance capability. However, this program 

must be finally brought under proper management control. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to implement program management controls that: limit program execution 

to the approved requirements and contains further unapproved requirements growth, stabilizes the vehicle and sensor design such 

that significant changes are not required, executes the program 

within the approved baseline budget and schedule, and focuses the 

government and industry management’s attention on production efficiency of air frames and sensors. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the Secretary’s implementation of 

program management controls by October 1, 2005. Additionally, 

92 

the committee directs the Secretary to submit to the congressional 

defense committees a quarterly earned value management report. The committee recommends $368.5 million for the procurement 

of four Global Hawk air vehicles and one ground station, a decrease 

of one vehicle and $29.9 million. 

Joint strike fighter 

The budget request contained $152.4 million for Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) advance low-rate initial production procurement. 

This amount would fund the long-lead procurement items necessary to build five conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) Air 

Force variants, which would be fully funded in fiscal year 2007 and 

planned for use in tactics and training development. 

The JSF program is an aircraft system development and demonstration program which is developing a family of three strike 

fighter aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. About 

70 percent of the parts for all three fighter variants will be common. The Air Force CTOL variant will replace the F–16 and A–10 

fleets; the Navy variant, or aircraft carrier version (CV), will complement the F/A–18E/F; and the Marine Corps variant, or short 

take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version, will replace the AV–8B 

and the F/A–18C/D fleets. 

During the past year, the JSF program has addressed a projected 

weight growth problem in all three JSF variants by making design 

changes. The extra weight in the March 2004 JSF designs would 

have significant performance implications because the JSF in that 

weight configuration would not meet many key performance parameters identified as necessary for JSF variants to accomplish 

their planned missions. While the committee is encouraged that the 

Department of Defense has identified those weight problems and 

has aggressively addressed those issues during the past year, it 

notes that the first JSF flight, now scheduled for late August 2006, 

will not be constructed with the redesigned, lower-weight JSF production configuration which has been developed during the past 

year. Instead, the committee understands that the first STOVL 

variant will be the first JSF to fly with reduced-weight configuration in early fiscal year 2008 and the first reduced-weight CTOL 

variant is scheduled to fly by mid-year in fiscal year 2008. Since 

the Department will not know until early fiscal year 2008 whether 

its efforts to reduce weight will actually result in the JSF meeting 

required performance parameters, the committee believes that the 

obligation of funds to begin low-rate initial production in fiscal year 

2007 is premature and, accordingly, the authorization of advance 

procurement funds for this effort in fiscal year 2006 is also premature. 

Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for JSF advance 

procurement, a decrease of $152.4 million. 

Additionally, the committee understands that during the preparation of the fiscal year 2006 budget request that there were efforts 

by some within the military services to eliminate planned budgets 

for the JSF competitive engine development program. Despite those 

views, the committee also understands that the Secretary of Defense ensured that the engine program was nominally funded. The 

committee believes that a two-engine source for the single-engine 

JSF would be the most cost effective and operationally effective enVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.001 HR089
93 

gine solution during the JSF’s service life, and therefore expects 

that the Secretary, along with Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force, will remain committed to the development of competitive engines for the JSF. 

KC–130J and C–130J 

In the appropriation Aircraft Procurement, Navy, the budget re- quest contained $1,092.7 million for 12 KC–130J aircraft for the 

Marine Corps, but included no funds for advance procurement of 

KC–130J aircraft in fiscal year 2007. In the appropriation Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, the budget request contained $99.0 million 

for logistics support of the Air Force’s C–130J fleet, but included 

no funds for either procurement of C–130J aircraft or for advance 

procurement of C–130Js in fiscal year 2007. 

Through fiscal year 2005, both the C–130J and KC–130J aircraft 

were procured through a 62-aircraft, six-year multiyear procurement contract authorized by section 131 of the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107– 314), beginning in fiscal year 2003. Because the multiyear contract 

requires the procurement of four KC–130Js and nine C–130Js in 

fiscal year 2006 and a fiscal year 2006 payment for advance procurement of four KC–130Js and nine C–130Js in fiscal year 2007, 

the KC–130J and C–130J budget request would break an existing 

multiyear contract after the third year, of the planned six-year contract, and terminate production of all C–130J and KC–130J aircraft 

variants after fiscal year 2006. While the committee notes that 

both multiyear cancellation costs and C–130J production termination costs are unknown at this time, it understands that estimates for these costs are not included in KC–130J and C–130J 

budgets beyond fiscal year 2006. 

The committee understands that the budget requests for both the 

C–130J and KC–130J were finalized late in the Department of Defense’s (DOD) budget preparation process. However, the committee 

notes that requirements for the number of C–130Js have yet to be 

determined in the DOD’s Mobility Capability Study (MCS), planned 

for completion later in fiscal year 2005 and in DOD’s Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR), scheduled for release in early fiscal year 

2006, and believes that a decision on whether to cancel the KC–

130J and C–130J multiyear contract, or to terminate C–130J production, should be informed by the results of both the MCS and 

QDR, and budgeted accordingly. 

Consequently, the committee recommends that the KC–130J and 

C–130J multiyear contract proceed as previously planned for fiscal 

year 2006, and recommends the following budget request adjustments: in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, an increase of $645.0 

million for nine C–130J aircraft, an increase of $90.0 million for advance procurement of nine C–130Js in fiscal year 2007; and, in Aircraft Procurement, Navy, a decrease of $800.9 million and eight 

KC–130J aircraft, and an increase of $46.0 million for advance procurement of four KC–130J aircraft in fiscal year 2007. 

Link 16 support and sustainment 

The budget request included $157.6 million in PE 27434F for 

Link 16 support and sustainment. In fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $3.4 million for the Link 16 Pocket J program. Pocket 

94 

J provides a deployable Link 16 capability that fills gaps in Link 

16 air space command and control coverage within the continental 

United States or in austere, remote locations. 

The committee supports the Pocket J program and its capability 

to provide ground-based Link 16 coverage in support of North 

American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) air operations center command and control aircraft for homeland air defense. The committee 

views the production and deployment of Pocket J units to establish 

local Link 16 coverage over major U.S. cities and other potential 

targets as an urgent need in addressing the core homeland defense 

mission of airspace command and control. 

The committee is concerned with the Air Force’s lack of funding 

for this program, and believes that an efficient production line for 

Pocket J equipment should match the requirements set forth by 

both Air Force Air Combat Command and Electronic Systems Command. Further, Pocket J is intended to be interoperable with the 

joint tactical radio system (JTRS). However, JTRS development 

and procurement should not constrain the development and production of the Pocket J program. Currently, NORAD has no other system to provide Link 16 situational awareness data link capability 

until the Federal Aviation Administration radio sites are JTRS 

equipped in 2020 or later. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to initiate Pocket J production at an efficient rate until the required 

Link 16 coverage is established that will address threats to both 

cities and high-valued targets across the United States. 

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle 

The budget request contained $125.6 million for the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), including $31.6 million for the MQ–

1 Predator A UAV and $25.0 million for two fully-equipped MQ–

9 Predator B systems. 

The committee recognizes the proven, leap-ahead technological 

advantage provided by the Predator A and Predator B UAVs. The 

committee notes the particular advantage provided by Predator B 

in terms of greater payload, speed, and altitude. The committee applauds the success achieved by recent collaboration between the Air 

Force and the contractor to improve system performance. The committee recognizes such efforts as a necessary aspect of advanced acquisition system development. The committee urges the Air Force 

to build upon such recent success and rapidly take steps to improve, refine, and streamline operational tactics, techniques, and 

procedures. The committee urges greater usage and availability of 

Predator A assets and recommends an acceleration of the more capable Predator B system. 

The committee recommends $210.6 million for Predator unmanned aerial vehicles, an increase of $85.0 million for six additional, fully-equipped, Predator B UAV aircraft and related support. 

Senior scout 

The budget request contained $185.7 million for the C–130 aircraft, but contained no funding for Senior Scout’s increased response capabilities. 

95 

The Senior Scout system is an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance suite of equipment configured in a shelter capable of 

installation in non-dedicated C–130E/H aircraft. The system provides capabilities to exploit, geo-locate and report signals of interest to air and ground component commanders. The program is 

funded through the tactical cryptologic unit program through the 

Air Force. It supplies three, C–130 capable roll-on-roll-off sheltered 

systems ground Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) components to the 169th intelligence squadron (IS), Utah, Air National 

Guard (ANG). The squadron has been deployed numerous times 

since September 11, 2001. The Senior Scout is supported solely by 

the 169th IS, which is a repository of uniquely skilled ANG linguists and a core component of the Air Force’s airborne linguist 

pool. The Senior Scout system package can be deployed with these 

skilled linguists and analysts with the system installed on any 

premodified aircraft within 24 hours. The committee believes that 

this type of SIGINT approach to tactical warfighting in the global 

war on terrorism is the right method in the global war on terrorism. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million for the 

manufacturing of an additional Senior Scout sheltered system for 

increased capability and enhanced response to the global war on 

terrorism and the war on drugs. 

The committee understands the value of ‘‘Reach-Back’’ ground facilities to the C–130 Senior Scout capability. This capability provides a ground facility with the ability to simultaneously handle 

multiple airborne missions and a variety of ‘‘Reach-Back’’ applications, including remote operator workstations, live audio, and digital mission data distribution and storage. This real-time, beyond 

line-of-sight capability for Senior Scout will help alleviate critical 

operational tempo loads on the limited number of high-demand 

specialty operators. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million to fund 

a new satellite antenna and associated software that would enhance dissemination of wider bandwidth data streams for the 

‘‘Reach-Back’’ capability for the Senior Scout system. 

U–2 senior year electro-optical system focal planes 

The budget request contained $68.4 million for the U–2 systems, 

but contained only $0.8 million for the senior year electro-optical 

reconnaissance system–2 (SYERS–2) sustainment. 

The committee notes that the global war on terrorism has increasingly relied on the near real-time imagery capability of the 

SYERS–2 system to provide multi-band spectral imaging for targeting precision munitions. The unfunded request reflects the notable deficiency in visible focal plane arrays (FPA) acquisition for the 

SYERS–2 system, as well as the depot repair needed for the equipment for continued persistent surveillance to the warfighter. 

The committee recommends $75.2 million, for the purchase and 

sustainment of SYERS–2 FPAs, an increase of $6.8 million. 

96 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.0 billion for 

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends 

authorization of $1.0 billion, the budget request, for fiscal year 

2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Ammunition Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table. 

97 


Insert graphic folio 121 HR89.055
98 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $5.5 billion for 

Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $5.5 billion, the budget request, for fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Missile 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 

99 


Insert graphic folio 123 HR89.056
100 


Insert graphic folio 124 HR89.057
101 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $14.0 billion 

for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $14.1 billion, an increase of $66.1 million, for fiscal 

year 2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Other 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 

102 


Insert graphic folio 126 HR89.058
103 


Insert graphic folio 127 HR89.059
104 


Insert graphic folio 128 HR89.060
105 


Insert graphic folio 129 HR89.061
106 


Insert graphic folio 130 HR89.062
107 

Items of Special Interest 

Combat survivor radios 

The budget request contained a total of $55.3 million for 4,910 

combat survivor evader locator (CSEL) radios for the Department 

of Defense (DOD). Of this total, $15.7 million was included in the 

appropriation Other Procurement, Army in a line entitled ‘‘Combat 

Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL)’’ for 1,349 CSEL radios; $2.0 million was in the appropriation Other Procurement, Navy in a line 

entitled ‘‘Communications Items Under $5M’’ for 202 CSEL radios; 

$12.9 million was also included in the appropriation Other Procurement, Navy in a line entitled ‘‘Aviation Life Support’’ for 1,313 

CSEL radios; and $24.7 million was included in the appropriation 

Other Procurement, Air Force in a line entitled ‘‘Combat Survivor 

Evader Locator’’ for 2,046 CSEL radios. 

The CSEL radio provides combat forces with secure, encrypted, 

low probability of exploitation, two-way, over the horizon, near 

real-time, data-burst communications with precise location and 

non-secure, unencrypted line-of-site voice and beacon capability to 

support survival evasion, and personnel recovery operations. While 

the committee supports the procurement of CSEL radios to meet 

current and future survivor communications, it understands that 

there are requirements for approximately 40,000 survivor radios, 

but only a third of these have thus far been met since CSEL procurement began in fiscal year 2001. Since CSEL radios may not be 

available to some units scheduled for combat deployments, the committee understands that alternate survival radios are being procured by obligating funds appropriated for operations and maintenance, and the committee believes that procurement funds should 

also be made available for either the CSEL, or an alternate survival radio, to meet immediate user requirements. 

To reflect a more responsive survival radio procurement program 

in the Department, the committee recommends that line item titles 

in both the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air 

Force be changed as follows: a decrease of $15.7 million in the appropriation Other Procurement, Army in the line entitled ‘‘Combat 

Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL)’’ and a corresponding $15.7 million increase in a new line entitled ‘‘Combat Survivor Radios;’’ and 

a decrease of $24.7 million in the appropriation Other Procurement, Air Force in the line entitled ‘‘Combat Survivor Evader Locator’’ and a corresponding $24.7 million increase in a new line entitled ‘‘Combat Survivor Radios.’’ For the Department of the Navy, 

the committee believes that funds budgeted in Other Procurement, 

Navy for CSEL radios could be obligated for either the CSEL or alternate survival radios. 

Digital airport surveillance radar and Department of Defense advanced automations system 

The budget request included $51.9 million for the national airspace system including $42.4 million for the Digital Airport Surveillance Radar (DASR) and $7.4 million for the Department of Defense Advanced Automation System (DAAS). These systems are 

being procured to replace Vietnam era air traffic control and air 

surveillance systems at defense locations in coordination with the 

108 

air traffic control modernization program of the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

The committee is aware that accelerating the deployment of 

DAAS and DASR will improve military operations and homeland 

defense, increase interoperability between military and civilian 

aviation systems, and reduce operations and maintenance costs. The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million for DAAS 

and DASR deployment to one additional facility, and directs that 

priority be given to facilities with aircraft assigned to United 

States Strategic Command. 

Force protection surveillance system 

The budget request contained $35.9 million for various types of 

Air Force physical security systems, but included no funds for the 

force protection surveillance system (FPSS). 

The FPSS consists of a tactical communications intercept system, 

a near real-time video surveillance system, and a tactical internet 

communications system for dissemination of surveillance information. The committee notes that Congress appropriated an increase 

of $1.0 million for fiscal year 2005, and believes that additional 

FPSSs should be acquired. Therefore, the committee recommends $38.9 million for Air Force 

physical security systems, an increase of $3.0 million for the acquisition, deployment and integration of the FPSS into mission planning systems and surveillance platforms. 

General information technology 

The budget request contained $111.0 million for general information technologies, but included no funds for the science and engineering lab data integration (SELDI) program, the automatic asset 

following system (AAFS), or for the cluster computing initiative. 

The Air Force Material Command’s science and engineering lab 

captures, analyzes and disseminates lab test data to the Air Force’s 

engineering and system overhaul operations. The SELDI program 

facilitates this mission by providing a maintenance and logistics information management tool that allows more rapid lab data access 

affecting overhaul operations, provides accident investigators with 

immediate access to lab results of failed components, enables component failure trend analysis, and implements a new acoustic signature sensors to ensure the proper chemical composition of materials and equipment. For fiscal year 2005, the committee recommended an increase of $8.0 million for the SELDI program, 

notes that $4.9 million was appropriated, and continues to believe 

its implementation would improve operational aircraft readiness, 

increase flight safety and reduce support costs. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this purpose. 

The AAFS has been developed as an effective tool for asset following operations, providing real-time, long-range data communication for the safety, security, management, and control of aircraft 

and vehicle fleet operations. The AAFS consists of a satellite transceiver, antennas, a control display unit, and application software. 

The committee understands that AAFS is already used throughout 

the United States, and believes that this capability could be applied to military forces engaged in homeland security operations, 

especially in the Air National Guard or Army National Guard. 

109 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million 

for the AAFS. 

The cluster computing initiative would replace the Air Force 

Flight Test Center’s current personal computers (PCs) and high 

performance computers (HPCs) with a more flexible computer architecture that would reduce maintenance and support costs. The 

committee understands that the cluster computer upgrade would 

also increase safety through improved test results, and that this 

upgrade is a priority for the Air Force Flight Test Center to support upcoming tests programs on the F–35, F/A–22, F–16 and B–

52 mid-life extension. Consequently, the committee recommends an 

increase of $2.3 million for the cluster computing initiative. In 

total, the committee recommends $121.5 million for general information technologies, an increase of $10.5 million. 

Mobile approach control system 

The budget request contained $16.8 million for air traffic control 

and landing systems, but included no funds to procure a mobile approach control system (MACS). 

The MACS provides military forces with next-generation mobile 

air traffic control services, day and night, in all weather conditions, 

to military and civilian aircraft, and will replace the aging TPN–

19 and MPN–14K landing control centers employed by the Department of the Air Force combat communications squadrons and Air 

National Guard (ANG) air traffic squadrons. The committee understands that during Operation Enduring Freedom, the Air Force’s 

Air Combat Command (ACC) received 10 requests for the MACS, 

but only 6 could be met; and that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, 

ACC received 12 requests for the MACS but could only provide for 

7. Additionally, the committee notes that the Air Force Chief of 

Staff has included MACSs for the ANG among his top four unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommends $51.4 million for air traffic control 

and landing systems, an increase of $34.6 million for two MACSs 

for the ANG, and encourages the Department to assign these 

MACSs to the 235th and 241st Air Traffic Control Squadrons. 

Point of maintenance and combat ammunition system initiative 

The budget request contained $14.6 million for mechanized material handling equipment, but included no funds for the point of 

maintenance and combat ammunition system initiative (OMX/ 

CAS). 

The POMX/CAS is an automatic data collection program developed by the Air Force Materiel Command’s Automatic Identification Technology Program Office which streamlines mission critical 

data collection to reduce the burden on flight line personnel. The 

committee has supported POMX/CAS in prior years, notes that 

Congress appropriated increases for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, 

and believes that its implementation at additional Department of 

the Air Force installations will increase the timeliness and accuracy of maintenance date collection. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $22.6 million for mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $8.0 million for 

the POMX/CAS. 

110 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $2.7 billion for 

Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends authorization of $2.7 billion, an increase of $37.6 million, for fiscal year 

2006. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006 Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 

111 


Insert graphic folio 134 HR89.063
112 


Insert graphic folio 135 HR89.064
113 


Insert graphic folio 136 HR89.065
114 


Insert graphic folio 137 HR89.066
115 

Items of Special Interest 

Chemical and biological defense procurement 

The budget request contained $650.7 million for chemical and bi- ological defense (CBD) procurement, including $198.0 million for 

procurement of installation force protection equipment, $97.2 million for individual protection equipment, $3.0 million for decontamination equipment, $62.3 million for the joint biological defense 

program, $31.8 million for collective protection equipment, and 

$258.3 million for contamination avoidance equipment. 

The committee notes that limited funding for fielding the M22 

automatic chemical agent detection alarm (ACADA) in the active 

and reserve components, forces units to use the obsolescent M8 

chemical agent alarm, which is prone to false alarms. Congress 

added funds in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to accelerate the fielding 

of the M22 ACADA. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for procurement of the M22 ACADA. 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction 

The budget request contained $1.4 billion for chemical agents and munitions destruction, including $1.2 billion for operation and 

maintenance, $47.8 million for research, development, test and 

evaluation, and $116.5 million for procurement. The budget request 

included no funds for construction of chemical agent and munitions 

destruction facilities. 

The committee notes that to date more than 11,200 tons of lethal 

chemical agents and munitions, almost 36 percent of the total U.S. 

stockpile, have been safely destroyed in 4 operational chemical demilitarization facilities, and that 2 additional demilitarization facilities are scheduled to become operational in fiscal year 2005. The 

committee notes, however, that the budget request represents a decrease of $49.1 million (3.6 percent) from the amount contained in 

the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–287) appropriation, despite the increased level of 

activity planned for the program in fiscal year 2006. 

During the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities 

Subcommittee’s hearing on April 6, 2005, the Department of Defense witnesses testified that based on current cost and schedule 

estimates the United States will not achieve the schedule for destruction of the stockpile mandated by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Treaty (S. Res. 75–105). Worst-case cost estimates 

for destruction of the stockpile range from $26.8 billion to $37.3 billion and estimates of the time required to complete destruction of 

the stockpile range from 2021 to 2030. The committee notes that 

the increased costs result primarily from the increased time required to destroy the stockpile at all of the stockpile sites, and that 

current planning estimates for construction and operation of Assembled Chemical Weapon Alternative (ACWA) demilitarization facilities at Pueblo, Colorado and Blue Grass, Kentucky significantly 

exceed the program baseline. The committee also notes that in January 2005, following a Defense Acquisition Board review of the program, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) directed assessment of alternatives 

that, if adopted, might permit the programmed cost and CWC 

116 

schedule to be achieved. On March 23, 2005, the USD(AT&L) directed actions to implement the program within certified baseline 

estimates ($1.5 billion for Pueblo and $2.0 billion for Blue Grass) 

and on April 15, 2005, released the remainder of the fiscal year 

2005 funds for the ACWA program to the project manager. The 

committee has been advised informally of requirements for additional military construction funding for Blue Grass Army Depot 

and recommends that the Department of Defense initiate a formal 

reprogramming request for those funds. The committee directs that 

the USD(AT&L) submit a report to the congressional defense committees by June 30, 2005, on the results of the assessment of alternatives and any recommendations for adjustments in the budget 

request or other actions required to reduce costs and increase the 

probability of achieving the CWC-mandated destruction schedule. 

The committee further notes the ongoing review of proposals for 

disposal at a commercial hazardous waste water disposal facility of 

the hydrolysate that will result from the neutralization of the bulk 

VX agent at Newport, Indiana. The committee believes that the 

United States must proceed as rapidly as possible in destroying the 

stockpile to ensure the overall maximum safety of our citizenry and 

meet our international treaty commitments, but must also proceed 

objectively and deliberately in ensuring that the disposal of the hydrolysate in a commercial hazardous waste disposal facility would 

not compromise the public health and safety of the citizens or the 

environment near such a facility. The committee directs that the 

Army, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proceed expeditiously 

in a follow-on review and resolution of the remaining issues relating to the process for disposing of the effluent from the treated hydrolysate. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army not to proceed 

with any action to transport or relocate VX hydrolysate (other than 

those small quantities necessary for laboratory evaluation of the 

disposal process) from the Newport Chemical Depot until: 

(1) The health and environmental concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention in their April 2005 report ‘‘Review of 

the U.S. Army Proposal for Off-Site Treatment and Disposal of 

Caustic VX Hydrolysate from the Newport Chemical Agent 

Disposal Facility’’ have been addressed in a manner so that 

both the CDC and the EPA conclude that the process would 

not result in substantial ecological risk or risk to human 

health; and 

(2) The Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that sending the VX hydrolysate off-site for treatment 

would result in significant cost and schedule savings compared 

to on-site disposal of the hydrolysate. 

In addressing the issue of cost and schedule savings, the Secretary shall conduct and provide to the congressional defense committees a detailed cost-benefit analysis of both off-site treatment of 

the hydrolysate and on-site treatment methods, including chemical 

oxidation, wet-air oxidation, electrochemical oxidation, supercritical-water oxidation, solvated-electron technology, gas-phase chemical reduction, plasma arc technology, and biodegradation. 

117 

Elsewhere in this report the committee has recommended a provision that would transfer management of the ACWA program from 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Secretary of the Army. The committee recommends $47.8 million for Chemical Agents 

and Munitions Destruction research, development, test and evaluation; $116.5 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction procurement; and $1.2 billion for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction operations and maintenance. 

Force protection 

The committee is aware of the continued need to strengthen force 

protection measures to better protect troops against indirect fire attack. The committee expects the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

focus its force protection efforts on identified threats facing troops 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, including but not limited to rocket propelled grenades, mortars, and 

artillery. The committee notes there are commercially available 

products designed for use as security forces buildings, overhead 

cover systems, blast resistant barriers, and mobile container housing units which have been tested by U.S. military testing facilities. 

These products have been proven to withstand .50 caliber armorpiercing rounds, low-yield bomb blasts, and 120 millimeter artillery 

rounds and should be considered for deployment as force protection 

measures. 

Similarly, the committee notes that in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, Congress appropriated $1.0 million for Rapid Deployment 

Fortification Wall (RDFW) research and development as part of the 

Marine Corps Improved Expedient Fortification Construction program. The RDFW is an expandable, stackable, modular wall made 

of resilient, lightweight, environmentally-responsible plastic that 

can augment sandbags. Further, the RDFW can enhance force protection while decreasing the manpower hours needed to expedite 

construction of fortifications. The committee encourages DOD’s use 

of RDFW to complement traditional sandbag fortifications and 

other technologies currently in use. Combat forces should be supported with a complete force protection strategy and the Department should consider newly demonstrated capabilities in support of 

this strategy. 

Persistent unmanned air vehicle intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance below the brigade level 

The committee is concerned about the lack of persistent unmanned air vehicle (UAV) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability below the brigade level and the resulting 

negative impact on force protection. 

The committee believes this ISR deficiency is the result of several factors including inadequate bandwidth and spectrum allocation, insufficient numbers of ground stations, and the lack of 

trained personnel. Force protection would be greatly enhanced by 

persistent aerial ISR. Therefore, until the UAV technology and personnel gaps are filled, the Secretary of Defense is encouraged to 

employ interim solutions for this mission. 

Before the advent of UAVs, manned slow-speed forward air control (FAC) aircraft demonstrated the value of on-station tactical obVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
118 

servers, trained in fire support and air control. An interim manned 

FAC would provide tactical commanders with valuable intelligence 

information, persistent surveillance, and on-scene coordination not 

fully available with the present ISR capabilities. 

The committee encourages the Secretary to consider options to 

meet the urgent interim requirement needed for a day and night 

capable platform that can perform the persistent ISR function for 

units on the move and in forward areas. 

Special Operations Forces intelligence systems 

The budget request contained $27.6 million for Special Operations Forces (SOF) intelligence systems, but included only $4.5 

million to initiate procurement of Joint Threat 

Warning Systems-Air (JTWS–A) for Air Force Special Operations 

Command (AFSOC) aircraft and contained only $2.2 million to procure the Special Operations Tactical Video System/Reconnaissance, 

Surveillance, and Target Acquisition System (SOTVS/RSTA). 

The committee understands that the JTWS–A provides AFSOC 

aircrews operating over hostile territory with modern, direct threat 

warning, replacing existing, unreliable threat warning systems currently in use. 

The committee recognizes that remote surveillance capabilities 

and unattended ground sensors are increasingly important to the 

conduct of special operations missions. Modern equipment such as 

the SOTVS/RSTA is more capable, survivable, and portable than 

earlier systems; and is an important force multiplier for small, forwarded deployed special operating forces teams. 

The committee believes that accelerated procurement of these 

systems will add significantly to special forces tactical capabilities 

and notes that both of these items are on the unfunded priority list 

of the Commander, Special Operations Command. 

The committee recommends $45.6 million for SOF intelligence 

systems, an increase of $10.0 million for the procurement of an additional 16 JTWS–A and an increase of $8.0 million for additional 

SOTVS/RSTA. 

Special weapons observation reconnaissance direct action system 

The budget request contained $233.8 million for Special Operations Forces (SOF) operational enhancements, but included no 

funds for the Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Direct 

Action System (SWORDS). The committee understands that the 

SWORDS mobile weapons system is an innovative small robot 

armed with standard issue automatic weapons, allowing special 

forces operators to engage the enemy at a standoff distance of approximately 1,000 meters. The committee understands that the system has been successful in its initial deployment in Afghanistan. 

The committee recommends $243.8 million for SOF operational 

enhancements, an increase of $10.0 million for the procurement of 

additional SWORDS mobile weapons systems. 

119 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–104—Authorization of Appropriations 

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 

2006 funding levels for all procurement accounts. 

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority for UH–60M/MH–

60 Helicopters 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter 

into a multiyear contract, in accordance with section 2306b of title 

10, United States Code, beginning with the fiscal year 2007 program year, for procurement of up to 461 helicopters in the UH–

60M configuration, and, acting as the executive agent for the Department of the Navy in the MH–60S configuration. 

Section 112—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Apache Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sights and Pilot Night Vision Sensors 

This section would authorize the Army to enter into multiyear 

contracts for the procurement of Modernized Target Acquisition 

Designation Sights and Pilot Night Vision Sensors. 

Section 113—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Apache Block II 

Conversion 

This section would authorize the Army to enter into multiyear 

contracts for the procurement of Apache Block II conversions. 

Section 114—Acquisition Strategy for Tactical Wheeled Vehicle 

Programs 

This section would require the Army and the Marine Corps to 

enter into a joint service program for the procurement of a new vehicle class of tactical wheeled vehicles. The committee understands 

the Army is actively engaged in implementing a revised tactical 

wheeled vehicle (TWV) modernization and recapitalization strategy 

with the intent to recapitalize, modernize and eventually replace 

its existing light, medium, and heavy tactical wheeled vehicles with 

either a new next generation vehicle class or more capable recapitalized tactical wheeled vehicles that have integrated new technologies and incorporated lessons learned from operations involving 

the global war on terrorism. The committee supports Army investment into its TWV fleet. Cost reduction strategies, reliability and 

maintainability improvement initiatives, and life cycle support recommendations are encouraged by the committee. 

The committee is aware that costs of Department of Defense 

weapons systems, including non-developmental platforms such as 

tactical wheeled vehicles continue to escalate and note the benefit 

competition can bring to weapon systems and vehicle platforms. 

The committee recognizes a major component of this TWV strategy 

120 

involves a competition in calendar year 2006, defined as a watershed event by the Army. 

The committee directs that should the Army or the Marine Corps 

as a result of this competition, choose to award a new non-developmental production contract for a new vehicle class of TWV other 

than those referenced above as modifications, upgrades or product 

improvements to the existing fleet, the contract should be executed 

as a joint service program between the Army and the Marine 

Corps. This joint service program should be validated and approved 

by the Joint Requirement Oversight Council and the Secretary of 

Defense. 

The committee believes its imperative for the Department to take 

advantage of economies of scale in production of particular platforms that provide essentially the same function for ground force 

combat service support and logistic missions. 

Section 115—Limitation on Army Modular Force Initiative 

This section would set forth a $3.0 billion limitation on acquisition obligations by the Army towards the Modular Force Initiative 

in fiscal year 2006 until receipt by the congressional defense committees of a report outlining the specific requirements as stated in 

this provision. The committee understands the Army’s force restructuring plan referred to as ‘‘Army Modularity’’ will require dramatic increases in its budget for personnel and equipment. To date, the Department of Defense has announced that $48.0 

billion has been budgeted for the Army for modularity for fiscal 

years 2005–2011. Minimal information has been provided to the 

congressional defense committees on defined requirements and 

budget detail. Further, the Army planned to fund the first two 

years of its modularity requirement through emergency supplemental appropriations, limiting the ability of the House Committee 

on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

to exercise their oversight responsibilities. However, the committee 

was recently advised by the Army that the fiscal year 2006 budget 

request includes $788.0 million in its procurement request for 

modularity. 

This section would limit the Army’s ability to obligate funds au- thorized for procurement to not more than $3.0 billion until 30 

days after submitting a report to the congressional defense committees for its modularity program. This report would include: 

(1) The programs and the acquisition objectives for those programs; 

(2) The budget included for modularity in the fiscal year 

2007 Future Years Defense Program; 

(3) The unfunded requirements, as applicable, that would 

preclude meeting the acquisition objective; and 

(4) The acquisition plan for Army modularity funded in the 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 

Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. 

The conference report (H. Rept. 109–72) accompanying the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global 

War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13) directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by September 1, 

2005, to the congressional defense committees detailing DOD’s 

long-range plan for executing and funding modularity to include acVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
121 

quisition requirements. The committee encourages the Department 

to include the reporting requirements as required in this provision 

in its September 2005 report. 

Section 116—Contract Requirement for Objective Individual 

Combat Weapon—Increment One 

This section would require the Secretary of Army to award the 

contract for procurement of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), Increment One using full and open competition. In addition, before appropriated funds are obligated, the Secretary shall 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees that certifies this contract was conducted using full and open competition. 

The committee believes the Secretary of Army should examine 

the requirement for the OICW, Increment One to determine whether this is a developmental or non-developmental item and to determine accordingly the appropriate period for review for requests for 

proposals. 

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 121—Virginia Class Submarine Program 

This section would limit the total amount obligated or expended 

for procurement of five Virginia class submarines designated as 

SSN–779, SSN–780, SSN–781, SSN–782, and SSN–783. 

Section 122—LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program 

This section would require that the total amount obligated or expended for the procurement of each ship of the replacement amphibious assault ship (LHA(R)) program may not exceed $2.0 billion. Also, this section limits the obligation or expenditure of funds 

for the LHA(R) program until the Secretary of Defense certifies 

that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has approved a detailed operational requirements document and there exists a stable 

design for the LHA(R) class of vessels. 

Section 123—Future Major Surface Combatant, Destroyer Type 

This section would require that the total amount obligated or expended for the procurement of the future major surface combatant, 

destroyer type (DD(X)) may not exceed $1.7 billion each, and authorizes $700.0 million for technology development and demonstration for this class of vessel. Further, this section establishes acquisition plan requirements for the DD(X). 

Section 124—Littoral Combat Ship Program 

This section would require that the total amount obligated or expended for the procurement of each ship for the Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS) program, including the amounts for the mission models, 

may not exceed $400.0 million. Further, this section limits the acquisition of additional LCSs until the Secretary of Defense submits 

the results of an operational evaluation of the first four LCSs and 

certifies that a stable design exists for this class of vessels. 

122 

Section 125—Authorization of Two Additional Arleigh Burke Class 

Destroyers 

This section would authorize $2.5 billion for the construction of 

two additional Arleigh Burke class destroyers under a single, competitively awarded contract. 

Section 126—Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl 

Vinson 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into a contract and commence overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson 

(CVN–70) nuclear aircraft carrier during fiscal year 2006 with 

funding provided in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

Section 127—Report on Propulsion System Alternatives for Surface 

Combatants 

This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees on the assessment 

of alternative propulsion methods for surface combatants. Operations and support costs, which include the cost of personnel, maintenance, and other costs such as fuel, represent a higher percentage of the total life cycle costs for Navy ships than research, development and procurement costs. Therefore, it is critical that the 

Navy make every effort to design future ships that are cost-effective to operate so that it can develop a force structure that is affordable and sustainable over the long term. In recent years, the 

Navy has used conventional propulsion systems that rely on fossil 

fuel for its surface combatants and nuclear propulsion systems for 

its submarines and most aircraft carriers. However, the committee 

is concerned that some of the assumptions and factors that have 

guided past Navy decisions on propulsion systems may require reassessment as the Navy looks to design an affordable force that is 

capable of meeting future security challenges. For example, technological advances have enabled greater efficiency in both nuclear 

and conventional propulsion systems in recent years. Moreover, oil 

prices have risen significantly in the past few years and global 

markets are likely to face future difficulties in meeting global demands for oil, particularly considering the explosive growth in 

some developing nations’ economies. 

The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations guidance for 2005 directed the Naval Sea Systems Command to work 

with the Office of Naval Research to study and develop proposals 

for alternative propulsion methods for surface combatants. The 

committee supports the need for this study and directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report explaining the Navy’s methodology, conclusions and recommendations of the study by the submission of the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, required by 

section 1105 of title 31, United States Code. 

Section 128—Aircraft Carrier Force Structure 

This section would mandate the Secretary of Defense to maintain 

a minimum force structure of 12 aircraft carriers. This section 

would further direct the Secretary to take all the necessary steps 

to maintain the USS John F. Kennedy in a fully mission capable 

123 

status. Additionally, the committee would recommend authorization of $60.0 million for the operation and maintenance of the USS 

John F. Kennedy. 

The committee believes that the Navy’s aircraft carrier force 

structure must be maintained at 12 in order to meet potential global commitments. The committee notes that in order for the USS 

John F. Kennedy to be maintained at full operational capability, 

the Navy must reschedule the recently cancelled shipyard overhaul, and directs the Navy to do so. In the interim, the committee 

expects the Navy to take full advantage of routine maintenance 

outside a shipyard to maintain the USS John F. Kennedy as capable as possible until it enters the shipyard. 

Section 129—Contingent Transfer of Additional Funds for CVN–21 

Carrier Replacement Program 

This section would transfer $86.7 million for additional funding 

for construction of CVN–21 from Defense-wide Operation and 

Maintenance to Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy if the Director, 

Program Analysis and Evaluation certifies that such additional 

funds are sufficient to move CVN–21 construction start from fiscal 

year 2008 to fiscal year 2007. 

SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 131—Multiyear Procurement Authority for C–17 Aircraft 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

enter into a multiyear contract, beginning with the fiscal year 2006 

program year, for procurement of up to 42 additional C–17 aircraft. 

SUBTITLE E—JOINT AND MULTISERVICE MATTERS

Section 141—Requirement that all Tactical Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicles Use Specified Standard Data Link 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure that 

all tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) of the Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, and Air Force are equipped with the standard tactical UAV data link known as the Tactical Common Data Link 

(TCDL) and configured to data formats consistent with the architectural standard for tactical UAVs, known as STANAG 4586. This 

provision applies to the Pioneer UAV, Shadow UAV, and other 

UAV types as determined by the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The committee would further direct the Secretary of each military department to submit a 

report to Congress providing the Secretary’s certification as to 

whether or not all tactical UAVs are in compliance with the standard data link. 

Section 142—Limitation on Initiation of New Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicle Systems 

This section would preclude procurement of new unmanned aerial vehicle systems by the military services without the written approval of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. 

124 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & 

EVALUATION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $69.4 billion for research, development, test, & evaluation (RDT&E). The committee recommends 

$69.4 billion, an increase of $112.9 million to the budget request. 

125 


Insert graphic folio 147 HR89.067
126 


Insert graphic folio 148 HR89.068
127 

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $9.7 billion for Army research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $9.8 billion, an increase of $43.5 million to the budget request. 

128 


Insert graphic folio 150 HR89.069
129 


Insert graphic folio 151 HR89.070
130 


Insert graphic folio 152 HR89.071
131 


Insert graphic folio 153 HR89.072
132 


Insert graphic folio 154 HR89.073
133 


Insert graphic folio 155 HR89.074
134 


Insert graphic folio 156 HR89.075
135 


Insert graphic folio 157 HR89.076
136 


Insert graphic folio 158 HR89.077
137 


Insert graphic folio 159 HR89.078
138 


Insert graphic folio 160 HR89.079
139 

Items of Special Interest 

Abrams improved track 

The budget request contained $142.9 million in PE 63005A for 

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology programs, of 

which, no funds were included for the Abrams Improved Track program. The Abrams Improved Track program expects to reduce life 

cycle costs of the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank platform by 20 percent. 

The committee is aware the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank platform, on average puts seven to eight years of operational use on a 

vehicle in a single year deployment to Iraq. The committee notes 

in some cases tanks have put on more than 1,000 miles of operational use per month in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee 

understands this higher level of operational tempo requires additional maintenance costs and also recognizes the M1 Abrams Main 

Battle Tank will continue to be the primary combat vehicle in the 

Army’s inventory until at least 2050. The committee understands 

the Abrams Improved Track program can generate better cost savings, and increase reliability, availability, and maintainability of 

the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank fleet. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $147.5 million for PE 

63005A, an increase of $4.8 million, to complete the final phase of 

development for the Abrams Improved Track program. 

Accelerated development of heavy-fuel turbine engine 

The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 63003A for 

aviation advanced technology, but included no funds to accelerate 

development of light-weight heavy fuel turbine engines. 

The committee notes that the modern battlefield mandates use 

of heavy fuel engines to simplify logistics and increase safety. The 

lightweight turbine engine offers advantages for aerial vehicles. In 

addition, the modern turbine engine coupled to emerging electrical 

generator technology offers the near-term ability to reduce size and 

weight of ground power generators by an order of magnitude. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63003A to accelerate development of the heavy fuel turbine engine. 

Advanced amputee treatment research and development 

The budget request contained $74.7 million in PE 62787A for 

medical technology applied research, but included no funds to continue the program in clinical and applied collaborative research in 

amputee treatment, prosthetics, and rehabilitation. 

The committee commends the Army for its efforts to initiate a 

collaborative applied and clinical prosthetic research activity in 

order to provide the best possible care for patients who have experienced combat injuries resulting in traumatic amputation. Established by the Army Surgeon General, the Amputee Care Center 

and the Army Amputee Patient Care Program at Walter Reed 

Army Medical Center provide state-of-the-art treatment and are 

the center of a multi-site, coordinated complex of facilities, which 

involve regional military medical centers, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other military and civilian treatment facilities. 

The goal of the program is to ensure that amputee patients receive 

the kind of care that will allow them to lead lives unconstrained 

140 

by their amputation. The committee notes that a sustained research effort is necessary to achieve the goals of the program and 

strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to provide funding 

in the program for that purpose in future budget requests. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

62787A to continue the Army program in clinical and applied collaborative research in amputee treatment, prosthetics, and rehabilitation. 

Advanced battery technology initiative 

The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 62705A for applied research in electronics and electronic devices. 

The committee continues to note continuing requirements for 

small, light-weight, efficient, and portable battery and non-battery 

power sources for U.S. forces and of on-going applied research and 

development activities of the military departments that address 

these requirements. The committee is aware of a number of emerging battery and non-battery power technologies that have the potential for meeting the requirements of the military services, including alkaline and lithium batteries, fuel cells and other technologies. The committee recommends that such technologies be considered for potential funded research and development under the 

services’ on-going programs on the basis of technical merit, cost-effectiveness, and the potential of a particular technology to meet 

service needs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

62705A for the portable battery power technology initiative. 

Advanced carbon nanotechnology 

The budget request contained $137.9 million in PE 61102A for 

defense research sciences, but included no funding for advanced 

carbon nanotechnology. 

The committee is aware that advanced carbon nanotechnology 

has the potential for significant advances in the development of 

new sensors. 

The committee recommends $143.9 million in PE 61102A for defense research sciences, an increase of $6.0 million for a multi-institution, peer reviewed program for development of advanced carbon nanotechnology. 

Advanced lightweight composite armor materials for ballistic impact and blast protection 

The budget request contained $17.6 million in PE 62105A for 

materials technology, but included no funding for advanced lightweight composite armor materials for ballistic impact and blast 

protection. 

The committee is aware of the increasing ballistic and blast 

threat to vehicles on the battlefield. The committee notes that an 

integrated analytical, development, manufacturing and testing program is required to develop new higher performance, light weight 

composites for vehicle and personal armor. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

62105A for advanced lightweight armor materials. 

141 

Advanced weapons technology 

The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 62307A for advanced weapons technology. 

The committee understands the need to carry out applied research in support of existing and future missile defense technologies. The committee is specifically aware of the need to conduct 

research on systemic issues common to Terminal High Altitude 

Area Defense, Patriot Advanced Capability-3/Medium Extended Air 

Defense System, Ground-based Midcourse Defense, and future systems in areas such as radar and radio frequency sensors, electronics and micro-fabrication, optical sensors, and composite material and structures. 

The committee recommends $31.1 million in PE 62307A, an increase of $10.0 million for missile defense applied technology research conducted by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command. 

Aerostat joint project office 

The budget request contained $106.4 million in PE 12419A for 

the Aerostat Joint Project Office. 

The committee understands the critical role that the Joint Land 

Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) 

program plays in cruise missile defense. The committee further understands that the Micro Electro Mechanical (MEMS) demonstration radar system is an important risk reduction effort in the 

JLENS acquisition strategy. The committee recommends $108.4 million in PE 12419A, an increase of $2.0 million for MEMS demonstration radar system 

project completion and additional critical technology demonstration. 

Applied communications and information networking 

The budget request contained $45.3 million in PE 63008A for 

electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funding for 

applied communications and information networking (ACIN). 

The committee realizes that the goal of ACIN is to revolutionize 

military doctrine and methods by enhancing high-value military 

systems with rapidly advancing commercial information technologies and innovative applications of those technologies. 

The committee supports the application of state-of-the art commercial technology to improve military systems and recommends 

an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63008A for ACIN. 

Armored systems modernization 

The budget request included $3.1 billion in PE 64645A for ar- mored systems modernization, including $105.3 million for reconnaissance platforms and sensors; $86.4 million for unmanned 

ground vehicles; $2.5 million for unattended sensors; $61.6 million 

for sustainment; $2.3 billion for system of systems engineering and 

program management; and $549.2 million for manned ground vehicles, as part of approximately $3.9 billion total amount requested 

for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program in over 50 program 

elements. 

The Army had allocated $19.0 billion for FCS research and development during fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Last year the Army 

added two years to the System Development and Demonstration 

142 

(SDD) Phase and increased the cost to $22.0 billion. Now the Army 

has delayed the program to 2016 and increased the development 

costs to $30.3 billion. Additionally, the program has been restructured into four spirals that are designed to field incremental capability into the current force. Because of its size and importance to 

the Army, FCS would dominate the Army’s investment accounts 

and priorities over the next decade. The announcement that 

modularity will be undertaken during the same time period as FCS 

development has caused concern because the combined costs of 

$30.3 billion in the Future Years Defense Program for FCS and 

$69.0 billion for modularity are well above the expected Army funding profile. 

Under the FCS system-of-systems approach all 18 systems are 

developed simultaneously, even though major differences exist in 

the developmental and fielding timelines of these systems. Originally, there were 157 development programs, referred to as ‘‘complementary programs,’’ funded outside of the armored systems 

modernization-FCS program element. These ‘‘complementary programs,’’ described by the Army as necessary to completely field 

FCS are in most instances the on-going technology development 

that should have been completed for FCS before entry into SDD. 

The complementary programs and projects are just as much FCS 

program-related as the projects within the armored systems modernization program element. Although the FCS hallmark is network centric war fighting, armored systems modernization-FCS 

program element itself contains no project for a network. The network is formed by the Warfighter Information Network Tactical 

(WIN–T) and the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). Both of these 

systems are being developed outside of the FCS program structure 

as complementary programs. Further, JTRS has already been restructured due to schedule and cost overruns and now faces another restructure with an additional 24 month schedule delay and 

cost increase. 

The committee has numerous concerns with the FCS program: 

(1) The Office of the Secretary of Defense approved FCS 

entry into SDD in May 2003 without established program requirements, a network architecture or mature technologies. 

The Department of Defense historical acquisition record indicates that proceeding into SDD with unproven technology, will 

likely result in schedule slips and substantial cost overruns. 

And in fact, the FCS program has already been restructured 

at least three times. In a prepared statement for the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on March 16, 2005, 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicated: ‘‘The 

FCS is at significant risk for not delivering required capability 

within budgeted resources. * * * The program’s level of knowledge is far below that suggested by best practices or Department of Defense policy: Nearly 2 years after program launch 

and with $4.6 billion invested, requirements are not firm and 

only 1 of over 50 technologies are mature. As planned, the program will attain the level of knowledge in 2008 that it should 

have had in 2003. * * * To make FCS an effective acquisition 

program different approaches must be considered, including 

(A) setting the first stage of the program to demonstrate military capability, mature technology, and firm requirements; and 

143 

(B) bundling its other capabilities into advanced technology 

demonstrations until they can be put in a future stage * * *;’’ (2) FCS program requirements have yet to be established. 

Under the current organizational construct, the GAO indicates 

there are as many as 10,000 individual program and project requirements; 

(3) Many of the FCS systems, including unmanned systems 

and sensors, have parallel research and development programs 

outside of FCS in the Army, other services, and/or the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). As an example, between 

what the Army classifies as FCS and non-FCS program elements, there are at least 10 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 

projects in development. This does not include UAV programs 

being developed for the Army by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; 

(4) Technology maturity varies among the various systems 

and in most cases does not support being considered ready for 

SDD; 

(5) How the FCS concept would provide for survivability 

against the asymmetrical threat that our military services 

have experienced in the global war on terrorism, remains to be 

demonstrated; 

(6) The manned vehicle concepts are at least five tons heavier than what the Army has established as its manned vehicle 

weight requirement; and 

(7) No current cost estimate exists for the FCS program. 

With the added cost of modularization, it is questionable 

whether both FCS and modularization are affordable. 

The committee believes that the Army would benefit from a restructured FCS program that establishes a vision and future forces 

architecture for the Army as a whole. It is not productive to have 

a vision of two future Armies, one FCS-Army and the rest of the 

Army. Even under the best of circumstances, with everything going 

as planned and resources being available to fund all of the Army’s 

extensive needs, by 2025, only 20 percent of the modularized Army 

would include FCS units. WIN–T, JTRS, UAV programs, ground 

sensors, and common operating environment, should be interoperable with the whole Army, not just the FCS-Army. Projects and 

supporting technology should be developed and demonstrated first 

and not based on a program schedule where the Army is trying ‘‘to 

invent on a schedule.’’

The committee further believes that FCS should be defined by 

what is currently described as the system-of-systems common operating environment, program management, and sustainment, the 

largest current FCS project. The remaining projects should be combined with program elements of similar purpose and/or commensurate with their requirements and technology maturity. Further, the 

Department of the Army should establish the command, control, 

communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information technology architecture for the future force 

and mandate adherence to this architecture in the development of 

new systems as well as modification of legacy systems. 

Accordingly, the committee directs that: 

(1) A new program element, PE 64782A, be designated FCS 

common operating environment within SDD and comprised of 

144 

the current projects F55 and F61, with an authorization of $2.3 

billion, the budget request; 

(2) A new program element, PE 63645A, be designated armored systems modernization within the advanced component 

development and prototype budget activity, comprised of the 

current project designated F57, with an authorization of $100.0 

million, a reduction of $449.2 million; 

(3) A new program element, PE 63303A, be designated reconnaissance platforms and sensors within the advanced component development and prototypes budget activity, comprised 

of Project F52, class I and IV reconnaissance platforms and 

sensors, with an authorization of $47.2 million, the budget request; 

(4) Class II and III reconnaissance platforms and sensors be incorporated into PE 63003A, with an authorization of $58.1 

million, the budget request; 

(5) Project F54, unattended sensors, be incorporated into PE 

64766A, Tactical Surveillance Systems, with an authorization 

of $2.5 million, the budget request; and 

(6) A new program element, PE 63304A, be designated 

robotic ground systems within the advanced component development and prototypes budget activity, comprised of Project 

F53, unmanned ground vehicles, with an authorization of $86.4 

million, the budget request. 

Army medical peer-reviewed applied research and advanced technology development initiative 

The budget request contained $74.7 million in PE 62787A for ap- plied research in medical technology and $45.2 million in PE 

63002A for medical advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that the primary goal of medical research 

and development in the Department of Defense is to sustain medical technology to effectively protect and improve the survivability 

of U.S. armed forces in a variety of settings including, but not limited to: conventional battlefields, areas of low-intensity conflict, and 

military operations other than war. Operations of U.S. forces in the 

global war on terrorism have placed a premium on the need for a 

range of medical technologies in the areas of infectious diseases, 

combat casualty care, military operational medicine, and health 

hazards for materials, that are the core applied technology for the 

Army’s military technology applied research program. Changing 

military threats on the world’s battlefields and homeland security 

requirements place more emphasis on the need for responsive technology options that could address the threat; the ability to quickly 

assess, develop, and demonstrate the technology; and then, the 

ability to rapidly insert or deploy the technology to the field. The 

committee also notes the wealth of new concepts from the nation’s 

medical science and technology base and the recommendations that 

the committee receives for exploitation of particular technologies 

for addressing emerging medical requirements. The committee endorses the Army’s peer-reviewed medical technology research and 

development program in which emerging medical technologies and 

concepts compete for funding on the basis of peer-reviewed technical merit and the contribution that the technology would, if implemented, make to the health and well being of the armed forces. 

145 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 

62787A and an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63002A, for the 

Army medical technology peer-reviewed applied research and advanced technology development programs, respectively. 

Army space and missile defense architecture analysis program 

The budget request contained $83.1 million in PE 63327A for 

Army air and missile defense systems engineering, but included no 

funding for the Army space and missile defense (ASMD) architecture analysis program. 

The committee places a priority on the development of a transformational capability. The committee recognizes the contributions 

of the ASMD architecture analysis program towards providing critical analytical, modeling and simulation tools supporting advanced 

concepts and architectures for the Army’s integrated air and missile defense systems program. 

The committee recommends $88.1 million in PE 63327A, an increase of $5.0 million for the ASMD architecture analysis program. 

Center for rotorcraft innovation 

The budget request included $34.3 million in PE 62211A for 

Aviation and Applied Research and Technology, but included no 

funds for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation (CRI). 

The Center for Rotorcraft Innovation is a joint effort between the 

rotorcraft industry, academic research centers and government 

partners to increase rotorcraft research in the United States. CRI 

will expand collaborative rotorcraft research and development already underway between the rotorcraft industry and its government partners in the National Rotorcraft Technology Center, and 

will focus its new research efforts on dual-use technologies that 

have national security and homeland defense applications. CRI is 

the only effort of its kind and will be a catalyst for the long-term 

growth of the U.S. rotorcraft industry. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 62211A for the CRI. 

Centers of excellence 

The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 61104A for 

university and industry research centers and $1.9 million for university centers of excellence. 

The committee notes the current Army effort to harness university research expertise for Army-unique science and technology 

problems. The committee further notes the Army initiative to partner university researchers at Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) with Army Training and 

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Battle Labs for the acceleration of 

research to actual technology demonstration. The committee notes 

current priorities include efforts to improve tactical mobility, reduce logistics infrastructure, and increase rotorcraft survivability. 

The committee supports such efforts yet urges further advances in 

the cognitive research areas of modeling and simulation, data fusion, and human systems integration. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 

61104A for university centers of excellence to support human sysVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
146 

tems integration modeling, simulation, data fusion, and related efforts. 

Combat vehicle electronics 

The budget request contained $12.0 million in PE 23735A for 

combat vehicle improvements, but included no funding to develop 

standardized next generation electronics architectures for current 

combat vehicle programs. 

The committee is aware that current combat vehicles face accelerated component obsolescence issues. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

23735A to develop standardized next generation electronics architectures for current and future combat vehicle programs. 

Common remote operating weapon station 

The budget request contained $34.6 million in PE 64601A for infantry support weapons but included no funds for the Common Remote Operating Weapon Station (CROWS) Light development program. The budget request also contained $56.4 million in PE 

63640M but included no funds for the CROWS program. 

The CROWS system is a tactical vehicle mounted, stabilized remote weapon station system that provides day and night target detection, recognition, and engagement at long distances while allowing the soldier to remain protected by an armored vehicle; accurate 

shoot on-the-move capability, and one-shot-one-hit accuracy that 

minimizes collateral damage. The committee notes that the United 

States Central Command issued an urgent needs statement for additional CROWS systems in December 2004. The committee applauds the Army’s expeditious manner in satisfying this urgent requirement and notes CROWS has proven its capability successfully 

and effectively in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). As such the committee feels CROWS could also prove just as effective for marines 

operating in Iraq, and recommends providing six systems for test 

and evaluation by the Marine Corps. 

The committee recognizes certain combat support and combat 

service support (CS/CSS) vehicle platforms cannot support the 

weight and size of the currently fielded CROWS system. 

To address this need, the committee understands the Army has 

developed a reduced weight and size configuration of CROWS 

called CROWS Light. The committee supports this effort and believes this system can enhance force protection, survivability, and 

lethality of CS/CSS units performing critical convoy operations in 

OIF. 

The committee recommends $42.6 million in PE 64601A, an increase of $8.0 million to complete the development, testing, and accelerate fielding of CROWS Light systems and recommends $58.4 

million in PE63640M, an increase of $2.0 million for CROWS test 

and evaluation by the Marine Corps. 

Communications and electronics cost module 

The budget request contained $12.1 million in PE 63006A for the 

research and development of Command, Control, Communications 

Advanced Technology. 

The committee believes that the Communications and Electronics 

Cost Module (CECM) is a critical component to realize the DepartVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
147 

ment of the Army’s service-wide planned force restructure and to 

support appropriate homeland security response issues. The CECM 

is part of an advanced solution project that accelerates collaborative, near real-time trade-off analysis of prospective system design changes. In addition, the CECM allows decision makers to 

have affordable analysis, while addressing program managers’ concerns throughout the program lifecycle. The CECM simultaneously 

integrates cost estimation, computer aided design activities, and 

work breakdown structures in a collaborative, web-enabled, efficient, and secure environment, thus reducing the cycle time in the 

decision process from the beginning and throughout the acquisition 

lifecycle. The committee recommends $14.1 million in PE 63006A for the 

research and development of Command, Control, Communications 

Advanced Technology, an increase of $2.0 million for the development of the CECM. 

Distributed common ground system 

The budget request contained $156.7 million for the research and 

development of the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). 

The committee notes that the DCGS program is beginning to address how data is processed from various sources. The committee 

believes this is a critical element in the data enterprise integration 

of all DCGS. Without a clear plan that addresses all DCGS capabilities, to include access, exploitation, and dissemination of information and data from other sources, DCGS will not be able to fully 

maximize its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance processing capabilities. In addition, the committee is concerned that 

without a unified development structure built on a validated Capability and Maturity Model (CMM) standard that strictly controls 

DCGS requirements and correlates software with fewer defects, 

DCGS will continue to be a pretext for the services to buy new 

hardware. 

Given the technical, developmental, and management challenges, 

the committee believes that DCGS should reevaluate its software 

development and data management structure to determine if the 

present organizational configuration will be able to support the 

transition to DCGS. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration, and the DCGS council to submit a report by February 15, 

2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence addressing the standards for all legacy hardware and software implementation into the joint DCGS architecture; how the processes, key practices and common features in software will mature jointly; and how current and planned data will 

be handled regardless of the source or asset. Additionally, this report must include a fielding plan for all DCGS. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following for the research and development of the DCGS program: $73.3 million in PE 

35208A, a decrease of $18.3 million, and $32.4 million for PE 

35208F, a decrease of $8.0 million, $12.3 million in PE 35208N, 

$1.8 million in PE 35208BQ, $3.7 million in PE 35208G, and $1.0 

million in PE 35208L. 

148 

Excalibur XM982 

The budget request contained $113.4 million in PE 64814A, artillery munitions, but included no funds for Excalibur XM982 life 

cycle improvements. 

The committee recognizes the potential benefits provided through 

studies of manufacturing technologies and methodologies to help 

lower production costs without sacrificing stated performance requirements of a weapon system. In fiscal year 2005, Excalibur 

XM982 lifecycle improvement program efforts were able to reduce 

the production cost of each projectile by 14.1 percent. The fiscal 

year 2006 cost reduction efforts would build upon previous work 

and expand into the potential production cost reduction of the canard actuation system and insensitive munitions design improvements for the base and warhead of the projectile identified in the 

lean design review. Cost reduction efforts will be expanded to the 

Excalibur XM982 common guidance capability, which is a system 

commonality in other weapons development programs. Therefore, the committee recommends $123.4 million in PE 

64814A, an increase of $10.0 million for the Excalibur XM982 

lifecycle improvement program. 

Explosive and narcotic detection devices 

The budget request contained $19.3 million in PE 62712A, 

countermine systems, but included no funds for continued development of explosive and narcotic detection devices for vehicles and 

cargo containers proceeding through entry control points at various, worldwide Department of Defense facilities. 

The committee notes the significance of improving capabilities of 

future force protection equipment. There are two detection devices 

currently under development which have the potential to be used 

for detecting trace amounts of explosives and narcotics on the inside and outside of vehicles and cargo containers. These devices 

should be able to complement and enhance current force protection 

equipment in place, or substitute when needed, for explosive and 

narcotic detecting canines that are unavailable to perform these 

duties. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $27.3 million in PE 

62712A, an increase of $8.0 million for continued development of 

explosive and narcotic detection devices. 

Fire support technology improvement program 

The budget request contained $16.1 million in PE 23726A for advanced field artillery tactical data systems, but included no funds 

for the Fire Support Technology Improvement (FSTI) program. 

The FSTI program will examine and exploit emerging technologies that could improve artillery fire support efficiency and performance. 

The committee recognizes the need for more rapid precision engagement of artillery targets requires artillery battle management 

systems that can enable soldiers to rapidly geo-reference and analyze relevant imagery and/or information; determine the status of 

the possible firing elements; issue fire commands; and effectively 

conduct battle damage assessments all in real time. The committee 

is aware this program’s purpose is to identify gaps and develop solutions to assimilate multi-source (satellite, aircraft, and unmanned 

149 

aerial vehicle) imagery and information, and accomplish rapid georeferencing and shooting of precision artillery engagements. 

The committee recommends $21.0 million in PE 23726A, an increase of $5.0 million for the continuation of the FSTI program. 

Flexible display initiative 

The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 62705A for 

electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding for the 

flexible display initiative. 

The committee is aware that new flexible display technology has 

the potential to provide the military with technology to fabricate 

high definition displays on rugged conformable, flexible substrates. 

The committee notes that the United States Display Consortium 

coordinates these efforts with over 80 companies, using investments from both the public and private industry to accelerate the 

development of technologies and products needed by the Army, 

other military services, and various national security agencies. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.4 million in PE 62705A for the flexible display initiative. 

Gas-engine driven air conditioning system demonstrations 

The budget request contained $7.3 million in PE 63734A for military engineering, but included no funding for unitary gas-engine 

driven air conditioning (GEDAC) system demonstrations. 

The committee is aware that GEDAC use on bases in the southwest has the potential to save significant electric power and reduce 

water usage. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$7.0 million in PE 63734A for GEDAC system demonstrations. 

Geospatial information decision support-single integrated air picture 

The budget request included $150.3 million in PE 63327A, PE 

632879N, PE 27434F, PE 27443F, and PE 20631M for the development of the Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP). This program 

seeks to provide a common aerial view of the battlespace for the 

warfighter. 

The committee supports technologies and capabilities that provide the warfighter with a single integrated air, ground, space, and 

maritime picture that is the product of fused, common, continual, 

and accurate data. However, the committee is concerned that SIAP 

only addresses the air picture, and could become another stove-pipe 

system that will not interoperate with the ground, space, or maritime pictures. The committee supports the development of one true 

common operational picture that will provide the warfighter with 

an unambiguous, real-time picture of the battlespace. 

The committee is aware that the Army has requirements to provide a consistent, accurate, and timely understanding of how space 

assets and capabilities affect the battlespace. Meeting this requirement demands tools that fuse geospatial and operational data for 

air defense and satellite control. The Geospatial Information Decision Support (GIDS) for SIAP is an intelligent software tool for 

warfare commanders that receives tactical information from multiple real-time ground, air, and space-based tactical data sources to 

provide a comprehensive battlespace picture. The committee underVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
150 

stands GIDS–SIAP will also be extended to support Army tactical 

missile defense needs. 

The committee believes GIDS–SIAP may build the bridge between SIAP and an integrated common operational picture. However, the committee notes that this is not the final or all-encompassing solution to developing a true common operational picture. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 

2006, on a formal acquisition strategy to clearly define the development and service-level implementation of SIAP, and a coordinated 

investment strategy for developing all common tactical pictures 

such as the air, ground, maritime, and space views. Accordingly, the committee recommends $157.3 million for the research and development of SIAP, an increase of $7.0 million in 

PE 63327A, for the evaluation of software and field demonstration 

of GIDS–SIAP. 

Handheld detection systems 

The budget request contained $74.9 million in PE 63004A for 

weapons and munitions advanced technology but contained no 

funding for the miniaturized spectrometer identification system. 

The committee is concerned with the well-being of uniformed personnel due to the pending threat of chemical weapons. The committee supports efforts to develop handheld sensing equipment to 

improve timely detection of evolving and existing threats. Therefore, the committee recommends $77.9 million in PE 

63004A, an increase of $3.0 million to develop the miniaturized 

spectrometer identification system. 

Human systems integration 

The budget request contained $17.5 million in PE 62716A for human factors engineering applied research, $68.5 million in PE 

63236N for warfighter sustainment advanced technology development, and $79.4 million in PE 62202F for applied research in 

human effectiveness. 

The committee recognizes human systems integration initiatives 

provide a means for reducing total lifecycle costs of weapons programs, and strongly supports efforts to consider human systems integration issues early in the acquisition cycle. The committee believes that further institutionalization and standardization of 

human systems integration methodologies and modeling tools are 

needed. The committee also remains concerned about the level of 

support and coordination of these initiatives within each of the 

military departments and throughout the Department of Defense 

(DOD). The committee urges the Department to complete a comprehensive review and critical assessment of human systems integration based upon the perspectives of the acquisition, personnel, 

and operations and management communities. The committee expects that such a review would include a review of acquisition programs that utilize such initiatives, and an assessment of the relative level of support within each military department. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million 

in PE 62716A for the development of manpower and personnel integration tools for modeling and predicting soldier and system performance; an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63236N to develop cogVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
151 

nitive and physiological research data under the Navy’s system engineering, acquisition and personnel integration program; and an 

increase of $3.5 million in PE 62202F for the development of new 

training algorithms for the human performance integration tool 

program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review and assessment of human systems integration programs within the Department and to submit a report 

of the results to the congressional defense committees by December 

31, 2005. Further, committee recommends that a panel of experts 

at the National Defense University collaborate, consult and independently review the DOD’s assessment and submit a report of the 

results to the congressional defense committees within six months 

of initiation. 

Hydrogen proton exchange membrane 

The budget request contained $64.9 million in PE 62601A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funding 

for the hydrogen proton exchange membrane (PEM) ambient pressure fuel cell medium/heavy duty vehicle demonstration program. 

The committee is aware that the hydrogen PEM fuel cell is to 

demonstrate zero emission, ambient pressure, highly efficient hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles in various operating situations 

and conditions. The committee notes that this development supports the government’s objective of tripling fuel economy while reducing harmful emissions. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

62601A for the hydrogen proton exchange membrane (PEM) ambient pressure fuel cell medium/heavy duty vehicle demonstration 

program. 

Hyperspectral longwave imager for the tactical environment 

The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 63710A for 

night vision but included no funding for hyperspectral longwave 

imager for the tactical environment (HyLITE). 

The committee is aware that recent operations have both demonstrated the need for a day/night hyperspectral day/night sensor 

and provided a basis for improvements to the prototype HyLITE. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.2 million 

in PE 63710A for HyLITE. 

Integrated digital environment service model 

The budget request contained $42.5 million in PE 63772A for the 

development of Advanced Tactical Computer Science and Sensor 

Technology. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has a myriad of individual systems that have been designed, produced, and 

fielded to respond to specific threats, mission requirements, and information needs. The committee notes there is no single method or 

system to track and evaluate the interoperability characteristics of 

these systems, or to ensure system-of- systems configuration will 

work together in the battlespace. 

The command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance Integrated Digital Environment 

Service Model (C4ISR–IDESM) seeks to provide the information 

technology infrastructure, applications, and support services necVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
152 

essary to configure and manage enterprise data. The C4ISR–

IDESM uses the internet on a subscription basis as needed to conduct C4ISR interoperability analysis. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $47.5 million in PE 

63772A, an increase of $5.0 million for research and development 

of C4ISR–IDESM. 

Joint Common Missile 

The budget request included no funds for the Joint Common Missile (JCM) program. 

The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year 2005 

projected a requirement of $271.3 million for fiscal year 2006. The 

committee also understands the JCM was one of the first weapon 

systems to be validated by the joint requirements process instituted by the Secretary of Defense and the first program approved 

by the Department of Defense Joint Requirements Oversight Committee through the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 

System (JCIDS) process. Further, the committee notes that the 

JCM is currently the only air-to-ground missile with the potential 

to fulfill the six critical capability gaps identified in the JCIDS 

analysis, such as targeting time sensitive moving targets, mitigation of collateral damage, and targeting diverse target sets. Thus 

far, the Department of the Army and Department of the Navy have 

invested $406.4 million in research and development for the JCM. 

Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of 

Defense to reevaluate the cancellation of the Joint Common Missile 

program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 

a report to the Congressional defense committees by December 31, 

2005, that contains a Joint Requirements Oversight Council memorandum explaining how the Department of Defense will mitigate 

the capability gaps identified in the JCIDS analysis; a current and 

forecasted inventory of all air to ground missiles remaining in war 

reserve stockpiles; an explanation of compliance strategy and associated costs for the Department to comply with the insensitive munitions requirements of current air to ground missiles; and lastly, 

provide a cost comparison analysis of continuing the Joint Common 

Missile program versus JCM termination and continued procurement of legacy air to ground missiles to fulfill mission requirements. 

JP–8 soldier fuel cell 

The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 62705A for 

electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding for JP–

8 soldier fuel cell. 

The committee is aware that light, compact, high-capacity power 

sources to power a variety of devices are essential to success on the 

modern battlefield. The committee notes that an effort is on-going 

to modify a commercial fuel cell to run on standard, readily available JP–8 fuel. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

62705A for development of the JP–8 soldier fuel cell. 

153 

Lean munitions 

The budget request contained $68.5 million in PE 78045A for 

manufacturing science and technology, but included no funds for 

the third phase of the Lean Munitions project. 

The committee notes that the Army Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Command (ARDEC) is responsible for 90 

percent of the munitions produced and utilized by the U.S. Army. 

The committee further notes that the Army’s increased operational 

tempo and transformation plans support the need to reduce the 

time and cost for development and production of munitions used by 

our armed forces. The committee believes that the use of a standards-based, model-driven design and manufacturing lifecycle support environment would enable faster and lower cost production 

and sustainment of current and future munitions systems. 

The committee understands that the third phase of the Lean Munitions project will focus on enterprise-wide integration and utilization of three-dimensional, model-based, standardized product data. 

Further, the Lean Munitions project will be expanded from a pilot 

demonstration to a full-scale production of machined parts, integration ARDEC’s design and manufacturing lifecycle support environment, and implementation of the Lean business process into the 

supply chain. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 

78045A to continue the Lean Munitions project. 

Leishmaniasis diagnostics 

The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63807A for 

medical systems advanced development. 

The committee notes that over 700 U.S. troops have been diagnosed with cutaneous leishmaniasis since the start of Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and soldiers serving in Afghanistan have been infected with visceral leishmaniasis, a more serious form of the disease that can cause organ damage and death. In addition, all blood 

donations from military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan were 

stopped because of the potential transmission of the parasite from 

infected donors to non-infected recipients. 

The committee believes that it is important to have a safe and 

effective method of early diagnosis. The Army has had under development a diagnostic skin test for leishmaniasis that is designed to 

be inexpensive, easy use and ideally suited for routine use in areas 

where limited medical services are available. This test is an important component of the overall Department of Defense program to 

develop effective Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved diagnostic and treatment products for leishmaniasis. The diagnostic 

test is in advanced development and has been successfully tested 

in humans in Phase I safety trials. The committee notes, however, 

that the program has not been included in the budget request because of funding limitations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 

63807A to continue development of the leishmaniasis skin test. 

Light utility vehicle 

The budget request contained $64.8 million in PE 62601A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funding 

for the light utility vehicle. 

154 

The committee is aware the Army requires a low-cost, light utility vehicle (LUV) that would provide soldiers with enhanced mobility, lethality and survivability compared to the current high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle and understands that the design 

and development of a LUV demonstrator could be accelerated due 

to previous research in LUV technology by the National Automotive Center. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 62601A to continue the design, development, and delivery of a LUV demonstrator. 

Lightweight patient monitor with defibrillator 

The budget request contained $45.2 million in PE 63002A for 

medical advanced technology development. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 

3002A to continue development of advanced capabilities in a compact, lightweight, full-featured patient monitor with defibrillator 

that will enable military caregivers to provide intensive care monitoring and treatment in locations and situations that would be otherwise inhibited by the size and weight of the current technology 

in the field. 

M5 high performance fiber for personnel armor systems 

The budget request contained $21.7 million in PE 62786A for 

warfighter technology, but included no funding for M5 high performance fiber. 

The committee notes that M5 fiber, based on independent evaluation, offers the possibility of a new generation of lighter and 

more effective body and vehicle armor as well as similar improvement in heat resistant clothing. 

The committee recognizes the urgency to provide improved per- sonnel protection and recommends $26.7 million in PE 62786A, an 

increase of $5.0 million to hasten development, evaluation and 

small-scale field testing of M5 fiber based armor and other applications. 

Mast mounted common remote stabilized sensor system 

The budget request contained $26.7 million in PE 63653A for advanced tank armament systems to support the development of the 

Family of Stryker vehicles, but included no funds to complete the 

development of the Mast Mounted Common Remote Stabilized Sensor System (CRS3). 

The Stryker Brigade Combat Team mission requirement states 

the need for a high performance mast mounted CRS3 on the 

Stryker Reconnaissance Vehicle and the Stryker Fire Support Vehicle. The committee is aware $2.1 million was appropriated in the 

National Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107–248) 

for a mast mounted CRS3 technology demonstrator. The committee 

understands the next phase of development is a fully qualified and 

tested mast mounted CRS3 and notes additional funding would accelerate development of the mast mounted CRS3 by two years. 

The committee understands a mast mounted CRS3, when fielded, 

increases soldier survivability, allows soldier to operate the sensor 

package inside the armored vehicle without degrading sensor performance, and allows soldiers to target from a defilade position. 

155 

Therefore, the committee recommends $41.7 million in PE 

63653A, an increase of $15.0 million for accelerated mast mounted 

CRS3 development for the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. 

Medium tactical vehicle steering and suspension development 

The budget request contained $1.9 million in PE 64604A for the 

continued development of medium tactical truck technologies and 

enhancements. 

The committee is aware the United States Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command initiated an advanced steering 

and suspension modification program in fiscal year 2004 for its medium truck fleet. The committee supports the continued modernization of the Army’s medium truck fleet through advancements in 

suspension and steering and further notes these modifications can 

provide improved mission mobility, increased vehicle maneuverability in confined areas, and allow for greater vehicle control over 

extreme terrains such as those found in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 64604A to continue the development, simulation, testing, 

and validation of the advanced medium truck steering and suspension program. 

Miniature sensor development for small and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles 

The budget request contained $23.8 million in PE 62709A for 

night vision technology, but included no funding for miniaturized 

hyperspectral and coherent imaging sensors for small and tactical 

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). 

The committee notes the urgent need for better sensors for small 

and tactical UAVs and recommends $29.8 million in PE 62709A, an 

increase of $6.0 million for miniaturized hyperspectral and coherent imaging sensors for small and tactical UAVs. 

Missile recycling center capability 

The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 63103A for explosive demilitarization technology, but contained no funds for the 

Missile Recycling Center capability at Letterkenny Munitions Center (LEMC). 

The committee notes that Congress appropriated funding for the 

tactical missile reuse and demilitarization capability at LEMC in 

fiscal year 2004. Fiscal year 2006 funding would furnish the LEMC 

with the capability to reduce the usage of open burn and detonation techniques procedures, as directed by Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition (Executive Order 13101), for disposing of tactical missiles. The 

additional funding will add a new module for processing warheads 

from the multiple launch rocket system and will support demilitarization of larger tactical missiles received from other U.S. military services. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million 

for Missile Recycling Center capability at LEMC. 

156 

Modeling and analysis of the response of structures 

The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 61104A for 

university and industry research centers, but included no funding 

for modeling and analysis of the response of structures (MARS). 

