U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

21–172 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2005

109–119 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 2863]

JUNE 10, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(iii) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Bill Totals ................................................................................................................. 1 

Committee Budget Review Process ........................................................................ 4 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 

Committee Recommendations by Major Category ................................................ 5 

Active and Reserve Military Personnel .......................................................... 5 

Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................ 5 

Procurement ...................................................................................................... 6 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ............................................... 7 

Forces to be Supported ............................................................................................ 7 

Department of the Army .................................................................................. 7 

Department of the Navy .................................................................................. 9 

Department of the Air Force ........................................................................... 10 

TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL ....................................................................... 13 

Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations ..... 13 

Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2006 ... 13 

Adjustments to Military Personnel Account .................................................. 15 

End Strength Adjustments ....................................................................... 15 

Accuracy of Obligations ............................................................................ 16 

Guard and Reserve Cost Avoidance ......................................................... 16 

Expedited Servicemember Naturalization ............................................... 16 

Full-Time Support Strengths ................................................................... 16 

Military Personnel, Army ................................................................................ 17 

Military Personnel, Navy ................................................................................. 20 

Military Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................................... 23 

Military Personnel, Air Force .......................................................................... 26 

Reserve Personnel, Army ................................................................................. 29 

Reserve Personnel, Navy ................................................................................. 31 

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................................... 33 

Reserve Personnel, Air Force .......................................................................... 35 

National Guard Personnel, Army .................................................................... 37 

National Guard Personnel, Air Force ............................................................. 39 

TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................... 43 

Operation and Maintenance Overview ........................................................... 45 

Recommendations to Address Shortfalls ................................................. 46 

Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data ............................. 47 

Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings ....................................... 47 

Civilian Pay ............................................................................................... 48 

Military Tents ............................................................................................ 48 

Operation and Maintenance, Army ................................................................. 49 

Second Destination Transportation (SDT) Support for Army and Air 

Force Exchange System (AAFES) ........................................................ 54 

Controlled Humidity Program .................................................................. 54 

Sense and Respond Logistics .................................................................... 54 

Page

iv 

TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Operation and Maintenance, Army—Continued 

Humanitarian Relief Transfer of DoD Aircraft ....................................... 54 

Tacom Life Cycle Management Command Integrated Digital Environment (IDE) Pilot Program ..................................................................... 55 

Autonomic Logistics Prototype ................................................................. 55 

Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-Drug Task Force Training (MCTFT) ...... 55 

Fort Irwin Road ......................................................................................... 55 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ................................................................. 56 

Diagnosis and Prognostication of Gas Turbine Problems ...................... 60 

Naval Station Mayport Environmental Impact Study ........................... 61 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................................... 61 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force .......................................................... 64 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................................... 68 

Joint ROTC Military Leadership Project ................................................ 73 

National Guard Youth Challenge Program ............................................. 73 

Wind Demonstration Project .................................................................... 73 

Advanced First Responder Network ........................................................ 73 

Minority Contract Enhancement Program .............................................. 74 

Service-Wide Safety: Alcohol Breath Detectors ...................................... 74 

Public Interest Declassification Board .................................................... 74 

Special Operations Technology Transfer ................................................. 74 

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve .................................................. 74 

U.S. Army Reserve Command IT Consolidation ..................................... 77 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................................... 77 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ..................................... 80 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ............................................ 82 

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ..................................... 84 

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard ......................................... 87 

Training Capability Upgrade ................................................................... 89 

Moffett Federal Airfield ............................................................................ 89 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account .................................... 89 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces .................................. 89 

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid .......................................... 89 

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account ........................................... 90 

TITLE III. PROCUREMENT .................................................................................. 91 

Estimates and Appropriations Summary ....................................................... 91 

Special Interest Items ............................................................................... 93 

Reprogramming Guidance for Acquisition Accounts .............................. 93 

Reporting Requirement for Below Threshold Reprogrammings ............ 93 

Equipment Reset and Reconstitution ...................................................... 93 

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 94 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 94 

Multiyear Procurement Programs ........................................................... 96 

UH–1 Aircraft Replacement ..................................................................... 96 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 99 

High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) ................................ 101 

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) ............................... 101 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .................. 103 

Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) ....................................... 105 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................................ 108 

Ammunition Production Facilities ........................................................... 110 

Life Cycle Management Commands ........................................................ 110 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 113 

Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Modernization Strategy ................................. 117 

Page

v 

TITLE III. PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 124 

KC–130J Aircraft ...................................................................................... 127 

C–130 Series .............................................................................................. 127 

Common Avionics ...................................................................................... 127 

Common Ground Equipment .................................................................... 127 

EA–6B Series ............................................................................................. 127 

Improved Capabilities (ICAP III) Program ...................................... 127 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 132 

MK 48 ADCAP Torpedo Mods .................................................................. 134 

Gun Mount Modifications ......................................................................... 134 

Tomahawk .................................................................................................. 134 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ................................. 137 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 142 

Stability of Navy Shipbuilding Plan ........................................................ 144 

Affordability of Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan ............................................... 144 

Cost Growth and Cost Control in Ongoing Programs ............................ 145 

DDG–51 Modernization Program ............................................................. 146 

Littoral Combat Ship ................................................................................ 146 

LHA(R) ....................................................................................................... 146 

DD(X) Destroyer ........................................................................................ 146 

DDG–51 Guided Missile Destroyer .......................................................... 147 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 149 

LM–2500 Gas Turbine .............................................................................. 154 

Submarine Periscopes and Imaging Equipment ..................................... 154 

Virginia Class Support Equipment .......................................................... 154 

Ship Communications Automation .......................................................... 154 

Coast Guard Equipment ........................................................................... 154 

SSN Combat Control Systems .................................................................. 154 

Physical Security Equipment ................................................................... 155 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 162 

MAGTFTC Range Transformation Initiative .......................................... 164 

High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) ................................ 164 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 169 

Joint Strike Fighter Advance Procurement ............................................ 172 

Future Years Procurement Strategy for the F/A–22 Raptor ................. 172 

F–15 Active Electronically Scanned Array Procurement ....................... 172 

C–130J Multiyear Procurement Program ............................................... 173 

C–17 Procurement ..................................................................................... 173 

Global Hawk .............................................................................................. 174 

A–10 Mids Joint Tactical Radio System .................................................. 174 

Airborne Fire-Fighting System ................................................................ 174 

Euro-Afghan Air Safety ............................................................................ 175 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 179 

Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile ...................................................... 181 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) ......................................... 181 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................................... 185 

Laser Guided Bomb ................................................................................... 187 

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 189 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 196 

USSOCOM—Emergent Critical Combat Mission Needs ....................... 198 

SOCOM—Modernization of the HC–130 Legacy Fleet .......................... 198 

Buy America .............................................................................................. 198 

National Guard and Reserve Equipment ....................................................... 202 

Defense Production Act Purchases .................................................................. 202 

Page

vi 

TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION ........... 203 

Estimates and Appropriation Summary ......................................................... 203 

Special Termination Cost Clause ............................................................. 205 

Visual Information Display System ......................................................... 205 

Problems in DoD Space Programs ........................................................... 205 

Joint Tactical Radio System ..................................................................... 206 

Joint Common Missile ............................................................................... 208 

Special Interest Items ............................................................................... 208 

Reprogramming Guidance for Acquisition Accounts .............................. 208 

Reporting Requirement for Below Threshold Reprogrammings ............ 209 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army .................................... 209 

Future Combat System (FCS) .................................................................. 231 

Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS–C) ..................................................... 232 

Excalibur, XM982 155MM Extended Range Artillery Projectile ........... 232 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy ..................................... 240 

DD(X) .......................................................................................................... 251 

CG(X) .......................................................................................................... 251 

Littoral Combat Ship ................................................................................ 251 

Mast-Mounted In-Port Video Force Protection Surveillance System .... 251 

Maritime Battle Center ............................................................................ 251 

EA–18(G) .................................................................................................... 251 

Bone Marrow Registry .............................................................................. 251 

Multinational Information Sharing ......................................................... 252 

Target Systems Development ................................................................... 252 

Mobile User Objective System .................................................................. 252 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force .............................. 261 

Optical Maximum Entropy Verification .................................................. 270 

Transformational Satellite Communications .......................................... 270 

Space Radar ............................................................................................... 270 

Small Diameter Bomb ............................................................................... 270 

Personnel Recovery Vehicle ...................................................................... 271 

Next Generation Bomber Tier I Supplier Sustainment ......................... 271 

Laser Spark Countermeasure Program ................................................... 271 

Advanced Satellite Thermal Control Program ........................................ 271 

National Aerospace Leadership Initiative ............................................... 271 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ...................... 281 

Missile Defense Agency—Program Element Restructure ...................... 293 

Missile Defense Agency—Termination Liability ..................................... 293 

Dual Booster Strategy ............................................................................... 293 

Space Surveillance and Tracking System (STSS) ................................... 294 

Boost and Ascent Phase Engagement Study .......................................... 294 

Asymmetric Missile Threat ...................................................................... 294 

Venture and Initiative Funds ................................................................... 295 

Chemical and Biological Defense Program ............................................. 295 

Anti-Terrorism Protection Standards ...................................................... 295 

Roll-On Roll-Off Infection Control Facility ............................................. 296 

Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and Recycling ... 296 

Operationally Responsive Space .............................................................. 296 

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 304 

TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS ..................................... 307 

Defense Working Capital Funds ..................................................................... 307 

National Defense Sealift Fund ........................................................................ 307 

T-AKE Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ship ....................................................... 309 

MPS Lease Buyout .................................................................................... 309 

Maritime Prepositioning Force (FUTURE) ............................................. 309 

Page

vii 

TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS—Continued 

National Defense Sealift Fund—Continued 

TAOE(X) ..................................................................................................... 309 

TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS ...................... 311 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army ..................................... 311 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ............................. 313 

Office of the Inspector General ........................................................................ 313 

TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES ....................................................................... 315 

National Intelligence Program ........................................................................ 315 

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 315 

Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund ........ 315 

Intelligence Community Management Account ............................................. 316 

National Security Education Trust Fund ....................................................... 316 

TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................. 319 

Definition of Program, Project and Activity ................................................... 319 

TITLE IX. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS ..................................................... 321 

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 321 

Committee Recommendation ........................................................................... 321 

Classified Programs .......................................................................................... 323 

Reporting Requirements .................................................................................. 323 

Military Personnel ............................................................................................ 323 

Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................ 324 

Iraqi Freedom Fund .................................................................................. 326 

Procurement ...................................................................................................... 326 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ............................................... 328 

Defense Working Capital Funds ..................................................................... 329 

General Provisions—This Title ....................................................................... 329 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................ 331 

Changes in the Application of Existing Law .................................................. 331 

Appropriations Language ......................................................................... 331 

General Provisions .................................................................................... 333 

Appropriations Not Authorized by Law .......................................................... 335 

Transfer of Funds ............................................................................................. 338 

Rescissions ........................................................................................................ 338 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives ............................ 338 

Constitutional Authority .................................................................................. 339 

Comparison with the Budget Resolution ........................................................ 339 

Five-Year Outlay Projections ........................................................................... 339 

Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments ................................. 339 

Committee Votes ............................................................................................... 340 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–119 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006 

JUNE 10, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. YOUNG of Florida, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2863] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2006. 

BILL TOTALS

Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of 

Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal 

year 2006. This bill does not provide appropriations for military 

construction, military family housing, civil defense, military nuclear warheads, Basic Allowance for Housing, the Defense Health 

Program, Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 

(FSRM), or environmental restoration for which requirements are 

considered in connection with other appropriations acts. 

The President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request for activities 

funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act totals 

$366,964,393,000 in new budget obligational authority. The 

amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill 

total $363,684,246,000 in new budget authority. This is 

$3,280,174,000 below the budget estimate, and $11,020,732,000 

above the sums made available for the Department of Defense for 

fiscal year 2005, excluding $73,163,308,000 in emergency funds 

contained in Public Law 109–13. 

2 

The Committee recommendation also includes appropriations in title IX totaling $45,254,619,000 for contingency operations related 

to the global war on terrorism. These funds are made available consistent with authority contained in section 402 of the concurrent 

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. 