The committee notes that MARS computer simulations will provide accurate vulnerability assessments that can be used to improve warfighter protection, enhance survivability, and facilitate 

rapid repair of structures. 

The committee recommends $83.0 million in PE 61104A, an increase of $1.0 million for MARS. 

Night vision advanced technology 

The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 63710A for 

night vision advanced technology initiatives, of which $0.5 million 

was included for the Soldier Mobility and Rifle Targeting System 

(SMaRTS) demonstration program. 

The committee recognizes SMaRTS technology provides soldiers 

with an improved lightweight, low power, helmet mounted thermal 

and visible sensor, with a helmet mounted display and thermal 

weapon sight. SMaRTS significantly improves the warfighter’s 

fight-on-the-move capability while conducting mobile military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) in many different environmental 

conditions where night vision goggles alone fail to provide the complete solution as required by the warfighter. The committee expects 

SMaRTS technology to be a critical combat enabler and expects it 

to improve soldier survivability in MOUT operations in all environments. 

The committee recommends $55.8 million in PE 63710A, an increase of $4.0 million to continue system component definition, 

modeling, and design of the SMaRTS demonstration program. 

Night vision enhanced vision goggle 

The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 63710A for 

night vision advanced technology, but included no funds to accelerate development of night vision fusion technology. 

The committee recognizes that night vision capability has provided our armed forces a significant advantage over their adversaries. The committee notes that while older technology has become 

available to others, state-of-the-art in night vision, pixel level digital fusion of light intensification and infrared images offers a very 

significant advantage over previous night vision devices. The committee understands that this technology will provide vital survivability and operational enhancements. 

The committee recommends an increase of $12.2 million in PE 

63710A to accelerate development and fielding of enhanced night 

vision pixel level, digital fusion of light intensification and infrared 

image technology. 

Night vision system air dispensing capability 

The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 63710A for 

night vision systems, but included no funding for unattended 

ground sensor air deployment from air foils or unmanned aerial vehicles. 

157 

The committee believes that in the future it will be highly advantageous to dispense unattended ground sensors from unmanned 

aerial vehicles. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million 

in PE 63710A for development and testing of unmanned aerial sensor dispensing. 

Non-emitting helicopter brownout situational awareness demonstration 

The budget request included $23.5 million in PE 64201A for aircraft avionics, but included no funds for a non-emitting helicopter 

brownout situational awareness demonstration. The committee is 

aware that helicopter accidents continue to occur due to brownout 

conditions and operations over water. While a variety of technologies exist to solve this problem, the committee is concerned 

that the Department of Defense has not yet demonstrated an effective and affordable solution using non-emitting technologies. The 

committee believes that affordable and relatively mature technologies exist to demonstrate this capability. 

Therefore, the committee has included an increase of $3.0 million 

in PE 64201A for a non-emitting helicopter brownout situational 

awareness demonstration. The committee directs that these funds 

be used for a competitive evaluation using a helicopter platform. If 

the evaluation is successful in demonstrating improved capabilities 

and affordable technologies, the committee encourages the insertion of this capability into existing programs to improve flight handling qualities in degraded visual environments. 

Patient status monitor 

The budget request contained $45.2 million in PE 63002A for 

medical advanced technology development. 

The committee notes advances in patient status monitoring technology that provide on-body sensing of physiological conditions, 

such as heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature via a series of 

wireless relays for patient monitoring and detection of a critical or 

life threatening event. Potential applications of the technology include the monitoring of a deployed individual or groups of individuals who might be subject to catastrophic physiological events, 

such as military and public safety personnel, and those with acute 

cardiovascular disease. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 

63002A to accelerate the development and evaluation of wirelessremote patient status monitoring technology. 

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system 

The budget request contained $45.3 million in PE 63008A for 

electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funding for 

the portable and mobile emergency broadband system. 

The committee notes that the portable and mobile emergency 

broadband system, based on emerging commercial technology, will 

allow rapid establishment of emergency communications networks. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.1 million in PE 

63008A to complete critical development of the portable and mobile 

emergency broadband system. 

158 

Powdered metal compaction 

The budget request contained $68.5 million in PE 78045A for 

manufacturing science and technology. 

The committee notes the production of high quality, low cost net 

and near-net shaped parts for a variety of defense products uses 

traditional compacted metal powder processes in a 75 year-old 

process that is costly and complex. In many cases the resulting 

density and tensile strength of the finished parts are not sufficient 

to allow them to be used in many aerospace, ground vehicle, and 

weapons system applications. 

The committee notes that the combustion driven compaction 

(CDC) process in which an electrically-ignited, combustible gas 

mixture is used to drive the press overcomes many of the problems 

of the current compacted powder technology. The CDC process 

technology is simple and controllable, capable of providing compacted metal parts that are useable in defense applications, and 

appears to have the potential for creating a major step forward in 

defense manufacturing technology in terms of performance and affordability. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

78045A for a powdered metal compaction initiative to continue the 

development and implementation of combustion driven compaction 

technology for defense applications. 

Pseudofollicullitus Barbae 

The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63807A for 

medical systems advanced development, but included no funding 

for the development of a treatment for pseudofollicullitus barbae. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the development of 

a treatment for pseudofollicullitus barbae, particularly as it affects 

military personnel deployability rates. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 

63807A for pseudofollicullitus barbae research. 

Rugged textile electronic garments 

The budget request contained $45.2 million in PE 63002A for 

medical advanced technology development, but included no funds 

for continuation of the development of rugged textile electronic garments for combat casualty care. 

The committee continues to note advances in sensor technology, 

textile electronics, information management, and medical science 

have increased the potential for remote diagnosis, monitoring, and 

treatment of a range of medical conditions. Positive results from 

combat casualty care and electronic textiles research suggest that 

major improvements can be made in the survival of wounded soldiers through the use of these technologies in an integrated system. 

Congress has supported the development and assessment of the application of advanced textile electronic garments to combat casualty 

care. The committee notes that the plan for the third year of the 

program emphasizes the integration of advanced sensor technologies into apparel that will provide a ‘‘wear and forget’’ physiological status monitoring capability. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 

63002A to complete the final year of the rugged textile electronic 

garment program. 

159 

Smart responsive nano-composites 

The budget request contained $67.2 million in PE 61103A for 

University Research Initiatives, but included no funding for smart 

responsive nano-composites. 

The committee is aware that there is a multitude of design possibilities for nano-structured, nature-simulating materials capable of 

responding to outside stimuli. The committee recommends $69.2 million in PE 61103A, an increase of $2.0 million to develop a smart responsive nano-structured material, which combines detection of toxins and alarm-release with self-cleaning and self-repairing material. 

Strategic materials and strategic manufacturing initiative 

The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 62624A for 

weapons and munitions technology, but included no funding for the 

strategic materials strategic manufacturing initiative (SM2i). 

The committee notes that titanium is important for weight reduction of weapons systems. The committee is aware that SM2i will 

link the Army’s efforts to establish a reliable low-cost domestic 

source of titanium with advanced domestic manufacturing capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

62624A for SM2i. 

Tactical wheeled vehicle product improvement program 

The Army is preparing to make a significant capital investment 

in its tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fleet as a direct result of 

modularity and extreme usage rates from ongoing operations in the 

global war on terrorism. The Army requires the flexibility to rapidly evaluate and integrate readily available technology into TWV 

platforms as part of its recapitalization and modernization effort 

for TWVs. The committee expects these technologies to have a realtime impact and effect on existing TWVs by providing increased capability in the areas of performance. The committee report (H. 

Rept. 108–491) accompanying the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) 

requires all Department of Defense manned ground systems must 

be assessed for adequacy in survivability and suitability against 

asymmetrical, unconventional threats. As such, the committee expects at the minimum, the incorporation of lessons learned from 

Operation Iraqi Freedom as a specific component of the TWV Product Improvement Program (PIP). 

The Army’s TWV recapitalization and modernization strategy 

will require proof-of-concept modifications and commercial-off-theshelf proven capabilities in the key performance areas of force protection, survivability, reliability, distribution and mission enhancements and safety. The committee realizes the degree of complexity 

of integrating new technologies and commercial modifications into 

specific TWV platforms. The committee is also aware this process 

of ‘‘spiraling’’ technologies into current TWV platforms marks the 

first time that this has occurred as the historical trend has been 

to categorize the TWV fleet as a non-developmental item. The committee disagrees with this historical non-developmental item categorization of the TWV fleet and commends the Army and the Program Executive Officer for Combat Support and Combat Service 

Support for devising a modernization and recapitalization strategy 

160 

for the TWV fleet that includes readily available technology platform insertions. The committee supports the Army’s effort and the 

committee believes a TWV PIP can augment and accelerate the spiraling of these needed, readily available technologies into specific 

TWV platforms. Therefore, the committee recommends $50.0 million in fiscal year 

2006 for the TWV PIP. The committee expects this additional funding will be prioritized and distributed accordingly across the families of light, medium and heavy tactical wheeled vehicles and to 

also include the family of tactical trailers. Given the noted complexity of the TWV recapitalization and modernization strategy, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2006, describing in detail the Army’s plan for integrating these product improvement modifications into the current TWV fleet. The committee expects the report to provide specific cost estimates and specific platform modifications. 

Titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering research 

The budget request contained $44.7 million in PE 62624A for 

weapons and munitions technology, but included no funding for titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering research (TEMPER). 

The committee is aware that the TEMPER initiative is intended 

to enhance U.S. industrial capability for the efficient production of 

inexpensive titanium for military systems. The committee notes 

that titanium offers weight and performance advantages and that 

the process must be developed to produce titanium at a reasonable 

cost in order to realize those advantages in future military systems. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

62624A for TEMPER. 

Transparent armor 

The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 63003A for 

aviation advanced technology, but contained no funding for advanced lightweight armored window technology. 

The committee recognizes the unique threat confronting air 

crews operating rotary aircraft in forward deployed areas. The committee is supportive of efforts to rapidly field advanced technologies 

to enhance the protection of military personnel. The committee understands that significant opportunities exist to facilitate the transition of technologies from research and development to testing and 

fielding, particularly in the area of self-protection. The effort to develop transparent, lightweight armor is one such opportunity, as it 

offers the promise of improving rotary aircraft survivability. 

The committee therefore, recommends an increase of $1.5 million 

in PE 63003A for lightweight armored window technology. 

UH–60 maintenance improvement program 

The budget request contained $409.1 million in PE 23744A, aircraft modifications/product improvement programs, but included no 

funds for a maintenance improvement program for the UH–60 

Black Hawk helicopter. 

The committee notes the benefits of streamlining maintenance 

practices in order to reduce aircraft downtime for scheduled mainVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
161 

tenance and to expedite return of the weapon system to the 

warfighter. The Nomad Expert Technician System (NETS), along 

with commercially developed software, combines to form the 

Nomad Aircraft Maintenance Improvement Program (NAMIP). The 

NETS is a maintenance productivity tool composed of a wireless, 

integrated, belt-mounted control module and a heads-up display 

mounted on a standard type baseball cap. This display allows 

maintenance personnel to view technical data and procedures concerning maintenance tasks without leaving their point of task. Secondly, commercially available software can adapt existing UH–60 

maintenance data to integrate with the NETS displays. As a result, 

the NAMIP has the potential to significantly increase output productivity and reduce aircraft downtime for UH–60 maintenance facilities Army wide. Therefore, the committee recommends $413.0 million in PE 

23744A, an increase of $3.9 million for test and evaluation of the 

UH–60 NAMIP at Corpus Christi Army Depot and the Army National Guard Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot. 

NAVY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $18.0 billion for Navy research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $18.0 billion, a decrease of $15.9 

million from the budget request. 

162 


Insert graphic folio 183 HR89.080
163 


Insert graphic folio 184 HR89.081
164 


Insert graphic folio 185 HR89.082
165 


Insert graphic folio 186 HR89.083
166 


Insert graphic folio 187 HR89.084
167 


Insert graphic folio 188 HR89.085
168 


Insert graphic folio 189 HR89.086
169 


Insert graphic folio 190 HR89.087
170 


Insert graphic folio 191 HR89.088
171 


Insert graphic folio 192 HR89.089
172 


Insert graphic folio 193 HR89.090
173 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced mine detection program 

The budget request contained $56.4 million in PE 63640M for the 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but included no 

funding for the advanced mine detection program. 

The committee is aware that the Marine Corps urgently needs a 

backpack advanced mine detection capability with minimal false 

alarm rates. The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research 

has been working to develop an advanced mine detection system 

based on quadrupole resonance technology that has the potential to 

meet Marine Corps requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63640M to complete development of a quadrupole resonance technology advanced backpack mine detection system. 

Affordable towed array construction 

The budget request contained $95.5 million in PE 64503N for submarine system equipment development, including $4.5 million 

to continue the development of affordable towed array technology. 

The affordable towed array construction program employs fiber 

optic thinline arrays to provide reliability improvements by reducing system complexity, eliminating wet end electronics, enhancing 

littoral capability and incorporating robust array construction 

methods. The committee believes that accelerating the development 

and fielding of fiber optic towed array technology using improved 

construction methods and process would provide increased performance, reliability and operational capabilities at reduced costs and 

earlier introduction into the fleet. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 64503N to accelerate the development and introduction 

into the fleet of fiber optic thinline arrays. 

Affordable weapon system 

The budget request contained $14.2 million in PE 63795N for 

land attack technology advanced component development and prototypes. 

The affordable weapons system (AWS) program began as an Office of Naval Research (ONR) advanced technology initiative to 

demonstrate the ability to design, develop, and build a capable and 

affordable precision guided weapon system at a cost that would be 

an order of magnitude cheaper than comparable weapons systems 

and in production would achieve a stable unit production cost very 

early in the production cycle. 

The committee notes that the ONR program has been successful 

in all respects. In less than four years, the AWS program demonstrated the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components to 

construct a 400–600 mile range, subsonic (180–220 knot), ‘‘loitering, 200 pound payload, precision strike missile with global position system/inertial navigation system guidance and control and a 

data link.’’ The missile has both line-of-sight and satellite data 

links for interaction with ground stations and forward observers 

and is reprogrammable in flight. In operational use the missile 

would be launched from CONEX-type containers that hold between 

6 and 20 missiles and could be carried on land, sea, or air platVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
174 

forms. The initiative has demonstrated that the COTS approach 

can reduce costs by an order of magnitude from traditional cruise 

missiles. The current missile cost in large scale production, exclusive of warhead, is estimated to be approximately $65,000. 

Based on the results of the AWS advanced technology demonstration, the Department of Defense and the Navy transitioned the 

AWS from the technology base to an accelerated advanced component development and prototype program to demonstrate the ability to produce the missile at the projected cost, produce up to 100 

missiles and launch and fire control equipment for developmental 

and operational testing, and support user evaluation of the AWS 

for potential use by the fleet. The Navy is also assessing the operational requirement and concepts of operation for the system and 

those other activities that would be necessary to establish AWS as 

a program of record. The current schedule includes completion of 

an operational evaluation of the system during the third quarter of 

fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million in PE 

63795N to continue the development of the AWS, support developmental and operational testing and fleet evaluation of the system. 

Of the amount provided, up to $30.0 million may be used to continue low rate initial production of the system. The committee directs that funds to continue low rate initial production of the system will not become available for obligation until successful completion of the AWS operational evaluation. 

Air combat environment test and evaluation 

The budget request contained $51.2 million in PE 64231N for 

major test and evaluation investment. 

The committee notes that in order to meet increasingly complex 

asymmetric threats, U.S. armed forces are transforming from a 

strategy based on threats to a strategy based on capabilities, and 

that this transformation requires sophisticated modeling, simulation, and analysis at research, development, test, and evaluation 

(RDT&E) and training range facilities operated by the military departments. The Air Combat Environment Test and Evaluation Facility (ACETEF) is a ground test facility whose primary purpose is 

to test installed aircraft systems in an integrated multi-spectral 

warfare environment using state-of-the-art simulation and simulation technology. The facility supports the systems development 

process from early mission needs and requirements development 

through operational testing and training. The robust and flexible 

modeling and simulation architecture has made possible other 

RDT&E and related capabilities, such as distributed or co-located 

battlegroup mission rehearsal for naval and joint forces. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

64231N to accelerate improvements in high-fidelity simulation capabilities at the ACETEF. 

Airborne reconnaissance systems 

The budget request contained $27.9 million in PE 35206N for airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funding for passive 

collision avoidance and reconnaissance (PCAR). 

The committee is aware that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 

must fly in regions that make them a potential hazard to commerVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
175 

cial and other manned aircraft. The committee notes that PCAR 

will sense an impending collision and allow the UAV to safely avoid 

approaching aircraft. 

Therefore, to improve safety of UAV operations, the committee recommends $32.9 million in PE 35206N, an increase of $5.0 million for PCAR. 

Aircraft carrier launch and recovery and support equipment modernization 

The budget request contained $33.0 million in PE 64512N for 

shipboard aviation systems development, but included no funds for 

development of the aircraft carrier launch and recovery (ALRE) 

and support equipment (SE) modernization program. 

The ALRE/SE modernization program would develop modernization strategies for existing ALRE/SE systems to reduce the human 

error and operating costs while improving safety and reliability. 

The committee understands that state-of-the-art ALRE/SE technologies and design tools are being developed for the Department 

of the Navy’s CVN–21 future carrier, and believes that application 

of these technologies to the Navy’s existing aircraft carrier fleet 

could substantially reduce operating costs for the remainder of 

their useful life. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $39.5 million in PE 64512N, an increase of $6.5 million, for ALRE/SE modernization 

program. The committee expects that $2.0 million would be for 

ALRE systems modernization; $2.5 million would be for development of prognostic, health monitoring, and condition-based maintenance systems; and $2.0 million would be for upgrading ALRE/SE 

technical data packages. 

Amorphous metal permanent magnet generator set 

The budget request contained $22.2 million in PE 63513N for 

shipboard systems advanced component development and prototypes. 

The committee understands that generator sets employing amorphous metal permanent magnets have the potential to greatly increase power output, while reducing the size and weight of the generator set. Such generator technology also holds the potential for 

reducing lifecycle costs by increasing fuel efficiency and reducing 

logistics supports costs. Congress provided $1.5 million in fiscal 

year 2005 for development of an amorphous metal permanent generator. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 

63513N to continue the development and demonstration of an 

amorphous metal permanent magnet generator set for potential 

use on U.S. Navy combatants and other ships. 

Aviation ship integration center 

The budget request contained $167.8 million in PE 63512N for 

carrier systems advanced technology development and prototyping, 

but included no funds for the Aviation Ship Integration Center. 

The Aviation Ship Integration Center supports the development 

and conceptualization of fully integrated advanced technology designs for future aircraft carriers. The center identifies, tests, and 

integrates transformational design changes and products for aviaVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
176 

tion capable ships and component systems, and permits the identification and resolution of potential problems early in the development cycle, thereby reducing overall engineering costs and facilitating the introduction of transformational initiatives in the CVN–

21 carrier. 

The committee notes that additional funding is required to expand and complete several key initiatives by the shipbuilder and 

appropriate government sponsors: 

(1) Identification of and experimentation with design 

changes that can reduce cost or improve net centric warfare capabilities; 

(2) Integrate and test communications, command, control, 

computers, and intelligence components to ensure joint interoperability; 

(3) Design flexible, modular compartments for decision centers aboard ships. 

(4) In coordination with the Navy’s systems commands, develop and implement leading edge modeling and simulation capabilities that allow warfighters and engineers to collaborate 

effectively on aircraft carrier design issues; and 

(5) Implement a technical framework for facilities, networks, 

and simulations that will be compatible with evolving Department of Defense initiatives such as the joint distributed engineering plant and joint national training capabilities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63512N for the Aviation Ship Integration Center. 

Biomedical research imaging 

The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for 

medical development and demonstration, but included no funds for 

biomedical research imaging. 

The committee continues to note the progress being made in the 

use of advanced imaging technology in biomedical research. The 

committee believes that these findings have important implications 

for advances in real-time medical diagnosis and treatment for the 

armed forces and for the application of advanced data fusion technologies in other areas. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

64771N to continue development of the applications of advanced 

imaging technology in biomedical research. 

Ceramic air deployed sensor 

The budget request contained $6.3 million in PE 63216N for 

aviation survivability, but included no funding for ceramic air-deployed sensor. 

The committee recognizes the need to develop low-cost air 

deployable sensors and understands that ceramic composites may 

offer potential to reduce sensor costs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $8.8 million in PE 

63216N, an increase of $2.5 million for ceramic air deployed sensor. 

CH–53X heavy lift replacement 

The budget request included $272.0 million in PE 65212N and 

$2.5 million in PE 64212N for the CH–53X heavy lift replacement 

177 

(HLR) program. The budget request also included $6.0 million in 

PE 63003A for the Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) program. 

As noted elsewhere in this report (sec. 219), the JHL program as 

currently structured and funded is a joint program in name only. 

The committee believes that Navy and Marine Corps future missions and required capabilities are not that different and the Secretary of Defense must ensure the JHL program is structured to 

meet the needs of the Army and Marine Corps. 

Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in PE 65212N for HLR, a reduction of $272.0 million; $12.5 million in PE 64212N, 

an increase of $10.0 million for JHL; and $16.0 million in PE 

63003A, an increase of $10.0 million for JHL. 

Common submarine radio room 

The budget request contained $95.5 million in PE 64503N for submarine system equipment development and $44.1 million in PE 

11224N for the SSBN security technology program. 

The committee notes that the radio room on many of today’s 

ships uses outdated, and in some cases, obsolete technologies. As 

a result, the systems that support ship communications in the 

radio room are labor intensive, require heavy and costly maintenance, suffer from operator overload and require large numbers of 

highly skilled operators. The Navy developed the Common Submarine Radio Room (CSRR) in the Virginia Class submarine program and plans to standardize radio rooms across all submarine 

classes using the CSRR model. CSRR will reduce the cost, training, 

and maintenance in submarine radio rooms; and, through increased use of automation, will permit the reduction of personnel 

required to stand watch in the radio room. In the future, the CSRR 

concept may be extended to the surface fleet. The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 

64503N and an increase of $2.7 million in PE 11224N for the 

Navy’s unfunded requirement for the CSRR. 

Consolidated undersea situational awareness 

The budget request contained $60.6 million in PE 63235N for 

common picture advanced technology development, but included no 

funds to continue development of the consolidated undersea situational awareness system (CUSAS). 

The committee notes that CUSAS is a decision-support system 

would provide knowledge superiority to undersea warfare (USW) 

forces through the use of advanced, interactive, decision support 

software. Developed initially under the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency, CUSAS offers significant improvements in situational awareness for fleet operators through the use of high fidelity, 

two- and three-dimensional presentations, augmented with realtime, intelligent agent-based, tactical recommendations. 

The committee notes the progress in the development of CUSAS. 

Over the past year, CUSAS tactical interfaces with existing submarine combat systems, and a preliminary collision avoidance capability have been developed and evaluated. The system has demonstrated the capability to interface with, process, and display all 

sources of sensor and intelligence data onboard a U.S. submarine. 

The committee believes that successful development of the CUSAS 

decision support system will provide a capability that would signifiVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
178 

cantly assist submarine commanders to make rapid and informed 

decisions in critical combat operations. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63235N to continue development of CUSAS. 

Cooperative engagement capability 

The conference report (H. Rept. 105–736) accompanying the 

Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) directed the Secretary of the Navy 

to report to the congressional defense committees, at least quarterly, on cooperative engagement capability and combat direction 

system interoperability problems and planned solutions. 

The committee notes that the Navy has complied with this direction and has described a broad scope of actions taken to improve 

interoperability between the cooperative engagement capability and 

surface ship combat direction systems. The Navy’s reports reflect 

substantial success in addressing the issues that were of concern 

to the conferees in 1998, and moreover, the establishment of longrange organizational procedures and a system of reliable evaluations and reviews to ensure the readiness of deploying strike 

groups. Accordingly, the committee agrees to terminate the quarterly reporting requirement effective October 1, 2005. 

Digital shipboard voice communications 

The committee applauds the Navy’s efforts to explore the transition of all shipboard communications to a digital format. The committee understands that the use of this technology will save significant space and weight aboard the Navy’s combat vessels by converging voice, video, and data traffic into a common network infrastructure. Even so, the committee recognizes that before the Navy 

selects all digital and Voice over internet protocol (VoIP) communications systems as the fleet standard, issues in quality of service 

and bandwidth consumption must be addressed. The committee 

also understands that the Department of Defense and the Navy are 

reluctant to move to VoIP before a universally recognized commercial standard technical solution is adopted. While the committee 

understands this reluctance, the committee believes that the lack 

of a commercial standard should not impede the adoption of promising VoIP systems, if the overall benefit of digital shipboard communications is demonstrated. To that end, the committee urges the 

Secretary of Defense to explore options to partner with U.S. industry to develop a universally recognized VoIP technical standard. 

Hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier 

The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for 

medical system development and demonstration, but included no 

funds specifically to continue the development of hemoglobin-based 

oxygen carrier technology. 

The committee notes that there is currently no effective method 

of providing front-line resuscitative treatment (i.e. immediate oxygen-carrying support) for acute blood loss to wounded soldiers on 

the battlefield and civilian trauma victims in an out-of-hospital setting. The single major cause of death in potentially salvageable 

battlefield casualties is hemorrhage and blood loss, and early intervention to treat hemorrhage provides the greatest opportunity for 

179 

reducing mortality and morbidity. Although blood transfusion is 

not practical in far forward or out-of-hospital settings, hemoglobinbased oxygen carriers have the characteristics of stability at room 

temperature that overcome many of the medical and logistical 

problems associated with red blood cell transfusion. 

In fiscal year 2002 Congress initiated a program for evaluation 

of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers for the treatment of trauma 

casualties. Based on the progress in the program the U.S. Naval 

Medical Research Center is directing a clinical development and 

trials program to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a particular 

hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier. The program is designed to serve 

as the basis for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and subsequent licensing of the product for military and civilian trauma applications. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

64771N to continue the program for development and clinical trials 

of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers for treatment of trauma casualties. 

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous ship propulsion 

motor 

The budget request contained $71.5 million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology development, including $23.8 

million for development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical and electrical advanced technology and to continue development of a 36.5 megawatt class, high temperature superconducting alternating current (AC) synchronous motor. 

The committee notes that development of component technologies 

for the all electric warship is one of the major goals of the Navy’s 

science and technology program. To this end the Navy has pursued 

the development of several different technologies for ship main propulsion electric motors, including permanent magnet motors, high 

temperature superconducting AC synchronous motor technology, 

and low temperature superconducting direct current homopolar 

motor technology. The committee notes that permanent magnet 

motor technology is more mature and represents a potential nearterm candidate for a ship main propulsion motor. However, the 

committee also notes that superconducting motor technology presents a number of advantages with respect to size and power density that, if realized, would make that technology potentially advantageous for certain applications. 

In fiscal year 2003, the Navy awarded a contract for development 

and demonstration of high temperature, superconducting AC synchronous motor technology in a 36.5 megawatt propulsion motor 

and drive system that would be designed to be compatible with 

Navy electric warship concepts and performance requirements, and 

would be available to begin Navy evaluation in fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63123N to continue development and demonstration of the high 

temperature superconducting AC synchronous motor. 

Joint integrated systems technology 

The budget request contained $542.0 million in PE 33109N for 

satellite communications (SATCOM). The Joint integrated satellite 

communications (JIST–NET) is a web-based SATCOM planning 

180 

and management technology that utilizes the Department of Defense’s existing internet protocol router to expand the flexibility 

and efficiency of military SATCOM across a broad spectrum of 

radio frequencies. The committee believes that developmental systems like JIST–NET, based on common standards are critical to increased SATCOM efficiency and maximizing the utilization of 

available spectrum resources across legacy and follow-on SATCOM. 

The committee recommends $551.2 million in PE 33109N, an increase of $9.2 million to continue the JIST–NET program for development of a uniform web-based architecture for SATCOM mission 

planning and resource allocation. 

Marine expeditionary rifle squad 

The budget request contained $0.5 million in PE 63635M for Marine Corps ground combat support systems but included no funds 

for the development of the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad 

(MERS) program. 

The MERS program focuses on the holistic, system level integration of all items worn, consumed or carried by the marine infantry 

rifle squad. The program’s near-term efforts address integration 

issues resulting from the rapid fielding of urgently needed weapons 

and equipment to infantry squads currently operating in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and the program’s long term objective strategy provides marine infantry rifle squads with fully integrated future 

equipment systems. 

The committee understands the importance and the heightened 

capabilities fully integrated equipment systems bring to marines 

operating in combat theaters of operations. The committee is aware 

that certain non-integrated equipment components can interfere 

with individual marines’ ability to conduct their missions effectively, causing marines to develop ad hoc solutions to in effect generate an integrated equipment solution. The committee understands MERS is designed to prevent these problems from occurring 

by providing an integrated solution set to the marine rifle squad 

before deployment to a combat zone. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $2.5 million in PE 63635A 

to continue the phase development strategy of the MERS program. 

Marine mammal research program 

The budget request contained $82.9 million in PE 62236N for 

warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds for 

continuation of the marine mammal research program. 

The committee notes continuing public concern about the effect 

of sound on the behavior and well-being of marine mammals and 

continues to support research in these areas. The marine mammal 

research program investigates the effects of noise on dolphin hearing and dolphin biosonar capabilities, joint visual and acoustic surveys of the behavior of humpback whales, and also supports research in bioacoustical oceanography. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 

62236N to continue the program for research in marine mammal 

behavior, the effects of sound on marine mammals, and bioacoustical oceanography. 

181 

Metrology 

The budget request contained $84.3 million in PE 64215N for standards development, including $1.4 million for calibration 

standards development. The budget request supports Navy lead 

service responsibilities in the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint 

Services metrology research and development program. 

The DOD’s metrology research and development program develops new measurement standards and capabilities to support the development, test, evaluation, and maintenance of emerging military 

systems. The committee notes that continued shortfalls in the metrology budgets of all the military departments have led to the erosion of critical calibration standards development and measurement services to the detriment of the development and support of 

new weapons systems. Recent efforts to improve research and development funding are helping, but a backlog of projects exists for 

fiscal year 2005 and is expected to continue to climb higher in fiscal year 2006 without outside support. The committee believes, 

however, initiation of the most critical unfunded projects in fiscal 

year 2006, particularly those in the chemical/biological and improvised explosive device detection areas, would significantly benefit 

the Department and the readiness of U.S. forces. Accordingly, the committee recommends $91.1 million in PE 64215N, an increase of $6.8 million for calibration standards development. 

Multi-wavelength surface scanning biologics sensor 

The budget request contained $51.2 million in PE 64231N for development and demonstration of Navy tactical command systems. 

The committee notes on-going research in the use of multi-wavelength excitation spectral technology for the detection and identification of biologic agents that are not discernible with conventional 

sensors. The current program under the advanced sensor applications program (ASAP), PE 63714D, which is being completed with 

fiscal year 2005 funding, has successfully developed the capability 

to detect bio-spores on contaminated surfaces using two-dimensional fluorescence that spectrally resolves the target in both excitation and emission dimensions. The committee notes the Navy’s 

intention to capitalize on the success of the ASAP program and 

adapt the sensor technology to develop a networked capability for 

detection of biological agent plumes, which would be created by distribution of a biological agent as an aerosol. The committee further 

notes that the new work will provide a critical sensor input to the 

Naval Simulation System and will also enhance ongoing joint program work in predictive plume modeling. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

64231N to continue the development and demonstration of two-dimensional fluorescence spectral sensing technology for real-time detection and identification of aerosolized pathogens. 

Polyimide macro electromechanical systems 

The budget request contained $75.1 million for RF Systems Advanced Technology in PE 63271N, but included no funds for polyimide macro electromechanical systems (PMEMS). 

Cost and weight considerations are driving reduced performance 

communications arrays on future Navy shipbuilding programs. The 

182 

committee believes this is unacceptable in light of new architectural and advanced manufacturing techniques that will reduce the 

cost and weight of phased array antennas. 

By using advanced flexible materials and packaging, PMEMS 

phase shifting and power/signal distribution offers a technology 

path at significantly reduced cost over conventional module based 

phased array designs. The committee believes that this ‘‘disruptive’’ technology will dramatically reduce the cost of phased arrays for 

multiple applications and frequency bands. A PMEMS Hybrid 2–D 

scanned Phased Array for an extremely high frequency (EHF) satellite communication antenna costs one tenth that of a Conventional 2–D scanned array—about $88.0 million in savings per shipset. Inherently lighter, the PMEMS Hybrid array promises additional weight savings when significantly reduced power and cooling 

requirements are factored. In February 2005, the PMEMS technology was evaluated favorably by the Applied Physics Lab and the 

Office of Naval Research. In March, the committee learned that the 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and 

Acquisition plans to initiate a PMEMS effort in fiscal year 2005 to 

demonstrate the technology in a shipboard environment with the 

goal of having it available for incorporation into the Navy’s shipbuilding program sooner, rather than later. The committee agrees 

with this effort and an expedited schedule. Accordingly, the committee recommends authorization of $82.5 million in PE 63271N, an increase of $7.4 million to continue the 

PMEMS EHF Transmit and Receive sub-array antenna demonstration program. 

‘‘Quik Clot’’ hemostatic agent 

The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for 

medical development, but included no funds for the Quick Clot hemostatic agent. 

The committee notes the effectiveness of the Quik Clot hemostatic agent in its ability when applied to a battlefield wound to 

rapidly cause the bleeding wound to clot and stop further loss of 

blood. The committee is aware that when the agent is applied to 

a wound, an exothermic reaction takes place, which is uncomfortable to the patient and can burn the damaged tissue. The committee understands that although Quik Clot is effective on surface 

wounds, it has not been developed or approved for internal use. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 million in PE 

64771N for development of a new generation of Quik Clot, that will 

make the agent suitable for internal use and will mitigate its undesirable thermal characteristics. 

Remote ocean surveillance system 

The budget request contained $75.1 million in PE 63271N for 

radio frequency systems advanced technology development. 

The committee notes continued progress in the development of 

high contrast, high resolution multi-spectral sensors and image 

processing technology that indicate potential capabilities for detection of objects in the ocean in real-time, at various depths, and 

with relatively high search rates. Realization and employment of 

these technologies in littoral areas, estuaries, and ports would provide the capability for a remote ocean surveillance system to proVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
183 

vide real-time capabilities for mine detection and avoidance, force 

protection, and identification and dissemination of information on 

the surface and sub-surface threat to ports and harbors. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63271N to continue the proof-of-concept development and demonstration of multi-spectral sensor and image processing technology 

for a remote ocean surveillance system. 

Retro-reflecting optical communications for special operations 

The budget request contained $94.1 million in PE 62114N for 

power projection applied research. 

The committee notes that the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) 

has conducted extensive research in the use of modulated retro-reflectors, which could eliminate the need for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to carry a laser for downlink communications Under 

the current program, NRL has demonstrated high power, high efficiency compact lasers and miniature retro-reflectometers, which 

can modulate a laser signal with data from the air vehicle as that 

signal is reflected back to the source, and laser interrogators to 

transmit and receive the signal. NRL has also demonstrated the 

high-speed modulation required for downloading data from new 

high data rate sensors, the type that might be carried on UAVs, 

as well as demonstrating the use of the technology in ship-to-shore 

communications. The committee understands that the next step in 

the program is the development of a miniaturized, gimbaled laser 

interrogator for airborne platforms. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

62114N to continue the development of retro-reflecting optical communications for special operations applications. 

Spectral beam combining fiber lasers 

The budget request contained $75.1 million in PE 63271N for 

radio frequency systems advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that high power lasers based on fiber laser 

technology might be capable of providing U.S. armed forces the 

same operational advantages as solid-state lasers, but could offer 

potential breakthroughs in reduced size, weight, complexity, and 

cooling requirements. The committee is informed that recently 

demonstrated technology for spectral beam combining fiber lasers, 

in which the outputs of a number of low power fiber optic lasers 

are combined into a single, high quality laser beam, could permit 

the construction of high power lasers from an array of lower power 

fiber laser elements at a significantly lower cost than conventional 

high power lasers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

63271N for advanced development and evaluation of the technology 

for spectral beam combining fiber lasers. 

Superconducting direct current homopolar motor 

The budget request contained $71.5 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology development, including $23.8 

million for advanced development of surface ship and submarine 

hull, mechanical, and electrical systems, but did not include any 

funds to continue development and demonstration of an advanced 

184 

main propulsion 36.5 megawatt prototype superconducting direct 

current (DC) homopolar motor. 

The development of component technologies for the all-electric 

warship is one of the major goals of the Navy’s science and technology program. To this end the Navy has pursued the development of several different technologies for ship main propulsion electric motors. The committee notes that superconducting motor technology presents a number of advantages with respect to size and 

power density that make that technology potentially advantageous 

for certain applications. The committee also notes that low temperature superconducting DC homopolar motor technology has the 

potential technical advantages of being smaller, lighter, and quieter than alternating current (AC) electric motors, and, if realized, 

would make the superconducting DC homopolar motor a potentially 

more suitable alternative for use in submarines or in other ship applications where these attributes are desired. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63123N to continue the program for development of a prototype 

36.5 megawatt superconducting DC homopolar motor for ship main 

propulsion. 

Surface warfare communications systems 

The committee is concerned that the Navy may be procuring surface ship internal secure voice communications equipment that 

does not fully integrate the ship’s internal and external communications systems, critically limiting interoperability with other 

ships and allied forces. This situation may require sailors to retransmit voice communications that could be seamlessly received, 

resulting in delay and possible inaccurate data retransmission. 

Such delay in combat could cost lives and endanger the ship, an 

unacceptable circumstance when better technology is readily available. The committee firmly believes that any secure voice system 

should be fully competed and be compliant with the Navy’s network centric ForceNet concept. The committee urges the Secretary 

of the Navy to correct this situation as soon as possible by directing 

the commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command to consider 

communications integration and interoperability as a requirement 

in the procurement of secure voice communications equipment for 

the fleet. 

Synthetic aperture sonar commonality 

The Navy is developing synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) for application in undersea warfare against mines and against submarines. 

Currently, different processors are in development for different systems, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has expressed interest in one variant of the candidate processors. The 

committee believes that the processors for these systems should be 

standardized to the maximum possible extent. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the feasibility of establishing commonality in SAS processors and the ability to achieve 

a best option or blend of the best capabilities which could then be 

defined as the common SAS processor. The Secretary shall submit 

a report of the results of the assessment to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2006. 

185 

Tactical E-field buoy development 

The budget request contained $7.0 million in PE 63254N for advanced component development and prototypes for anti-submarine 

warfare systems, including the continued development and evaluation of nonlinear dynamics and stochastic resonance (NDSR) for 

acoustic, magnetic, and other anti-submarine warfare sensor and 

signal processing applications. 

The committee notes the continuing progress in the application 

of nonlinear dynamics science and technology to non-acoustic shallow water anti-submarine warfare and the potential for greatly improving anti-submarine warfare systems performance as a result of 

significantly increased electromagnetic detection ranges, enhanced 

sonar target discrimination, and improved signal processing. One 

result of this program has been the establishment of the effectiveness of E-field sensors using state-of-the-art sensor technology coupled with nonlinear signal processing. 

The committee believes that an air-launched tactical E-field buoy 

patterned after the Air Deployed Active Receiver sonobuoy has 

great potential for real-time target detection and classification. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63254N to continue the program for accelerated component and 

prototype design, development, and testing of a tactical E-field 

buoy for littoral anti-submarine warfare. 

Use of out of service torpedo components for unmanned undersea vehicle systems 

The committee is aware that the Navy has explored the possibility of using out of service torpedo components as major elements 

of new Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs), including components of the Mark 46 and Mark 50 torpedoes. UUV systems must 

operate in the harsh undersea environment, presenting several 

complex engineering challenges. The committee supports the approach of using proven, pre-engineered systems and components in 

UUV programs. Another out of service torpedo system, the Mark 

44, may also hold potential for use in UUV systems. Use of the 

Mark 44 torpedo body and electrical propulsion system, combined 

with modern low cost guidance units and sensors could provide a 

quick, near term demonstration capability at low cost. The committee directs the Navy to evaluate use of the Mark 44 as a low 

cost UUV demonstration capability, and to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees on its analysis and findings by 

February 1, 2006. 

Virtual at-sea training initiative 

The budget request contained $68.5 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development. 

The committee recognizes the benefits of the Department of the 

Navy’s program to develop a technological solution to maintain 

fleet readiness in the area of live fire targeting and ordnance delivery. The Office of Naval Research’s Virtual-at-Sea-Training (VAST) 

initiative is an encouraging technology solution, which uses the application of modeling and simulation for simulation-based training, 

experimentation, mission planning and rehearsal, and system analysis and acquisition. 

186 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63236N for continued development of the VAST initiative. 

Warfare protection advanced technology 

The budget request contained $16.1 million in PE 63729N for 

warfare protection advanced technology, but included no funding 

for the Naval Special Warfare Performance and Injury Program. 

This program shows promise in developing an injury prevention 

model that will permit Navy special operating forces personnel to 

maintain their required peak physical conditioning while mitigating the risk of musculoskeletal injury. The committee recommends $18.7 million in PE 63729N, an increase of $2.6 million for Naval Special Warfare Performance and 

Injury Prevention Program. 

AIR FORCE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $22.6 billion for Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $22.4 billion, a decrease of $204.1 

million from the budget request. 

187 


Insert graphic folio 207 HR89.091
188 


Insert graphic folio 208 HR89.092
189 


Insert graphic folio 209 HR89.093
190 


Insert graphic folio 210 HR89.094
191 


Insert graphic folio 211 HR89.095
192 


Insert graphic folio 212 HR89.096
193 


Insert graphic folio 213 HR89.097
194 


Insert graphic folio 214 HR89.098
195 


Insert graphic folio 215 HR89.099
196 


Insert graphic folio 216 HR89.100
197 


Insert graphic folio 217 HR89.101
198 

Items of Special Interest 

Active feedback flow control technology 

The budget request contained $96.7 million in PE 62201F for 

aerospace vehicle technologies, but included no funds for advancement of intelligent aerospace systems (AIAS). 

AIAS focuses on the concept and development of valuable simulation tools for Air Force engineers and scientists for assessment of 

proposed future Air Force weapons systems. AIAS incorporates active feedback flow control (AFFC) technology for simulation and 

modeling tools in the evaluations of unsteady aerodynamic, turbulence, thermal and noise studies. Currently there are no universal, 

validated tools available for the new weapon systems development 

program designer interested in using AFFC concepts at the beginning stages of design. AFFC tools are highly relevant for a broad 

spectrum of designs and development such as on-board intelligence 

for maneuvering missiles/projectiles and on-board intelligence for 

unmanned air vehicles/micro-unmanned air vehicles utilizing 

neurobiological inspired computational processes. Therefore, the committee recommends $99.7 million in PE 

62201F, an increase of $3.0 million for AIAS in the development of 

AFFC. 

Advanced engine starter/generator system prototype 

The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 62203F, aerospace propulsion, but included no funds for the development of an 

advanced engine starter/generator (AESG) system for future aircraft. 

The committee notes that existing engine starter/generator systems on current and future designed aircraft are physically heavy 

and expensive to procure and sustain. The AESG contains design 

and technology advancements in power-electronics and high-speedmachinery. Subsequently, the AESG has the potential to provide 

future aircraft with a high-powered, engine starter/generator system that is 30 percent less in weight and 28 percent lower in 

lifecycle cost. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million 

in PE 62203F for development of an advanced engine starter/generator system. 

Advanced spacecraft technology 

The budget request contained $60.9 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but contained no funds for the intelligent free space optical communications node, precision navigation 

and position-intelligent networking technology (PINPOINT), satellite simulation toolkit (SST), or Streaker small launch vehicle 

(SLV). 

The committee is concerned about the developmental risk of the 

transformational communications architecture, and notes that any 

laser-based satellite communications system will also require a 

radio-frequency (RF) capability. The committee believes additional 

risk-mitigation development is warranted for RF and laser-capable 

routers and low-cost adaptive switching. 

The committee notes that as satellite technology advances, there 

is a greater requirement for satellites to more accurately determine 

199 

their position and attitude in absolute terms. Such accuracy will be 

necessary for advances in satellite flying formation and arrays of 

small satellites that will work cooperatively to perform mission requirements. PINPOINT fuses global positioning satellite transmissions and wideband ranging with a network communication 

system for precise satellite navigation. 

The committee recognizes SST provides value to the acquisition 

and development of space systems via coherent systems engineering and virtual prototyping. 

The committee notes that the Streaker SLV has the potential to 

provide affordable responsive launch for small satellites. 

The committee recommends $72.9 million in PE 63401F, an increase of $12.0 million as follows: $4.0 million to develop an intelligent free space optical communications node, $4.0 million to develop PINPOINT, $3.0 million for SST, and $1.0 million for the 

Streaker SLV. 

Aerospace propulsion 

The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 62203F for 

aerospace propulsion, but contained no funds for the Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center. 

The committee notes funding for the center will upgrade modeling and simulation tools necessary to produce the vehicle and 

propulsion technology efforts for future space and missile programs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

62203F, for the Advanced Propulsion Vehicle Propulsion Center. 

Aerospace propulsion and power technology 

The budget request contained $77.3 million in PE 63216F for 

aerospace propulsion and power technology, but contained no funds 

for solid boost power technology. 

The committee believes continued investment in solid boost 

power technology is important to future propulsion systems. 

The committee recommends $79.3 million for PE 63216F, an increase of $2.0 million for solid boost power technology. 

Affordable lightweight power supply development 

The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 62203F for 

applied research in aerospace propulsion, including $30.1 million 

for aerospace power technology. 

The committee notes the need of U.S. armed forces for efficient 

and robust power sources. Fuel cells, which are lighter than conventional batteries or generator power supplies, offer a high potential for reducing vehicle fuel consumption, the weight of the subsistence and combat load carried by individual soldiers, marines, 

sailors, and airmen in the field, environmental pollution, and an 

enemy’s ability to detect combat vehicles. The committee further 

notes advances in technology and the potential for development of 

durable and cost-effective high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells that would address these operational requirements. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

62203F for applied research in lightweight proton exchange membrane fuel cells. 

200 

Applied research in computing enterprise services program 

The budget request contained $3.5 million in PE 33150F for development of global command and control systems, but included no 

funds for the applied research in computing enterprise services 

(ARCES) program. 

The committee notes the ARCES program leverages existing systems using data fusion techniques to create new warfighting capabilities and to create network-aware software systems that optimize communication bandwidth. For fiscal year 2005, the committee understands that the ARCES program is researching solutions related to encoding techniques, dynamic information sharing 

between warfighters, and information security; and notes that the 

Congress appropriated an increase of $1.8 million for this purpose. 

For fiscal year 2006, the committee understands that the ARCES 

research program would improve intelligence gathering and sharing, reduce the total cost of military equipment ownership, lower 

the cost of developing future command and control systems, and extend the life cycle of existing legacy command and control systems. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $4.5 million in PE 33150F, 

an increase of $1.0 million to continue the ARCES program. 

Assured access to space 

The committee believes that national security demands success 

in achieving assured access to space. The committee is interested 

in understanding all options for achieving assured access to space. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense in conjunction with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration to evaluate and submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 28, 2006, on the viability of a shuttle-derived system or any other launch system alternative that may provide increased confidence in achieving assured 

access to space. The evaluation should consider at a minimum industrial base issues, mission type, launch rate, reliability, infrastructure investment, and total cost. 

B–2 development 

The budget request contained $285.2 million in PE 64240F for 

B–2 systems development, but included no funds to upgrade system 

processors. The B–2 is the Department of Defense’s most advanced 

long-range strike aircraft, capable of global force projection in a 

highly defended target environment. 

The committee understands that the B–2’s existing on-board 

processing and memory capacity is inadequate to accommodate future upgrades, and believes that they should be improved to accommodate the following future upgrades: extremely high frequency 

satellite communications; improved target acquisition; precision 

and moving target engagement; pre- and post-strike assessment; 

global air traffic management; and other intelligence; surveillance 

and reconnaissance improvements. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $305.2 million for B–2 systems development, an increase of $20.0 million to upgrade system 

processors, and encourages the Department of the Air Force to 

complete funding for this upgrade in its Future Years Defense Program. 

201 

Ballistic missile technology 

The budget request contained no funds for PE 63311F for ballistic missile technology. This program element has traditionally 

provided funding for developing, integrating, and demonstrating 

advanced guidance, navigation, and control technologies for ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles, and next generation strategic 

systems. This program element has also traditionally funded upgrades for range safety instrumentation. The committee notes that 

this program element was funded at $11.6 million in fiscal year 

2005 and believes that such efforts should be continued. 

The committee recommends $10.0 million for PE 63311F, an increase of $10.0 million, of which $6.0 million is for guidance system 

development and $4.0 million is for range safety upgrades. 

Biostatic protective clothing 

The budget request contained $10.2 million in PE 64617F for 

agile combat support but included no funds for the development of 

biostatic protective clothing. 

The committee understands that the capabilities of biostatic protective clothing include a thermally efficient wicking concept made 

with an extruded continuous filament yarn which has the potential 

for superior moisture management. The committee further understands that early biostatic protective clothing prototypes have been 

tested and found to resolve some shortcomings associated with 

clothing used by those military personnel currently deployed to 

combat theaters of operation. Consequently, the committee recommends $14.0 million in PE 64617F, an increase of $3.8 million for biostatic protective clothing. 

C–130 airlift squadrons 

The budget request contained $233.0 million in PE 41115F for 

C–130 development programs, but included no funds for the realtime measurement weight and balance system or for development 

of the automated inspection, repair, corrosion and aircraft tracking 

(AIRCAT) system. 

The committee understands that current C–130 weight and balance calculations are based on historical survey data, rather than 

on actual weights flown for each mission. Further, the committee 

notes that miscalculated weights were a likely factor in a recent C– 130 aircraft accident and in a recent commercial passenger-carrying aircraft accident. The committee understands that a realtime measurement weight and balance system could be developed 

that would improve aircraft safety by measuring the actual aircraft 

weight and center of gravity of a C–130 aircraft, thereby improving 

safety and cost savings. In fiscal year 2005, the committee recommended an increase of $3.0 million and notes that $2.0 million 

was appropriated for this system. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to qualify a real-time weight 

and balance system on the C–130 aircraft. 

The AIRCAT system would develop tools for collection and analysis of data for the purpose of instituting a condition-based maintenance (CBM) program on the C–130 aircraft. The committee understands CBM techniques are used in many aviation activities because they improve fleet maintenance planning and management, 

improve safety through a better awareness of flight worthiness, 

202 

and reduce total ownership costs. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this purpose. The committee recommends $243.0 million in PE 41115F, a total 

increase of $10.0 million. 

Commercial communications bandwidth 

The committee recognizes the important contribution commercial 

satellite communications systems provide to military operations. 

The need for commercial bandwidth to supplement military systems will remain a requirement into the future. As a result, the 

committee believes a long-term commitment to the appropriate use 

of commercial satellite communications capacity is in the U.S. government’s best interest. The committee believes a multi-year procurement strategy with the use of annual contract options would 

provide sufficient commitment to industry and provide the government ample flexibility to terminate work as necessary. The committee recommends use of this alternative to procure commercial 

bandwidth to support military operations for those cases where it 

is the most efficient and effective procurement method. 

Cost analysis for space acquisitions 

The committee is alarmed by the number of space acquisition 

programs experiencing unexpected cost growth over the past decade. Virtually every major space acquisition program has experienced or sits dangerously close to a Nunn-McCurdy breach. The 

committee believes the Air Force may have prevented this cost 

growth if they had incorporated quality independent cost analysis. 

The committee is troubled about the Department of the Air 

Force’s ability to provide objective, credible, and competent cost estimates for its space acquisition process and has therefore asked 

the Government Accountability Office to assess the Department’s 

cost analysis capability. The committee is concerned that this is 

representative of the general state of Department of Defense acquisition policy, acquisition management, the defense industrial base 

and related matters. 

The committee notes the Department of the Air Force has neither a formal training program nor a career development program 

for its cost analysts, and a minimal number of cost analysts work 

in the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) program offices. 

The role of the financial management cost estimation organization 

at SMC has declined. At a strategic level, the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency has insufficient resources—funding, personnel, and 

data—to develop and sustain a robust cost analysis capability that 

will meet the demands of future Air Force space acquisition. The 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to take the steps 

necessary to address the deficiencies in the area of cost analysis. 

Counter space systems 

The budget request contained $24.7 million in PE 64421F for 

counter space systems, but contained no funds for space control 

test capabilities. 

The committee recognizes the proposed utility that space control 

test capabilities could have for command and control, modeling and 

simulation, and testing of space control systems. However, the committee is concerned that this system is currently designed for one 

203 

specific space control program with a questionable future. The committee believes not enough planning has been performed on how 

this system could incorporate the space control systems currently 

in development. The committee recommends $26.7 million in PE 64421F for 

counter space systems, an increase of $2.0 million for space control 

test capabilities, and directs that these additional funds be used to 

explore incorporating the capabilities of the Rapid Attack and Identification Detection and Reporting System and the Counter Communication System. 

Defense research science 

The budget request contained $223.9 million in PE 61102F for 

defense research science, but contained no funds for the Space Education Consortium at the Network Information and Space Security 

Center (NISSC). 

The committee believes strongly in the development of our nation’s space professionals and that towards this purpose, the partnership between academia, industry, and the government must 

continue to evolve. The committee recognizes that a key component 

of this partnership is the Space Education Consortium at the 

NISSC. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 

61102F, for the establishment of the Space Education Consortium 

at the NISSC. 

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit program 

The budget request contained $0.2 million in PE 64740F for development of integrated command and control applications, but included no funds for the distributed mission interoperability toolkit 

(DMIT) program. 

The DMIT is a suite of software tools that enables on-demand, 

trusted, interoperability among and between air mission command, 

control, communication, computer and intelligence (C4I) systems 

and mission simulator models. The committee understands that the 

DMIT program leverages best practices from the commercial sector 

including the use of open architectures, existing and emerging web 

standards, and state-of-the-art technologies to provide a more efficient translation of air mission tasks from C4I systems into a format compatible with mission simulator formats. Furthermore, the 

committee notes that Congress appropriated an increase of $5.6 

million in fiscal year 2005 for this purpose. 

The committee recommends $3.2 million in PE 64740F, an increase of $3.0 million for continuation of the DMIT program. 

Engineering tool improvement program 

The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 62203F, aerospace propulsion, but included no funds for the engineering tool improvement program (ETIP). 

The committee notes Congress has appropriated funding for the 

ETIP since fiscal year 2003. The ETIP improves upon existing modeling and simulation tools as well as supports the development of 

new modeling and simulation tools. These modeling and simulation 

tools address spacecraft component interactions such as solid rocket motor heat transfer, insulation performance, plume dispersion 

204 

and liquid rocket engine power balance. The ETIP will be used to 

develop the integrated reusable launch vehicle analysis tool that 

determines weight, size and performance of future two-stage-toorbit vehicle concepts. The ETIP directly supports efforts toward 

land based strategic deterrents and operationally responsive 

spacelift. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million 

in PE 62203F for the ETIP. 

F–16 block 30 AN/APG–68(V)10 radar upgrade 

The budget request contained $155.7 million in PE 27133F for 

development of new capabilities for the F–16 series aircraft, of 

which $47.6 million would be for development of the AN/APG–

68(V)10 radar for block 50 F–16 aircraft, but included no funds for 

the development of the AN/APG–68(V)10 radar for integration into 

the Air Force Reserve Command’s (AFRC) block 30 F–16 aircraft. 

The AN/APG–68(V)10 radar upgrade program would provide improved performance and savings compared to the block 30 F–16’s 

existing AN/APG–68(V)5 radar. The committee understands that 

the AN/APG–68(V)10’s increased reliability features combined with 

newer, more available digital parts will significantly decrease annual operations and support costs. Additionally, the committee understands that the AN/APG–68(V)10 will provide the block 30 F–

16 with high-resolution synthetic aperture radar maps that would 

allow the employment of precision-guided munitions in all-weather 

conditions. 

To save annual operating costs and to provide improved radar capabilities, the committee recommends $163.7 million in PE 27133F, 

an increase of $8.0 million for the development and integration of 

the AN/APG–68(V)10 radar into the AFRC’s block 30 F–16 aircraft. 

Fibrous three dimensional composites for conformal load-bearing 

antenna structures 

The budget request contained $25.1 million in PE 63211F, aerospace technology development and demonstration, but included no 

funds for fibrous three-dimensional composites for conformal loadbearing antenna structures (CLAS). 

The committee notes that three-dimensional fibrous woven composite structures are a key enabling technology to the incorporation 

of CLAS on future weapons systems sensor antennas. Three-dimensional fibrous woven composite structures incorporate unitized 

structural design methodologies which show the potential to reduce 

cost, part count, joint stress concentrations, manufacturing time 

and weight. CLAS has the potential to provide future weapons systems used for fighter interdiction, cruise missile detection, detection and tracking of moving ground targets under trees, missile 

boost phase intercept support, and air traffic control for unmanned 

aerial vehicles with more capable sensor antennas. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $29.1 million for PE 

63211F, an increase of $4.0 million for three-dimensional fibrous 

woven composite structures for CLAS. 

205 

Fixed-installation x-ray detection system 

The budget request contained $21.9 million in PE 63287F, physical security equipment, but included no funds for development of 

a fixed-installation x-ray detection system. 

The committee notes the increasing requirement of force protection measures against all acts of future terrorism for worldwide Department of Defense personnel and installations. The committee 

supports advanced technological development of a fixed-installation, high energy transmission, commercial x-ray system that operates in excess of three mega-electron volts and combines Compton 

scattering technology with integrated radiological threat detection. 

This technology could result in a more effective and efficient method of detecting devices containing explosives and weapons of mass 

destruction. Furthermore, this system has the potential to increase 

expedited throughput at installation entry points while simultaneously decreasing system manpower support requirements, thereby increasing overall force protection for the warfighter. Therefore, the committee recommends $26.9 million in PE 

63287F, an increase of $5.0 million for development of a fixed-installation, high energy transmission x-ray detection system. 

Global positioning system 

The budget requested $87.4 million in PE 63421F for Global Positioning System (GPS). 

The committee recognizes the significance of GPS to both the 

civil and military communities and therefore the impact from loss 

of this capability. The committee is concerned with the increasingly 

sophisticated threats against GPS. The committee believes this 

may warrant an earlier than planned introduction of the operational capability of GPS III. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to explore 

and submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 

February 28, 2006, on the merit of truncating the planned purchases of the GPS IIF satellites and the accelerated introduction of 

the GPS III satellites. 

Global positioning system user equipment 

The budget requested $125.8 million in PE 35164F for Global Po- sitioning System (GPS) user equipment, but contained only $5.4 

million for testing of Joint GPS Combat Effectiveness (JGPSCE) 

through the Joint Navigation Warfare Center. 

The committee recognizes the increased proliferation of jamming 

technology aimed at GPS and notes JGPSCE testing is designed to 

abate this threat. The committee believes the Department of Defense should continue to remain several steps ahead of foreign adversaries in addressing this threat. The committee recommends $130.8 million in PE 35164F, an increase of $5.0 million for increased support of the JGPSCE tests. 

High modulus polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber 

The budget request contained $74.2 million in PE 62102F, materials, but included no funds for high modulus polyacrylonitrile 

(PAN) carbon fiber. 

The committee notes that high modulus PAN carbon fiber research and development is in line with and supportive of the Air 

206 

Force’s initiatives for advanced composite parts development and 

carbon fiber sourcing. High modulus PAN carbon fiber is in demand by composite manufacturers for the production of military 

aircraft, as well as components of missiles and satellites where 

there is a need for material stiffness at a relatively low weight. 

Currently only one manufacturer of high modulus PAN carbon 

fiber exists and is located overseas. The committee urges the Department of Defense to secure a domestic-based manufacturer of 

high modulus PAN carbon fiber. Therefore, the committee recommends $79.2 million for PE 

62102F, an increase of $5.0 million for the development and certification of a domestic-based manufacturer of high modulus PAN carbon fiber. 

KC–135 replacement program 

The budget request contained $99.2 million for the KC–135 replacement program. 

In committee report (H. Rept. 108–106) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 

108–136) and committee report (H. Rept. 108–491) accompanying 

the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), the committee expressed concern that a substantial portion of the Air Force’s KC–135 air refueling tanker fleet will reach simultaneous maturity, and will require 

substantial investment to operate, maintain, and eventually replace this fleet. The committee notes that the average age of the 

KC–135 air refueling tanker fleet is 44 years, and understands that 

the KC–135 fleet has accumulated significantly more flying hours 

during the past four years to support aerial refueling missions in 

Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle. To address this concern, the committee notes 

that section 8132 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 

2005 (Public Law 108–287) appropriated $100.0 million in a tanker 

replacement transfer fund for this purpose, and further notes that 

the Department of the Air Force plans to begin a systems development and demonstration program to replace the KC–135 fleet in 

fiscal year 2006. 

The committee strongly encourages the Department of the Air 

Force to use the appropriated funds provided in fiscal year 2005, 

and its authorized and appropriated funds for fiscal year 2006, to 

proceed apace in the KC–135 tanker replacement program during 

fiscal year 2006 to ensure that the United States retains a strong 

and sustainable aerial refueling capability. 

Joint battlespace infosphere security initiative 

The budget request contained $93.3 million in PE 62702F, command control and communications, but included no funds for the 

joint battlespace infosphere (JBI) security initiative. 

The committee recognizes the potential JBI could provide to integrate data from numerous global information management sources 

for Joint Task Force operations relying upon the net-centric concept. JBI builds on the base of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 

software which is enhanced to enable system survivability, 

scalability and performance demanded by the Department of Defense. Current implementation of COTS public key infrastructure, 

207 

multi-level security guards, and firewalls are not sufficient to guarantee the level of trustworthiness required with a net-centric information enterprise. In order to transition JBI functionality to the 

warfighter, it must be able to provide a secure, trusted information 

management system. Additional funding would enable software 

testing, validation, and submission of the JBI system for certification. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $97.2 million for PE 

62702F, an increase of $3.9 million for the JBI security initiative, 

in support of an unfunded Air Force priority. 

Laser threat warning attack reporting 

The budget request contained $53.4 million in PE 63500F for 

multi-disciplinary advanced development space technology, but contained no funds for Laser Threat Warning Attack Reporting 

(LTWAR) for space. 

The committee believes the nation has an obligation to protect 

and defend its space assets. Given the potential for laser threats 

to those assets, the committee believes that there must be increased research and development of warning sensors that would 

provide notice of laser intrusion or attack. The committee recommends $55.9 million in PE 63500F, an increase of $2.5 million for LTWAR. 

Lasers for advanced manufacturing and defense applications 

The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 63112F, advanced materials for weapons systems, but included no funds for 

lasers for advanced manufacturing and defense applications 

(LAMDA). 

The committee notes the potential for the LAMDA program to 

provide an expanded capability to meet manufacturing and materials testing requirements at the Air Force Research Laser Hardened Materials Evaluation Laboratory while simultaneously providing a mechanism for transferring defense technology to the commercial marketplace. LAMDA also demonstrates the capacity to 

provide new capabilities for wide-ranging national defense applications such as micro-fabrication for missile defense, rapid prototyping and repair capability for weapon systems sustainment and 

laser materials interaction testing for survivability of U.S. weapons 

systems. 

Therefore, the committee recommends for PE 63112F, an increase of $4.8 million for LAMDA, in support of an unfunded Air 

Force priority. 

Low profile arresting gear 

The budget request contained $26.2 million in PE 65978F for 

sustained activities at Air Force test and evaluation facilities. 

The committee notes that a number of airports are used by both 

commercial and military aircraft, and that the installation of arresting gear equipment required by military aircraft may cause interference with commercial flights. To address this problem, one 

initiative is the introduction of a low profile arresting system that 

will minimize physical interference and obstructions to commercial 

aircraft. The system is designed to remove runway side obstructions, meet the requirements of the Air Force’s airfield obstruction 

208 

reduction initiative, increase operational safety, and reduce maintenance costs compared to the legacy arresting gear systems currently in use. The committee recommends $28.2 million in PE 65978F, an increase of $2.0 million for test and evaluation of the low profile arresting gear. 

Management of black and white space 

The committee remains convinced that the integration of black 

(classified) and white (unclassified) space activities enhances national security. The creation of a closer relationship between the 

black and white space communities benefits the nation by avoiding 

unnecessary redundancy in systems, reducing barriers necessary to 

effective information sharing, leveraging the capability of both communities, and facilitating much needed communications about common issues. As such, the committee encourages continued focus on 

the following areas: 

(1) Continued integration of black and white space programs: 

The committee commends the recent decision by the Secretary 

of Defense and the Director, Central Intelligence to produce a 

single system for the military and intelligence communities in 

the Space Radar Program and encourages the two organizations to seek additional opportunities for joint research and development, information sharing, and program management; 

(2) Requirements: In the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), Congress required 

the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a space science 

and technology (S&T) strategy to set goals and a process for 

achieving those goals. In a report to Congress entitled ‘‘New 

Department of Defense Space Science and Technology Strategy 

Provides Basis for Optimizing Investments, but Future 

Versions Need to be More Robust,’’ the Government Accountability Office found that DOD’s plan should contain stronger 

links to DOD’s requirements generating processes, identifying 

additional measures for assessing progress in achieving strategic goals, and explicitly covering all efforts related to space 

S&T. The committee believes it is necessary to ensure there 

are mechanisms in place to develop such links within and between black and white space. The committee believes this includes both partnership and coordination of funding of space 

S&T efforts; 

(3) Space Control: Given the military’s reliance on space systems, it is imperative to develop a plan to protect and defend 

our space assets, but one that does not limit our ability to operate in space as required. The committee encourages cooperation between black and white space systems development to 

ensure all appropriate measures are taken to ensure data integrity and hardware survivability. The committee expects the 

Administration will consider the policy implications of its space 

control plans and begin a necessary and continued dialogue 

with Congress; 

(4) Systems Architecture and Horizontal Integration: The 

committee believes there is significant value in the development of a community-wide architecture for a horizontal integration of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and comVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.002 HR089
209 

munications systems. The fate of recent classified and unclassified programs in this area suggests that much more work must 

be performed before achieving program stability; and 

(5) Space Acquisitions: The national security space acquisition performance over the past decade has been unacceptable. 

Both classified and unclassified space programs have suffered 

unrealistic baselines, idealistic cost estimates, inadequate technology development before systems design, and insufficient 

government systems engineering oversight and expertise. Despite suggestions that reforms have been enacted to address 

the inadequacies of the acquisition system, the committee remains unconvinced that sufficient progress has been achieved. 

Management structures and processes must be put into place 

to address these problems and return the national security 

space acquisitions culture to one that pursues visionary perspectives and achieves success in high risk endeavors. 

Manned reconnaissance systems 

The budget request contained $8.1 million in PE 35207F for 

Manned Reconnaissance Systems. 

The committee notes the potential of the EAN–105E phased 

array SIGINT antenna to significantly enhance mission performance of the Rivet Joint aircraft. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

35207F to complete range and flight testing of this antenna on the 

RC–135 test-bed aircraft. 

Maui space surveillance system 

The budget request contained $5.8 million in PE 63444F for the 

Maui space surveillance system, but included no funding for the 

High Accuracy Network Determination System (HANDS). 

The committee recognizes that the HANDS capability would reduce the potential for collisions of space assets by reducing errors 

in the current space-object maintenance catalog. 

The committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 63444F, an increase of $5.0 million for HANDS. 

Metals affordability 

The budget request included $36.7 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapon systems. 

The committee supports the continued government-industry collaboration provided through the Metals Affordability Initiative, providing significant improvements in the manufacturing of specialty 

metals for aerospace applications for the private and government 

sectors of the aerospace industry. 

The committee recommends an additional $14.0 million in PE 

63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative. 

Miniaturized targeting sensor development 

The budget request contained $93.3 million in PE 62204F for 

electro-optical sensor and related development but contained no 

funding specifically for a compact, ultra-sensitive optical receiver to 

improve smart and loitering stand-off weapons targeting. 

The committee strongly supports efforts to develop improved sensors with gains in size, weight, power-consumption requirements, 

210 

and capability. The committee recognizes the potential battlefield 

applications facilitated by developing more intelligent and precise 

sensors, particularly as they may be utilized in unmanned systems. 

The committee supports further development of opto-electronic 

technologies with the aim of producing smaller, lighter, and less 

costly capabilities. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in PE 62204F specifically to develop a compact ultra-sensitive optical receiver to improve smart and loitering stand-off weapons targeting. 

Missile and space technical collection 

The committee is aware of the work the National Air and Space 

Intelligence Center (NASIC) is conducting in the MASINT field and 

its value to the warfighter at the strategic, operational, and tactical 

intelligence levels. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 

NASIC to develop a capability that would facilitate the use of data 

collected by airborne platforms and sensors for MASINT applications. 

Multi-disciplinary space technology 

The budget request contained $81.3 million in PE 62500F for 

multi-disciplinary space technology, but contained no funds for development of upper stage engine technology. 

The committee believes access to space is a national security 

issue and notes that investment in upper stage engine technology 

would advance liquid rocket technology for that purpose. 

The committee recommends $87.3 million in PE 62500F, an increase of $6.0 million for upper stage engine technology. 

Nanocrystalline diamond coating 

The budget request contained $39.5 million in PE 41318F for 

CV–22 development, but included no funds for nanocrystalline 

room temperature diamond coating. The CV–22 is a Special Operations Forces (SOF) variant of the V–22 vertical lift, multi-mission 

tiltrotor aircraft and will provide a capability to insert, extract, and 

re-supply special operation forces into politically or militarily denied areas. 

The committee understands that nanocrystalline room temperature diamond coating technology has been developed with characteristics that offer promise for significantly improved anti-icing protection on aircraft surfaces such as the radome on the CV–22 aircraft. The committee further understands that this coating material has applications for protection against surface erosion caused 

by sand and other abrasive materials encountered in potential CV–

22 operating locations, and that application of nanocrystalline room 

temperature diamond coating technology may result in future savings by reducing costs for replacement of expensive aircraft components and surfaces. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $41.5 million in PE 

41318F, an increase of $2.0 million for development of the 

nanocrystalline room temperature diamond coating technology. 

211 

Operationally responsive launch 

The budget request contains $23.5 million in PE 64855F for operationally responsive launch, but contained no funds to accelerate 

the TACSAT–3/Joint Warfighting Space-2 (JWS–2) demonstration 

or for Blue MAJIC. 

The committee believes the TACSAT–3/JWS–2 demonstration 

would provide three significant opportunities. First, it would move 

the Department of Defense closer to providing rapid augmentation 

and reconstitution of space capabilities. Second, the demonstration 

would assess the potential capability of on-orbit assets dedicated to 

operational and tactical commanders. And third, the demonstration 

would allow the Department to analyze the ability of small satellites to provide niche capabilities as well as complement and supplement larger satellites. 

The committee understands the importance of blue force tracking 

in the effort to reduce fratricide and increase force protection. The 

committee recognizes Blue MAJIC will provide the field commander a significant tool to improve blue force tracking. The committee also realizes that Blue MAJIC will pursue a strategy that 

furthers the employment of responsive launch and integrates current technology into operations. 

The committee recommends $39.0 million in PE 64855F for operationally responsive launch, an increase of $13.5 million for the 

TACSAT–3/JWS–2 demonstration and $2.0 million for Blue 

MAJIC. 

Penetrator study 

The committee understands that Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (HDBTs) pose a threat to national security and that currently, 

the Department of Defense does not have the capability to hold 

many of these targets at risk. The committee further understands 

that the Commander, United States Strategic Command has a 

need to conduct sled tests that would evaluate the feasibility of 

various options for penetrator weapons that could be used against 

HDBTs. 

The committee authorizes $4.0 million in PE 64327F for a penetrator test that would evaluate the feasibility of various options for 

different types of penetrators that could hold HDBTs at risk. The 

committee intends that this study be completed by the end of fiscal 

year 2006. Should additional funds above the $4.0 million be required for this study, the Secretary of Defense should submit a reprogramming request to the congressional defense committees. 

Project Suter 

The budget request contained $1.0 million in PE 35206F for the 

development of Advanced Technology and Sensors. 

The committee is supportive of Project Suter, which experiments 

with concepts, systems, tactics, techniques, and procedures that enable warfighters to access and utilize comprehensive, dynamic information superiority operations against conventional and asymmetric threat targets. The committee notes that the Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment 2004 demonstrated some of Project 

Suter’s capabilities which provided real-time defeat of enemy command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, 

212 

and other weapon capabilities by leveraging existing Department of 

Defense information technology systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 35206F, for the research and development of Project 

Suter. 

Quick-donning oxygen mask 

The budget request contained $7.3 million in PE 64706F for development of life support systems, but included no funds for an integrated oxygen mask and goggle system. 

The committee notes that current Air Mobility Command (AMC) 

procedures for smoke in the cockpit require pilots to don both an 

oxygen mask and a separate anti-smoke goggle to provide respiratory and ocular protection. However, the committee understands that the existing anti-smoke goggles were never designed to 

integrate with the oxygen mask’s suspension assembly and that, in 

an emergency, the anti-smoke goggles would be donned after donning the oxygen mask resulting in a situation where the pilot 

would not have ocular protection until the separate anti-smoke goggles were in place. As a result of this situation, the committee understands that development of an integrated oxygen mask and goggle systems is AMC’s number one initiative on its life support item 

development list. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $12.3 million in PE 

64706F, an increase of $5.0 million, for development on an integrated oxygen mask and goggle system. 

Radio frequency identification rapid adoption collaboration initiative 

The budget request contained $36.9 million in PE 78011F for 

manufacturing technology development. 

The committee notes the development and application of radio 

frequency identification (RFID) for monitoring the inventory and 

shipment of cargo and parts. Similar in principle to the use of optical bar coding, radio frequency identification permits stand-off 

monitoring of the progress of a coded item through a supply chain. 

The committee notes proposals for implementing RFID in Department of Defense production and supply chains that could result in 

significant improvements in inventory management and cost savings in the operation of the enterprise supply chain. One such proposal would develop a methodical adoption process for using RFID 

technology by small and medium enterprise suppliers within DOD 

supply chain and develop an electronically coordinated lean manufacturing toolkit for their use. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

78011F for the establishment of a collaborative initiative for a pilot 

program to demonstrate the potential for rapid adoption of RFID 

technology in defense enterprise supply chains. 

Rocket systems launch program 

The budget request contained $13.8 million in PE 68560F for the 

rocket systems launch program, but contained no funds for the ballistic missile range safety technology system (BMRST). 

213 

The committee places a high priority on a responsive launch capability and believes BMRST may play a promising role in fielding 

that capability. 

The committee recommends $18.3 million in PE 68560F, an increase of $4.5 million to explore the application of BMRST in the 

development of a responsive launch capability. 

Satellite threat evaluation environment development 

The budget request contained $79.4 million in PE 62202F for 

human effectiveness applied research, but contained no funds for 

Satellite Threat Evaluation Environment Development (STEED). 

The committee recognizes STEED would determine threats 

against space-based assets, quantify those threats, determine 

threat capabilities and locations, and aid decision-makers in preparing adequate defensive counterspace responses to those threats 

The committee recommends $80.9 million in PE 62202F, an increase of $1.5 million for STEED. 

Single integrated space picture 

The budget request contained $85.2 million in PE 35906F for the 

development of the Single Integrated Space Picture (SISP) program. 

The committee notes that SISP seeks to provide situational 

awareness of space capabilities, threats and operations. The program’s objectives are to provide a common operational picture of 

space to include surveillance, warning, communications, data relay, 

and navigation between various forces. The committee believes 

these goals are important to the development of a true common 

operational picture. However, the committee does not believe SISP 

should be developed in a vacuum or to serve a service-specific requirement. The committee believes that in order to have a true 

common operational picture, commanders must be able to see air, 

ground, space, and maritime assets to make combat decisions. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to refer to the 

Single Integrated Air Picture report language elsewhere in this report. 

Space based infra-red system high 

The budget request contained $756.6 million in PE 64441F for 

the Space Based Infra-Red System High (SBIRS) program. 

The committee has expressed repeated concern regarding the 

continued cost increases, schedule delays, and technical problems 

associated with the program. The committee maintains strong support of a next generation early warning capability and of the 

SBIRS program. However, should the program continue to exceed 

the cost and schedule benchmarks set after the establishment of 

another new baseline for SBIRS and its associated cost estimates, 

the committee may be forced to find an alternative to the SBIRS 

program. 

The committee recognizes the Department of the Air Force is currently performing an independent program assessment reviewing 

the technical and cost baselines of the SBIRS program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review and certify the 

final results of the assessment and submit a copy of the certified 

214 

assessment to the congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence committees within 30 days after its completion. 

Space cadre 

The committee commends the efforts in coordination and development of a space cadre over the last year by each of the services 

and the National Security Space Office. The committee recognizes 

the remarkable progress made; however, the committee continues 

to see some measure of resistance and a lack of consistent vision 

for the space cadre. 

The committee firmly believes the success of our nation’s future 

activities in space, and the quality of our national security, depends 

on the professional development and sustainment of a qualified 

space cadre. This requires changes to training, education, personnel systems, assignment processes, and promotion criteria, for 

example. The committee believes that this enterprise demands 

nothing short of a culture change across the Department of Defense 

and in particular within the Air Force. The committee believes it 

is important that this cultural change take root in the Air Force 

in a deeper and more visible manner than the other services. The 

corporate Air Force leadership must embrace this change. 

Given past performance, the committee believes that as the developer and acquisition agent of space systems designed to satisfy 

the needs of all services, the Air Force must focus more of its space 

cadre efforts specifically on acquisitions. The importance of the 

skills required by competent teams to build and acquire space systems cannot be underestimated. These skills must be developed 

and rewarded at all levels of the Air Force, but most importantly, 

at senior levels of leadership. Critical acquisition positions must be 

filled with experienced personnel to satisfy the demands of these 

important positions. The committee recommends the Department of 

the Air Force focus portions of its space cadre effort on the acquisition workforce and in the context of the requirements and intent 

of the Defense Acquisitions Workforce Improvement Act (Public 

Law 101–510) for the purpose of improving space acquisition performance. 

Space radar 

The budget request contained $225.8 million in PE 63858F for 

space radar. 

In an attempt to address the technical and affordability concerns 

of Congress, the Air Force has proposed the development of a quarter-scale space radar demonstration. The committee applauds and 

encourages the refreshing thinking within the Air Force that conceived of a subscale demonstration option as a part of the space 

radar acquisition strategy. The application of this type of solution 

to other space programs in the future may validate the program 

and prevent many of the problems that plague space systems acquisition. 

The intelligence community and warfighters have asked for a 

radar capability and have little concern about which platform collects the data. The committee believes that the future success and 

stability of the space radar program rests in the demonstration of 

a national radar capability in which a space demonstration is a 

component integrated with air and ground components. 

215 

The first step towards producing a successful and stable program 

is the development of a comprehensive demonstration program that 

will provide an opportunity to assess the utility versus the cost of 

a space radar system in the context of a broader radar capability. 

The committee understands the keys to producing an affordable 

and effective space radar solution will be the integration of airborne and space radar assets and the development of a robust and 

highly advanced ground exploitation system. The demonstration 

program must fully incorporate these components of an integrated 

radar capability. To date, neither component has received sufficient 

emphasis or investment. The committee supports the demonstration of a greater capability of these components in the context of 

space assets using existing classified and unclassified data sources 

and believes a demonstration of this capability should be conducted 

prior to investment in a new space system or significant development of the proposed space demonstration. 

The committee is convinced that the Air Force is still in the planning process and has not yet fully considered the requirements for 

the described demonstration program. The committee does not believe the Air Force has sufficiently emphasized affordability as a 

key objective, and encourages the Air Force to reassess the range 

of technical options available to provide increased utility to both 

the intelligence and warfighter communities. 

The committee recommends $100.0 million in PE 63858F, a reduction of $125.8 million for the space radar program. The committee directs program funds be invested in the demonstration of 

the following: 

(1) Ground exploitation capability; 

(2) Horizontal integration; 

(3) Continued radar technology maturation; 

(4) New technology breakthroughs that will lower the payload weight and cost. 

The committee recommends the Air Force thoroughly plan a 

demonstration program maximizing the use of ground, airborne, 

and existing space assets before committing to the new development of a subscale spacecraft. The committee directs the Secretary 

of the Air Force, in coordination with Director of the National 

Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, to develop and submit a report to the congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence committees by February 1, 2006, with a detailed five-year (fiscal years 

2006 through 2010) radar demonstration program plan that will incorporate the above direction and focus on risk reduction, modeling 

and simulation, ground and air demonstrations and tests, and the 

use of all planned or existing space assets. The program plan 

should include an option for the launch of a space demonstration 

no earlier than fiscal year 2009 and should provide annual technical and cost milestones that if met will provide confidence in a 

technically feasible and affordable development plan for space 

radar. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to perform a detailed national utility 

study, develop a joint concept of operations for a future horizontally 

integrated radar capability, and submit a report to the congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence commitVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
216 

tees by February 28, 2006, on the utility study and the concept of 

operations. 

Space situational awareness 

The budget request contained $151.1 million in PE 35910F for 

Spacetrack, but contained no funds to accelerate the space based 

surveillance system or the upgrade to the Air Force Space Surveillance System. 

The committee believes that our space assets remain vulnerable 

and that the nation has the responsibility to protect and defend 

these assets from any threat. The foundation of any credible policy 

regarding protection and defense of U.S. space assets is a comprehensive space situational awareness system. The committee is 

concerned that the development of a comprehensive space situational awareness system is moving forward too slowly and without 

a coherent strategy or vision. The committee recommends $187.1 million in PE 35910F for 

Spacetrack, an increase of $30.0 million for the acceleration of the 

space based surveillance system and $6.0 million to accelerate the 

S-band upgrade to the Air Force Space Surveillance System. 

Space technology 

The budget request contained $84.5 million in PE 62601F for 

space technology, but contained no funds for elastic memory composites or for polyimide macro electromechanical systems (PMEMS) 

for space. 

The committee notes space-qualified elastic memory composite 

materials can significantly improve the reliability of on-orbit spacecraft deployment mechanisms and may enable collapsible, lowerweight composite tank structures. 

The committee is concerned by affordability issues of a radar system in space and is interested in pursuing breakthrough technology 

that may provide low cost, high payoff solutions for the future. The 

committee sees promise in the ability of PMEMS to reduce power 

aperture requirements to levels that permit dramatic reductions in 

the size, weight, cooling and power consumption of a space radar 

system and therefore total system size and cost. 

The committee recommends $93.5 million for PE 62601F, an increase of $4.0 million for elastic memory composites and $5.0 million for PMEMS. 

Transformational satellite communications system 

The budget request contained $835.8 million in PE 63845F for 

the transformational satellite communications systems (TSAT). 

The committee recognizes the necessity of the capability that 

TSAT would provide for the warfighter. The development and deployment of this technology would transform military communications and enable additional military capabilities. 

The committee understands that before the capability of TSAT or 

a similar system can be fielded, the space acquisition community 

must succeed in no less than eight high-risk technical areas. 

The committee notes space acquisition has been characterized 

with repeated cost overruns, schedule delays, and reduction of expected capability. The Government Accountability Office and the 

Defense Science Board’s Young panel have highlighted the systemic 

217 

problems leading to multiple acquisition failures and provided recommendations to correct the causes. These problems include reliance on immature technology, overdependence on the contractor for 

program management, and a lack of government systems engineering and cost analysis expertise. 

In an effort to achieve transformation, the Air Force has continued to initiate programs that are technologically revolutionary. The 

committee commends the Department of the Air Force on its vision 

for the solutions of the future and its desire to embrace risk, but 

is not confident the current acquisition system can accommodate 

the risk associated with leaps to revolutionary technology. 

Acquisition and management practices, as well as industry 

standards and quality control must be vastly improved and, in 

some cases, rebuilt before the country can endeavor to achieve the 

transformation planned in the current budget. Today’s critical 

transformation opportunities exist in finding new ways for the acquisition community to do business and address the fundamental 

need for change. Once the systemic shortfalls are addressed, the 

Department should once again push the envelope on technology 

and risk for its military space systems. Until then, and to address 

those shortfalls, the committee recommends an evolutionary versus 

revolutionary approach. The committee remains convinced, given 

the current state of acquisition, that this approach will provide 

more capability to the warfighter sooner and do so in a more cost 

effective manner. 

The committee believes, given current acquisition schedules, that 

funding for evolving Wideband Gapfiller System and Advanced Extremely High Frequency capabilities will not be required until fiscal year 2007. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Air Force to conduct an independent analysis of alternatives as described in Section 912 of this Act. 

The committee recommends $435.8 million in PE 63845F, a reduction of $400.0 million for TSAT. The committee directs the Department to shift the focus of the TSAT program in fiscal year 2006 

from award of an acquisition contract to continued development 

and risk reduction of the critical technologies that will allow the 

deployment of this capability to the warfighter. These technologies 

should include development of internet protocol, a router in space, 

and laser communications. The committee urges the Department of 

Defense to consider a more prudent balance between technical risk 

and providing increased capability to the warfighter during the 

Quadrennial Defense Review and the fiscal year 2007 and fiscal 

year 2008 budget submissions. 

Warfighter pocket computer development 

The budget request contained $29.8 million in PE 63231F, crew 

systems and personnel protection technology, but included no funds 

for the warfighter pocket computer development. 

The committee notes the potential combat capability the 

warfighter pocket computer could bring to the Battlefield Air Operations (BAO) kit. The BAO kit is an integrated terminal attack 

control capability that enables special operations forces battlefield 

airmen to find, track, target and control friendly aircraft, as well 

as other weapons assets, and then provide follow-on target damage 

assessment. The effort to develop a rugged, sub-notebook sized 

218 

computer to assist in these combat duties could greatly enhance 

the development and capability of the BAO kit’s battlefield air targeting man-aided knowledge improvement effort. Therefore, the committee recommends $33.3 million for PE 

63231F, an increase of $3.5 million for warfighter pocket computer 

development. 

DEFENSE-WIDE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $18.8 billion for Defense-wide research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $19.1 billion, an increase of $289.4 

million to the budget request. 

219 


Insert graphic folio 238 HR89.102
220 


Insert graphic folio 239 HR89.103
221 


Insert graphic folio 240 HR89.104
222 


Insert graphic folio 241 HR89.105
223 


Insert graphic folio 242 HR89.106
224 


Insert graphic folio 243 HR89.107
225 


Insert graphic folio 244 HR89.108
226 


Insert graphic folio 245 HR89.109
227 


Insert graphic folio 246 HR89.110
228 


Insert graphic folio 247 HR89.111
229 

Items of Special Interest 

Accelerated intelligence analyst education and training 

The committee is aware that the defense intelligence community 

needs a new generation of intelligence analysts due to the emergence of new missions and the retirement of older analysts. The 

committee further understands that there are very few colleges and 

universities that provide organized degree programs that can lead 

to intelligence analyst certification in preparation for subsequent 

entry into the defense intelligence analyst career field. The lack of 

such programs is compounded by the lengthy security clearance 

process, making it more challenging to develop a qualified analyst 

pool. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

33140G for the National Security Agency to establish a process to 

identify those college and university curriculums that may lead to 

intelligence analyst certification. This funding may also be used to 

identify those security clearance eligible students enrolled in such 

programs who may also be interested in pursuing a career as an 

intelligence analyst. 

Accelerating transition and fielding of advance technologies for 

emerging critical operational needs of special operations forces 

The committee believes that the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) would particularly benefit by access to the Director 

of Defense Research and Engineering’s Quick Reaction Special 

Projects Program. Unique among combatant commands, SOCOM 

has full acquisition authority for special operations peculiar equipment, material, and supplies. Recent combat experience has demonstrated the urgent need for several new items of special operations peculiar equipment that the Commander, SOCOM has no 

readily available authority to develop and procure for his troops in 

combat. Since this sort of quickly emerging requirement is precisely what the Quick Reaction Special Projects Program is intended to support, the committee believes the Commander, 

SOCOM, should be allowed to avail himself of this authority. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, to make $10.0 million of the increased 

funding recommended by the committee elsewhere in the committee report available for the exclusive use of the Commander, 

SOCOM. 

Advanced concept technology demonstrations 

The budget request contained $163.6 million in PE 63750D8Z for 

advanced concept technology demonstrations, but included no funds 

for shoulder fired smart round (SPIKE) urban warfare system development. The SPIKE missile fills a critical need for a low-cost, 

light-weight fire and forget missile for ground troops to use against 

lightly armored and other material targets and has possible maritime application as well. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 

63750D8Z, for SPIKE missile development. 

Advanced tactical laser program 

The budget request contained $104.3 million in PE 1160402BB 

for special operations advanced technology development, including 

230 

$61.8 million for the advanced tactical laser advanced concept technology demonstration program (ATL ACTD). The committee expressed concern with the ATL ACTD program in the committee report on H.R. 4200 (H. Rept. 108–491). Despite the committee’s 

doubts about the military feasibility of continuing development of 

a large chemical tactical laser for deployment aboard a C–130 aircraft, the budget request for fiscal year 2006 for the ATL ACTD is 

$20.0 million higher than was projected in the fiscal year 2005 

budget request. The committee notes that this program comprises 

13 percent of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) research and development budget and is projected to consume more 

than $340.0 million in additional SOCOM research and development funds in fiscal year 2007 and beyond. The committee believes 

that SOCOM has more urgent and useful priorities for research 

and development funding than the ATL ACTD. The committee recommends $41.8 million in PE 1160402BB, a 

reduction of $20.0 million for the ATL ACTD. 

Alternative fuels 

The committee understands alternative fuels are comprised solely or partially from sources other than fossil fuel and notes the 

benefit of alternative fuels as a possible means for reducing reliance upon foreign oil reserves. 

Bio-diesel and ethanol, fuel products made of soybeans and corn, 

respectively, meet existing federal guidelines that facilitate increased consumption of alternative fuels. The committee notes that 

officials in the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense have taken steps towards greater alternative fuel use, including the purchase of alternative fueled vehicles. 

The committee urges further research and development in the 

area of alternative fuels and expects the Department of Defense to 

continue its efforts to make greater use of such products and to increase the number of alternative fueled vehicles. 

Army space and missile defense simulation upgrade 

The budget request contained $189.7 million in PE 63755D8Z for 

the Department of Defense high performance computing modernization program. 

The Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) Simulation Center is a mission critical computer facility, which was established to provide supercomputer computational, high performance 

network, and storage capabilities. The center supports the development, testing, and integration of strategic defense technologies and 

simulations, including computational physics and chemistry, weapons design, and force modeling for SMDC, the Missile Defense 

Agency, the Navy, and the Army. 

The committee notes increased requirements for end-to-end simulation, testing, and evaluation of advanced interceptors and sensors. These requirements include extrapolating data beyond the capabilities of existing wind tunnels to determine interceptor performance for programs such as the kinetic energy interceptor, lightweight endoatmospheric projectile, and Standard Missile 3. As sensors are upgraded to meet new threats, support boost phase discrimination, target signature discrimination, and cruise missile defense, improved seeker image analysis is required. In conjunction 

231 

with planned increases in network bandwidth and improved architectures, the proposed upgrades will triple the center’s classified 

computational capability. The committee recommends an increase of $7.1 million in PE 

63755D8Z for the SMDC simulation center upgrade program. 

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense 

The budget request contained $145.4 million in PE 62383E for 

biological warfare defense applied research. 

A military or terrorist scenario in which aerosolized biological 

agents such as anthrax spores or smallpox virus are used would almost certainly result in mass casualties. Weaponized forms of the 

agents offer significant challenges to medical treatments that are 

not found in naturally occurring forms. While antibiotics are the 

only approved method for treating anthrax, the 2003 bioterrorist 

anthrax attack in Washington, D.C., showed that antibiotics are 

unfortunately not adequate to provide full treatment against inhalation anthrax. The committee also notes that there are a number 

of biological agents that could, with appropriate development and 

weaponization, be used in biological warfare or in a terrorist attack. Developing specific protections against all possible biological 

agents presents a significant challenge. As a result, the committee 

believes there is a need for therapeutics that would provide broad 

spectrum protection against a range of possible biological agents 

and also work in concert with other methods of treatment. 

The committee notes research in therapeutics, sponsored by the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, shows good results 

from laboratory testing in mice against pox virus and against anthrax and appears to have the potential for providing broad spectrum protection. Other tests have involved therapeutics that may 

reinforce the innate immunity of the host. A detailed review of the 

research in November 2004 indicates that the results of the research to date are promising and the program is ready to move into 

trials with larger animals. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

62383E for applied research in multivalent asymmetric protocols 

that would provide broad spectrum protection for biological defense. 

Ballistic missile defense 

The budget request contained $7.8 billion for ballistic missile defense. 

The committee notes that the budget request represents a $1.0 

billion decrease from the fiscal year 2006 projections contained in 

the fiscal year 2005 request. Given that the Department of Defense 

had to make difficult programmatic decisions, the committee approves of the overall strategy employed in revising the fiscal year 

2006 request for ballistic missile defense. While the committee understands that the spiral development strategy employed by the 

Department for ballistic missile defense is appropriate to the research and development nature of the ballistic missile defense program elements, the committee also notes that rigorous testing that 

leads to fielding of operational systems takes priority over future 

block research and development efforts. Thus, the committee recommends a reallocation of the request to focus on testing and fieldVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
232 

ing of near term capability ballistic missile defense elements. The 

committee also encourages the Department to continually reevaluate future block efforts in light of the results from operationally realistic testing to ensure that future year research and development 

efforts in one program do not get too far ahead of the actual performance results of the baseline system being tested, such as with 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense and the Airborne Laser program. The committee recommends $7.9 billion, an increase of $100.0 

million. 

Boost defense segment 

The budget request contained $483.9 million in PE 63883C for 

boost phase defense. The committee notes that the Airborne Laser 

(ABL) program met two major milestones in late 2004 and that the 

program has been structured so as to require achievement of incremental knowledge points prior to the scheduled lethal demonstration in 2008. The committee approves of this program restructuring 

that facilitates objective evaluations of program performance by the 

Department of Defense at specified knowledge points. 

The committee notes that to make progress towards the 2008 lethal demonstration, the System Integration Laboratory Laser Long 

Run Performance Test, scheduled in fiscal year 2005, is a critical 

milestone. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit with the fiscal year 2007 budget request a specific evaluation 

of the System Integration Laboratory Laser Long Run Performance 

Test. Included in this specific evaluation shall be an assessment of 

how the test fared against duration goals set prior to the test, the 

ability to duplicate this duration at expected ABL aircraft operating altitudes, and the ballistic missile threats that can be defeated with confidence by laser firings of the duration tested. 

While the committee supports the knowledge point approach 

taken by the Department towards the Airborne Laser program, it 

also recognizes that decisions on future funding support must take 

into account the operational capabilities and costs of a deployed 

boost phase defense system. The committee notes that while the 

Department has stated in the budget request that the ABL program is the primary boost phase defense program, funds are also 

requested for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) or System Interceptor Program. Accordingly, the committee includes a provision 

(sec. 231) that would require the Secretary to submit a report on 

a capability and cost estimate comparison between the ABL, KEI 

and any other boost phase defense system under consideration by 

the Department. 

For purposes of comparison, the report shall assume the planned 

ABL and KEI Block 2010 capabilities as submitted in the fiscal 

year 2006 budget request. The report should include the following 

elements in its comparison of the Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs: 

(1) An assessment of the operational capabilities of the two 

systems against ballistic missiles launched from North Korea 

or a location in the Middle East against the continental United 

States, Alaska, or Hawaii; 

(2) An assessment of the quantity of operational assets required for deployment periods of seven days, thirty days, ninety days, and one year; 

233 

(3) Basing options, including forward-deployed options for 

Airborne Laser and for both land and sea-based options for the 

Kinetic Energy Interceptor; and 

(4) An assessment of life-cycle costs to include research and 

development efforts, procurement, deployment, operating and 

infrastructure costs. 

Core 

The budget request contained $447.0 million in PE 63890C for 

ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems core. Within the program, the request reflected an increase of $63.9 

million for BMD information management systems. While the committee notes that additional funds are required to support the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Center, Von Braun Complex, the MDA 

Campus, and enterprise applications compliance requirements, it 

does not support the full amount of the requested increase. The committee recommends $407.0 million in PE 63890C, a decrease of $40.0 million for BMD information management systems. 

Midcourse defense segment 

The budget request contained $3.3 billion in PE 63882C for ballistic missile defense (BMD) midcourse defense segment. 

The committee is concerned that the test program for Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) may not be adequately resourced 

in the budget request based on recent reports from an independent 

review team chartered by the Director, Missile Defense Agency to 

review the GMD test program following recent GMD flight test failures. The independent review team recommended additional 

ground test and expanded qualification test resources for the GMD 

program. The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million 

for additional ground test units and expanded qualification testing 

to support the GMD test program. The committee further recommends an increase of $100.0 million for an additional flightintercept test from an operational silo to be conducted as soon as 

practicable. 

The committee notes that the budget request includes $50.0 million for long lead procurement of Block 2008 ground based interceptors 31–40. The committee believes that testing of the Block 2004 

and Block 2006 capabilities takes priority over long lead procurement for Block 2008 interceptors. The committee recommends reallocating resources from Block 2008 ground based interceptors 36–

40 to fund the higher priority effort of ensuring the ground test 

program is robust and fully resourced. Accordingly, the committee 

recommends funding only the first 5 (31–35) of the additional 10 

Block 2008 interceptors, a reduction of $25.0 million. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has announced plans to cancel the dual booster strategy and instead will 

rely upon the Orbital Sciences (OBV) booster in the future. The 

committee also understands that the Department has yet to make 

a final decision on what option to pursue for termination of the 

Lockheed Martin (BV+) booster procurement. While the committee 

takes no action with respect to any savings that may be realized 

in shifting to the single booster approach, the committee does encourage the Department to consider applying any future savings to 

flight test ground based interceptors. 

234 

The budget request contained $836.0 million for Aegis BMD, including $24.8 million for the Japanese Cooperative Program. The 

committee is encouraged by the recent successful intercept of an 

Standard Missile-3 (SM–3) Block I Missile. The committee fully 

supports the Aegis BMD program and provides $881.0 million for 

AEGIS BMD, an increase of $45.0 million as follows: $25.0 million 

to support development of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense signal 

processor; $10.0 million to accelerate the throttleable divert and 

axial control system as a risk reduction alternative to the existing 

solid divert and attitude control system design; and $10.0 million 

to accelerate integration of the two-color seeker into the SM–3 

Block IB Kinetic Warhead. 

The committee recommends $3.4 billion in PE 63882C, an increase of $170.0 million for the midcourse defense segment. 

Missile defense advanced technology 

The committee notes that the Director, Missile Defense Agency 

and the Commander, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in 

March 2005 that covers research, development, testing, and transition of advanced technology for the Ballistic Missile Defense System. This MOA retains overall program planning and direction for 

advanced technology programs at the Missile Defense Agency. Further, the MOA establishes a Kill Vehicle Center of Excellence at 

SMDC and assigns other advanced technology projects to the 

SMDC Technical Center. 

The committee understands the critical role of the SMDC Technical Center in advanced technology development for missile defense. The committee encourages the Missile Defense Agency to incorporate in its Future Year Defense Plan budget process an investment strategy to support technology innovation for future missile defense advanced technology programs. 

Procurement funding and transition of ballistic missile defense systems to services 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has 

not yet clearly established a mechanism or specified the criteria 

under which the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) transfers responsibility for continued development and procurement of missile defense systems to the services. The committee urges the Department 

to reach an agreement on how to properly allocate sufficient budgetary resources to ensure the seamless transition of ballistic missile 

defense elements to the services prior to submission of the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request. 

The committee is concerned with the Future Year Defense Plan 

(FYDP) strategy for procuring Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) 

and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems, assuming that both programs are successful in their planned developmental intercept flight tests. The Aegis BMD program is delaying 

important upgrades, particularly for a two-color infrared seeker 

and a throttleable divert attitude and control system, and assumes 

an inefficient production rate due solely to fiscal constraints. Similarly, THAAD’s outyear funding is also inadequate. The MDA has 

already identified a sizeable shortfall for THAAD in fiscal year 

235 

2006 and the FYDP assumes only one THAAD firing unit will be 

procured. 

The committee urges the Department to reevaluate its acquisition strategy in the next budget cycle and ensure that systems such 

as Aegis BMD and THAAD have a coherent strategy that is adequately funded to transition fielded elements to the services. 

Products 

The budget request contained $455.2 million in PE 63889C for 

ballistic missile defense (BMD) products, an increase of $71.4 million from the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. 

The committee notes that the budget request contained an increase of $118.1 million for command and control, battle management and communications (C2BMC) Block 2006 and an increase of 

$65.1 million for C2BMC Block 2008. While the committee understands the importance of C2BMC to the BMD System, it does not 

support such a significant increase in spending on C2BMC Block 

2008 until C2BMC Block 2006 has completed operationally realistic 

testing involving actual intercept tests. The committee authorizes 

$45.9 million for C2BMC Block 2008, a decrease of $30.0 million. 

The committee notes that even with this funding decrease in 

C2BMC Block 2008, the authorization represents an increase of 

$22.0 million for all block C2BMC spending compared to the fiscal 

year 2005 appropriation. The committee also directs the Department to focus its efforts on C2BMC performance in support of near 

term Block 2006 requirements. 

The committee notes that the request contains $11.0 million for 

Hercules Block 2010. While the committee supports the overall goal 

of the Hercules program, consistent with other recommendations in 

this report, it does not support funding for future year block efforts 

prior to successful operational testing of more near term projects. 

The committee recommends $6.0 million for Hercules Block 2010, 

a decrease of $5.0 million. 

The committee notes that the budget request contained $56.5 

million for Joint Warfighter Support, more than double the fiscal 

year 2005 appropriation. The committee does not believe such a 

significant increase is warranted and notes that a portion of the increase is to expand BMD system Exercise and War Gaming to include fielding of new capabilities. While the committee understands 

the need to look to the future as part of spiral development, the 

committee also notes that efforts looking at new capabilities are 

somewhat premature until the nearer term capabilities are successfully tested. The committee recommends $41.5 million, a decrease 

of $15.0 million, for Joint Warfighter Support Block 2008. 

System interceptor 

The budget request contained $229.7 million in PE 63886C for 

System Interceptor. As noted previously, the committee supports 

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) restructuring of the Kinetic 

Energy Interceptor (KEI), or System Interceptor, program with the 

fiscal year 2006 budget. This restructuring appropriately emphasizes the development of a quick acceleration booster as the critical 

knowledge point for the KEI program. The program office plans for 

a KEI booster demonstration in fiscal year 2008. 

236 

While the focus on KEI booster development is appropriate, the 

committee also understands that the need to identify and intercept 

a target in the boost phase presents technological and operational 

challenges to either a directed energy or kinetic energy weapon. In 

the KEI operational scenario, the command and control, battle 

management and communications (C2BMC) system faces a challenging timeline to facilitate intercept while the ballistic missile is 

still in the boost phase. Therefore, the committee encourages the 

Department to demonstrate the C2BMC timeline and fire control 

performance as a critical knowledge point prior to the end of fiscal 

year 2006. 

The committee notes that the Future Year Defense Plan profile 

for the KEI program reflects substantial increases in program 

funding requirements beginning in fiscal year 2007. While the committee supports the DOD’s approach to boost phase defense, the 

committee observes that the Department must carefully evaluate 

the affordability of future year spending requirements for boost 

phase defense programs and must reevaluate future plans based on 

demonstrated performance of both the Airborne Laser (ABL) and 

KEI programs. Should the ABL program fail to meet its specified 

requirements at the designated program knowledge points, the 

committee fully expects the Department to quickly reevaluate the 

primary and secondary boost-phase options and to adjust future 

budget requests accordingly. 

The committee recommends $229.7 million, the amount of the 

budget request for the System Interceptor program. 

Technology 

The budget request contained $136.2 million in PE 63175C for 

ballistic missile defense technology. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense has 

determined that the High Altitude Airship (HAA) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) has experienced weight 

problems and that the projected time to resolve certain performance problems exceeds the criteria for continuation as an ACTD 

program. The committee also notes that other organizations within 

the Department are pursuing HAA programs for homeland defense. 

The committee recommends no funding for the HAA program, a decrease of $16.8 million. 

The committee is aware of the potential enhancements that improved wide bandgap devices offer for high power, high frequency 

radars that have applications for missile defense. The committee 

recommends an increase of $4.0 million to enable the development 

of and insertion opportunities for Aluminum Nitride Substrates for 

wide bandgap devices in missile defense system radars. 

Given the importance of intercepting ballistic missiles in the 

boost phase, the committee believes that the Department should be 

open to considering additional and potentially less expensive options for boost phase defense. The committee observes that the Air 

Force has conducted some preliminary studies into the feasibility 

of using the advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) 

launched from tactical aircraft to intercept ballistic missiles in 

boost phase ascent. The committee believes that tactical aircraft or 

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may potentially offer an alterVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
237 

nate launch platform for air intercept missiles for boost phase defense. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.8 million in PE 

63175C for architectural studies to determine the technical feasibility of the concept of using tactical systems in the AMRAAM family launched from tactical aircraft or UAVs as platforms from 

which to interdict threat ballistic missiles in their boost phase 

using ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ technologies. This study shall include an evaluation of the modifications required to the seeker of the selected interceptor missile to perform boost phase intercept missions. 

Terminal defense segment 

The budget request contained $1.1 billion in PE 63881C for ballistic missile defense terminal defense segment. 

The committee is encouraged by the aggressive flight test schedule for the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) program, 

with 10 flight tests scheduled for fiscal years 2005 through 2007. 

The committee also understands that the program is still trying to 

recover from both a plant explosion at the boost motor/thrust vector 

actuation supplier in 2003 and a funding reduction in fiscal year 

2005. Observing that the THAAD program represents a potentially 

near term fielding capability, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for THAAD risk reduction. 

The committee further notes that the first THAAD fire unit is 

scheduled to be fielded in fiscal year 2009. While the committee 

fully supports the THAAD program, it also has concerns on the 

exact plans for transitioning THAAD to the Department of the 

Army and for future year funding once transitioned to an operational status. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit by March 1, 2006, a report to the congressional defense 

committees that specifies the testing milestones that must be met 

by the Missile Defense Agency prior to transitioning THAAD fire 

units to the Army as well as the Department of the Army’s Future 

Year Defense Plan funding for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to 

support transitioning and fielding of the THAAD system. 

Testing 

The committee notes that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

system experienced several test setbacks last year. The committee 

notes that the root cause of testing failures must be clearly identified. The committee directs the Director, Operational Test and 

Evaluation to include an independent assessment of the root cause 

of all testing failures encountered during the previous year in each 

annual assessment of ballistic missile defense testing submitted in 

accordance with section 232(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107). 

In addition, the committee notes that in the most recent annual 

report, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation identified 

multiple concerns about the Missile Defense Agency’s ability to 

characterize the operational capability of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system’s limited defensive operations against longrange ballistic missiles. The committee directs the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation to submit an evaluation of the Missile 

Defense Agency’s efforts to address these concerns in the next annual assessment report. 

238 

Business management and modernization program 

The budget request contained $172.1 million in research and development for the development of the business management modernization program (BMMP). This program is the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) plan to transform and modernize its business and 

financial processes and systems. BMMP seeks to tie together and 

to ensure interoperability between financial, accounting, human resources, logistics, acquisition, information technology infrastructure, and strategic planning and budgeting systems. 

The committee is supportive of the new Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) that was established as a 

result of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) and the leadership that 

has recently occurred. The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense and the DBSMC to review and implement section 

332 of Public Law 108–375 as it lays the foundation for defense 

business systems architecture, modernization, and accountability. 

In addition, the committee notes that the BMMP program office 

has not finalized a strategy to expend the remainder of its fiscal 

year 2005 appropriated dollars, and has not provided a plan detailing program specific goals for the fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

The committee does not support funding for an information technology program that does not have firmly established requirements 

or a schedule to deliver capabilities that are unclear at this time. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $55.4 million for the development of BMMP. 

Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation program 

The budget request contained a total of $898.0 million for chemical and biological defense research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), including $72.5 million in PE 61384BP for basic research, $187.8 million in PE 62384BP for applied research, $164.5 

million in PE 63384BP for advanced technology development, 

$100.8 million in PE 63884BP for advanced component development and prototypes, $280.9 million for system development and 

demonstration, $81.5 million in PE 65384BP for RDT&E management support, and $10.1 million for operational systems development. The budget request also contained $145.4 million in PE 

62383E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) biological defense research program. 

The committee notes that the changing chemical and biological 

threat, both to U.S. armed forces on the world’s battlefields and to 

U.S. homeland security, places more emphasis on the need for responsive technology options that could address the threat; the ability to quickly assess, develop, and demonstrate the technology; and 

then, the ability to rapidly insert or deploy the technology in fielded systems. The committee also continues to note the wealth of 

new concepts and technologies of varying levels of maturity that 

emerge annually from the nation’s science and technology base. 

The committee recommends continuation of the chemical and biological defense research and development initiatives established in 

the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), one in the basic research category, one in applied research category and one in the advanced 

239 

technology development category, and adds an additional initiative 

in advanced component development and prototyping. These initiatives will provide the opportunity for emerging technologies and 

concepts to compete for funding on the basis of technical merit and 

on the contribution that the technology could make to the chemical 

and biological defense capabilities of the armed forces and to homeland defense. The new advanced component development and 

prototyping initiative will provide a means to enhance transition of 

the most promising mature technologies from the science and technology base to acquisition programs. The committee encourages the 

use of the broad agent announcement in soliciting proposals for 

candidate projects under each of the initiatives. 

Chemical/biological defense basic research initiative 

The committee recommends that the technologies to be considered for funding under the basic research initiative include, but are 

not limited to the following: 

(1) Engineered pathogen identification and countermeasures 

(‘‘Bug to Drug’’); 

(2) Fluorescence Activated Sensing Technology; and 

(3) Multipurpose biodefense immunoarrays The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

61384BP for the chemical/biological defense basic research initiative. 

Chemical/biological defense applied research and advanced 

technology development initiatives 

The committee recommends that technologies to be considered 

for funding under the applied research and advanced technology 

development initiatives include, but are not limited to the following: 

(1) Improved prophylaxis against neurotoxin effects; 

(2) Novel vaccine platform development; 

(3) Novel vaccine/therapeutic delivery means; 

(4) Advanced concepts in regenerative air filtration; 

(5) Wide-area detection and warning systems; 

(6) Broad specificity enzyme-based destruction of agents; 

(7) Sensor placement/optimization for next generation battle 

space management; and 

(8) Rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

62384BP to continue the chemical/biological defense applied research initiative, an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63384BP to 

continue the chemical/biological defense advanced technology development initiative. 

Chemical/biological defense advanced component development and prototyping initiative 

During its review of the fiscal year 2006 budget request the committee noted that the budget request for the total chemical and biological defense research and development program increased $183.1 

million compared to the amount provided in fiscal year 2005, but 

also noted that the amount requested for advanced component development and prototypes decreased by $24.9 million. The committee notes that activities supported by this budget category are 

240 

critical to the transition of promising technologies from the science 

and technology base into development and that additional funding 

is required to meet the validated objectives of the chemical biological defense program in the areas of: 

(1) Medical surveillance concepts and prototypes; 

(2) Wide-area surveillance, cueing, detection and warning; 

(3) Broad-spectrum therapeutics; and 

(4) Broad spectrum detection capabilities. Consequently, the committee recommends $125.8 million in PE 63884BP, an increase of $25.0 million for the advanced component 

development and prototyping initiative. 

Combating terrorism technology support 

The budget request contained $55.3 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

combating terrorism technology support advanced technology development. 

The combating terrorism technology support program develops 

technology and prototype equipment that addresses needs and requirements with direct operational application in the national effort to combat terrorism. The program addresses defense, interagency, and international requirements for combating terrorism 

technology. Projects support anti-terrorism, counter-terrorism, intelligence and terrorism consequence management activities to: 

conduct tactical operations; protect military forces, civilian personnel, installations, infrastructure elements and the general population from terrorist attack; detect, neutralize, and mitigate the effect of conventional and unconventional devices; conduct surveillance and tracking of terrorists; conduct threat and incident assessments; and process and disseminate information. As a part of the 

program, international allies have worked jointly with the United 

States to fund a variety of key technologies that provide the U.S. 

armed forces, law enforcement agencies, and first responders with 

key enabling tools to counter terrorism. 

The committee notes and highly commends the contributions 

made by the Technical Support Working Group in the development, 

demonstration, and fielding of advanced technologies for the fight 

against terrorism. 

The committee recommends $80.3 million in PE 63122D8Z, an 

increase of $25.0 million for the combating terrorism technology 

support program to develop and field critical operational capabilities to counter and protect against terrorist chemical, biological, 

and explosive threats against military and civilian targets. 

Connectory for rapid identification of advanced technology 

The budget request contained $22.4 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations, but included no funding for continuation of the connectory 

project. 

The objective of the connectory project is to develop a capability 

for the rapid identification of technology sources for the Department of Defense (DOD) that would provide the Department with 

instant access to the industrial base, and permit the rapid identification of promising sources of new, creative technical solutions for 

current combat and anti-terrorism programs. The committee notes 

the progress in the program and plans for developing methods for 

241 

screening manufacturers and their products and linking these 

sources to DOD buyers and prime contractors, forming business 

networks to potentially lower the cost of procurement, and analyzing industries in a region to identify the location of emerging 

technology clusters. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63712S for continuation of the connectory project for rapid identification of technology resources. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has 

been a leader and innovator in basic scientific research and defense 

science and technology for decades. Originally chartered to prevent 

technological surprise, DARPA promotes revolutionary technology 

innovations by focusing on high-risk, high-payoff technologies that 

offer new military capabilities and complement the military departments’ nearer-term science and technology programs. The committee has supported ever increasing funding for DARPA as the 

only agency not tied to a military service mission and the demands 

of a service budget to produce quick results. Recognizing that some 

of DARPA’s high-risk programs may not be successful, the committee encourages DARPA to continue its focus on the development, demonstration, and transition of high-risk, high-payoff technology to the military departments and to U.S. industry. 

At the same time, the committee recognizes that the pursuit of 

the more futuristic technologies must be tempered by the hard fact 

that we are a nation at war and our armed forces have immediate 

needs for innovative technical solutions across a variety of disciplines. The committee commends DARPA on its quick reaction 

support and fielding of advanced innovative technologies to meet 

emerging critical operational needs of our forces in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and elsewhere in support of the global war on terrorism. 

The committee believes DARPA should continue to redirect some 

of its more futuristic efforts to the solution of today’s combat problems. Those immediate needs involving detection, sensing, protection, surveillance, and a host of other issues that may well be 

‘‘DARPA hard’’ problems that the Agency should be examining, 

rather than some of the more futuristic efforts in the DARPA program. Therefore, although the committee is pleased with the overall progress in the defense science and technology program, the 

committee believes that increased priority must continue to be 

given to the nearer-term requirements of the combatant commanders and U.S. armed forces in the field. 

Defense integrated military human resources system 

The budget request contained $20.3 million in PE 65018SE for 

research, testing, development, and evaluation of the defense integrated military human resources system (DIMHRS). The committee notes this is an ambitious program that entails the development and implementation of a single personnel and pay system 

that will support all military personnel, active, guard, reserve, and 

retired. This program seeks to transform the military personnel 

and pay processes. 

While the committee supports the concept of a single integrated 

pay and personnel system, the committee remains highly concerned 

242 

that this program will not deliver such promised capabilities. The 

Department of the Air Force testified that DIMHRS will only be a 

60 percent solution for its pay and personnel requirements; and the 

United States Marine Corps testified that DIMHRS is a degraded 

capability from its current pay and personnel system. The Department of the Army, which will be first to receive DIMHRS, has not 

clearly inventoried its legacy pay and personnel systems to determine which ones will be terminated or will migrate to DIMHRS. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services by February 15, 2006, a strategy to address the 

four military services’ concerns that DIMHRS will not be a 100 percent solution for its service-specific requirements. This plan will address how DIMHRS will accommodate these deficiencies, for example, interface standards for legacy systems and or plans to augment 

DIHMRS capabilities to satisfy these service specific requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $10.3 million for PE 

65018SE, a decrease of $10.0 million for the research, testing, development, and evaluation of DIMHRS. 

Defense manufacturing technology 

The budget request included no funds in PE 78011D8Z for the 

defense manufacturing technology program. 

The committee notes that the manufacturing technology 

(ManTech) program in the Department of Defense (DOD) is a critical funding vehicle for advancing and enabling the fielding of new 

technologies to the warfighter. The ManTech program supports the 

development of key manufacturing processes that target throughput rates, affordability, process-driven product performance, and 

the ability to sustain a hardware item in some form of rate production over its lifecycle. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

78011D8Z for the defense manufacturing technology program. 

Defense message system 

The budget request contained $13.4 million for PE 33129K for research, development, testing and evaluation for the defense message system (DMS). This program is one of the warfighters’ message systems, by providing secure and accountable messaging services. 

The committee notes that DMS was initially created to satisfy a 

Department of Defense (DOD) requirement for a secure message 

system to replace the aging and archaic Automated Defense Information (AUTODIN) system. At the inception of this program, email 

use was widespread, and the Defense Information Systems Agency 

(DISA) proposed satisfying this requirement with an email system 

encrypted with a public key infrastructure (PKI) system, as is done 

by commercial industry and other government agencies. However, 

the intelligence community rejected the DISA proposal citing security issues. To address these concerns, DISA generated an elaborate, expensive proposal to modify an existing email system, to include the procurement of other hardware and software to support 

it. The committee notes that Department has spent more than $9.0 

billion to implement DMS and to keep AUTODIN operational. 

243 

However, the intelligence community, continues to cite security 

issues and does not use DMS. 

Additionally, the committee questions the continued development 

of this program when the Department is providing duplicative capabilities with Internet Protocol version 6, standard Microsoft Outlook, and PKI systems to its users. 

Therefore, the committee recommends no funds in PE 33129K, a 

decrease of $13.4 million for research, development, testing, and 

evaluation of DMS. 

Defense science and technology funding 

The budget request contained $10.5 billion for the Department of 

Defense science and technology program, including all defense-wide 

and military service funding for basic research, applied research, 

and advanced technology development. The request included $1.7 

billion for the Army, $1.8 billion for the Navy, $1.9 billion for the 

Air Force, and $5.0 billion for Defense-Wide science and technology 

(including $3.1 billion for the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA)). The committee recommends $11.4 billion for the 

Department of Defense science and technology program, an increase of $901.6 million to the budget request. The committee’s recommendation includes $2.2 billion for the Army (an increase of 

$477.3 million), $2.0 billion for the Navy (an increase of $189.4 million), $2.1 billion for the Air Force (an increase of $118.5 million), 

and $5.1 billion for Defense Agency science and technology, an increase of $116.4 million (including $3.1 billion for DARPA, an increase of $11.4 million). 

The committee regards defense science and technology investments as critical to maintaining U.S. military technological superiority in the face of growing and changing threats to U.S. national 

security interests around the world. The budget request is $2.2 billion (or 24 percent) less than the $13.1 billion provided for fiscal 

year 2005 and is approximately $28.0 million less than the fiscal 

year 2005 request ($240.0 million less when adjusted for inflation). 

The committee notes that the budget request is 2.5 percent of the 

total defense budget request (compared to 2.6 percent of the request in fiscal year 2005) and does not meet the goal of 3 percent 

established by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. 

The past year has provided numerous examples of successful 

technology development and deployment. The men and women of 

the U.S. armed forces are better equipped, trained, and protected 

because of revolutionary breakthroughs emerging from the technology base. The committee commends the Department for the response of the defense science and technology base to the emerging 

critical operational needs in support of the global war on terrorism 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Elsewhere in this report the committee has recommended increased funding to further accelerate 

the transition of advanced technologies. 

The committee notes that earlier this year the National Research 

Council of the National Academies of Science and Engineering released its congressionally directed report ‘‘Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research.’’ The report concluded that the 

Department is managing its basic research program effectively, but 

made a number of recommendations regarding the program. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the ConVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
244 

gress with the Fiscal Year 2007 budget request the actions being 

taken or recommended by the Department to implement the recommendations contained in the report. 

The committee is deeply concerned about sustaining and maintaining DOD science and technology infrastructure, about the projected loss to the defense science and engineering work force over 

the next ten years of an estimated 13,000 scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technicians, and about the actions necessary 

to enable the Department to recruit and maintain a skilled and 

trained defense science and engineering work force. In the Ronald 

W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375), Congress established a pilot program 

‘‘Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART)’’

within the Department to provide targeted education assistance to 

individual seeking a baccalaureate or an advanced degree in 

science and engineering disciplines that are critical to national security. Elsewhere in this report, the committee has recommended 

a provision which will build on the SMART program and improve 

DOD’s ability to recruit, develop, and retain individuals critical to 

fulfilling the Department’s national security mission. 

Despite the positive aspects of DOD’s science and technology program, the committee is concerned about long-term projections for 

reductions in DOD science and technology as a percentage of total 

obligation authority, and in short-term trends in the science and 

technology accounts of some of the military departments and defense agencies. The committee cannot emphasize too strongly the 

need for the Department to maintain a strong and robustly funded 

science and technology program that will provide the advanced 

technologies needed to assure technical dominance of our armed 

forces on any current or future battlefield. 

Defense technical information center 

The budget request contained $50.0 million in PE 65801KA for 

the Defense technical information center (DTIC). 

The center’s mission is to provide a timely and effective exchange 

of scientific and technical information (STI) and research and engineering information, to improve the quality and resource effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) research. The committee notes that DTIC provides centralized acquisition, processing, 

storage, retrieval, and dissemination of STI, including information 

that is restricted, controlled and classified. In addition, DTIC’s 

knowledge management and leading edge information technology 

applications seek to improve information services and STI transfer 

to benefit DOD’s warfighters, scientists, engineers, and managers. 

While the committee understands that DTIC processes and disseminates STI and performs studies and analysis, the committee is 

concerned that DTIC’s request increased almost 20 percent from 

fiscal year 2005 without clearly identifying what the requirements 

are for the increased funding request, even after several attempts 

by the committee to ascertain the rationale. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $42.4 million in PE 

65801KA, a decrease of $7.6 million for DTIC research and development. 

245 

Emerging/critical interconnection technology 

The budget request contained $22.4 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations. 

The committee notes that printed circuit boards are fundamental 

components of military navigation, guidance and control, electronic 

warfare, missile, and surveillance and communications equipment. 

The committee notes that printed circuit boards for military systems have unique design requirements for high performance, high 

reliability, and the ability to operate under extreme environmental 

conditions that require the use of high density, highly rugged, and 

highly reliable interconnection technology. The committee also 

notes that the commercial printed circuit board industry focuses on 

the design and high-volume production of low-cost boards and the 

United States has lost much of its printed circuit board manufacturing capability to overseas sources. The committee recognizes the 

need to enhance the U.S. capability for development and production 

of high density, highly reliable printed circuit boards for use in 

U.S. military systems. The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 

63712S to continue the program for development of emerging and 

critical printed circuit interconnection technology. 

Event management visualization and data analysis 

The budget request contained $163.6 million in PE 63750D8Z for 

advanced concept technology demonstrations. The committee understands that combatant commanders need automated tools that 

streamline and de-conflict data input from multiple sources. In addition, the commanders also have a requirement to consolidate information into an efficient and effective display of situational 

awareness, in support of adaptive planning and incident management. 

The Event Management Framework (EMF) improves the process 

of data correlation from multiple sources to build a consolidated 

view that provides actionable information in a fast, cost effective 

and accurate manner. EMF correlates multiple factors for event 

reasoning purposes, provides customized displays to multiple end 

users, and enhances the decision making process. This program incorporates techniques to use a rules-based methodology to improve 

communication and coordination among agencies, commands, and 

coalition forces by relaying information while protecting sensitive 

data. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 63750D8Z for the development of EMF. 

Force transformation 

The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65799D8Z for 

force transformation, but contained no funds for the Full Spectrum 

Effects Platform, Project Sheriff. 

Project Sheriff is an Office of Force Transformation initiative to 

rapidly field for operational experimentation transformational concepts such as target discrimination, speed of light weapons, fused 

sensors, and cognitive computing working in concert with active 

protection to produce weapons effects capabilities scalable from 

non-lethal to lethal. The committee believes Project Sheriff will sigVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
246 

nificantly expand a tactical commander’s options and should be 

rapidly developed for fielding. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for PE 

65799D8Z for force transformation, Project Sheriff. 

GeoSAR mission enhancements 

The committee understands that GeoSAR is a revolutionary mapping system that directly supports the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency’s need for sophisticated mapping products. The committee also understands that GeoSAR products can meet combatant commander needs for geospatial mapping. The committee provides $4.0 million for GeoSAR mission en- hancements as follows: $2.1 million for field-deployable processing 

for rapid response and $1.9 million for radar system upgrades to 

support both mapping and intelligence requirements. 

Guardrail Common Sensor 

The budget request contained no funding in PE 35885G for 

Guardrail Common Sensor (GRCS) support for on-board sensors 

equipment. 

The committee is very concerned with the degraded operational 

status of the GRCS program. The program contains no specific defense cryptologic funds for the continual upgrade and modification 

of sensors to exploit evolving signals intelligence (SIGINT) requirements. The global war on terrorism has proven that the SIGINT 

threat has evolved beyond most of the GRCS collection and exploitation capabilities. The fiscal year 2005 supplemental addressed 

some of this problem by providing additional funding for the rapid 

insertion of quick reaction capabilities but only as clip-in suites, 

and not part for the baseline funding profile for all GRCS operational systems. The committee believes that it is imperative that 

all four GRCS systems be upgraded to a common softwarereprogramable baseline to allow the GRCS systems to meet the 

current threats, immediately and dynamically. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

35885G for the SIGINT common configuration baseline for the 

GRCS. 

Information assurance 

The committee believes the Department of Defense (DOD) should 

do more to implement effective tamper resistant software capabilities on critical components and technologies. The committee continues to believe the Department must ensure a comprehensive 

anti-tamper policy to employ defenses against a variety of sophisticated threats. Such threats could potentially threaten our nation’s 

strategic advantage and weaken the industrial base’s technological 

competitiveness in the international marketplace. 

The committee notes that the conference report (H. Rept. 108–

354) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) directed the Secretary of Defense to assess the utility of tamper-resistant security software and 

other innovative software security tools in protecting critical DOD 

command, control, communications and intelligence software and 

incorporate such protections, as appropriate, into the Department’s 

information assurance programs. Accordingly, the committee diVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
247 

rects the Secretary to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2005, the results of that assessment and the protective 

measures implemented into the Department’s information assurance programs as a consequence of that review. 

Information Systems Security Program 

The budget request contained $462.2 million in PE 33140G for 

the Information Systems Security Program. 

The committee understands the importance of video intelligence 

in providing critical situational awareness to the warfighter on the 

battlefield. The committee understands the value of the digital 

video products provided by the Pacific Wind video system. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

33140G for Pacific Wind as follows: $1.5 million to upgrade the 

video compression standard to enable high-definition images and 

$2.5 million to make the system two-way (full-duplex) capable. 

Intelligence analyst education and training 

The committee is aware that the defense intelligence community 

needs a new generation of intelligence analysts due to the emergence of new missions and the retirement of older analysts. The 

committee further understands that there are very few colleges and 

universities that provide organized degree programs that can lead 

to intelligence analyst certification in preparation for subsequent 

entry into the defense intelligence analyst career field. The lack of 

such programs is compounded by the lengthy security clearance 

process, making it more challenging to develop a qualified analyst 

pool. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

33140G for the National Security Agency to establish a process to 

identify those college and university curriculums that may lead to 

intelligence analyst certification. This funding may also be used to 

identify those security clearance eligible students enrolled in such 

programs who may also be interested in pursuing a career as an 

intelligence analyst. 

Large vehicle inspection using magnetic quadrupole resonance 

The budget request contained $55.3 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

Combating Terrorism Technology Support. 

The committee notes the development, demonstration, and employment of scanning explosives detection systems that use nuclear 

magnetic quadrupole resonance technology to detect the presence of 

explosives with a greatly enhanced detection probability and reduced false alarm rate. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63122D8Z to accelerate the development and evaluation of magnetic quadrupole resonance technology for the screening of cargo 

and large vehicles for the presence of explosives. The committee 

understands that this funding will support the completion of the 

final phase of the program. 

M–291 skin decontamination kits 

The committee is concerned about the availability of M–219 skin 

decontamination kits for the Department of Defense. The M–291 is 

248 

the only Food and Drug Administration approved, standard individual issue skin decontamination kit fielded by the U.S. armed 

forces. The kit protects and decontaminates skin from all known 

nerve and blister agents without harm to the skin. 

Currently, the U.S. Army maintains a limited production capability to manufacture M–291 kits for the Department. The committee understands that infrequent and low volume requirements 

have resulted in long lead times and inefficient production costs. 

The committee also understands that the M–291 kit is in demand 

by city and state governments, first responders, emergency personnel, and the Department of Homeland Security. 

The committee encourages the U.S. Army to increase the M–291 

kit production rate to a more cost-effective level. The increased 

manufacturing rate would also allow an increase in the number of 

M–291 kits that could be made available for purchase by the various Homeland Security activities. 

Man portable air defense system defense program 

The budget request included $13.3 million in PE 64618D8Z for 

systems development and demonstration (SDD) to develop and 

demonstrate low cost, rapidly fieldable infra-red countermeasures 

(IRCM) options and $10.4 million in procurement to ‘‘examine new 

techniques’’ to reduce the cost and lead time required to protect aircraft against the man portable air defense system (MANPADS) 

threat at ‘‘expeditionary airfields and urban areas.’’ The following points need to be considered: 

(1) SDD programs require validated requirements and mature technologies that have been demonstrated in at least a 

laboratory or test range environment. There are no validated 

requirements for this program, nor have any technologies been 

demonstrated; 

(2) The concept for this program was considered by the Department of Homeland Security for its on-going program to 

protect civilian aircraft from the MANPADS threat and was rejected. Consequently, this program would be unique to the 

military services; 

(3) Entry into SDD requires an independent program cost estimate. No such cost estimate exists; and 

(4) The committee believes the Secretary of Defense should 

not be managing programs that are inherently within the purview of the military services. 

In addition to the fact this is a science and technology program 

in content and scope of work and not an SDD program, the committee remains concerned that the concept for this program remains seriously flawed. At this point it has not been determined 

whether the concept requires surface to air missiles to be detected 

and engaged in very short time-lines from the ground or whether 

the deployed system would alert the presumed target aircraft to a 

MANPADS firing, requiring the target aircraft to dispense onboard countermeasures. Given the detection, decision, engagement 

times involved, engagement geometry, and having to fire surface to 

air missiles or high powered lasers at a threat missile is problematical, perhaps fratricidal. Further, a similar, but far less complex 

problem of detecting and engaging rockets, artillery, and mortars 

has been examined and the per system cost is well over $200.0 milVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
249 

lion—20 times what is being discussed by program officials as an 

estimated cost. 

Finally, the Secretary of Defense needs to examine the policy and 

budget implications of deploying systems to expeditionary airfields 

to protect against the MANPADS threat while leaving U.S. airfields totally unprotected. Accordingly, the committee authorizes $6.0 million in PE 

63618D8Z, a new science and technology program element, and directs within the funds authorized that an independent evaluation 

be completed of the concept of operations and on the cost of the 

proposed system solution. Further, the committee authorizes no 

funds for procurement due to the lack of supporting justification. 

Medical free electron laser 

The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 62234D8Z for 

medical free electron laser applied research. 

The committee notes that the medical free electron laser program 

seeks to develop advanced, laser-based applications for military 

medicine and related materials research. Because free electron lasers provide unique pulse features and tunable wavelength characteristics that are unavailable in other laser devices, their use 

broadens the experimental options for the development of new 

laser-based medical technologies. The program is a merit-based, 

peer-reviewed, competitively awarded research program, the majority of which is focused on developing advanced procedures for rapid 

diagnosis and treatment of battlefield related medical problems. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

62234D8Z, to continue the merit-based, peer-reviewed, competitively awarded program in medical free electron laser applied research. 

National Defense University technology pilot program 

The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 65104D8Z for 

the Office of Secretary of Defense technical studies, support, and 

analysis. 

In fiscal year 2002 at the request of the President, National Defense University (NDU), Congress added funds to enable the university to establish a pilot research and analysis program that 

would focus on defense policy issues that have significant technology elements. The objective of the program is to determine how 

the United States can maintain its competitive edge against other 

military adversaries at a time when commercial information technology (IT) is readily available on the global market. The committee requests that the NDU President and the Director, Defense 

Research and Engineering report the results of the program and 

plans for future efforts with the submission of the fiscal year 2007 

budget request to Congress. 

The committee recommends $32.1 million in PE 65104D8Z, an 

increase of $1.0 million to continue the NDU technology pilot program. 

Operationally responsive space 

The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65799D8Z for 

operationally responsive space, but included no funds for development of the common bus. 

250 

The committee believes the nation must develop a responsive 

space capability and envisions that this capability may transform 

the battlefield and the space community far more than any other 

initiative. The committee believes a responsive space capability 

must include a set of common launch vehicles, common satellite 

standards, and flexible payloads that are engineered for common 

interfaces. The committee recognizes that the development of a 

common bus is the first critical step towards a responsive space 

system; however, the committee is concerned by the lack of coordination and focus on the development of payloads for small satellites. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for common bus development and an increase $50.0 million for small satellite payload development in PE 65799D8Z. The committee authorizes the funds for small satellite payload development to be 

used as required by section 913 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

Project M shock mitigation technology 

The committee notes the progress in the Office of Naval 

Research’s application of shock mitigation technology, initially developed under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s 

(DARPA) Project M program, to mitigation of the shock experienced 

by high-speed boats operating in littoral waters. The focus of the 

program has been to develop semi-active and fully-active shock 

mitigating seats to reduce the high shock and vibration experienced 

by the Navy SEALS Mark V patrol craft crew and passengers in 

high-speed special operations. The program has also been exploring 

the use of a Look-Ahead Detection System which observes the approaching ocean surface and sends warnings to the seat to enable 

shock-compensating motion before the shock impacts the hull. The 

results of at-sea tests show significant promise for mitigating the 

shock experienced in the Mark V–B special operations craft in sea 

conditions ranging from mid-Sea State 3 to low-Sea State 4 at 

speeds of 30 to 48 knots. 

The committee encourages the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command to review the results of the testing on the shockmitigating seats for possible application to the Mark V patrol craft 

and consideration by the Director, DARPA, of the application of the 

Project M technology to DARPA’s new program for development of 

a high-speed assault craft. 

Raincoat 

The budget request contained $22.0 million in PE 35885G for 

tactical signal intelligence technology, but contained no funding for 

Project Raincoat at the National Security Agency (NSA). 

The NSA’s Project Raincoat provides new surveillance tracking 

and reasoning assessment technology that will assist in the detection, identification, and monitoring of signals intelligence. The 

project uses a behavioral science approach, and link analysis founded on analytic operator experience to cue sensors automatically to 

pre-identified signals activity. The result alerts operators when a 

correlation is established, and effectively increases operator efficiency through a targeted search strategy in the platform’s receivers. 

251 

Therefore, the committee recommends $26.0 million in PE 

35885G, an increase of $4.0 million for Project Raincoat. 

Rapid acquisition incentives 

The budget request contained $5.6 million in PE 33169D8Z for 

the information technology (IT) Rapid Acquisition Incentives (RAI) 

program. 

This program is intended to provide funding for pilot initiatives 

that will support the Department of Defense’s efforts to transition 

to a network-centric environment. The committee notes that while 

this program’s goal to deliver practical business case-based operational solutions is admirable, the committee is not supportive of 

authorizing funding for IT programs which have not been specifically targeted. The committee is concerned that RAI does not outline which activities or projects will be financed, establish the requirements, or what capabilities are promised, and how such capabilities will be fielded. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding in PE 33169D8Z, a decrease of $5.6 million for the development of the 

RAI program. 

Scalable active memory processing engines 

The budget request contained $242.7 million in PE 62716E for 

applied research in electronics technology. 

The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency’s polymorphous computing architectures program 

is developing a revolutionary approach to the implementation of 

embedded computing systems to support reactive multi-mission, 

multi-sensor, and in-flight retargetable missions. This revolutionary approach will also significantly reduce the payload adaptation, optimization, and verification process. 

The committee notes that massively parallel processing technologies being developed under the Scalable Active Memory Processing Engines program will provide significantly enhanced onboard sensor processing capabilities in an accelerated timeframe 

and significantly improve front-end processing for ballistic missile 

defense radars, as well as on-board missile discrimination processing. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.4 million in PE 

62716E to accelerate the development of scalable, low-power, ultrahigh performance processors for ballistic missile defense and other 

applications. 

Special operations advanced technology development 

The budget request contained $104.3 million in PE 116402BB for 

special operations advanced technology development, but contained 

no funds for the surveillance augmentation vehicle-insertable on request (SAVIOR) system. 

The SAVIOR system promises to increase force protection for 

troops operating in cluttered, urban environments. SAVIOR is a 

mobile, intelligent sensor suite that can alert ground forces to the 

presence of a threat with its intensive surveillance network. 

The committee recommends $107.8 million for PE 116402BB, 

special operations advanced technology development, an increase of 

$3.5 million for development of the SAVIOR system. 

252 

Special Operations Command small weapons acquisition 

The committee believes that the unique acquisition authority 

possessed by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is a 

key element of the command’s ability to respond effectively to common special operating forces operator needs and to address rapidly 

emerging requirements. Even so, major acquisition programs must 

be managed with a due regard to competition, unless the need for 

a quick solution is paramount. In that regard, the SOCOM program to acquire a combat assault rifle to replace six different weapons is on track to be a success. The committee expects that the 

same success will be demonstrated by the ongoing combat pistol acquisition program. The committee believes that operator needs 

should drive the requirements process, but also believes that the 

combination of the weapon requirements and product delivery 

schedule must not be so narrow as to restrict the command to a 

single source solution except under extraordinary circumstances. 

The committee is also aware of another emerging requirement 

that should be explored. The committee understands that high 

technology, extreme long-range sniper systems are being commercially developed that could provide special forces operators with a 

quantum leap in sniper capability over today’s fielded systems. The 

committee understands that special forces snipers have tested 

these systems and believe they may be superior to the weapons 

they now employ. The committee urges the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command to review these U.S. developed technologies and consider acquiring these systems for special forces operators. 

Special Operations Command tactical tanker fleet 

The committee is concerned about the long-term viability of the 

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) C–130 tactical tanker 

fleet, given persistent center wing box problems and the proposed 

cancellation of the C–130J modernization program. The small size 

of the SOCOM fleet, combined with heavy, on-going operational demands, make taking aircraft out of service for extensive center 

wing box and avionics upgrades problematic. The committee supports the command’s ongoing C–130 fleet modernization program 

but is concerned that these upgrades are relatively short-term fixes 

that do not address the long-term need for newer, modern aircraft. 

The committee believes that SOCOM tactical tanker requirements 

should be considered as part of the overall C–130J program assessment conducted by direction of the committee elsewhere in this report as part of the Mobility Capability Study and Quadrennial Defense Review. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to consider SOCOM tactical tanker requirements in the 

final decision on the C–130J procurement and to submit a report 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services with the Department of Defense’s plan 

for the modernization of the SOCOM C–130 tanker fleet through 

2022 by February 15, 2006. 

Special operations tactical systems development 

The budget request contained $63.5 million in PE 116404BB for 

special operations tactical systems development, but contained no 

funds for further development of the special operating forces comVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
253 

bat assault rifle (SCAR) and no funds for the multi-role, antiarmor, anti-personnel weapons system (MAAWS) multi-target warhead. 

The committee believes that the SCAR is an urgently needed replacement for the existing M–4 system that should be field tested 

and refined as quickly as possible for special forces operator employment. 

The MAAWS multi-target warhead is a unique 84 millimeter 

round with 2 warheads that will fire from existing weapons designed to defeat threat forces protected by hardened barriers. The 

committee notes that this item is on the unfunded priority list of 

the Commander, Special Operations Command. 

The committee recommends $78.8 million for PE 116404BB special operations tactical systems development, an increase of $8.5 

million to further develop the SCAR and an increase of $6.8 million 

for the MAAWS multi-target warhead. 

Special operations technology development 

The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 116401BB for 

special operations technology development, but contained no funds 

for the Angel Fire for Full Spectrum Close-In Layered Shield 

(FCLAS) system. 

The Angel Fire for FCLAS active protection system is a promising integrated sensor and counter-measure package with the potential to provide increased protection to lightly protected military 

aircraft and vehicles in hostile environments. Such systems are urgently needed in today’s increasingly lethal operating environments. 

The committee recommends $23.6 million for PE 116401BB special operations technology development, an increase of $10.0 million for the Angel Fire for FCLAS system. 

Tactical exploitation of innovative sensors 

The committee strongly supports the joint experimental aviation 

activity established between Naval Air Systems (NAVAIR) and the 

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) for the tactical exploitation of innovative sensors. The committee understands the 

partnership promises to improve and accelerate the development 

and fielding of transformational capabilities to both NGA and the 

Department of the Navy by leveraging and integrating manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft, lighter than air vehicles, and ground systems. The committee strongly supports the emphasis to improve 

tasking, collection, processing, exploitation, and dissemination activities within the broad framework of the national intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance community. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 35102BQ for sensor 

development and flight operations in support of the NGA–NAVAIR 

Experimental Aviation Activity. 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview 

The budget request contained $168.5 million for Operational Test 

and Evaluation, Defense. 

254 

The committee recommends $168.5 million, no change to the 

budget request. 

255 


Insert graphic folio 272 HR89.112
256 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would establish the amounts authorized to be appropriated for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 202—Amount for Defense Science and Technology 

This section would establish basic research, applied research, 

and advanced technology development funding levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211—Annual Comptroller General Report on Future 

Combat Systems Program 

This section would establish an annual review of the Future 

Combat Systems program by the Comptroller General to be submitted to Congress by March 15, of each year. The report would include the extent to which such systems development and demonstration (SDD) program is meeting established performance, cost, 

and schedule goals; the plan for such SDD for the next fiscal year; 

and a conclusion whether such SDD program is likely to be completed at a cost not in excess of the most recent Selected Acquisition Report. The final report required by this section would be submitted at the completion of the systems development and demonstration milestone. 

Section 212—Objective Requirements for Non-line-of-sight Cannon 

System not to be Diminished to Meet Weight Requirements 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that the objective requirements established for the Non-Light-ofSight Cannon not be diminished in order to achieve the weight requirements in existence as of April 14, 2003. 

Section 213—Independent Analysis of Future Combat Systems 

Manned Ground Vehicle Transportability Requirement 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to complete 

an independent analysis and submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees by February 1, 2006 on the Future Combat 

Systems key performance parameter transportability requirement 

for the manned ground vehicles (MGV). The analysis would seek to 

determine whether: 

(1) Such a requirement can be supported by the projected extended planning period, inter- and intra-theater airlift force 

structure and is justified by any likely deployment scenario envisioned by current operational plans; 

(2) Mature technologies have been demonstrated that allow 

this requirement to be met while demonstrating at least equal 

257 

lethality and survivability of the current manned vehicles or 

their equivalent, intended to be replaced; and 

(3) The projected unit procurement cost warrants the investment required to deploy these vehicles. 

The committee is concerned that the transportability performance requirement is inconsistent with the maturity of relevant 

technologies and projected airlift mobility capabilities, compromises 

lethality and survivability, and unnecessarily costly for the projected benefit. The current MGV weight exceeds by over 25 percent 

of that required to meet the MGV objective. 

Section 214—Amounts for Armored Systems Modernization 

Program 

This section would prescribe the fiscal year 2006 authorization 

and budget activity for the specific projects requested in the Armored Systems Modernization Program. 

Section 215—Limitation on Systems Development and Demonstration of Manned Ground Vehicles Under Armored Systems Modernization Program 

This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized for appropriation to be obligated for systems development and demonstration of manned ground vehicles for the armored systems modernization program until mature technologies have been demonstrated in a relevant environment to provide at least equaled 

lethality and survivability compared with the manned ground vehicles intended to be replaced by such ground vehicles. 

Section 216—Testing of Internet Protocol Version 6 by the Naval 

Research Laboratory 

This section would amend section 331 of the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 

Law 108–375) to require the Secretary of Defense to conduct the 

testing and evaluation of internet protocol version six required by 

that section through the Naval Research Laboratory. This section 

would also require that the Secretary submit an annual report on 

the testing and evaluation to the congressional defense committees 

for fiscal years 2006 through 2008. 

Section 217—Program to Design and Develop Next-Generation 

Nuclear Submarine 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to carry out 

a program to design and develop a class of nuclear submarines that 

will serve as a successor to the Virginia class of nuclear submarines. This section would require the Secretary to commence design of the next generation nuclear submarine to follow the Virginia class, beginning construction in about fiscal year 2014. 

The committee is aware that for the first time in 50 years, the 

Navy does not have a program to develop a nuclear submarine. Nuclear submarines, beginning with the Nautilus, have provided unmatched, important capabilities for this nation, and were instrumental in winning the Cold War. 

258 

In the last five decades the United States has developed an unequaled capability to design, develop and manufacture the world’s 

top nuclear submarines. However, the committee is aware that this 

unique capability to design nuclear submarines is perishable. The 

recent example of the United Kingdom’s problems with its new Astute class nuclear submarine is a clear indication of what happens 

when the submarine design capability is not maintained. 

The committee understands that the only means by which the 

United States can expect to maintain its design capability is to continue to employ those designers to develop new submarine designs. 

The committee is aware that existing submarine designs have 

emphasized open ocean capabilities. While the Virginia, Seawolf, 

and Los Angeles classes all operate effectively in the littoral, they 

were optimized for the open ocean. The committee believes that for 

the foreseeable future, the littoral rather than open ocean is the 

area of greatest importance. The committee sees an opportunity to 

maintain nuclear submarine design expertise developing a new 

class of nuclear submarine optimized for the littoral. This design 

shall make maximum use of emerging technologies, including those 

spawned by the joint Navy-Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) Tango Bravo project to develop a design optimized for littoral operations that dramatically reduces submarine 

cost while providing applicable warfighting capability equal to or 

greater than the Virginia class. 

Section 218—Extension of Requirements Relating to Management 

Responsibility for Naval Mine Countermeasures Program 

This section would extend to 2011 the requirement established in 

section 216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102–190), as most recently 

amended by section 212 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 104–314), that the 

Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

annually certify the adequacy of the Navy’s mine countermeasures 

program. 

The section would require that the Secretary, in certifying that 

the budget submitted to Congress and the Future Years Defense 

Plan propose sufficient resources for executing the updated mine 

countermeasures master plan, ensure that the budget meets the requirements of section 2437 of title 10, United States Code. Section 

2437 provides that whenever a new major defense acquisition program begins development a sustainment plan shall be developed 

for the existing system that would be replaced by the system under 

development and that an appropriate level of budgeting be provided to sustain the existing system until the replacement system 

is fielded and assumes the major responsibility for the mission of 

the existing program. The committee notes that in the U.S. Naval 

Mine Countermeasures Plan for fiscal year 2006, the Navy plans 

to begin decommissioning the MHC–51 class mine hunting ships, 

based in part on assumptions regarding the fielding schedule for 

the Littoral Combat Ship. The committee believes that the Navy’s 

assumption regarding the fielding schedule for Littoral Combat 

Ship is premature. 

The section would amend the requirement to notify Congress 

prior to any reprogramming action relative to the Navy’s mine 

259 

countermeasures program as long as the reprogramming action 

does not affect certification of the program provided to Congress by 

the Secretary of Defense. 

The section would also require that the Secretary forward to the 

congressional defense committees with the Secretary’s annual certification of the adequacy of the Navy’s mine countermeasures program a copy of the Navy’s Mine Countermeasures Plan which supports that certification. 

Section 219—Single Joint Requirement for Heavy Lift Rotorcraft 

The committee is aware that the Army and the Marine Corps 

both need a future transport helicopter to replace existing heavy 

lift rotorcraft. The committee also notes that costs for Defense Department weapons systems, including rotorcraft, continue to escalate making it imperative that the Department take advantage of 

any and all means including reducing the number of system development programs where it make sense to contain costs. Additionally, the Department must take advantage of economies of scale in 

production. 

Present world-wide operations have demonstrated that the future 

for ground forces is joint operations with the Army and the Marine 

Corps. A key ingredient in these operations is systems interoperability. One way to not only contain costs but also facilitate interoperability is to, where possible; develop joint systems for the Army 

and the Marine Corps. While in the past there may have been a 

desire on the part of both services to differentiate by using different equipment, this is no longer a valid fundamental consideration. The committee is aware that present timelines for heavy lift 

rotorcraft replacement are not the same for the Army and the Marine Corps. Recognizing this, the committee believes that it is possible to establish a competitive program based on a single joint requirement that phases rotorcraft delivery in a manner to meet both 

service schedules. 

Currently, the Joint Heavy Lift Rotorcraft (JHL) program is ‘‘joint’’ in name only and is only intended to be the Department of 

the Army’s next-generation heavy lift rotorcraft to replace the 

Army’s CH–47 ‘‘Chinook.’’ The Marine Corps has its own program, 

the Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR), intended to replace the CH–53 ‘‘Super Stallion.’’ The budget request includes $272.0 million in PE 

65212N for systems development and demonstration for this program. The committee strongly believes that the foundation on 

which the JHL must proceed to development and production is a 

single, joint requirement, validated and approved by the Secretary 

of Defense. While it may not be possible for each service to include 

precisely the capability it desires, it must be possible to agree on 

the essential capabilities to be included in JHL and at the same 

time draft a requirement that does not in and of itself force a particular technology solution. 