3 


Insert graphic folio 13 21172A.001
4 

COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS

During its review of the fiscal year 2006 budget, the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of ten hearings during the period of February 2005 to April 2005. Testimony received by the 

Subcommittee totaled 724 pages of transcript. Approximately half 

of the hearings were held in open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the security classification of the material to be discussed presented no alternative. 

INTRODUCTION

The Committee recommendations represent a balanced approach 

to the needs of the Defense Department, while ensuring that our 

men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the 

world will not face a gap in funding as they wage the global war 

on terrorism. 

The Committee recommendations for fiscal year 2006 were driven by a number of factors, including the following: 

1. the need to ensure continuity of combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world as part of the global war on terrorism; 

2. the need to ensure oversight over major procurement items, 

and to make adjustments as warranted by the status of such procurements; 

3. the need to ensure that the technological advantage enjoyed by 

our Armed Forces is maintained by providing a robust investment 

in research and development; and 

4. the need to restrain the President’s budget request consistent 

with the budget allocation. 

The Committee responded to these needs in a variety of ways. In title IX, the Committee has recommended $45,254,619,000 in additional appropriations as a ‘‘bridge fund’’ until full-year appropriations become available to support the operating costs associated 

with the global war on terrorism and Operations Iraqi Freedom, 

Enduring Freedom, and Noble Eagle. These funds are intended to 

cover the costs of combat operations for the first 6 months of fiscal 

year 2006, thereby avoiding a potential interruption in funding 

which would have an adverse impact on our troops in the field. The 

concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 designates 

$50,000,000,000 for such purposes. Also, the authorization of appropriations for similar activities is contained in H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, which 

passed the House of Representatives on April 26, 2005, by a vote 

of 390–39. 

As part of its regular oversight responsibilities, the Committee 

also reviewed the status of major procurement items and made recommendations for adjustments in funding levels based on program 

slippage, contracting problems, and other changes to the status of 

such procurements. For instance, due to repeated test failures of 

the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), the Committee 

recommends termination of this program. However, in most cases 

the reductions in procurement funding are due to schedule slippages and development delays. In such cases, the Committee recommendation includes reductions to procurement funding associated with schedule slippage, but maintains research and developVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
5 

ment funding in order to correct the problems that led to these 

delays. 

In addition, the Committee recommends funding of certain procurement programs at levels above those included in the President’s budget. Examples include restoration of the multiyear procurement of the C–130J aircraft for the Air Force; funding of an 

additional DDG–51 destroyer, 2 additional Littoral Combat Ships 

(LCS), and an additional T–AKE ammunition ship for the Navy; 

and funding of 4 additional UH–60 Blackhawk helicopters for the 

Army. 

Finally, to ensure that the United States military of tomorrow 

can continue to operate in an environment of technological superiority, the Committee recommendation includes funding for the Research, development, test and evaluation accounts of 

$71,656,892,000, an increase of $2,300,852,000 above the President’s request. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY

ACTIVE AND RESERVE MILITARY PERSONNEL

In title I of the bill, the Committee recommends a total of 

$84,132,276,000 for active, Reserve and Guard military personnel, 

a decrease of $829,700,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports the budget proposal to provide an increase in basic 

pay for all personnel of 3.1 percent, effective January 1, 2006, and 

agrees with the authorized end strength levels as requested for active duty and Selected Reserve personnel. Funds in title IX provide 

sustainment for the increased end strength resulting from ongoing 

contingency operations. 

In addition, a $20,000,000 increase is provided for the Family 

Advocacy Program. Funding of $30,000,000 is also provided for Impact Aid, which was proposed for termination in the budget. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

In title II of the bill, the Committee recommends a total of 

$116,092,791,000 for operation and maintenance support to the 

military services and other Department of Defense entities, a reduction of $2,890,150,000 from the fiscal year 2006 budget request, 

and an increase of $3,250,359,000 above the amount appropriated 

for fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee’s recommendation fully funds the President’s request for readiness training in flying hours, ship steaming and 

ground forces operational tempo training. Requests for unit and 

depot level maintenance program funding have been fully supported. Funds not needed for home station activities due to units 

being deployed for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq 

have been realigned for support of continuing combat and peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

In addition, the Committee has provided over $500,000,000 in 

additional operating account funding to assist in addressing many 

of the Department’s shortfalls. Funds have been added for individual soldier and Marine field equipment, small all terrain vehicles, general purpose tents and mobility shelters, improvements in 

control of logistics systems, enhanced training capabilities, foreign 

6 

language training, training on urbanized terrain, military and civilian safety, education programs, and distance learning. 

PROCUREMENT

In title III of the bill, the Committee recommends a total of 

$76,806,886,000 for procurement, an increase of $171,476,000 over 

the fiscal year 2006 budget request and a decrease of $872,917,000 

from the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005. However, the 

latter figure does not include $17,378,594,000 provided in fiscal 

year 2005 for procurement in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami 

Relief Act, 2005. In addition, title IX of this bill includes a total of 

$2,857,314,000 in various procurement accounts. 

Major initiatives and modifications include: 

$580,650,000, an increase of $75,000,000 above the budget request, to procure a total of 45 Blackhawk Helicopters, an increase 

of 4 above the fiscal year 2006 budget request; 

$882,449,000, the President’s request, for the procurement of 240 

Stryker vehicles; 

$590,392,000 to fully support the AH64 Apache program; including authority for multi-year procurement for Block II upgrades; 

$489,700,000 for 108 Patriot surface-to-air missile systems; 

$2,736,230,000 to fully support the request for 38 F/A–18 Hornet 

aircraft, as well as $86,105,000 in advance procurement; 

$1,060,576,000 to fully support procurement of V–22 Osprey aircraft for the Marine Corps; 

$9,613,358,000 in Navy shipbuilding and conversion, including 

$1,637,698,000 for an additional Virginia class submarine, 

$1,300,000,000 for nuclear refueling of an aircraft carrier, 

$1,400,000,000 for an additional DDG–51 destroyer, $1,334,741,000 

for 1 LPD–17 amphibious assault ship, and $440,000,000 for 2 additional Littoral Combat Ships; 

$384,000,000 for an additional T–AKE ship within the National 

Defense Sealift Fund; 

$3,186,622,000 to fully fund procurement of 24 F/A–22 Raptors 

in fiscal year 2006, and $576,877,000 for advance procurement of 

29 aircraft in fiscal year 2007; 

$2,790,859,000 for procurement of 15 C–17 aircraft in fiscal year 

2006, and $445,423,000 for advance procurement of 7 aircraft in 

fiscal year 2007; 

$72,200,000 to begin procurement of Active Electronically 

Scanned Array v3 radars for Air National Guard F–15s; 

$743,983,000 to restore the C–130J Air Force procurement program as well as $90,000,000 in advance procurement, and 

$321,089,000 for the Navy KC–130J program as well as 

$45,626,000 in advance procurement (in fiscal year 2006, the Air 

Force will procure 9 aircraft and the Navy will procure 4 tanker 

variants); 

$528,978,000 to fully fund 1 advanced EHF communications satellite; 

a reduction of $715,992,000 associated with advance procurement 

of the DD(X) destroyer; and 

a reduction of $152,377,000 associated with advance procurement 

for the Joint Strike Fighter. 

7 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

In title IV of the bill, the Committee recommends a total of 

$71,656,892,000 for research, development, test and evaluation, an 

increase of $2,300,852,000 over the fiscal year 2006 budget request 

and an increase of $1,724,710,000 over the amount appropriated 

for fiscal year 2005. 

Major initiatives and modifications include: 

$3,054,280,000 for the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, $20,000,000 above the President’s request; 

$157,587,000 for the Army’s non-line of sight cannon, 

$50,000,000 above the President’s request; 

$581,954,000 for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which funds 1 

ship in research, development, test and evaluation in addition to 

the 2 ships included in the regular procurement account; 

$253,675,000 in full funding for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) of the Marine Corps; 

$935,932,000 to fully support the budget request for the VXX 

Presidential vertical lift helicopter; 

$206,376,000 in further development of the V–22 Osprey program; 

$629,682,000 in full funding for the advanced Hawkeye system 

of the Navy; 

$2,396,513,000 in the Navy and $2,474,763,000 in the Air Force 

in full funding for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) development program; 

$670,000,000 in development for the DD(X) destroyer; 

$80,000,000 in development for the CG(X) next generation cruiser, an increase of $50,000,000; 

$7,631,534,000 for missile defense programs, a decrease of 

$1,151,873,000 from fiscal year 2005 levels and a net decrease of 

$143,712,000 from the budget request; within this amount, an increase of $60,000,000 above the request is provided for sea-based 

mid-course defense; 

a reduction of $399,000,000 for the Transformational Satellite 

Communications program due to excessive cost growth and development problems; 

a reduction of $125,839,000 for the Space Radar program; 

a reduction of $449,000,000 for the Future Combat System due 

to development and contract delays; and 

a reduction of $340,100,000 for the Joint Tactical Radio System 

program due to development delays. 

FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

The fiscal year 2006 budget request is designed to support the 

Army transformation to a Modular Force (10 Active Units of Employment, 36 Active Brigade Combat Teams, 21 Active Support Brigades by fiscal year 2006) and Active forces yet to be transformed, 

consisting of 3 divisions, and 1 separate brigade. The reserve Modular Force will transform by fiscal year 2006 with 3 Units of Employment, 10 Brigade Combat Teams, 26 (4 USAR) Support Brigades and forces yet to be transferred consisting of 5 divisions and 

10 separate brigades. These forces provide the minimum force necVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
8 

essary to meet enduring defense needs and execute the National 

Military Strategy. At end state, the active Army force will contain 

43 Brigade Combat Teams, the Army National Guard will contain 

34 Brigade Combat Teams and the Army Reserve will contain 11 

Support Brigades (8 Sustainment, 3 Maneuver Enhancement). 

A summary of the major forces follows: 

Fiscal year— 

2004 2005 2006 

Active Divisions: 

Airborne ...................................................................................................................... 1 1 0 

Air Assault ................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Light ........................................................................................................................... 1 1 0 

Infantry ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Mechanized ................................................................................................................ 3 2 2

Armored ...................................................................................................................... 2 2 1 

Medium ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Divisions Total ....................................................................................................... 7 6 3 

Non Division Combat Units: 

Armored Cavalry Regiments ............................................................................. 2 1 0 

Separate Brigades ............................................................................................ 2 2 1 

Non Division Combat Units Total ................................................................. 4 3 1 

Modular Forces: 

Unit of Employment Y (UEy) ............................................................................. 0 1 2 

Unit of Employment X (UEx) ............................................................................. 3 5 8 

Brigade Combat Team (BCT) (Heavy) .............................................................. 4 8 13 

Brigade Combat Team (BCT) (Infantry) ........................................................... 6 9 18 

STRYKER Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) .......................................................... 3 4 5 

Aviation Brigade ............................................................................................... 3 5 8 

Sustainment Brigade ........................................................................................ 3 4 8 

Fires Brigade ..................................................................................................... 0 1 3 

Maneuver Enhancement Brigade ...................................................................... 0 0 1 

Battle Field Surveillance Brigade ..................................................................... 0 0 1 

Modular Forces Total .................................................................................... 22 37 67 

Guard Divisions: 

Airborne ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Air Assault ................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Light ........................................................................................................................... 1 1 1 

Infantry ....................................................................................................................... 1 0 0 

Mechanized ................................................................................................................ 4 4 3

Armored ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Medium ...................................................................................................................... 2 2 1 

Divisions Total ....................................................................................................... 8 7 5 

Non Division Combat Units: 

Armored Cavalry Regiments ............................................................................. 1 1 0 

Separate Brigades ............................................................................................ 17 14 10 

Non Division Combat Units Total ................................................................. 18 15 10 

Modular Forces: 

Unit of Employment Y (UEy) ............................................................................. 0 0 0 

Unit of Employment X (UEx) ............................................................................. 0 1 3 

Brigade Combat Team (BCT) (Heavy) .............................................................. 0 2 6 

Brigade Combat Team (BCT) (Infantry) ........................................................... 0 1 3 

STRYKER Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) .......................................................... 0 1 1 

Aviation Brigade ............................................................................................... 0 0 13 

Sustainment Brigade ........................................................................................ 0 0 5 

Fires Brigade ..................................................................................................... 0 0 1 

Maneuver Enhancement Brigade ...................................................................... 0 0 3 

Battle Field Surveillance Brigade ..................................................................... 0 0 0 

Modular Forces Total .................................................................................... 0 5 35 

Reserve Divisions: 

Airborne ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

9 

Fiscal year—

2004 2005 2006 

Air Assault ................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Light ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Infantry ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Mechanized ................................................................................................................ 0 0 0

Armored ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Medium ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Divisions Total ....................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Non Division Combat Units: 

Armored Cavalry Regiments ............................................................................. 0 0 0 

Separate Brigades ............................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Non Division Combat Units Total ................................................................. 0 0 0 

Modular Forces: 

Unit of Employment Y (UEy) ............................................................................. 0 0 0 

Unit of Employment X (UEx) ............................................................................. 0 0 0 

Brigade Combat Team (BCT) (Heavy) .............................................................. 0 0 0 

Brigade Combat Team (BCT) (Infantry) ........................................................... 0 0 0 

STRYKER Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) .......................................................... 0 0 0 

Aviation Brigade ............................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Sustainment Brigade ........................................................................................ 0 0 3 

Fires Brigade ..................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Maneuver Enhancement Brigade ...................................................................... 0 0 1 

Battle Field Surveillance Brigade ..................................................................... 0 0 0 

Modular Forces Total .................................................................................... 0 0 4 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

The fiscal year 2006 budget request supports battle forces totaling 289 ships at the end of fiscal year 2006, including 14 fleet ballistic missile submarines, 11 aircraft carriers, 231 other battle 

forces ships, 1,586 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 720 

Undergraduate Training aircraft, 457 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 

274 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 364 Reserve aircraft and 188 in the 

pipeline. 