In the past issues such as corrosion control requirements, range, 

lift capability and ship basing have been used to justify separate 

programs. However, it is clear that in the future both the Army 

and the Marine Corps will operate from and be transported by ship 

and therefore, require the same level of corrosion control, be subject to other considerations mandated by ship based operations, 

and need be capable of similar long ranges. 

260 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy and the 

Secretary of the Army to develop a single, common JHL requirement for approval by the Joint Requirement Oversight Council and 

the Secretary of Defense. This section would further direct that the 

Secretary of Defense not authorize the JHL program to begin until 

a validated and approved joint requirement exists. It is imperative 

that a common set of requirements be established in the immediate 

future to preclude unnecessary delays in upgrading the military 

services heavy lift capability. 

Section 220—Requirements for Development of Tactical Radio 

Communications Systems 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

comprehensive report that would: 

(1) Assess the Department of Defense’s (DOD) immediate requirements for tactical radio communications, and whether 

these requirements may be satisfied with the purchase of legacy radios; 

(2) Ensure that DOD users may rapidly acquire tactical 

radio communications utilizing existing technologies or mature 

systems readily available in the commercial marketplace; and 

(3) Apply DOD Instruction 5000.2 to JTRS in a manner that 

does not permit the Milestone B entrance requirements to be 

waived. 

This section would also give the Joint Program Executive Officer 

(JPEO) for the Joint Tactical Radio System program the authority 

and control of execution year research and development funding for 

all the clusters and the waveform developments for JTRS. The 

committee believes the JPEO must have these authorities to successfully manage a program of this size and cost. This section 

would also allow the JPEO to transition technologies through Systems Development and Demonstration and Production and Deployment (SDD) more quickly. The committee strongly believes that interim radio communication capabilities should be evolutionary and 

be able to transition to the long-term system solution with maximum hardware and software reuse. 

The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program is a family of 

interoperable, advanced software-defined radios. The committee 

has serious concerns that Cluster 1 program, the first and largest 

of several clusters has encountered significant cost overruns, severe 

schedule delays, and performance problems. The committee expects 

that the Department’s compliance with subsection (a)(2) of this section will result in the elimination of the current JTRS waiver process. This would allow the services to purchase tactical radio communications to fulfill their immediate requirements. The committee 

believes that given recent developments that include the stop-work 

order and the show cause letter to the contractor, the Secretary 

should thoroughly reevaluate and assess the Department’s requirements for tactical radio communications, the JTRS program and its 

promised capabilities. 

261 

Section 221—Limitation on Systems Development and 

Demonstration of Personnel Recovery Vehicle 

The Air Force budget request included $113.8 million in PE 

27224F, within the operational systems development budget activity, for Combat Rescue and Recovery, all of which is for systems 

development and demonstration of the Personnel Recovery Vehicle 

(PRV). 

This section would limit any obligation of funding for the Personnel Recovery Vehicle until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense: 

(1) Certifies that the requirements and schedule for the PRV 

have been validated and are reasonable and necessary; 

(2) Certifies that all technologies required to meet the requirements are mature; 

(3) Certifies that no other aircraft, and no other modification 

of an aircraft in the Department of Defense inventory can meet 

the PRV requirement; and 

(4) Provides an independent cost and manpower estimate for 

the PRV. 

The committee also deletes all funding for operational systems development in PE 27224F and places the requested $113.8 million 

in systems development and demonstration, PE 64261F, Personnel 

Recovery Vehicle. 

Section 222—Separate Program Element Required for Each 

Significant Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Project 

In its annual budget requests for research, development, test, 

and evaluation (RDT&E), the Department of Defense continues to 

aggregate more and more projects within individual program elements. In addition, the Department continues to incorrectly apply 

its own directives in the classification of its programs and projects 

by budget activity, for example, Personnel Recovery Vehicle and 

Man Portable Air Defense System Defense. 

This section would require that any RDT&E project, whose estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for that project 

exceed $100.0 million, is assigned its own program element. 

Further, the committee continues to encourage the Department 

to follow its own directives in the proper budget activity classification of RDT&E programs. 

Section 223—Small Business Innovation Research Phase III 

Acceleration Pilot Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to designate 

the secretary of a military department to establish a pilot program 

to transition at least 10 Phase II Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) projects into Phase III annually. The pilot would run 

for three years. Small businesses are our nation’s engine of technology innovation. The federal government and the Department of 

Defense (DOD) spend significant sums annually on Phase I and 

Phase II Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) technology development that has yet to be fully transitioned into production 

(Phase III). While the primary focus of the program is to fund 

Phase III in the commercial marketplace, the committee recognizes 

that Department has managed the SBIR program with the military 

262 

customer as the focus. The committee believes that too many innovative technologies developed with DOD support and funding are 

subsequently neglected because many DOD acquisition programs 

are managed by large prime contractors with no visibility into the 

SBIR program and the promising technologies under development. 

While the committee is reluctant to direct consideration of SBIR 

Phase II projects as Phase III projects in subcontractual arrangements, the committee believes that a more focused effort to transition promising technologies will benefit both the warfighter and the 

taxpayer. The committee urges the Secretary to designate the military department that has demonstrated the greatest success in 

transitioning these technologies, and to consider implementing a 

process to provide incentives to defense contractors to subcontract 

to DOD SBIR firms, in a manner similar to procedures used for minority, women-owned, and veteran owned small businesses. 

Section 224—Revised Requirements Relating to Submission of 

Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan 

This section would amend section 270 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201) to require submission of the Joint Warfighting Science and Technology 

Plan required by that section biennially, rather than annually. This 

section would also repeal the requirement for the plan to contain 

review and assessment summaries. 

Section 225—Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement Program 

for Development of Innovative Shipbuilding Technologies, Processes, and Facilities 

This section would establish a Shipbuilding Industrial Base Program for the U.S. shipbuilding industry to improve the efficiency, 

cost-effectiveness, and quality of U.S. ship construction, and promote the international competitiveness of U.S. shipyards. Under 

this program, the Secretary of the Navy may provide funds for the 

development of modernized shipbuilding infrastructure and innovative design and production technologies and processes for naval 

vessels. The Secretary may also provide funds from this program 

to shipyards for the acquisition of such infrastructure, technologies, 

and processes. Participants of the program should have the ability 

to develop infrastructure, technologies, and processes that are beneficial to or needed by the shipbuilding industry based on inefficiencies discovered in a periodic assessment of program design, engineering, and production engineering; organization and operating 

systems; steelwork production; and ship construction and outfitting. 

The committee is aware that a 2005 shipbuilding industrial base 

study conducted by the Department of Defense identified weaknesses in the naval ship construction program and recommended a 

specific set of targeted investments to increase efficiency and modernize the U.S. shipbuilding infrastructure, including physical facilities, critical processes, specialized labor pool, unique tools, and 

the associated systems and processes. The committee is encouraged 

that the United States Shipbuilders have embraced the National 

Shipbuilding Research Program as an effective and efficient means 

to collaborate on innovation in shipbuilding and ship repair. The 

263 

committee believes that the Department can take advantage of this 

existing collaboration as an effective vehicle to address shipyard 

productivity issues related primarily to naval ship design practices. 

The committee believes the Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement Program established under this section would enable infrastructure modernization of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to include collaborative work by the nation’s shipyards in several key 

areas: design-for-production, ship design/engineering processes, 

production engineering methodology, enhanced supply chain integration, and organization and operating system optimization associated with naval ship construction programs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in PE 

78730N only for the Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement 

Program. A key aspect of the fiscal year 2006 recommended authorization would be design optimization projects of several ship classes—a mix of those classes in production as well as new design 

classes—including a coordinated effort to collect lessons learned 

across ship platforms and share productive methods among the 

programs. 

Section 226—Renewal of University National Oceanographic 

Laboratory System Fleet 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to develop a plan for a program to construct ships for the University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) Fleet and would 

require that the Secretary include in the plan provisions for the 

construction of up to four Ocean class ships. The section would also 

authorize $4.0 million in PE 63564N, Ship Preliminary Design and 

Feasibility Studies, to conduct feasibility assessments and initiate 

design of the first ship of the class. 

Section 227—Limitation on VXX Helicopter Program 

This section would limit the obligation of research, development, 

test and evaluation funds, or procurement funds, for acquisition of 

pilot production helicopters for the VXX helicopter program until 

the Secretary of the Navy certifies to the congressional defense 

committees that the results of the tests conducted by the fleet of 

test article helicopters for the VXX program demonstrate that VXX 

helicopters in the VXX mission configuration can be produced without significant further design modification. 

The budget request contained $935.9 million in PE 64273N for 

the VXX executive helicopter development program, including 

funds for the first of three payments for five pilot production helicopters. The VXX executive helicopter program is developing a replacement for the VH–3D helicopter. 

The committee notes that the VXX program schedule plans for 

the concurrent development and production of both three test articles and pilot production helicopters. While the committee understands the need to develop and produce the VXX as rapidly as possible, it further notes that the Department of Defense, Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation’s Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Report 

includes remarks that the program’s acquisition strategy violates 

the ‘‘fly before buy’’ concept, and that risk reduction and robust 

execution of a test-fix-fly program could require additional schedule 

264 

margin to ensure that an appropriate amount of testing be accomplished before pilot production vehicles are procured. 

SUBTITLE C—MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Section 231—Report on Capability and Costs for Operational Boost/ 

Ascent-Phase Missile Defense Systems 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

an assessment of the missile defense programs, particularly the 

Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptor, which are designed 

to protect against boost/ascent-phase ballistic missile attacks. This 

section would also require a capability and cost assessment of each 

boost/ascent-phase system. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by October 1, 2006, on the results of this assessment. 

Section 232—Required Flight-Intercept Test of Ballistic Missile 

Defense Ground-based Midcourse System 

The section would authorize $100.0 million above the budget request for the midcourse defense segment, for one additional flightintercept test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. This is in addition to the regularly planned flight tests of the 

GMD system conducted by the Missile Defense Agency, and the 

test shall be conducted as soon as practicable. 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained approximately $108.0 billion in operation and maintenance funds to ensure the U.S. military can 

fight and meet the demands of each combatant commander. These 

funds will be used to train U.S. forces, purchase equipment and 

spare parts, repair older equipment, and transport equipment and 

personnel around the world. These funds, however, will not be used 

to fund the global war on terrorism (GWOT). The committee understands the administration will request emergency supplemental 

funds for fiscal year 2006 to meet that requirement. Nevertheless, 

the committee believes that costs directly associated with the 

GWOT are embedded in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The 

committee has appropriately transferred these funds out of the 

committee’s recommended funding for fiscal year 2006 to the 

‘‘bridge’’ supplemental fund found in title XV of this bill, where the 

funds are authorized to be obligated for the GWOT expenses. 

For the last two years, the committee has closely examined the 

ability of the secretaries of the military departments to reset and 

reconstitute military equipment that has returned from deployment. What is surprising to the committee is not the level of operation and maintenance funds needed, but rather the need for significantly higher procurement funds. Because equipment used in 

Iraq and Afghanistan is not being returned for maintenance and it 

is undergoing significant operational tempo under harsh conditions, 

the services will not repair the equipment, but replace it. 

265 

The necessity to leave equipment in theatre results in troops at 

home station having limited equipment to train, maintain, or attain necessary skills. The committee notes the mission capability 

rates of equipment at home station is often significantly lower than 

deployed equipment. This is of concern to the committee. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries 

to identify any such shortfalls and to request funding where needed. 

Finally, the committee praises the performance and role of the 

public depots and arsenals. The GWOT requirement on these industrial facilities reminds the committee of their unique and significant role in national security. 

266 


Insert graphic folio 282 HR89.113
267 


Insert graphic folio 283 HR89.114
268 


Insert graphic folio 284 HR89.115
269 


Insert graphic folio 285 HR89.116
270 


Insert graphic folio 286 HR89.117
271 


Insert graphic folio 287 HR89.118
272 


Insert graphic folio 288 HR89.119
273 


Insert graphic folio 289 HR89.120
274 


Insert graphic folio 290 HR89.121
275 


Insert graphic folio 291 HR89.122
276 


Insert graphic folio 292 HR89.123
277 


Insert graphic folio 293 HR89.124
278 


Insert graphic folio 294 HR89.125
279 


Insert graphic folio 295 HR89.126
280 


Insert graphic folio 296 HR89.127
281 


Insert graphic folio 297 HR89.128
282 


Insert graphic folio 298 HR89.129
283 


Insert graphic folio 299 HR89.130
284 


Insert graphic folio 300 HR89.131
285 


Insert graphic folio 301 HR89.132
286 


Insert graphic folio 302 HR89.133
287 


Insert graphic folio 303 HR89.134
288 


Insert graphic folio 304 HR89.135
289 


Insert graphic folio 305 HR89.136
290 


Insert graphic folio 306 HR89.137
291 


Insert graphic folio 307 HR89.138
292 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS—READINESS

The committee recommends the following adjustments to the fiscal year 2006 amended budget request: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Department of the Army Adjustments: 

BA 1 Advanced Technology Batteries .................................................. +2.5 

BA 1 Arsenal/Depot AIT Initiative ....................................................... +10.0 

BA 1 Bio/Chem Resistant Canteens ..................................................... +1.0 

BA 1 Utilities Privatization .................................................................. (15.0) 

BA 1 M Gators ....................................................................................... +2.0 

BA 1 Fleece Insulation-Extended Cold Weather Clothing ................. +2.0 

BA 1 Tank Sonic Dry Clean Filter System .......................................... +1.0 

BA 3 Civilian Intern Program .............................................................. (32.0) 

Under Execution Civilian Personnel ....................................................... (17.0) 

Unobligated Balances ............................................................................... (239.6) 

BA 1 National Guard Extended Cold Weather Clothing System ...... +7.0 

BA 1 National Guard Advanced Solar Covers ..................................... +3.5 

BA 4 National Guard Citizen Soldier Support .................................... +0.9 

BA 4 Reserve Citizen Soldier Support Program .................................. +0.9 

BA 1 Reserve Extended Cold Weather Clothing System .................... +7.0 

Department of the Navy Adjustments: 

BA 1 Stainless Steel Sanitary Spaces .................................................. +4.0 

BA 1 Man Overboard ID System .......................................................... +4.0 

BA 1 JFCOM Joint Training ................................................................. (12.9) 

BA 1 Utilities Privatization .................................................................. (57.0) 

BA 1 NULKA .......................................................................................... +2.0 

BA 2 Ship Disposal ................................................................................ +8.0 

BA 4 Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan ................................... (16.0) 

BA 4 Ford Island Environmental Clean-Up ........................................ +1.0 

Under Execution Civilian Personnel ....................................................... (172.0) 

Unobligated Balances ............................................................................... (191.6) 

United States Marine Corps Adjustments: 

BA 1 Hyper-Realistic MOUT Training ................................................. +2.0 

BA 1 Bio/Chem Resistant Canteens ..................................................... +1.0 

BA 1 Mtn. Cold Weather Clothing and Equipment ............................ +6.0 

BA 1 Advanced Technology Batteries .................................................. +2.5 

BA 1 Reserve All Purpose Environmental Clothing System .............. +7.5 

Unobligated Balances ............................................................................... (37.4) 

Department of the Air Force Adjustments: 

BA 1 Distributed Mission Operations .................................................. (41.2) 

BA 1 Base Services (gymnasiums) ....................................................... (65.0) 

BA 1 Oxygen Mask and Visor ............................................................... +2.0 

BA 1 Utilities Privatization .................................................................. (17.6) 

Military to Civilian Conversion ............................................................... (37.0) 

Unobligated Balances ............................................................................... (195.4) 

Defense-Wide Activities Adjustments: 

BA 1 The Joint Staff-Management Headquarters Training Transformation ............................................................................................... (8.9) 

BA 1 Office of the Inspector General Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan .............................................................................................. (35.2) 

BA 1 SOCOM-Bio/Chem Resistant Canteens ...................................... +1.0 

BA 3 National Defense University, Joint Forces Staff College .......... +2.4 

BA 4 Defense Human Resources Activity DLAMP ............................. (7.3) 

BA 4 Defense Human Resources Activity Fellows .............................. (4.8) 

BA 4 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) CTMA ..................................... +15.0 

BA 4 DLA Beryllium Supply Industrial Base ..................................... +3.0 

BA 4 Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Ft. Carson Compatible Use Buffers ..................................................................................... +10.0 

BA 4 OSD Capitol Cost Sharing ........................................................... (61.3) 

BA 4 OSD Readiness Environmental Preservation ............................ +20.0 

BA 4 American Forces Information Service ......................................... (10.0) 

Unobligated Balances ............................................................................... (103.2) 

Transfers to Title XV: 

BA 1 Army Rapid Fielding Initiative ................................................... (102.8) 

293 

[In millions of dollars]—Continued 

BA 1 Army Operating Tempo ............................................................... (115.7) 

BA 1 Army Depot Maintenance ............................................................ (269.8) 

BA 1 Army Repair Parts ....................................................................... (56.9) 

BA 1 Army Unit of Action Experimentation ........................................ (37.2) 

BA 4 Army Sustainment System Technical Support .......................... (116.0) 

BA 4 Army NATO Support ................................................................... (11.8) 

BA 1 Navy Operating Tempo ................................................................ (180.0) 

BA 1 USMC Depot Maintenance .......................................................... (51.8) 

BA 1 USMC Operating Tempo ............................................................. (95.9) 

BA 1 Air Force Operating Tempo ......................................................... (476.0) 

Base Services Related Supplies 

The budget request contained $123.7 million for Base Services Related Supplies and Materials, representing an increase of $83.7 

million from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2005. The committee understands that the need for force enables such services as 

mess attendants, gymnasiums, and libraries and is aware of the 

impact these services have on quality of life. However, the committee feels that tripling the program funding is unjustified. The committee recommends $58.7 million for Base Services Related Supplies, a decrease of $65 million. 

Capital Security Cost Share 

The budget request contained $61.3 million for the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) Capitol Security Cost Share. Section 629 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447) requires all agencies with an overseas presence to fund a portion or 

share of the Department of State’s costs for the construction of U.S. 

diplomatic facilities. Each agency’s share is based on the number 

of personnel based in overseas diplomatic facilities. DOD’s estimated share of the fiscal year 2006 assessment is $61.3 million. 

This fee is expected to increase to $125.6 million by fiscal year 

2009, despite forecasted stability in DOD overseas staffing levels. 

In accordance with section 629(e)(1) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447), the program encourages 

right-sizing of each agency’s overseas presence. While the committee notes that the Department plays a critical role in the Department of State’s ability to accomplish its worldwide mission, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to scrutinize the number of overseas positions and take steps to ensure that only staff 

essential to DOD’s mission are based in overseas diplomatic facilities. Furthermore, the committee believes that the Department of 

Defense provides non-reimbursed goods and services to the Department of State at a level that exceeds the assessed amount. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $61.3 million for the 

Capital Security Cost Share. 

Civilian Intern Program 

The budget request contained $51.7 million in program growth 

for the Department of the Army’s Civilian Intern Program. While 

the committee agrees a career program to train new hires is appropriate, the committee believes the requested program growth is excessive. The committee notes that the program will have only 22 

new interns in fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $32.0 million. 

294 

Distributed Mission Operations 

The budget request contained $181.9 million for sustainment and 

expansion of the Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) program, 

an increase of $60.3 million. The committee supports DMO as an 

effective and vital means of maintaining war fighting capability 

and readiness, but is concerned that expansion of the program at 

the rate requested is excessive. The committee supports 

sustainment of the current program and the expansion of one F–

15E and two F–16 Mission Training Centers (MTC). With the addition of these new MTCs, the Air Force will have a worldwide total 

of four F–15C sites, one F–15E site, six F–16 sites, and two E–3B 

Airborne Warning and Control System sites. 

The committee recommends funding DMO at $140.0 million, a 

decrease of $41.9 million. 

Eagle Vision 

The budget request contained no funds for operating and maintaining the Eagle Vision. The committee believes that the ability 

to receive, process, and exploit commercial imagery products 

through Eagle Vision is of high value. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million for operating Eagle Vision. 

Expansion of Export Control Database 

The budget request contained $320.1 million for the Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency including funds to strengthen and expand 

the existing federal effort to help foreign governments improve 

their export control performance. The committee notes that the 

Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control operates an export control database that is currently used by some 16 countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. 

The committee recommends an additional $1.3 million to sustain 

and expand the worldwide subscriptions to this database, provide 

education and training for its use, expand the database coverage of 

weapons of mass destruction with specific focus on terrorism 

threats, produce a secure intranet version of the database, and continue related research and public education initiatives on export 

control policy. 

Joint Initiatives 

The budget request contained funds for over 120 different joint 

programs, studies, and management initiatives. Of specific concern 

is the lack of oversight of joint training. The committee strongly believes that joint initiatives are critical to the success of the U.S. 

military in response to the threats challenging our nation in the 

new millennium. The committee, however, is concerned that the 

Secretary of Defense lacks oversight of the vast number and broad 

scope of joint initiatives that have proliferated across the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee has not seen evidence that 

the Joint Forces Command, the Joint Staff, and military services 

coordinate funding requirements for joint training programs to include the Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercise Program, the Joint National 

Training Capability, service-sponsored exercises, and sustainment 

295 

and modernization of DOD training ranges. The committee is concerned there are duplicate and unnecessary funding requests. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.9 million in funding for the Department of the Navy’s Joint Forces Command and 

a decrease of $8.9 million in funding for The Joint Staff’s Management Headquarters for Training Transformation. 

Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan 

The budget request contained $485 million to implement the 

mid-range financial improvement plan. Late in fiscal year 2004, the 

Secretary of Defense initiated a mid-range financial improvement 

plan to obtain financially auditable statements by fiscal year 2007. 

The committee determined this plan was poorly defined, had uncertain implementation plans and was not properly articulated to the 

defense agencies or military services. In accordance with section 

352 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), the Secretary was prohibited from obligating operation and maintenance funds to implement this plan until a report better describing the program was delivered to Congress. The report has not yet been delivered. Nevertheless, the Department of Defense, Inspector General, awarded a 

task and delivery order contract to an audit firm to proceed with 

the audits. The committee believes the plan continues to lack an 

appropriate structure or implementation plan. The committee recommends a decrease of $32.5 million to the 

Department of Defense, Inspector General and a decrease of $16.0 

million to the Department of the Navy. The committee understands 

that no other defense agencies or military services budgeted funds 

in fiscal year 2006 for the mid-range financial improvement plan. 

Military-to-Civilian Conversion Program 

The budget request contained $89.3 million in the civilian personnel account for 1,395 Air Force military-to-civilian conversions. 

While the committee concurs that this program is essential to free 

up military end strength for operational functions, the committee 

is concerned that plan is not executable due to the hiring time required for civilian personnel. 

The committee recommends funding military-to-civilian conversions at $52.3 million, a decrease of $37.0 million. 

Navy Ship Disposal 

The budget request contained $11.9 million for ship disposal 

within the operation and maintenance, Navy. The committee notes 

that the Secretary of the Navy has developed an efficient ship disposal program with a sound record of protecting health, safety, and 

the environment. The committee expects that these additional 

funds will be used to accelerate planned disposals, including 

reefing and deepwater sinking (SINKEX). In section 3505 of this 

Act, the Secretary of Transportation is required to transfer, 

through use of the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) no fewer than 

four obsolete combatant vessels from Maritime Administration’s 

(MARAD) inventory to the Navy for disposal using Navy disposal 

contracts. The committee understands that the cost of disposal 

under the Navy program is sometimes more expensive than 

296 

through MARAD disposal contractors. While the transfer under the 

Economy Act requires an accompanying transfer of funds from 

MARAD, the Navy is encouraged to utilize part of the increase recommended in this section to ensure that the transfers recommended in section 3505 are implemented in a timely but cost effective manner. While acknowledging differences in program administration, the committee also encourages the Secretary of the 

Navy to assist the Maritime Administration in developing best 

management disposal practices similar to those the Navy currently 

has in place. 

The committee recommends $19.9 million, an increase of $8.0 

million. 

Operation Tempo Alignment to Account for the Global War on 

Terrorism 

Over the past three fiscal years, the administration has relied 

upon emergency supplemental funds to support the global war on 

terrorism (GWOT). Costs directly associated with the GWOT are 

not included in the annual Department of Defense budget request. 

Despite this policy, the committee believes such costs are embedded 

in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The committee has accordingly transferred $1,511.9 million out of the budget request into the 

‘‘bridge’’ supplemental fund found in title XV of this bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Army ................................................................................................................. +708.2 

Navy .................................................................................................................. +180.0 

Marine Corps ................................................................................................... +147.7 

Air Force ........................................................................................................... +476.0 

Tank Sonic Dry Clean Filter Systems 

The committee believes the secretaries of the military departments should continue to adapt maintenance requirements for 

equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to extend their useful 

life. One action the committee believes should be taken is the 

cleaning and reuse of filters needed in Army tanks. The committee 

directs the Secretary of the Army to purchase and utilize the tank 

sonic dry clean filter systems for appropriate tank engines in theatre. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for the 

Secretary to purchase, deploy, and train personnel on the proper 

use of these systems. 

Utilities Privatization Implementation 

As noted in items of special interest in title 28 of division B of 

this Act, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office 

raises significant concerns about the efficacy of the Department of 

Defense’s utilities privatization program. As such, section 2812 provides for the temporary suspension of utilities privatization authorities. 

In accordance with this provision, the committee recommends the 

following reductions to reflect savings related to utilities privatization implementation efforts that will not occur during fiscal year 

2006: 

297 

[In millions of dollars] 

Army ................................................................................................................. (15.0) 

Navy .................................................................................................................. (57.0) 

Air Force ........................................................................................................... (17.6) 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

Overview 

The committee is well aware of the critical importance of information technology (IT) to the conduct of combat operations as well 

as the efficient management of Department of Defense (DOD) business operations. IT systems provide the real-time intelligence that 

enables U.S. soldiers to detect and avoid danger; help find and defeat the enemy; and enable battlefield, theatre, and domestic medical technologies to save the lives of battle-wounded troops. IT systems will also someday provide the means by which the Department can accurately manage its people, funds, and equipment—a 

daunting challenge for a worldwide, dynamic, half-a-trillion-dollar 

enterprise facing a determined and elusive enemy. 

The committee recognizes the importance of IT and has taken a 

particular interest in DOD’s management of IT programs in recent 

years. The committee has and continues to stress the importance 

of a DOD-wide enterprise architecture to lay the foundation, set 

the standards, guide the development, and ensure interoperability 

of new systems. 

Adjustments to Information Technology 

Overall, the committee is pleased that the Department has progressed in several areas: more focused management of programs, 

more emphasis on joint programs, and most importantly, an emphasis on warfighting systems that protect American lives, inform 

battlefield commanders, and more precisely guide U.S. munitions. 

Despite commendable progress, the committee believes that several programs recommended for funding in the budget request are 

redundant or premature. For example, the base level communications infrastructure program proposed by the Air Force should be 

delayed until the impacts of the overseas base restructuring, the 

base realignment and closure process, and the Quadrennial Defense Review are better known. Other programs have suffered 

delays or do not yet have firm requirements which the committee 

believes will preclude the prudent expenditure of funding in the 

budget request. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following adjustments: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Department of the Army Adjustments: 

Live Instrumentation Air and Missile Defense Units ........................... +5.0 

Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery System ............................. +3.5 

GFEBS ....................................................................................................... (24.9) 

Department of the Air Force Adjustments: 

Base Level Communications Structure .................................................. (103.0) 

Combat Information Transportation System ......................................... (32.0) 

Medical Qualification Tracking Visualization Data Analysis ............... +0.6 

298 

[In millions of dollars]—Continued 

Defense-wide Adjustments: 

Office of the Secretary of Defense Business Modernization Program 

(BMMP) and Domains .......................................................................... (12.6) 

Defense Logistics Agency BMMP Logistics Systems Modernization ... (1.8) 

Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery 

The budget request contained $79.0 million for the Army Knowledge Online (AKO) effort. 

AKO is a critical key technology component of the AKO strategy. 

The AKO portal is the single, secure access point for 1.7 million 

Army personnel and other users supporting the Army into the 

Army Intranet, and provides deployed soldiers’ access to various 

Army and Department of Defense systems. AKO provides core enterprise-wide directory, security, collaboration, and other 

functionalities. 

The committee notes the increased utilization of AKO, combined 

with dramatic data growth has resulted in the need for improvements to the Army’s disaster recovery services. Additionally, the 

Army plans to host other Army mission critical applications at the 

disaster recovery facilities as part of their plan for server consolidation and AKO integration. The committee believes additional efforts are necessary to ensure continuity of operations and critical 

functions for AKO. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $82.5 million for AKO, 

an increase of $3.5 million for disaster recovery services. 

Enterprise License Agreement 

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) continuing transition from 

legacy to state-of-the-art information technology systems is burdened with rising modernization costs. The committee supports 

DOD’s efforts to mitigate such cost pressures and encourages the 

Department to embrace more innovative contract arrangements to 

realize cost savings. 

The committee believes that savings will be achieved and security enhanced in the procurement of commercial software applications by including provisions in the original procurement agreement that the delivered software meet DOD configuration standards. Additional stipulations that the vendor will update the software to meet any necessary DOD-driven configuration changes will 

yield further savings. The committee notes that the Air Force entered into such an innovative agreement in June 2004, that has accomplished these results. 

The committee believes the Department should explore the successful Air Force model for possible emulation throughout the Department. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review the Air 

Force enterprise license agreement, consider applying a similar approach for the Department, and submit a report on this assessment 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2006. 

299 

High Performance Computing Systems—‘‘Supercomputers’’

The committee is concerned that despite the availability of cost 

effective, commodity, multi-processor computer systems, more attention must be directed toward improving software to improve 

‘‘time-to-solution’’ for scientific discovery and national security 

workloads. When procuring High Performance Computing (HPC) 

systems, the committee is concerned that the U.S. HPC community 

is advertising the theoretical peak performance of HPC systems 

while down-playing the more important actual sustained performance delivered by such systems on an HPC center’s actual workload. 

Since the traditional U.S. leadership in HPC systems is critical 

to U.S. competitiveness and many technologies critical to the Department of Defense (DOD), the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

by March 15, 2006, on the following: (1) a five year plan for advanced software at all levels from applications to system tools that 

improve HPC time-to-solution, to include complementary multiagency activities; and (2) a two year plan for advanced software development producing measurable goals and milestones that result 

in time-to-solution benchmarks more predictive of HPC performance for various actual systems and workloads than the synthetic 

workloads sometimes currently used for performance prediction. 

Both of these reports must outline the steps the Department will 

take to improve HPC software resulting in significant improvements in time-to-solution and performance prediction for today’s 

DOD HPC applications and emerging 2010 petascale applications. 

The committee encourages the Department to share any improvements resulting from execution of these plans to be made available 

to the entire U.S. HPC community to promote continued U.S. leadership in HPC. 

Live Instrumentation for Air and Missile Defense Units 

The budget request contained no funding for live instrumentation 

for Air and Missile Defense (AMD) units. 

Recent operations in Iraq highlight the critical need for AMD 

units to have opportunities to ‘‘train like we fight’’ and to do so 

with both manned and unmanned air assets. The committee believes that instrumentation and digital links to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, will address the immediate 

need to integrate AMD forces with the Army maneuver combat 

training to allow for a truly joint training environment. The committee believes live training instrumentation will allow real-time 

data collection and analysis, as well as mitigate current training 

and readiness issues. AMD units play an increasingly important 

role in the U.S. national security strategy and they should be included in joint training and exercises. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $5.0 million for the continuing development of training instrumentation for AMD units 

Medical Qualification Tracking Visualization and Data Analysis 

Project 

The Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board 

(the Board) is responsible for the determination of medical acceptVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00325 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
300 

ability of applications to all the U.S. service academies and the Reserve Officer Training Corps Scholarship program. The Board processes 27,000 applications annually, not including the thousands of 

transactions it processes in response to congressional and service 

academy inquiries. The committee understands that the Board requires a visual mechanism for extracting information from its database. The committee believes this requirement may be satisfied by 

the Medical Qualification Tracking Visualization and Data Analysis (MQTVDA) Project which is an application that data mines the 

Board’s database. The committee believes the MQTVDA will provide greater transparency to this process and improve the Board’s 

efficiency. Accordingly, the committee recommends $600,000 for the research and development of MQTVDA. 

Medical Information Systems Architecture 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

is considering conversion of its Composite Health Care System 

(CHCS) to an alternative database and application platform. CHCS 

provides essential, automated information support to military 

health system providers at hospitals and clinics worldwide. The existing CHCS application runs on a legacy database system that is 

supported by an aging operating system, and is limited to a single 

hardware platform. Converting CHCS to an open architecture 

would provide significant improvements and expand hardware options. The committee supports DOD’s efforts to exploit previous 

technological investments, and to utilize new technologies as necessary to transform clinical support systems in a cost and operationally efficient manner. However, the committee notes that this 

transformation should not result in a stove-piped system. The committee strongly encourages the Department to apply lessons 

learned in recent pilot demonstrations, in conjunction with DOD’s 

existing enterprise architecture, to guide its CHCS conversion efforts, and to maximize return on investment. 

Network Device Authentication 

The committee recognizes the importance of computer network 

security to protect sensitive information. The committee is aware 

that in addition to authenticating network users, it is now possible 

to authenticate devices that access computer networks, which add 

an extra layer of security. The committee urges the Secretary of 

Defense to examine device authentication alternatives for security 

and cost-effectiveness and to consider incorporating device authentication for the Department of Defense’s computer networks. 

Radio Frequency Identification in the Medical Supply Chain 

The committee notes the progress made by the Military Health 

Care System (MHS) pharmacy program to implement bar code 

technology to manage pharmaceutical logistics and improve patient 

safety. The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense has 

mandated that all Department of Defense (DOD) components shall 

immediately resource and implement the use of high data capacity 

active radio frequency identification (RFID) in DOD operational environment. When fully implemented, RFID technology will improve 

301 

the asset tracking and lifecycle management of the medical supply 

chain, medical logistics management, facility security, patient safety and medical equipment maintenance. The committee urges the 

Secretary to begin implementing RFID in the medical supply chain 

consistent with DOD’s RFID policies and architecture to prevent 

the MHCS from becoming stove-piped or unable to operate with 

other DOD systems. 

Servicewide Communication—General Fund Enterprise Business 

Systems 

The budget request contained $31.8 million in operation and 

maintenance funds for the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS). The $31.8 million was transferred from base operations support to servicewide communications in fiscal year 2005. 

The committee understands that the Secretary of the Army only requires $6.9 million for GFEBS in fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommends $6.9 million for GFEBS, a decrease 

of $24.9 million. 

OTHER MATTERS

Arsenal Support Program Initiative 

The committee is aware that the Rock Island Arsenal has been 

administratively split into two separate commands, a garrison command and a manufacturing command. While the committee supports this restructuring effort, there is concern that this action may 

preclude the entire Rock Island Arsenal from being considered eligible for the Arsenal Support Program Initiative. The committee 

encourages the Department of the Army to consider the Rock Island Arsenal, in its entirety, as an ‘‘eligible facility’’ as defined by 

in section 4551 of title 10, United States Code. 

Base Operating Support Budget Shortfalls 

The committee is concerned by widespread reports of shortfalls 

in base operating support (BOS) budgets at U.S. military installations. According to these reports, BOS shortfalls have caused the 

services to consider or implement reductions to basic base services 

such as child care, dining hall operations, and facilities management activities, dramatically affecting both military quality of life 

and readiness. The committee is aware that the Department has a 

long history of utilizing infrastructure budgets, including BOS and 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization budgets, as 

‘‘billpayers’’ for operational requirements, and most recently, to 

support costs associated with the global war on terrorism. The committee is troubled by this practice, and urges the Department to 

fully fund and execute BOS, sustainment, and facilities recapitalization budgets. 

In addition, the committee directs each service secretary to report to the House Committee on Armed Services by June 15, 2005, 

the amount of funding each service anticipates expending for BOS 

and sustainment activities during fiscal year 2005. Each secretary 

should provide an estimate of funding levels necessary to fully 

meet ‘‘must pay’’ BOS requirements as well as DOD’s goal of funding 95 percent of sustainment requirements. The reports should 

302 

also include a listing of anticipated reductions to BOS-funded services if anticipated execution levels are below the ‘‘must pay’’ level. 

Finally, each report should include an assessment of whether the 

amount of BOS funding included in the fiscal year 2006 budget request is sufficient to meet ‘‘must pay’’ requirements, and a list of 

likely sources of funding or base activity cuts that would be necessary to meet budgeted levels during the coming fiscal year. 

Budget Justification Documents for Operation and Maintenance 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 108–106) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public 

Law 108–136), the committee noted the continued growth in the 

‘‘other costs’’ and ‘‘other contracts’’ line items in the service’s summary of price and program growth exhibits contained in the budget 

justification material. In response to section 1003 of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375), the Secretary of Defense submitted a report 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services identifying the elements of ‘‘other costs’’

and ‘‘other contracts’’ used in the justification materials of the 

budget request. The report identified categories of information that 

the committee believes should be specifically identified under the 

‘‘other purchases’’ category in the summary of price and program 

growth exhibit for fiscal year 2008. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary to identify in budget justification material submitted for fiscal year 2008, and thereafter, the costs for outsourcing 

and privatization, information technology contracts, other base support contractual services, other training contractual support, and 

military personnel contract support. 

Evaluation of Department of Defense Policy Prohibiting the 

Purchase of Technical Data to Accompany Acquired Systems 

The committee is concerned that Department of Defense (DOD) 

policies may limit the services from purchasing technical data 

when acquiring systems, and thereby substantially increase the 

sustainment portion of the system’s total life cycle costs and delay 

repair of mission essential items. The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 

March 1, 2006, containing a comprehensive analysis of the impact 

of these policies. The comprehensive analysis shall include the following: (1) the status of DOD’s plan to revise acquisition policy and 

regulations in response to recommendations in the Government Accountability Office Report (GAO–04–715) dated August, 2004; (2) 

the costs associated with the fees assessed for access to view, modify, or distribute technical data relating to the sustainment of procured systems; (3) the assessment of time required to reach back 

to the system manufacturer for technical data and what impact, if 

any, this delay has on repairing or modifying fielded systems; and 

(4) recommendations for more effectively managing the costs associated with technical data access requirements associated with future procurement contracts. 

303 

Food Supplies 

The committee is aware of the Subsistence Prime Vendor program in the Department of Defense, under which a single vendor 

manages and supplies food in a particular region. The committee 

understands that other initiatives or programs to improve the efficiencies of food distribution are being examined within the Department. The committee is interested in these alternative programs 

and directs the Secretary to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2005, detailing the alternative programs currently being evaluated. 

Naval Oceanographic Command 

The committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy is in 

the preliminary process phase of evaluating whether to conduct a 

study under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 for 

administrative support and budget/finance functions performed by 

government personnel at the Naval Oceanographic Command. During this phase, the committee believes the Secretary should take 

into consideration the various independent reviews that have previously examined this question, including those done by the Logistics Management Institute and Booz Allen Hamilton. 

Pine Bluff Arsenal 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has 

invested millions of dollars in the Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, for 

specialized infrastructure and environmental regulatory permit capacity to provide needed capability to manufacture, repair, assemble and store specialized chemical and biological defense equipment. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to fully 

examine operations at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, in order 

to determine if depot-level activities are being performed at the facility and if these activities qualify the arsenal for designation as 

a Center for Industrial and Technical Excellence for Chemical and 

Biological Defense Equipment. 

Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

The budget request contained $218.2 million in operation and 

maintenance for the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program. The committee is concerned about the manning of the Predator UAV. Specifically, the committee has informally inquired 

about the morale and motivation of rated Air Force officer pilots 

flying the Predator. The committee has also questioned the costs of 

flight qualifying pilots in a high performance jet aircraft, only to 

send them to fly the UAV. The committee has questioned whether 

enlisted personnel could be flight/operator qualified certified, licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, and given a specialty code of Predator pilot. The committee notes the other military services’ UAV programs utilize enlisted pilot/operators almost 

exclusively. The committee firmly believes the cost associated with 

such training is dramatically lower than that of rated pilot officers. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to conduct a study of the efficacy of creating an enlisted pilot/operator specialty code for the Predator UAV. The study should review 

304 

the feasibility of training, employing, and maintaining enlisted pilots. It should compare the costs of training, the career salary costs, 

and the retirement cost projections of enlisted pilot/operators 

versus rated pilots. Finally, the study should carefully explore the 

morale and motivational career issues. The committee expects the 

report to be submitted to the congressional defense committees and 

the congressional intelligence committees by June 30, 2006. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding 

This section would authorize $124.3 billion in operation and 

maintenance funding for the military departments and defensewide activities. 

Section 302—Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize $3.2 billion for working capital 

funds of the Department of Defense and the National Defense Sealift Fund. 

Section 303—Other Department of Defense Programs 

This section would authorize $22.3 billion for other Department 

of Defense Programs for (1) the Defense Health Program; (2) Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction; (3) Drug Interdiction and 

Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide; and (4) the Defense Inspector General. 

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 311—Revision of Required Content of Environmental 

Quality Annual Report 

This section would amend section 2706(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to revise existing reporting requirements on environmental quality programs and other environmental activities. This 

section would repeal the requirement of the Secretary of Defense 

to report annually to Congress a list of planned or ongoing projects 

necessary to support environmental quality programs that exceed 

$1.5 million during the reporting period and a statement of fines 

and penalties imposed against the Department of Defense and the 

military departments under applicable environmental laws during 

the fiscal year. This section would also eliminate the reporting requirement for the following expenditures on overseas environmental activities: environmental technology, conferences, meetings, 

studies for pilot programs, and overseas travel. The committee 

notes this section will reduce costs to the Department. 

Section 312—Pilot Project on Compatible Use Buffers on Real 

Property Bordering Fort Carson, Colorado 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out 

a pilot project at Fort Carson, Colorado, for purposes of evaluating 

the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing conservation easements 

and leases to limit development and preserve habitat on real propVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.003 HR089
305 

erty in the vicinity of military installations in the United States. 

The pilot program would be conducted in four phases as described 

in the Fort Carson Army Compatible User Buffer Project, which is 

a plan to use conservation easements and leases on property in the 

vicinity of Fort Carson, Colorado. The pilot program shall expire in 

five years or on the date of completion of the fourth phase of the 

Fort Carson Army Compatible User Buffer Project, whichever is 

earlier. 

Section 313—Repeal of Air Force Report on Military Installation 

Encroachment Issues 

This section would repeal a reporting requirement in section 315 

of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). 

Section 314—Payment of Certain Private Cleanup Costs in 

Connection with Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

This section would amend section 2701 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse a private 

land owner for costs incurred assisting the Department of Defense 

(DOD) in meeting its covenant responsibilities, pursuant to section 

120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLCA) of 1980 (Public Law 95–510), to 

conduct clean up on property once under the control and contaminated by DOD. This section does not affect, alter or diminish the 

Secretary’s obligation and responsibility to conduct clean up under 

section 120 of the CERCLA. 

SUBTITLE C—WORKPLACE AND DEPOT ISSUES

Section 321—Proceeds from Cooperative Activities with Non-Army 

Entities 

This section would amend section 4544 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize Army industrial facilities to retain the working 

capital funds received from the sale of unique goods or services. 

Section 4544 identifies the limited circumstances under which 

goods and services can be sold. 

Section 322—Public-Private Competition 

This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a ‘‘formal’’

competition when conducting the analysis required under section 

2461. This would impact the Secretary’s ability to conduct a 

streamlined competition authorized in the Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A–76. This section would also prohibit reorganizing or remodeling a function performed by government employees for the purpose of avoiding the competition requirements of section 2461. 

Section 323—Public-Private Competition Pilot Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

pilot program using the process defined in Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A–76 on four public-private competitions for 

306 

work currently performed by a contractor. The pilot program shall 

be completed in three years. The Secretary shall submit a report 

to Congress with the study results. 

Section 324—Sense of Congress on Equitable Legal Standing for 

Civilian Employees 

This section would state that it is the sense of Congress that Department of Defense civilian employees should receive comparable 

treatment as contractors throughout the process of a public-private 

competition, and in particular, with respect to legal standing to 

challenge the competition. 

SUBTITLE D—EXTENSION OF PROGRAM AUTHORITIES

Section 331—Extension of Authority to Provide Logistics Support 

and Services for Weapons Systems Contractors 

This section would amend section 365 of the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–

314) by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. This would extend, 

for an additional three years, a program under which the Secretary 

of Defense may make available logistics support and services to a 

contractor for the construction, modification, or maintenance of a 

weapon system. The regulations required to be published prior to 

implementation have not yet been published. They are expected to 

be published in the current fiscal year. The extension, therefore, 

would allow the Secretary five years to conduct the pilot program. 

Section 332—Extension and Revision of Temporary Authority for 

Contractor Performance of Security Guard Functions 

This section would prohibit contractor performance of security 

guard functions, awarded under authority of section 332 of the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(Public Law 107–31), to be in effect after September 30, 2006. To 

fill a requirement for security guard functions, as authorized under 

section 332, the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the 

military departments must conduct new full and open competitions 

pursuant to section 2304 of title 10, United States Code. In conducting these new competitions the authority in section 602 of the 

Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988 (Public 

Law 100–656) would not apply. New contracts could be in effect 

until the end of fiscal year 2008. 

SUBTITLE E—UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE

Section 341—Definitions 

This section would define the terms ‘‘covered wilderness’’, 

‘‘Tribe’’, ‘‘Utah Test and Training Range,’’ and ‘‘Wilderness Act.’’

Section 342—Military Operations and Overflights, Utah Test and 

Training Range 

This section would first explain the importance of the Utah Test 

and Training Range through the use of congressional findings. This 

section would also further define the intent of both the Utah Test 

307 

and Training Range Protection Act and the Wilderness Act (Public 

Law 88–577). 

Section 343—Planning Process for Federal Lands in the Utah Test 

and Training Range 

This section would first require the Secretary of the Interior, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to develop land use 

plans for federal lands in the Utah Test and Training Range. This 

section would also prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from granting or issuing any authorizations for rights-of-way under the Federal Land Policy and Manage Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761) upon 

certain federal lands identified as inventory units. 

Section 344—Designation and Management of Cedar Mountain 

Wilderness, Utah 

This section would designate certain federal lands in Tooele 

County, Utah, as wilderness and therefore as a component of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Section 345—Identification of Additional Bureau of Land Management Land in Utah as Trust Land for Skull Valley Band of 

Goshutes 

This section would identify approximately 640 acres of Bureau of 

Land Management land in the State of Utah to be administered in 

trust for the benefit of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes. 

Section 346—Relation to Other Lands and Laws 

This section would make clarifying and technical corrections. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 351—Codification and Revision of Limitation on Modification of Major Items of Equipment Scheduled for Retirement or 

Disposal 

This section would codify and revise existing reporting requirements in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 

(Public Law 108-287) on modifications to aircraft, weapons, vessels, 

and other items of equipment scheduled to be retired or disposed 

of within five years. This section would deviate from the previous 

reporting requirement by limiting the notice to Congress to only 

those instances where the modification costs exceed $1 million. Historically, 98 percent of waiver requests have been for modifications 

that had a total installed value below this mark and involved 

equipment that would be removed and reused when the host system was retired. This exception would balance the need to minimize administrative delays in mission-essential modernization with 

the appropriate degree of oversight. 

Section 352—Limitation on Purchase of Investment Items With 

Operation and Maintenance Funds 

This section would codify and revise a limitation in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–287). 

This section would prohibit the use of operation and maintenance 

308 

funds for the purchase or replacement, of an investment item 

which costs more than $250,000. It has come to the committee’s attention that the Secretary of the Army has expended operation and 

maintenance funds for the purchase of Shadow unmanned aerial 

vehicles (UAVs). The Secretary’s rationale is that under the contractor logistics support contract, the contractor was required to 

maintain a wartime readiness rate of 85 percent. In at least nine 

instances this required the contractor to replace a UAV beyond economic repair. This provision would make clear that replacing an 

item that is beyond economic repair is equivalent to purchasing an 

item. The committee notes it’s concerned with the Department of 

the Army’s inability to gather the relevant facts. 

Section 353—Provision of Department of Defense Support for 

Certain Paralympic Sporting Events 

This section would create a new exception for the Secretary of 

Defense to authorize support for sporting events sanctioned by the 

United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Paralympic Military 

Program. The USOC Paralympic Military Program provides support for veterans with service-connected physical disabilities to participate in Paralympic sports as a regular and ongoing part of their 

rehabilitation and daily lives. Additionally, the section would enable the Secretary to authorize up to $1.0 million per fiscal year 

in support for USOC sanctioned national or international 

Paralympic sporting events in which participation exceeds 500 athletes. 

Section 354—Development and Explanation of Budget Models for 

Base Operations Support, Sustainment, and Facilities Recapitalization 

This section would require a report during each of the next five 

fiscal years from the Secretary of Defense on the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) models for base operations support (BOS), 

sustainment, and facilities recapitalization budgets. The report 

should include an explanation of the methodology used to build 

each model; a description of items contained in each model; whether the models are being applied to each service under common definitions of BOS, sustainment, and facilities recapitalization; the 

goals for appropriate funding levels in the coming fiscal years for 

each area of funding; justification for those goals; and changes 

made to the models and/or goals since the last report. 

As noted previously, the committee is troubled by DOD’s practice 

of utilizing BOS, sustainment, and facilities recapitalization budgets as ‘‘billpayers’’ for operational requirements and costs related to 

the global war on terrorism. While the Department’s efforts to establish ‘‘models’’ to determine appropriate funding levels for BOS, 

sustainment, and facilities recapitalization are noteworthy, the 

committee recognizes that such models have little value if they do 

not include Department-wide definitions, are executed at levels inconsistent with model findings, are manipulated to justify substandard budget requests, or do not accurately determine requirements. The committee expects that this annual reporting requirement will provide a useful tool for oversight of DOD’s installation 

budgets. 

309 

Section 355—Report on Department of the Army Programs for 

Prepositioning of Equipment and Other Materiel 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to conduct 

an assessment of Department of the Army programs for 

prepositioned equipment and materiel. Since Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Army has continued to rely heavily on prepositioned 

stocks. The committee is concerned about the inventory levels and 

maintenance condition of the stocks. The assessment would include 

a review of all equipment, stocks and sustainment programs as 

well as how the program is currently configured to support the 

evolving goals of the Department of the Army. The Secretary shall 

submit the assessment by January 1, 2006, to the House Committee on Armed Services. This section would also require the Government Accountability Office to provide a report to Congress on 

the Secretary of the Army’s assessment within 120 days of receipt 

of the report. 

Section 356—Report Regarding Effect on Military Readiness of 

Undocumented Immigrants Trespassing Upon Operational Ranges 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report to Congress by 

March 15, 2006, on a joint plan to eliminate incursions of undocumented immigrants into military training areas near international 

borders. The report would also include an assessment of the scope, 

nature, and impact on military readiness caused by such incursions. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 

submit to Congress semi-annual reports on mitigating measures 

implemented since the last report received. 

According to the Marine Corps, undocumented immigrants who 

entered the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona in 2004, caused 

the loss of more than 1,250 training hours—or more than 50 training days. The committee is concerned by the impact that such reductions in training time have on military readiness levels. As 

such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pursue 

mitigating measures resulting from the joint plan required by this 

section and, where appropriate, seek reprogramming authority during fiscal year 2006 to begin implementation of such measures. 

Section 357—Congressional Notification Requirements Regarding 

Placement of Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities, Pipelines, and Related Structures on Defense Lands 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense or the secretaries of the military departments to notify Congress thirty days 

prior to issuing a final approval, disapproval, or formal opinion regarding the placement of any liquefied natural gas facility, pipelines, or related structure in the vicinity of a military installation. 

Section 358—Report Regarding Army and Air Force Exchange 

System Management of Army Lodging 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to Congress on the results of a study evaluating the merits 

of allowing the Army and Air Force Exchange System to manage 

Army lodging. The section would prevent the Department of the 

310 

Army from soliciting or considering any request for qualifications 

for privatization of Army lodging beyond that already identified for 

inclusion in Group A of the Privatization of Army Lodging Initiative. 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Increases in Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized to 

be on Active Duty for Operational Support 

The committee notes a significant increase from fiscal year 2005 

to fiscal year 2006 in the maximum number of reserve component 

personnel authorized to be on active duty for operational support. 

Although the committee, in section 415, recommends the levels requested in the budget, the committee desires to understand more 

fully the reasons behind the significant increases. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Comptroller General to assess the factors 

that led to the fiscal year 2006 increases, as well as the factors 

being used to develop the fiscal year 2007 budget request, and submit a report of the results of that assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by April 1, 2006. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 30, 2006. 

Service FY 2005 authorized and floor 

FY 2006 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2006 re- quest FY 2005 author- ized 

Army .......................................................... 502,400 482,400 482,400 0 ¥20,000 

Navy ........................................................... 365,900 352,700 352,700 0 ¥13,200 

USMC ......................................................... 178,000 175,000 175,000 0 ¥3,000 

Air Force .................................................... 359,700 357,400 357,400 0 ¥2,300 

DOD .................................................. 1,406,000 1,367,500 1,367,500 0 ¥38,500 

The authorizations contained in this section are the end 

strengths requested in the budget. The committee does not believe 

that the budget request provided adequate manning levels for the 

Army and Marine Corps. Therefore, the committee, in section 1521, 

recommends fiscal year 2006 increases of 30,000 for the Army and 

4,000 for the Marine Corps above the authorizations in this section. 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 

Minimum Levels 

This section would establish new minimum active duty end 

strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force as of 

311 

September 30, 2006. These changes in minimum strengths reflect 

the committee recommendations shown in section 401. 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for selected reserve personnel, including the end strength for reserves on 

active duty in support of the reserves, as of September 30, 2006: 

Service FY 2005 authorized 

FY 2006 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2006 request FY 2005 authorized 

Army National Guard ................................. 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................. 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................. 83,400 73,100 73,100 0 ¥10,300 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................... 106,800 106,800 106,800 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 76,100 74,000 74,000 0 ¥2,100 

DOD Total ......................................... 860,900 848,500 848,500 0 ¥12,400 

Coast Guard Reserve ................................ 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 

Support of the Reserves 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of September 30, 

2006: 

Service FY 2005 author- ized 

FY 2006 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2006 re- quest FY 2005 author- ized 

Army National Guard ................................. 26,602 27,345 27,345 0 743 

Army Reserve ............................................. 14,970 15,270 15,270 0 300 

Naval Reserve ........................................... 14,152 13,392 13,392 0 ¥760 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................... 12,253 13,089 13,089 0 836 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 1,900 2,290 2,290 0 390 

DOD Total ......................................... 72,138 73,647 73,647 0 1,509 

The committee’s recommendation would provide for a 2.0 percent 

growth in the strength of these full-time reservists above the levels 

authorized in fiscal year 2005. 

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2006: 

Service FY 2005 authorized (floor) 

FY 2006 Change from 

Request 

Committee recommendation 

(floor) 

FY 2006 request FY 2005 authorized 

Army National Guard ................................. 25,076 25,563 25,563 0 487 

Army Reserve ............................................. 7,299 7,649 7,649 0 350 

Air National Guard .................................... 22,956 22,971 22,971 0 15 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 9,954 9,853 9,853 0 ¥101 

312 

Service FY 2005 authorized (floor) 

FY 2006 Change from 

Request 

Committee recommendation 

(floor) 

FY 2006 request FY 2005 authorized 

DOD Total ......................................... 65,285 66,036 66,036 0 751 

The committee’s recommendation would provide for a 1.2 percent 

growth in the strength of military technicians above the levels authorized in fiscal year 2005. 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2006 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual 

Status Technicians 

This section would establish the maximum end strengths for the 

reserve components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual status 

technicians as of September 30, 2006: 

Service FY 2005 authorized 

FY 2006 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2006 request FY 2005 authorized 

Army National Guard ................................. 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 ........................

Army Reserve ............................................. 795 695 695 0 ¥100 

Air National Guard .................................... 350 350 350 0 ........................

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 90 90 90 0 ........................

DOD Total ......................................... 2,835 2,735 2,735 0 ¥100 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 

to be on Active Duty for Operational Support 

This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) of 

title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of reserve component personnel who may be on active duty or full-time national 

guard duty during fiscal year 2006 to provide operational support. 

The personnel authorized here do not count against the end 

strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412. 

Service FY 2005 author- ized 

FY 2006 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2006 re- quest FY 2005 author- ized 

Army National Guard ................................. 10,300 17,000 17,000 0 6,700 

Army Reserve ............................................. 5,000 13,000 13,000 0 8,000 

Naval Reserve ........................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................... 2,500 3,000 3,000 0 500 

Air National Guard .................................... 10,100 16,000 16,000 0 5,900 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 3,600 14,000 14,000 0 10,400 

DOD Total ......................................... 37,700 69,200 69,200 0 31,500 

The significant increase in the authorizations made in the budget 

request compared to the fiscal year 2005 authorizations is due to 

several factors, including the requirement of section 115(b), United 

States Code, that the authorizations reflect the peak number in 

each of the reserve components during fiscal year 2006. Furthermore, according to Department of Defense officials, there was better oversight of data of the military services with regard to the 

numbers of reserve component members on active duty and increased reliance on voluntary active duty service instead of involuntary mobilizations to meet operational requirements. 

313 

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize $1,088.2 million to be appropriated 

for military personnel. This authorization of appropriations reflects 

both reductions and increases to the budget request for military 

personnel that are itemized below: 

Military Personnel 

Amount (in thousands 

of dollars) 

603: Pay reservists at academy prep schools based on military grade ....... 1,000 

606: Full basic allowance for housing for mobilized reservists .................... 26,000 

607: Increase flexibility to pay overseas cost-of-living allowances .............. 1,000 

608: Reserve income replacement .................................................................. 60,000 

615: Additional special pay for dentists in residence ................................... 2,000 

619: Increase flexibility to pay Selected Reserve reenlistment bonuses ..... 1,000 

620: Increase cap on Selected Reserve enlistment bonus to $15K .............. 16,000 

621: Increase flexibility to pay prior service enlistment bonuses ................ 1,000 

622: Increase cap on active duty enlistment bonus to $30K ........................ 36,000 

641: Increase flexibility to pay expenses during temporary duty ................ 1,000 

644: Increased household goods limit for senior NCOs ................................ 4,000 

672: Pays considered as saved pay upon appointment as officer ................ 2,000 

675: Army recruit referral bonus pilot program ........................................... 1,000 

Army: Expanded early commissioning program financial assistance ......... 2,400 

GWOT funding Hardship Duty Pay ............................................................... ¥36,000 

GWOT funding Family Separation Allowance .............................................. ¥100,000 

GWOT funding Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay ..................................... ¥85,854 

GAO Reserve Component Underexecution Army Guard .............................. ¥30,000 

GAO Reserve Component Underexecution Army Reserve ........................... ¥10,000 

GAO Reserve Component Underexecution Navy Reserve ............................ ¥10,000 

GAO Reserve Component Underexecution Marine Corps Reserve ............. ¥1,000 

Section 422—Armed Forces Retirement Home 

This section would authorize $58.3 million to be appropriated for 

the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home during fiscal 

year 2006. 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

OVERVIEW 

The committee’s recommendations pay particular attention to 

what the men and women of the armed forces have told the committee in testimony, in discussions and meetings in the field, at 

their home bases and installations, and in the theaters of war. 

They and their families are a dedicated, remarkable group of Americans who speak with candor and credibility with regards to what, 

in this the fourth year of the global war on terrorism, is working 

and what is not. In that context, the committee recommends 

changes to the programs that provide for the surviving family 

members of those who have died or have been seriously injured in 

service. Specifically, the secretaries of the military departments 

would be required to appoint, train, and to manage casualty assistance officers to improve that effort. Furthermore, provisions in this 

title would require the appointment of officers to assist service 

members who are seriously injured to ensure that they and their 

families get only the best care and guidance during their time of 

greatest need. Surviving family members would also be given three 

314 

years to select their final home for the transportation of their possessions. The committee also recommends that the Secretary of Defense manage the fairness and equity between the services in the 

operation of their disability systems and their treatment of disabled members who remain on active duty. 

The committee recommends provisions to enhance the ability of 

the Department of Defense to prosecute offenses relating to sexual 

assault. For example, recommended changes to the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice would eliminate the statute of limitations for 

prosecution of murder, rape and rape of a child; establish the offense of stalking in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice; and 

clearly define the offense of rape, sexual assault and other sexual 

misconduct in title 10, United States Code, and pattern the elements of the offenses after the federal statute. 

The committee recommendations include provisions critical to 

protecting the commissary and exchange benefits. One section 

would provide the Defense Commissary Agency an assured opportunity to complete its own internal efforts to achieve greater efficiencies and savings before being subjected to mandated cost comparison studies. Another recommendation would require that appropriated funds be used to support the costs of shipping goods of 

the military exchange services that are destined for overseas 

stores. In addition, as part of title III of this act, the committee recommends that $65.0 million be added to the fiscal year 2006 Army 

second destination transportation accounts to restore the reduction 

in the Army and Air Force Exchange System accounts proposed by 

the budget request. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Advanced Civil School Opportunities for Officers of the Armed 

Forces 

The committee notes that the military services are being challenged to retain sufficient numbers of qualified junior and midgrade officers. The Army, in particular, is below required inventory 

for majors and senior captains. 

The committee is aware of studies that suggest retention of officers with high potential could be improved by providing those officers with an option to attend graduate school, on or after their seventh year of commissioned service, coupled with an agreement to 

extend their obligated service. 

The committee understands that in previous years such fully 

funded graduate programs contributed to the professional development of and helped to prepare current senior military officers, such 

as the commanders of the United Stated Central Command and the 

Multinational Security Transition Command. However, the committee also understands that similar graduate level educational opportunities are no longer available for today’s officers, except those 

designated to become professors at the military service academies 

or those assigned to technical fields. 

The committee believes that resumption of such fully funded 

graduate degree programs could be beneficial. Therefore, the committee directs the secretaries of the military departments to examine the potential value and effectiveness of a program designed to 

offer advanced civil schooling opportunities to officers, both as a 

315 

tool for retention and as a means to increase the population of officers with a graduate education in disciplines relevant to service 

needs. The secretaries of the military departments shall submit to 

the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives the reports of their assessments not later than April 1, 2006 

Comptroller General Review of Financial Management Programs 

The committee report (H. Rept. 107–194) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 required a 

comprehensive examination of the personal financial management 

programs operated within the military departments and directed 

the Secretary of Defense to identify best practices among the services to improve and standardize the programs available to service 

members. While the committee understands that the Department 

of Defense recognizes financial literacy as an integral part of mission readiness and quality of life, the committee is aware that financial problems continue to challenge active duty personnel and 

their families. Initial evidence also suggests that financial problems 

confront reserve component personnel and their families. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to review the 

personal financial management programs offered by the services to 

determine their effectiveness in meeting the needs of active and reserve component service members. The review should examine 

whether service members have adequate access to the services’ financial programs; whether the Department has effectively carried 

out the fiscal year 2002 mandate; and whether the financial management programs of the military services meet the quality criteria 

established by the Department. The Comptroller General should 

also assess the impact of the Department’s financial readiness campaign on financial management awareness among service members; 

review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the partnerships 

established by the Department with non-governmental and governmental agencies; and assess the Department’s efforts to determine 

the primary causes of bankruptcy among service members and 

their families. The Comptroller General shall submit a report to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2006. 

Confidentiality Definition for Domestic Violence 

The committee applauds the Department of Defense for issuing 

a confidentiality policy that protects the privacy and dignity of victims of sexual assault. However, the Department of Defense has 

yet to issue a comprehensive policy on confidentiality for victims of 

domestic violence, despite the fact that in 2001 the Defense Task 

Force on Domestic Violence recommended that the Department 

‘‘[E]xplore all options for creating a system of confidential services, 

privileged communications and/or exemptions to mandatory reporting with the goal of creating access to a credible avenue for victims 

of domestic violence to receive support, information, options and resources to address the violence in their lives.’’ The committee 

strongly urges the Department to issue a comprehensive confidentiality policy on domestic violence to ensure the ability of victims 

of domestic violence to obtain support, advocacy and care. 

316 

Coordinating the Activities of the Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Intended to Assist Wounded and Injured Service Members and Surviving Family Members of Military Deaths 

The committee has observed that there is no existing forum 

where the activities of the Department of Defense, the Department 

of Labor, and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs can be coordinated in support of injured and wounded service members and 

their families, and surviving family members of military deaths. 

The committee believes it is vital that the three departments meet 

on a regularly scheduled basis to exchange information and coordinate programs for these service members and families during their 

active duty service and after separation from active duty or death 

of the member. The committee believes that the effectiveness of the 

programs operated by these departments can only be maximized 

when each element of their respective programs is fully coordinated 

and made available to the service members, veterans, and family 

members who need assistance. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

examine the options for including the Department of Labor and the 

Department of Veterans’ Affairs in an existing meeting or establishing a new committee structure where the interests of wounded 

and injured service members and surviving family members can be 

discussed by the three departments. The Secretary of Defense 

should coordinate with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 

Veterans’ Affairs and should begin addressing these issues in a 

joint committee structure within 180 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for initiating the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap. The committee recognizes the significant role of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center in achieving the Department’s 

language transformation objectives. However, the committee is concerned that the position of Chancellor has been vacant since January. Believing that the Commandant, together with the Chancellor, 

will play key roles in promoting the outcomes set forth in the roadmap, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to undertake an 

aggressive hiring process to fill the Chancellor’s position. 

Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System 

The committee staff visited a number of locations during 2004 

where military personnel are assigned in medical hold status. The 

purpose of the visits was to evaluate the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the medical hold program and examine the related 

medical and administrative policies, processes, and procedures. 

During these visits, the committee received complaints from reserve component members that they were disadvantaged under the 

Disability Evaluation Systems (DESs) operated by the military departments when compared to the treatment received by active duty 

members. The reserve component members contended that the disability ratings granted to active duty members were consistently 

higher than those granted to reservists for similar injuries and illVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
317 

nesses. This complaint was particularly prevalent at medical hold 

locations operated by the Army. The committee believes that the 

DESs operated by the military departments must provide fair and 

equitable treatment to all service members. Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the results of the DESs operated by the military departments 

and determine if they are operating in a fair and equitable manner. 

The Comptroller General examination should include surveys of 

the DES results at medical hold locations and other community 

based sites where reserve component members are being evaluated 

for disability ratings. The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report of his findings by March 31, 2006, to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services. 

Family Support, Employment and Transition Assistance Programs 

for Service Members and Their Families 

The committee is aware of multiple initiatives designed to address the needs of families of deployed active and reserve component personnel, and to provide transition and employment assistance for returning service members and for those who have been 

seriously injured. To facilitate a coordinated funding approach, the 

committee recommends an increase of $8.5 million to the Department of Defense Dependent’s Education Agency funding. The committee believes this agency, which already coordinates the funding 

for the Family Advocacy Program, the family assistance program, 

and the transition assistance and relocation assistance programs, 

would be able to use its experience in these programs to coordinate 

and direct the additional funding that would: 

(1) Assist the Department’s jobs and employment for military 

spouses’ pilot programs; 

(2) Support the National Guard Bureau initiatives to improve the transition of catastrophically injured active and reserve component service members, to assist their families and 

increase employer support; and 

(3) Encourage the implementation of pilot programs, such as 

Operation Family Safe at Home, which seeks to address the 

needs of military family not located near military bases. 

Foreign Area Officers 

The committee recognizes the significant contribution of Foreign 

Area Officers (FAOs) to our national security. Current operations 

around the world have highlighted the importance of and increased 

requirements for highly trained FAOs. As the demand for these 

uniquely qualified individuals has grown, it has become increasingly difficult to retain these skilled officers. For example, the 

Army has experienced difficulty retaining FAOs because the specialty lacks career advancement opportunities and the demand for 

their expertise is growing among other governmental agencies and 

within the private sector. The committee understands that the Department of Defense is revising its directive for developing and 

managing FAOs within the services. However, the committee is 

concerned that the new directive will fail to address the issues of 

greatest concern and that these highly trained professionals will 

318 

not receive the benefit of a strategy to restructure the FAO career 

path. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

study the feasibility of establishing a separate military career field 

for FAOs and developing a career path that would provide career 

progression opportunities for FAOs from initial commissioning 

through promotion to senior officer ranks. The study should at a 

minimum include: 

(1) An examination of the current Service procedures to ensure that only the most qualified individuals are chosen to participate in the program; 

(2) A review of the projected requirements for FAOs and the 

status of the actions by the services necessary to meet those 

requirements; and 

(3) An examination of the services commitment to providing 

the resources necessary to support the development, training, 

and advancement of FAOs. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report of his 

findings and recommendations by March 31, 2006, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has historically used geographic criteria to objectively determine eligibility for 

campaign and expeditionary awards. However, the geographic criteria used to establish the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Expeditionary Medal excludes service members who are serving at 

Guatanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba because they are located 

within 200 nautical miles from America’s shores. The committee 

believes that the service members guarding the terrorists at 

Guatanamo Bay Naval Station should be awarded the GWOT Expeditionary Medal. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 

in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 

review the criteria used to determine eligibility for the GWOT Expeditionary Medal and to consider awarding the medal to individuals directly engaged in GWOT operations who are serving outside 

the United States, but within 200 nautical miles of its shores. The 

Secretary shall submit a report of his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 

Job Corps Recruits 

The committee recognizes that all the services are experiencing 

greater difficulty recruiting the quality men and women necessary 

to meet force requirements. The committee believes that the Job 

Corps is an important partner in the effort to identify and motivate 

the recruit candidates that are needed. The committee is aware 

that the Department of Defense has had a close relationship with 

the Job Corps since its inception in 1965, but the committee believes that the Job Corps can play a larger role in the recruiting 

process. Using methods that mirror military training processes and 

objectives, the residential component of Job Corps instills discipline, responsibility, and unit cohesion into participants and 

paves the way for an easy transition to military service. The comVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
319 

mittee is confident that the Job Corps can enhance its contribution 

to the services’ recruiting efforts and build upon a 40-year successful residential education and training program for disadvantaged 

youth. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 

in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, to study additional initiatives to expand the relationship between the Department of Defense and the Job Corps. At a minimum, the study should assess 

the utility of a DOD investment to develop a military oriented curriculum designed to increase the value of Job Corps graduates to 

the military services. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report of his findings and recommendations by 

August 31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services. 

Joint Advertising and Market Research 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

has an important corporate-level role to play in complementing the 

recruiting and advertising programs of the individual services. In 

that light, the committee believes that the DOD’s joint advertising 

and market research reinvention effort can have a direct, positive 

long-term impact on the ability of the Department and the military 

services to recruit quality personnel. The committee believes that 

such a capability is especially critical at a time when the recruiting 

efforts of the military services are being challenged by a range of 

factors. For that reason, the committee recommends an increase of 

$10.0 million to the budget request for the DOD’s joint advertising 

and market research effort. 

List of Organizations and Agencies Available to Assist Wounded 

and Injured Service Members and Surviving Family Members of 

Military Deaths 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense, organizations within the military departments, and other governmental agencies responsible for providing assistance to wounded 

and injured service members and their families and surviving family members of military deaths are not fully aware of all the agencies and organizations capable of providing assistance. As a result, 

the committee believes that many service members in need are denied support because they are not aware of all the services that are 

available and there is no coordinated effort to bring the agencies 

and organizations to the attention of the service members and families. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to inventory the governmental agencies and private sector organizations 

that are capable of providing assistance to wounded and injured 

service members and their families and surviving family members 

of military deaths. The Secretary should organize and disseminate 

that list to all government agencies responsible for counseling the 

service members and families and develop guidelines for effective 

use of the list. The Secretary should implement the system for delivering the information about the agencies and organizations on 

the list to service members and families within 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this act. 

320 

Military Spouse Education and Employment 

The committee recognizes that the decision by service members 

and their families to remain in the military for a career is heavily 

influenced by the ability of military spouses to attain educational 

objectives and achieve career aspirations. The committee is aware 

that many military families place a high value on the second income earned by spouses and are frustrated by the inability of the 

spouse to achieve their full potential in the job market because of 

a lack of education or the disruptive nature of permanent changes 

in station that are inherent in military life. The committee appreciates that the Department of Defense has a number of initiatives 

designed to improve military spouse access to education programs 

and job opportunities. The committee is particularly interested in 

exploring new cost effective avenues for spouses to pursue their 

educational objectives because the committee believes that improved education is an important key to resolving the concerns 

about inadequate career opportunities. The committee also believes 

that the Department of Defense should seek to ensure that the programs are tailored to meet the unique challenges military spouses 

face in seeking employment and educational opportunities, and determine the level of awareness among spouses of the opportunities 

that are available and the steps that could be taken to improve 

their level of education and employment prospects. The review 

should also assess the effectiveness of spouse employment programs for spouses with different levels of educational attainment 

and past job experience. The committee also urges the Secretary to 

further consider options for requiring defense contractors to hire 

military spouses, particularly overseas and in remote domestic locations that are isolated from civilian job markets. Accordingly, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report on the general 

status of military spouse education and employment programs and 

the matters listed above, to include specific comment on the results 

of research regarding available educational programs that are suitable for military spouses by March 31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

Professional Development and Certification of Military Security 

Personnel 

The committee is aware that military security management professionals face many of the same challenges as their civilian counterparts in developing new methods and best practices for managing complex security issues and threats to organizations, people 

and key assets. Recognizing that certification and training programs available to civilian security specialists could have benefit, 

the U.S. Air Force Security Forces Directorate has offered Air 

Force personnel and leaders professional development opportunities 

through a commercial provider of security personnel training and 

certification since 2004. The committee recognizes such initiatives 

may have application in a wider Department of Defense context. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

assess the Air Force initiative to determine if it has applicability 

beyond the Air Force. 

321 

Reserve Component Family Support Programs 

The committee is aware of anecdotal information that suggests 

the support provided to the families of mobilized reserve members 

was not consistently adequate. The committee heard testimony and 

received information from other sources that suggests more must 

be done to prepare the family for the sponsor’s mobilization and to 

verify the welfare of the family during the absence of the service 

member. The committee is aware of a number of initiatives that do 

not involve high cost, but do require planning, diligent preparation, 

and competent execution. The committee believes that much of the 

capability needed to achieve positive results resides in the reserve 

units and among the families themselves. The committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to review the performance of each of the 

reserve components in supporting families during periods of mobilization, record the best practices used by units that provided effective support to families, and develop the guidelines and standards 

for reserve units to employ prior to and during periods of mobilization. The Secretary is directed to submit a report of his findings 

and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services by October 31, 2006. 

Review of Department Defense and Military Service Policies with 

Regard to the Assignment of Women 

In January 1994 the Secretary of Defense published policies that 

prohibited the assignment of females of the Armed Forces to direct 

ground combat units and established other criteria by which females could be excluded from assignment to units and positions. 

One of those criteria was that women could be excluded from assignment to units and positions that are doctrinally required to 

physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units. 

Based on the application of the collocation policy in 1994, the Army 

chose to keep 123,000 positions closed to the assignment of women. 

The committee recently began to examine how the Army was applying this so-called collocation policy with units deployed in Iraq 

and Afghanistan and with units being reorganized as a result of 

modularization. 