A summary of the major forces follows: 

Fiscal year—

2004 2005 2006 

Strategic Forces: ..................................................................................................... 14 14 14 

Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines ................................................................ 14 14 14 

General Purpose: ..................................................................................................... 244 238 242 

Aircraft Carriers ............................................................................................. 12 11 11 

Surface Combatants ...................................................................................... 94 90 93 

Submarines (attack) ...................................................................................... 54 55 54 

Guided Missile (SSGN) Submarines ............................................................... 4 4 4 

Amphibious Warfare Ships ............................................................................ 35 35 35 

Combat Logistics Ships ................................................................................. 34 32 34 

Mine Warfare .................................................................................................. 11 11 11 

Support Forces: ....................................................................................................... 19 18 18 

Mobile Logistics Ships ................................................................................... 2 2 2 

Support Ships ................................................................................................ 17 16 16 

Mobilization Cat. A (Reserve) ........................................................................ 15 15 15 

Surface Combatants ...................................................................................... 9 9 9 

Amphibious Warfare Ships ............................................................................ 0 0 0 

Mine Warfare .................................................................................................. 6 6 6 

Total Ships, Battleforce: ............................................................................ 292 285 289 

Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces: ..................................................................................... 151 147 146 

Coastal Defense ............................................................................................. 13 9 8 

10 

Fiscal year—

2004 2005 2006 

Maritime Preposition ...................................................................................... 16 16 16 

MSC Reduced Operating Status .................................................................... 21 21 21 

Ready Reserve Force ...................................................................................... 65 65 65 

MSC Naval Fleet Mobility Enhancement ........................................................ 35 35 35 

Active ............................................................................................................. 1 1 1 

Naval Aircraft: 

Primary Authorized (plus Pipe) ...................................................................... 3,886 3,641 3,589 

Authorized Pipeline ........................................................................................ 361 191 188 

Tactical/ASW Aircraft ..................................................................................... 1,635 1,606 1,586 

Fleet Air Training ........................................................................................... 460 452 457 

Fleet Air Support ............................................................................................ 314 309 274 

Training (Undergraduate) .............................................................................. 722 711 720 

Reserve ........................................................................................................... 394 372 364 

Naval Personnel: 

Active: 

Navy ...................................................................................................... 373,197 365,900 352,700 

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 177,480 175,000 175,000 

Reserve: 

Navy ...................................................................................................... 82,558 83,400 73,100 

SELRES/Drilling Reserve .............................................................. 68,440 69,248 59,708 

Fulltime Support .......................................................................... 14,118 14,152 13,392 

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 39,658 39,600 39,600 

SELRES/Drilling Reserve .............................................................. 37,395 37,339 37,339 

Fulltime Support .......................................................................... 2,263 2,261 2,261 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

The fiscal year 2006 Air Force budget request is designed to support active, guard, and reserve forces, including 87 combat coded 

fighter and attack squadrons and 8 combat coded strategic bomber 

squadrons. The ICBM force maintains 550 launch facilities with 

500 Minuteman missiles, with the Peacekeeper missile force completing deactivation in fiscal year 2005. The budget also supports 

our critical airlift mission, including 23 active duty airlift squadrons. To accomplish the Air Force mission, the 2006 budget supports a total force end strength of 538,200. 

A summary of the major forces follows: 

Fiscal year—

2004 2005 2006 

Summary of Major Forces: 

USAF Fighter and Attack Squadrons (Active, ANG, AFRC) ............................ 88 87 87 

Active .................................................................................................... 45 46 45 

ANG ....................................................................................................... 37 36 37 

AFRC ...................................................................................................... 6 5 5 

Strategic Bomber Squadrons (Active) ........................................................... 8 7 8 

Strategic Bomber Squadrons (AFRC) ............................................................. 1 1 1 

Flight Test Units (DT and OT units with assigned aircraft) ........................ 12 12 10 

Fighter ................................................................................................... 9 9 7 

Bomber .................................................................................................. 3 3 3 

ICBM Operational Launch Facilities/Control Centers .................................... 605 605 550 

ICBM Missile Inventory .................................................................................. 516 500 500 

USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active): 

Strategic Airlift Squadrons ................................................................... 14 13 14 

Tactical Airlift Squadrons ..................................................................... 10 9 9 

Total Active Airlift Squadrons ................................................................................. 24 22 23 

Total Air Force Aircraft Inventory ............................................................................ 5,854 5,776 5,792

11 

Fiscal year—

2004 2005 2006 

Note: Numbers of squadrons above reflect combat coded units only; i.e., no training or test units. 

Endstrength: 

Active Duty ..................................................................................................... 359,300 359,700 357,400 

Reserve Component ....................................................................................... 182,830 182,900 180,800

Air National Guard ......................................................................................... 107,030 106,800 106,800 

Air Force Reserve ........................................................................................... 75,800 76,100 74,000 

(13) 

TITLE I 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL

APPROPRIATIONS

The President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request continues to increase funding for military pay and allowances, recruiting and retention programs, and overall quality of life programs for active 

duty and Guard and Reserve personnel. The budget request proposed an increase in basic pay for all personnel by 3.1 percent, effective January 1, 2006. The Committee supports the enhancements to recruiting, retention, military pay and increased benefits 

for Guard and Reserve personnel for fiscal year 2006. 

SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

Fiscal year 2005 ................................................................................ $91,614,333,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ..................................................... 84,961,976,000 

Fiscal year 2006 recommendation ................................................... 84,132,276,000 

Change from budget request ........................................................... ¥829,700,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $84,132,276,000 

for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is a decrease of $7,482,057,000 below the $91,614,333,000 appropriated in 

fiscal year 2005 and $829,700,000 less than the request for fiscal 

year 2006. These military personnel budget total comparisons include appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard accounts. The following tables include a summary of the recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of changes 

from the budget request appear later in this section. 

14 


Insert graphic folio 04 21172A.002
15 

The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes a decrease of 15,500 

end strength for the active forces and a decrease of approximately 

12,400 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 2005 

authorized levels. The fiscal year 2006 budget request does not reflect, however, the minimum active duty end strength levels established by the authorization committees for fiscal year 2005 for the 

Army and Marine Corps. 

The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in 

the tables below. 

OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH

Fiscal year 2005 estimate ................................................................ 1,406,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ..................................................... 1,367,500 

Fiscal year 2006 recommendation ................................................... 1,367,500 

Compared with Fiscal year 2005 ............................................. ¥38,500 

Compared with Fiscal year 2006 budget request ................... ..............................

OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH

Fiscal year 2005 estimate ................................................................ 860,900 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ..................................................... 848,500 

Fiscal year 2006 recommendation ................................................... 848,500 

Compared with Fiscal year 2005 ............................................. ¥12,400 

Compared with Fiscal year 2006 budget request ................... ..............................

Fiscal year 2006 

FY 2005 

estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from request 

Active Forces (end strength): 

Army ...................................................................... 502,400 482,400 482,400 ........................

Navy ....................................................................... 365,900 352,700 352,700 ........................

Marine Corps ......................................................... 178,000 175,000 175,000 ........................

Air Force ................................................................ 359,700 357,400 357,400 ........................

Total, Active Force ............................................ 1,406,000 1,367,500 1,367,500 ........................

Guard and Reserve (end strength): 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 ........................

Navy Reserve ......................................................... 83,400 73,100 73,100 ........................

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 ........................

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 76,100 74,000 74,000 ........................

Army National Guard ............................................. 350,000 350,000 350,000 ........................

Air National Guard ................................................ 106,800 106,800 106,800 ........................

Total, Guard and Reserve ................................ 860,900 848,500 848,500 ........................

ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT

OVERVIEW

END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommends the requested end strength levels as 

proposed in the budget request. The Committee is aware that the 

budget funds the baseline military end strength and plans to seek 

additional funds for increases in end strength above the levels provided for in the budget request in a supplemental request. The 

Committee addresses these additional manpower expenses in title 

IX of this Act. In addition, the Services are experiencing challenges 

in their recruiting and retention programs due to a difficult recruiting environment. Therefore, the Committee has provided additional 

16 

funds for the active duty and Guard and Reserve personnel and operation and maintenance accounts in title IX of this Act. 

ACCURACY OF OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a reduction of $403,800,000 to the 

budget request, based on the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) analysis of prior year unexpended military personnel account balances. The Services’ accounting data continue to show a 

pattern of under executing their appropriated funds, and therefore, 

the Committee believes the military personnel budget requests for 

fiscal year 2006 are overstated and can be reduced. 

GUARD AND RESERVE COST AVOIDANCE

The Committee recommends a reduction of $430,600,000 to the 

budget request for the Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2006 military 

personnel accounts. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

found that updated monthly strength data, when compared to the 

monthly strength data in the fiscal year 2006 budget, had strength 

levels lower than budgeted, resulting in the above funds not being 

needed for the Guard and Reserve components. 

EXPEDITED SERVICEMEMBER NATURALIZATION

The Committee notes with interest past efforts of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to expedite the citizenship naturalization process for servicemembers in 

accordance with Presidential direction (Executive Order 3 July, 

2002) and Congressional guidance and intent (P.L. 108–136, title 

XVII). The Committee, however, remains concerned that efforts 

have proceeded slowly and servicemembers still routinely deploy 

operationally with naturalization requests still pending. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to submit 

a report, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, detailing efforts to notify all non-citizens in the active duty 

and Reserve components of the expedited citizenship process, and 

to shepherd these servicemembers through the process to ensure 

that all cases are resolved prior to a servicemember’s deployment. 

FULL-TIME SUPPORT STRENGTHS

There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and 

Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve 

(AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel. 

Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain 

and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (Military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units 

maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and 

Air Force. 

Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 156,739 

in fiscal year 2005. The fiscal year 2006 budget request is 159,031 

end strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve 

full-time support end strengths: 

17 

GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS 

FY 2005 

estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from request 

Army Reserve: 

AGR ........................................................................ 14,970 15,270 15,270 ........................

Technicians ........................................................... 8,094 8,344 8,344 ........................

Navy Reserve: 

AR .......................................................................... 14,152 13,392 13,392 ........................

Marine Corps Reserve: 

AR .......................................................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 ........................

Air Force Reserve: 

AGR ........................................................................ 1,900 2,290 2,290 ........................

Technicians ........................................................... 10,044 9,943 9,943 ........................

Army National Guard: 

AGR ........................................................................ 26,602 27,345 27,345 ........................

Technicians ........................................................... 26,676 27,163 27,163 ........................

Air National Guard: 

AGR ........................................................................ 12,253 13,089 13,089 ........................

Technicians ........................................................... 23,306 23,321 23,321 ........................

Total: 

AGR/AR .................................................................. 72,138 73,647 73,647 ........................

Technicians ........................................................... 68,120 68,771 68,771 ........................

MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation ........................................................ $26,039,540,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ..................................................... 24,455,295,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................ 24,357,895,000 

Change from budget request ........................................................... ¥97,400,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,357,895,000 

for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of 

$1,681,645,000 below the $26,039,540,000 appropriated for fiscal 

year 2005 and $97,400,000 less than the request for fiscal year 

2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

18 


Insert graphic folio 05 21172A.003
19 


Insert graphic folio 06 21172A.004
20 

The adjustment to the budget activities for Military Personnel, 

Army is shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

3200 Unobligated Balances ...................................................... ¥97,400 

MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation ........................................................ $20,876,556,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ..................................................... 19,439,196,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................ 19,417,696,000 

Change from budget request ........................................................... ¥21,500,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,417,696,000 

for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of 

$1,458,860,000 below the $20,876,556,000 appropriated for fiscal 

year 2005 and $21,500,000 less than the request for fiscal year 

2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

21 


Insert graphic folio 07 21172A.005
22 


Insert graphic folio 08 21172A.006
23 

The adjustment to the budget activities for Military Personnel, 

Navy is shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

9550 Unobligated Balances ...................................................... ¥21,500 

MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $8,527,529,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 7,845,913,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 7,839,813,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥6,100,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,839,813,000 

for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is a decrease of $687,716,000 below the $8,527,529,000 appropriated for 

fiscal year 2005 and $6,100,000 less than the request for fiscal year 

2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

24 


Insert graphic folio 09 21172A.007
25 


Insert graphic folio 010 21172A.008
26 

The adjustment to the budget activities for Military Personnel, 

Marine Corps is shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

14315 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥6,100 

MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $21,145,141,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 20,254,837,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 20,083,037,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥171,800,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,083,037,000 

for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is a decrease of $1,062,104,000 below the $21,145,141,000 appropriated 

for fiscal year 2005 and $171,800,000 less than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

27 


Insert graphic folio 011 21172A.009
28 


Insert graphic folio 012 21172A.010
29 

The adjustment to the budget activities for Military Personnel, 

Air Force is shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

19620 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥171,800 

RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $3,373,773,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 2,938,703,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,862,103,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥76,600,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,862,103,000 

for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of 

$511,670,000 below the $3,373,773,000 appropriated for fiscal year 

2005 and $76,600,000 less than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

30 


Insert graphic folio 013 21172A.011
31 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, 

Army are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

23800 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥19,800 

23810 Reserves Cost Avoidance ............................................... ¥56,800 

RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,881,750,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,583,061,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,486,061,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥97,000,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,486,061,000 

for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of 

$395,689,000 below the $1,881,750,000 appropriated for fiscal year 

2005 and $97,000,000 less than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

32 


Insert graphic folio 014 21172A.012
33 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, 

Navy are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

25300 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥52,300 

25370 Reserves Cost Avoidance ............................................... ¥44,700 

RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $584,128,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 480,592,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 472,392,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥8,200,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $472,392,000 for 

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is a decrease of $111,736,000 below the $584,128,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $8,200,000 less than the request for fiscal year 

2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

34 


Insert graphic folio 015 21172A.013
35 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, 

Marine Corps are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

26600 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥1,600 

26650 Reserves Cost Avoidance ............................................... ¥6,600 

RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,392,169,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,243,560,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,225,360,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥18,200,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,225,360,000 

for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is a decrease of $166,809,000 below the $1,392,169,000 appropriated for 

fiscal year 2005 and $18,200,000 less than the request for fiscal 

year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

36 


Insert graphic folio 016 21172A.014
37 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, 

Air Force are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

27900 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥18,200 

27910 Reserves Cost Avoidance ............................................... ¥4,700 

27930 932nd Airlift Wing Personnel ....................................... 4,700 

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $5,467,656,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 4,669,104,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,359,704,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥309,400,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,359,704,000 

for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $1,107,952,000 below the $5,467,656,000 appropriated for 

fiscal year 2005 and $309,400,000 less than the request for fiscal 

year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

38 


Insert graphic folio 017 21172A.015
39 

The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Army are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

29350 Unobligated Balances ...................................................... ¥11,600 

29410 Reserves Cost Avoidance ................................................. ¥297,800 

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $2,326,091,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 2,051,715,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,028,215,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥23,500,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,028,215,000 

for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is a 

decrease of $297,876,000 below the $2,326,091,000 appropriated for 

fiscal year 2005 and $23,500,000 less than the request for fiscal 

year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

40 


Insert graphic folio 018 21172A.016
41 

The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Air Force are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Undistributed: 

30550 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥3,500 

30600 Reserves Cost Avoidance ............................................... ¥20,000 

(43) 

TITLE II 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

The fiscal year 2006 budget request for programs funded in title 

II of this Act, Operation and Maintenance, is $118,982,941,000 in 

new budget authority, which is an increase of $6,140,509,000 above 

the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005. 

The accompanying bill recommends $116,092,791,000 for fiscal 

year 2006, which is an increase of $3,250,359,000 above the 

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $2,890,150,000 less 

than the request for fiscal year 2006. These appropriations finance 

the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including 

the reserve components and related support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel and facilities 

sustainment, restoration and modernization costs. Included are pay 

for civilians, services for maintenance of equipment, fuel, supplies, 

and spare parts for weapons and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors, including force levels such 

as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel strength and deployments, 

rates of operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of 

equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in operation. 

The table below summarizes the Committee’s recommendations. 

44 


Insert graphic folio 019 21172A.017
45 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW 

The President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request represents a 

$6,140,509,000 increase above fiscal year 2005 in title II, Operation 

and Maintenance, exclusive of supplemental funding provided for 

continuation of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 

Administration’s request did not include funding for the continuation of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. 

However, the Committee has included the funding necessary to ensure continued full support for our forces operating in the combat 

zones. Funding for these purposes is addressed in title IX of the 

Act. The Committee has provided $45,254,619,000 to ensure that 

funds are available to fully support the operating, personnel support, maintenance, transportation, and other wartime costs of the 

services, including purchase of all necessary force protection equipment. The funds provided in title IX will support continuation of 

operations well into fiscal year 2006, and will ensure that critical 

base operating and maintenance accounts need not be diverted to 

support the war effort. In recognition of the fact that a significant 

number of units will be deployed throughout the fiscal year, the 

Committee has offset funding in title II that is not required in 

home station budgets. 

The budget request for normal peacetime funding in title II, Operation and Maintenance would sustain flying hours, ship steaming 

and ground operating tempo at approximately fiscal year 2005 levels. The funding requested in Operation and Maintenance, Army 

supports the continuing transformation of Army units to modular 

forces. Operation and Maintenance, Navy supports 10 active carrier 

air wings and 1,598 primary authorized aircraft, 289 ships, including 54 nuclear attack submarines and 18 missile submarines. Consistent with section 1025 of Public Law 109–13, The Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on 

Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005, the Navy will continue to 

support and operate 12 aricraft carriers until after the date of the 

submittal to Congress of the quadrennial defense review. The 

Navy’s Fleet Response Plan, begun in fiscal year 2004, continues 

in 2006, with the goal of increasing availability of naval assets for 

duty worldwide. Increased funding for flying hours and ship operations primarily reflects increased cost of fuel. The Air Force flying 

hour program provides the funding necessary to maintain basic flying skill and pilot development and production, and to provide 

trained aircrews to joint forces combatant commanders through ten 

aerospace expeditionary forces. 

The budget request fully supports the Army’s ground and aviation training programs including a gradual increase in the number 

of battalion rotations at ground combat training centers. The budget request includes increasing Army base operations funding from 

68 percent in fiscal year 2005 to 72 percent. The Army request includes a reduction of $1,428,100,000 for Business Process Reengineering Initiatives, and an increase of $59,110,000 for expanded foreign language training at the Defense Language Institute. A small increase in funds requested for Navy base operations 

support is attributable to implementation costs for utilities privatization. Increased funding for Air Force base operations support 

46 

provides for improvements in Child Development and Family Centers, base communications and transportation. 

Funding is included to support a pay increase of 2.3 percent for 

civilian employees. The budget request provides for the continued 

conversion of selected billets from military to civilian workers in all 

the services, in order to return military personnel from administrative duties to combat and combat support units. 

In title II of the Act, the Committee has fully supported the 

peacetime requirements of the military services for readiness training in flying hours, ship steaming and ground forces OPTEMPO 

training. Equipment maintenance and base support programs have 

been robustly resourced, including support for anti-terrorism and 

force protection efforts. In title IX of the Act, the Committee has 

provided funding to support continuing combat and peace keeping 

operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through approximately the first 

six months of fiscal year 2006. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS SHORTFALLS

Despite the continuation of robust funding in operation and 

maintenance accounts requested for fiscal year 2006, testimony by 

the services’ leadership and briefings by key staff members indicate 

that a certain degree of risk has been taken in some areas. For example, the Army flying hour program is based on historical execution levels of 13.1 hours, per crew, per month; however the Army 

goal remains to achieve 14.5 hours, per crew, per month. 

The Committee has provided over $500,000,000 in additional operating account funding to assist in addressing many of the Department’s shortfalls. Funds have been added for individual soldier and 

Marine field equipment, small all terrain vehicles, general purpose 

tents and mobility shelters, improvements in control of logistics 

systems, enhanced training capabilities, foreign language training, 

training on urbanized terrain, military and civilian safety, education programs, and distance learning. 

The Committee has identified spending that does not directly 

support readiness and has moved those funds to programs that 

more directly support readiness goals. 

Much of the Army and Marine Corps equipment that was drawn 

from pre-positioned sets for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be returned to pre-positioned status until after fiscal 

year 2006. The Army and Marine Corps have identified significant 

unfunded requirements in funding for repair and restocking of the 

equipment that has been retained in Afghanistan and Iraq for use 

by rotational units. Title IX of the accompanying Act includes funding for depot level and unit level maintenance that has been identified as executable by the Army and Marine Corps for pre-positioned equipment items and for repair of equipment in units that 

have rotated from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan back to home stations. The Committee strongly encourages the military services to 

execute aggressively their repair and reset programs and to avoid 

creation of a maintenance back log which could threaten readiness 

for future contingencies. 

47 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXECUTION DATA

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to 

provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly budget execution data. Such data should be provided not later than 

forty-five days past the close of each quarter for the fiscal year, and 

should be provided for each O–1 budget activity, activity group, 

and subactivity group for each of the active, defense-wide, reserve 

and National Guard components. For each O–1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group, these reports should include 

the budget request and actual obligations; the DoD distribution of 

unallocated congressional adjustments to the budget request; all 

adjustments made by DoD during the process of rebaselining the 

operation and maintenance accounts; all adjustments resulting 

from below threshold reprogrammings; and all adjustments resulting from prior approval reprogramming requests. 

In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of Defense provide semiannual written notifications to the congressional 

defense committees, which summarize Operation and Maintenance 

budget execution, to include the effect of rebaselining procedures, 

other below threshold reprogrammings, and prior approval 

reprogrammings. The Committee further directs that the Department of Defense provide the House of Representatives and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 days prior to 

executing procedures to rebaseline Operation and Maintenance accounts. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds between 

O–1 budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be subject to normal 

prior approval reprogramming procedures. In the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide account, the Committee directs that 

proposed transfers of funds between agencies in excess of 

$15,000,000 be subject to prior approval reprogramming procedures. Items for which funds have been specifically provided in any 

appropriation in the report using phrases ‘‘only for’’ and ‘‘only to’’

are Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD form 1414). Each of these items must be carried 

on the DD1414 at the stated amount, or revised amount if changed 

during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing concerns about force 

readiness and the diversion of Operation and Maintenance funds, 

the Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide written notification to the congressional defense committees for the cumulative value of any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000 

from the following budget activities and subactivity group categories: 

Operation and maintenance, Army 

Operating Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support 

forces, Echelon above Corps support forces, Land forces operations 

support, Land forces systems readiness, and Land forces depot 

maintenance. 

48 

Operation and maintenance, Navy 

Operating Forces: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air 

training, Aircraft depot maintenance, Mission and other ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Ship maintenance. 