Based on the information resulting from the discussions with the 

Army, the committee believes that a detailed review of the implementation of the 1994 Department of Defense policies is in order. 

The committee has taken action in this bill to assume more 

proactive control over assignment policies governing units involved 

in ground combat. In addition, the committee intends to undertake 

a full review of those assignment policies and the rationale underpinning them. Among the areas of immediate concern to the committee is the application of the collocation policy. Given this concern, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 

collocation policy to determine its current and future implementation, with the objective of ensuring that women assigned to units 

and positions that support direct ground combat units are minimally exposed to direct ground combat. The Secretary of Defense 

shall present his report to the House Committee on Armed Services 

and the Senate Committee on Armed Services no later than March 

1, 2006. 

322 

In the meantime, the committee urges that the Secretary of Defense ensure that any reorganization of Army units take particular 

care to minimally expose female members of that service, either by 

doctrine or employment, to direct ground combat. 

Simultaneous Service of Family Members in a Combat Zone 

The committee has observed that combat operations in Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have prompted 

concern about the simultaneous service of family members in high 

risk areas. The committee notes that the DOD policy regarding the 

simultaneous assignment of family members to high risk areas 

does not preclude such assignments, but does allow service members to voluntarily exempt themselves from such assignments when 

family members are killed or disabled. Advocates for change have 

suggested that family members should be given the option to decline assignment to a high risk area or request assignment from a 

high risk area when another family member is assigned or will be 

assigned to such an area. The committee, in coordination with the 

Secretary of Defense, has examined such proposals during previous 

conflicts and recognizes that it is useful to periodically review the 

related policies to assess the need for change. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

study the policies and procedures involved in the assignment of 

family members to high risk areas and the implications of a policy 

that would allow service members to voluntarily exempt themselves from such service. The Secretary shall at a minimum consider: 

(1) The administrative burden and related costs associated 

with a voluntary exemption policy; 

(2) The potential impact of a voluntary exemption policy on 

individual and unit morale; 

(3) The potential impact of a voluntary exemption policy on 

unit combat capability; 

(4) The various types of family relationships that might be 

considered in a voluntary exemption policy and the numbers of 

service members that would be involved within each type of relationship; 

(5) The number of families and service members that would 

be eligible for exemption and the number that would be expected to execute the exemption; 

(6) The various methods that might be employed by service 

members to abuse the intent of a voluntarily exemption policy 

and avoid their fair share exposure to high risk operations; and 

(7) The advantages and disadvantages of different options for 

defining a high risk area that could be used to implement a 

voluntary exemption policy. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report of his 

findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 

31, 2006. 

323 

State and Federal Agency Partnerships to Address the Post-Mobilization Needs of Reservists and National Guardsmen and Their 

Families 

The committee recognizes that to effectively provide for the needs 

of national guard and reserve personnel and their families following demobilization requires the cooperative efforts of both state 

and federal agencies. One such cooperative effort results from a 

memorandum of understanding between the State of Washington, 

the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the U.S. Department of 

Labor and the state veterans’ service providers. As a result, there 

will be a systematic, comprehensive transition service provided 

when service members return from active duty. All national guard 

units will be required to conduct a family activity day within three 

to six months following return from Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom or Noble Eagle. The family activity day 

will bring together the experts from the various federal and state 

agencies with service members and their families to provide information in such areas as family support, education and assistance, 

veterans benefits and entitlements, employment assistance, and 

medical support, including mental health services. The memorandum of understanding will also create long-term community 

support services, including an Adopt an Armory program, a family 

support network, employee and training services and data sharing 

agreements. The State of Washington is looking at ways to expand 

this program to all reserve component personnel in the state. The 

committee commends this cooperative effort and urges the Secretary of Defense, heads of other federal agencies and other states 

to consider a similar approach to improve and expand post mobilization services for our nation’s citizen soldiers and their families. 

Study of Genocide and Its Cultural, Ethical and Moral Impact 

The systematic elimination of entire ethnic groups continues in 

today’s modern world. The committee recognizes that officers of the 

Armed Forces are encountering genocide during operational deployments and believes that officers should be prepared to deal with its 

cultural, ethical and moral effects. The study of historical events 

like the Holocaust provides important opportunities to learn about 

genocide and its impact on the humanity. The committee notes that 

there are a number of organizations, such as the Auschwitz Jewish 

Center, that already provide cadets and midshipmen at the military academies with opportunities to learn about the cultural, ethical and moral impact genocide has on today’s society. The committee commends this educational effort and believes that it should 

be continued. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY

Section 501—Temporary Increase in Percentage Limits on Reduction of Time-In-Grade Requirements for Retirement in Grade 

Upon Voluntary Retirement 

This section would increase the percentage of lieutenant colonels 

(or commanders in the Navy) and colonels (or captains in the Navy) 

324 

that the secretary of a military department, when authorized by 

the Secretary of Defense, may approve for retirement with less 

than three years time-in-grade from two percent to four percent of 

the officers authorized in that grade for that fiscal year within the 

respective service. The authority provided to the secretaries of the 

military departments in this section would begin on October 1, 

2005, and would end on December 31, 2007. 

Section 502—Two-Year Renewal of Authority to Reduce Minimum 

Commissioned Service Requirement for Voluntary Retirement as 

an Officer 

This section would reestablish the authority for the secretaries of 

the military departments to reduce the number of years of service 

required as an officer to retire as an officer from 10 to 8 years beginning October 1, 2005, and ending on December 31, 2007. 

Section 503—Separation at Age 64 for Reserve Component Senior 

Officers 

This section would extend from 62 to 64 the age at which the 

chiefs of the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve, and the directors of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard must retire. 

Section 504—Improved Administration of Transitions Involving 

Officers in Senior General and Flag Officer Positions 

This section would improve the ability of the military services to 

permit senior general and flag officers, that is those holding threeand four-star rank, to continue to hold their rank while in transition to a new position requiring that or higher rank. The section 

would also permit a general or flag officer whose assignment to a 

senior general or flag officer position requires promotion to the 

three- or four-star rank to be promoted to the higher rank at the 

time the officer begins serving in the position. To facilitate these 

transitions, the section would temporarily exclude for no more than 

30 days the senior general and flag officers moving to positions of 

equal rank from counting against the statutory limits on senior 

general and flag officers. If the transition is not completed within 

the 30 days, the officer would revert to his or her lower permanent 

grade. The section would also eliminate, with respect to senior general and flag officer positions, the frocking authority of the Secretary of Defense. That authority permits an officer, with the advice and consent of the Senate, who has been ordered to or is serving in a higher graded position to wear the grade, but not receive 

the pay of the higher position. 

Section 505—Consolidation of Grade Limitations on Officer 

Assignment and Insignia Practice Known as Frocking 

This section would establish one limit of 85 on the number of 

promotable colonels, Navy captains, brigadier generals and rear admirals (lower half) who would be authorized to be frocked, that is 

wear the rank and insignia of the next higher grade prior to their 

date of promotion. The establishment of a single limit will provide 

increased flexibility in managing frocked officers. Current law esVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
325 

tablishes a separate limit of 30 for the number of brigadier generals and rear admirals (lower half) who can be frocked, and 55 for 

the numbers of colonels and Navy captains who can be frocked. 

Section 506—Authority for Designation of a General/Flag Officer 

Position on the Joint Staff To Be Held by Reserve Component 

General or Flag Officer on Active Duty 

This section would increase from 10 to 11 the number of general 

or flag officers positions that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff can designate to be held only by reserve general and flag officers on active duty. Under current law, 10 of those positions must 

be designated on the staffs of the combatant commands. This section would permit one position to be designated on the Joint Staff. 

Section 507—Authority to Retain Permanent Professors at the 

Naval Academy Beyond 30 Years of Active Commissioned Service 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to retain 

beyond 30 years of active commissioned service Navy and Marine 

Corps officers who are on active duty as permanent professors at 

the U.S. Naval Academy. Depending on an officer’s grade, the statutory years-of-service-retirement point for military officers is 28 or 

30 years. While this section also would permit the Secretary of the 

Navy to determine how long a permanent professor remained on 

active duty beyond 30 years of service, this section would require 

retirement of the officer at age 64. This section would provide to 

the Secretary of the Navy the same authority for retaining permanent professors as is provided to the secretaries of the Army and 

Air Force for permanent professors at the U.S. Military Academy 

and U.S. Air Force Academy, respectively. The committee expects 

that the Secretary would continue permanent professors on active 

duty beyond 28 years only at the recommendation of the Superintendent and with the concurrence of the Chief of Naval Operations or Commandant of the Marine Corps, depending on the service of the officer concerned. 

Section 508—Authority for Appointment of Coast Guard Flag 

Officer as Chief of Staff to the President 

This section would amend title 14, United States Code, to authorize the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, to appoint a Coast Guard flag officer to be the chief of staff to the President. 

Section 509—Clarification of Time for Receipt of Statutory 

Selection Board Communications 

This section would clarify that regular and reserve officers intending to provide written communications to selection boards 

must submit those communications so that they arrive no later 

than the 11:59 p.m. on the day before the date the board convenes. 

Current law provides that communications from officers must reach 

selection boards no later than the date the board convenes. 

326 

Section 510—Standardization of Grade of Senior Dental Officer of 

the Air Force With That of Senior Dental Officer of the Army 

This section would require that the officer serving as the senior 

dental officer in the Air Force be appointed in the grade of major 

general. This is the same grade to which the officer serving as the 

Chief of the Dental Corps in the Army is appointed. 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT MANAGEMENT

Section 511—Use of Reserve Montgomery GI Bill Benefits and Benefits for Mobilized Members of the Selected Reserve and National 

Guard for Payments for Licensing or Certification Tests 

This section would authorize service members eligible for the Re- serve Montgomery GI Bill benefits to use up to $2,000 of their benefits to pay for a licensing or certification test. 

Section 512—Modifications to the New Reserve Education Benefit 

for Certain Active Service in Support of Contingency Operations 

This section would clarify that service members who were mobilized and served on active duty in support of a contingency operation on or after September 11, 2001, are eligible for benefits under 

the education assistance program for reserve component members 

supporting contingency operations authorized in section 527 of the 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). The section would also clarify 

that service members remain eligible for benefits under the program with a break in service in the Selected Reserve of less than 

90 days, if the members continues to serve in the Ready Reserve. 

Section 513—Military Technicians (Dual Status) Mandatory 

Separation 

This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to implement 

policies allowing a military technician (dual status) to serve beyond 

a mandatory removal date for officers, or beyond a years-of-service 

limitation for enlisted personnel, until reaching age 60 and attaining eligibility for an unreduced annuity. 

Section 514—Military Retirement Credit for Certain Service by National Guard Members Performed While in a State Duty Status 

Immediately After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 

This section would authorize reserve retirement credit for members of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard who 

were mobilized in a State active duty status in response to the declaration of Federal emergencies in the counties of New York State 

surrounding New York City and in Arlington County, Virginia, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 

Section 515—Use of National Guard to Provide Military Support to 

Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies for Domestic Counter-Terrorism Activities 

The section would authorize the governor of a state to order personnel of that state’s national guard to active duty under title 32, 

United States Code, to provide military support to a civilian law 

327 

enforcement agency, on a reimbursable basis, for domestic counterterrorism activities. The section would define domestic counter-terrorism as measures taken to prevent, deter and respond to terrorism within a state. The section also would require that the chief 

of the National Guard Bureau, or the designee of the chief in each 

state, accept the monetary reimbursements and to deposit them 

into appropriations accounts used to fund the activities under this 

section. 

SUBTITLE C—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Section 521—Repeal of Limitation on Amount of Financial Assistance Under Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Scholarship Programs 

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to pay the costs of room and board for Reserve Officers’

Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship students when those costs exceed the cost of tuition, fees, books and laboratory expenses. Current law allows ROTC scholarships to cover the cost of room and 

board, but limits the amount of room and board to the cost of tuition, fees, books, and laboratory expenses. 

Section 522—Increased Enrollment for Eligible Defense Industry 

Employees in the Defense Product Development Program at 

Naval Postgraduate School 

This section would increase by 15 the number of defense industry 

civilians who could enroll in the Naval Postgraduate School’s defense product development program and expand the program to include systems engineering curricula. 

Section 523—Payment of Expenses to Obtain Professional 

Credentials 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast Guard 

when it is operating as a service of the Navy, to pay the expenses 

for service members to obtain an accreditation, a license, a certification, or other State or professionally imposed credential so long 

as the credential is not a prerequisite for appointment in the 

armed forces. 

Section 524—Authority for National Defense University Award of 

Degree of Master of Science in Joint Campaign Planning and 

Strategy 

This section would authorize the president of the National Defense University to award a masters of science degree in joint campaign planning and strategy to graduates of the university who fulfill the requirements of the program of the Joint Advanced 

Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College. This section 

would authorize the award of the degree to qualified graduates 

after May 2005. 

328 

Section 525—One-year Extension of Authority to Use Appropriated 

Funds to Provide Recognition Items for Recruitment and Retention of Certain Reserve Component Personnel 

This section would extend for one year, to December 31, 2006, 

the authority of the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the 

Air Force to provide items of modest value to members of the Army 

Reserve and Army and Air National Guard, and to their families, 

in recognition of their service or substantial activities in support of 

the Army Reserve and National Guard. 

Section 526—Report on Rationale and Plans of the Navy to Provide 

Enlisted Members an Opportunity to Obtain Graduate Degrees 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit 

a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services on the plans of the Secretary 

to provide enlisted members of the Navy with opportunities to pursue graduate degree programs. The committee understands that 

the budget request contained a proposal that would have authorized a pilot program at the Naval Postgraduate School to award 

graduate degrees to enlisted personnel. The committee believes 

that before it could approve such an initiative, far more perspective 

is required on how the award of graduate degrees fits into an integrated, progressive, coordinated and systematic approach to enlisted career development and professional education. 

Section 527—Increase in Annual Limit on Number of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Scholarships Under Army Reserve and National Guard Program 

This section would increase from 208 to 416 the maximum number of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps scholarships the Army may 

provide to cadets desiring to remain in the reserve components. 

This increase will help the Army Reserve and Army National 

Guard meet manning requirements. 

Section 528—CAPSTONE Overseas Field Studies Trips to People’s 

Republic of China and Republic of China on Taiwan 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to direct the 

National Defense University to ensure that field study visits to 

China and Taiwan are integral components of the CAPSTONE program carried out by the University. 

Section 529—Sense of Congress Concerning Establishment of 

National College of Homeland Security 

This section would express the Sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, should establish within the National Defense University 

an educational institution to be known as the National College of 

Homeland Security. 

329 

SUBTITLE D—GENERAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS

Section 531—Uniform Enlistment Standards for the Armed Forces 

This section would clarify who may be lawfully enlisted and 

would standardize enlistment eligibility criteria for the armed services. 

Section 532—Increase in Maximum Term of Original Enlistment in 

Regular Component 

This section would increase the maximum duration of an enlistment in a regular component from six years to eight years 

Section 533—Members Completing Statutory Initial Military 

Service Obligation 

This section would require every person at the commencement of 

their initial period of military service to be provided with the date 

on which that initial military service obligation ends. The section 

also would require the secretaries of the military departments to 

notify members of the Individual Ready Reserve of the date when 

their initial military service obligation ends and to provide those 

members before that date an opportunity, if they are qualified, to 

continue voluntarily in the Ready Reserve or to transfer voluntarily 

to an active component. Finally, the section would prohibit the involuntary mobilization, or a recall to active duty, that commences 

after the expiration of the military service obligation of members 

of the Individual Ready Reserve. 

Section 534—Extension of Qualifying Service for Initial Military 

Service Under National Call to Service Program 

This section would clarify that mandatory service obligations in 

the selected reserve specified for participants in the national call 

to service program apply to officers who were initially enlisted 

under the program for the purpose of entering an officer training 

program. 

SUBTITLE E—MATTERS RELATING TO CASUALTIES

Section 541—Requirement for Members of the Armed Forces to 

Designate a Person To Be Authorized to Direct the Disposition 

of the Member’s Remains 

This section would require the secretary concerned to establish 

a program for service members to designate an individual to direct 

the disposition of the members’ remains should they die while in 

a military status. The section would require that service members 

shall make such a designation upon entering the service or deploying in support of a contingency operation after a 30 day period following the date of enactment. The remainder of the force would be 

required to make such a designation after a 180 day period following date of enactment. The committee believes that this section 

is required to avoid challenges to the Department of Defense policy 

on the disposition of remains such as those that occurred as a result of recent family disputes concerning the disposition of remains 

of service members who died while serving in support of Operations 

330 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee 

strongly encourages the secretaries concerned to carefully explain 

to service members the serious implications of their designation of 

a person to manage the disposition of their remains each and every 

time the service member is afforded the opportunity to confirm or 

modify the designation. 

Section 542—Enhanced Program of Casualty Assistance Officers 

and Seriously Injured/Ill Assistance Officers 

This section would permanently codify the requirement to appoint a casualty assistance officer (CAO) to provide surviving family members of service members who die information, counseling, 

advice on obtaining information and services, administrative assistance, and advocacy representation when dealing with military authorities. The section would also establish a new requirement to 

appoint a seriously injured/ill assistance officer (SIAO) to provide 

the same range of services to a service member and the member’s 

family who are determined under criteria established by the Secretary of Defense to be seriously injured or ill. In addition, the section would require that both CAOs and SIAOs are: 

(1) Continuously assigned to assist families regardless of location until the Secretary determines that the families are no 

longer in need of assistance; 

(2) Trained using standards for performance of duties specified by the Secretary; and 

(3) Monitored by the secretaries of the military departments 

to ensure that their performance meets the training standards. 

The committee has become increasingly concerned that the military departments are not adequately training casualty assistance 

officers and monitoring their performance. The committee has received anecdotal evidence that suggests consistent standards governing the performance of CAOs have not been established and the 

secretaries of the military departments are not adequately training 

and monitoring the performance of CAOs to ensure that the highest performance standards are consistently executed. Areas of particular concern to the committee include: 

(1) Additional training on the proper techniques and language to be used by CAOs during initial death notifications; 

(2) Consideration of the need for mandatory involvement of 

the service member’s unit commander or other senior commander, professional grief counselors, and chaplains during 

initial death notifications; 

(3) Consideration of minimum experience requirements for 

CAOs; 

(4) Consideration of establishing three years after the death 

of the service member as the minimum period of assistance 

that should be provided to surviving family members; 

(5) Consideration of establishing a list of automatic actions 

required by CAOs for such assistance as providing the service 

member’s awards and decorations with explanations; 

(6) Consideration of establishing a cadre of experienced professionals to assist the CAO in presenting the detailed briefing 

on benefits that follows initial notification and to assist the 

CAO in answering questions that follow the benefits briefing; 

and 

331 

(7) Consideration of establishing annual mandatory meetings 

to ensure that surviving families have no unanswered questions for a minimum of three years after the death of the service member. 

Section 543—Standards and Guidelines for Department of Defense 

Programs to Assist Wounded and Injured Members 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to examine 

the service programs to provide assistance to service members who 

incur severe wounds or injuries, to include the Army Disabled Soldier Support Program and the Marine for Life Injured Support Program, and develop the standards and guidelines necessary to coordinate and standardize the service programs with the activities 

of the Severely Injured Joint support Operations Center of the Department of Defense. The Secretary would be required to publish 

regulations to implement the standards and guidelines within 180 

days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 544—Authority for Members on Active Duty With 

Disabilities to Participate in Paralympic Games 

The committee recognizes that there are increasing numbers of 

service members with physical disabilities remaining in the military upon completion of their medical rehabilitation. The committee further recognizes that these young men and women are 

often at the peak of physical conditioning with the potential of 

being competitive in the World Class Athlete Program which prepares members of the armed forces for approved international athletic competition. The committee notes that military personnel are 

authorized to compete in the Olympic Games and believes that a 

similar authorization is appropriate to permit service members 

with disabilities who remain on active duty to participate at a similar level of athletic competition. Therefore, this section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit members of the armed 

forces, if eligible, to participate in the Paralympic Games and the 

qualifying events and preparatory competition for those games. 

SUBTITLE F—MILITARY JUSTICE AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE MATTERS

Section 551—Clarification of Authority of Military Legal Assistance 

Counsel to Provide Military Legal Assistance Without Regard to 

Licensing Requirements 

This section would clarify section 1044 of title 10, United States 

Code, so that licensed Department of Defense military legal assistance officers would have the authority to practice law in connection 

with their official duties independent of state regulations for those 

states where they are unlicensed. 

Section 552—Use of Teleconferencing in Administrative Sessions of 

Courts-Martial 

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to use video-teleconferencing or similar technologies during certain pre-trial events, such as arraignments, guilty plea inquiries, advisements of right, motion sessions and various other adVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
332 

ministrative tasks when counsel is physically present with the accused. 

Section 553—Extension of Statute of Limitations for Murder, Rape 

and Child Abuse Offenses Under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice 

This section would amend the statute of limitations for murder, 

rape, rape of a child and child abuse. It would include all murders 

in the class of offenses that have no statute of limitations and 

would clarify that rape is an offense with an unlimited statute of 

limitations. This section would also extend the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses. Current law precludes prosecution in these offenses after the child attains the age of twentyfive. This section would allow prosecutions during the life of the 

child/victim or within five years from the date of the offense, 

whichever is greater. In addition, this section would expand the 

definition of ‘‘child abuse offense’’ to include pornography involving 

a child and add kidnapping of a child to the list of offenses covered 

in the life of the child/victim statute of limitations. 

Section 554—Offense of Stalking Under the Uniformed Code of 

Military Justice 

This section would establish stalking of another individual as an 

offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The section 

would model the Uniform Code of Military Justice after the Federal 

Model Anti-stalking Code for the states by requiring a course of 

conduct to include emotional distress, specifically including sexual 

assault as one example of bodily harm, and including members of 

the victim’s immediate family or intimate partner of the individual. 

The committee understands that the definitions of the section are 

to be included in the Manual for Courts-Martial. However, the committee is concerned that the definitions accurately convey the behaviors associated with the offense of stalking. For example, the 

committee urges the Department of Defense to include, within its 

definition of ‘‘threatening acts,’’ any course of unwanted communication. 

Section 555—Rape, Sexual Assault, and Other Sexual Misconduct 

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), required the Secretary of 

Defense to propose changes regarding sexual offenses in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to conform more closely to 

other federal laws and regulations that address sexual assault. 

This section would amend section 920 of title 10, United States 

Code, by aligning the statutory language of sexual assault law 

under the UCMJ with federal law under sections 2241 through 

2247 of title 18, United States Code. This section would amend article 120 of the UCMJ to provide a series of graded offenses relating to rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct, based on 

the presence or absence of aggravating factors. The section would 

also provide a precise description of each offense and set interim 

maximum punishments based on the degree of the offense. 

333 

SUBTITLE G—ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES FOR

DEFENSE DEPENDENTS EDUCATION

Section 561—Enrollment in Overseas Schools of Defense Dependents’ Education System of Children of Citizens or Nationals of 

the United States Hired in Overseas Areas as Full-time Department of Defense Employees 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide 

dependent children of full-time, locally hired Department of Defense (DOD) employees who are U.S. citizens or nationals a spacerequired, tuition free education in DOD Dependents Schools overseas. 

Section 562—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees 

This section would provide $50.0 million for assistance to local 

educational agencies that had military dependent students comprising at least 20 percent of the students in average daily attendance during a year. The section would also provide $10.0 million 

of assistance to local educational agencies that experience significant increases or decreases in the average daily attendance of military dependent students due to military force structure changes, 

the relocation of military forces from one base to another, and from 

base closures and realignments. The committee makes this recommendation in connection with its continuing strong support of 

the need to help local school districts with significant concentrations of military students. 

Section 563—Continuation of Impact Aid Assistance on Behalf of 

Dependents of Certain Members Despite Change in Status of 

Member 

This section would temporarily adjust the process for computing 

the amount of funding provided by the Department of Education to 

certain local educational agencies heavily impacted by dependents 

of military personnel. The adjustment, limited to school year 2005–

2006, would require that certain children continue be counted as a 

child enrolled in school when computing the average daily attendance, which is a key component of the amount of aid the school 

might receive. Such children include, those who attend the school 

but who no longer live on a military base because both parents are 

deployed, or are children who temporarily reside in military base 

housing following the death on active duty of a military parent. 

SUBTITLE H—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Section 565—Cold War Victory Medal 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to design 

and issue a Cold War Victory Medal to person who served honorably in the armed forces for a minimum of 180 days during the period beginning on September 2, 1945 and ending on December 26, 

1991. 

334 

Section 566—Establishment of Combat Medevac Badge 

This section would require the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force to design and issue a Combat Medevac Badge to be 

awarded to service members who served on or after June 25, 1950 

as pilots or crew members on helicopter medical evacuation ambulances. 

Section 567—Eligibility for Operation Enduring Freedom 

Campaign Medal 

This section would establish September 11, 2001 as the beginning date of Operation Enduring Freedom for the purpose of 

awarding the Operation Enduring Freedom campaign medal. 

SUBTITLE I—OTHER MATTERS

Section 571—Extension of Waiver Authority of Secretary of Education With Respect to Student Financial Assistance During a 

War or Other Military Operation or National Emergency 

This section would extend for two years, through September 30, 

2007, the authority provided by the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–76). Under this 

authority, the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any requirement or regulation applicable to the student financial assistance programs with respect to an affected individual who: 

(1) Is serving on active duty during a war or other military 

operation or national emergency; 

(2) Is performing qualifying national guard duty during a 

war, operation, or emergency; 

(3) Resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any federal, state, or local official in connection 

with a national emergency; or 

(4) Suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a 

war or other military operation or national emergency. 

Section 572—Adoption Leave for Members of the Armed Forces 

Adopting Children 

This section would permit a member of the armed forces who is 

authorized reimbursement for qualified adoption expenses to be 

granted up to 21 days leave annually in connection with the adoption. 

Section 573—Report on Need for a Personnel Plan for Linguists in 

the Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review the 

career paths available to officer and enlisted linguists to determine 

if a change in the career management of linguists would assist 

them in achieving their full linguistic and analytical potential. The 

section would also require the Secretary to report his findings, results, and conclusions not later than 180 days after the date of enactment to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services. 

335 

Section 574—Ground Combat and Other Exclusion Policies 

This section would codify the Department of Defense policy, 

issued in 1994, that set out limitations on the assignment of female 

members of the Armed Services to combat units. Specifically, the 

section would prohibit the assignment of women to units below the 

brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat 

on the ground. The section also would codify the definition of direct 

ground combat. As under the Department’s current policy, the section would permit the Secretary of Defense, or the secretaries of 

the military services to further exclude female members of the 

Armed Forces from the assignments to units and positions based 

on the following factors: Collocation with a direct ground combat 

unit; performance of long-range reconnaissance and Special Operations missions; prohibitive costs of berthing and privacy arrangements; or, job-related physical requirements that exclude the vast 

majority of female members. The section would also require the 

continued closure of military occupational specialties relating to 

military ground operations that the secretaries of the military services had closed to the assignment of women as of May 18, 2005. 

The section would also require the Secretary of Defense, or secretaries of the military services, as appropriate, to notify the Committee on Armed Services in the Senate and the Committee on 

Armed Services in the House when opening previously closed positions to the assignment of female members of the Armed Forces. 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATIONS AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to support strong and flexible compensation and benefits programs needed to recruit and retain a 

quality force in a wartime environment. Accordingly, the committee 

recommends an across-the-board pay raise of 3.1 percent, increases 

in the maximum amounts that may be paid for certain enlistment 

and retention bonuses and special pays, expanded eligibility criteria to add flexibility to certain enlistment and retention bonuses 

and special pays, and restructured compensation programs to provide stronger incentives for enlistment and retention of members in 

reserve components. 

The committee remains committed to protecting and enhancing 

military exchange and commissary benefits. Accordingly, the committee has included provisions that would protect commissaries 

from unfair competition from contractors, ensure that the cost of 

shipping exchange products for sale to overseas members and their 

families is not added to the price of goods paid by military consumers, and facilitate efficient management practices by the military exchange systems. 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Defense Commissary Agency Produce Procurement Test 

The committee is impressed with the early results of the Defense 

Commissary Agency’s (DeCA) six-month test program to procure 

336 

produce through a small business contractor for 20 stores in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia beginning in 

January 2005. The test employs the private sector’s best business 

practices and has already produced evidence of more efficient distribution, improved quality, reduced procurement costs for DeCA, 

and lower prices for the military patron. The committee commends 

DeCA and the Department of Defense for their innovative initiative 

and their desire to improve service and quality for the military consumer. The committee encourages managers at DeCA to continue 

the test program and evaluate the results expeditiously. If the test 

program proves successful, the committee would be receptive to 

swift adoption of the policies and procedures of the program 

throughout the DeCA system. The committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to submit a report of his findings and recommendations 

regarding the produce procurement test program by March 31, 

2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services. 

Hooked-on-Fishing/Not-on-Drugs Pilot Program 

The committee recognizes that the current operational tempo is 

placing significant stress on the families of military personnel. The 

committee believes that the morale, welfare, and recreation programs operated by installation commanders can help to alleviate 

the stress of service life in today’s environment by facilitating family-oriented activities. The committee observes that fishing offers 

members and their families a challenging outdoor activity that can 

be enjoyed by all family members. 

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consult with the 

Future Fisherman Foundation and the Armed Forces Foundation 

to continue to explore options for implementing the Hooked-onFishing/Not on Drugs program at military installations. The committee notes that a modest pilot program could establish this very 

effective and low cost program at as many as 20 military installations in the first year. The committee is convinced that these programs would prove to be highly popular in the military community 

and that the Secretary would choose to rapidly expand the program 

to target those installations with the highest deployment rates. The 

committee strongly recommends that the Secretary seek the assistance of the Future Fisherman Foundation and the Armed Forces 

Foundation. With the assistance of these organizations, the committee is confident that this valuable program can be established 

at over 100 installations in just 3 years. The committee encourages 

the Secretary to thoroughly examine the Hooked-on-Fishing/Not on 

Drugs program and submit a report on his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2006 

This section would increase basic pay for members of the armed 

forces by 3.1 percent. This raise would continue to fulfill Congress’

commitment to enhanced pay raises for the armed forces and would 

337 

reduce the pay gap between military and private sector pay increases from 5.1 percent to 4.6 percent. 

Section 602—Additional Pay for Permanent Military Professors at 

United States Naval Academy With Over 36 Years of Service 

This section would allow permanent military professors at the 

United States Naval Academy with over 36 years service to receive 

the same $250-per-month pay increase that such professors receive 

at the other service academies. 

Section 603—Basic Pay Rates for Reserve Component Members 

Selected to Attend Military Service Academy Preparatory Schools 

This section would clarify that reserve component members who 

are attending military service academy preparatory schools shall be 

paid at the rate prescribed for the member’s pay grade unless the 

standard rate of compensation provided to cadets and midshipmen 

is greater. The section would establish a compensation policy for 

reserve members that is consistent with the policy applicable to active component members. 

Section 604—Clarification of Restriction on Compensation for 

Correspondence Courses 

This section would clarify that national guard members as well 

as other members of reserve components are not authorized to be 

compensated for work associated with participation in a correspondence course of a uniformed service. 

Section 605—Permanent Authority for Supplemental Subsistence 

Allowance for Low-Income Members with Dependents 

This section would make permanent the authority for the secretary concerned to pay a supplemental subsistence allowance to 

members whose family income level would qualify that family to 

receive government food stamps. 

Section 606—Basic Allowance for Housing for Reserve Members 

This section would eliminate the requirement to pay a reduced 

rate of basic allowance for housing to reserve component members 

when mobilized to serve on active duty for periods greater than 30 

days and less than 140 days. Such reserve members would receive 

the full amount of basic allowance for housing authorized for similarly situated active component members at their permanent duty 

location. The section would also clarify that full basic allowance for 

quarters would be paid to reserve component members when mobilized to serve on active duty for less than 30 days in connection 

with a contingency operation. 

Section 607—Overseas Cost of Living Allowance 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to continue 

to pay a family residing overseas a cost of living allowance notwithstanding the reassignment of the service member that is the sponsor of the family when it is in the best interests of the government 

and the family. The section would also redefine the standard used 

to justify reimbursement to service members for expenses incurred 

338 

overseas but not typically in the United States from an expense 

that is a one- time payment to an expense that is unusual and extraordinary. Reoccurring expenses that meet the new standard 

would be permitted for reimbursement. 

Section 608—Income Replacement Payments for Reserves Experiencing Extended and Frequent Mobilization for Active Duty 

Service 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to pay involuntarily mobilized reserve members on a monthly basis the amount 

necessary to replace the income differential between their regular 

military compensation (RMC) plus any special or incentive pays 

and allowances paid to the member on a monthly basis and the average monthly income received by the member during the twelve 

months preceding the month during which the member was mobilized. This section would define the income differential as the 

amount by which the member’s average monthly income prior to 

mobilization exceeds the member’s RMC plus any special or incentive pays and allowances paid to the member on a monthly basis. 

Reserve members with private sector income that exceeds their active duty income would be eligible for the income replacement payment for any full month following the date that the member completes 18 continuous months of service on active duty or 24 months 

on active duty during the previous 60 months, or for any month 

during a mobilization that occurs within 6 months of the member’s 

last active duty tour. Payments would be limited to a minimum of 

$50 each month and a maximum of $3,000 each month. 

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL INCENTIVE PAY

Section 611—Extension or Resumption of Certain Bonus and 

Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces 

This section would extend or resume the authority for the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior 

service, and the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 

with prior service until December 31, 2006. 

Section 612—Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 

Authorities for Certain Health Care Professionals 

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for registered 

nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special 

pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically short 

wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers until December 31, 2006. The 

provision would also extend the authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve until January 1, 2007. 

339 

Section 613—Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities for 

Nuclear Officers 

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for 

nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2006. 

Section 614—One-year Extension of Other Bonus and Special Pay 

Authorities 

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer 

retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus 

for active members, the enlistment bonus for active members, the 

retention bonus for members with critical military skills, and the 

accession bonus for new officers in critical skills until December 31, 

2006. 

Section 615—Expansion of Eligibility of Dental Officers for 

Additional Special Pay 

This section would eliminate the restriction barring military dentists from being paid additional special pay while they are undergoing dental internship or residency training. 

Section 616—Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate Authorized for 

Hardship Duty Pay 

This section would increase the maximum monthly rate of hard- ship duty pay from $300 to $750. 

Section 617—Flexible Payment of Assignment Incentive Pay 

This section would authorize assignment incentive pay to be paid 

on a monthly basis, in a lump sum or in installments other than 

monthly. 

Section 618—Active-Duty Reenlistment Bonus 

This section would increase the maximum selective reenlistment 

bonus that may be paid to an active component member from 

$60,000 to $90,000. The section would also extend the maximum 

years of service beyond which a reenlistment bonus may not be 

awarded from 16 years to 20 years and would authorize the secretary concerned to waive eligibility criteria established in law during war and national emergency. 

Section 619—Reenlistment Bonus for Members of Selected Reserve 

The section would extend the maximum years of service beyond 

which a reenlistment bonus may not be awarded from 16 years to 

20 years and would authorize the secretary concerned to waive eligibility criteria established in law during war and national emergency. 

Section 620—Combination of Affiliation and Accession Bonuses for 

Service in the Selected Reserve 

This section would set the maximum amount that may be paid to members who affiliate with selected reserve units to $15,000 and 

340 

would specify new installment or lump sum payment options. The 

section would also authorize an accession bonus for enlistment in 

the selected reserve with the same $15,000 maximum and installment or lump sum payment options authorized for the affiliation 

bonus. 

Section 621—Eligibility Requirements for Prior Service Enlistment 

Bonus 

This section would eliminate the requirement that members with 

prior military service must first complete their military service obligation before being eligible to receive a bonus for enlisting in the 

selected reserve. 

Section 622—Increase in Authorized Maximum Amount of 

Enlistment Bonus 

This section would increase the maximum amount of the enlistment bonus that may be paid to new recruits from $20,000 to 

$30,000. 

Section 623—Discretion of Secretary of Defense to Authorize 

Retroactive Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay 

The section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to retroactively designate the period during which duty in a specific area 

would qualify the member to receive hostile fire or imminent danger pay. 

Section 624—Increase in Maximum Bonus Amount for NuclearQualified Officers Extending Period of Active Duty 

This section would increase the maximum amount of the bonus 

paid to nuclear-qualified officer who extend their active duty service from $25,000 to $30,000. 

Section 625—Increase in Maximum Amount of Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Trained 

While Serving as Enlisted Members 

This section would increase the maximum amount of the nuclear 

career annual incentive bonus from $10,000 to $14,000. 

Section 626—Uniform Payment of Foreign Language Proficiency 

Pay to Eligible Reserve Component Members and Regular Component Members 

This section would establish one authority for foreign language 

proficiency pay that specifies the same maximum amount and installment or lump sum payment options for both active component 

and reserve component members. 

Section 627—Retention Bonus for Members Qualified in Certain 

Critical Skills or Satisfying Other Eligibility Criteria 

This section would authorize the critical skill retention bonus to 

be paid to reserve component members and would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish such other criteria for payment of 

the bonus as the Secretary considers appropriate in addition to the 

341 

critical skill criteria. The section would also eliminate the prohibition of payment for service beyond 25 years for members serving 

in special operations skills designated as critical and members 

qualified for duty in connection with supervision, operation, and 

maintenance of naval nuclear power plants. 

Section 628—Availability of Critical-Skills Accession Bonus for Persons Enrolled in Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Who 

Are Obtaining Nursing Degrees 

This section would authorize nursing students enrolled in Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs to receive a critical skills 

accession bonus of $5,000 or less under section 324 of title 10, 

United States Code so long as they have completed the second year 

of an accredited baccalaureate degree program and they execute an 

agreement to serve on active duty as a commissioned officer in the 

Army Nurse Corps. The section would clarify that agreements paid 

under this subsection are retroactively authorized if executed on or 

after October 5, 2004. 

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 641—Authorized Absences of Members for Which Lodging 

Expenses at Temporary Duty Location May be Paid 

This section would expand the circumstances under which members may continue to receive the lodging portion of their temporary 

duty per diem during absences from the temporary duty location to 

include absences approved by the member’s unit commander in addition to authorized leave. 

Section 642—Extended Period for Selection of Home for Travel and 

Transportation Allowances for Dependents of Deceased Member 

This section would increase the period of time allowed for surviving family members of service members who die while on active 

duty to select a residence for which they may be receive travel and 

transportation allowances from one year to three years after the 

death of the member. 

Section 643—Transportation of Family Members Incident to 

Repatriation of Members Held Captive 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to provide 

travel and transportation allowances for three family members of 

a member of the uniformed services on active duty who was held 

captive or was otherwise missing to the location where the members has been repatriated. 

Section 644—Increased Weight Allowances for Shipment of 

Household Goods of Senior Noncommissioned Officers 

This section would increase the authorized weight allowance for 

the shipment of household goods for members with and without dependents serving in enlisted grades of E–9, E–8, and E–7. 

342 

SUBTITLE D—RETIRED PAY AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS

Section 651—Monthly Disbursement to States of State Income Tax 

Withheld From Retired or Retainer Pay 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay state 

officials monies voluntarily withheld from retired pay for tax purposes on a monthly basis and not a quarterly basis as provided in 

current law. 

Section 652—Revision to Eligibility for Nonregular Service 

Retirement After Establishing Eligibility for Regular Retirement 

This section would allow service members who are qualified for 

active duty retirement to continue to serve in an active reserve status and remain eligible for a reserve retirement at age 60 without 

being required to be formally retired under the applicable active 

duty authority as required by current law. This section would 

eliminate an unnecessary administrative burden for service members who are qualified for both active duty and reserve retirement. 

Section 653—Denial of Military Funeral Honors in Certain Cases 

This section would expand the reasons for denying military honors at the funeral or burial service of a member or former member 

by prohibiting the secretary of a military department from providing such honors when the circumstances surrounding the death 

of the individual or other circumstances involving the individual as 

specified by the Secretary of Defense would bring discredit to the 

military department concerned. 

Section 654—Child Support for Certain Minor Children of Retirement-Eligible Members Convicted of Domestic Violence Resulting 

in Death of Child’s Other Parent 

This section would authorize the payment of child support from 

a member’s disposable retired pay to a dependent child of the member when the member’s retired pay eligibility has been terminated 

because of the member’s abuse of a spouse that resulted in the 

death of the spouse. The dependent child would become eligible to 

receive child support after effective service of a court order providing for such payment. 

Section 655—Concurrent Receipt of Veterans Disability 

Compensation and Military Retired Pay 

This section would curtail the 10-year phased implementation of 

full concurrent receipt of veterans disability compensation and 

military retired pay for military retirees receiving veterans disability compensation at the rate payable for 100 percent disability 

by reason of a determination of individual unemployability and 

would authorize such retirees to receive full concurrent receipt of 

veterans disability compensation and military retired pay on October 1, 2009, four years and three months earlier then scheduled. 

343 

Section 656—Military Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiaries under 

Insurable Interest Coverage 

This section would allow veterans who participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan and elect the insurable interest coverage to rename their insurable interest if their beneficiary dies. 

SUBTITLE E—COMMISSARY AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITY BENEFITS

Section 661—Increase in Authorized Level of Supplies and Services 

Procurement From Overseas Exchange Stores 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase 

the maximum amount that may be paid to exchange services to 

procure goods and services overseas for use by U.S. military forces 

from $50,000 to $100,000 per contract. 

Section 662—Requirements for Private Operation of Commissary 

Store Functions 

This section would establish a moratorium on studies to compare 

the cost effectiveness of commissary operations employing federal 

civilian employees and such operations employing private sector 

employees through December 31, 2010. The section would provide 

the Defense Commissary Agency the opportunity to reengineer 

their workforce to increase effectiveness and efficiency prior to competing with private sector entities. 

Section 663—Provision of Information Technology Services for Accommodations Provided by Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities for Wounded Members of the Armed Forces and Their Families 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to provide 

information technology equipment and Internet access to service 

members and their families residing in facilities operated by nonappropriated funds while the member receives medical treatment. 

Section 664—Provision of and Payment for Overseas 

Transportation Services for Commissary and Exchange Supplies 

This section would mandate that appropriated funds be used to 

pay for all expenses to ship goods for sale to service members and 

their families by commissaries and exchanges at overseas locations. 

The committee is extremely disappointed that the budget request 

would reduce to $66.4 million the funding for Army support of second destination transportation of goods shipped to overseas Army 

and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) stores. The committee believes that this reduction to approximately one-half of the programmed requirement for fiscal year 2006 will result in either increased prices for military consumers overseas, a greatly reduced 

contribution to morale, welfare, and recreation accounts from the 

AAFES profits, or a reduction in the quality of AAFES services and 

facilities. The committee considers any of these potential consequences unacceptable. 

344 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the addition of $65.0 

million to Army operations and maintenance accounts to support 

second destination transportation expenses in support of AAFES. 

Section 665—Compensatory Time Off for Certain Nonappropriated 

Fund Employees 

This section would authorize managers to grant nonappropriated 

fund employees compensatory time off instead of overtime pay for 

overtime work when requested by the employee. This section would 

make the nonappropriated fund personnel system rules on overtime pay and compensatory time off consistent with similar rules 

within the federal civilian personnel system. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 671—Inclusion of Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Among Senior Enlisted Members of 

the Armed Forces 

This section would add the Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the list of senior enlisted positions designated to receive the highest level of pay for an enlisted 

member effective on the date on which an enlisted member is appointed to serve in that position. The section would also specify 

that the enlisted member appointed to the position of Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is authorized to receive a personal money allowance, to receive the pay 

associated with the position while hospitalized or while on terminal 

leave, and to receive retired pay based on the pay associated with 

the position. 

Section 672—Special and Incentive Pays Considered for Saved Pay 

Upon Appointment of Members as Officers 

This section would clarify that the pay and allowances of an enlisted or warrant officer grade formerly held by an officer may continue to be paid to the officer only when the officer continues to 

perform the duty that creates the entitlement to or the eligibility 

for the pay or allowance. 

Section 673—Repayment of Unearned Portion of Bonuses, Special 

Pays, and Educational Benefits 

This section would consolidate the authority outlining the policy 

and procedures for repayment of unearned portions of bonuses, special pays, and educational benefits into one section with legislative 

references to that section within the specific authorities for 31 programs codified in title 37, United States Code, 15 programs codified 

in title 10, United States Code, and one program codified in title 

14, United States Code. The section would also clarify that the secretary concerned may establish for all such programs procedures 

for determining the amount of the repayment required and the circumstances under which an exception to the required repayment 

may be granted. 

345 

Section 674—Leave Accrual for Members Assigned to Deployable 

Ships or Mobile Units or to Other Designated Duty 

This section would clarify that service members assigned to a 

deployable ship or mobile unit, or other designated units may be 

authorized by the secretary concerned to accumulate up to 120 

days of leave without having to serve on active duty for a continuous period of 120 days. 

Section 675—Army Recruiting Pilot Program to Encourage 

Members of the Army to Refer Other Persons for Enlistment 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to con- duct a pilot program to pay up to $1,000 in a lump sum to a member of the armed services who persuades a person to contact a recruiter seeking information about enlistment. The bonus would be 

paid to the service member after the referred person successfully 

completes basic training and individual advanced training. The 

pilot program would be limited to a maximum of 1,000 bonus payments in the first year and the authority to accept referrals would 

expire on December 31, 2007. Immediate family members of persons referred and members serving in recruiting and retention assignments would not be eligible to participate. 

Section 676—Special Compensation for Reserve Component Members Who Are Also Tobacco Farmers Adversely Affected by Terms 

of Tobacco Quota Buyout 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse 

reserve members who suffered reduced compensation under the 

Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 because of mobilization to serve on active duty for more than 30 days. The section 

would require the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Agriculture, to pay members who have been a producer of quota tobacco for at least two of the three tobacco marketing years before 

the 2002 marketing year an amount equal to 70 percent of the difference between the amount the member will receive under the Act 

and the amount the member would have likely received had the 

member remained a full-time producer of quota tobacco and had 

not been ordered to active duty. 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to be concerned about the capability of 

the Defense Health Program to provide quality, accessible health 

care to the members of the armed forces and their families, along 

with retirees and their families. As the nation fights the global war 

on terrorism, the Department of Defense must provide health care 

for our wounded service members regardless of whether their 

wounds are physical or emotional. To that end, the committee recommends expanding the capacity of the military health system to 

provide mental health care to service members and their families 

and to assist service members and their families to recognize potential mental health issues. The committee also recommends several enhancements to TRICARE Reserve Select that would expand 

346 

eligibility for members and their families and provide families a period of transitional health care beyond the death of a reserve member enrolled in the program. In addition, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to review the dental readiness of the reserve 

components and recommend improvements to ensure the dental 

readiness of members of the reserve components. 

The committee is steadfast in its view that planned changes to 

the military health services must not disrupt beneficiary health 

care, and that any changes that seek to optimize military treatment facilities must preserve access to high quality health care. 

Thus, the committee is concerned that military service plans to 

convert military medical positions to civilian positions may have a 

negative effect on beneficiary access to health care. Given that concern, the committee recommends halting further conversions until 

the Secretary of Defense can certify that additional conversions 

would not increase cost, decrease quality of care or access to care. 

ITEMS SPECIAL INTEREST 

Comptroller General Study of the Viability of TRICARE Standard 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136) required the Secretary of Defense to survey 

the TRICARE market areas in the United States to determine how 

many health care providers are accepting new patients under 

TRICARE Standard. In addition, the Comptroller General was required, on an ongoing basis, to review the processes, procedures, 

and analysis used by the Department of Defense to determine the 

adequacy of the number of health care providers that accept 

TRICARE Standard and submit a semiannual report on the findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services. The committee recognizes that the 

Comptroller General was unable to complete the required review 

because the Department had not completed the mandated surveys 

of the TRICARE market areas. Consequently, the data was not 

available for analysis by the Comptroller General. The committee 

understands that the Department has now completed the surveys 

and the data is now available for review. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Comptroller General to complete the review of 

TRICARE Standard, as described by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), and to submit the first semi-annual report to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 

March 31, 2006. 

Cooperative Activities on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 

The committee supports efforts to ensure that the needs of our 

service members who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 

(PTSD) are being met. While the Government Accountability Office 

is currently conducting a study on ways to improve services to 

members of the Armed Forces suffering from PTSD, the committee 

remains concerned that service members are provided with the 

most effective and up-to-date programs available. The committee 

notes that Israeli researchers have collected substantial information on PTSD that has allowed the development of pre-accession 

347 

psychological screenings, a comprehensive repository of information 

on all veterans with PTSD in Israel, as well as several other databases that are used to study PTSD among soldiers and civilians. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to collaborate 

with the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Military Medical Division, and 

the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs to look at best practices 

to address PTSD among service members. 

Dental Readiness of the Reserve Components 

The committee is concerned that improvements are needed in addressing the dental needs of the reserve components. The Army, for 

example, found that 20 percent of its citizen soldiers arrived at mobilization sites with dental conditions that made them nondeployable. While such individuals receive dental care during the 

pre-deployment stage that allows them to deploy, the resource intensive effort to correct dental problems takes time away from 

other unit deployment requirements. The committee took action in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) to provide the military services additional authority to provide dental screening and care from the time a reserve 

component unit is alerted for mobilization. The committee is interested in assessing how the secretaries of the military departments 

have used that authority. Moreover, the committee is increasingly 

concerned that the time available to reservists during the post deployment process does not allow for the completion of annual dental exams when such exams are due. This has a direct impact on 

force readiness because individuals without an annual exam cannot 

deploy again until that examination is completed. To address these 

issues, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 

pre- and post-deployment process to determine how to best to ensure dental readiness of the troops and develop recommendations 

for inclusion in the implementation plan mandated in section 731 

of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). The review at a minimum 

should: 

(1) Determine whether and to what extent the services are 

utilizing current authorities to improve pre-deployment dental 

readiness of their personnel; 

(2) Determine whether and to what extent the services are 

implementing processes and procedures to ensure dental readiness of their personnel during post-deployment; 

(3) Determine whether annual dental exams should be required as part of the demobilization process; 

(4) Consider whether the Transitional Health Care Benefits 

that are provided following separation from active duty should 

include a dental benefit for members of the reserve components 

as a way of improving their dental readiness; and 

(5) Make recommendations, as appropriate, for any additional legislative authorities that are needed to ensure the dental readiness of that Armed Forces 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit this report by 

April 1, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services. 

348 

Depleted Uranium 

The committee remains interested in the potential health impact 

depleted uranium may have on service members. The committee 

recognizes that the Department of Defense and other federal agencies have undertaken a number of studies on the health effects of 

depleted uranium. The committee urges the Department to continue its efforts to minimize exposure to the troops, continue to ensure testing using the most sophisticated testing methods available 

in the scientific community and continue its research efforts on potential health impacts and treatments for service members. 

Eligibility for the Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Incurred as 

a Result of Referral for Medical Specialty Care 

The committee recognizes that beneficiaries of the military 

health system often reside in remote areas with little or no availability of specialty medical care within a reasonable travel distance. This is particularly true for beneficiaries residing in the flag 

territories of the United States who routinely have to travel off-island for specialty care. Until recently, Pacific Air Forces funded 

commercial air travel for retirees and their family members living 

within their area of responsibility. In October 2004, the Air Force 

discontinued this benefit, placing the burden on the beneficiary to 

fund the travel to needed specialty care. The committee believes 

that specialty care should be available to beneficiaries without 

placing undue financial hardship on the beneficiary. The committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to reassess the decision by the Air 

Force to discontinue funding support, or revise the Department of 

Defense’s policy for reimbursement of certain travel expenses covered in section 1074i, title 10, United States Code, to include all 

eligible TRICARE beneficiaries residing in the flag territories of 

the United States. 

Non-Monetary Benefits Package for the President of the Uniformed 

Services University of the Health Sciences 

The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense is seeking 

to appoint a new president of the Uniformed Services University of 

the Health Sciences (USUHS). The committee values the service 

provided by USUHS and is particularly impressed with the professionalism and dedication of USUHS graduates to the uniformed 

services. For that reason, the committee is concerned that the level 

of remuneration established for the USUHS president under current law might preclude outstanding candidates from competing for 

this otherwise highly prestigious position. As such, the committee 

directs the Secretary to develop a non-monetary benefits package 

for the person holding the office of president of USUHS. The committee believes that in developing that package the Secretary 

should evaluate government furnished housing on the installation 

of the National Naval Medical Center. The Secretary shall submit 

a report of his recommendations for a non-monetary benefits package to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2006. 

349 

Respiratory Therapists to Serve as Commissioned Officers 

Respiratory therapists are trained and skilled professionals, 

many of whom have completed a bachelors in science or bachelors 

in arts degree as part of their training. However, respiratory therapists, who have the comparable educational backgrounds to other 

military health professionals who hold officer commissions, can 

serve only in the enlisted grades. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess whether respiratory therapists should 

serve as commissioned officers in the armed forces, based on a review of the requirements of the military services. If the assessment 

indicates that respiratory specialists should be commissioned, the 

Secretary should also discuss the pre-commissioning requirements 

for respiratory therapists. The Secretary should submit a report by 

April 1, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services. 

Review of TRICARE Policy Regarding Treatment of Other Health 

Insurance 

The Department of Defense policy since 1995 is that when a 

TRICARE beneficiary with other health insurance incurs a health 

care cost, TRICARE will act as a second payer to the other health 

insurance. However, if a balance remains after the other health insurance payment is applied, TRICARE will only pay if the amount 

remaining is less than the TRICARE covered portion. This policy 

results in greater out-of-pocket costs for service members, retirees 

and their families. Furthermore, this policy is inconsistent with the 

Department of Defense methodology for reimbursement under 

TRICARE for Life, which covers all out-of-pocket costs for 

TRICARE covered benefits. The committee is concerned that the 

current policy may discourage beneficiaries from using other health 

insurance. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the impact of changing the policy to mirror 

TRICARE for Life reimbursement for other health insurance. The 

report should: 

(1) Determine whether the current policy unfairly penalizes 

beneficiaries with other health insurance by requiring out of 

pocket expenses for covered TRICARE benefits; 

(2) Compare the cost of reimbursing beneficiaries with other 

health insurance all out-of- pocket costs for TRICARE covered 

benefits to those beneficiaries with only TRICARE coverage; 

and 

(3) Determine how the current policy has impacted customer 

service demand and associated costs on TRICARE contractors. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit the report to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services by March 31, 2006. 

Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rates for Obstetrics, 

Gynecology, Pediatrics and Mental Health 

The committee is concerned that the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC) for obstetrics, gynecology, pediatrics and 

mental health remain fair and equitable. CMAC rates are based 

upon Medicare rates; however, Medicare does not have a robust experience particularly in the areas of pediatrics and obstetrics or in 

350 

traumatic stress related mental health. While there is a process to 

address differences in experience between TRICARE and Medicare, 

there is growing concern that the reimbursement rates need to be 

reviewed. The committee is concerned that if significant inequity 

exists, access to these services may decrease. In particular, children’s hospitals provide services to military children with the most 

complex illnesses and treatment needs and availability of adult and 

family oriented mental health services are critical to the success of 

the Department of Defense post-deployment support programs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study that compares the CMAC rates for obstetrics, gynecology, pediatrics and mental health to other federal health programs in at least two TRICARE regions. The committee directs the 

Secretary to submit this report by March 31, 2006, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—TRICARE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Section 701—Services of Mental Health Counselors 

This section would allow mental health counselors, without prior 

physician referral or supervision, to be reimbursed for services provided to TRICARE beneficiaries. It would also amend section 704 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 

(Public Law 103–337) to allow mental health counselors to enter 

into personal service contracts with the Department of Defense for 

the purpose of providing mental health services to TRICARE beneficiaries. Further, it would require that mental health counselors 

meet the licensure or certification requirements for ‘‘health care 

professional’’ established by section 1094 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Section 702—Additional Information Required by Surveys on 

TRICARE Standard 

This section would expand the scope of the survey of the 

TRICARE Standard health care program that is required by section 723 of the National Defense Act for the Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). The committee believes that to improve 

TRICARE Standard it is necessary to obtain more detailed information from health care providers. Therefore, this section would require future surveys to include specific questions to determine the 

extent to which health care providers are aware of the TRICARE 

program; whether providers’ patient populations use TRICARE; 

and the extent to which providers who participate in Medicare also 

accept new Medicare patients. 

Section 703—Enhancement of TRICARE Coverage for Members 

Who Commit to Continued Service in the Selected Reserve 

This section would allow members of the Selected Reserve to extend health care coverage in TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) if they 

become eligible for additional periods of coverage through recall to 

active duty as prescribed by section 1076d of title 10, United States 

351 

Code. In addition, the section would permit qualified reserve component members who are involuntarily retired to continue receiving 

health care under TRS following retirement until their coverage period ends. Furthermore, the section would allow certain Individual 

Ready Reserve (IRR) members a period of one year following release from active duty to find a position in the Selected Reserves 

without loosing eligibility for TRS. Such IRR members would be 

those who would otherwise qualify for benefits under TRS but for 

the fact that they cannot meet the requirement for continued service in the Selected Reserves because positions are not available. 

Health care coverage will begin for these members after transfer to 

the Selected Reserves. Reserve component members who are involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserves, and who are enrolled in TRS at the time of their separation, would retain their 

TRS coverage provided they remain in the IRR. The committee also 

recognizes that the demobilization period for reserve component 

members is often short and highly stressful. Under current law, a 

reserve component member who desires to obtain coverage under 

TRS must decide prior to being demobilized to extend service in the 

Selected Reserve. The committee believes that such a decision 

ought to be made more deliberatively. Therefore, this section would 

extend to 120 days after the member’s release from active duty the 

time a member has to elect participation in TRS. In addition, the 

committee recognizes that a member of the reserves may die while 

they are enrolled in TRS requiring the family to find other health 

care coverage. This section would extend TRS coverage for family 

members for six months beyond the death of the member. Finally, 

this section would clarify that the TRICARE Standard benefit for 

enrollees in TRS includes access to care in military medical treatment facilities. 

Section 704—Study and Plan Relating to Chiropractic Health Care 

Services 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has not 

fully implemented section 702 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) 

that required chiropractic care to be provided for all members of 

the uniformed services through military treatment facilities. Currently only 42 medical treatment facilities in the military health 

system, all within the continental United States, offer chiropractic 

health care services. The committee understands that approximately 300,000 military members still do not have access to chiropractic care. This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 

develop a plan for providing chiropractic health care services to all 

members of the uniformed members, as required by Public Law 

106–398. In addition, this section would require the Secretary to 

study the cost, feasibility, health benefit and potential cost savings 

of providing chiropractic care for active duty family members, 

members of the reserves and their family members and retirees 

and their family members. The study would also include the cost 

of providing chiropractic care on a space available basis in those 

medical treatment facilities currently providing chiropractic care. 

The Secretary shall submit a report, including the plan and the 

study, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2006. 

352 

Section 705—Surviving-Dependent Eligibility Under TRICARE 

Dental Plan for Surviving Spouses who Were on Active Duty at 

Time of Death of Military Spouse 

This section would amend Section 1076a of title 10, United 

States Code, by adding to the definition of ‘‘eligible dependent,’’

surviving spouses who were on active duty at the time their military spouse died. The committee is aware that there are many dual 

military couples in the armed forces. Currently, a surviving spouse 

who is on active duty at the time the other spouse dies and subsequently separates from active duty, is ineligible for the TRICARE 

Dental Program because they were not enrolled in the program at 

the time of the spouse’s death. 

Section 706—Exceptional Eligibility for TRICARE Prime Remote 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive all restrictions with regard to TRICARE Prime Remote medical care coverage for active duty family members that reside at a remote location without regard to their sponsor’s current or past assignment. 

Such a waiver would occur if the Secretary determines that there 

are extenuating circumstances such that waiving the restrictions is 

consistent with the intent of the law. 

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Section 711—Authority to Relocate Patient Safety Center; 

Renaming MedTeams Program 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to relocate the 

Patient Safety Center from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology as currently required by section 754 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001(Public Law 

106–398). Repealing the requirement for the Patient Safety Center 

to be located within the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology provides flexibility for future placement of the Patient Safety Center 

at a location that may be better suited to improve alignment and 

communication between TRICARE Management Activity and the 

Patient Safety Center and thereby improve patient safety and clinical quality within the military health system. 

This section also would remove the name of a trademarked product used in an on-going medical program to reflect the termination 

of the Department of Defense contract with the proprietary owner 

of the product. 

Section 712—Modification of Health Care Quality Information and 

Technology Enhancement Reporting Requirement 

This section would change the terminology used in the required 

elements of the Annual Report on the Quality of Health Care Furnished under the Health Care Programs of the Department of Defense. This report is required by section 723 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). 

Changing the terminology better aligns the report with current 

standards and initiatives advocated by federal agencies and civilian 

health care organizations so that the military health system can 

better compare itself to civilian benchmarks. 

353 

Section 713—Correction to Eligibility of Certain Reserve Officers 

for Military Health Care Pending Active Duty Following Commissioning 

This section would authorize military health benefits for Senior 

Reserve Officer Training Corps graduates, without health insurance or other health benefits, who have been commissioned and received orders to active duty in advance of the active-duty report 

date. 

Section 714—Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical Positions to Civilian Medical Positions Until Submission of Certification 

The committee is concerned that the military departments’ plans 

to convert military medical positions to civilian positions have the 

potential to negatively affect access to care for beneficiaries of the 

military health system. For example, one of the underlying assumptions in the military-to-civilian conversion is that civilian 

medical practitioners, in the proper numbers with the right medical 

skills will be available to replace the military medical personnel in 

the locations where military reductions are taking place. Another 

assumption appears to be that civilian medical practitioners can be 

hired or contracted for approximately the same cost or less cost 

than the cost of maintaining military medical personnel. Thus, for 

example, the committee is aware that one service is budgeting to 

hire civilian general dentists at a salary of $113,000 which is what 

military dentists in that service are paid. However, the committee 

questions the feasibility of such an approach when average salaries 

for civilian general dentists are $150,000. Given these concerns, the 

committee believes that more analysis is required before further 

conversions should take place. 

Therefore, this section would require the Comptroller General to 

conduct a study on the effect of the conversions of military medical 

positions to civilian positions on the defense health program. In addition, the section would require the secretaries of the military departments to halt further conversions of medical positions until 

they certify that any further conversions will not increase cost, decrease quality of care or access to care. The certification by the secretaries of the military departments is due not earlier than April 

1, 2006. The Comptroller General should submit a report by March 

1, 2006. 

Section 715—Clarification of Inclusion of Dental Care in Medical 

Readiness Tracking and Health Surveillance Program 

The committee is concerned that there may be confusion about 

the inclusion of dental care in the various tracking and surveillance 

activities undertaken by the Department of Defense to assess the 

health status of the armed forces. This section would clarify that 

in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), references to medical readiness, health status and health care include dental care. 

354 

Section 716—Cooperative Outreach to Members and Former Members of the Naval Service Exposed to Environmental Factors 

Related to Sarcoidosis 

The section would require the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs, to conduct an outreach 

program to contact all members and former members of the naval 

service who in connection with service aboard Navy ships may have 

been exposed to environmental factors related to sarcoidosis. Such 

factors include exposure to the aerosolized particles of aluminum, 

titanium, silica, barium sulfate, fibrous glass and other materials 

generated during the grinding removal of non-skid coating used on 

the decks of Navy ships. Sarcoidosis is a disease due to inflammation that is most frequently a disease of the lungs. In January 

2004, a study by the Naval Health Research Center found that African-American seaman and aviation boatswains mates who served 

between 1965 and 2001 had approximately twice the risk of sarcoidosis compared to other Navy African-American enlisted personnel, and that assignment to an aircraft carrier was associated 

with a two-fold increased risk for sarcoidosis in African-Americans 

and a 1.5-fold increased risk in whites. Two epidemiological studies 

done in connection with the report identified an association between service aboard on an aircraft carrier and certain occupations 

with an increased risk of sarcoidosis. The committee believes that 

follow-up to this report is required and the outreach effort required 

by the section is intended to: 

(1) Develop additional data aimed at determining a causative 

link between sarcoidosis and military service; 

(2) Inform members and former members of the naval service of the findings of the Navy studies concerning sarcoidosis; 

and 

(3) Assist former members of the naval service who may be 

suffering from sarcoidosis to get medical evaluations to clarify 

linkages between their disease and service aboard Navy ships. 

Section 717—Early Identification and Treatment of Mental Health 

and Substance Abuse Disorders 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

an internal media communication effort to foster a change in attitudes of members of the armed forces, regarding treatment for 

mental health and substance abuse. The committee believes that 

the media communication effort would build on the family, peersupport, and command programs that the services have implemented for service members and their families to help recognize 

and assist uniform personnel or family members who exhibit signs 

of mental health or substance abuse problems. 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee is deeply concerned with the state of Department 

of Defense (DOD) acquisition policy, acquisition management, the 

defense industrial base and related matters. In particular, the comVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
355 

mittee is concerned that the current Defense Acquisition Management Framework is not appropriately developing realistic and 

achievable requirements within integrated architectures for major 

weapons systems based on current technology, forecasted schedules 

and available funding. Conversely, the committee is concerned that 

the Department is not sufficiently utilizing streamlined acquisition 

procedures to capitalize on a wide variety of commercially available 

goods and services that could be innovatively applied to meet 

emerging defense requirements in a fiscally prudent manner, primarily in acquisitions not related to major weapon systems purchases. 

In regard to the major systems acquisitions, DOD compliance 

with internal directives, such as compliance with DOD 5000 series, 

the appropriate use of commercial item contracting vehicles for 

major weapon systems purchases, and accurate identification of requirements that are technologically and economically attainable 

are of paramount concern. The committee believes that in order to 

maximize available funding, DOD should focus on developing more 

stable and achievable requirements. In particular, the committee 

recommends that the Department increase internal scrutiny of acquisition programs before approving them for the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase without mature technologies, requirements and firm information technology architectures. 

In a 2004 Technology Readiness Assessment of the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) for calendar year 2003, the Department 

noted that of 31 technologies identified as critical technologies, 24 

presented a level of risk that should receive special attention and 

planning in the form of risk mitigation plans. Despite assurances 

at that time from the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science 

and Technology (DUSD(S&T)) that ‘‘technologies were in fact sufficiently mature or that program management had established effective risk mitigation plans to support entry into SDD,’’ the overall 

cost of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program has increased from an original estimate of $19.0 billion to a fiscal year 

(FY) 2005 estimate of $22.0 billion to its current estimate of $30.3 

billion. In addition, the committee notes that original cost estimates for the Joint Strike Fighter were approximately $26.0 billion 

upon passing Milestone B and that current estimates have risen to 

approximately $41.0 billion. The committee believes that many of 

these cost increases result from premature entry into the SDD 

phase without sufficient levels of technological maturity. 

The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense should certify entry of any Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) into 

the Milestone B or SDD phase of performance. This should include 

a mechanism to require an analysis of alternatives when the Department finds an MDAP has surpassed 15 percent of its original 

baseline estimate. These measures should ensure that the Department procures technologically viable and economically responsible 

systems designed to meet the military’s needs in the 21st century 

while carefully balancing current and desired capability, available 

economic resources, and current and future needs for military presence. 

The committee notes that despite a decade of reform, the current 

DOD acquisition system is unable to leverage the most innovative 

356 

services and products commercially available for imaginative defense applications. The acquisition system has not kept pace with 

an increasingly service and technology oriented economy. This diminishes DOD’s ability to effectively and efficiently manage acquisition programs and provide for our national defense. The committee remains committed to providing for the adoption of appropriate business-like acquisition practices within the Department, 

facilitating the acquisition of commercial services by building on 

prior reforms in the acquisition of commercial items, and enabling 

the Department to access cutting-edge technology. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Program Cost Increases 

The committee is concerned with the dramatically increasing 

costs of Department of Defense major weapon systems acquisitions. 

While today’s weapon systems produce unmatched capability, the 

committee is concerned that the per-unit cost of today’s programs 

may result in an ill-advised tradeoff, choosing increased capability 

at the expense of maintaining sufficient force structure to ensure 

appropriate military presence. Increasing research and development costs in multiple programs have already resulted in a decrease in total orders to remain within a fiscally viable budget. The 

committee recommends that the Department aggressively pursue 

means of consolidating requirements, avoiding duplication of systems across services, and pursuing technological solutions with 

multi-service applications. 

Procurement of Ball and Roller Bearings 

The Committee recognizes that actions taken since December, 

2004, by the Department of Defense in the interpretation of Sections 252.225–7014; 252.225–7016; and other relevant sections of 

the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFAR), has had the 

effect of precluding domestic bearing manufacturing companies 

from protections under the Berry Amendment. These actions are 

decreasing the domestic industry’s ability to produce bearings critical to our national security and increasing our reliance upon foreign produced bearings. The Committee believes that domestic ball 

and roller bearing manufacturers should be wholly manufactured 

in the United States or Canada. However, if no domestic provider 

exists for certain bearing components such as cages and rings, the 

imported components have had additional post processing in the 

United States, and the component satisfies all domestic content requirements of the Buy America Act and the Berry Amendment 

using the committee’s understanding of raw materials, the committee believes bearings containing such components should be 

considered compliant with the Berry Amendment. Every effort 

should be taken by the Department to encourage a strong domestic 

bearing industry and develop a qualified domestic source for raw 

material currently procured by bearing producers from foreign 

sources. 

357 

Report on Defense Ethics Programs 

The committee is aware of a recent report by the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) entitled ‘‘Defense Ethics Program’’ (GAO–05–341), which points out potential gaps in the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) ethics program. The committee believes DOD 

action is necessary to prevent future violations of conflict-of-interest laws and post-employment restrictions. The committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to review and report on the following 

items related to personnel subject to conflict-of-interest laws and 

post-employment restrictions: 

(1) Methods used by the Department to identify affected personnel; 

(2) Training required of identified personnel; 

(3) Methods for tracking training; 

(4) Methods for determining the optimal quality and content 

of training; 

(5) Methods by which the Defense Contract Management 

Agency, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and other relevant 

agencies ensure the appropriate hiring of current and former 

DOD employees by industry; and 

(6) Methods by which the Department plans to track the 

number of allegations of conflict-of-interest and misconduct, 

and to make Congress aware of progress in decreasing such incidents. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report by April 

1, 2006 to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services. 

Requirements Identification 

The committee is concerned about the ability of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff and the military services senior acquisition officials to respond in a timely manner to emerging and urgent requirements 

identified by in-theater operational commanders at all levels. The 

committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) should 

thoroughly review the joint requirements generation and review 

processes used to acquire items through service acquisition channels. In addition, the Department should de-conflict these bureaucratic processes expeditiously to create a seamless interservice acquisition methodology ensuring that operational units’ requirements are rapidly met. These requirements should be based on the 

immediate needs of combatant commanders or projected urgent 

scenario-based combat needs attributed to long-term DOD-wide 

conflict preparations, rather than to a specific service requirement. 

Use of Streamlined Acquisition Procedures 

The committee recognizes the value in the multiple reforms of 

the 1990s including the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 

1994 (Public Law 103–355), the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public 

Law 104–106) and the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 

(Public Law 108–136). These reforms were designed to streamline 

the acquisition process and to take advantage of commercial items 

and commercial services. These reforms, however, are not without 

a degree of risk. The committee is concerned that the Department 

of Defense is not adequately complying with internal directives reVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00383 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
358 

lated to the purchase of commercial items and services. The committee therefore recommends that the Secretary review internal 

management controls and utilization of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13 contracts. The Secretary should stringently review its use of alternative contracting vehicles such as ‘‘other 

transaction authorities’’ and ‘‘commercial-off-the-shelf’’ purchases 

for large weapons platforms. 

Utilization of Rapid Acquisition Authority 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is 

not capitalizing on the rapid acquisition authority authorized in 

section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). This authority 

allows the Secretary ‘‘to waive any provision of law, policy, directive, or regulation’’ that would ‘‘unnecessarily impede the rapid acquisition and deployment of needed equipment to prevent combat 

fatalities.’’ In its first use of the authority the Department is projecting the procurement of approximately 10,000 improvised explosive device jammers in roughly 60 days. The committee notes that, 

prior to use of the rapid acquisition authority, the projected delivery schedule exceeded 13 months. 

The committee also notes that although the Secretary established 

a Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) he has failed to provide sufficient resources and authority to allow the JRAC to make a significant impact on rapid acquisition initiatives. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PROVISIONS RELATING TO MAJOR DEFENSE

ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

Section 801—Requirement for Certification By Secretary of Defense 

Before Major Defense Acquisition Program May Proceed to Milestone B 

This section would amend chapter 139 of title 10, United States 

Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to make a certification 

before a major defense acquisition program (MDAP) enters Milestone B or Key Decision Point B in the case of a space system. A 

MDAP may not receive Milestone B approval, or Key Decision 

Point B approval in the case of a space program, until the Secretary certifies that: 

(1) The technology in the program has been demonstrated in 

a relevant environment; 

(2) The program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission; 

(3) The program is affordable when considering the per unit 

cost and total acquisition cost in the context of the total available resources available during the period covered by the future years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in 

which the certification is made; 

(4) The program is affordable when considering the ability of 

the Department of Defense (DOD) to accomplish the program’s 

mission using alternative systems; 

(5) The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has accomplished its duties with respect to the program as required in 

359 

section 181(b) of title 10, United States Code, including an 

analysis of the operational requirements for the program; and 

(6) The program complies with all relevant policies, regulations, and directives of the Department of Defense. 

This section would require the Secretary to submit the certification to the congressional defense committees no fewer then 30 

days before approval of Milestone B or Key Decision Point B in the 

case of a space system. The Secretary could waive the certification 

requirement for national security reasons. Such a waiver would require a subsequent report to the congressional defense committees 

outlining the rationale for the waiver within 30 days after authorizing the waiver. The certification required would be non-delegable. 

As stated in a March 2004 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Major 

Weapons Programs, ‘‘production maturity cannot be attained if the 

design is not mature, and design maturity cannot be attained if the 

key technologies are not mature.’’ Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002, (Public Law 107–107) directed the Secretary to report 

annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services on the maturity of technology 

at the initiation of major defense acquisition programs. The Act requires a report during each year from 2003 to 2006 on a requirement in DOD’s policy that technology must have been demonstrated in a relevant environment (or preferably in an operational environment) to be considered mature enough to use for 

product development in systems integration. To date, the committee has received and reviewed with interest the reports from fiscal years 2002–2004. The committee strongly believes that MDAPs 

should not enter the Systems Development and Demonstration 

phase prior to the demonstration of mature technologies. 

The committee believes that the Secretary should personally 

make this certification in light of the significance of the weapon 

systems. The committee does not believe such a requirement is too 

burdensome. The committee notes that in the past 10 years only 

63 MDAPs have gone through Milestone B. 

Section 802—Requirement for Analysis of Alternatives to Major 

Defense Acquisition Programs 

This section would require an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for 

major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) when the procurement 

unit cost rises more then 15 percent above the acquisition unit cost 

or procurement unit cost established at Milestone B. The secretary 

of the military department concerned would conduct the AoA at the 

15 percent threshold. The AoA would be required within one year 

after initiation and submitted to congressional defense committees 

within 30 days of completion. 