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps 

Operating Forces: Operational forces, Depot maintenance. 

Operation and maintenance, Air Force 

Operating Forces: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons, Air operations training, Depot maintenance; 

Mobilization: Airlift operations, Depot maintenance; 

Basic Skills and Advance Training: Depot maintenance; 

Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance. 

Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the 

following budget subactivities: 

Operation and maintenance, Army 

Depot maintenance. 

Operation and maintenance, Navy 

Aircraft depot maintenance, 

Ship maintenance. 

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps 

Depot maintenance. 

Operation and maintenance, Air Force 

Air Operations, Depot maintenance; 

Mobility Operations, Depot maintenance; 

Basic Skills and Advanced Training, Depot maintenance; and 

Logistics Operations, Depot maintenance. 

CIVILIAN PAY

The Committee has fully funded the budget request for a 2.3 percent pay increase for civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The Committee understands that the Department of Defense 

may implement an increase in pay that is greater than 2.3 percent, 

and directs that any increase above 2.3 percent will be paid from 

within funds available to the DoD. 

MILITARY TENTS

The Committee recognizes that military tents, from individual 

soldier tents to large maintenance and multi-purpose tents, are 

critical to military training and contingency operations. Tents provide fast and flexible shelter for military personnel, logistical operations, command centers, medical services and numerous other 

purposes, when fixed facilities are not available. The combat and 

peace keeping activities in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to rely 

upon tents of many varieties, especially as operations expand and 

contract to counter the insurgents. Peace time contingency stocks 

have been depleted and the process of restocking has been offset 

49 

by the continuing operational demand. The Committee strongly 

urges the military services to apply operation and maintenance 

funds made available in title II and title IX of this Act to ensure 

the availability of necessary stocks of military tents for Operations 

Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and for contingency reserve 

purposes. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $23,797,606,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 23,491,077,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 22,432,727,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥1,058,350,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,432,727,000 

for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is a 

decrease of $1,364,879,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $1,058,350,000 less than the request for fiscal 

year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

50 


Insert graphic folio 020 21172A.018
51 


Insert graphic folio 021 21172A.019
52 


Insert graphic folio 020 21172A.020
53 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 

250 Chem/Bio Resistant Hydration on the Move ...................... 1,000 

250 Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS) ............. 2,700 

250 Leakproof Transmission Drip Pans ..................................... 2,700 

250 Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure ................................... 500 

250 MSR MIOX On-the-Move Individual Water Purification 

System ......................................................................................... 1,000 

250 Small All-Terrain military utility vehicles ......................... 2,000 

250 Tactical Operations Centers (ELAMS/MECCS) for 

USASOC ...................................................................................... 4,000 

400 RFI Sustainment Peace Time Offset ................................... ¥103,000 

450 Efficiencies in Administrative and Support Activities ....... ¥6,500 

550 Unjustified Growth in Operations Support Costs .............. ¥23,000 

600 Peace Time Systems Readiness Support Offset ................. ¥83,000 

650 Depot Maintenance Peace Time Work Load Adjustment .. ¥213,000 

750 Unsupported Growth in Utilities Privatization .................. ¥15,000 

750 High Performance Conflict Resolution, Skill Development, and Team Building ........................................................... 2,000 

750 Service-Wide Safety: Breathscan Alcohol Detectors .......... 4,000 

850 Unjustified Growth in Management Headquarters ........... ¥10,000 

Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 

1300 Rock Island Arsenal Industrial Mobilization Capacity .... 4,950 

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 

1650 Early Commissioning Program at Military Junior Colleges ............................................................................................. 2,000 

1850 Global Language Online Support System (GLOSS) ......... 2,800 

1850 On-Line Automated Diagnostic Assessment of Language 

Proficiency ................................................................................... 1,000 

1850 DLI—Language Laboratory Acquisition ........................... 2,500 

1850 Military Police training at the Multi-Jurisdictional 

Counter-Drug Task Force Training (MCTFT) Program .......... 1,000 

1850 Virtual Interactive Training and Assessment System 

(VITAS) ........................................................................................ 2,000 

1900 Air Battle Captain .............................................................. 2,000 

2000 Training Doctrine Development Unsupported Growth .... ¥11,300 

2000 Automated Delivery of the DLAB and Research on the 

Next Generation Aptitude Test ................................................. 1,000 

2000 Live Training Instrumentation for Air & Missile Defense Units ................................................................................... 3,000 

2300 Mobilizing Educational Technology to Support Combat 

Deployment .................................................................................. 1,000 

2350 Intern Program Unsupported Growth ............................... ¥32,000 

2400 Philadelphia Military Academies ....................................... 100 

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Service-Wide Activities: 

2650 Adjustment to Classified Program .................................... 21,000 

2750 Peace time offset for Depot Maintenance transportation, 

port operations, and traffic management support .................... ¥68,000 

2800 Sustainment System Technical Support Peace Time Offset ................................................................................................. ¥116,000 

2800 Pulse Technology—Army Battery Management Program 3,600 

2800 Advanced Technology Batteries ......................................... 2,500 

2850 Army Legacy Logistics Systems Modernization (SAMS–

E) .................................................................................................. 1,000 

2850 Common Logistics Operating Environment ...................... 3,000 

2850 Sense and Respond Logistics ............................................. 2,000 

2850 TACOM Life Cycle Management Command Integrated 

Digital Environment Pilot Program .......................................... 1,000 

2850 Joint US Army and USMC Autonomic Logistics Prototype ............................................................................................... 2,000 

2850 Controlled Humidity Preservation Program, Soft Portable Tunnels ................................................................................ 2,000 

3050 Communications Unsupported Growth ............................. ¥11,000 

3200 Memorial Day ...................................................................... 900 

54 

3650 Western Hemisphere Information Exchange Program .... 2,500 

Undistributed: 

3730 Repairs at Fort Baker ......................................................... 2,500 

3790 Unobligated Balances ......................................................... ¥100,000 

4100 Administration and Service-Wide Activities ..................... ¥8,400 

4110 Civilian Pay Overstatement ............................................... ¥17,000 

4130 Military to Civilian Conversions ........................................ ¥78,400 

4140 Peace Time Training Offset ............................................... ¥250,000 

SECOND DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (SDT) SUPPORT FOR ARMY

AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SYSTEM (AAFES)

The Committee notes with great concern that the Army has chosen to budget for approximately one half the estimated fiscal year 

2006 requirement for the Army and Air Force Exchange System 

(AAFES) Second Destination Transportation (SDT). This support is 

vital to AAFES in order to provide American products for sale at 

AAFES locations world wide, without forcing American service 

members and their families to pay higher prices in exchange stores 

in order to cover the cost of transportation to overseas locations. 

The Army, as executive agent for the AAFES transportation program, has been assigned the responsibility to budget for AAFES 

SDT. The Army has failed to do so in the fiscal year 2006 budget 

request, apparently anticipating that decreased overseas troop stationing will substantially reduce the need for AAFES SDT. The 

Committee strongly supports continuing full funding of AAFES 

SDT as needed to make American products available to United 

States personnel assigned overseas. The Committee directs the 

Army to fully fund the AAFES SDT requirement from within funds 

available in Operation and Maintenance, Army. 

CONTROLLED HUMIDITY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only to augment the use of Controlled Humidity Program Soft Portable Tunnels as currently used 

in Italy to include low water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) material as described in MIL–P–58102, Type II, and MIL–C–58104 by 

the Department of the Army, to enhance cost avoidance, and support rapid storage space requirements and relocation capabilities 

for fielded equipment. 

SENSE AND RESPOND LOGISTICS

The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only to support the United States 

Army’s Logistics Transformation Agency to design and prototype a 

sense and respond logistics capability to predict and optimize 

sustainment in real time, and to field a Common Logistics Operating Environment enabled brigade-sized unit. 

HUMANITARIAN RELIEF TRANSFER OF DOD AIRCRAFT

The Committee understands that the Department of the Army is 

in possession of two (2) C–12 Aircraft which may be deemed surplus. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to convey 

these planes, without consideration, to a non-governmental organization (NGO), which provides humanitarian airlift primarily to Afghanistan and Indonesia. Further, the Committee directs that from 

55 

funds available in Operation and Maintenance, Army, $100,000 be 

used solely for the purpose of repairing the aircraft prior to transfer. 

TACOM LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT COMMAND INTEGRATED DIGITAL

ENVIRONMENT (IDE) PILOT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army, only for a pilot program to evaluate 

the expansion of the Program Executive Officer Soldier and Ground 

Combat e-business portal to the program executive officers and 

commodity command organizations within the new TACOM Life 

Cycle Management Command (LCMC). 

AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS PROTOTYPE

The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army, only to support the U.S. Army Logistics Transformation Agency project to develop the representative 

embedded systems architecture, integrate the systems architecture 

with the emerging Common Logistics Operating Environment 

(CLOE) Operational Architecture for Joint Ground Warfare, and 

follow guidelines established by CLOE Technical Standards in collaboration with the USMC. 

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COUNTER-DRUG TASK FORCE TRAINING

(MCTFT)

The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 above the 

budget request to provide military police training by the Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-Drug Task Force Training program of St. Petersburg College for federal, state, local and military law enforcement training and awareness training for public officials in support 

of counter-drug efforts. MCTFT shall provide conventional classroom/scenario driven and distance learning WMD training and education using blended technologies such as satellite, CD-ROM, webbased, and video training support packages. 

FORT IRWIN ROAD

The Congress appropriated funds over five years ago for improvements to a key access road for the Army’s National Training Center and other key facilities at Fort Irwin, California. Since that 

time, there have been 27 fatalities on this road, many of which 

might have been avoided had the Army acted promptly to repair 

it and make safety improvements once Congress provided the 

funds. The Committee is very concerned that the Army continues 

to lack focus on the management of this project and the need to act 

promptly to ensure the safety of military personnel, their dependents and civilians at this very busy and important Army facility. 

The Committee bill accompanying this report includes a general 

provision which makes available additional funding toward the 

completion of this most worthwhile project. The Committee strongly urges the Army to proceed swiftly in the execution of this effort. 

56 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $28,353,957,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 29,414,918,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 28,719,818,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥695,100,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,719,818,000 

for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an 

increase of $365,861,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal 

year 2005 and $695,100,000 less than the request for fiscal year 

2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

57 


Insert graphic folio 24 21172A.021
58 


Insert graphic folio 25 21172A.022
59 


Insert graphic folio 26 21172A.023
60 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 

4560 Knowledge Management and Decision Support System .. 5,000 

4560 Automated Explosive Safety Assessment Tools ............... 2,000 

4650 Unjustified Growth in Converged ERP ............................. ¥20,000 

4650 Low Observability Coatings and Materials Maintenance 

Program (LOCMM) ..................................................................... 2,000 

4650 Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) Support of the FRP ...... 2,000 

4650 Composite Repair Training Program ................................ 250 

4650 CAT & RADCOM Test Program Sets ................................ 3,500 

4850 Man Overboard Safety System Installation ..................... 1,000 

4850 NULKA (MK 234 Electronic Decoy Cartridge) ................. 1,800 

5050 Improved Engineering Design Process .............................. 1,500 

5400 Efficiencies in Training Support ........................................ ¥14,000 

5500 Training Support Unjustified Growth ............................... ¥13,000 

5550 Manual Reverse Osmosis Desalinator (MROD) Testing 

Repair and Replacement ............................................................ 1,000 

5900 Peace Time System Support Offset ................................... ¥17,800 

6220 Base Operating Support Unjustified Growth ................... ¥57,000 

6220 Environmental Clean Up for Ford Island Buildings 37, 

54, 79, S84, and 97 ..................................................................... 2,700 

6220 Navy Region Northwest—Navy Shore Infrastructure 

Transformation (NSIT) ............................................................... 5,000 

6220 Application of Technology and Simulation to Reduce 

Vulnerability of Military Bases ................................................. 2,000 

6220 Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative ......................... 2,000 

6220 Toledo Shipyard Improvement Plan .................................. 5,000 

6220 Service-Wide Safety: Breathscan Alcohol Detectors ........ 2,250 

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 

7200 Virtual Interactive Training and Assessment System 

(VITAS) ........................................................................................ 1,000 

7300 Navy Advanced Education Demonstration Project .......... 1,000 

7300 Center for Defense Technology and Education for the 

Military Services (CDTEMS) ..................................................... 5,000 

7700 Naval Sea Cadet Corps ....................................................... 300 

7700 Naval Junior ROTC Marine Science Research Program 2,000 

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Service-Wide Activities: 

8550 Stainless Steel Sanitary Spaces ......................................... 1,500 

8600 Critical Infrastructure Protection Program ...................... 1,000 

8700 Diagnosis and Prognostication of Gas Turbine Problems 2,000 

8750 Total Ship Test Production (TSTP) Program .................... 1,000 

9000 Local Situational Assessment Segment, NAS Lemoore ... 2,000 

9220 Adjustment to Classified Program .................................... 17,100 

Undistributed: 

9440 Unobligated Balances ......................................................... ¥75,000 

9550 Administration and Service-Wide Activities ..................... ¥48,900 

9570 Civilian Pay Overstatement ............................................... ¥172,000 

9580 Military to Civilian Conversion ......................................... ¥76,300 

9600 Peace Time Training Offset ............................................... ¥274,000 

DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSTICATION OF GAS TURBINE PROBLEMS

The Committee recognizes the need for a Laser Motion Sensing 

and Measurement System for the diagnosis and prognostication of 

gas turbine problems in order to ensure their reliability. In an effort to maximize the goal of ship readiness, the Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, 

Navy, only for Program Element 070801N for the development of 

a gas turbine diagnostic/prognostic system able to measure displacement, velocity and/or acceleration over a bandwidth from 0 

hertz through over 500,000 hertz, with demonstrated dynamic 

range of over 180 dB (acceleration), and with a system measureVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
61 

ment bandwidth including low frequency vibration information 

through ‘‘normal’’ and ‘‘otherwise not observed’’ high frequency information, including Acoustic Emissions (AE). 

NAVAL STATION MAYPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

As the Navy’s fleet of aircraft carriers evolves, it becomes apparent that in the not too distant future, an all-nuclear fleet of aircraft 

carriers may become reality. The Committee strongly encourages 

the Navy to ensure the capability to base and support large-deck, 

deep-draft, nuclear powered ships, including aircraft carriers, at 

multiple locations on each coast. The Navy has such a capability 

on the west coast, but not on the east coast. Multiple nuclear-capable bases, on the east and west coasts, provide for continuity of operations for the carrier fleet notwithstanding a variety of adverse 

situations including natural disasters and acts of terrorism or conventional war. 

The Committee believes that the Navy should proceed expeditiously to accomplish all necessary actions toward transition of 

Naval Station Mayport to a nuclear capable aircraft carrier base. 

The Committee understands that key to this transition is completion of an environmental impact study and the Committee urges 

the Navy to take all necessary actions to complete an environmental impact study on the transition of Naval Station Mayport to 

be a nuclear capable facility as soon as practicable. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $3,106,145,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 3,250,966,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,123,766,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥127,200,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,123,766,000 

for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $17,621,000 above the amount appropriated 

for fiscal year 2005 and $127,200,000 less than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

62 


Insert graphic folio 028 21172A.024
63 


Insert graphic folio 029 21172A.025
64 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 

10050 High Performance Undergarments .................................. 2,000 

10050 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System ....................... 3,000 

10050 Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS) ......... 3,600 

10050 Outdoor Research Marine Corps Contact Glove for 

MCWCEP ..................................................................................... 1,000 

10050 Marine Corps Base Layer Garments with Innovative 

Technologies ................................................................................ 2,000 

10050 Chem/Bio Resistant Hydration on the Move .................. 1,000 

10100 Unjustified Growth in Administrative Support .............. ¥5,000 

10100 Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure ............................... 2,500 

10100 Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net System (ULCANS) 4,000 

10100 Advanced Technology Batteries ....................................... 2,500 

10200 Defense Motor Vehicle Safety Demonstration Program 1,000 

10200 MAGTFTC Range Transformation Initiative ................. 19,000 

10350 Advanced Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor Delivery System .. 1,500 

Undistributed: 

12010 Unobligated Balances ....................................................... ¥10,000 

12055 Military to Civilian Conversions ...................................... ¥59,400 

12060 Peace Time Training Offset ............................................. ¥95,900 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $26,121,823,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 29,705,435,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 28,659,373,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥1,046,062,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,659,373,000 

for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is 

an increase of $2,537,550,000 above the amount appropriated for 

fiscal year 2005 and $1,046,062,000 less than the request for 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

65 


Insert graphic folio 030 21172A.026
66 


Insert graphic folio 031 21172A.027
67 


Insert graphic folio 032 21172A.028
68 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 

12600 Maintain 52 F–117 Aircraft ............................................. 11,100 

12600 MBU–20/P Oxygen Mask and Visor ................................ 2,500 

12700 Peace Time Training Support Offset ............................... ¥85,100 

12750 Efficiencies in Air Operations Training Support ............ ¥41,000 

12800 Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) Transfer 

From RDT&E .............................................................................. 5,000 

12850 Unjustified Base Support Cost Growth ........................... ¥86,000 

12850 Air Field Lighting System ................................................ 1,600 

12850 Expert Organizational Development System (Exodus) .. 4,000 

13000 Global C3I and Early Warning Unsupported Growth in 

Support Costs .............................................................................. ¥13,500 

13050 Notice to Airman (NOTAMS) Program Upgrade ........... 2,000 

13100 Enhanced Situational Awareness and Analyses for 

Geospatial Enterprise Infrastructure ........................................ 2,000 

13400 Maintenance and Upkeep of Rocket Engine Test 

Stands at Edwards AFB ............................................................. 3,500 

Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 

13850 Emergency Vision Assurance System (EVAS) for the 

Total Force ................................................................................... 1,000 

Budget Activity 3: Training: 

14600 Efficiencies in Specialized Skill Training Support Costs ¥10,500 

14700 Unsupported Growth in Professional Development 

Education ..................................................................................... ¥7,000 

14750 Engineering Training and Knowledge Preservation 

System ......................................................................................... 2,700 

14750 Management Support for Air Force Battle Labs ............ 6,000 

14750 AFIT Geospatial Distance Learning ................................ 500 

14800 Efficiencies in Base Support Contractor Operations ...... ¥7,000 

15050 Unexecutable Growth in Off Duty, Voluntary Ed .......... ¥7,000 

15100 Online Technology Training Program McChord AFB .... 2,000 

15100 Online Technology Training Program Nellis AFB ......... 2,000 

15100 Online Technology Training Program Mac Dill AFB ..... 2,000 

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Service-Wide Activities: 

15350 Center for Parts Configuration Management (CPCM) .. 2,000 

15350 Air Operations Combat Support (AOCS) ........................ 3,600 

15400 Expand Rapid Retargeting Training and Services at 

WRALC ........................................................................................ 2,000 

15400 Engine Health Management Data Repository Center ... 3,000 

15950 Air Force Manufacturing and Technical Assistance 

Production Program .................................................................... 2,000 

15950 Air Force Data Conversion ............................................... 4,000 

16000 Demonstration Project for Contractors Employing Persons with Disabilities ................................................................. 1,500 

16050 Civil Air Patrol Operations and Support ........................ 88 

16100 Air Force CIO Enterprise ................................................. 1,000 

16100 Service-Wide Safety: Breathscan Alcohol Detectors ...... 2,000 

16100 Wright Patterson AFB Critical Infrastructure Data Set 

Development ................................................................................ 500 

16250 Security Programs Adjustment ........................................ ¥9,250 

Undistributed: 

16630 Unobligated Balances ....................................................... ¥70,000 

16710 Administration and Service-Wide Activities ................... ¥130,600 

16780 Military to Civilian Conversions ...................................... ¥172,700 

16800 Peace Time Training Offset ............................................. ¥476,000 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $17,354,619,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 18,338,069,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 18,323,516,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥14,553,000 

69 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,323,516,000 

for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $968,897,000 above the amount appropriated 

in fiscal year 2005 and $14,553,000 less than the request for fiscal 

year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

70 


Insert graphic folio 033 21172A.029
71 


Insert graphic folio 034 21172A.030
72 

The adjustments to Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide 

agencies are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 

17050 TJS—CoCom Initiative Fund ........................................... ¥5,000 

17050 TJS—Program Growth ..................................................... ¥7,500 

17050 TJS—BA Realignment ...................................................... ¥303,164 

17100 SOCOM—Lightweight ATV Program ............................. 2,000 

17100 SOCOM—Combat Medic Training .................................. 1,500 

17100 SOCOM—Technology Transfer ........................................ 1,350 

17100 SOCOM—Depot Maintenance ......................................... ¥12,000 

17100 SOCOM—C4IAS CERP .................................................... ¥6,400 

17100 SOCOM—BA Realignment .............................................. ¥188,296 

Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 

17250 DLA—BA Realignment ..................................................... 39,693 

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 

17375 AFIS—BA Realignment .................................................... 14,679 

17465 DCAA—BA Realignment .................................................. 5,605 

17480 DHRA—DLAMP Program Growth .................................. ¥7,000 

17480 DHRA—BA Realignment ................................................. 39,726 

17490 DSS—BA Realignment ..................................................... 7,543 

17510 DTRA—BA Realignment .................................................. 5,728 

17600 SOCOM—BA Realignment .............................................. 124,181 

17610 NDU—Agent-based Predictive Analysis Using Subject 

Matter Expert Generated Data Sets ......................................... 2,000 

17610 NDU—Critical Language Training; San Diego State 

University .................................................................................... 2,000 

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 

17725 AFIS—BA Realignment .................................................... ¥14,679 

17750 CMP—CA National Guard Youth Challenge Program .. 2,000 

17750 CMP—Outdoor Odyssey ................................................... 500 

17800 DCAA—BA Realignment .................................................. ¥5,605 

17830 DLA—Procurement Technical Assistance Program ....... 7,000 

17830 DLA—Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities .......................................................................................... 12,000 

17830 DLA—BA Realignment ..................................................... ¥39,693 

17870 DTRA—BA Realignment .................................................. ¥5,728 

17880 DODEA—Family Advocacy Program .............................. 20,000 

17880 DODEA—Lewis Center for Education Research ............ 3,000 

17880 DODEA—Jason Foundation ............................................ 1,000 

17880 DODEA—Tennessee Center for the Study and Treatment of Dyslexia Professional Development Program ............. 2,000 

17880 DODEA—Mesorah Heritage Foundation Curriculum 

Development ................................................................................ 500 

17900 DHRA—Defense Business Fellows Program .................. ¥4,800 

17900 DHRA—BA Realignment ................................................. ¥39,726 

18050 DSS—PSI for Industry Unjustified Growth ................... ¥20,000 

18050 DSS—BA Realignment ..................................................... ¥7,543 

18100 OEA—Norton AFB ............................................................ 5,000 

18100 OEA—George AFB ............................................................ 3,000 

18100 OEA—Rialto-Colton Basin Bio-Remediation Demonstration Project ........................................................................ 2,500 

18100 OEA—Port of Philadelphia .............................................. 3,000 

18100 OEA—Philadelphia Navy Yard ........................................ 2,000 

18100 OEA—Davids Island—Fort Slocum Remediation .......... 5,000 

18100 OEA—McClellan AFB Sewer Remediation ..................... 2,600 

18100 OEA—Citizen Soldier Support Program ......................... 5,000 

18100 OEA—Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal ...................... 6,000 

18100 OEA—Port of Port Arthur Drydock Transfer ................. 1,800 

18100 OEA—Watervliet Innovation Center ............................... 750 

18100 OEA—Hunters Point Naval Shipyard ............................. 4,000 

18100 OEA—JSFC Infrastructure .............................................. 2,400 

18100 OEA—Toledo Naval Weapons Reserve Plant Environmental Restoration ..................................................................... 3,500 

18100 OEA—Homestead Air Reserve Base Perimeter Improvement .................................................................................... 600 

73 

18125 OSD—Joint ROTC Military Leadership Project at the 

University of South Florida ....................................................... 4,500 

18125 OSD—Wind Demonstration Project ................................ 5,000 

18125 OSD—Chemical/Biological Resistant Hydration on the 

Move ............................................................................................. 1,000 

18125 OSD—Foreign Disclosure On-Line Training, Education, and Certification ............................................................. 1,000 

18125 OSD—Middle East Regional Security Issues Program .. 3,000 

18125 OSD—National Dedicated Fiber Optic Network Program ............................................................................................. 1,000 

18125 OSD—Minority Contract Enhancement Program .......... 3,000 

18125 OSD—Clinic for Legal Assistance to Servicemembers .. 500 

18125 OSD—Service-Wide Safety: Alcohol Breath Detectors .. 250 

18125 OSD—Virtual Reality Spray Paint Simulator System 

and Training Program ................................................................ 1,500 

18125 OSD—Focus on Family at Neumann College ................. 500 

18150 SOCOM—BA Realignment .............................................. 64,115 

18200 TJS—Program Growth ..................................................... ¥7,500 

18200 TJS—BA Realignment ...................................................... 303,164 

18225 WHS—eGov Program Growth .......................................... ¥10,000 

18225 WHS—Child Care Center Planning: Budget Justification Error ..................................................................................... ¥4,400 

Undistributed: 

19010 Impact Aid ......................................................................... 30,000 

19020 Other Programs ................................................................. ¥42,203 

19045 Unobligated Balances ....................................................... ¥43,000 

JOINT ROTC MILITARY LEADERSHIP PROJECT

The Committee provides $4,500,000 to continue the model Joint 

ROTC Military Leadership Project at the University of South Florida. 

NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 above the 

budget request only to prepare facilities at Joint Forces Training 

Base Los Alamitos to expand the California National Guard Grizzly 

Program. 

WIND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

The Committee provides $5,000,000 to coordinate a wind demonstration project on a U.S. Air Force installation using domestically manufactured turbines that are new to the U.S. market to 

test the security and reliability of wind generation on base. New 

U.S. turbine manufacturers provide multiple blade designs that 

offer higher performance at a wider variety of wind speeds. From 

within the amount provided for this project, the Committee directs 

that $500,000 be used to fund a report to Congress on the related 

technical findings no later than February 2008. The Committee further directs that $500,000 of the amount provided be used for dedicated renewable energy expertise at AFCESA and DESC. 

ADVANCED FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK

The Committee is aware of efforts to deploy the Advanced First 

Responder Network (AFRN) throughout Iraq, which will begin to 

address the current lack of mission-critical public-safety communications capabilities and will allow for focused coordination of security planning and execution, rapid data collection and analysis of 

changing security threats, rapid coordination and deployment of seVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
74 

curity assets to address threats, effective planning to prevent and 

reduce future security threats, and a more secure environment that 

will foster democracy and economic development. The AFRN infrastructure in Iraq has been designed to accommodate the entire 

country, including border regions and critical infrastructure such 

as pipelines. The Committee supports this important first step and, 

with funds available in this legislation and prior appropriations 

acts, encourages the reconstruction effort to continue to place a 

high value on completion of the nationwide deployment of a state 

of the art AFRN and related advanced networks. 

MINORITY CONTRACT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

The Committee recognizes the critical importance of providing 

continued development of new products and technological innovations from a diversified public. The Committee therefore provides 

$3,000,000 for the Minority Contract Enhancement Program to increase minority contributions service-wide through the development of a supplier diversity initiative. 

SERVICE-WIDE SAFETY: ALCOHOL BREATH DETECTORS

The impact of excessive alcohol use and driving under the influence continues as a leading cause of ground accidents, injury, 

death, and physical damage across the Services. The Committee is 

encouraged by the potential of the Services’ access to patented, 

breath alcohol indicators/detectors. The Committee has therefore 

provided a total of $8,500,000 to support the procurement of waterproof, temperature-proof, disposable, portable breath alcohol indicators (gaseous fluid indicator) with a minimum 3-year shelf life and 

directs the Secretary to report to the Appropriations Committees by 

September 30, 2006, on the impact of the use of these indicators 

across the services. 

PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASSIFICATION BOARD

The Committee directs that from amounts available in Operation 

and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, $1,000,000 shall be available for 

the Public Interest Declassification Board. 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

The Committee recommends $1,350,000 for Special Operations 

Technology Transfer. The Committee directs that these funds shall 

be used only for an initiative to accurately track portable, sensitive 

items exported beyond the borders of the United States. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,789,987,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,783,012,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,791,212,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +8,200,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,791,212,000 

for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $1,225,000 above the $1,789,987,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $8,200,000 above the request for 

fiscal year 2006. 

75 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

76 


Insert graphic folio 037 21172A.031
77 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces 

19680 Base Support .................................................................. 20,000 

Undistributed: 

20220 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥17,800 

20230 Army Reserve IT Consolidation .................................... 2,000 

20231 Tactical Operations Centers (ELAMS/MECCS) .......... 4,000 

U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND IT CONSOLIDATION

The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 above the 

budget request only for the Army Reserve to achieve a continuity 

of operations capability for its mission critical information technology systems by replicating mission critical data between Peachtree City, Georgia and San Antonio, Texas. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,164,228,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,182,907,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,178,607,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥4,300,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,178,607,000 

for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $14,379,000 above the $1,164,228,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $4,300,000 less than the request 

for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

78 


Insert graphic folio 38 21172A.032
79 


Insert graphic folio 39 21172A.033
80 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces 

21200 Aircraft Depot Maintenance ......................................... 5,000 

21800 Combat Support Forces/Gulf Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) ..................................................................... 3,000 

Undistributed: 

22680 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥12,300 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $175,070,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 189,829,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 199,929,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +10,100,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $199,929,000 for 

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $24,859,000 above the $175,070,000 

appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $10,100,000 above the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

81 


Insert graphic folio 40 21172A.034
82 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces 

23450 Operating Forces/Initial Issue ...................................... 10,000 

23450 Operating Forces/Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure (LME) ...................................................................................... 2,000 

Undistributed: 

24150 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥1,900 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $2,189,534,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 2,445,922,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,465,122,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +19,200,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,465,122,000 

for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $275,588,000 above the 

$2,189,534,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $19,200,000 

above the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

83 


Insert graphic folio 41 21172A.035
84 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces 

24970 Depot Maintenance ........................................................ 10,000 

Undistributed: 

25665 932nd Airlift Wing ......................................................... 23,100 

25680 Unobligated Balances .................................................... ¥13,900 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $4,058,342,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 4,118,175,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,142,875,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +24,700,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,142,875,000 

for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $84,533,000 above the 

$4,058,342,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $24,700,000 

above the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

85 


Insert graphic folio 042 21172A.036
86 


Insert graphic folio 024 21172A.037
87 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces 

26420 Base Operations Support ................................................. 20,000 

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 

26680 Information Management/Integrated Command, Control, Communication Unit .......................................................... 1,000 

Undistributed: 

26820 Angel Gate Academy ........................................................ 3,000 

26830 National Emergency and Disaster Information Center 2,000 

26890 Joint Training and Experimentation Program ............... 4,000 

26970 National Guard Global Education Project ...................... 500 

27100 Adv Emergency Medical Response Training Program ... 2,500 

27110 Homeland Operational Planning System ........................ 10,000 

27345 Unobligated Balances ....................................................... ¥48,100 

27350 Enterprise Resource Planning for Army Guard Installations and Deployment Support ............................................... 2,000 

27365 Regional Geospatial Service Center ................................ 1,000 

27381 Community Emergency Response/Info Analysis Center 1,000 

27383 Strategic Biodefense Initiative ......................................... 10,000 

27384 Advanced Starting Systems ............................................. 500 

27390 Internal Airlift, Helicopter Slingable Units (ISU) .......... 4,000 

27391 Advanced Solar Covers ..................................................... 3,200 

27392 Civil Support Team Trainer (CSTT) Program ................ 1,000 

27393 RCAS .................................................................................. 5,000 

27394 Florida NG Operation Family Safe at Home .................. 2,100 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $4,242,096,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 4,554,300,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,547,515,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥6,785,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,547,515,000 

for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $305,419,000 above the 

$4,242,096,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and $6,785,000 

less than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2006: 

88 


Insert graphic folio 044 21172A.038
89 

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 

27650 Aircraft Operations ........................................................... 5,000 

27650 Aircraft Operations/Training Capability Upgrade ......... 315 

27650 Aircraft Operations/Air Refueling Operational Support 4,000 

27750 Base Support/Advanced Video Surveillance Equip ........ 1,000 

Undistributed: 

28320 Unobligated Balances ....................................................... ¥22,100 

28381 Distributed Training Technology Project ........................ 3,000 

28382 Eagle Vision ....................................................................... 2,000 

TRAINING CAPABILITY UPGRADE

The Committee recommends an increase of $315,000 above the 

budget request to upgrade and enhance training for the 139th Airlift Wing associated with increased demands of night vision training operations. 

MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD

The Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 above the 

budget request for advanced video surveillance equipment for the 

monitoring of Moffett Federal Airfield. 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER 

ACCOUNT 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $10,000,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 20,000,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account. The recommendation is an 

increase of $10,000,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 

year 2005 and equal to the request for fiscal year 2006. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED 

FORCES 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $10,825,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 11,236,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 11,236,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,236,000 for 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $411,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2005 and equal to the request for fiscal year 

2006. 

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $59,000,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 61,546,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 61,546,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,546,000 for 

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendaVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
90 

tion is an increase of $2,546,000 from the amount appropriated in 

fiscal year 2005 and equal to the request for fiscal year 2006. 

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $409,200,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 415,549,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 415,549,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $415,549,000 for 

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account. The recommendation is an increase of $6,349,000 from the amount appropriated in 

fiscal year 2005 and equal to the request for fiscal year 2006. 

(91) 

TITLE III 

PROCUREMENT 

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY 

The fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense procurement budget 

request totals $76,635,410,000. The accompanying bill recommends 

$76,806,886,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of 

$171,476,000 above the fiscal year 2006 budget estimate and is 

$872,917,000 below the total provided for fiscal year 2005. The 

table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee’s 

recommendations. 

92 


Insert graphic folio 045 21172A.039
93 

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in 

the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrase ‘‘only for’’ or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items for the 

purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD 1414). Each of these 

items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount 

specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain 

special interest items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDANCE FOR ACQUISITION ACCOUNTS

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to 

follow the reprogramming guidance specified in the report accompanying the House version of the fiscal year 2005 Department of 

Defense Appropriations bill (House Report No. 108–553). Specifically, the dollar threshold for reprogramming will remain at 

$20,000,000 for procurement, and $10,000,000 for research, development, test and evaluation. The Department shall continue to follow the limitation that prior approval reprogrammings are set at 

either the specified dollar threshold or 20% of the procurement or 

research, development, test and evaluation line, whichever is less. 

These thresholds are cumulative. Therefore, if the combined value 

of transfers into or out of a procurement (P–1) line or research, development, test and evaluation (R–1) line exceed the identified 

threshold, the Department of Defense must submit a prior approval 

reprogramming to the congressional defense committees. In addition, guidelines on the application of prior approval reprogramming 

procedures for congressional special interest items are established 

elsewhere in this report. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR BELOW THRESHOLD REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee is concerned about what it considers to be the potential abuse of below threshold reprogramming authority granted 

to the Department of Defense. A recent example involving the Air 

Force’s reprogramming of B–1 research and development funds 

from a terminated program contrary the expressed interests of the 

Committee has given this concern a greater urgency. While not 

seeking to directly interfere with the Department’s authority to 

transfer funds where necessary, the Committee needs to be informed of below threshold reprogrammings. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to provide a quarterly report to the congressional defense committees on 

all below threshold reprogrammings from or to accounts in this 

title. The report should be submitted not later than 30 days after 

the end of the previous fiscal quarter and include the reprogramming source, the account to which the funds have been transferred, 

the reason for which funds are available for reprogramming, and 

the requirement for the funds to be reprogrammed. 

EQUIPMENT RESET AND RECONSTITUTION

The Committee understands that both the Army and Marine 

Corps face significant financial commitments to reset their equipment in light of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, 

94 

the extent of these requirements has not been adequately articulated to date. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of 

the Army and the Secretary of the Navy to each provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees, to accompany the fiscal 

year 2007 Department of Defense budget request, that provides the 

best current estimate of the requirements to reset combat, 

logistical and support equipment items of all types supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This report shall detail requirements associated with replacing combat losses, assets deemed lost 

because they are no longer economically repairable, and equipment 

required to reconstruct prepositioned equipment sets. 