This section directs that every analysis of alternatives (AoA) for 

major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) performed prior to 

execution of the MDAP must include a list of commercially available technologies that have applicability to the stated program element requirement within the MDAP. All comprehensive efforts 

should be made to utilize these technologies in the MDAP. 

The committee believes once an MDAP evidences significant departure from the baseline estimate, such as the acquisition unit 

360 

cost or procurement unit cost exceeding 15 percent, the service secretary concerned should begin the process of evaluating other options. The committee recommends that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) utilize the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program as one 

possible alternative. 

The required analysis of alternatives should be built on the original analysis of alternatives conducted prior to Milestone B. Such 

an approach could alleviate the cost and time requirements for conducting an AoA. The committee does not intend that the initiation 

of an AoA necessarily result in all work stopping for an affected 

program. The AoA is intended to foster development of alternatives, not to stifle current programs or innovation. 

With this in mind, the committee recommends that DOD recognize the potential for an analysis of alternatives during the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase and that appropriate precautions be taken to avoid unnecessary costs associated with a required AoA. The committee believes that no program 

the size of an MDAP should proceed without thoroughly examining 

available alternatives and that such alternatives should remain 

viable throughout the acquisition life cycle should they be needed 

to deal with unexpected technological delays or changing requirements. 

It is the intention of the committee that this section applies to 

both MDAPs and to the start of a National Security Space program. 

Section 803—Authority for Secretary of Defense to Revise Baseline 

for Major Defense Acquisition Programs 

This section would identify the baseline established at Milestone 

B as the only baseline to be utilized for purposes of chapter 144 

of title 10, United States Code. The committee believes the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments 

have improperly avoided reporting requirements in chapter 144 by 

rebaselining programs. 

This section would allow rebaselining only when a major defense 

acquisition program (MDAP) has a percentage increase in program 

acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost exceeding 25 percent 

of the original baseline estimate. Upon breach of the 25 percent 

barrier, the Secretary must return the MDAP back to Milestone B 

and perform a rebaselining or comply with the requirements of section 2433 (e)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code. 

This section would also require the secretary of a military department to notify the congressional defense committees within 30 

days of a rebaselining action. 

SUBTITLE B—ACQUISITION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

Section 811—Applicability of Statutory Executive Compensation 

Cap Made Prospective 

This section would amend section 808(e)(2) the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) to clarify that the underlying provision is prospective from the date of enactment. Currently, compensation of certain executives in excess of 

a ‘‘benchmark’’ set by regulations is unallowable. As a result, in 

361 

General Dynamics Corporation v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 514 

(Fed. Cl. 2000), the Court held that application of the statutory cap 

to a contract awarded prior to the enactment section 808(e)(2) constituted a breach of contract, and that the government was liable 

for breach damages due to the retroactive application of the cap. 

This executive compensation would still be subject to a test of reasonableness. 

Section 812—Use of Commercially Available Online Services for 

Federal Procurement of Commercial Items 

This section would require the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to maximize the use of commercially available online 

procurement services to purchase commercial items, including 

those procurement services that allow the heads of federal agencies 

to conduct reverse auctions. 

Section 813—Contingency Contracting Corps 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a contingency contracting corps through a joint policy developed by 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This corps would be directed by a senior commissioned officer with appropriate acquisition experience and qualifications who, when deployed, would report directly to the combatant commander in an area of operations 

requiring contingency contracting support. The joint policy would 

provide that contingency contracting operations during combat operations would utilize the rapid acquisition authority authorized in 

section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), to the maximum extent appropriate. In addition, this section would attempt 

to leverage contingency contracting assets in both deployed and 

non-deployed locations to efficiently carry out the mission of the 

contingency contracting corps. Training of the corps would take 

into account all relevant laws, regulations and polices related to 

contingency contracting and would be required even when the corps 

is not deployed. 

The committee intends that the commander of the contingency 

contracting corps be appointed at a grade senior enough to interact 

effectively with a combatant commander. The committee believes 

that an officer in the rank of Lieutenant General, or Vice Admiral 

for the Navy, is appropriate for this responsibility. The committee 

intends that the contingency contracting corps maintains a sufficient level of readiness in peacetime to be able to rapidly deploy to 

emerging contingency operations. The commander of the contingency contracting corps should consider the development of a 

standardized contingency contracting handbook which summarizes 

all relevant laws, directives and regulations related to contingency 

contracting to assist the day-to-day operations of the contingency 

contracting workforce. Finally, the committee urges that contingency contracting corps utilize an integrated contracting and financial management system to ensure that contracting operations are 

not hindered by technological limitations that can be easily avoided 

through the use of readily available systems. 

362 

Section 814—Requirement for Contracting Operations to be Included in Interagency Planning Related to Stabilization and Reconstruction 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to include 

contracting operations in all applicable interagency planning operations. The committee is concerned that the recently created Department of State Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction does 

not include contracting and acquisition as a key area for review 

and future planning. Contracting and acquisition are key components of successful stabilization and reconstruction operations and 

should be considered in the earliest planning stages. 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to identify 

‘‘lessons learned’’ by the Coalition Provisional Authority contracting 

office, the Program Management Office, and the Project Contracting Office. Matters covered would include: 

(1) Development of an appropriate acquisition strategy before 

obligation of funds, including the scope of the planned acquisition operations, project management, logistics and financial 

considerations; 

(2) Flow of appropriated funds; 

(3) Ability to obtain military and civilian acquisition workforce personnel; 

(4) Ability to obtain country clearance for such personnel; 

and 

(5) Ability to reprogram funds and to coordinate interagency 

activities. 

A report produced by the Secretary of Defense in conjunction 

with the Secretary of State should be submitted to the Senate Committees on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the 

House International Relations Committee within 180 days of enactment of this Act. The committee believes that the knowledge obtained during the Iraq contracting process should be captured for 

use in planning and implementing future contingency contracting 

operations. 

Section 815—Statement of Policy and Report Relating To 

Contracting With Employers of Persons With Disabilities 

This section would extend for one year section 853 of the Ronald 

W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375). 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense and the 

Secretary of Education to issue jointly a statement of policy related 

to further implementation of the Randolph-Sheppard Act of 1936 

(RS) (20 U.S.C. 107) and the Javits Wagner O’Day (JWOD) program (41 U.S.C. 46–48c). This section would require the statement 

of policy to specifically address application of RS and JWOD to 

both operation and management of all, or any part, of a military 

mess hall, military troop dining facility, or any similar dining facility operated for the purpose of providing meals to members of the 

armed forces. This also includes preparation or serving of food or 

ordering, storing, or accounting for food or ingredients. The committee believes that procurement decisions on contracting for military troop dining services should be made in accordance with the 

363 

needs of the Department of Defense and the particular military activity requiring procurement of such services. 

The statement of policy should take into account and address, to 

the extent practicable, the positions acceptable to persons representing programs implemented under RS and JWOD. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Education shall submit the 

statement of policy to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the House 

Committee on Education and the Workforce by April 1, 2006. 

Section 816—Study on Department of Defense Contracting With 

Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by Service-Disabled Veterans 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has 

fallen short of the 3 percent contracting goal for service disabled 

veteran owned small businesses. This section would require the Department of Defense to conduct a detailed study on its progress toward increasing contracting with small businesses owned by service disabled veterans. The report to Congress is due 6 months after 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 817—Prohibition on Procurement From Beneficiaries of 

Foreign Subsidies 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract with a foreign person (including a joint venture, 

cooperative organization, partnership or contracting team with that 

foreign person), which has received a subsidy from the government 

of a foreign country that is a member of the World Trade Organization, if the United States has requested a consultation with that 

foreign country on the basis that the subsidy is prohibited under 

the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 

SUBTITLE C—AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING

AUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES AND LIMITATIONS

Section 821—Increased Flexibility for Designation of Critical 

Acquisition Positions in Defense Acquisition Workforce 

This section would amend section 1733 of title 10, United States 

Code, to eliminate differences in the authorities provided for the 

management of civilian and military critical acquisition positions. 

This section would reestablish the parity sought by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) (Public Law 101–

510) and provide the Secretary of Defense with the same authorities for the designation of both civilian and military critical acquisition positions. The committee believes that not all senior civilian 

personnel or senior commissioned officers in an ‘‘acquisition position’’ should be designated as critical acquisition positions. The 

committee believes that the Secretary should develop specific 

guidelines to identify outstanding acquisition personnel to fill critical acquisition positions. 

364 

Section 822—Participation by Department of Defense in 

Acquisition Workforce Training Fund 

This section would amend section 37 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 433) to require the Secretary of Defense to use funds transferred from the Administrator of the General Services at the Defense Acquisition University to train students in matters relating to acquisition. 

Section 823—Increase in Cost Accounting Standard Threshold 

This section would amend section 26(f)(2)(A) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to increase the 

cost accounting standard (CAS) threshold to $550,000, which would 

correspond with the current Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) 

(Public Law 87–653) threshold. Section 807 of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375) addressed inflation adjustments of acquisition related dollar thresholds. This section would ensure consistency henceforth regarding the CAS and TINA thresholds. 

Section 824—Amendments to Domestic Source Requirements 

Relating to Clothing Materials and Components Covered 

This section would amend section 2533a of title 10, United States 

Code, known as the Berry Amendment, to require the Secretary of 

Defense to notify the public when the Secretary exercises a waiver. 

In 1998 and 2002, the Department of Defense Inspector General 

(DOD–IG) identified multiple deficiencies in application of the 

Berry Amendment. In March 20, 2002, the DOD–IG report entitled 

‘‘Acquisition: Buy American Act Issues on Procurements of Military 

Clothing’’ stated 60 percent of the reviewed contracts failed to include the appropriate Buy American Act or the Berry Amendment 

contract clause. The DOD–IG report also stated that contracting officers at 13 military installations procured military clothing and related items manufactured or produced abroad without determining 

whether those items were manufactured in the United States. As 

a result, DOD–IG estimated that $593,004 worth of items manufactured abroad may have been available from domestic suppliers. 

This section would prevent a repeat of this deficiency. 

This section would also amend section 2533a to clarify the covered item described as clothing. 

Section 825—Rapid Acquisition Authority to Respond to Defense 

Intelligence Community Emergencies 

This section would grant the Secretary of Defense the authority 

to procure critical intelligence capabilities in order to address a demonstrable, imminent and urgent threat to national security that 

would likely result in combat fatalities or grave harm to the national security of the United States. The committee intends that 

the funds utilized under this section include only those avaialble to 

the Secretary under title 10, United States Code. 

365 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Section 901—Restoration of Parity in Pay Levels Among Under 

Secretary Positions 

This section would amend Sections 5314 and 5315 of title 5, 

United States Code, to raise the level of basic pay for the under 

secretaries of the military departments from Executive Level IV to 

Executive Level III. Currently, the under secretaries of the military 

departments are paid at Executive Level IV, the same level as the 

assistant secretaries of the military departments. This section 

would provide that the under secretaries of the military departments would be paid at Executive Level III, the same level as the 

under secretaries of defense. 

Section 902—Eligibility Criteria for Director of Department of 

Defense Test Resource Management Center 

This section would amend section 196 of title 10, United States 

Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense with greater latitude in 

selecting a director of the Department of Defense Test Resource 

Management Center. Since the center was established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 

107–314), the Department has experienced difficulty in recruiting 

a director and deputy director who met statutory requirements. 

This section would provide the Secretary with maximum flexibility 

in selecting a qualified director and would abolish the statutory requirement for a deputy director, while preserving the statutory authorities and responsibilities of this important organization. 

Section 903—Consolidation and Standardization of Authorities Relating to Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security 

Studies 

This section would streamline the management of Department of 

Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies, which to date have 

operated under different authorities. It would allow the centers to 

pursue research in addition to communication and exchange of 

ideas involving United States and foreign military officers, civilian 

governmental personnel, and non- governmental personnel. 

The section would allow foreign governments and United States 

federal agencies to fund foreign participation in center activities 

and the Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement of costs of activities for military officers and civilian officials from developing 

countries. It would continue an annual requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the regional 

centers’ status, objectives, budgets, international participation, and 

foreign gifts and donations. 

This section would also streamline the provisions under which 

the Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies 

may accept gifts and donations, providing a uniform and consistent 

authority. Funds accepted by the Secretary would be credited to apVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
366 

propriations available to the Department of Defense for the regional centers and merged with the appropriations to which credited. Such funds would then be available under the same conditions 

as those appropriations. 

Section 904—Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps 

This section would designate the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps and change the title of 

its Secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. This 

provision would formally recognize the responsibility of the Office 

of the Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy and Marine Corps 

and the Marine Corps’ status as an equal partner with the Navy. 

SUBTITLE B—SPACE ACTIVITIES

SECTION 911—SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS STRATEGY

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

formal strategy, systems architecture, and a capabilities roadmap 

for space situational awareness and update the strategy every two 

years. The committee intends that upon development of a new 

strategy covering the prescribed 20–year period, the start of the 

time period will shift such that coverage should begin with the year 

following submittal of the report. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

lacks a coherent or comprehensive plan on how to conduct space 

situational awareness. The plan for the current system does not appear to be based on threat analysis and has been cobbled together 

from legacy tools, inherited programs, and concept demonstrators. 

The committee believes space situational awareness is the foundation for protection and defense of our space assets and should receive more emphasis. 

Section 912—Military Satellite Communications 

This section would direct the National Security Space Office to 

conduct an independent assessment of options to evolve the capabilities of the Advance Extremely High Frequency and Wideband 

Gapfiller Systems until the high-risk technologies proposed for the 

Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT) can be 

further developed and matured. The committee is concerned with 

the ability of the space acquisition community to manage risk associated with the leap in technology proposed by the TSAT program. 

Section 913—Operationally Responsive Space 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to create or 

designate an organization to focus development payload technology 

for small satellites. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has neglected the development of small satellite 

payload technology. This organization would develop an annual 

master plan describing focus areas for technology development and 

would distribute appropriated funds for projects within those focus 

areas. 

367 

SUBTITLE C—CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

Section 921—Transfer to Secretary of the Army of Responsibility 

for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program 

This section would transfer program management responsibility 

for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program (formerly the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program) from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) to the Secretary of the Army by 

January 1, 2006; would provide for management of the program as 

a part of the Department of the Army organization for management of the chemical weapons demilitarization program as specified in section 1521(e) of title 50, United States Code; and would 

require the Army to implement fully the alternative technologies 

previously selected for destruction of lethal chemical munitions at 

Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and Blue Grass Army Depot, 

Kentucky. 

Section 142 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) provides that 

the program manager (PM), ACWA shall manage the development 

and testing, including demonstration and pilot-scale testing, of 

technologies for the destruction of lethal chemical munitions that 

are potential or demonstrated alternatives to the baseline program, 

which uses incineration for destruction of the stockpile of lethal 

chemical agents and munitions. This provision further requires 

that the PM, ACWA shall act independently of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization (PMCD) and shall report to the 

USD(AT&L). 

Numerous Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports and 

testimony to Congress state that effective management of the 

chemical demilitarization program has been hindered by its complex management structure. GAO specifically cites the division of 

program responsibility between the director of the Army’s Chemical 

Materials Agency (formerly the PMCD), who reports to the Secretary of the Army as executive agent for the program and is responsible for destruction of all elements of the chemical weapons 

stockpile except that stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot and the 

Pueblo Army Depot; and the PM, ACWA, who reports directly to 

the USD(AT&L) and has responsibility only for destruction of those 

parts of the stockpile stored at Blue Grass Army Depot and Pueblo 

Army Depot. During the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 

Capabilities subcommittee’s hearing on the chemical demilitarization program in April 2005, the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) again 

testified to the need to bring together the management of the program. 

In 2003, the Secretary of the Army, with the concurrence of the 

USD(AT&L), established the Chemical Material Agency, which is 

responsible for management of the chemical weapons destruction 

program and operation of the chemical weapons destruction plant 

facilities and stockpile storage sites. With the concurrence of the 

USD(AT&L), the Secretary of the Army assigned the PM, ACWA 

as the director of the Chemical Materiel Agency. The committee believes that the establishment of a new management structure, 

368 

which brings together all elements of the program under a single 

activity, will eliminate many of the management complexities cited 

by the GAO, contribute to the elimination of duplicative management overhead and support, and ensure more efficient management 

of the total program, while at the same time addressing the equities and concerns of those sites using assembled chemical weapons 

alternatives for destruction of the stockpile. 

The transfer of management of the ACWA program to the Secretary of the Army in no way abrogates the responsibility of the 

USD(AT&L) for oversight of the chemical weapons demilitarization 

program, including ACWA, nor the USD(AT&L)’s role and responsibilities as defense acquisition executive for this Acquisition Category ID program. 

Section 922—Clarification of Cooperative Agreement Authority 

Under Chemical Demilitarization Program 

This section would clarify that the authority conferred upon the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army by section 

1521(c)(4) of title 50, United States Code, which was originally enacted in section 107(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102–190), applies to cooperative agreements with federally-recognized Indian tribal governments, as well as state and local governments. 

SUBTITLE D—INTELLIGENCE RELATED MATTERS

Section 931—Department of Defense Strategy for Open-Source 

Intelligence 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to create and 

submit to Congress a strategy for the use of open-source intelligence by January 31, 2006. The strategy would have 10 components focusing on application of open-source intelligence in the intelligence process, as well as associated management, training, and 

personnel issues. 

Section 932—Comprehensive Inventory of Department of Defense 

Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Programs and Projects 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services, and the Senate Select Committee 

on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that provides a comprehensive inventory of Department 

of Defense (DOD) intelligence and intelligence-related programs 

and projects. 

The committee notes that the Department is working with the 

Intelligence Community to provide greater visibility into those intelligence-related programs funded within the Department. The 

committee understands that Department initiatives currently underway to develop a Military Intelligence Program (MIP) will provide greater visibility for congressional committees with oversight 

responsibility for defense intelligence. The committee believes that 

it does not have complete visibility into some defense intelligence 

programs that do not clearly fall into the Joint Military Intelligence 

Program (JMIP) or under the Tactical Intelligence and Related AcVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00394 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
369 

tivities (TIARA) categories. Specifically, the committee notes that 

individual services may have intelligence or intelligence-related 

programs such as science and technology projects or information 

operations programs related to defense intelligence that are embedded in other service budget line items. Greater transparency into 

these programs and projects will enhance congressional oversight 

and permit identification of potentially duplicative programs in 

other services. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Director of National Intelligence, where appropriate, to 

provide to the appropriate congressional committees a comprehensive inventory of Department of Defense intelligence and intelligence-related programs and projects. It is not intended that this 

inventory encompass military operations or military activities. This 

inventory shall abide by existing procedures for the handling of 

special access programs referenced in section 119 of title 10, United 

States Code, and applicable Department of Defense directives. 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $895.7 million for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $120.8 million, for operational tempo which is included within the operating budgets of the 

military services. The budget is organized in fiscal year 2006 to address four broad national priorities: (1) international support; (2) 

intelligence and technology; (3) domestic support; and (4) demand 

reduction. 

The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 2006 

Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows: 

FY06 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request .................................... $895,741 

International Support ...................................................................................... 429,066 

Intelligence Technology and Other ................................................................ 139,591 

Domestic Support ............................................................................................ 199,071 

Demand Reduction .......................................................................................... 128,013 

Recommended Decreases: 

PACOM Operations Support ................................................................... 4,000 

Air Force Tanker Support ........................................................................ 3,000 

Naval Reserve Support ............................................................................ 4,000 

International Support .............................................................................. 10,000 

Recommended Increases: 

Southwestern Border Fence .................................................................... 7,000 

Joint Task Force North ............................................................................ 6,000 

Participating Nation Support .................................................................. 2,000 

Support to National Security Agency ..................................................... 6,000 

Recommendation 895,741 

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force tanker support 

The budget request contained $4.8 million for tanker support of 

Air Force operations. Reductions in support activities are planned 

in light of other worldwide commitments. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million. 

370 

Budget requests 

The fiscal year 2006 drug interdiction and counter-drug activities budget request of $895.7 million covers all counter-narcotics resources in the Department of Defense (DOD) with the exception of 

those resources in the operating budget for the military services for 

operational tempo, military personnel, and military construction. 

The committee notes that the services’ budget requests include an additional $120.8 million for operational tempo expenses in their 

respective appropriations. The committee, therefore, directs the 

Secretary of Defense to identify in the DOD’s drug interdiction and 

counter-drug activities budget justification material for fiscal year 

2007, and thereafter, the associated operational tempo costs contained in the services budgets for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities. 

International support 

The budget request contained $429.1 million for international support and $139.6 million for intelligence and technology. The 

budget request for international support, intelligence and technology in fiscal year 2005 was $522.6 million. In addition, the 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13) 

appropriated $242.0 million for drug interdiction and counter-drug 

activities by the Department of Defense. The committee understands the importance of international support and notes that the 

request for international support will result in significant increased 

operational support for the United States Central Command, the 

United States Pacific Command and the United States Europe 

Command. This support includes detection and monitoring platforms and assets, command and control support, and provides 

equipment and supplies to other nations that are key in the national drug strategy and defense security cooperation goals. Accordingly, the committee recommends $419.1 million for inter- national support, a decrease of $10.0 million. The recommended 

funding represents a significant increase over the fiscal year 2005 

authorization. This small decrease will not result in any diminished activities as the bulk of this account is funded through The 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13). 

Joint Task Force North 

The Joint Task Force North (JTF–N) located at Fort Bliss, Texas, 

performs counter-narcotics missions to support the United States 

Northern Command. The task force has traditionally supported federal law enforcement agencies in drug interdiction efforts. On September 28, 2004, it was re-designated as JTF–N and its mission 

was expanded to include homeland defense support. The new 

homeland security mission includes supporting the interdiction of 

suspected transnational threats within and along the approaches of 

the continental United States, and the collection and dissemination 

of intelligence regarding international terrorism, drug-trafficking, 

and the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. The additional 

mission adds new costs: building operation and maintenance, headquarters oversight, and command, control, communication, computer and intelligence systems. 

371 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for this purpose. 

Naval Reserve support 

The budget request contained $11.2 million for operations by a 

Naval Reserve squadron in the United States Southern Command’s 

area of responsibility. Reductions in support activities are planned 

in light of other worldwide commitments. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million. 

PACOM operations support 

The budget request contained $7.5 million for United States Pacific Command (PACOM) and participating nation support for 

PACOM operations. Reductions in support activities are planned in 

light of other worldwide commitments. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million. 

Participating nation support 

This classified program would provide enhanced intelligence capability to nations supporting Department of Defense counter-drug 

activities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for this 

activity. 

Report on Department of Defense role in Afghanistan 

The committee strongly supports the U.S. government’s efforts to 

combat the narcotics problem in Afghanistan, a problem that could 

both fuel terrorism and undermine the new government’s stability. 

However, the committee notes that in Afghanistan, the Department 

of Defense (DOD) has responded to an increasing number of requests for support from the Department of State and the Drug Enforcement Administration to help the Afghan Counter-narcotics Police develop the capacity to address the narcotics problem in their 

country. For instance, the Department has provided tactical training, field equipment and communications to police forces, especially 

the National Interdiction Unit and the Border Police. As part of 

these efforts, the Department is also constructing numerous bases 

of operations for Afghan Counter-narcotics Police, Border Police, 

Highway Police, and National Police. The bases of operation include: (1) smaller bases of operation for brigade to company level 

police along the Afghan border with Pakistan; (2) medium size forward operating bases of operation for interdiction forces, such as a 

forward operating base in Kandahar; and (3) larger projects, such 

as the permanent base of operations for the National Interdiction 

Unit and a temporary Counter-narcotics Judicial Center, both in 

Kabul. 

The committee is concerned that, despite the development of an 

inter-agency implementation plan for U.S counter-narcotics activities in Afghanistan, the Department is being asked to fund and 

manage activities that are well beyond its core mission. The construction of the $8.4 million Counter-narcotics Judicial Center, 

while certainly critical to the efforts to detain, try, and imprison 

those charged and ultimately convicted of drug crimes in AfghaniVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
372 

stan, is exemplary of the activities the committee believes are more 

appropriately undertaken by the Department of State. The committee understands that there may be unique circumstances surrounding this example, but finds it appropriate for the agencies involved in the counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan to reevaluate 

the division of labor to ensure that each agency is contributing in 

those areas in which they are able. The Department of Defense 

must continue to play an important role in the fight against narcotics in Afghanistan, but it must not take on roles in which other 

agencies have core capabilities. 

To that end, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State, the Administrator of the 

Agency for International Development, and the Director of the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, to submit a report updating the 

inter-agency counter-narcotics implementation plan for Afghanistan. This report should include a consideration of what activities 

should be reallocated based on the capabilities of each department 

and agency involved. It should also address any measures necessary to clarify the legal authority required to complete the mission, and the measures necessary for the U.S. government to successfully complete its counter-drug efforts in Afghanistan. This report should be submitted to the congressional defense committees 

and the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Committee on International Relations by December 31, 2005. 

Southwest border fence 

As part of the San Diego 14-Mile Border Infrastructure System, 

the Southwest Border Fence has served as an invaluable counternarcotics resource for United States Border Patrol agents since the 

project’s inception in 1997. However, the border fence project is still 

under construction and the area remains one of the nation’s most 

heavily utilized drug smuggling corridors. Since 1998, the California National Guard and other military personnel have been responsible for fence construction and general support of the border 

infrastructure system. Completion of the border fence would constitute a cohesive barrier against vehicle and pedestrian narcotics 

trafficking and allow counter-drug assets to be redeployed in other 

areas. 

In addition, the committee is aware that innovative high-tech 

fencing, such as fiber-optic-laced, is available and encourages the 

California National Guard to review these options for future fence 

construction. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million for this purpose. 

Support to National Security Agency 

This classified program would provide counter-drug intelligence 

support to the National Security Agency. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for this 

activity. 

373 

FINANCIAL MATTERS

Congressional Budget Justification Material 

Beginning with the Department of Defense budget submission for 

fiscal year 2007, the Department shall provide as part of the congressional budget justification material with documents annotated 

as the P–1, R–1, and 0–1, the future years defense program, summarized by appropriation, at an appropriate place at the beginning 

of the publication. 

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Civilian Casualties 

The estimates of the number of injuries and deaths among foreign non-combatants attributable to various U.S. military actions, 

particularly in Iraq, vary widely among non-governmental organizations. Currently, the U.S. military has no consistent means of 

clarifying these estimates because it does not track non-combatant 

deaths and injuries. The existence of accurate data would improve 

the ability of the military to defend itself when confronted with 

propaganda, may enable it to implement measures to reduce the 

number of civilian casualties in the future, and could significantly 

improve the U.S. military’s relationship with the local communities 

in which it operates, particularly in the Arab and Muslim worlds. 

For these reasons, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense 

to establish a consistent means of tracking the number of foreign 

non-combatant casualties believed to be the result of U.S. military 

operations. The Secretary is also urged to develop a means of systematically analyzing these data to develop recommendations for 

decreasing the number of such casualties in future conflicts. 

Counter Terrorism Surveillance Technologies 

The committee remains concerned that effective, counter-terrorism, force protection initiatives are too often not fielded to the 

troops in theater due to persistent bureaucratic delay. The committee recognizes and applauds the Department of Defense (DOD) 

for its efforts to follow committee guidance and implement rapid 

fielding initiatives. Even so, entrenched, cumbersome processes 

persist to a distressing degree. In one instance, an innovative static 

aerostat providing persistent real time intelligence to deployed 

troops was touted repeatedly as a success by DOD officials. When 

the committee asked about the necessity for more such systems, 

the response from the military department concerned was that 

there was no ‘‘requirement,’’ meaning that the validating paperwork had not yet entered official service acquisition channels. Yet, 

when this single deployed system was damaged, an urgent request 

for a replacement came from the field, demonstrating the value of 

the system. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to take 

full advantage of the rapid fielding authorities available to him to 

provide the Commander of U.S. Central Command with necessary 

persistent surveillance assets that are required by deployed units. 

Given the fluid nature of ongoing combat operations, the committee 

will not require a formal report but will monitor this situation diligently. 

374 

Emergency Response Coordination 

The committee is concerned by the seemingly confused federal, 

state, and local government response to the reports of anthrax contamination in two Department of Defense (DOD) Washington, DC 

area mailrooms in March 2005. The committee understands that 

internal DOD procedures were followed, but is nonetheless concerned about the overall confusion among local first responders and 

DOD employees. The challenging aspect of effective response to a 

weapon of mass destruction incident is the smooth cooperation and 

coordination among disparate federal, state, and local jurisdictions. 

In that regard, this incident demonstrated more clearly than carefully prepared exercises that much work needs to be done. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 

Secretary of Homeland Security, to examine this incident and submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2006, on lessons 

learned and steps that will be taken to improve coordination among 

all participating entities in any future weapons of mass destruction 

incident. 

Homeland Defense and Homeland Security 

The committee is heartened by the Department of Defense’s effort to develop and publish a ‘‘Strategy for Homeland Defense and 

Civil Support’’ which has been reviewed in final draft. The committee believes this strategy will be the foundation for Department 

of Defense and Department of Homeland Security cooperative efforts and is sorely needed. The committee supports the proposed 

strategy’s core principle of an active layered defense supporting priority objectives to achieve maximum awareness of threats and 

interdict and defeat threats at a safe distance. The committee further notes and endorses the strategy’s proposed heavy reliance on 

the reserve components and sensor and unmanned aerial vehicle 

technology to achieve those priority objectives. In that regard, the 

committee believes that the authority provided under section 512 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375) provides the Secretary with the flexibility to 

creatively employ the national guard in a number of missions that 

support this strategy. 

The committee also notes the strategy’s acknowledgement of the 

reality that the U.S. military must be prepared, upon the President’s order, to conduct military operations on domestic soil. The 

committee believes that some of these contingencies will arise with 

little warning, and that any necessary military response must 

therefore be carefully planned and rehearsed. In addition, any military action envisioned within the borders of the United States must 

be coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security, local jurisdictions, and first responders. 

The committee believes that contingency planning for a domestic 

military response is needed and should be a priority of the Commander, U.S. Northern Command. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to publish the strategy as soon as possible, in 

order that necessary coordination may be effected with the Secretary of Homeland Security, state and local governments and that 

375 

implementing guidance may be issued to combatant commanders 

and the Director of the National Guard Bureau. 

Report on Casualties and Damage Caused by Improvised Explosive 

Devices 

The committee notes that insurgents in Iraq continue to use improvised explosive devices (IED) against U.S. forces and that the 

Department of Defense force protection efforts would benefit greatly from collecting and analyzing critical, timely data on casualties 

sustained by members of the armed forces and damage to their vehicles. Such analysis would prove essential in monitoring insurgents’ tactical trends, understanding equipment vulnerabilities, 

evaluating add-on and up-armor solutions, and designing improved 

force protection. It could then help to reduce the number and severity of future casualties sustained as the result of IED use on the 

battlefield. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2006, a report on personnel casualties and vehicle damage resulting from hostile action 

in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2002. The report shall include: a detailed analysis of the number and types of casualties 

sustained by members of the armed forces which have been linked 

to IEDs; an analysis of whether and how types of personnel casualties sustained in IED attacks have varied depending on the level 

of vehicle armor of the vehicle attacked; the number of attacks on 

vehicles carrying technology referred to as IED-defeat technology in 

which a member was killed or injured; and the number and percentage of vehicles equipped with IED-defeat technology that were 

fully operational within one week after an IED attack. The Secretary should include within this report a plan to systematically 

track any future personnel casualties and vehicle damage linked to 

an IED attack. 

Separation and Coordination of Information Operations and Public 

Affairs 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should 

maintain a clear, functional distinction between information operations that attempt to affect potential adversaries’ information-collection efforts and public affairs activities that are designed to release timely, reliable, and accurate information to American and allied audiences. Noting that information operations and public affairs both involve the release of information in support of military 

commanders’ objectives, the committee believes that appropriate 

coordination of these two operationally important functions is essential to realize success in both areas. 

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to work to ensure 

that information operations and public affairs functions remain 

separate, to the maximum extent possible, and that information operations and public affairs entities coordinate on their efforts, as 

appropriate. 

376 

Update Future Years Defense Program—Modify Strategic Forces 

Major Force Program to Reflect New Triad 

The committee notes that the Future Years Defense Program 

(FYDP) includes a Major Force Program (MFP) for Strategic 

Forces. However, this MFP does not include all program elements 

that are either totally or partially dedicated to the New Triad outlined in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and its periodic assessments. The New Triad consists of non-nuclear and nuclear strike 

capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a responsive infrastructure. The identification and aggregation of program elements 

supporting the New Triad is an essential step in enabling senior 

policy makers and Congress to assess investment strategies for the 

New Triad. 

Commencing with the fiscal year 2007 budget, the Secretary of 

Defense is directed to modify the Future Years Defense Program 

budget submission to establish a virtual major force program for 

the New Triad that identifies and aggregates relevant program elements which are associated with the activities and capabilities 

identified for the New Triad. 

Update to and Guidance for the National Security Strategy 

The current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is broadly reviewing the way in which the military provides for the national defense, including the national defense strategy, the military’s needed 

joint capabilities, roles and missions of the Department of Defense 

(DOD), and how to man and balance the force. The QDR will likely 

be influenced by the conduct of operations in the global war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom since the publication of the 

last QDR in September 2001. 

The Department of Defense, however, is only one department 

with a significant role to play in defeating global terrorism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and deterring 

regional conflict. The role of all national security-related departments and agencies is brought together in the National Security 

Strategy, required to be produced annually under Title 50 of the 

United States Code. The committee notes that the Department of 

Defense has sought to capture lessons learned from the battlefields 

of Iraq and Afghanistan and strongly believes that the next 

iteration of the National Security Strategy must also fully explore 

and adjust to the lessons learned from experience in Iraq and Afghanistan by other departments and agencies. The National Security Strategy should provide a clear vision for how our nation may 

attain its security goals in a comprehensive manner, using all instruments of national power, including both military assets and 

non-military means such as communications and diplomacy, economic cooperation and foreign aid, cultural exchanges, and investments in educational disciplines such as science, engineering and 

foreign language skills. In crafting the strategy, the administration 

should pay careful attention to appropriate roles for each department and agency and the legislative authorities that may be needed to make each most effective. Such an analysis would benefit 

U.S. overall national security. 

To this end, the committee urges the President to update the National Security Strategy immediately, so that the Department can 

377 

fully implement the National Security Strategy as it develops the 

QDR. Further, as part of this effort, the committee strongly encourages the President to direct an analysis of department and agency 

roles and missions and needed legislative authorities that would 

make each most effective in achieving the goals of the National Security Strategy. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—Transfer Authority 

This section would provide fiscal year 2006 transfer authority to 

the Department of Defense for amounts up to $4,000 million. 

Section 1002—Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations for 

Fiscal Year 2005 

This section would authorize amounts enacted in the Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on 

Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13) for the Department of Defense. 

Section 1003—Increase in Fiscal Year 2005 General Transfer 

Authority 

This section would amend section 1001(a)(2) of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375) to increase the fiscal year 2005 transfer authority from $3,500 million to $6,185 million. 

Section 1004—Reports on Feasibility and Desirability of Capital 

Budgeting for Major Defense Acquisition Programs 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the feasibility and desirability of 

capital budgeting for major defense acquisition programs by July 1, 

2006. 

SUBTITLE B—NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Section 1011—Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Seattle, Washington 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to sell the 

yard floating drydock, YFD–70 to Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation, the current user of the drydock. This vessel will be sold at fair 

market value. The Secretary of the Navy would be authorized to 

set additional terms and conditions on the transfer as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 

States. 

Section 1012—Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Jacksonville, Florida 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to sell the 

medium auxiliary floating drydock SUSTAIN (AFDM–7), to Atlantic Marine Property Holding Company, the current user of the drydock. This vessel will be sold at fair market value and will continue 

378 

to be available to the Navy to serve ships stationed at the U.S. 

Naval Station, Mayport, Florida. The SUSTAIN will likely be 

scrapped if it is not purchased since it is in need of a major overhaul at a cost estimated at between $25.0 million and $30.0 million. The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to set additional 

terms and conditions on the transfer as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. 

Section 1013—Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Port Arthur, Texas 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey 

the inactive medium auxiliary floating drydock, AFDM–2 to the 

city of Port Arthur, Texas. This conveyance will be at no cost to the 

government. The Secretary of the Navy would be authorized to set 

additional terms and conditions on the transfer as the Secretary 

considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. 

Section 1014—Transfer of USS Iowa 

This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to transfer 

the historic USS Iowa to the Port of Stockton, California, subject 

to the submission of a satisfactory donation application. The committee understands that the Port of Stockton’s application will include its plans to donate 1,000 feet of dock space to make the USS 

Iowa available to visitors, a 90,000 square foot building to be used 

as a museum and ten acres of land for parking, a donation valued 

at approximately $65.0 million. The committee further understands 

that the port has specific plans to ensure an adequate number of 

visitors to the ship each year. 

Section 1015—Transfer of Ex-USS Forrest Sherman 

This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to transfer 

the decommissioned destroyer ex-USS Forrest Sherman (DD–931) 

to a nonprofit organization of the same name for historic preservation and public viewing, subject to the submission of a satisfactory 

donation application. This authority will expire five years after enactment of this Act. 

Section 1016—Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels 

This section would prohibit the secretary of a military department from entering into a contract for lease or charter of a vessel 

for a term of more than 24 months, including all options to renew 

or extend the contract if the hull, or superstructure of the vessel 

is constructed in a foreign shipyard. The President may waive this 

prohibition if he determines it is in the interests of national security of the United States. 

SUBTITLE C—COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section 1021—Extension of Department of Defense Authority to 

Support Counter-Drug Civilities 

This section would extend the expiring authority of the Department of Defense to provide specified support for the counter-drug 

activities of any other department or agency of the federal government or of any state, local, or foreign law enforcement agency 

379 

through fiscal year 2011. The current authority expires at the end 

of fiscal year 2006. 

Section 1022—Resumption of Reporting Requirement Regarding 

Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign 

Counter-Drug Activities 

This section would reinstate the requirement for the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report detailing expenditures of funds by the 

Secretary during fiscal year 2005 in direct and indirect support of 

the counter-drug activities of foreign governments. 

Section 1023—Clarification of Authority for Joint Task Forces to 

Support Law Enforcement Agencies Conduction Counter-Terrorism Activities 

This section would clarify that a joint task force supporting law 

enforcement agencies conducting counter-drug activities may use 

funds available for that activity to also support counter-terrorism 

activities by those law enforcement agencies. This section would 

provide the flexibility for the Department of Defense to use its resources, capabilities, and structures to not only assist other agencies in their counter-drug activities but also in their counter-terrorism activities. The fiscal authority provided here is a clarification of authority for joint task forces to support law enforcement 

agencies in both counter-drug and counter-terrorism missions originally provided by Congress in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). The committee 

notes that the Department has not yet issued policy guidance that 

would allow combatant commands and military services to use this 

authority. The committee urges the Department to issue such guidance immediately to permit intended missions to go forward. 

SUBTITLE D—MATTERS RELATING TO HOMELAND SECURITY

Section 1031—Responsibilities of Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense Relating to Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological 

Emergency Response 

This section would amend section 1413 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201) by 

designating the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense as the Department of Defense (DOD) official responsible for 

coordinating DOD assistance to federal, state, and local government officials dealing with chemical and biological emergency response. This section would also expand those responsibilities to include nuclear, radiological and high yield explosives and other federal agencies besides the Department of Energy. 

Section 1032—Testing of Preparedness for Emergencies Involving 

Nuclear, Radiological, Chemical, Biological, and High-Yield Explosives Weapons 

This section would amend section 1415 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201) to 

clarify the federal official responsible for testing of preparedness of 

federal, state, and local agencies to respond to emergencies involving nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons. Since 

380 

the enactment of section 1415, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(Public Law 107–296) created the Department of Homeland Security and assigned these responsibilities to the Secretary of Homeland Security. This section would also make other conforming 

amendments. 

Section 1033—Department of Defense Chemical, Biological, 

Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives Response Teams 

This section would amend section 1414 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201) to 

designate the Secretary of Homeland Security, rather than the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as the federal official who would request Department of Defense (DOD) assistance in a weapons of mass destruction emergency response; update the title of the DOD teams to more accurately reflect current 

capabilities; and require that the Secretary of Homeland Security 

coordinate plans to use these teams with the Secretary of Defense. 

Section 1034—Repeal of Department of Defense Emergency 

Response Assistance Program 

This section would repeal section 1412 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201). Section 1412 requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program 

to train other federal agency, state, and local agency personnel regarding emergency response to threats or incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–296) subsequently assigned those responsibilities to 

the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1041—Commission on the Long-Term Implementation of 

the New Strategic Posture of the United States 

This section would establish a Commission on the Long-Term 

Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the United States 

to assess and make recommendations about current U.S. strategy 

as described in the Nuclear Posture Review and other planning 

documents, as well as possible alternative strategies that could be 

pursued over the next 20 years. The commission would have broad 

purview to consider matters of policy, force structure, stockpile 

stewardship, and estimates of threats and force requirements, and 

would have the authority to hold hearings and take testimony. 

The Nuclear Posture Review, dated December 31, 2001, marked 

a transition from a strategic posture dominated by nuclear weapons to one dominated by non-nuclear capabilities. In particular, it 

sought to replace the triad of offensive land-, sea-, and air-based 

strategic nuclear delivery platforms with a triad of nuclear and 

non-nuclear delivery platforms, defense, and a responsive infrastructure tied together with advanced command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and adaptive 

planning capabilities that would lessen the overall United States 

dependence on nuclear weapons. The committee believes that the 

commission would play an important role in identifying the systemic processes and capabilities needed to implement that conVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00406 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
381 

struct. In order to rapidly meet the staffing and administrative 

needs of the commission, this section would direct the Secretary of 

Defense to enter into a contract with a Federally Funded Research 

and Development Center (FFRDC) to carry out support tasks. The 

committee expects that such a contract would be entered into after 

consultation with the commissioners in order to ensure they receive 

the support they require. This section further requires approval of 

the FFRDC by the Chairman of the commission. Additionally, the 

committee notes that FFRDCs have the capability to quickly respond to evolving commission needs through the execution of new 

contracts and new task orders on old contracts. The committee expects that the FFRDC selected by the Secretary of Defense would 

seek to maximize the commission’s flexibility, particularly in response to the needs identified by the commission. 

Section 1042—Reestablishment of EMP Commission 

This section would reestablish and extend the life of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, originally created in the Floyd D. 

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Public Law 106–398). The Commission reported its findings and 

recommendations to Congress in the summer of 2004 and subsequently terminated its existence. Concerned that asymmetric and 

disruptive threats using EMP weapons are not receiving the continued attention they require, the committee recommends a provision 

that would reconstitute the commission and extend its mission 

through 2010, while changing its duties and focusing it on the evolution of EMP threats and the implementation of appropriate countermeasures. 

Section 1043—Modernization of Authority Relating to Security of 

Defense Property and Facilities 

This section would allow the delegation of authority to issue security regulations at certain facilities to civilian directors of those 

facilities under the Internal Security Act of 1950 (Public Law 81–

831). Currently, such authority is limited to uniformed military officers. The section would make additional technical adjustments to 

the Internal Security Act of 1950 in order to reflect other changes 

in law made since the Internal Security Act’s adoption. 

Section 1044—Revision of Department of Defense 

Counterintelligence Polygraph Program 

This section would clarify and make permanent the standards by 

which the Department of Defense (DOD) conducts its counterintelligence polygraph program. This section would also expand the 

DOD counterintelligence polygraph authority to allow the Department to administer polygraph examinations to individuals whose 

duties involve assistance in intelligence or military missions where 

the misuse of information could jeopardize human life or safety; result in the loss of unique or uniquely productive intelligence 

sources or methods vital to U.S. national security; or compromise 

technologies, operational plans, and security procedures vital to the 

strategic advantage of the United States and its allies. 

382 

Section 1045—Repeal of Requirement for Report to Congress 

Regarding Global Strike Capability 

This section would repeal the requirement in section 1032 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 (Public 

Law 108–136) for the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on 

Global Strike for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 1046—Technical, Clerical, and Conforming Amendments 

This section would make various non-substantive clerical, conforming, and technical corrections. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Congress adopted general definitions for the terms ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ and ‘‘base 

closure laws’’, both located in section 101 of Title 10, United States 

Code. With that enactment, much of the unnecessary repetition 

was corrected by conforming amendments to other sections of title 

10. This section addresses the remaining conforming amendments 

to the United States Code that were not made in the 2004 Act as 

well as other technical corrections. 

Section 1047—Deletion of Obsolete Definitions in Titles 10 and 32, 

United States Code 

This section would update titles 10 and 32 of the United States 

Code by deleting the obsolete term ‘‘Territory’’ with a capital ‘‘T’’, 

defined in 1956 to refer to Alaska and Hawaii before statehood, 

and to make conforming changes. In the amended sections the reference to Puerto Rico is updated to reflect its status as a Commonwealth, thus ‘‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’’ is inserted in place 

of ‘‘Puerto Rico’’. 

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL 

OVERVIEW 

The Secretary of Defense is on the eve of promulgating final 

rules and regulations that will transform the Department of Defense (DOD) civilian workforce. Congress recognized the need for a 

more flexible workforce and granted the Secretary significant authority to develop and implement the National Security Personnel 

System (NSPS) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). The committee believes the 

Secretary can attain the full benefits of this authority by meeting 

the spirit and specificity of the law. Employee representatives must 

be included in the process and the proposed rules must be fair and 

credible. 

Implementation of NSPS is not the only significant matter to affect the DOD civilian workforce in fiscal year 2006. The upcoming 

base closure and realignment process will also impact the workforce. To aid these employees, the committee is recommending several provisions that provide authority for the Secretary of Defense 

to minimize negative personnel actions that result from U.S. military installation closures or realignments. 

383 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1101—Extension of Eligibility to Continue Federal 

Employee Health Benefits 

This section would amend section 8905a(d) of title 5, United 

States Code, by extending, until the end of fiscal year 2010, authority for certain individuals to elect continued health benefits coverage for up to 18 months after an involuntary or voluntary separation due to a reduction in force. Criteria for eligibility would remain in section 8905a(d) of title 5, United States Code, and would 

not be amended. 

Section 1102—Extension of Department of Defense Voluntary 

Reduction in Force Authority 

This section would amend section 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United 

States Code, by striking ‘‘September 30, 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2010’’. This would extend, for five years, the Secretary 

of Defense or the secretaries of the military departments’ authority 

to substitute an employee’s voluntary separation for another employee who would otherwise be separated under a reduction in 

force. This section would not amend the rules or regulations associated with this authority. 

Section 1103—Extension of Authority to Make Lump Sum 

Severance Payments 

This section would amend section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United 

States Code, by striking ‘‘October 1, 2006,’’ and inserting ‘‘October 

1, 2010’’. This would extend, until the end of fiscal year 2010, the 

Secretary of Defense or the secretaries of the military departments 

authority to pay to an employee the total amount of the severance 

pay in one lump sum. This section would not amend the rules or 

regulations associated with this authority. 

Section 1104—Authority for Heads of Agencies to Allow Shorter 

Length of Required Service by Federal Employees After Completion of Training 

This section would amend section 4108 of title 5, United States 

Code, to provide the head of an agency authority to determine the 

appropriate length of service an employee must perform in return 

for training paid for by the U.S. government. Currently, a civilian 

employee must agree in writing to continue service for a period 

equal to three times the length of the training period. This section 

would authorize the head of the agency to limit the three-to-one requirement. When it is in the federal agency’s best interest, the 

head of the agency would use the following factors to determine the 

length of service obligation: cost of training, labor-market conditions, the success of recent efforts to attract or retain individuals 

with special qualifications, protection of the agency’s interest, and 

workforce planning efforts. 

384 

Section 1105—Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on Total 

Compensation Paid to Federal Civilian Employees 

This section would authorize the heads of executive agencies to 

waive the annual limitation on total compensation established in 

section 5547 of title 5, United States Code, for federal civilian employees supporting military operations in the area of responsibility 

of the Commander of the United States Central Command for calendar year 2006. The annual limitation in section 5547 currently 

restricts the aggregate of basic and premium pay that a civilian 

employee may earn in a calendar year, which results in employees 

who have reached the annual limitation having to work additional 

overtime hours without pay. This section would increase the total 

amount of compensation permitted for a civilian employee to 

$200,000 for one calendar year. This section would apply to employees directly supporting a military operation, including a contingency operation, or an operation in response to a declared emergency. 

Section 1106—Transportation of Family Members Incident to 

Repatriation of Federal Employees Held Captive 

This section would add a new section in chapter 57 of title 5, 

United States Code, to authorize the head of an agency to transport family members to the repatriation site of an employee who 

had been held in captivity. 

Section 1107—Permanent Extension of Science, Mathematics, and 

Research for Transformation Defense Scholarship Program 

This section would make permanent the Science, Mathematics, 

and Research for Transformation program originated under section 

1105 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER 

NATIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Annual Report on Threat Posed to the United States by Weapons 

of Mass Destruction, Ballistic Missiles, and Cruise Missiles 

In section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), Congress directed the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, to submit an annual report on the threats posed by, as 

well as the proliferation of, nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) 

weapons, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. The committee 

commends the Defense Intelligence Agency for drafting this consistently comprehensive report, which has proven to be a useful 

and thorough intelligence assessment of worldwide NBC and missile threats. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and 

those defense officials who work on such intelligence issues to 

maintain the high quality of this report while meeting the annual 

January 30 deadline for submitting this report to Congress. 

385 

Report on Implementation of the American Servicemembers’

Protection Act 

The committee is aware that several nations have not signed 

‘‘Article 98’’ agreements to preclude the extradition of U.S. 

servicemembers to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution and that the Department of Defense has implemented the 

American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA) as Congress intended. As a result, International Military and Education funds 

and other forms of military assistance are no longer available to 

countries that have not concluded Article 98 agreements with the 

United States. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to require the 

ICC Task Force within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2006, on the 

results of ASPA implementation, both for the protection of American servicemembers and for bilateral defense relationships. 

Report on Military and Defense Aspects of the Proliferation 

Security Initiative 

The committee notes that since its inception in 2003, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) has successfully focused highlevel international attention on undertaking a multilateral, 

proactive approach to preventing proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction, their means of delivery, and related materials among 

nation states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. The Department of Defense (DOD) has played a critical, practical role in 

defining military and defense aspects of proliferation prevention 

and in organizing, leading, and participating in robust discussions, 

operations, and exercises with foreign military and civilian forces 

on operational aspects of the PSI. The committee believes that such 

military and defense activities are important to prevent proliferation. The committee notes the positive contribution to proliferation 

prevention and international security represented by the participation of approximately 60 nations in PSI operational exercises and 

urges the administration to continue to expand international participation. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

congressional defense committees, by February 1, 2006, a report on 

the military and defense activities carried out under the PSI since 

May 2003, including: a description of the activities carried out 

using any DOD assets; the amounts obligated or expended by the 

Department for such activities; the purposes, goals, and objectives 

for which such amounts were obligated or expended; and the success of each activity, including the objectives achieved for each. The 

report shall also include a description of DOD’s future goals and 

objectives, planned activities, estimated funding requirements, proposed funding plans, and a strategy to support partner capacitybuilding, as these items relate to the PSI. The committee urges the 

Secretary of Defense to identify in the fiscal year 2007 budget request the funding that would be associated with PSI activities. 

386 

Security and Stabilization Assistance 

The Department of Defense requested authority to provide up to 

$200.0 million in reconstruction, stabilization, and security assistance to a foreign country for the purposes of restoring or maintaining peace and security in that country. According to Department of 

Defense (DOD) officials, the Department would exercise that authority by providing up to $200.0 million in resources to the Department of State’s newly-created Office of Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). Most observers and several officials from the Executive Branch have testified before the committee that ultimate success in Iraq and Afghanistan depends on 

mobilizing all federal resources to rebuild both countries. The committee notes that DOD resources and personnel have been used extensively to conduct non-combat operations, such as organizing 

local governments, conducting reconstruction activities, establishing judicial and law enforcement procedures, restoring and 

managing the electric grid, and boosting agricultural output. While 

the armed services improvise extraordinarily well, skills for most 

of these activities are resident elsewhere in the federal government. Moreover, such activities are inconsistent with DOD’s warfighting strengths. Recognizing the desirability of improving the 

federal government’s capabilities in these areas, the Department of 

State created S/CRS to coordinate non-military efforts in these 

areas. The committee applauds the decision to create S/CRS and 

encourages the Department of Defense to work with S/CRS, but believes that S/CRS should be funded through the normal budgetary 

process for the Department of State. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Section 1201—Extension of Humanitarian and Civic Assistance 

Provided to Host Nations in Conjunction with Military Operations 

This section would increase funding authorization for equipment, 

services, and supplies provided in support of Department of Defense (DOD) activities to detect and clear landmines, effective at 

the beginning of fiscal year 2006. It would also add ‘‘surgical’’ to 

types of humanitarian and civic assistance in rural, underserved 

areas of the world, bringing the statute in line with language used 

to describe relevant DOD projects, and allow DOD officials to provide education, training, and technical assistance to host nation officials in connection with the humanitarian and civic assistance 

provided. 

Section 1202—Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to make up 

to $500.0 million in funding authorized for operations and maintenance in title XV available to United States military commanders 

to continue the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

(CERP). The administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority 

initially created CERP from assets seized from the Hussein regime 

in order to provide resources to local coalition forces for short-term, 

humanitarian restoration and reconstruction projects designed to 

387 

assist in the establishment of civil society in Iraq following the collapse of the Hussein regime. A similar program has since been initiated in Afghanistan. The committee notes that military commanders have praised the program as fundamental to their efforts 

in combating the insurgency and recommends funding the program 

at a level identical to that of fiscal year 2005. The committee is 

concerned, however, that the Department of Defense has not complied with the requirements of section 1201 of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375), which required the Secretary of Defense to 

identify those laws and regulations that would prohibit, restrict, 

limit, or otherwise constrain the exercise of CERP activities. The 

committee continues to believe that this report will be critical in 

streamlining the process of funding CERP and ensuring that military commanders can use the resources provided to them efficiently 

and effectively. 

Section 1203—Military Educational Exchanges Between Senior 

Officers and Officials of the United States and Taiwan 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

and conduct exchanges of senior defense officials and officers with 

the Republic of China on Taiwan at the level of Deputy Assistant 

Secretary and flag-rank officers or above. The committee notes that 

the United States currently conducts reciprocal visits with senior 

defense officials and military officers from the People’s Republic of 

China. The committee believes that similar programs with the Republic of China are appropriate. More importantly, the committee 

believes that maintaining a balance of power across the Taiwan 

straits is critical to ensuring deterrence and preserving peace, security, and stability in Asia. China’s National People’s Congress recently adopted an anti-secession law that essentially authorizes 

China’s Central Military Commission to use non-peaceful means 

against Taiwan if the latter declares independence. The committee 

is concerned that this law, in conjunction with an excessive military buildup by the People’s Republic of China, may signal a weakening of deterrence across the Taiwan straits. The committee believes that the exchange program, by helping to strengthen Taiwan’s defense, would help preserve and strengthen deterrence, 

thereby encouraging the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China to resolve their differences peacefully. 

Section 1204—Modification of Geographic Restriction Under Bilateral and Regional Cooperation Programs for Payment of Certain 

Expenses of Defense Personnel of Developing Countries 

Section 1051 of title 10, United States Code, allows the Secretary 

of Defense to pay the travel, subsistence, and similar personal expenses for defense personnel from developing countries to attend a 

conference, seminar, or similar meeting if the Secretary determines 

that attendance is in the best interests of U.S. national security. 

Such travel may occur within the area of responsibility of the unified combatant command in which the developing country is located 

or in connection with travel to Canada or Mexico. 

This section would authorize the Secretary to pay for such travel 

between areas of responsibility, effective at the beginning of fiscal 

388 

year 2006. This change would allow sponsoring unified combatant 

commands to avoid the need for extraordinary approvals to conduct 

a given conference or meeting across areas of responsibilities. 

Section 1205—Authority for Department of Defense to Enter into 

Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreements with Regional Organizations of Which the United States is not a Member 

This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to enter into 

acquisition and cross-servicing agreements (ACSA) with regional 

international organizations of which the United States is not a 

member. Under existing law, sections 2341 through 2344 of title 

10, United States Code, the United States may enter into such 

agreements only with governments of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), NATO itself, and international organizations of which it is a member. Acquisition and cross-servicing 

agreements are an important tool in supporting U.S. military operations. The committee recommends expanding the Secretary’s authority to enter into such agreements in order to improve the Secretary’s ability to prosecute the global war on terrorism. However, 

the committee does not recommend granting the request to eliminate existing monetary caps on amounts that could be accrued or 

obligated by the Secretary. The committee understands that the 

Department has not yet needed to exceed those caps and believes 

that monetary ceilings reduce the risks of creating significant liabilities or surpluses. 

Section 1206—Two-Year Extension of Authority for Payment of 

Certain Administrative Services and Support for Coalition Liaison Officers 

Section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, allows the Secretary of Defense to provide administrative services and support for 

the performance of duties by a coalition liaison officer of another 

nation while assigned temporarily to the headquarters of a United 

States combatant command, component command, or subordinate 

operational command. Section 1051a also allows the Secretary to 

pay travel, subsistence, and duty-related personal expenses of a coalition liaison officer of a developing country while so assigned. 

This authority expires on September 30, 2005. 

The committee recommends that this authority be extended until 

September 30, 2007. 

SUBTITLE B—NONPROLIFERATION MATTERS AND COUNTRIES OF

CONCERN

Section 1211—Report on Acquisition by Iran of Nuclear Weapons 

This section would express the Sense of Congress that preventing 

Iranian acquisition or development of weapons of mass destruction 

and their associated delivery systems remains the paramount policy goal of U.S. policy towards Iran. This section would further require the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff to assess the strategic implications of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. The committee notes that European 

Union negotiations with Iran have, thus far, failed to convince Iran 

to forego its pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle, despite years of effort 

389 

in which the European Union has offered several incentives to 

Iran. The committee notes Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons 

would have adverse consequences for security in the region and 

recommends a study of those consequences in order to better prepare the United States. 

Section 1212—Procurement Sanction against Foreign Persons that 

Transfer Certain Defense Articles and Services to the People’s 

Republic of China 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from purchasing goods or services from any entity that knowingly transfers 

an item that is on the United States Munitions List (USML) to the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC). The committee notes that China’s military modernization has proceeded apace with roughly double-digit increases in its defense budget almost every year for the 

last decade and a half. The committee is concerned that China’s 

military modernization now exceeds its legitimate security needs, 

is undermining the balance of power that has maintained peace 

and security in the Western Pacific for decades, may be undermining deterrence in the region, and may be contributing to the increasingly bellicose nature of Chinese foreign policy. 

In response to the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the 

United States and the European Union (EU) imposed embargoes on 

trading arms with China. Despite China’s continuing poor record 

on human rights and the adverse implications for peace and security in Asia, the EU has announced that it intends to lift the embargo in the near future. In response to those concerns, Chairman 

Henry Hyde of the House Committee on International Relations introduced House Resolution 57, which states in part that the House 

of Representatives ‘‘deplores the recent increase in arms sales by 

member states of the European Union to the People’s Republic of 

China and the European Council’s decision to finalize work toward 

lifting its arms embargo on China, actions that place European security policy in direct conflict with United States security interests 

and with the security interests of United States friends and allies 

in the Asia and Pacific region [and] declares that such a development in European security policy is inherently inconsistent with 

the concept of mutual security interests that lies at the heart of 

United States laws for transatlantic defense cooperation at both 

the governmental and industrial levels and would necessitate limitations and constraints in these relationships that would be unwelcome on both sides of the Atlantic.’’ The House of Representatives 

adopted House Resolution 57 on February 22, 2005, by a vote of 

411 to 3. 

On April 14, 2005, the House Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee International Relations held a joint hearing 

to further explore the implications of any EU decision to lift the 

arms embargo. During the hearing, Assistant Secretary of Defense 

Peter Rodman testified that ‘‘[a]ny decision by the European Union 

to lift its embargo on arms to China * * * is a bad idea and it 

would have serious consequences for U.S.-European relations. [A] 

lift of the EU embargo raises the prospect of European advanced 

technology aiding the military modernization drive of the People’s 

Republic of China—with direct implications for the safety of U.S. 

personnel whose mission it is to carry out the commitments the 

390 

United States has made to allies and friends.’’ R. Nicholas Burns, 

the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, further noted, ‘‘We 

believe that lifting the embargo would be detrimental to peace and 

security in the Asia/Pacific region, and that it would be the wrong 

signal to send given continued, serious human rights abuses taking 

place in China.’’ This section would create disincentives for potential arms exports to China by denying sellers access to Department 

of Defense procurement opportunities and would provide incentives 

for foreign persons to choose not to export arms to China in order 

to maintain their ability to sell goods and services to the Department of Defense. 

Section 1213—Prohibition on Procurements from Communist 

Chinese Military Companies 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from purchasing goods or services from any foreign person connected to the 

Chinese military or security forces. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1221—Purchase of Weapons Overseas for Force Protection 

Purposes 

This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to purchase 

weapons from any foreign person, foreign government, international organization, or other entity located in a country in which 

United States combat personnel are engaged in military operations 

for the purposes of protecting those personnel. The Secretary of Defense has conducted so-called weapons ‘‘buy back’’ programs in the 

past in order to protect United States military personnel using authority to expend funds for ‘‘emergency and extraordinary expenses’’ contained in section 127 of Title 10, United States Code. 

The section, however, has generally been reserved for unique circumstances. The length of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, suggests that so-called weapons ‘‘buy backs’’

may occur more frequently and regularly than would be suited to 

section 127. Therefore, the committee recommends granting the 

Secretary permanent authority to conduct such a program in order 

to improve the force protection of U.S. military personnel. 

Section 1222—Requirement for Establishment of Certain Criteria 

Applicable to On-Going Global Posture Review 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 

criteria for assessing the costs and benefits of deploying to particular overseas locations and for improving those facilities. The 

Department of Defense and the Department of State are in the 

process of conducting a Global Posture Review to update and alter 

deployment and basing options for the United States armed forces. 

In conjunction with the transition to a more expeditionary Army, 

the Global Posture Review seeks to shift from a limited number of 

permanent overseas bases to a larger number of more austere facilities across a wider range of countries. The committee acknowledges the need to update overseas deployment plans and maintain 

operational flexibility, but is concerned that the strategic and cost 

criteria for making investment and deployment decisions remain 

391 

vague and vary across the regional combatant commands. Decisions may be based in part on careful consideration of current and 

foreseeable threat environments, fair cost-sharing arrangements 

with host nations, the judicious use of low-density/high-demand assets, and the ability of allies and partner nations to share responsibility for regional or other defense requirements. For example, the 

United States maintains the presence of four F–15 Eagle fighter 

aircraft, as well as search and rescue helicopters and tanker aircraft to support the fighter aircraft, in the Republic of Iceland at 

a cost to the United States of more than $250.0 million each year. 

A relic of the United States force posture during the Cold War, this 

presence offers no military benefit to the Republic of Iceland or the 

United States, which could fulfill bilateral treaty requirements by 

providing for Icelandic defense using other aircraft stationed on 

continental Europe and in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the 

committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary to establish criteria and analytical mechanisms for weighing 

the costs and benefits of one site over another in order to avoid creating similar circumstances as a result of the Global Posture Review. The committee believes that such criteria and analytical tools 

will prove instrumental in assessing future proposals for overseas 

military construction. 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 

OVERVIEW 

FUNDING OVERVIEW

The budget request for Cooperative Threat Reduction contained 

$415.5 million for fiscal year 2006, representing an increase of $7.6 

million from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2005. This request includes: $30.0 million for nuclear transportation security; 

significant increases for strategic arms elimination in Russia and 

for administration and support; and a $49.4 million decrease for 

chemical weapons destruction in Russia. 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Border Security 

The committee notes that the Departments of Defense, Energy, 

Homeland Security, Justice, and State each implements programs 

to prevent the cross-border movement of weapons of mass destruction-related materials and technologies, narcotics, or other materials that support proliferation or terrorist efforts. For example, the 

Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration 

requested almost $100.0 million in fiscal year 2006 funding to install equipment at border crossings and ports in Russia and other 

regions of concern to prevent and detect nuclear material smuggling. The Department of Defense is receiving over $40.0 million in 

fiscal year 2005 to provide non-Russian former Soviet states with 

equipment, training, and support to prevent cross-border proliferation of weapons of mass destruction-related materials. The Department of State also works with former Soviet states, providing more 

392 

than $40.0 million annually in technical assistance, training materials, and support to enhance export controls and border security 

capabilities. In addition to Department of Defense and Department 

of State counter-narcotics efforts, the Departments of Justice’s 

Drug Enforcement Administration has a robust program to detect 

illicit cross-border transfers of narcotics, which represent an important element of terrorist funding. 

While such programs play a significant role in efforts to combat 

proliferation and terrorism, the committee is concerned that inadequate coordination may lead to unnecessary duplication, unforeseen gaps, or contradictory efforts. The committee is particularly 

concerned by the conclusions of a January 2005 report, ‘‘Weapons 

of Mass Destruction: Nonproliferation Programs Need Better Integration,’’ in which the Government Accountability Office noted the 

poor coordination of threat reduction and nonproliferation programs within the federal interagency process. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with other relevant federal departments and 

agencies, to develop a joint plan for integrating all United States 

border security-related activities with those of the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Energy. This plan shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services within six months of the enactment 

of this Act. 

Given the absence of a clear, coordinated plan to integrate 

United States programs that address border security, including but 

not limited to programs affecting domestic borders, the committee 

recommends that Congress reconsider providing future funding for 

improving the security of foreign borders. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Programs and Funds 

This section would define the programs and funds that are Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds as those authorized 

to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act and specify that Cooperative Threat Reduction funds shall remain available for obligation for three fiscal years. 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations 

This section would authorize $415.5 million for the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction program. This section would authorize specific 

amounts for each Cooperative Threat Reduction program element 

and would require notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2006 funds for 

purposes other than those specifically authorized. This section 

would also provide limited authority to obligate amounts for a Cooperative Threat Reduction program element in excess of the 

amount specifically authorized for that purpose. 

393 

Section 1303—Authority to Obligate Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Proliferation Prevention Funds for Nuclear Weapons Storage Security 

In a February 2005 joint statement, the President of the United 

States and the President of Russia declared their intent to expand 

and deepen cooperation on nuclear security with the goal of enhancing the security of nuclear facilities. As a result, it may be possible to expand the funding authority for nuclear weapons storage 

security during fiscal year 2006. The Department of Defense has 

indicated additional funds could be used for nuclear weapons storage security if the Russian government will cooperate on more 

projects. 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to obligate 

fiscal year 2006 funds appropriated for the Cooperative Threat Reduction weapons of mass destruction proliferation prevention initiative for nuclear storage security, provided that the Secretary submits written notification and justification to Congress 15 days 

prior. 

Section 1304—Extension of Limited Waiver of Restrictions on Use 

of Funds for Threat Reduction in States of the Former Soviet 

Union 

This section would provide the President with the authority for 

calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007 to waive a former Soviet 

state’s eligibility requirements, section 5852 of title 22, United 

States Code, for funds, providing that the President certifies to 

Congress that a waiver is important to the national security interests of the United States and submits a more detailed report to 

Congress on that state’s activities and the President’s plan for addressing eligibility shortfalls. The committee recommends shifting 

the waiver authority from a fiscal year to a calendar year in order 

to minimize the risk of unintended interruptions in the program 

that could occur when fiscal year waiver authority is not renewed 

before the end of a fiscal year. 

The committee does not recommend providing permanent waiver 

authority because it believes that effective oversight of Cooperative 

Threat Reduction programs requires the issue to be reviewed on a 

more frequent basis. 

Section 1305—Report on Elimination of Impediments to Nuclear 

Threat-Reduction and Non-Proliferation Programs in the Russian 

Federation 

This section would require the President to submit to the Congress a report on impediments to the effective execution of threat 

reduction programs in the states of the former Soviet Union. The 

committee notes that the United States has successfully assisted 

the states of the former Soviet Union to eliminate excess strategic 

nuclear delivery vehicles in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan and 

that its programs to eliminate other weapons of mass destructionrelated programs and infrastructure in the states of the former Soviet Union have been quite successful. The past success of such 

programs has depended almost entirely on their cooperative nature 

and the pursuit of mutual interests held by the United States and 

the partnering country. In some areas, the Russian Federation has 

394 

been less cooperative than the other former Soviet Republics, leading to delays in program implementation that limit the efficiency 

with which U.S. threat reduction programs are conducted. Rather 

than blaming such inefficiencies on Russia or the terms under 

which United States assistance is provided, the committee believes 

it is important to isolate the causes of those inefficiencies and direct threat reduction programs into areas where there is mutual interest in completing the task and achieving the non-proliferation 

goal. Therefore, the committee recommends a Presidential report 

that would help identify those areas where different approaches 

and expectations by the Russian Federation and the United States 

are causing inefficiencies and make recommendations for addressing those problems. 

TITLE XIV—CONTRACT DISPUTE ENHANCEMENT 

OVERVIEW 

This title would provide for a consolidation of the myriad of small 

agency-specific boards of contract appeals into an enhanced appeals 

system centered in two consolidated boards; one for most of the 

government’s civilian agencies and another for our defense agencies 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA). The consolidation would eliminate multiple board rules, increase management efficiency, and improve access to the appeals process for businesses including small businesses. The title would, for the most 

part leave in place, to the extent they are consistent with the new 

structure, the current Contract Dispute Act of 1978, (Public Law 

95–563, sections 601–614 of title 41, United States Code), provisions regarding board procedures and jurisdiction. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1411—Definitions 

The section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide the definitions of ‘‘Defense 

Board,’’ ‘‘Civilian Board,’’ ‘‘Board Judge,’’ ‘‘Chairman,’’ ‘‘Board concerned,’’ and ‘‘executive agency’’. 

SUBTITLE B—ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVILIAN AND DEFENSE BOARDS

OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Section 1421—Establishment 

The section would amend the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (Disputes Act) (41 U.S.C. 607) to provide for the establishment of a Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals in the Department 

of Defense and a Civilian Board of Contract Appeals in the General 

Services Administration. The two Boards shall review appeals by 

contractors of decisions by a contracting officer in accordance with 

the Disputes Act. 

395 

Section 1422—Membership 

The section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide for the selection of judges 

for the Defense Board of Contract Appeals (Defense Board) by the 

Secretary of Defense in accordance with rules issued by the Defense Board. The selection shall be without regard to political affiliation and on the basis of professional qualifications. The section 

also would provide for the selection of judges for the Civilian Board 

of Contract Appeals (Civilian Board) by the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy (Administrator) under rules issued by the 

Office for Federal Procurement Policy and from a register maintained by the Administrator. The selection, as in the case of the 

Defense Board, shall be without regard to political affiliation and 

on the basis of professional qualifications. The members of the 

Boards shall be selected and appointed as are administrative law 

judges under section 3105 of title 5, United States Code, with the 

additional requirement that they have at least 5 years experience 

in public contract law. 

This section would provide further that members of the current 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals would serve as members 

of the new Defense Board while members of the current agency 

boards of contract appeals other than the Armed Services Board 

shall serve on the new Civilian Board. Judges of both Boards shall 

be subject to removal in the same manner as administrative law 

judges under section 7521 of title 5, United States Code, and they 

will be compensated under section 5372a of title 5, United States 

Code. In any event, current members of the Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals will serve as members of the Defense Board 

and current members of the other agency boards will serve as 

members of the Civilian Board. 

Finally, this section would provide that members of the Defense 

and Civilian Boards would be subject to removal in the same manner as administrative law judges under section 7521 of title 5, 

United States Code, while compensation for the chairs of both 

Boards and all other members shall be determined under section 

5372a of title 5, United States Code. 

Section 1423—Chairmen 

The section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide for the designation of the 

Chairman of the Defense Board of Contract Appeals by the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman would serve for five years and be 

selected of Contract Appeals from among sitting judges having at 

least five years service as a member of the current Armed Services 

Board. Similarly, this section would provide for the selection of the 

Chairman of the Civilian Board by the Administrator for Federal 

Procurement Policy from among the sitting judges of Contract Appeals serving at least five years on agency boards of contract appeals other than the Armed Services Board. The Chairman of the 

Civilian Board of Contract Appeals would serve for five years. 

The Chairman of each respective Board would be responsible for: 

(1) appointment and fixing compensation of Board personnel pursuant to part III of title 5 of the United States Code; (2) supervision 

of Board personnel; (3) operation of a Clerk’s Office, including reVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00421 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
396 

ceipt of filings, assignment of cases and maintenance of records; 

and (4) prescription of necessary rules and regulations for the administration and management of the Board. Finally, this section 

provides that the Chairmen of the respective Boards may each appoint up to two other Board judges as Vice Chairmen to act in the 

place of the Chairman in the Chairman’s absence. 

Section 1424—Rulemaking Authority 

This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide that the Chairmen of the 

Defense and Civilian Boards in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall jointly issue and maintain procedural rules and regulations necessary for the functioning 

of the Boards as well as statements of policy of general applicability. 

Section 1425—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide that funds are to be authorized for fiscal year 2006 and succeeding fiscal years to carry 

out this title and to provide that funds for the activities of each 

Board shall be appropriated separately. 

SUBTITLE C—FUNCTIONS OF DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN BOARDS OF

CONTRACT APPEALS

Section 1431—Contract Disputes 

This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide that the Defense Board 

of Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals 

shall have jurisdiction as provided by the Contract Disputes Act of 

1978 (41 U.S.C. 607(a) and (b)). 

Section 1432—Enhanced Access for Small Business 

This section would amend section 9(a) of the Contract Disputes 

Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 608) to provide that the Defense Board of 

Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals shall 

provide for expedited disposition of appeals of small businesses 

where the amount in dispute is $150,000 or less. 

Section 1433—Applicability to Certain Contracts 

This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide that the authority conferred on the Defense Board of Contract Appeals and the Civilian 

Board of Contract Appeals is applicable to contracts not greater 

than the simplified acquisition threshold and to contracts for the 

procurement of commercial items. 

397 

SUBTITLE D—TRANSFERS AND TRANSITION, SAVINGS, AND

CONFORMING PROVISIONS

Section 1441—Transfer and Allocation of Appropriations and 

Personnel 

This section would provide for the transfer of the personnel, unexpended appropriations and assets of the Armed Services Board of 

Contract Appeals (ASBCA) to the Defense Board of Contract Appeals and for the transfer of the personnel, unexpended appropriations, and assets of the agency boards of contract appeals, other 

than the ASBCA, the Tennessee Valley Authority Board, and Postal Service Board to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. Finally, 

this section would provide that the personnel transferred could not 

be separated or reduced in compensation for one year after the 

transfer and would set forth the standards to be followed by the 

Boards for possible later reductions in force. 

Section 1442—Terminations and Savings Provisions 

This section would provide for the termination of the affected 

agency boards of contract appeals and for the rules for affect on 

pending proceedings before the agency boards. 

Section 1443—Contract Disputes Authority of Boards 

This section would provide conforming amendments to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (Disputes Act) (41 U.S.C. 601) needed 

by the establishment of the Defense Board of Contract Appeals and 

the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Civilian Board) regarding 

contract disputes. This section also would establish the Postal 

Service Board of Contract Appeals to decide appeals under the Disputes Act for contracts awarded by the United States Postal Service or the Postal Rate Commission and provide for the selection and 

appointment of Board judges by the Postmaster General in the 

same manner as judges of the Civilian Board. 

Section 1444—References to Agency Boards of Contract Appeals 

This section would provide that any reference to the current 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) be treated as 

referring to the Defense Board of Contract Appeals and that any 

reference to an agency board of contract appeals other than the 

ASBCA, the Tennessee Valley Authority Board, or Postal Services 

Board be treated as referring to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. 

Section 1445—Conforming Amendments 

This section would provide for the necessary conforming amendments to title 5 and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 

(41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.). 

398 

SUBTITLE E—EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS AND APPOINTMENT OF

CHAIRMEN

Section 1451—Effective Date 

This section would provide that title II of the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) as added by this 

title and the amendments and repeals shall take effect within one 

year of enactment of this Act. 

Section 1452—Regulations 

This section would provide that within one year after the enactment of this Act, the Chairmen of the current Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and the current General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA) in consultation with the 

Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy (Administrator) 

jointly issue procedural rules, regulations, and statements of policy 

for the Defense Board of Contract Appeals and Civilian Board of 

Contract Appeals. This section would further provide that within 

one year of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the ASBCA 

shall issue rules governing the establishment of a register of applicants and selection of judges for the Defense Board and the Administrator shall do the same for the Civilian Board. 

Section 1453—Appointment of Chairmen of Defense Board and 

Civilian Board 

This section would provide that notwithstanding section 1451 

above, within one year of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

Defense shall appoint the Chairman of the Defense Board of Contract Appeals and the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall appoint the Chairman of the Civilian Board of Contract 

Appeals. 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF INCREASED 

COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM 

AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM 

OVERVIEW 

The committee recommends authorization of $49,069.2 million in 

funds to be appropriated available upon enactment of this Act to 

support the defense activities principally associated with Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and the Operation Enduring Freedom. These funds 

are designated for emergency contingency operations related to the 

global war on terrorism pursuant to H. Con. Res. 95, establishing 

the congressional budget for the United States government for fiscal year 2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 

2005, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 

2007 through 2010, as passed by the House of Representative on 

March 17, 2005. 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS 

The following table summarizes authorizations included in the 

bill for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

399 


Insert graphic folio 408 HR89.139
400 


Insert graphic folio 409 HR89.140
401 


Insert graphic folio 410 HR89.141
402 


Insert graphic folio 411 HR89.142
403 


Insert graphic folio 412 HR89.143
404 


Insert graphic folio 413 HR89.144
405 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Budget Realignment 

The committee’s recommendation in this title includes a realignment of $2.1 billion from the budget request for programs and 

projects relating to the global war on terror. The committee’s recommendation would ensure that funding relating to the global war 

on terror is accurately consolidated in this title as well as facilitate 

proper execution of the funds during fiscal year 2006. 

Procurement 

The committee’s recommendations for procurement in this title 

include continued support of the force protection needs of units deployed and engaged in the global war on terrorism. Included in the 

force protection recommendation is funding for Up-Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), tactical wheeled 

vehicle recapitalization and modernization programs for the most 

heavily used vehicles in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 

Enduring Freedom, night vision devices and improvised explosive 

device jammers. In addition, the committee recognizes the need to 

replenish critical small arms and ammunition procurement programs. Included in the small arms and procurement recommendation is funding for the M16 rifle, M240 medium machine gun and 

M4 carbine modifications and .50 caliber cartridges, 120mm tank 

ammunition canister, and 155mm high explosive projectiles 

The budget request contained $129.7 million for Special Operations Forces (SOF) rotary wing upgrades and sustainment, but included no funds for the MH–47 infrared engine exhaust suppressor. 

The committee understands that these helicopter heat suppressors 

are a critical force protection requirement for the Army SOF MH–

47 fleet now operating in a hostile environment, and believes that 

the entire fleet should be protected as soon as these suppressors 

can be manufactured. The committee notes that this item is on the 

unfunded priority list of the Commander, Special Operations Command. The committee recommends $137.5 million for SOF rotary 

wing upgrades and sustainment, an increase of $7.8 million for the 

procurement of additional MH–47 infrared engine exhaust suppressors. 

Operations and Maintenance 

The military departments and defense agencies need operations 

and maintenance funds to pay for food, fuel, spare parts, maintenance, transportation, camp, post, and base expenses associated 

with Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Without additional funding at the start of fiscal year 

2006, the military departments will be forced to use third and 

fourth quarter funds in the initial months of fiscal year 2006 to pay 

for OIF and OEF costs. The committee’s recommendation includes 

costs associated with Operation Noble Eagle as well as the additional costs incurred by stateside installations for increased mobilizations and demobilizations due to OIF and OEF. 

406 

Military Personnel 

Over the past three years, the committee has recommended increases in the active component manpower to sustain the full range 

of capabilities required of the mission assigned to the armed forces. 

The committee recommends funding in this title a cumulative active component increase of 30,000 for the Army and 4,000 for the 

Marine Corps over and above the budget request. Included in the 

committee’s recommendation are the costs associated with Operation Noble Eagle as well as continued support for the recent benefit increases to the death gratuity and Survivor’s Group Life Insurance. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL INCREASES

Section 1501—Purpose 

This section would establish this title and make emergency authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act 

for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts otherwise 

authorized in this Act, to provide for additional costs due to the 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Section 1502—Army Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $2.6 billion for Army 

procurement. 

Section 1503—Navy and Marine Corps Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $642.2 million for 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement. 

Section 1504—Defense-Wide Activities Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $103.9 million for Defense-Wide Activities procurement. 

Section 1505—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 

Defense-Wide Activities 

This section would authorize an additional $75.0 million for Defense-Wide Activities research, development, test and evaluation. 

Section 1506—Operations and Maintenance 

This section would authorize an additional $30.2 billion for operations and maintenance programs. 

Section 1507—Defense Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize an additional $1.7 billion for Defense Working Capital Funds. 

Section 1508—Defense Health Program 

This section would authorize an additional $846.0 million to the 

Defense Health Program for operations and maintenance. 

407 

Section 1509—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize an additional $9.4 billion for military personnel. 

Section 1510—Iraq Freedom Fund 

This section would authorize an additional $1.0 billion for the 

Iraq Freedom Fund to remain available for transfer until April 30, 

2006. 

Section 1511—Classified Programs 

This section would authorize an additional $2.5 billion for the 

classified programs. 

Section 1512—Treatment as Additional Authorization 

This section would authorize an additional $49.0 billion for emergency contingency operations related to Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Section 1513—Transfer Authority 

This section would provide transfer authority of $3.0 billion to 

the Department of Defense for the authorizations contained in this 

title. 

Section 1514—Availability of Funds 

This section would require the funds provided in this title to be 

made available for obligation by the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006. 

SUBTITLE B—PERSONNEL PROVISIONS

Section 1521—Increase in Active Army and Marine Corps Strength 

Levels 

This section would increase the active strengths for the Army 

and Marine Corps for fiscal year 2006 by 30,000 and 4,000 respectively above the authorizations contained in section 401. These increases would provide fiscal year 2006 authorized end strengths for 

the Army of 512,400 and for the Marine Corps of 179,000. This section would also establish new minimum active duty end strengths 

for the Army and Marine Corps as of September 30, 2006, that reflect the committee’s recommendations for Army and Marine Corps 

end strengths provided by this section. This section would require 

that the fiscal year 2006 end strength increases authorized by this 

section over those authorized by section 401 be paid from funds 

provided in a contingent emergency reserve fund or emergency supplemental. 

Section 1522—Additional Authority for Increases of Army and Marine Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 2007 

Through 2009 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase 

the Army’s active end strengths up to 532,400 by the end of fiscal 

year 2009, a strength that would be 20,000 above the fiscal year 

408 

2006 authorization provided by section 1521. The section also 

would reaffirm the authorization for future growth in the active 

end strengths for the Marine Corps that was provided by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375): a growth of up to 184,000 by the end 

of fiscal year 2009, which is 5,000 above the fiscal year 2006 authorization provided in section 1521. The section would require the 

Secretary to provide the funding in the budget request in fiscal 

year 2007 and thereafter, if he proposes to increase the Army or 

the Marine Corps active duty personnel end strengths as authorized by this section. 

Section 1523—Military Death Gratuity Enhancement 

This section would authorize an increased death gratuity of 

$100,000 to be paid to designated beneficiaries of military deaths 

resulting from wounds, injuries, and illnesses incurred as a result 

of combat related circumstances to include armed conflict, hazardous service, performance of duty under conditions simulating 

war, or through an instrumentality of war, or incurred in a combat 

operation or zone as designated by the Secretary of Defense. The 

section would continue the death gratuity increase authorized in 

section 1013(e)(2) of division A of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13). 

Section 1524—Permanent Prohibition Against Requiring Certain 

Injured Members to Pay for Meals Provided by Military Treatment Facilities 

This section would preclude service members undergoing medical 

recuperation, therapy, or other forms of continuous care at a military treatment facility from being charged for meals provided by 

that medical facility so long as the injury, illness or disease was 

incurred or aggravated while serving on active duty in support of 

Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, or any 

other combat operation or zone designated by the Secretary of Defense. The section would continue the restriction against charging 

for meals that was authorized in section 1023 of division A of the 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13). 

Section 1525—Permanent Authority to Provide Travel and Transportation Allowances for Dependents to Visit Hospitalized Members Injured in Combat Operation or Combat Zone 

This section would expand the authority for family members to 

travel within the Untied States at government expense to visit hospitalized wounded service members who are not seriously ill or injured or near death when the injury was incurred while the member was serving in a combat operation or zone as designated by the 

Secretary of Defense. This section would continue the transportation benefits that were authorized in section 1026 of division A 

of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 

the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 

109–13). 

409 

Section 1526—Permanent Increase in Length of Time Dependents 

of Certain Deceased Members May Continue to Occupy Military 

Family Housing or Receive Basic Allowance for Housing 

This section would increase the period that surviving family 

members of service members who die on active duty would be authorized to reside in government quarters or to receive basic allowance for housing to support a private sector residence from 180 

days to 365 days. This section would continue increased housing 

benefits that were authorized in section 1022 of division A of the 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13). 

Section 1527—Availability of Special Pay for Members During 

Rehabilitation From Combat-Related Injuries 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay $430 

per month to a service member with a combat related injury sustained in a combat operation or zone designated by the Secretary 

of Defense. The pay would begin the month immediately following 

medical evacuation from the area of the combat operation or the 

combat zone after the member incurred a wound, injury, or illness 

that resulted from armed conflict, hazardous service, performance 

of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war. The pay would terminate at the end of the first 

month during which one of the following occurs: 

(1) The member is paid a benefit under the traumatic injury 

rider of the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) authorized section 1032 of division A of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13). 

(2) The member is no longer hospitalized in a military treatment facility or in a facility under the auspices of the military 

heath care system. 

Section 1528—Allowance to Cover Monthly Deduction From Basic 

Pay for Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Coverage for 

Members Serving in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 

Iraqi Freedom 

This section would require the secretaries concerned to pay members serving in the theater of operations for Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) a monthly allowance equal to the deduction in pay required to pay the premium 

for Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage obtained by the member, or an amount equal to the deduction in pay 

the member would incur if the member had elected the maximum 

amount of coverage under SGLI. The section would also require the 

secretaries to provide information about the allowance to members 

serving in the OEF and OIF theaters and members projected to 

serve there and to afford such members the opportunity to obtain 

SGLI insurance coverage or increase their existing coverage. 

410 

SUBTITLE C—MATTERS INVOLVING SUPPORT PROVIDED BY FOREIGN

NATIONS

Section 1531—Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for 

Support Provided to United States Military Operations 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse foreign military forces for costs they incur in support of U.S. 

military operations. Since September 11, 2001, several countries 

have undertaken military operations specifically in support of U.S. 

military operations in the global war on terrorism. These include 

Pakistan, Jordan, and other states that would otherwise lack the 

financial means to support U.S. military operations. In supplemental appropriations, the Congress has provided the Secretary 

with funds to be used to reimburse those countries. By April 2005, 

the Secretary is expected to reimburse Pakistan for roughly $704.0 

million in expenses it incurred in fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 

2005, the Secretary expects to reimburse the government of Pakistan for roughly $1.2 billion in expenses it incurs, largely as a result of military operations along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. 

This section would enable the Secretary to continue reimbursing 

countries for their support during fiscal year 2006. 

TITLE XVI—CONTRACTORS ON THE BATTLEFIELD 

REGULATORY ACT 

OVERVIEW 

This title would address the myriad of issues related to contractors on the battlefield. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has not taken the actions necessary to regulate 

and account for this growing segment of personnel present in the 

Department’s various areas of operations. This title would define 

both contractors ‘‘accompanying the force’’ and ‘‘not- accompanying 

the force.’’ This title would specifically address combatant commander policy regarding contractors on the battlefield. Additionally, this title would address the issue of force protection for contractors on the battlefield and policies related to contractors on the 

battlefield carrying weapons. The committee is concerned that the 

Department has not adequately addressed the issues of communication and open-source intelligence sharing between the military 

and contractors on the battlefield. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1601—Short Title 

The section would provide that this title may be cited as the 

‘‘Contractors on the Battlefield Regulatory Act.’’

Section 1602—Findings 

This section would express the findings of Congress that contract 

personnel have provided invaluable services in support of combat, 

humanitarian, peacekeeping and reconstruction operations worldwide. Further, contract personnel would be recognized for their 

contributions, including in some instances the loss of their lives, in 

411 

support of military, humanitarian and reconstruction operations. 

This section would also express that contract personnel are appropriately prohibited from performing ‘‘inherently governmental functions.’’ Finally, included is an acknowledgment that contractor personnel will be present on, and in support of, the battlefield of tomorrow providing crucial goods and services to military, humanitarian, peacekeeping and reconstruction operations. 

Section 1603—Definitions 

This section would clarify the definition of ‘‘contractors accompanying the force’’ as it is applied under the Contractors on the 

Battlefield Regulatory Act. This category of contractors have a contract, subcontract or task order at any tier with the Department of 

Defense, are paid using funds appropriated to the Department, directly support military forces overseas, and operationally interact 

with these military forces. 

This section clarifies the definition of ‘‘contractors not accompanying the force’’ as it is applied under the Contractors on the 

Battlefield Regulatory Act. This category of contractors has a contract, subcontract or task order at any tier with the Federal Government. These contracts, subcontracts or task orders are for the 

performance of work related to private security, reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping or other activities in an area 

of responsibility of a commander of a combatant command. 

This section would define ‘‘combatant command’’ as a military 

command which has broad, continuing missions and which is normally composed of forces from a single military department or two 

or more military departments. 

Section 1604—Requirements for Commanders of Combatant Commands Relating to Contractors Accompanying and Not Accompanying the Force 

This section would establish combatant commander responsibilities related to contractors accompanying and not accompanying 

the force. Specifically, it would require the combatant commanders 

to: 

(1) More adequately ensure the force protection of contractors by including their force protection requirements in operational planning; 

(2) Improve communications between contractors and the 

military by including a communications plan in the combatant 

commander’s operational plan; and 

(3) Avoid hostile and friendly fire incidents and further the 

missions of both the military and contractors by sharing, when 

it does not threaten operational security, open-source intelligence, threat assessments, and information related to contractor movement. 

The committee believes that if the combatant commander does 

not apply the requirements in this section to contractors not accompanying the force, that he should at a minimum make recommendations regarding appropriate force protection measures. 

412 

Section 1605—Requirements for Contractors Relating to Possession 

of Weapons 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe 

regulations describing the type of weapons and circumstances 

under which employees of contractors accompanying the force may 

carry a weapon for self-defense, and information that these contractors must provide relating to these weapons. The regulations shall 

include requirements that: 

(1) The contractor request in writing the combatant commander’s approval for employees to carry weapons for self-defense; 

(2) The combatant commander determine whether it is appropriate for that contractor’s employees to carry weapons for 

self-defense; 

(3) In the case of a contract awarded by the Department in 

which a contractor is authorized to carry a weapon to perform 

the work of the contract, the contracting officer for the contract 

shall notify the commander of this authorization, and the employee be deemed to have the approval of the commander to 

possess appropriate weapons; 

(4) A contractor employee only be issued a U.S. militaryspecification, personal defense firearm that is loaded with U.S. 

military-specification ammunition; and 

(5) The employee have appropriate, as defined by the Secretary, training for using a firearm for self-defense. 

Finally, the committee believes that no contractor, either accompanying the force or not accompanying the force, should carry a 

weapon for the performance of an inherently governmental function 

as described in subpart 7.5 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

Section 1606—Battlefield Accountability 

This section would afford the combatant commander better visibility and operational control of the battlefield by requiring him to 

better account for contractors accompanying the force and, when 

appropriate, contractors not accompanying the force. Specifically, 

this section would require the combatant commander to obtain a 

quarterly list of contractor personnel present in his area of responsibility. This list shall include information pertaining to each employee on the list, such as whether the employee is authorized to 

carry a weapon, proof of appropriate training on that weapon, and 

proof of citizenship. This section would require combatant commanders to maintain a central database to manage the information 

required under this section. To ensure standard information collection across each command, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 

the design of the information collection, which shall be inspired by, 

to the extent practicable, existing methods and models used elsewhere in the Department of Defense. The committee does not intend for this title to result in duplication of effort and hopes that 

the Department will utilize data previously collected to the maximum extent practicable in order to ease any administrative burden. 

This section would also obligate contractors to provide information required under this section and sought by the combatant commander. Lastly, this section would require the combatant comVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00438 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.004 HR089
413 

mander to meet regularly with representatives of contractors 

present in his area of responsibility in order to provide both information about his responsibilities to contractors and recommendations to the contractors regarding force protection. 

The committee believes that application of this section to contractors not accompanying the force is appropriate in areas deemed 

hostile environments by the combatant commander. 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

PURPOSE 

Division B provides military construction, family housing, and related authorities in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2006. As recommended by the committee, Division B would 

authorize appropriations in the amount of $12,146,611,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2006. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING 

OVERVIEW 

The Department of Defense (DOD) requested $5,551,149,000 for military construction, $2,258,293,000 for base realignment and closure (BRAC) activities, and $4,242,169,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends authorization of 

$5,996,657,000 for military construction, $1,948,293,000 for BRAC 

activities, and $4,201,661,000 for family housing in fiscal year 

2006. The committee’s recommendations are consistent with a total 

budget authority level of $12,146,611,000 for military construction, 

BRAC, and family housing in fiscal year 2006. 

The Department’s fiscal year 2006 request for military construction, family housing, and BRAC activities was another disappointment. Not only was the request for non-BRAC military construction 

$400.0 million less than the level appropriated for fiscal year 2005, 

but it was $1.0 billion less than the amount forecast for fiscal year 

2006 by the fiscal year 2005 budget. 

In addition, the Department’s request of $1.9 billion for implementation of BRAC decisions in fiscal year 2006 was submitted to 

the Congress without adequate justification. While the committee 

recognizes the importance of BRAC funding to meet one-time costs 

of implementation, the lack of analysis used—or at least analysis 

provided to the committee—to establish this level of funding is 

troubling. 

According to Mr. Phil Grone, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Installations and Environment, in his testimony before the Subcommittee on Readiness on March 15, 2005, ‘‘The services concerns 

over closing costs [in past BRAC rounds] forced them not to take 

certain [BRAC] actions.’’ This explanation falls far short of justifying an increase in funding of nearly 50 percent over first year implementation of the 1993 BRAC round, even after adjusting funding for the effects of inflation. In addition, the committee notes that 

the appendix of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the U.S. Government indicates that anticipated expenditures from this account will 

414 

leave $376.0 million in unobligated balances at the end of the fiscal 

year. 

For these reasons, the committee has reduced the level of funding authorized for BRAC 2005 activities by $310.0 million, leaving 

approximately $1.6 billion for BRAC 2005 activities. The committee 

believes that this level of funding will be sufficient to meet the Department’s implementation costs in fiscal year 2006, and expects 

the Secretary to provide better justification of BRAC budgets in future years. 

The committee has a long history of recognizing the importance 

of facilities to military readiness and quality of life. DOD facilities 

should be treated as assets worthy of investment, maintenance, 

and regular modernization. In the committee’s view, the fiscal year 

2006 budget request does not treat the DOD’s facilities as assets. 

This approach erodes military readiness and diminishes quality of 

life for military personnel. As such, the committee again urges the 

Department to renew its commitment to increase its facilities-related budgets, including military construction, family housing, base 

operations, sustainment, restoration, and maintenance programs. 

A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B 

for fiscal year 2006 follows: 

415 


Insert graphic folio 423 HR89.145
416 


Insert graphic folio 424 HR89.146
417 


Insert graphic folio 425 HR89.147
418 


Insert graphic folio 426 HR89.148
419 


Insert graphic folio 427 HR89.149
420 


Insert graphic folio 428 HR89.150
421 


Insert graphic folio 429 HR89.151
422 


Insert graphic folio 430 HR89.152
423 


Insert graphic folio 431 HR89.153
424 


Insert graphic folio 432 HR89.154
425 


Insert graphic folio 433 HR89.155
426 


Insert graphic folio 434 HR89.156
427 


Insert graphic folio 435 HR89.157
428 


Insert graphic folio 436 HR89.158
429 


Insert graphic folio 437 HR89.159
430 


Insert graphic folio 438 HR89.160
431 

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,479,841,000 for Army military 

construction and $1,362,629,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2006. The committee recommends authorization of $1,601,771,000 

for military construction and $1,353,629,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2006. 

The reduction of $9.0 million from the request for Army family 

housing operations and debt (maintenance) reflects the elimination 

of funding requested for the renovation of six general officer quarters located at Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. Each of these renovation projects is estimated to cost at least $1.5 million per unit. 

While the committee recognizes the historic nature of these units, 

such extraordinary costs for general officer housing are unacceptable in the absence of a comprehensive assessment of general and 

flag officer quarter requirements in the National Capital Region. 

Although section 2802 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) required the Secretary of Defense to provide this assessment to the 

congressional defense committees by March 30, 2005, it has not yet 

been received. 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $540,000—research acquisition building, Fort Detrick, 

Maryland 

(2) $1,206,000—satellite communications facility, Fort 

Detrick, Maryland 

(3) $211,000—National Ground Intelligence Center facility 

expansion, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction 

projects for fiscal year 2006. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2102—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2006. 

432 

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Army’s budget for fiscal year 2006. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Army may 

spend on military construction projects. 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2004 Project 

This section would amend the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108–136) 

to reduce the authorization level for construction at Vilseck, Germany to a level conforming to the requirement for appropriations. 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,029,249,000 for Navy military 

construction and $812,602,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2006. The committee recommends authorization of $1,109,177,000 

for military construction and $807,602,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2006. 

The reduction of $5.0 million from the request for Navy family 

housing operations and debt (management) reflects the committee’s 

concern about significant per unit costs associated with the management account. Although the Navy’s anticipated inventory of 

family housing units in the United States for fiscal year 2006 will 

average approximately one-half the number in fiscal year 2005, the 

budget request reflects a reduction to the management account of 

less than six percent. As a result, per unit costs for management 

expenses are budgeted to increase from $2,198 to $4,046. While the 

committee recognizes that the reduction of units is largely the result of housing privatization, and that some amount of management expenses will continue even after privatization of housing 

units, the committee expects each of the services to aggressively 

pursue efforts to reduce management costs commensurate with reductions in housing unit ownership and management. 

The reduction of $2.6 million from the request for an addition to 

Hockmuth Hall, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, reflects adherence to longstanding practices which dictate that funding be approved in amounts sufficient to construct complete and useable facilities. The Hockmuth Hall project, as presented in the budget request, would be funded in three increments totaling $14.2 million. 

The first increment of $2.6 million is insufficient to complete any 

part of the project. As such, the committee recommends no funding 

for the Hockmuth Hall project in fiscal year 2006. The committee 

does not question the validity of this project, and recommends that 

the Secretary of the Navy realign the fiscal year 2007 budget request to fully fund this project in a single fiscal year. 

433 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy complete planning 

and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $710,000—air traffic control tower, Naval Air Weapons 

Station China Lake, California 

(2) $500,000—wharf upgrades, Naval Station Mayport, Florida 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction 

projects for fiscal year 2006. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2202—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2006. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy may 

spend on military construction projects. 

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2004 Project 

This section would amend the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108–136) 

to increase the authorization level for a pier at Naval Weapons Station, Earle, New Jersey. 

Section 2206—Modifications of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2005 Projects 

This section would amend the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (division B of Public Law 108–375) 

to provide full authorization of a naval laboratory consolidation 

project at Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific, Bangor, Washington 

and to increase the level authorized for a presidential helicopter 

programs support facility at Marine Corps Air Field, Quantico, Virginia. 

434 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,069,640,000 for Air Force military construction and $2,018,047,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2006. The committee recommends authorization of 

$1,171,338,000 for military construction and $1,991,539,000 for 

family housing for fiscal year 2006. 

The reduction of $11.6 million to the Air Force family housing 

operations and debt account (management) reflects the committee’s 

concern about significant per unit costs associated with the management account. Although the Air Force’s anticipated inventory of 

family housing units in the United States for fiscal year 2006 will 

average approximately one-half the number in fiscal year 2005, the 

budget request includes an increase of $10.8 million to the management account. As a result, per unit costs for management expenses 

are budgeted to increase from $1,069 to $2,693. While the committee recognizes that the reduction of units is largely the result 

of housing privatization, and that some amount of management expenses will continue even after privatization of housing units, the 

committee expects each of the services to aggressively pursue efforts to reduce management costs commensurate with reductions in 

housing unit ownership and management. 

The reductions of $11.1 million to the Air Force family housing 

construction improvements account and $488,000 to the Bolling Air 

Force Base, Washington, D.C., housing project reflect the elimination of funding requested for the renovation of 24 general officers 

quarters and construction of 2 general officer quarters located at 

Bolling Air Force Base. The committee is unwilling to make significant expenses for construction or renovation of general officer housing in the National Capital Region in the absence of a comprehensive assessment of general and flag officer quarter requirements in 

the area. As noted previously, although section 2802 of the Ronald 

W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375) required the Secretary of Defense to 

provide this assessment to the congressional defense committees by 

March 30, 2005, it has not yet been received. 

The reduction of $3.3 million to the Air Force family housing construction account for planning and design reflects correction of an 

incorrect alignment of funding in the budget request. 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $900,000—consolidated mission support group facility, 

Columbus AFB, Mississippi 

(2) $990,000—fitness center additions and alterations, 

Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana 

(3) $550,000—Wyoming Boulevard project, Kirtland Air 

Force Base, New Mexico 

435 

(4) $900,000—base operations ramp, Sheppard Air Force 

Base, Texas 

(5) $800,000—consolidation of missile storage facilities, Hill 

Air Force Base, Utah 

(6) $706,000—mission support complex, Fairchild Air Force 

Base, Washington (7) $900,000—storm water drainage project, F.E. Warren Air 

Force Base, Wyoming 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Air Force construction 

projects for fiscal year 2006. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2302—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 

2006. 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Air Force’s budget for fiscal year 2006. This 

section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Air Force 

may spend on military construction projects. 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,042,730,000 for defense agency 

military construction and $48,891,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2006. In addition, the budget request contained $377,827,000 

for activities related to prior base realignment and closure (BRAC) 

activities and $1,880,466,000 for activities related to the 2005 

round of BRAC. 

The committee recommends authorization of $976,664,000 for 

military construction and $48,891,000 for family housing for defense agencies for fiscal year 2006. In addition, the committee recommends authorization of $377,827,000 for prior BRAC round activities and $1,570,466,000 for 2005 BRAC activities. 

The reduction of $310.0 million to the BRAC 2005 account reflects the unjustified nature of the BRAC 2005 budget request, 

which is significantly greater than the level appropriated for first 

year implementation after either of the past two BRAC rounds 

even after adjustments for inflation. In addition, this reduction is 

436 

intended to limit the likelihood of unobligated balances remaining 

in this account after fiscal year 2006. 

The reduction of $5.0 million from the contingency construction 

account is justified by the large outstanding balance in this account 

and the expenditure of less than $10.0 million of contingency construction funding since fiscal year 2004. 

The reduction of $61.5 million for replacement of the regional security operations center at Kunia, Hawaii is warranted by the anticipated construction timeline. According to the National Security 

Agency, contract award for construction is scheduled for December 

2006—at least two full months into fiscal year 2007. The committee 

is not willing to ‘‘bank’’ resources by authorizing appropriations 

more than an entire fiscal year before obligation of the funds is anticipated. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized defense agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2006. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2402—Energy Conservation Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out energy conservation projects. 

Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies 

This section would authorize specific amounts for each line item 

contained in the defense agencies’ budgets for fiscal year 2006. This 

section also provides an overall limit on the amount the defense 

agencies may spend on military construction projects. 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $206,858,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) for 

fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends authorization of 

$206,858,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2006. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make 

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 

Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount 

specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill and the amount 

437 

of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously 

financed by the United States. 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO 

This section would authorize $206,858,000 as the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 

Program. 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $722,831,000 for military construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 2006 of 

$930,849,000 to be distributed as follows: 

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $410,624,000 

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 225,727,000 

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 138,425,000 

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 45,226,000 

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 110,847,000 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design, Army National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following projects: (1) $431,000—readiness center and field maintenance shop, 

Iowa City, Iowa (2) $956,000—joint forces headquarters building, Lincoln, 

Nebraska 

(3) $918,000—joint armed forces reserve center, Kingsport, 

Tennessee 

(4) $602,000—readiness center, Tullahoma, Tennessee 

Planning and Design, Air National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: (1) $960,000—aircraft maintenance hangar and shops, March 

Air Reserve Base, California 

(2) $790,000—composite training facility, Peoria Regional 

Airport, Illinois (3) $1,700,000—fighter aircraft alert complex, Selfridge Air 

National Guard Base, Michigan (4) $850,000—northeast air defense sector support facility, 

Rome, New York 

(5) $920,000—pararescue facility, Gabreski Air National 

Guard Base, New York 

(6) $1,172,000—composite aircraft maintenance complex, 

Will Rogers Airport, Oklahoma (7) $570,000—operations/communications training complex, 

Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, Pennsylvania 

438 

Planning and Design, Army Reserve 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following project: 

(1) $990,000—reserve center, Worcester, Massachusetts 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION 

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects 

This section would authorize appropriations for military construction for the guard and reserve by service component for fiscal 

year 2006. The state list contained in this report is intended to be 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required 

to be Specified by Law 

This section would provide that authorizations for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family 

housing projects and facilities, contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will expire on October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

year 2009, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to 

authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated 

before October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2009, whichever 

is later. 

Section 2702—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2003 Projects 

This section would extend certain fiscal year 2003 military construction authorizations until October 1, 2006, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

year 2007, whichever is later. The extended authorizations apply to 

the following projects: $15,906,000 to replace family housing at 

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; $597,000 to replace the family housing office at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; $16,505,000 to replace 

family housing at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi; $14,311,000 

to replace family housing at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; 

$447,000 for a housing maintenance facility at Randolph Air Force 

Base, Texas; $5,000,000 to consolidate areas at Aviano Air Base, 

Italy; and $5,000,000 for a special operations training range at 

Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. 

439 

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2002 Projects 

This section would extend fiscal year 2002 military construction 

authorizations until October 1, 2006, or the date of enactment of 

an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2007, whichever is later. The extended authorizations apply to the 

following projects: $1,500,000 for land acquisition at Pohakuloa 

Training Area, Hawaii; and $7,300,000 for family housing at 

Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 

Section 2704—Effective Date 

This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, 

XXV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 2005, or 

the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. 

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Alternative Methods of Providing Access to Fitness Facilities for 

Service Members and Dependents 

The committee recognizes the importance of military fitness centers to both quality of life and military readiness. Although most 

military installations have fitness facilities available to service 

members and their families, 60 percent of these facilities are classified as inadequate. In light of the significant cost of replacement 

and renovation of the services’ fitness centers, estimated at $3 billion over the course of a 20–year effort, the committee believes that 

the Department of Defense should explore alternative approaches 

to providing access to fitness centers to service members and their 

families. 

The committee is aware that the Department recently conducted 

a study on fitness center privatization, including off-base fitness 

club membership buydowns, privatization of on-base fitness centers, and public-private construction of fitness center facilities. The 

Department is in the process of implementing the results of this 

study through tests of off-base membership buydowns at Fort 

Lewis, Washington and Fort Carson, Colorado, contract renovation 

and operation of a fitness center at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and public-private construction of a fitness center at Selfridge Air National 

Guard Base, Michigan. 

While the committee applauds these efforts and looks forward to 

the results of these tests, it is disappointed by the lack of participation in these tests by the Navy and the Air Force. Considering that 

each service is facing significant fitness center recapitalization 

costs in the near future, the committee urges both the Navy and 

the Air Force to reconsider the use of alternative approaches to addressing fitness center requirements. 

Finally, the committee expects the Department to report regularly to Congress on the progress of existing test projects as well 

as implementation of any additional projects. 

440 

Employment and Training Programs to Assist Communities 

Affected by Base Realignment and Closure Actions 

The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense has authority under section 2391(b) of title 10, United States Code, and 

under Executive Order 13378 to supplement funds available under 

federal programs administered by other agencies in order to assist 

state and local governments in planning community adjustments 

and economic diversification required as a result of the base closure 

and realignment process. The committee is further aware that the 

Secretary has previously used this authority to transfer funds to 

the Department of Labor (DOL) to fund employment and training 

assistance offered by the Department of Labor to assist civilians affected by base closures and realignments. 

The committee believes that the funding provided by the Department of Defense to the Department of Labor following previous 

base realignment and closure rounds significantly enhanced the 

ability of Department of Labor to provide employment and training 

services to civilians in communities affected by these closures and 

realignments. This supplemental funding especially benefited those 

civilians who were otherwise ineligible for transition services or 

other direct economic adjustment assistance from programs administered by the Department of Defense. 

Recognizing the value of the transition services offered by the 

Department of Labor and the need for the availability of such services to the civilian population affected by the 2005 base closure and 

realignment process, the committee encourages the Secretary of 

Defense to transfer such sums as he deems appropriate from the 

Base Closure Account 2005 to the Secretary of Labor for use in civilian worker transition assistance, employment, and training programs or other related purposes. 

Facilities-Related Reporting Requirements 

Many of the facilities-related authorities contained within chapters 159, 169, and 1803 of title 10, United States Code, contain ‘‘notice-and-wait’’ requirements. Over the past several budget cycles, 

the Department of Defense (DOD) has repeatedly requested relief 

from these requirements. While the committee has supported reductions of time periods associated with notice-and-wait requirements, it continues to believe that they serve as useful tools for 

oversight of DOD’s military construction and other facilities programs. As such, the committee is not inclined to accommodate requests to further reduce or eliminate notice-and-wait requirements. 

In addition, the committee has employed a unique approach to 

reducing notice-and-wait time periods by permitting shortened wait 

periods when notices are provided electronically. The committee reminds the Department that section 480 of title 10, United States 

Code, directs that all reports required by law to be submitted to 

Congress (except classified documents) be submitted in an electronic medium. In light of this statutory requirement, and the committee’s interest in facilitating the rapid flow of information from 

the Department, the committee is concerned by reports that the 

Department has been unwilling or unable to recognize reduced notice-and-wait periods associated with electronic submissions. The 

committee urges the Department to implement a process by which 

441 

electronic submissions of reports are permitted shortened noticeand-wait periods. 

As part of this process, the committee believes that the Department should explore options that include an internet-based reporting system. Such a system would provide a useful tool for tracking 

submission of reports to Congress, receipt of these reports, and an 

archive of past reports. While implementation of such a system for 

all DOD reports may be too ambitious a goal in the short term, the 

committee believes that such a system should be quickly developed 

and deployed to support the reporting requirements associated with 

chapters 159, 169, and 1803 of title 10, United States Code. 

Facility Projects During the Base Realignment and Closure Process 

On March 25, 2005, the Deputy Civil Engineer of the Air Force 

issued a memorandum informing its installation engineers that all 

contract awards for Air Force military construction, family housing, 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization projects would be 

placed on hold through May 16, 2005. The memo described this action as ‘‘a pause to ensure wise spending and quality management 

practices govern our daily course of action.’’

The committee is concerned about the effects of this pause on efforts to recapitalize the service’s infrastructure and its ability to 

address problems directly affecting the life, health, and safety of 

service members and their families. However, in this resource-constrained environment, the Air Force’s decision to delay contract 

awards was the correct one, and the committee is disappointed that 

the Secretary of Defense did not issue similar guidance to all of the 

services and defense agencies. 

Although the Department of Defense will release base realignment and closure (BRAC) recommendations by May 16, 2005, the 

binding recommendations of the BRAC commission will not become 

effective until the end of calendar year 2005. As a result, contract 

awards for the construction, sustainment, and improvement of military facilities prior to the conclusion of the BRAC 2005 process may 

improve or construct facilities that are never utilized by military 

personnel. As such, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense 

to issue risk-based direction to the services and defense agencies to 

guide decisions to award facility construction, sustainment, and improvement contracts during the remainder of calendar year 2005. 

Inclusion of Analysis of Excess Capacity at Military Medical Facilities in GAO Report on DOD’s Process and Recommendations for 

the 2005 BRAC Round 

The committee is aware that the Comptroller General is required 

by section 2903(d)(5)(B) of the Base Realignment and Closure Act 

of 1990 to submit an analysis of the Department of Defense’s 2005 

process and recommendations for closure and realignment to the 

congressional defense committees by July 1, 2005. The committee 

directs the comptroller general to specifically address the following 

points in his analysis of the proposals: 

(1) The methodology for determining excess capacity at military medical facilities, and whether the methodology complies 

with the requirements of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990; 

442 

(2) The costs that would be shifted to TRICARE and other 

agencies of federal, state, and local governments, with costs 

itemized by agency for each proposed military medical facility 

closure or realignment; 

(3) Whether the personnel effects of the recommended closures and realignments for military medical activities comply 

with the requirements of 10 USC Sec. 129c; 

(4) The effects of the reduction in services and procedures 

provided at military medical facilities on recruitment, retention, training, and morale of military medical personnel; 

(5) The out-of-pocket costs to military personnel, retirees, 

and dependents, and the effects on the availability of care, 

quality of care, and continuity of care provided to personnel, 

retirees, and military families; and 

(6) The effects of the closure or realignment of military medical facilities on cooperative agreements, sharing agreements, 

joint services, joint research, and other arrangements with facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies. 

In all estimates of savings and costs, the committee directs that 

the estimate of net costs or savings from increases or reductions in 

personnel be listed separately from the estimate of net costs or savings derived from facility closure, realignment, or relocation. 

Medical Treatment Facility Construction 

In the committee report (House Report 108–106) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), the committee encouraged the Department of Defense (DOD) to explore the potential for a joint DOD-Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facility at the University of Colorado Hospital 

(UCH) at the Fitzsimons Campus in Aurora, Colorado. 

The committee continued its support for joint DOD–VA medical 

treatment facilities through passage of section 2811 of the Ronald 

W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375), which requires the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Veterans Affairs to consult on the feasibility 

of establishing a joint medical treatment facility before proposing 

construction of a new facility. 

The committee remains committed to encouraging DOD to explore facility-sharing arrangements as part of efforts to reduce 

overhead costs associated with medical treatment facilities. For 

this reason, the committee appreciates DOD’s efforts to comply 

with direction to explore the potential for a joint facility at the 

UCH Fitzsimons Campus. The committee understands that construction of a joint DOD–VA facility at this location is not likely 

to occur in a timely fashion. As such, the committee supports the 

efforts of the Air Force to enter into a legal relationship with UCH 

under which the hospital would provide clinical and administrative 

space to the Air Force. Such an arrangement holds the potential to 

reduce costs to the Air Force while expanding the availability of 

care from 7,500 to 12,000 beneficiaries and providing ‘‘one-stop 

shopping’’ for military personnel and family members attached to 

Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado. 

443 

Use of Authorities to Privatize Unaccompanied Housing 

The committee understands that the Secretary of the Army has 

conducted a recent study of the viability of using authorities provided by subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, 

to privatize unaccompanied housing facilities. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit to the House Committee 

on Armed Services the results of the recent Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Task Force Study by July 1, 2005. The Secretary 

should also submit his recommendations and plans to utilize privatization authorities to build, construct, or maintain Army unaccompanied housing for single noncommissioned officers. 

Use of Electronic Marking Systems to Document Underground 

Infrastructure Systems 

The Department of Defense is continually upgrading or repairing 

electric, gas, water, information technology, and other underground 

infrastructure systems at its military installations. The use of advanced electronic marking systems to document underground infrastructure represents an opportunity for the Department to reduce 

inadvertent damage to critical assets and improve efficiency during 

future repair and modernization efforts. As such, the committee encourages the military services to consider the use of underground 

electronic marking systems that provide both location and identification of underground infrastructure systems during future infrastructure upgrades. 

Use of Temporary Facilities to Support Long-Term Military 

Requirements 

In support of the Department of the Army’s plans to increase the 

number of active modular Brigade Combat Team Units of Action 

from 33 to 43 by fiscal year 2006, the Department of Defense 

(DOD) will spend more than $1.0 billion to purchase and install 

‘‘temporary’’ facilities to provide living and working space for these 

units. These temporary facilities, consisting of modular buildings 

and trailers, have a design life of five to seven years, and many do 

not meet minimal DOD standards. Despite the already substandard conditions and the finite lifespan of these facilities, the 

Army has not included funds to sustain or replace these trailers 

with permanent facilities in the Future Years Defense Plan. 

The committee is troubled by the Army’s reliance on such facilities to support its modularity initiative, as well as its failure to 

budget for permanent replacements. In addition, the committee is 

concerned that the Army and other services may utilize a similar 

strategy of utilizing temporary facilities to meet facility needs resulting from the 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC) round 

and the return of military personnel to the United States from 

overseas locations. 

While rapid implementation of BRAC decisions is desirable, as is 

the swift return of military personnel to the United States, the 

committee urges the Department to consider the fiscal, readiness, 

and quality of life costs associated with accelerating such changes 

if the use of substandard temporary facilities will be required to 

support them. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

444 

Army to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2006 on: 

(1) An inventory of the temporary facilities installed to meet 

modularity requirements; 

(2) An estimate of the scope and costs to maintain the temporary facilities through the end of their planned use; 

(3) A timeline for replacement of temporary facilities with 

permanent facilities; 

(4) A description and cost estimate for construction of permanent facilities required to replace temporary facilities; 

(5) An assessment of the scope and cost to add to or alter existing facilities required to support military personnel and 

their families; and 

(6) An estimate of the date that the Army will meet the 

DOD’s goal to eliminate inadequate unaccompanied housing. 

In addition, the report should include a description of Department of Defense guidance relating to the procurement and use of 

temporary facilities to support personnel relocations resulting from 

BRAC 2005 and global posture changes. 

Utilities Privatization 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 

(Public Law 105–85) authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) 

to privatize installation utility systems, including electric, water, 

wastewater, and natural gas systems. Although this authority has 

been in place for nearly eight years, and the Department has spent 

approximately $250.0 million on implementation, the services 

privatized less than 10 percent of their utility systems through December 31, 2004. 

The sizeable cost associated with incremental progress in utilities 

privatization raises concerns about the viability and value of the 

utilities privatization program. In addition, a recent Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO–05–433) calls into question the services’ methodology for estimating costs and savings resulting from utilities privatization proposals and highlights DOD’s 

failure to effectively manage and oversee the program. 

While the Department seems to view utilities privatization as the 

only affordable approach to improving aging utilities infrastructure, the committee reminds the Department that utility system 

privatization projects, by law, must have long-term economic benefits that exceed the long-term economic costs and must reduce the 

long-term costs of utility services. In spite of this clear legal requirement, the GAO report indicates that the services have employed methodologies for conducting economic analyses of proposed 

utilities privatization efforts that result in an unrealistic sense of 

savings. Furthermore, GAO found that the Department does not require independent review of these analyses, a contributing factor in 

permitting several past analyses to include inaccuracies that favored utilities privatization over continued government ownership. 

In addition, DOD’s failure to consistently apply requirements to 

receive fair market value for utility system conveyances may have 

resulted in unnecessary costs to the government. For instance, a 

recent privatization effort at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia resulted in the contractor paying $741,000 for the conveyance of electrical infrastructure but recovering this cost by charging the Air 

445 

Force $1,322,000 over time. Likewise, the Department has not 

issued oversight guidance to the services, raising questions about 

whether contractor performance is meeting requirements or expectations. 

Finally, DOD’s approach to utilities privatization includes the 

permanent conveyance of utility systems to private contractors. 

This approach differs from private sector practices of outsourcing 

operations and maintenance but retaining system ownership. As a 

result, the Department is ceding a significant advantage when negotiating service contract changes or renewals, as the services will 

either be forced to deal with the current contractor or incur large 

costs associated with constructing new utilities systems to replace 

those conveyed. 

The committee continues to believe that utilities privatization 

may, in certain cases, be a cost-effective approach to the revitalization of military utilities infrastructure. However, whether the benefits of utilities privatization outweigh increased costs to taxpayers 

remains unclear. In addition, the committee is not convinced that 

the practice of conveying ownership of utilities systems and inconsistently collecting fair market value for system conveyances is in 

the nation’s best interest. 

As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to proceed with the solicitation or award of a utilities privatization contract during the remainder of fiscal year 2005 no sooner than 21 

days after notification of the House and Senate Committees on 

Armed Services of the intent to do so. This notification should include complete economic justification for each project as well as details of the contract proposed to be awarded. In addition, the committee recommends a provision (section 2812) that would suspend 

the utilities privatization program for a period of time, allowing 

sufficient time for congress and DOD to review the program. The 

committee has adjusted funding levels in title III to reflect suspension of this program during fiscal year 2006. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Modification of Congressional Notification 

Requirements for Certain Military Construction Activities 

This section would reduce by seven days the notice and wait periods related to use of the contingency construction authority (10 

U.S.C. 2804) and the authority to acquire existing facilities in lieu 

of construction (10 U.S.C. 2813). 

Section 2802—Improve Availability and Timeliness of Department 

of Defense Information Regarding Military Construction and 

Family Housing Accounts and Activities 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

and make available to Congress an internet-based system containing regularly updated information on the status of all defense 

agency and service military construction and family housing 

projects as well as operations, maintenance, and other support accounts authorized by the annual Military Construction AuthorizaVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00471 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.005 HR089
446 

tion Act. The committee anticipates that this information will provide greater transparency of the progress, costs, and actual expenditures of military construction and family housing budgets. 

Section 2803—Expansion of Authority to Convey Property at 

Military Installations to Support Military Construction 

This section would amend section 2869 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military departments to 

exchange surplus property for construction projects, land, or housing. 

Section 2804—Effect of Failure to Submit Required Report on Need 

for General and Flag Officers Quarters in National Capital Region 

This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2006 funds for 

the operation, maintenance, or repair of housing units for general 

and flag officers in the National Capital Region until receipt of a 

report on the need for general and flag officer housing in the National Capital Region. 

Section 2802(c) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (division B of Public Law 108–375) required the 

Secretary of Defense to submit by March 30, 2005, a report containing an analysis of anticipated needs in the National Capital Region for family housing units for general and flag officers. Despite 

long-standing committee interest in oversight of general and flag 

officer housing, and clear legislative direction to submit a report by 

March 30, 2005, the Secretary notified the committee without explanation on April 8, 2005, that this report would be received by 

May 31, 2005. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary to suspend the expenditure of fiscal year 2005 family housing construction, maintenance, and repair funding for general and flag officer housing units 

in the National Capital Region until submission of the required report. The Secretary may proceed with projects that are necessary 

to correct any deficiency that is life-, health-, or safety-threatening. 

In addition, the committee has not provided funding requested 

for fiscal year 2006 for the construction and renovation of general 

and flag officer housing in the National Capital Region. The committee is unwilling to expend scarce family housing resources in 

the absence of justification for the number of general and flag officer housing units on military installations in the region. 

Section 2805—One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction 

Projects Outside the United States 

This section would extend for one year the authority provided by 

section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), which permits the Secretary of 

Defense to utilize operation and maintenance funds to construct facilities necessary for temporary operational requirements related to 

a declaration of war, national emergency, or contingency. The section would also amend the section 2808 authority to require that 

the Department of Defense notify Congress seven days in advance 

of obligation of funds for each project and to provide for suspension 

447 

of the authority if quarterly reports on use of the authority are not 

provided in a timely manner. 

Section 2806—Clarification of Moratorium on Certain 

Improvements at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico 

This section would amend section 1507 of the Floyd D. Spence 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 

Law 106–398) to clarify the moratorium on construction activities 

at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico to permit the conversion, rehabilitation, improvement, and repair of facilities at the installation. 

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Consolidation of Department of Defense Land 

Acquisition Authorities and Limitations on Use of Such Authorities 

This section would consolidate provisions of chapter 159 of title 

10, United States Code, which govern the acquisition of land by the 

Department of Defense and make several technical corrections. 

This section makes no substantive change to the law. 

Section 2812—Report on Use of Utility System Conveyance 

Authority and Temporary Suspension of Authority Pending Report 

This section would suspend the use of current authorities related 

to the privatization of utility systems until enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, or one year 

after receipt of a report on the program, whichever is later. This 

section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 

to Congress by March 15, 2006, on: the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) methodology for conducting economic analyses of potential 

utility system conveyances; steps taken to ensure the reliability of 

completed economic analyses, including after-privatization reviews 

of actual costs and savings; a review of costs and savings resulting 

from each of the systems already privatized; the effects of permanent conveyance of ownership in privatization contracts; the effects 

of requiring fair market value for conveyed utility systems; DOD 

oversight of implementation of the adequacy of utilities services 

after privatization; and the effects on base operating budgets of 

utilities privatization. 

As noted previously, the committee is concerned by DOD’s application of utilities privatization authorities. The committee expects 

that this section will allow Congress and the Department to reevaluate the use and effects of these authorities after an extended 

period of use. While legal authorities for the Department to continue to privatize its utility systems will remain in effect until enactment of this section, elsewhere in this report the committee has 

directed the Secretary to notify the House Committee on Armed 

Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services 21 days 

prior to award of any utilities privatization contract during the remainder of fiscal year 2005. 

448 

Section 2813—Authorized Military Uses of Papago Park Military 

Reservation, Phoenix, Arizona 

This section would amend the Act of April 7, 1930, which authorized the use of land at Papago Park Military Reservation, Arizona 

for a rifle range only, to reflect current usage of the land. 

SUBTITLE C—BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT

Section 2821—Additional Reporting Requirements Regarding Base 

Closure Process and Use of Department of Defense Base Closure 

Accounts 

This section would amend reporting requirements contained in 

the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of 

title XXIX of Public Law 101–510) to require additional information 

relating to base realignment and closure properties and proposed 

budgets as part of the annual budget justification documents. 

Section 2822—Termination of Project Authorizations for Military 

Installations Approved for Closure in 2005 Round of Base Realignments and Closures 

This section would cancel authority for any military construction 

project, land acquisition, or family housing project authorized in 

this or any prior military construction authorization act at a facility approved for closure in the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) round. This section would not apply to projects for which 

appropriated funds have already been obligated. This section is intended to ensure that the Department of Defense does not waste 

funds by initiating military construction, family housing, or land 

acquisition projects at installations closed during the 2005 BRAC 

process. 

Section 2823—Expanded Availability of Adjustment and Diversification Assistance for Communities Adversely Affected by Mission Realignments in Base Closure Process 

This section would amend section 2391 of title 10, United States 

Code, to strike limits on the Secretary of Defense’s authority to aid 

communities adversely affected by base realignments and closures 

and other defense program changes. 

Section 2824—Sense of Congress Regarding Consideration of National Defense Industrial Base Interests During Base Closure 

and Realignment Commission Review of Department of Defense 

Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations 

This section would express the Sense of Congress that national 

defense industrial base interests are part of military value and that 

the Base Closure and Realignment Commission should consider 

such interests when reviewing and analyzing the Secretary of Defense’s closure and realignment recommendations. 

449 

SUBTITLE D—LAND CONVEYANCES

PART I—ARMY CONVEYANCES

Section 2831—Modification of Land Conveyance, Engineer Proving 

Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

This section would amend section 2836 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public 

Law 107–107) to change the type of facility received by the Army 

as part of an exchange related to construction of the Fairfax County Parkway Extension. Current law provides for the Army to receive funds for replacement of an administrative building located 

on land provided by the Army. This section would allow for the construction of the higher priority fire station instead. 

Section 2832—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Bothell, 

Washington 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey 

approximately one acre at the Army Reserve Center in Bothell, 

Washington, for the purpose of supporting the provision of fire and 

emergency medical aid services. In exchange, the Army shall receive in-kind consideration equal to not less than the fair market 

value of the conveyed property. 

PART II—NAVY CONVEYANCES

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, 

Miramar, San Diego, California 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey 

approximately 230 acres along the eastern boundary of Marine 

Corps Air Station Miramar, California, to the County of San Diego, 

California, for the purpose of permitting the county to preserve the 

property as open space and reopen the tract known as the Stowe 

Trail to public use. In exchange, the Navy shall receive in—kind 

consideration equal to not less than the fair market value of the 

conveyed property. 

PART III—AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES

Section 2851—Purchase of Build-To-Lease Family Housing, Eielson 

Air Force Base, Alaska 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

purchase the interest of the developer of a 300-unit military family 

housing project at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. This project is 

currently leased by the Secretary as ‘‘section 801’’ housing. 

Section 2852—Land Conveyance, Air Force Property, Jacksonville, 

Arkansas 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

convey, for consideration, approximately 45 acres around an existing railroad in Jacksonville, Arkansas. 

450 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2861—Lease Authority, Army Heritage and Education 

Center, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to lease 

portions of the Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 

Pennsylvania to the Military Heritage Foundation for revenue-generating activities and other purposes. As consideration, the foundation would pay amounts not to exceed the costs of operation of the 

facility. This authority is consistent with section 4772 of title 10, 

United States Code, which provides leasing authority to the Secretary of the Army related to the use of the National Museum of 

the United States Army. 

Section 2862—Redesignation of McEntire Air National Guard 

Station, South Carolina, as McEntire Joint National Guard Base 

This section would redesignate McEntire Air National Guard 

Station, South Carolina as McEntire Joint National Guard Base in 

recognition of the use of the installation to house both Air National 

Guard and Army National Guard assets. 

Section 2863—Assessment of Water Needs for Presidio of Monterey 

and Ord Military Community 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

an assessment of current and future needs of the Department of 

Defense for water for the Presidio of Monterey and the Ord military community by April 7, 2006, and to provide the results of that 

assessment to Congress. 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $16.4 billion for the national security activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2006. Of 

this amount, $9.4 billion is for the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, and $7.0 billion is for environmental 

and other defense activities. The committee recommends $16.4 billion, the amount of the budget request. 

451 


Insert graphic folio 458 HR89.161
452 


Insert graphic folio 459 HR89.162
453 


Insert graphic folio 460 HR89.163
454 


Insert graphic folio 461 HR89.164
455 


Insert graphic folio 462 HR89.165
456 


Insert graphic folio 463 HR89.166
457 


Insert graphic folio 464 HR89.167
458 


Insert graphic folio 465 HR89.168
459 


Insert graphic folio 466 HR89.169
460 


Insert graphic folio 467 HR89.170
461 


Insert graphic folio 468 HR89.171
462 


Insert graphic folio 469 HR89.172
463 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $9.4 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2006. The committee 

recommends $9.1 billion, a decrease of $296.4 million. 

Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

The budget request contained $1,421.0 million for directed stock- pile work. The committee recommends $1,372.6 million, a decrease 

of $48.4 million. 

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 

The budget request contained $4.0 million for the Robust Nuclear 

Earth Penetrator (RNEP) study. 

The committee understands that the Commander, United States 

Strategic Command has stated that the results from the sled test 

conducted under this program have applicability to various types 

of penetrators that may be options for use against Hard and Deeply 

Buried Targets (HDBTs). Based on the applicability of the sled test 

results to various options for HDBT defeat, the committee believes 

that this study is more appropriately conducted under a program 

element within the Department of Defense. 

The committee recommends no funding for the RNEP study 

under the Department of Energy, but instead authorizes a related 

study effort within the Department of Defense elsewhere in this 

Act. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead program 

The budget requests $9.4 million within Directed Stockpile Work 

for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. 

The committee notes that in the aftermath of the Cold War, the 

Stockpile Stewardship Program was designed to enable the continued certification of the existing stockpile in the absence of nuclear 

testing. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s Life Extension Program is a component of the Stockpile Stewardship program to ensure the continued safety, surety and certification of the 

stockpile by extending the life of nuclear weapons that have already undergone testing. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and 

other studies by the Department of Defense and Department of Energy have highlighted the importance of looking past the Cold Warera designed defense nuclear complex to a responsive infrastructure of the future, one objective of which is to be able to produce 

replacement warheads. 

The committee firmly believes that the nation must ensure that 

the nuclear stockpile remains reliable, safe, and secure and that 

national security requires transforming the Cold War-era nuclear 

complex. Thus, the committee supports the Reliable Replacement 

Warhead program. To clearly articulate the congressional intent 

underlying this program authorization, the committee further 

states the key goals of the program. 

464 

First and foremost, in order to serve as a credible strategic deterrent, the stockpile must be reliable, safe, and secure. The committee understands that by designing and replacing components 

and warheads in our existing arsenal, the nuclear weapons complex 

can take full advantage of modern design techniques, more environmentally safe materials, and efficient manufacturing processes 

in a way that can make our arsenal more reliable, safe, and secure. 

The committee believes that the Reliable Replacement Warhead 

program offers the opportunity to improve certain safety features. 

In particular, the committee expects the National Nuclear Security 

Administration to inform Congress about the extent to which the 

Reliable Replacement Warhead program can improve security features to prevent accidental or unauthorized detonations. The committee expects that the budgeting and reporting of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program will be consistent with the traditional 

nuclear weapon acquisition process of designating work related to 

new weapon or weapon modification development and production. 

Based on Nuclear Weapons Council briefings, the committee encourages the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy 

to focus initial Reliable Replacement Warhead efforts on replacement warheads for Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. The 

committee understands that the purpose of the program is to fulfill 

the current mission requirements of the stockpile. 

A second objective of this program is to further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of nuclear testing by increasing warhead 

design margin and manufacturability. 

The third objective of utilizing components whose basic design 

parameters are well understood, or are certifiable without the need 

to resume underground nuclear testing reinforces the second objective. As part of the report required by section 3111 (c), the committee expects a discussion of how these two objectives will be accomplished, including the degree to which reliable replacement 

warheads will be based on design parameters that have been proven through prior successful nuclear tests. 

Fourth, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program has a goal 

of ensuring the country has a nuclear infrastructure that is flexible 

enough to meet future requirements that cannot be predicted 

today. The goal of achieving a more flexible nuclear infrastructure 

was identified in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, but has not 

been realized in large part due to a lack of program focus. The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program will try to provide that focus. 

Fifth, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program may permit 

reductions in the size of the nuclear stockpile since fewer weapons 

should have to serve as a hedge against technical uncertainty and 

reliability concerns. As part of the report required by section 3111 

(c), the committee expects an estimate of the reductions that can 

be achieved if the Reliable Replacement Warhead program is successfully implemented. The report should discuss options for future 

dismantlement based on stockpile reductions that may be achieved 

if the Reliable Replacement Warhead program is successful. 

Sixth, and related to the responsive infrastructure objective, is 

the goal of ensuring that the human capital aspect is not neglected. 

The nuclear complex is rapidly losing its design and production expertise, a concern highlighted by several studies in the past decade. 

The Reliable Replacement Warhead program will help train and 

465 

sustain the weapons designers and engineers whose expertise is essential in ensuring the stockpile remains, reliable, safe and secure 

into the future. 

Finally, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program should 

serve as a complement to and potential future replacement for, the 

existing Life Extension Programs. The potential of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program to provide for a credible nuclear deterrent and a flexible, responsive infrastructure in a cost-effective 

manner is an important aspect of this program. At some future 

point, the committee would expect a life-cycle cost estimate for the 

Reliable Replacement Warhead program in addition to the requirement to provide five-year cost estimates in the annual budget justification documents. This life-cycle cost estimate would specifically 

address the issue of pit production, and whether a modern pit facility is still required if the program leads to a significantly reduced 

arsenal. For the purposes of the report required by section 3111, 

the committee understands that submission of life-cycle costs estimates would be premature. The report required by section 3111 

should, however, provide an assessment as to when a life-cycle cost 

estimate, to include all construction and decommissioning costs, 

would be feasible based on projected program milestones. The report should also discuss the impact on the Department of Defense, 

specifically its delivery platforms, of introducing reliable replacement warheads, to include a cost estimate of the potential impacts. 

The report required by section 3111 should detail the planned 

use of fiscal year 2006 and prior year funds. The report is required 

by March 1, 2007, but the committee also requires an interim report due by March 1, 2006, that provides as much information on 

the required report topics as can be provided. The committee recommends $9.4 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the amount of the budget request. Should 

additional funds be required above those authorized and appropriated, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a 

reprogramming request to the congressional defense committees. 

Stockpile Stewardship Campaigns 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 

(Public Law 103–160) directed the Department of Energy to ‘‘establish a stewardship program to ensure the preservation of the core 

intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.’’ In response, the Department of Energy developed 

the Stockpile Stewardship Program to ‘‘increase the understanding 

of the basic phenomena associated with nuclear weapons, to provide better predictive understanding of the safety and reliability of 

weapons, and to ensure a strong scientific and technical basis for 

future United States nuclear weapon policy objectives.’’ Subsequently in 1999, the Department developed a new program activity 

structure for Stockpile Stewardship that included a series of what 

the Department called ‘‘campaigns,’’ which are technically challenging, multiyear, multifunctional efforts designed to develop and 

maintain the critical capabilities needed to enable continued certification of the stockpile into the foreseeable future, without underground testing. The National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) is responsible for carrying out the Stockpile Stewardship 

Program. 

466 

Six individual science campaigns are intended to provide the scientific capability to support the stockpile. Two campaigns-Primary 

Assessment Technologies and Secondary Assessment Technologiesset the requirements for the experimental data and computer models needed to assess and certify nuclear weapons. Four other campaigns-Dynamic Materials, Advanced Radiography, Advanced Simulation and Computing, and Inertial Confinement Fusion-provide 

experimental and computational support. Since fiscal year 2001, 

NNSA has spent $5.8 billion on these activities. 

The Department set a series of goals and related milestones for 

the campaigns to achieve by the 2005–2010 time frame. Achieving 

these goals was technically challenging and depended on the timely 

completion of major facilities such as the National Ignition Facility 

and the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility, both 

of which have experienced major delays due to problems with 

project management. 

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) told the 

committee that the GAO was limited in its ability to assess the 

performance of the campaigns in achieving their goals because 

NNSA did not have an adequate planning process for approving 

and tracking campaign plans and milestones. In addition, GAO 

found that the original goals for the Primary Assessment Technologies and Secondary Assessment Technologies Campaigns had 

been modified and extended to the 2010–2014 timeframe. GAO also 

found that despite their interdependency, NNSA’s campaigns were 

not well integrated. 

GAO’s findings are consistent with the committee’s observations 

about NNSA’s fiscal year 2006 budget request, where the goals for 

the campaigns are related principally to the conduct of experiments 

on certain facilities and the development of the quantification of 

margins and uncertainties methodology. The budget request does 

not clearly discuss the campaigns’ goals and the extent to which 

they have been achieved. In addition, the budget request makes little mention of how the campaigns’ actions are integrated to achieve 

these goals. 

The committee notes that NNSA is proposing to spend several 

billion dollars more on these activities over the next five years. 

Therefore, before such large funds are expended, the committee believes that NNSA should provide a full accounting of what has 

been achieved to date and what NNSA expects to achieve over the 

next five years. Specifically, the committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to provide, with the fiscal year 2007 budget 

submission, a report detailing: 

(1) The original goals of the six campaigns intended to provide the scientific capability to support the stockpile; 

(2) The degree to which these goals have been achieved and, 

where applicable, the reasons for NNSA’s failure to achieve 

these goals; 

(3) The impact of NNSA’s success or failure to achieve these 

goals on its ability to assess the safety and reliability of the 

stockpile; 

(4) The specific goals NNSA plans to achieve over the next 

five years in order to ensure that it has the capability to continue to assess the stockpile without underground nuclear testing; and 

467 

(5) How the NNSA plans to integrate and prioritize the activities of the campaigns in order to achieve these goals in a 

cost effective manner. 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities 

The budget request contained $1,631.4 million for Readiness in 

Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). 

The committee has been encouraged by the progress made in the 

reduction of deferred maintenance backlogs in the defense nuclear 

complex. The committee also supports the Administrator’s efforts to 

reduce safeguards and security costs throughout the complex by 

consolidating nuclear material storage and by accelerating certain 

construction projects that will permit even further consolidation of 

nuclear materials. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.6 million for design 

and construction at the Pantex Production Plant for the following 

projects: $1.0 million to complete the design of the High Explosives 

Pressing Facility (Project 04–02), $2.0 million to complete the design of the Component Evaluation Facility (Project 05–03), and 

$5.6 million to accelerate work on the Pantex Plant Building 12–

64 Production Bays Upgrade (project 05–D–401). 

The committee understands that accelerated completion of the 

Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) will shrink the overall footprint 

of the Y–12 complex. The committee recommends an increase of 

$15.1 million to accelerate project design at the Y–12 plant as follows: $10.0 million for the UPF (Project 06–05), $1.7 million for the 

Highly Enriched Uranium Chemical Project, and $3.4 million for 

the Uranium Metallurgy Project, the latter two projects directly 

supporting the UPF. 

The committee provides an additional $3.1 million for Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory as follows: $2.1 million for one-time 

Beryllium safety improvements at the Contained Firing Facility 

and $1.0 million for a size-reduction station for radioactive waste. 

The committee provides additional funds for replacement of 

aging equipment, correction of deferred maintenance, and disposition of legacy materials consistent with the National Nuclear Security Administration approved 10 year comprehensive site plan as 

follows: $5.6 million at the Kansas City Plant, $6.0 million at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory specifically for configuration 

management requirements related to the Superblock, and $10.0 

million at the Pantex Production Plant. 

The committee recommends $1,679.8 million, an increase of 

$48.4 million for RTBF. 

Environmental Projects and Operations 

The fiscal year 2006 National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) budget request contained $174.4 million for Environmental 

Projects and Operations due to the proposed transfer of responsibility for certain environmental management activities from the 

Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management to 

the NNSA. The reason stated for this realignment is that the 

transfer aligns responsibility with accountability for environmental 

activities at NNSA sites consistent with the intent of the National 

Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law 106–65, title 32). 

468 

Contrary to what is stated in the budget request, the intent of 

Congress in drafting the National Nuclear Security Administration 

Act (‘‘NNSA Act’’) was expressly to not permit a transfer of environmental activities to NNSA. While section 3291(a) of the NNSA 

Act transferred certain functions from the Department of Energy to 

NNSA, section 3291(c), ‘‘Environmental Remediation and Waste 

Management Activities,’’ states that the Secretary may determine 

to transfer responsibility for that activity to another element of the 

Department. That ‘‘activity,’’ specifically environmental remediation and waste management components of those activities transferred to NNSA in section 3291(a), was never transferred to the 

NNSA. The accompanying conference report language specifically 

states that section 3291 would ‘‘permit the Secretary of Energy to 

transfer environmental and waste management activities to other 

elements of the Department in consultation with the Administrator 

and Congress.’’ In short, the fiscal year 2006 budget request for NNSA Environmental Projects and Operations conflicts with the NNSA Act. The 

committee therefore authorizes no funds for these activities within 

NNSA, but instead authorizes the requested amount elsewhere in 

this Act under the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental 

Management. 

The committee also understands that both the Government Accountability Office and the Secretary of Energy are currently reviewing the relationship between the Department of Energy and 

the NNSA under the NNSA Act. The committee encourages the 

Secretary to inform the congressional defense committees of any 

concerns relating to the environmental transfer issue or other 

NNSA Act compliance concerns at the earliest opportunity. While 

it is the intent of the committee to leave these environmental activities under the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental 

Management, the committee is open to hearing additional justification from the Secretary why such a transfer should occur in the future. 

Safeguards and Security 

The committee continues to be deeply concerned with safeguards 

and security practices throughout the complex. The committee understands that the fiscal year 2006 safeguards and security budget 

request fully funds activities that will bring the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) complex into compliance with the 

April 2003 Design Basis Threat (DBT) by the end of fiscal year 

2006. The committee also understands that in October 2004, the 

Secretary of Energy directed certain changes in the DBT requirements for the complex with a target compliance goal of the end of 

fiscal year 2008. The committee notes that updated site vulnerability assessments for compliance with the October 2004 DBT 

changes are due to the Administrator in July 2005. 

The committee is concerned that the increased security requirements resulting from the October 2004 DBT have not been subjected to an independent risk and cost analysis. The committee directs the Secretary to conduct a risk and cost analysis study of the 

increase in security requirements from the April 2003 DBT to the 

October 2004 DBT. The Secretary shall submit a report on this 

analysis to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2006. 

469 

The committee supports the Administrator’s efforts to enhance 

security practices through consolidation of nuclear material at individual sites and throughout the complex. The committee notes that 

the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force is currently evaluating options for consolidation of nuclear material in 

the broader context of transforming the defense nuclear complex. 

The committee directs the Administrator to submit with the fiscal 

year 2007 budget materials its plans to achieve consolidation of nuclear material throughout the complex. 

The committee notes that the Department of Energy’s Office of 

Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance submitted a report in January 2005 on federal oversight of security operations 

within the NNSA complex, which detailed certain shortcomings. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the congressional 

defense committees a follow-up report on the status of corrective 

actions for federal oversight recommended in the January 2005 report by March 1, 2006. 

National Nuclear Security Administration Advisory Committee 

The committee notes that shortly after the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was created, the first NNSA Administrator established an independent committee to advise the Administrator on a wide range of issues, particularly technical areas. 

This advisory committee was not renewed after the first two years 

for several reasons, including the administrative burden of supporting the committee. The committee recognizes the complexity 

and importance of the NNSA’s mission, and notes it faces important decisions about ensuring the reliability of our nuclear stockpile, exploring new initiatives such as the Reliable Replacement 

Warhead program, and maintaining a high level of security in a 

cost-effective manner. The committee further recognizes the value 

of sound, balanced information and counsel from independent, credible sources on a range of technical and security matters. The committee encourages the NNSA Administrator to consider reinstating 

the advisory committee to assist the NNSA in its deliberations on 

the important challenges it faces. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

The budget request contained $1,637.2 million for defense nuclear nonproliferation programs. The committee fully supports the 

goals of the Department of Energy’s nuclear nonproliferation programs but remains concerned with uncosted, uncommitted balances 

in several of the nonproliferation accounts due to the inability to 

resolve government to government agreements, especially liability 

agreements, for critical projects. The committee shifts funds within 

the nonproliferation account into programs that have experienced 

greater success or that are viewed as more executable based on the 

above concerns noted with government to government agreements. 

The committee authorizes $1,515.2 million, a decrease of $122.0 

million. 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development 

The budget request contained $272.2 million for nonproliferation 

and verification research and development activities. 

470 

The committee notes that the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which performs critical nonproliferation research and development work for the NNSA, is scheduled to vacate their facilities at 

Hanford Site Area 300 in 2009 and that replacement facilities are 

required. The budget contains $5.0 million for project engineering 

and design for replacement research facilities (project 06–D–180). 

The committee recommends $280.2 million, an increase of $8.0 million to accelerate design of the replacement facility. 

International Materials Protection and Cooperation 

The budget request contained $343.4 million for International 

Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (MPC&A). The committee is encouraged by the progress made in several MPC&A programs, especially those associated with the Russian Naval Complex 

and Strategic Rocket Forces. The committee recommends $363.4 

million, an increase of $20.0 million as follows: $10.0 million for Civilian Nuclear Sites and $10.0 million for National Programs and 

Sustainability. 

Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production 

The budget requests $132.0 million for the Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP) program. The committee understands that the EWGPP program is seeking international funding to support the Zheleznogorsk reactor project. 

While fully supporting the concept of international funding for this 

project, the committee also wants to ensure that sufficient financial 

support is demonstrated early enough in the project to keep the 

Zheleznogorsk reactor shutdown on schedule. The committee recommends $207.0 million, an increase of $75.0 million for the 

Zheleznogorsk project. 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility 

The budget request contained $653.1 million for Fissile Materials 

Disposition, the goal of which is to eliminate surplus Russian plutonium and surplus U.S. plutonium and highly enriched uranium. 

With respect to the plutonium disposition programs, the goal is to 

eliminate 68 metric tons of United States and Russian surplus 

weapons-grade plutonium in accordance with the September 2000 

United States-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition 

Agreement, and with Congressional direction to conduct both the 

United States and Russian disposition programs in parallel. This 

effort, based on the use of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facilities to be built in both the United States and Russia, is referred 

to as the MOX program. 

Of the $653.1 million requested for Fissile Materials Disposition, 

approximately $460.0 million is for the United States-Russia MOX 

program, of which $338.6 million is for construction of the Mixed 

Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site. Due to 

an inability to resolve disagreements regarding liability protections 

for U.S. work performed in Russia, the MOX program has experienced significant delays. When the MOX project was first authorized in 1999, the projected start date for physical construction of 

the Savannah River Site MOX facility was in 2002. During the period covered by fiscal years 1999–2005, $961.1 million has been appropriated for the Savannah River Site MOX facility, yet actual 

471 

construction has not commenced. According to data received from 

the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

as of March 31, 2005, the Savannah River Site MOX construction 

project had an unobligated balance of $552.1 million. 

The committee fully supports the objective of the Fissile Materials Disposition program, including the objectives of the MOX program. The committee also recognizes that resolution of the liability 

issue between the United States and Russia is being pursued at 

the highest levels of the Administration. However, given other 

pressing budgetary needs, the committee can no longer continue to 

fully fund the MOX project given the apparent lack of progress in 

liability agreement negotiations and the significant funds that remain unobligated from prior year MOX program appropriations. 

The committee supports the overall objectives of the nonproliferation program and will look to fund those activities that can be reasonably executed. The committee recommends $88.6 million for the 

Savannah River Site Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, a decrease of $250.0 million. Of the $88.6 million authorized for the Savannah River MOX construction project in fiscal year 2006, no 

more than $50.0 million may be obligated prior to certification by 

the Secretary of Energy that both the United States and Russia 

agree that the MOX liability issue has been satisfactorily resolved. 

In the event that additional funds are required (above prior year 

balances and this $88.6 million authorization), the Secretary of Energy is directed to submit a reprogramming request to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 3182 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) establishes that the 

Secretary of Energy shall commence certain payments to the state 

of South Carolina if the MOX production objective is not met by 

January 1, 2011. Based on the liability agreement incurred delays 

in MOX facility construction, the committee is concerned that this 

production objective may not be met and that these payments will 

impact future year budgets for not only the MOX program, but for 

all defense nuclear nonproliferation programs. The committee directs the Secretary to submit, with the fiscal year 2007 budget request, a report that outlines various options for MOX program 

funding in the event that the MOX production objective is not met, 

as well as alternative plutonium disposition strategies in the event 

that MOX liability issues are not resolved and the program is terminated. 

Thorium fuel project 

The committee is concerned that disposition of surplus plutonium 

in Russia remains a significant challenge. Even if the MOX project 

is successful in the long-term, the committee notes that there remain stocks of plutonium for which there is no disposition path. 

The committee believes that pursuing other plutonium disposition 

options, including the thorium-based fuel cycle, is important. The 

committee recommends $5.0 million to continue the thorium-based 

fuel program currently being conducted by the Radkowsky Thorium-Plutonium Incinerator (RTPI) project in Russia. 

In particular, the Department of Energy is directed to continue 

design studies to optimize the design for plutonium disposition, to 

fabricate and irradiate plutonium alloy fuel, and to initiate other 

472 

qualification tasks to implement the coordinated RTPI program. 

The $5.0 million shall be made available for this work in Russia 

on the conditions and only to the extent that the Federal Atomic 

Energy Agency agrees that the RTPI project should be conducted 

under the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement of 

2000 and that Department of Energy personnel are granted access 

to the fabrication facilities at Elemash and the Siberian Chemical 

Combine in order to further evaluate the work performed. 

The committee further directs the Department to submit with 

the fiscal year 2007 budget its recommendations for the future of 

the thorium fuel program. 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative 

The budget request contained $97.9 million for the Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative (GTRI). The committee supports the goal of 

this program, especially those activities conducted outside the 

United States. The committee recommends $117.9 million, an increase of $20.0 million to be used solely for GTRI activities outside 

the United States. 

Section 3132 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) stated that 

it was the sense of Congress that the security, including the rapid 

removal or secure storage of high-risk, proliferation-attractive materials, radiological materials, and related equipment worldwide is 

a matter of national security. Although section 3132 contains a detailed list of activities that may be included as part of the GTRI 

(also referred to as ‘‘Global Cleanout’’), it was the intent of Congress to grant broad authority to conduct a range of activities to 

seize and secure nuclear related materials in order to reduce the 

threat of nuclear proliferation. It was not the intent of Congress 

that the enumerated activities in section 3132 be narrowly construed. For example, Congress would expect that other materials 

and activities not expressly listed, but that are of concern from a 

nuclear non- proliferation perspective would be covered by the authority granted in section 3132. Though not explicitly called out, 

Congress would clearly envision the following activities to be covered by the authority granted in this section: safeguarding and securing a nuclear weapon, and securing or converting the fuel from 

critical assemblies and pulsed reactors, isotope production reactors, 

and icebreaker reactors. This enumeration is meant to be illustrative but not exhaustive. 

The Secretary of Energy should broadly interpret the Department of Energy’s authority under section 3132 to carry out those 

activities worldwide involving the removal or storage of materials 

that will reduce the threat posed by nuclear proliferation. The committee expects that the final report and plan required under section 3132 will include a prioritized listing of all types of high-threat 

facilities, including those discussed above, and that the plan required by section 3132 will include steps to address all of those facilities judged to pose high-priority threats. 

473 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $7,002.5 million for environmental and other defense activities. The committee recommends $7,298.9 

million, an increase of $296.4 million. 

Environmental Management Authority Transfer 

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) budget contained $174.4 million for environmental projects and operations 

at NNSA sites that were proposed by the Secretary of Energy to 

be transferred from the Office of Environmental Management to 

the Administrator of the NNSA commencing in 2006. As noted 

above, the committee finds that the proposed transfer is contrary 

to the intent of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act 

(Public Law 106–65, title 32) and does not authorize these activities within the NNSA budget request. The committee authorizes $174.4 million for these same activities 

under the Office of Environmental Management and directs the 

Secretary to realign the NNSA site environmental projects and operations funding to the appropriate accounts within the Office of 

Environmental Management. 

Hanford Defense Site Acceleration Completion Activities 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2006 budget request proposed an overall reduction of $550.0 million for Environmental 

Management Activities, with over $290.0 million of the cleanup 

funding reductions proposed at the Hanford site in Washington. 

While noting that the Department of Energy (DOE) had rational 

justifications for many of the proposed reductions at Hanford, the 

committee also understands that the cleanup efforts at Hanford, 

the largest cleanup site in the complex, must move forward in 

those areas where progress can be made in fiscal year 2006 and beyond. 

The budget request contained $625.9 million for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (Project 01–D–416). It is the largest and most complex nuclear design and construction project in 

the nation, and is critically important for successful cleanup of the 

Hanford site. The project consists of three major nuclear facilities 

to pre-treat and vitrify high-level waste that is currently located in 

underground tanks at Hanford. The committee notes that while 

construction activities at the Waste Treatment Plant were curtailed 

in response to new seismic information, the effect of the pending 

engineering reevaluation of seismic design issues will most likely 

result in an overall increase in the cost of the project. The committee recommends an increase of $64.1 million for the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant (Project 01–D–416) to restore 

funding to the $690.0 million level established in the DOE’s contract to build this facility. The committee does not want to see this 

project slowed down by a lack of funds. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees by March 1, 2006, on the overall cost analysis of the 

project and the impact of the new seismic data on both the design 

and construction of the WTP. The committee encourages the DeVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00499 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.005 HR089
474 

partment to work with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

to ensure full transparency into this engineering analysis effort. The budget request contained $301.9 million for Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization Disposition (Project ORP–0014). 

While the committee notes that there is continuing legal uncertainty over certain wastes associated with this project, there also 

are cleanup activities that can proceed if additional funding is provided. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $44.9 

million for Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization Disposition 

provided that the Secretary of Energy can assure the committee 

that these funds can be used for additional single-shell tank waste 

retrieval activities in a manner consistent with the DOE’s understanding of the legal uncertainty associated with certain tank 

wastes. The committee encourages the Department to continue to 

work with the state of Washington to resolve these legal uncertainties. 

The budget request contained $70.8 million for Nuclear Facility 

Decontamination & Decommissioning (D&D) at Hanford (Project 

RL–0040). The committee understands that increased funding is 

needed to ensure the River Corridor project meets its completion 

date to allow shrinkage of the Hanford site footprint. The committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million for Nuclear Facility D&D (Project RL–0040). 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

The budget request contained $351.0 million within Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal for the Yucca Mountain Project, an increase 

of $122.3 million from the fiscal year 2005 defense appropriations. 

The committee fully supports the budget request and the need for 

a permanent deep geologic repository for high level radioactive 

waste (HLW). 

This is a critical time for the Yucca Mountain regulatory process 

in preparation for submitting a construction license application to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

While the Yucca Mountain project has encountered a series of obstacles over the last year that have pushed the opening date back 

from 2010 to 2012, the need for transparency with the Licensing 

Support Network should be a priority. The recent discovery of 

faulty data from the United States Geological Survey has further 

stalled the licensing process, and the committee hopes this issue 

will be resolved soon in order to prevent further delays. 

Additionally, until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

approves a new environmental radiation standard for storage at 

Yucca Mountain, the program will experience further delays in submitting the licensing application to the NRC, therefore opening in 

2012. In July 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

overturned the EPA’s initial standard of projecting the Yucca storage compliance period out 10,000 years, citing that the EPA had 

violated the National Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102–486) by 

not authorizing a standard consistent with the National Academy 

of Sciences (NAS) finding for the compliance period, which was 

over 400,000 years. 

The recently published NAS study on the danger of storing spent 

nuclear fuel (SNF) in pools at nuclear power plants reinforces the 

need for tight security over SNF and the consolidation of HLW into 

475 

one repository, which could be stored underground and safe from 

a potential hostile attack. The committee fully supports the budget 

request for the Yucca Mountain project. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration 

This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2006, including funds for 

weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, 

naval reactor programs, and the Office of the Administrator. 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Management 

This section would authorize funds for defense environmental 

management activities for fiscal year 2006, including funds for defense site acceleration completion and defense environmental services. 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities 

This section would authorize funds for other defense activities for 

fiscal year 2006. 

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear waste disposal for fiscal year 2006. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3111—Reliable Replacement Warhead Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to carry out 

a Reliable Replacement Warhead program to develop reliable replacement components that are producible and certifiable for the 

existing nuclear weapons stockpile. This section establishes goals 

for the program and requires a report to Congress. 

Section 3112—Report on Assistance for Comprehensive Inventory 

of Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons 

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to submit a 

report to Congress evaluating past efforts of the United States to 

encourage a proper accounting for and securing of Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons, and to recommend U.S. actions that are 

most likely to contribute to a complete inventory and security of 

such weapons. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United 

States withdrew its nonstrategic nuclear weapons from Europe and 

Asia. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine, 

Belarus, and Kazakhstan all gave up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union. The Russian Federation, however, 

continued to produce and deploy new nuclear weapons while increasing their importance and role in war-fighting plans. Unfortunately, as these events occurred, many Russian and non-Russian 

476 

analysts expressed growing concern about the reliability of Russia’s 

control over its nuclear capabilities, particularly its nonstrategic 

nuclear weapons. The committee believes that the United States 

should assist Russia to preserve that control and that the Secretary 

of Energy’s report on the means by which it might do so could 

prove very helpful in guiding the future evolution of the Department’s Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $22.0 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2006. The committee 

recommends the budget request. 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Waste Treatment Plant 

The committee relies heavily on the technical expertise of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) to ensure that appropriate nuclear safety features are incorporated in the Waste 

Treatment Plant design. The DNFSB has and should continue to 

provide nuclear safety oversight in such areas as seismic and 

geotechnical engineering, concrete chemistry, fire protection, process chemistry, plant mechanical systems, safety systems, and hazard analysis. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION 

Section 3201—Authorization 

This section would authorize $22.0 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2006, the amount of the 

request. 

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Sale of Strategic and Critical Materials 

The National Defense Stockpile (NDS) operates under authority 

of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 

98, et seq.). The Act mandates that a stockpile of strategic and critical materials be maintained to decrease, and preclude, when possible, dependence upon foreign sources for supplies in times of national emergency. The Defense National Stockpile Center, a field 

activity of the Defense Logistics Agency, conducts the sale of strategic and critical materials in the NDS. Over 95 percent of the materials currently in the NDS have been determined to be excess to 

Department of Defense (DOD) needs and are now being disposed 

of. As a result of recent market conditions, particularly with respect to titanium, and the increasing reliance on foreign sources of 

supply for defense programs, the committee has concerns about the 

477 

DOD’s ability to ensure the timely availability of materials to meet 

the current needs of the military services. The committee directs 

the Secretary to review the DOD’s current policy to dispose of material and determine whether the NDS should be re-configured to 

adapt to current world market conditions to ensure future availability of materials required for defense needs. The committee directs the Secretary to report to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 

2006, on the findings and conclusions. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 

Funds 

This section would authorize $52.1 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2006. The 

section would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after Congress receives notification. 

Section 3302—Revision of Fiscal Year 1999 Authority to Dispose of 

Certain Materials in the National Defense Stockpile 

This section would authorize increased sales of stockpile materials through the end of fiscal year 2011. 

Section 3303—Revision of Fiscal Year 2000 Authority to Dispose of 

Certain Materials in the National Defense Stockpile 

This section would authorize increased sales of stockpile materials through the end of fiscal year 2011. 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize $18.5 million for fiscal year 2006 for 

the operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves. 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Maritime 

Administration for Fiscal Year 2006 

This section would authorize a total of $138.2 million for fiscal 

year 2006, the amount contained in the budget request. Of the 

funds authorized, $113.6 million would be for operations and training programs, $3.5 million would be for administrative expenses related to the operation of the loan guarantee program authorized by 

title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, (46 App. 

United States Code 1271 et seq.), and $21.0 million would be for 

478 

the disposal of obsolete vessels. Within the funds included for operations and training programs, the committee recommends $10.0 

million to establish a pilot program to provide for the reimbursement of non-emergency repairs for vessels enrolled in the Maritime 

Security Program, and $1.2 million for additional payments to the 

state maritime academies for increased fuel and operating costs. 

Section 3502—Payments for State and Regional Maritime 

Academies 

This section would increase the amount of assistance provided to 

the six state maritime academies which are located in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Texas, and California. These six 

schools currently receive limited federal support yet a substantial 

number of their graduates hold federal licenses and support our increasing mariner requirements in both the commercial and military 

sectors. The current law provides for a payment from the Maritime 

Administration of $200,000 dollars annually for cadet training and 

facilities support. That amount has not been raised since 1989. 

This section would raise the level of support to $300,000 dollars in 

fiscal year 2006, $400,000 dollars in fiscal year 2007, and $500,000 

in fiscal year 2008, and for each fiscal year thereafter. This section 

would also require the Maritime Administration to provide modest 

payments to the aforementioned state maritime academies for the 

increasing cost of fuel used for the operation of the academies’

training ships. 

Section 3503—Improvements to the Maintenance and Repair 

Reimbursement Pilot Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a pilot program to provide for the reimbursement of certain 

U.S. Coast Guard required inspection, survey, and repair expenses 

incurred by contractors who are operating vessels enrolled in the 

Maritime Security Program. Section 3517 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) authorized the Secretary of Transportation to establish, beginning in 

fiscal year 2006, a pilot program to ensure that vessels enrolled in 

the Maritime Security Program obtained their dry dockings and repairs in facilities located in the United States. That same section 

required the Secretary of Transportation to submit an analysis of 

the need for maintenance and repair agreements to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 

Transportation. The report was quite supportive of a pilot program 

concluding that ‘‘the most significant benefit of the program is to 

assist in maintaining an effective ship repair base that is available 

to support national defense requirements.’’ The report went on to 

find that the direct benefit to U.S. shipyards would be $28.2 million 

annually, and that additional benefits include approximately $80.0 

million in total economic impact on the U.S. economy which translates into about 1100 jobs throughout the economy. Federal taxes 

generated would be $16.5 million and state and local taxes generated would be $8.0 million. 

As a result of these findings, the committee pursuant to this section will require current Maritime Security Program contractors to 

479 

enter into maintenance and repair agreements with the Secretary 

of Transportation. The Secretary of Transportation will be required 

to reimburse these contractors/owners for the difference between 

the fair and reasonable cost of obtaining the maintenance or repair 

in the United States and the fair and reasonable cost of obtaining 

the qualified maintenance or repair outside the United States, in 

the geographic region in which the vessel usually operates. With 

the funds provided in this fiscal year, the Secretary should phase 

in enrollments based on anticipated drydockings. Those vessels requiring or scheduled for drydockings within the next 2 years 

should, subject to the availability of appropriations, be enrolled 

first as part of the initial phase of this pilot program. These maintenance and repair agreements will at a minimum require that all 

work, including the dry docking, associated with the U.S. Coast 

Guard Certificate of Inspection (which is required of each vessel 

every five years) be completed in a ship repair facility located in 

the United States. 

Section 3504—Tank Vessel Construction Assistance 

This section would require the Secretary of Transportation to 

enter into a tank vessel construction contract with a prospective 

owner provided that appropriations are available. 

Section 3505—Improvements to the Maritime Administration 

Vessel Disposal Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Transportation to 

submit to Congress, within 120 days of enactment of this Act, a 

comprehensive plan for management of the vessel disposal program 

of the Maritime Administration (MARAD) in accordance with the 

recommendations made in the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report titled, ‘‘Maritime Administration: Improved Program 

Management Needed to Address Timely Disposal of Obsolete 

Ships,’’ March 2005. The GAO report found that MARAD will likely 

fall 100 ships short of its September 30, 2006, Congressionallymandated deadline to dispose of most of its obsolete ship inventory. 

This anticipated failure is very disappointing to the committee. The 

reason, according to GAO, for ‘‘MARAD’s slow progress is due primarily to program leaders not developing a comprehensive management approach that could address the myriad of environmental, 

legal, and regulatory challenges that the program faces.’’ The committee expects that the comprehensive management plan required 

of MARAD will result in more rapid ship disposal, better value to 

the government and improved communication with Congress on 

mission obstacles and realistic resource needs. 

The committee assumes that is it not beyond the Department of 

Transportation’s institutional competence to develop and implement a plan to dispose of MARAD’s obsolete ship inventory with 

transparent contracting procedures. The section requires that the 

plan use full and open competition to secure ship disposal services, 

while utilizing domestic sources to the maximum extent practicable. The committee recognizes the need to maximize competition in order to obtain the best value to the government and the 

value of maintaining domestic ship disposal capacity. To maintain 

this capacity, MARAD should consider how to promote better comVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00505 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.005 HR089
480 

munication and coordination with the domestic ship disposal industry as to policy making. It is expected that MARAD will not cease 

ship disposal during the development of the plan rather, that 

MARAD will continue to dispose of ships in fiscal year 2006 using 

the funds authorized elsewhere in this Act. 

The section also provides, however, that if the Secretary of 

Transportation fails to submit to Congress a timely and responsive 

plan, he must conduct a full and open competition to select a private ship disposal integrator to procure disposal services for the 

Ship Disposal Office. If this becomes necessary, the committee expects that the Department will establish eligibility requirements to 

ensure that such a contractor have sufficient project management 

and industry experience to expeditiously secure the best value to 

the government for disposal. If the Secretary submits an acceptable 

plan, but fails to implement it, the Department can expect that the 

committee will seriously consider whether the work of the Ship 

Disposal Office ought to be continued in its current form. 

Finally, under this section, the Secretary is required to transfer 

no fewer than four obsolete combatant vessels to the Navy for disposal by their disposal contractors. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee has provided the U.S. Navy’s ship disposal program budget 

an increase of $8.0 million for a total of $19.9 million. It is anticipated that these additional funds will be used by the Navy, in part, 

to dispose of the obsolete combatant vessels transferred from 

MARAD’s inventory moored at the James River, Virginia, Suisun 

Bay, California and Beaumont, Texas facilities. For purposes of 

this section the committee understands the phrase ‘‘combatant vessels’’ to include all former U.S. Navy ships. 

DEPARTMENTAL DATA 

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance 

with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below: 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, DC, April 7, 2005. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2006. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose a few additional legislative initiatives for inclusion in the same Bill. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

481 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM J. HAYNES II, General Counsel. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, DC, April 25, 2005. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2006. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM J. HAYNES II, General Counsel. 

COMMITTEE POSITION 

On May 19, 2005 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 

being present, approved H.R. 1815, as amended, by a vote of 61–

1. 

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: Thank you for working with me in 

your development of H.R. 1815, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,’’ specifically: 

(1) Section 561, Enrollment in Overseas Schools of Defense 

Dependents. 

(2) Section 571, Extension of HEROES. 

(3) Section 563, Continuation of Impact Aid on Behalf of Certain Members Despite Change in Status of Member. 

(4) Section 825, Extension of Provision regarding Javits-Wagner-O’Day. 

As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction of the 

Education and the Workforce Committee. While I do not intend to 

seek sequential referral of H.R. 1815, the Committee does hold an 

interest in preserving its future jurisdiction with respect to issues 

raised in the aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional preVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00507 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.005 HR089
482 

rogatives should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We 

would expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions 

should a conference with the Senate arise. 

Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the 

amendments to H.R 1815 and look forward to working with you on 

these issues in the future. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN BOEHNER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce has 

valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 

legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of 

the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: On May 18, 2005, the Committee on 

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 1815, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. As ordered reported by the 

Committee on Armed Services, this legislation contains a number 

of provisions that fall within the jurisdiction on the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. These provisions include the following: 

Section 314. Payment of Certain Private Cleanup Costs in Connection with Defense Environmental Restoration Program. 

Section 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 1042. Reestablishment of the EMP Commission. 

Section 3201. Defense Nuclear Safety Board Authorization. 

Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation before the 

House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the bill. By agreeing not 

to seek a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive its jurisdiction over these provisions or any 

other provisions of the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. In 

483 

addition, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves its 

right to seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction 

which are considered in the House-Senate conference, and ask for 

your support in being accorded such conferees. 

I request that you include this letter and your response as part 

of the report on H.R. 1815 and as part of the Congressional Record 

during consideration of this bill by the House. 

Sincerely, 

JOE BARTON, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request 

such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 

this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report 

on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC, May 18, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On May 18, 2005, the Committee on 

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 1815, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Thank you for working 

closely with the Committee on Government Reform on those matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction and especially for including certain provisions of H.R. 2067, the Acquisition System Improvement Act, in H.R. 1815 as reported by your Committee. I am 

writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the 

consideration of H.R. 1815. 

In the interest of expediting the House’s consideration of H.R. 

1815, the Committee on Government Reform will not request a sequential referral of the bill. However, the Committee does so only 

with the understanding that this procedural route will not prejudice the Committee’s jurisdictional interest and prerogatives in this 

bill or similar legislation. 

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside 

conferees from the Committee on Government Reform should H.R. 

484 

1815 or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference with the 

Senate. Finally, I request that you include our exchange of letters 

on this matter in the Armed Services Committee Report on H.R. 

1815 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this 

bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

TOM DAVIS, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. TOM DAVIS, 

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on Government Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a 

referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I 

agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 

Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 

exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the 

bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Homeland Security in H.R. 

1815, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006.’’ The coordination of the Nation’s preparedness against the 

threat of weapons of mass destruction within the borders of the 

United States—a threat that is synonymous with terrorism—is of 

particular jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Homeland 

Security, as are immigration and homeland security education initiatives. This bill contains a number of provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security, including: • Section 347, which requires the Secretary of Defense and 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to report on the impact on 

military readiness caused by undocumented immigrants whose 

entry into the United States involves trespassing upon operational military ranges; • Section 1032, which would reassign existing responsibilities for developing and carrying out a program to test the Nation’s preparedness for chemical, biological, radiological, nuVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00510 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR089.005 HR089
485 

clear, and related materials from the Secretary of Defense to 

the Secretary of Homeland Security; • Section 1033, which would expand the responsibilities of 

Department of Defense domestic response teams and require 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to incorporate such response assets into the National Response Plan and other existing Federal response plans; • Section 1034, which would repeal section 1412 of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 

U.S.C. 2312), which requires the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out a program to provide civilian personnel of Federal, State, 

and local agencies with training and advice regarding the 

emergency response to weapons of mass destruction; and • an amendment agreed to by the full Committee on Armed 

Services, which adds a Sense of Congress that the Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, should establish a National College of Homeland Security 

at the National Defense University. 

The Committee on Homeland Security acknowledges the importance of H.R. 1815 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a claim to jurisdiction over certain provisions of the bill, I agree not to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 

that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of 

the Committee on Homeland Security, and that a copy of this letter 

and of your response will be included in the Committee report and 

in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the 

House Floor. 

The Committee on Homeland Security also asks that you support 

our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have 

jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

CHRISTOPHER COX, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. CHRISTOPHER, COX, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on Homeland Security has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a 

referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I 

agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 

Homeland Security is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the 

bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

486 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIMAN: I understand that on Thursday, May 19, 

2005 the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably reported 

H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006. The bill includes a number of provisions that fall within the 

legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations 

pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of Representatives. 

The provisions within our Committee’s jurisdiction are: (1) Section 814, Requirement for contracting operations to be included in 

interagency planning related to stabilization and reconstruction; (2) 

Section 1021, Extension of Department of Defense authority to support counter-terrorism; (3) Section 1022, Resumption of reporting 

requirement regarding Department of Defense expenditures to support foreign counter-drug activities; (4) Section 1023, Clarification 

of authority for joint task forces to support law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities; (5) Section 1201, Extension of humanitarian and civic assistance provided to host nations in conjunction with military operations; (6) Section 1203, 

Military education exchanges between senior officers and officials 

of the United States and Taiwan; (7) Section 1204, Modification of 

geographic restriction under bilateral and regional cooperation programs for payment of certain expenses of defense personnel of developing countries; (8) Section 1205, Authority for Department of 

Defense to enter into acquisition and cross servicing agreements 

with regional organizations of which the United States is not a 

member; (9) Section 1211, report on acquisition by Iran of nuclear 

weapons; (10) Section 1212, Procurement sanctions against foreign 

persons that transfer certain defense articles and services of the 

People’s Republic of China; (11) Title XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the Former Soviet Union; (12) Section 1606, 

Battlefield Accountability; and (13) Section 3112, Report on assistance for comprehensive inventory of Russian non-strategic nuclear 

weapons. 

Pursuant to Chairman Dreier’s announcement that the Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule for H.R. 

815 and your desire to have the bill considered on the House Floor 

next week, the Committee on International Relations will not seek 

a sequential referral of the bill as a result of including these provisions in question. I will seek to have the Speaker appoint conferees 

from this Committee for these provisions during any House-Senate 

conference committee, and I would ask your support for that request. 

I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of the report on H.R. 1815 and as part of the record during consideration 

of the bill by the House of Representatives. 

With best wishes, 

Sincerely, 

HENRY J. HYDE, Chairman. 

487 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. HENRY J. HYDE, 

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on International Relations has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request 

such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 

on International Relations is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 

this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report 

on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC, May 18, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: In recognition of the desire to expedite 

Floor consideration of H.R. 1815, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,’’ the Committee on the Judiciary 

hereby waives consideration of the bill. 

There are several provisions contained in H.R. 1815 within the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically, section 

551 clarifies the authority of military personnel to provide limited 

legal assistance to members of the military. This matter falls within the Committee’s jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(1) (‘‘The judiciary 

and civil proceedings, civil and criminal’’). Sections 617 and 673 

contain provisions related to flexible payment of incentive pay and 

the repayment of unearned portions of military bonuses. In relevant part, sections 617 and 673 modify the dischargeability of 

specified service pay and bonuses. These matters fall within the 

Committee’s jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(4) (‘‘Bankruptcy’’). Section 1043 pertains to the modernization of authority relating to security of defense property and facilities. This provision falls within 

the Committee’s jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(7) (‘‘criminal law enforcement’’) and rule X(1)(l)(19)(‘‘subversive activities affecting the 

internal security of the United States’’). In addition, sections 1421, 

1432, and 1443 pertain to acquisition reform at the Defense Department, and provide authority to issue regulations pertaining to 

newly-established contract review boards. These provisions fall 

under the Committee’s rule X(1)(l)(2) (‘‘Administrative practice and 

procedure’’). 

488 

The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the Committee’s jurisdiction over these and other 

provisions in the legislation are in no way altered or diminished. 

I would appreciate your including this letter in your Committee’s 

report on H.R. 1815 and the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House Floor. 

Sincerely, 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 

that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Congratulations on your successful markup 

of H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006. You should be commended for your leadership in marshaling this important legislation through your committee. 

I have reviewed the following provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources: 

• Sections 331–336, Utah Test and Training Range; 

• Section 1046, technical and clerical amendments; 

• Section 2813, Papago Park military reservation; and 

• Section 601, as it relates to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps. 

Because of the longstanding history of these provisions, I will not 

seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1815 based on their inclusion in 

the bill. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on these provisions, should a conference on 

H.R. 1815 or a similar measure become necessary. 

489 

Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and your 

staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 1815 enacted soon. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. RICHARD W. POMBO, 

Chairman, Committee on Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on Resources has valid jurisdictional 

claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am 

most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in 

the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 

foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Resources is not 

waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Small Business in H.R. 

1815, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006.’’ Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1815 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over certain provisions in the bill, 

I will agree not to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is 

conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces, 

or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Small 

Business. 

In addition, the Committee on Small Business reserves its authority to seek conferee status on any provisions of the bill that are 

within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that 

may be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by the Committee on Small Business to be conferees on H.R. 1815 or related legislation. 

Lastly, I request that you include this letter and your response 

as part of your committee’s report on the bill and the Congressional 

Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Chairman. 

490 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DONALD A. MANZULLO, 

Chairman, Committee on Small Business, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 

that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Small 

Business is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of 

letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1815 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of provisions of the 

bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, 

is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 

legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to include any agreements worked out by staff of our two Committees 

in amendments as the bill is taken to the House Floor, and that 

a copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as 

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 

by the House. 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also asks 

that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over 

which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

DON YOUNG, Chairman. 

491 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 20, 2005. 

Hon. DON YOUNG, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 

of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 

Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

FISCAL DATA 

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2006 and each of the 

following five fiscal years. The results of such efforts are reflected 

in the committee cost estimate, which is included in this report 

pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE 

Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives 

and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the committee 

has requested but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE 

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this 

bill. 

H.R. 1815 would authorize appropriations of $435.8 billion for 

fiscal year 2006 for the activities of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and the national security programs of the Department of 

Energy (DOE). The budget authority implication of the authorization of appropriations in H.R. 1815 is $441.6 billion. It would also 

authorize an additional $49.1 billion emergency appropriation for 

fiscal year 2006 to support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom. 

The committee estimates that enacting H.R. 1815 would not increase mandatory budget authority for fiscal year 2005 or the following five years. In terms of discretionary and mandatory budget 

authority, H.R. 1815 is within the allocation provided by 

H.Con.Res. 95, which establishes the Congressional budget for the 

492 

United States Government for fiscal year 2006 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2005 and 2007 through 

2010. 

The committee has been in close and constant consultation with 

the Congressional Budget Office and has provided copies of H.R. 

1815 as ordered reported on May 20, 2005, to develop an estimate 

and comparison as required under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. The committee expects to receive this letter 

prior to the consideration of H.R. 1815 by the House of Representatives. 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS 

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings 

and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant 

to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are reflected in the body of this report. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new 

spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase 

or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, 

authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation 

are addressed in the estimate prepared by the committee under 

clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation would address several 

general and outcome-related performance goals and objectives. The 

general goal and objective of this legislation is to improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families, military readiness, the modernization and eventual transformation of the armed 

forces, to enhance the development of ballistic missile defenses, and 

to improve the condition of military housing and facilities. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the quality 

of life for military personnel and their families, the objective of this 

legislation is to: 

(1) Provide a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for our 

men and women in uniform. The raise would reduce the gap 

between average military and private sector pay from 5.1 percent to 4.6 percent; and 

(2) Eliminate the provision to pay reservists a reduced housing allowance when mobilized to serve on active duty for greater than 30 days and less than 140 days. It also clarifies that 

full basic housing allowance would be paid to Reservists who 

are mobilized for less than 30 days in connection with a contingency operation; and 

(3) Address manpower needs with an increase of 10,000 personnel in the Army and 1,000 in the Marine Corps in 2006. 

That would bring the Army end strength to 512,400 and the 

Marine Corps to 179,000. In addition, the committee would 

provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to continue 

493 

to grow the Army to 532,400 and the Marine Corps to 184,000 

during the 2007 through 2009 period. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving force protection for our troops, the objective of this legislation is to: 

(1) Provide several billion dollars in funding for force protection initiatives, including armor for vehicles, new munitions 

and improvised explosive device jammers; and 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of successfully prosecuting continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the objective of this legislation is to: (1) Provide an additional $49.1 billion in contingency operations supplemental funding to be appropriated for fiscal year 

2006 to support the war on terrorism’s operational costs, personnel expenses and the procurement of new equipment; and 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving military 

housing and facilities, the objective of this legislation is to: (1) Provide $12.1 billion for military construction and military family housing programs; and 

(2) Allow the secretaries of the military departments to exchange surplus property for construction projects, land, or 

housing. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT 

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES 

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal 

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the 

bill provides no federal intergovernmental mandates. 

RECORD VOTES 

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken with 

respect to the committee’s consideration of H.R. 1815. The record 

of these votes is attached to this report. 

The committee ordered H.R. 1815 reported to the House with a 

favorable recommendation by a vote of 61–1, a quorum being 

present. 

494 


Insert graphic folio 501 HR89.173
495 


Insert graphic folio 502 HR89.174
496 


Insert graphic folio 503 HR89.175
497 


Insert graphic folio 504 HR89.176
498 


Insert graphic folio 505 HR89.177
499 


Insert graphic folio 506 HR89.178
500 


Insert graphic folio 507 HR89.179
501 


Insert graphic folio 508 HR89.180
502 


Insert graphic folio 509 HR89.181
503 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS 

REPORTED 

The committee intends to take steps to make available the analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as required by 

clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

(504) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

The 2006 defense authorization bill is a good one that makes advances on a variety of issues. We are pleased that the committee 

worked largely in accordance with its bipartisan tradition and that 

important initiatives were debated seriously. Our concerns associated with the provision on women in the military are addressed 

separately. A few of the bill’s other provisions warrant special mention here. 

Personnel benefits 

We are gratified that the Committee was able to include provisions increasing Army end strength by 30,000 and Marine Corps 

end strength by 4,000. We are also pleased that these increases are 

paid for but believe they should be funded in the base defense bill 

rather than in the separately authorized ‘‘bridge’’ supplemental 

fund. 

Increases in recruiting and retention incentives, such as special 

pays and reenlistment bonuses are particularly important because 

of the difficult recruiting environment the services are experiencing, and the Committee was wise to include such provisions. 

Similarly, the adoption of Mr. Butterfield’s amendment providing 

that unemployable disabled retirees may receive both military retired pay and VA disability compensation is a vital step in ensuring 

that these veterans are not penalized by virtue of their military 

service. The Spratt amendment to ensure that service members 

serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have the option of $250,000 worth 

of no-cost life insurance is another beneficial action to ensure that 

service members who sacrifice so much for our great nation are 

adequately provided for. Finally, we regret that the Committee did 

not adopt the amendment offered by Mr. Andrews that would have 

established a $100,000 death gratuity for the families of service 

members who are killed, regardless of whether the death occurs in 

a combat zone or not. 

National Defense Panel 

The Department’s ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review is likely 

to be the most significant QDR conducted by the Department of Defense. It will be the first to take full account of the global war on 

terrorism and of lessons learned from the war in Iraq. It must also 

deal with the coming budgetary trade-offs among weapons programs and between those programs and the people who serve. Because of the scope of the review and the magnitude and impact of 

its potential recommendations, Congress would benefit from an alternative view—a group of experts reporting directly to Congress 

who could both review the Department’s work and offer competing 

analysis and recommendations where necessary. 

505 

Mr. Skelton and Mr. Thornberry’s amendment to create a National Defense Panel would have done just that. It would have provided Congress with a valuable set of perspectives on issues of 

force structure, force sizing, and programmatic trade-offs and 

would have helped the Armed Services Committee make more informed decisions while conducting oversight and developing legislation. The Panel would not have been a substitute for, but a complement to, the committee’s own oversight activities. We appreciate 

the Chairman’s pledge to conduct vigorous analysis and oversight 

through a committee panel on these matters, but believe that the 

independent National Defense Panel would have benefited the 

Armed Services Committee’s efforts. 

Nonproliferation policy 

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, both candidates agreed 

that the greatest risk to American national security is that posed 

by a terrorist acquiring nuclear weapons. The Cooperative Threat 

Reduction programs of the Department of Defense and the Nuclear 

Nonproliferation programs of the Department of Energy are critical 

for preventing this catastrophic outcome. They are cost-effective 

programs for dealing with a threat of this magnitude. The bipartisan Baker-Cutler Task Force recommended in 2001 that the 

United States should be spending $3 billion annually on these programs for the next ten years. Yet the budget request for these two 

departments this year is approximately $2 billion. From that figure, the Armed Services Committee cut $122 million for the mixed 

oxide fuel construction project at Savannah River. 

The amendment offered by Mr. Spratt would have modestly increased funding for nonproliferation programs in the Departments 

of Defense and Energy by $80 million. It would have restored CTR 

funding to the level it was at before September 11, 2001—a wise 

move considering the threat of illicit materials getting into the 

hands of terrorists. It also would have increased funding in the Department of Energy for several activities that would greatly reduce 

the proliferation risk: putting foreign scientists to work in nonweapons activities, enhancing export controls to prevent the movement of dangerous materials or weapons; repatriating Russian-origin highly-enriched uranium from vulnerable research reactors 

while converting some of these reactors to using low enriched uranium; and for securing and facilitating the disposal of vulnerable 

nuclear material located in countries of high proliferation concern. 

All of this would have been accomplished with a modest decrease 

from the ground-based mid-course missile defense system that 

would have limited the number of silos at Fort Greeley to 26. This 

amendment would have still provided a preliminary missile defense 

capability while taking important steps to decrease the risk posed 

by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We hope that 

the committee’s action will be reversed on the floor. 

Ballistic missile defense 

While ballistic missile defense (BMD) is an important mission, 

we believe that the resources devoted to it are out of proportion to 

the likelihood of the threat. We were therefore disappointed that 

the Spratt amendment to increase non-proliferation programs by 

506 

transferring a modest $80 million from the ground-based midcourse 

system—which has not had a successful intercept test flight since 

October, 2002—was rejected on a party-line vote. We are also puzzled by the party-line rejection of the Tauscher Amendment requiring the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) to devise 

the test plans for BMD systems being deployed rather than the 

Missile Defense Agency. Independent OT&E is standard operating 

procedure for every other major weapon system. We are encouraged 

that the Senate adopted language similar to the Tauscher Amendment in its version of the bill, and we will work for its enactment 

in conference. 

Authorization of supplemental appropriations 

We also want to note that the Committee in this bill authorizes 

almost $50 billion in fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations 

for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror. 

These are funds separate and apart from the $440-plus billion dollars we are authorizing as a part of the regular fiscal year 2006 

defense budget request. 

Our concern is that the conflicts for which we are authorizing 

this additional money are mature enough that their costs are foreseeable and should be included in the regular budget request—they 

should not be authorized as a supplemental or ‘‘bridge’’ fund. Mr. 

Abercrombie’s amendment in committee made this point. 

Budgeting in this fashion has adverse consequences. First, by 

paying for the war by supplemental appropriations, the Department of Defense has not had as much ‘‘up front’’ money as it has 

needed to properly equip our troops with body armor, vehicle armor 

and other equipment to protect them from insurgent attacks. Budgeting for the war by supplemental effectively causes the services to 

‘‘rob Peter to pay Paul’’ until supplementals are approved, and important activities like training have had to be postponed. 

Second, the ‘‘emergency’’ designation that goes along with supplemental appropriations hides the true extent of the federal budget 

deficit because these expenses are not counted against the regular 

defense budget for the year in which they occur, but they do increase the size of the actual deficit. This is not the way we should 

be paying for these costs of war. 

Although we may disagree with the practice of funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through supplemental appropriations, if we are going to go down this road, then it is important 

that we not short-circuit the authorization process. The effort to 

prescribe the purposes to which this money should be put and to 

limit the extent to which items unrelated to the war on terrorism 

are included is important. Unfortunately, when supplemental appropriations do not go through the authorization process, there has 

been a disappointing trend to include extraneous, parochial items. 

America is a nation at war. The fiscal year 2006 defense authorization bill recognizes that exigency and provides those who protect 

America with many of the tools they need to do the job. We look 

forward to improving the bill even further as the legislative process 

moves forward. 

IKE SKELTON. 

LANE EVANS. 

507 

JOHN SPRATT. MARTY MEEHAN. LORETTA SANCHEZ. SILVESTRE REYES. JIM COOPER. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. JIM LANGEVIN. STEVE ISRAEL. TIM RYAN. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER. NEIL ABERCROMBIE. ADAM SMITH. 

ROBERT A. BRADY. 

VIC SNYDER. 

RICK LARSEN. 

MARK E. UDALL. 

SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ. KENDRICK B. MEEK. 

MIKE MCINTYRE. 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS. G.K. BUTTERFIELD. GENE TAYLOR. 

(508) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

We are disappointed that H.R. 1815 includes Section 574, policies 

designed to restrict the participation of women in our military. Although purportedly a mere codification of existing policy, what 

Congress is really saying to our brave women currently serving 

throughout the world is that it has seen the quality of their service 

and found it lacking. This is a terribly disrespectful message to 

send to our troops, especially in time of war. Worst of all, it is completely unfounded. Military women have and continue to serve with 

honor and distinction in the roles they’ve been assigned under the 

existing policy. They are outstanding service members serving 

equally alongside their male brothers-in-arms. In short, this is a 

provision that rolls back advances women have made in the armed 

services and will limit the future role of women in the military. 

We found the circumstances surrounding the introduction of this 

issue and adoption of this language troubling in terms of both process and substance. 

In terms of process, it is important to note that the Military Personnel Subcommittee has held no hearings this year on the topic 

of the role of female service members in our military. Neither has 

the Committee undertaken any sort of systematic study or analysis 

of this issue. We are not even aware of any anecdotal evidence suggesting that the current policy’s implementation has been problematic in any respect. In short, we have seen no indication that a 

problem with the integration of women in the armed forces exists, 

let alone one that would warrant such a sweeping legislative solution. 

The original amendment offered during the Military Personnel 

Subcommittee mark-up was made available to committee Democrats only the night before. This practice was repeated when a new, 

full committee amendment was unveiled the night before full committee mark up. Such actions, apparently intended to constrain our 

ability to address the issue as comprehensively as it deserved, are 

unfair, make for a less informed debate and do a disservice to both 

the institution and the country. 

We are mindful of our constitutionally-mandated oversight role 

concerning the armed forces. We can responsibly exercise that role 

only when fully informed and properly prepared. An issue with 

such wide ranging impact as this deserves the full attention of the 

committee and the benefit of the complete oversight process, both 

of which were sadly lacking in this instance. 

In terms of substance, the amendment offered in the Military 

Personnel Subcommittee applied only to the Army. It was seriously 

flawed. It referenced ‘‘Forward Support Companies’’ which is a 

term of art referring to a very specific type of Army unit. Those 

units were defined so broadly that the Army estimated that over 

20,000 women soldiers would be precluded from serving in many 

509 

of the units in which they are currently serving—units that are 

making a huge contribution to the war in Iraq and the global war 

on terrorism. Both the Secretary of the Army and the Army Vice 

Chief of Staff wrote the committee voicing their strong opposition 

to this amendment. Nevertheless, the provision passed in subcommittee by party line vote. 

During full committee mark up, we were surprised to see that 

the scope of the amendment had been expanded from applying only 

to the Army to now applying to women in all the military services. 

The amendment adopted in full committee is ostensibly meant to 

codify an existing policy based on a memorandum authored by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin in January 1994. However, there are 

some key differences between that memorandum and the provision 

now in this bill. 

First, we do not think it is advisable to make statutory changes 

at this time without further study and deliberation. Codifing existing policies at this time without further study and deliberation is 

to limit the flexibility our military commanders require at the very 

time when they need it most—in time of war. They need to be able 

to adapt to changing battlefield conditions. The modern battlefield 

has changed so that there is no longer a clear distinction between 

the front lines and what has traditionally been regarded as relatively secure rear areas. By codifying the kinds of units in which 

service by women is forbidden and then further providing that 

these units ‘‘shall remain closed to the assignment of female members,’’ it will now be much more difficult to adjust to this changed 

operational environment because a statutory change will be required every time a service wants to move women into a unit now 

on the prohibited list, regardless of whether the role of that type 

of unit has changed or what that type of unit is doing operationally. It is particularly unwise to inhibit flexibility in the case of the 

Army, because that service is undergoing a major force structure 

realignment. Although we cannot now say for sure what operational impact this provision will have, we believe that it will have 

an adverse effect on units in the field. 

We note that the Army has evolved its tactics so that units 

where women serve can provide necessary support to combat units 

and still comply with existing policies regarding women in combat. 

Should this measure be passed into law, it will create serious complications for our units currently engaged in missions around the 

world. Those units will have to be significantly reorganized in order 

to comply with a new directive that requires ‘‘particular care to 

minimally expose female members of that service, either by doctrine or employment, to direct ground combat.’’ Operations, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be hindered as the Army 

develops new procedures and tactics to comply with this mandate. 

Unit readiness may be degraded as women are forced to leave units 

in which they currently serve. It is clear that it can only serve to 

constrain our commanders and in so doing, put our soldiers at risk. 

This new requirement further belies the assertion that only a codification of current policy is intended. 

Secondly, the eleven year old Aspin policy was obviously meant 

to be a starting point for the role of women in the military. In what 

can only be a conscious omission on the part of those who drafted 

510 

the instant provision, the sentence ‘‘The Services will use this guidance to expand opportunities for women’’ was not included in the 

text of the amendment. What was once intended to be the base line 

from which advances were expected is now the limit beyond which 

no advance can be made without a further change in law. We believe that this will exacerbate an already difficult recruiting and retention environment. 

Women play a key role in manning our forces. The message that 

the country does not value their service may well drive qualified 

women out of the service and away from already struggling recruiters. When the Army struggles to make its recruiting goal as it has 

recently, we need every qualified person who will consider serving. 

The message the bill’s language sends can only compound the nation’s already difficult challenge to fill the ranks. 

The bottom line is that women have a long and distinguished 

record of military service to the country. Changes to their current 

role should be undertaken only after full analysis and careful deliberation. Process concerns aside, the language in this bill is nothing 

more than a clever attempt to roll back the current role of women 

in our military. We are concerned that confusion and uncertainty 

will be created within the ranks of our military during a time of 

war, battlefield operations may suffer, recruiting and retention 

may be made more difficult, and service members’ lives may even 

be put at risk. The committee should be affirming the nation’s commitment to and admiration of the quality, fidelity, and dedication 

of all our service members. It is troubling and sad that the majority has pursued such a misguided course. 

IKE SKELTON. 

VIC SNYDER. 

JOHN SPRATT. 

SILVESTRE REYES. 

LORETTA SANCHEZ. 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER. 

RICK LARSEN. 

LANE EVANS. 

DAN BOREN. 

KENDRICK B. MEEK. 

JIM COOPER. 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. 

JIM LANGEVIN. 

STEVE ISRAEL. 

MARTY MEEHAN. 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE. 

ADAM SMITH. 

ROBERT A. BRADY. 

MARK E. UDALL. 

SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ. 

TIM RYAN. 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS. 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD. 

(511) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

Committee Democrats believe that the provisions of H.R. 1815 

addressing the Reliable Replacement Warhead and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator are both steps in the right direction, but fall 

short of supporting a sensible, coherent strategy for nuclear weapons. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead 

The Administration included the Reliable Replacement Warhead 

(RRW) program in its budget request this year for the first time, 

but provided scant justification for it. H.R. 1815 sets a legislative 

charter for the RRW program that includes several objectives included at our behest. From our perspective, the most significant of 

these are that the RRW should: 

• Further reduce the likelihood of resuming nuclear testing; 

• Rely on designs and components proven through testing as 

much as practicable; 

• Achieve reductions beyond those currently envisioned for the 

nuclear stockpile; 

• Not be used to produce warheads for new nuclear missions; 

• Improve safety and security mechanisms on our warheads; 

and 

• Be cost-effective and affordable. 

As part of the stated rationale for the RRW program, the National Nuclear Security Administration has expressed concern that 

accumulated changes in aging weapons components could lead to 

inadequate performance margins and reduced confidence in the 

stockpile. This conjectural argument cannot and should not be dismissed, but we note that the NNSA also has stated that the Stockpile Stewardship program is working and that NNSA judges all of 

the performance margins of individual weapon types in the enduring stockpile to be adequate. Prominent scientific advisory panels 

have noted that there are opportunities for further enhancing 

weapon performance margins, such as adjusting the boost gas components during regularly scheduled maintenance. 

Given the current satisfactory performance margins of the enduring stockpile and the lack of an immediate need for a new RRW 

warhead, Democrats strongly believe that the NNSA should exercise rigorous self-discipline and utilize designs and components 

that are well understood or have been previously been proven 

through testing. The RRW program should not be used as an excuse to resume nuclear testing. The statutory objectives to further 

reduce the likelihood of resuming nuclear testing and to rely upon 

designs and components that have been proven through testing 

were included at our insistence. 

We were disappointed that the majority could not agree that the 

ultimate objective of the RRW program should be to help ensure 

512 

ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). If the 

RRW program is successful, technical uncertainty about the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be erased. Consequently, 

the main rationale against the CTBT—that testing must be reserved as an option against technical uncertainty—will be removed. 

We believe strongly that ratification of the CTBT is the logical endresult of a successful RRW program, yet the committee majority 

adamantly refused to include ratification of the CTBT as an objective of the program. 

Democrats are willing to explore the concept of the RRW program, but do not yet embrace it. In our opinion, the RRW program 

is only worth of support if it: • Truly reduces or eliminates altogether the need for nuclear 

testing; 

• Leads to dramatic reductions in the nuclear arsenal, including complete dismantlement of the weapons and safe disposal 

of fissile components; 

• Does not introduce new mission or new weapon requirements, particularly for tactical military purposes; 

• Reduces the reliance of the U.S. on nuclear weapons and deemphasizes the military utility of nuclear weapons; 

• Significantly reduces the cost of maintaining our nuclear 

weapon complex, to include avoiding the need to build a modern pit facility; 

• Increases nuclear security and decreases the risk of unauthorized or accidental launch and/or detonation; and 

• Leads to ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 

The charter we have agreed to in H.R. 1815 points in the direction of these objectives, but not as explicitly as we would have preferred. We will continue to work with our colleagues to shape the 

RRW program to meet the above objectives, which we consider to 

be the foundation of a sensible nuclear strategy for our nation. It 

is important to bear in mind that the RRW program is simply a 

concept at this stage. Congress will not be in a position to know 

if the RRW program can meet these ambitious objectives until the 

Administration spells out its programmatic details. Many of the 

specific reporting requirements in the bill were included at our behest in order to produce a full accounting of the objectives, methods, and costs of the RRW program. We will reserve final judgment 

on the RRW program until we can evaluate this information. 

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 

Similarly, the committee Democrats appreciate the fact that the 

majority took the ‘‘Nuclear’’ portion out of the Robust Nuclear 

Earth Penetrator or ‘‘RNEP’’ program. Nonetheless, we are concerned that the committee report language is written vaguely 

enough that conventional testing of penetration weapons could be 

used as a proxy to inform nuclear applications as well. 

Committee Democrats recognize the increasing proliferation of 

hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs) and strongly support efforts to hold these facilities at risk and, if necessary, to defeat them 

militarily. However, we believe that conventional means of holding 

HDBTs at risk are inherently more credible than nuclear options 

513 

and also hold greater promise of military utility if used. Therefore, 

we believe the nation’s security interests are best served by focusing our limited resources on conventional options. 

The committee report as it currently stands supports a sled test 

that can ‘‘evaluate the feasibility of various options for different 

types of penetrators.’’ This language could be construed to allow 

the sled test to inform whether a nuclear payload could be used in 

high-speed penetration of hard geologies. Moving the RNEP sled 

test out of the Department of Energy budget and into the Air Force 

budget strongly indicates the committee’s preference for conventional payload penetration testing, but we believe the Congress 

should go even further. This sled test should be conducted in a 

manner that only informs conventional payloads, and if this is not 

technically feasible, there should be no further work in designing 

modified or new nuclear weapon designs based on the sled test 

data. We will strive to include this language in conference with the 

Senate. 

H.R. 1815 as currently written also includes $4.5 million to 

evaluate how to integrate a conceptual nuclear ‘‘bunker buster’’ onto the B–2 bomber. We believe it is premature to begin integration engineering efforts for a weapon that should never be designed 

and, at a minimum, is years away from being designed. The committee’s decision to delete RNEP funding from the Department of 

Energy request and re-orient the nature of the sled test to conventional penetrating weapons further undermines the rationale for 

this request. In order to maintain comity within the committee, we 

did not offer formal amendments to H.R. 1815 to delete this funding. We plan to work with our colleagues, however, during the remainder of the legislative process to find a better use of this $4.5 

million. 

Committee Democrats believe that the pursuit of a tactical nuclear RNEP impedes the nation’s non-proliferation goals and undermines the security of the United States by increasing the appeal 

of nuclear weapons. It reduces the ability of our nation to build a 

global consensus against the development or potential use of nuclear weapons by our enemies or aspiring nuclear powers. It also 

undercuts our ability to orchestrate collective action against rogue 

nations or terrorists seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. 

The timing of the Administration’s request for funds for the 

RNEP is particularly sensitive given the current review of and efforts to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The committee 

should send a clear signal that it in no way supports or approves 

an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead. While we are pleased to 

note that H.R 1815 moves in this direction, we will strive for further changes in this direction during the House-Senate conference 

on this bill. 

IKE SKELTON. 

SILVESTRE REYES. 

JOHN SPRATT. 

LORETTA SANCHEZ. 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER. 

MARTY MEEHAN. 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE. 

TIM RYAN. 

514 

KENDRICK B. MEEK. ADAM SMITH. ROBERT A. BRADY. VIC SNYDER. RICK LARSEN. ROBERT E. ANDREWS. LANE EVANS. JIM LANGEVIN. STEVE ISRAEL. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. MARK E. UDALL. SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ. 

GENE TAYLOR. 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD. 

(515) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES TERRY EVERETT, CURT WELDON, AND MIKE D. ROGERS HASC MARKUP FISCAL YEAR 2006 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES (A&AS) 

CONTRACTS 

We commend Chairman Duncan Hunter’s efforts to reform our 

acquisition process. These reforms are sorely needed and we look 

forward to working with him to implement these important policy 

changes. 

We would like to bring to the committee’s attention an issue that 

has been recently brought to our attention. In Section 813 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Congress 

permitted extensions of performance periods for Multiyear Task 

and Delivery Order Contracts. However, this provision did not 

apply to advisory and assistance services (A&AS) contracts. 

Some have argued that allowing A&AS contracts to have the 

same treatment as Multiyear Task and Delivery Order Contracts 

would save the government valuable dollars by not forcing a recompetition every 5 years. Additionally, they claim although they 

have different classifications that they perform the same type of 

work. However, others have told us that this extension should not 

apply to A&AS contracts in order to ensure proper oversight and 

to maintain the highest quality of performance for the government. 

Due to the fact that these concerns were not brought to our attention until the authorization process was well underway, I would 

encourage the members to carefully review these issues as we go 

along with the hope of revisiting them in the future. 

TERRY EVERETT. 

CURT WELDON. 

MIKE D. ROGERS. 

(516) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN M. SPRATT, 

JR. 

During Committee consideration of the Defense Authorization 

bill, I introduced an amendment to add $80 million dollars for Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DOE) nonproliferation programs. To offset this expense, I would have cut 

premature, unneeded elements of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. This amendment lost 33–27 in committee on 

a straight party line vote—a disappointing result on an issue that 

should enjoy widespread bipartisan support. 

Last year during the Presidential debates, President Bush and 

Senator Kerry agreed on one thing—that the greatest threat facing 

the United States today was nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Nonproliferation programs are our front line in this effort. 

In January, 2001, the Baker-Cutler task force recommended increasing non-proliferation funding under DOE to $3 billion per year 

for the next 10 years. They claimed: ‘‘The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that 

weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable materials in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states 

and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.’’

This year (4 years later), DOE’s and DoD’s non-proliferation 

budgets only contain $1.9 billion combined for nuclear nonproliferation. This is simply not enough. My amendment would have 

chipped away at this problem, bringing the total for non-proliferation to nearly $2 billion this year. The amendment was modest in 

sum and targeted at areas with real unmet funding needs. 

First, it provided $27.9 million for Cooperative Threat Reduction 

(CTR, or Nunn-Lugar), the United States’ flagship program for securing, deactivating, and disposing of weapons of mass destruction 

in the Former Soviet Union. Since 1991, the CTR program has deactivated 6,564 warheads, destroyed 570 ICBMs, eliminated 543 

SLBMs, eliminated 142 bombers, and dealt with a host of other potentially threatening missile and nuclear components. Unfortunately, the program has been virtually flat-funded since its inception. This year, the chairman’s mark provides $416 million for 

CTR. This is $27.9 million below the money provided in 2001—pre 

September 11th. The terrorist threat has certainly not diminished 

since September 11th; it seems to me unthinkable to spend less 

money on CTR. My amendment would have plussed up the CTR 

budget to equal pre-September 11th levels with special focus on upgrading security at Russian nuclear weapon storage sites. DoD has 

indicated that to get all the nuclear security upgrades done at Russian sites that need it will cost $150 million more per year for the 

next five to seven years. My amendment was a down payment on 

this total. 

517 

My amendment also would have provided $52.1 million for DOE 

Nonproliferation programs. Because of the cut to the Mixed Oxide 

Fuel program in the Chairman’s mark, the nonproliferation budget 

for DOE was decreased $122 million below the President’s budget 

request. My amendment would have added back almost half of that 

total. This was a targeted investment in programs that have a 

proven record of success, including: 

• $3 million for export controls to prevent sensitive technology from falling into the wrong hands—bringing the total to 

last year’s appropriated level; 

• $3 million for employing Russian nuclear scientists to 

make sure they don’t go work for terrorists or rogue regimes, 

bring the total to last year’s appropriated level; 

• $14 million for the Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return 

program, doubling the President’s budget request, to repatriate 

Russian-origin Highly Enriched Uranium from vulnerable research reactors around the globe and assist countries to convert their research reactors from weapons grade uranium to 

Low Enriched Uranium; and 

• $32.1 million in additional funding to identify, secure, recover, and facilitate the disposal of high risk, vulnerable nuclear material located in countries of high proliferation concern. 

My amendment was offset by decreasing the overall budget for 

Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) by $80 million. This still 

left an increase for GMD of $45 million over the budget request. 

The $80 million in savings would have been achieved simply by 

limiting the number of silos at Fort Greely to 26. Combined with 

the 4 silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base California, the amendment allowed the unimpeded deployment of 30 ground-based interceptors (GBIs). The MDA is planning to provide 34 silos for the 

first 30 GBIs; the four extra silos are for ‘‘swing space.’’ At $15.8 

million per silo, this is an unnecessary luxury. The amendment assumed $60 million can be saved by eliminating these four extra 

silos. 

The FY 2006 budget request also includes $20.7 million for a 

‘‘downpayment’’ on 10 additional silos (which would mean a total 

of 44 silos at Greely and Vandenberg for the first 40 GBIs). The 

majority’s mark cut 5 of the next 10 missiles, but made no corresponding cut to the silos that would house them. My amendment 

would have taken out this unneeded money. 

Nonproliferation programs have a proven track record of success, 

and there is no better way to stop terrorists from getting their 

hands on nuclear weapons than securing and disposing of nuclear 

material at its source. By contrast, Groundbased Midcourse Defense has not been sufficiently tested, and in two of the last three 

tests, the missile has not even left the tube. 

It is not difficult to see that the risk of a terrorist bringing a nuclear weapon over the border is far greater than the risk of a rogue 

nation hitting us with a missile. By rejecting my amendment, the 

Majority has chosen to invest in the remote risk rather than addressing the threat looking us square in the eye. 

JOHN SPRATT. 

(518) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JIM GIBBONS 

Noting for the record; as a senior member of the House Armed 

Services Committee I would like to state my opposition to the 

amendment offered by Congressman John McHugh of New York to 

ban female soldiers from serving in certain support units. This was 

an effort to keep women out of ‘‘direct ground combat’’. It is unfortunate these amendments were voted on and approved by the 

House Armed Services Committee as part of the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill. 

It has been from my personal military experience that female soldiers perform remarkably well in the most difficult of circumstances. It is my belief that as long as a female passes the 

same standards as their male counterparts, there should be no discrimination regarding job assignments in the military. 

Additionally, banning women from these critical support roles 

comes at one of the worst possible times, as a result of the ongoing 

developments in the Global War on Terror. With recruitment levels 

low, Congress needs to look at ways to more effectively utilize the 

existing human resources of the military, as opposed to limiting 

them. In addition, senior Army leadership has expressed deep concerns, saying that if this provision is adopted than it is possible 

that over 21,000 positions could be limited Army leadership has 

also relayed that the changes could cause a great deal of confusion 

within the military’s ranks. 

Banning women from the current positions simply sends the 

wrong message at the wrong time. Women have performed admirably in these positions for several years now. I see no reason to 

change this policy at this time. For these reasons, I did not support 

either of the McHugh amendments. 

JIM GIBBONS. 

(519) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF K. MICHAEL CONAWAY 

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concern with Mr. Taylor’s 

amendment to expand TRICARE coverage for reserve component 

personnel. 

Let me first be clear in saying that my vote against increasing 

health care coverage for reservists is in no way a reflection of my 

feelings toward our reserve personnel. I have the utmost respect 

and admiration for these individuals and the sacrifices they and 

their families have made for our nation, especially during the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The men and women of the reserve, and their 

families, deserve our nation’s heart felt gratitude for their dedication to the cause of advancing freedom and keeping our nation safe 

and secure. 

My concern with this proposal stems from a matter of policy. Proponents of this amendment, while they were well intentioned, did 

not present the relevant facts and analysis necessary to make an 

informed decision of this magnitude. My first and foremost concern 

is that the cost for this proposal is unknown. All that was offered 

to assess the cost was a dated CBO estimate that provides a guess 

at the expenses for the first year of coverage. What we do not 

know; however, is how accurate this estimate is, how much these 

costs will add up to in the long run, or how to pay for this mandatory entitlement. 

In offering this amendment, Mr. Taylor proposed to pay for the 

first $180,000,000 of first year coverage out of the $1.9 billion that 

was originally allocated for the Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) process. In passing this provision, we reduced the resources available to communities to aid in the BRAC transition 

process. I believe it is shortsighted to divert this money that will 

desperately be needed by communities to deal with the closure of 

military installations and the loss of jobs and economic impact the 

closures will have. 

Additionally, I believe that we need to consider the effect this 

provision will have on the parity between the reserve and active 

duty components. While we certainly want to compensate our reservists for their commitment and service, we need to be careful 

not to eliminate the benefit differences between the components. As 

citizen-soldiers, reservists have options not available to active duty 

personnel. 

A related concern centers on whether employers may opt to drop 

health care coverage for employees in the reserve if they know that 

coverage will be extended by the federal government. There is a 

significant financial incentive to drop coverage when premiums for 

TRICARE family coverage are compared to employer premiums. 

There are no safeguards built in to prevent employer abuse of the 

system. 

520 

I understand the desire to provide additional benefits for our reservists that are being deployed multiple times or for extended periods during this current conflict. The intent is admirable and I, 

too, support efforts to protect these individuals from difficulties 

caused by their service. However, I do not believe that it is prudent 

to rush to create a new entitlement with no forethought on what 

the ultimate impact will be on the budget and the structure of our 

armed forces. 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY. 

(521) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SUSAN A. DAVIS 

I am concerned and disappointed by Section 1014 of the Committee’s bill, which circumvents normal procedures by directing the 

Navy to transfer a decommissioned battleship, the U.S.S. IOWA 

(BB–61), to the Port of Stockton, California. 

In most circumstances, Section 7306 of title 10 provides for the 

transfer of vessels which have been stricken from the Naval Vessel 

Register. Section 7306 provides the Secretary of the Navy with a 

significant degree of flexibility to determine optimum suitability for 

each such transfer and to ensure the transferred vessel’s satisfactory use and maintainability. This is standard practice, and it is 

the procedure the Navy strongly prefers. 

In a departure from normal practice, Section 1014 of the committee bill forces the Secretary of the Navy to strike the U.S.S. 

IOWA from the Naval Vessel Register and transfer it to the Port 

of Stockton. In effect, Section 1014 strips all control from the Navy 

with regard to this process and forces the Secretary to accept the 

Port of Stockton’s donation application in lieu of any other application that might be submitted by any other locality. 

I support any effort to provide a suitable home to decommissioned naval vessels, but I cannot support this circumvention of 

laws that were designed to ensure the quality and integrity of this 

process. Section 1014 ignores the proper level of deference we 

should accord the Secretary of the Navy on these matters, and I 

disagree with this Section strongly for this reason. 

SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

(522) 

DISSENTING VIEWS OF CYNTHIA MCKINNEY 

War 

I dissent from war and from preparations for war. I stand with 

Jeannette Rankin, a former Member of this body in saying that I 

cannot vote for war. ‘‘When will we ever learn?’’ When I was young, that refrain 

echoed through a popular song of the time. If this defense authorization bill is any evidence, the answer at best would have to be: 

‘‘Not yet.’’ The Administration exploiting for the full propaganda value its 

own tragic failure of intelligence on 9/11, promptly adopted a National Security Strategy justifying to itself (though not convincingly 

to the rest of the nation and world) the pre-emptive use of force 

and other measures undermining the framework of Constitutional 

protections fought for by previous generations. Then without completing its stated mission of bringing al-Qaeda to justice for the 

crimes it has accused them of, it launched an illegal and preemptive war against Iraq, based on cooked intelligence. The plan 

followed a prescription originally drafted by Richard Perle (‘‘A 

Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’’) to advance 

Israeli foreign policy, which was rejected at the time by the 

Netanyahu administration (according to James Bramford’s A Pretext to War). 

Now the British press has published the minutes of a meeting 

between Prime Minister Blair and British intelligence discussing 

the Bush administration’s intention to cook intelligence for the purpose of justifying its war against and occupation of Iraq. 

Meanwhile any steps toward meaningful security for our nation 

are stymied by a Congress and administration which seem intent 

on ignoring the looming and grave consequences of peak oil and 

global warming. 

The Bush administration’s NSS fails to provide the basis for true 

and meaningful security. 

Security does not grow from the barrel of a gun. Nor can it be 

fostered in a culture of fear. It is not fostered by a neo-colonial occupation of people who live around the resources we might want 

to consume. 

True security starts with food security. It begins with energy security. It grows from self-sufficiency, personal and global responsibility. True security respects both personal and national sovereignty. It flourishes in the context of cooperative relationships 

with the nations of the global community, and a just relationship 

with the people whose labor produces the wealth which our nation 

has enjoyed. 

But most of the basis for a meaningful and affordable national 

security strategy is being sacrificed by a Bush Administration 

budget that rips to shreds the social safety net, exacerbates stratiVerDate Aug 04 2004 02:23 May 22, 2005 Jkt 021300 PO 00000 Frm 00548 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR089.005 HR089
523 

fication and division among the American people, and is based on 

a war machine paid for with historic budget deficits, a growing national debt, and all-time high trade deficits. The President has rewarded the wealthy of America to the detriment of our most vulnerable populations. While this $441.6 billion bill may have enjoyed broad support in 

Committee, the policy it implements faces eroding support among 

the citizens of this nation and of the world. Current news reports 

find that 61% of survey respondents in this country disapprove of 

Bush’s approach to the war on Iraq and that only 26% are confident that Bush policies in Iraq will succeed; whatever success is 

supposed to look like. 

The President’s decision to go to war and his policy of occupation 

of Iraq are wrong. Threats and intimidation of other countries in 

the Middle East are not the way to find peace and will only result 

in more war. The United States must pursue a policy of peace and 

respect for human rights. The budget and this authorization bill 

should reflect that priority, but sadly it does not. 

The Pentagon has been wracked with accusations of mismanage- ment. Still reeling from its admission of the loss of $2.3 trillion, it 

continues its abysmal management practices. Sadly, Pentagon leadership refuse to provide information for proper Congressional oversight of their spending practices. 

For example, I offered an amendment, which lost on a 26–31 

largely Party line vote that would have merely required the inclusion in an existing annual report a list of the vendors and contract 

awards associated with the $20 billion DoD program to upgrade the 

financial accounting computer systems which serve Defense Department operations. For years, as the DoD Inspector General and 

the GAO have documented trillions of dollars in unsupported transactions, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina W. 

Jonas (and her predecessors) have told us that they are ‘‘working 

to make the Department computers talk to one another’’. But this 

issue has persisted. It was in the FY–99 audit that the IG found 

that $2.1 trillion of transactions were ‘‘not fully documented’’. Now 

we are on the verge of authorizing the FY–06 budget, we still don’t 

have auditable books at DoD and there exists scant information on 

which we as Members of Congress might use to exercise our oversight responsibilities. 

The Committee rejected an amendment I offered to address the 

rash of ‘‘recruitment improprieties’’ as the Army euphemistically 

calls the coercive and fraudulent tactics employed by recruiters in 

their efforts to meet their quotas. Recruiters have resorted to 

hosting banquets for students in my District, and taking over entire classes that would be better devoted to the core curriculum of 

our public school system. Recent media reports have shown video 

of recruiters coaching a recruiting prospect on how to forge a diploma and how to cheat a urine test to conceal recent marijuana 

use. Other reports have suggested that recruiters have concealed 

disqualifying conditions including asthma and mental illness. And 

my office gets calls about the activities authorized by the Leave No 

Child Un-Recruited provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Recruiting is down. The New York Times reports that recruiters 

feel pressure from their chain of command to ‘‘bend’’ the rules in 

524 

order to meet their quotas. The Recruiting Command has announced a new fifteen month enlistment in an effort to fill the 

ranks. Of course the fine print will commit an enlistee to eight 

years plus however long may be necessary to comply with the backdoor draft already at work in the form of stop-loss orders. 

The American Friends Service Committee tells us that over 400 

recruiters have been relieved of recruiting duty for misconduct in 

the past ten years. In just the Army and the Navy, over 1,290 were 

admonished, short of re-assignment. This week, Major General Rochelle’s Recruiting Command holds its Stand Down training for 

every Army recruiter. His public affairs people keep referring to 

the ‘‘bad apples’’ in their mix. Yet the numbers suggest something 

far more systemic is at play. 

Some fear that our recent debate related to the role of women in 

combat is merely a prelude to reinstituting conscription. No one believes that a draft will be politically feasible if women face the 

draft and potential combat assignments. For the most part, I can 

support my colleagues’ statements on the role of women in the military. But I would go further and ask: why are we so concerned 

about keeping our daughters from harm’s way, but not our sons as 

well? Why do we pursue foreign policies that result in soldiers 

heading one way while body bags come back the other? 

In addition, the world was shocked with the Pentagon’s treatment of detainees at its detention centers, including Abu Ghraib. 

That the leadership of the Pentagon and this country have knowingly engaged in torture and the facilitation of torture ultimately 

becomes a question of the respect that this Administration has for 

international law. Its behavior in Iraq, in some cases, has clearly 

been outside the bounds of law. 

Our nation has squandered its position of moral authority in the 

global community. My office received a postcard from a constituent, 

with a photo of Specialist Charles Graner, Private Lyndie England—both giving a thumbs up, as they stand smiling before a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners stacked on top of one another. The 

caption reads: ‘‘Remember Abu Ghraib? How the Arab world views 

US. Courtesy George W. Bush’’. I recognize the hard work of my colleagues and of the Committee 

staff and their sincere efforts to oversee the Pentagon in order to 

provide for the common defense. And in fact, there are some provisions of this mark-up which I can support. I wish we had had the 

commitment to those who serve in uniform to extend the SGLI 

Death Benefit past the terms of the Supplemental to include it in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for FY–06, though. 

Even so, I was unable to support our Committee’s report back to 

the Floor of the House, for many of the reasons listed above, and 

expect to oppose this bill on the Floor as well. 

The words of my dissent to the FY–1999 Defense Authorization 

(my first year on this Committee) still ring true today and require 

very little change in the post 9/11 environment. Back then, I wrote: 

The committee’s recommendations still reflect a Cold War 

era mentality by finding ways to finance a too-large military force structure; an overly aggressive, and in many 

cases misguided, weapons modernization program; an 

overly programmed requirements to maintain short-term 

525 

readiness, rather than planning successfully to pay for our 

involvement in peacekeeping and humanitarian ventures. 

In the early days of World War II, bi-partisan concerns for the 

threat that war profiteers posed to the national security gave rise 

to passage of the Truman Commission which was empowered to return excess profits to the public coffers. Our nation would be well 

served to use such a system again. 

But it will take more than the careful oversight of the authorized 

programs let as no-bid contracts to DynCorp, Halliburton and the 

Carlyle Group to seriously address the bloat in spending at the 

Pentagon. We must commit ourselves to the active pursuit of transformation by retiring existing systems and halting investments in 

new Cold War weapons systems that still seem to dominate Defense spending. 

This would include the Missile Defense Agency. Current plans 

for research and development of new space technologies are leading 

the world into a new costly and dangerous arms race. U.S. leadership in developing anti-satellite weapons, the nuclear rocket, new 

generations of war fighting satellites, military space plane, and 

other systems are creating pressure on the rest of the world to follow along. This will inevitably lead to a destabilizing arms race 

that in the end will make life on Earth more unstable for everyone 

involved. The U.S. refusal to seriously discuss the Prevention of an 

arms space in outer space (PAROS) at the U.N. is blocking the development of new international treaties that would protect space 

from the bad seed of war. 

While I am grateful that this mark has zero’d out the High Altitude Airship program (about which my office has documents suggesting gross mismanagement), the MDA still is budgeted for nearly $3.5 billion for the Groundbased Midcourse Defense program. 

Our Committee failed to adopt an amendment to require an independent testing of this technology prior to deployment. The last 

three launch tests were complete failures. 

Although the Navy recommended retiring one of its twelve aircraft carriers, the Committee reversed them and has instructed 

that this unneeded carrier remain in service. 

Saying we need a military is not the same as saying we need this 

military. The flag grade officers of the Center for Defense Information once estimated—perhaps a decade ago—that a military budget 

3% of the then current budget would be sufficient to defend the territorial borders of the United States. Approving endlessly larger 

budgets is not the same as exercising Congressional or civilian control and oversight. 

The reasons for my opposition to this bill are too numerous to list 

here in the short time allowed for the filing of this dissent. They 

would include cuts in environmental clean-up at the nuclear weapons complex, the unattended toxic dumps scattered on bases across 

the nation, the incineration of chemical warfare agents upwind of 

the communities I represent, a policy of militarization that seems 

to have displaced diplomacy in our dealings with the global community, the risks of nuclear Armageddon and on and on. 

I want to end this statement, though with the words of a now 

repentant former Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara. He 

once acknowledged that had the United States been conquered in 

526 

its War against the people of Vietnam, instead of being merely defeated, that he and President Johnson would likely have been prosecuted as war criminals for the mass slaughter of civilians they unleashed. In this month’s issue of Foreign Policy, Mr. McNamara 

wrote in an article entitled: ‘‘Apocalypse Soon’’: 

It is time-well past time, in my view-for the United States 

to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as 

a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of appearing simplistic 

and provocative, I would characterize current U.S. nuclear 

weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, 

and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from 

reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled 

that it is committed to keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as 

a mainstay of its military power-a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have 

limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials 

for 50 years. Much of the current U.S. nuclear policy has 

been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and 

it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years. 

It is time—well past time, in my view—for the United States to 

get serious about its efforts to reduce the threat that Weapons of 

Mass Destruction pose to global peace and security. But to do so, 

we must recognize where those weapons are and what dynamics 

create the instability which can turn the dooms-day clock back on 

toward its short countdown to nuclear conflageration. In spite of 

the high costs of doing so, we have yet to turn up any of the 

WMD’s we were told were held in Iraq. Fissile materials are scattered across the former Soviet Union and the Nunn-Lugar program, if fully funded could go far to help us contain that threat. 

But the nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert are overwhelmingly 

deployed by our nation. And it is our leadership that will be necessary to address the crisis of proliferation we face. It is up to us 

to lead the way to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 

And until this Congress and our nation has demonstrated that 

we are ready to exhibit that sort of leadership for global peace, I 

will continue to vote against the so-called National Defense Authorization Act and encourage my colleagues to do the same. 

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY. 

Æ