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Adjustments to the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $2,854,541,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 2,800,880,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,879,380,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +78,500,000 

This appropriation finances acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic 

warfare equipment for in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmission 

gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It also funds related training devices such as combat flight simulators and production base support. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,879,380,000 

for Aircraft Procurement, Army, which is $24,839,000 more than 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $78,500,000 more than 

the request for fiscal year 2006. 

95 


Insert graphic folio 047 21172A.040
96 

MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS

The Committee includes a general provision (Sec. 8008) described 

elsewhere in this report, that approves multiyear procurement authority for several Army aviation programs including the UH–60M 

Blackhawk helicopter; Apache Block II Conversions; and the Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision 

Sensor (MTADS/PNVS) for Apache helicopters. 

UH–1 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT

The Committee understands that the Army is considering replacement of H–1 helicopters presently assigned to the 1st U.S. 

Support Battalion attached to the Multi National Force and Observers deployed in the Sinai. The Committee is also aware that 

the Army is considering replacement of these aircraft with UH–60 

Blackhawks. However, there are both operational and cost reasons 

which strongly suggest that this is not the best course of action. A 

potential alternative would be the early fielding of the planned 

Light Utility Helicopter (LUH). Accordingly, the Committee directs 

the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the House Committee on Appropriations not later than November 1, 2005, detailing plans to replace these H–1 helicopters. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

97 


Insert graphic folio 048 21172A.041
98 


Insert graphic folio 049 21172A.042
99 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,307,000,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,270,850,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,239,350,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥31,500,000 

This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, air-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included are major components, modifications, targets, 

test equipment and production base support. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriations of $1,239,350,000 for Missile Procurement, Army, which is $67,650,000 less than the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $31,500,000 less than the 

request for fiscal year 2006. 

100 


Insert graphic folio 050 21172A.043
101 

HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM (HIMARS)

The Committee fully supports the Army and Marine Corps 

HIMARS program and believes this to be an important part of 

DoD’s future force capability. However, the Committee notes significant growth in the cost per launcher from fiscal year 2005 to 

2006 without any accompanying rationale. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $7,500,000 from the Missile Procurement, Army account for the HIMARS program based on unit 

cost growth of launchers. Adjustments to the Marine Corps portion 

of this program are discussed elsewhere in this report. 

ADVANCED PRECISION KILL WEAPON SYSTEM (APKWS)

While the Committee supports efforts to develop and field the 

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS), the Committee 

notes that in the transition from the System Design and Development (SDD) phase to production, significant problems have arisen 

with this program. This is evident in recent test failures and suggestions by the Army that it may take a year or more for the program to stabilize. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction totaling $32,079,000 to this program, including $24,000,000 

from Missile Procurement, Army and $8,079,000 from Procurement 

of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps as described elsewhere in 

this report. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

102 


Insert graphic folio 051 21172A.044
103 

PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT 

VEHICLES, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $2,467,495,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,660,149,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,670,949,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +10,800,000 

This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel 

and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles; selfpropelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment; initial spares; and production base 

support. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,670,949,000 

for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, 

which is $796,546,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal year 

2005 and $10,800,000 more than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

104 


Insert graphic folio 052 21172A.045
105 

OBJECTIVE INDIVIDUAL COMBAT WEAPON (OICW)

The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $32,484,000 for procurement of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon. In the 

House-passed version of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, $25,900,000 was added in an attempt to 

accelerate fielding this weapon. Although the procurement request 

for fiscal year 2006 is similar in some respects to the proposed acceleration of the program last year, the Committee notes that the 

Army has altered its acquisition strategy for the program and 

added requirements as well. As a result, the Committee recommends a reduction of $10,200,000 from the procurement request 

for this program. In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary 

of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than October 31, 2005, which provides the following information: a detailed explanation of the extent to which 

the Army will replace the M–16, M–4, and any other families of 

weapons, to include the overall Army Acquisition Objective; a description of the OICW fielding plan to include support units; and, 

the length of time over which the Army intends to field this weapon. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

106 


Insert graphic folio 053 21172A.046
107 


Insert graphic folio 054 21172A.047
108 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,590,952,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,720,872,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,753,152,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +32,280,000 

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modification of in-service stock, and related production base support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial facilities and equipment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,753,152,000 for Procurement of Ammunition, Army, which is $162,200,000 more 

than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $32,280,000 more 

than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

109 


Insert graphic folio 055 21172A.048
110 

AMMUNITION PRODUCTION FACILITIES

Over the past year, the Congress has provided an additional 

$109,700,000 to improve the capacity of the ammunition industrial 

base, including $51,900,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005, and $57,800,000 in the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. The Committee understands that DoD needs to increase production of small arms ammunition to a level of at least 1.5 billion rounds per year to meet requirements associated with fighting the global war on terrorism, 

greater training due to the Army’s modular force initiative, and rebuilding war reserves. In light of these requirements, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees, not later than February 28, 

2006, detailing projects undertaken or planned with the funding 

described above. In addition, this report should address plans to 

eliminate single points of failure for critical ammunition production 

capabilities such as Load Assemble and Pack (LAP), chemical constituent production, and production of other ammunition components. 

LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT COMMANDS

Since mid-2004, the Army has been engaged in implementing 

Life Cycle Management Commands (LCMCs). The Army’s stated 

goal for this effort is to establish an integrated business enterprise 

to develop, test, acquire, field, sustain, modernize, recapitalize and 

dispose of Army equipment. The Committee understands that the 

LCMC construct is a pilot program that will undergo periodic review beginning in the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2005 and thereafter. The Committee is concerned about the effect that LCMC may 

have on the Army overall, and on the Program Executive Officer 

(PEO) Ammunition in particular. Specifically, the Committee is 

concerned that ammunition management will be subordinated beneath the Field Support and Mobility functions of the Army. In addition, given that the Secretary of Defense has recommended that 

Picatinny Arsenal become the home for a joint integrated weapons 

and armaments specialty site for guns and ammunition, the Committee believes the Army must evaluate how this organization 

should be structured. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the House Committee on 

Appropriations, not later than November 1, 2005, that provides a 

summary of the Army’s LCMC review, and that rationalizes the 

duties and responsibilities of PEO Ammunition under the LCMC 

construct and under the proposed joint integrated weapons and armaments specialty site for guns and ammunition. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

111 


Insert graphic folio 056 21172A.049
112 


Insert graphic folio 057 21172A.050
113 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $4,955,296,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 4,302,634,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,491,634,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +189,000,000 

This appropriation finances the acquisition of (a) tactical and 

commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-trailers, and trailers of 

all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and 

the worldwide logistical system; (b) communications and electronic 

equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communications; and (c) other support equipment, generators and power units, material handling equipment, 

medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, and 

non-system training devices. In each of these activities, funds are 

also included for the modification of in-service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production base support. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,491,634,000 

for Other Procurement, Army, which is $463,662,000 less than the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $189,000,000 more than 

the request for fiscal year 2006. 

114 


Insert graphic folio 033 21172A.051
115 


Insert graphic folio 034 21172A.052
116 


Insert graphic folio 035 21172A.053
117 

TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE MODERNIZATION STRATEGY

The Committee notes that the Army is actively considering the 

acquisition of a new class of non-developmental trucks. The Committee believes that modernizing the Army’s truck fleet is necessary and supports the direction expressed in the House-passed 

version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

2006 recommending that the Army and Marine Corps consider embarking on a joint program for this new class of trucks. However, 

the Committee is concerned that the strategy is incomplete because 

it fails to fully address either recapitalization or replacement of 

those tactical wheeled vehicles supporting the Global War on Terrorism. 

The Committee is aware that at least 20% of the Army’s tactical 

wheeled vehicles are presently deployed supporting operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of operating tempo and environmental conditions, these vehicles may be irreparable and thus may 

have to be replaced. In addition, the Committee understands that 

the prepositioned equipment sets supporting operations in the 

CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) may have to be largely rebuilt as operations subside. Similarly, the strategy does not provide 

an indication of how the Army will meet truck requirements stemming from the modular force initiative (Modularity). Accordingly, 

the Committee directs that the Secretary of the Army provide the 

congressional defense committees a report, not later than January 

31, 2006, describing plans to acquire tactical wheeled vehicles to 

support modularity and reset requirements including requirements 

associated with reconstituting prepositioned equipment sets. The 

report shall include detailed estimates of the cost of this acquisition 

plan. The report shall also explain the relationship between 

modularity, reset and reconstitution requirements, and the Army’s 

plans to field a new class of non-development tactical wheeled vehicles. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

118 


Insert graphic folio 061 21172A.054
119 


Insert graphic folio 062 21172A.055
120 


Insert graphic folio 063 21172A.056
121 


Insert graphic folio 064 21172A.057
122 


Insert graphic folio 065 21172A.058
123 


Insert graphic folio 066 21172A.059
124 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $8,912,042,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 10,517,126,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 9,776,440,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥740,686,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft 

and related support equipment and programs; flight simulators; 

equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life, 

eliminate safety hazards and improve aircraft operational effectiveness; and spare parts and ground support equipment for all end 

items procured by this appropriation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,776,440,000 for Aircraft Procurement, Navy, which is $864,398,000 more than 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $740,686,000 less than 

the request for fiscal year 2006. 

125 


Insert graphic folio 036 21172A.060
126 


Insert graphic folio 037 21172A.061
127 

KC–130J AIRCRAFT

The Committee recommendation provides for 4 aircraft, the same 

quantity as provided in fiscal year 2005. The reduction of 8 aircraft 

and $771,654,000 from the budget estimate provides the offset 

needed to restore funding to ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’’ to 

maintain the existing C–130J multiyear contract. The Department 

of Defense recently announced its intent to continue this contract 

throughout fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommendation also 

provides $45,626,000 for advance procurement of KC–130J aircraft 

to be acquired in fiscal year 2007. These funds were not included 

in the President’s budget because the 12 aircraft in the budget proposal would have bought out the entire Marine Corps requirement 

in fiscal year 2006. The Committee reduction of $28,413,000 in aircraft spares and repair parts reflects the lower number of KC–130J 

aircraft to be procured in fiscal year 2006. 

C–130 SERIES

The Committee recommends $32,698,000, a reduction of 

$10,000,000 from the budget estimate. While the Committee supports this program, the proposed increase from $17,919,000 in fiscal year 2005 to $42,698,000 in fiscal year 2006 is excessive. The 

Committee believes this broad portfolio of modernization activities 

can be reprioritized and rephased without overall impact to the 

program. 

COMMON AVIONICS

The Committee recommends $181,395,000, a reduction of 

$32,807,000 from the budget estimate. The recommendation allows 

a higher rate of growth than in fiscal year 2005, and a funding 

level more consistent with outyear funding. 

COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $475,579,000, a reduction of 

$23,890,000. The recommendation includes a reduction of 

$21,890,000 in Other Training Equipment, which finances the upgrade of simulators and other aviation training equipment. This 

recommendation defers two new starts, Undergraduate Naval 

Flight Officer Training and USMC Federation Simulators, due to 

lack of detailed justification and budget constraints. The recommended level also provides a smoother funding profile more consistent with outyear levels. 

EA–6B SERIES

IMPROVED CAPABILITIES (ICAP III) PROGRAM

The Committee notes that this program has experienced significant developmental delays, and that the Navy’s verification of correction of deficiencies is ongoing. The Committee remains hopeful 

that this improved capability will ultimately be declared operationally suitable and effective. At that time, the Committee will consider further production funding or a reprogramming request to 

continue the program. 

128 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

129 


Insert graphic folio 038 21172A.062
130 


Insert graphic folio 039 21172A.063
131 


Insert graphic folio 040 21172A.064
132 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $2,114,720,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 2,707,841,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,596,781,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥111,060,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification of in-service missiles, 

torpedoes, and guns. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,596,781,000 for Weapons Procurement, Navy, which is $482,061,000 more than 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $111,060,000 less than 

the request for fiscal year 2006. The following report and project 

level tables provide a summary of the Committee’s recommendation. 

133 


Insert graphic folio 074 21172A.065
134 

MK 48 ADCAP TORPEDO MODS

The Committee recommends $35,920,000 for modifications to the 

MK–48 Advanced Capability (ADCAP) torpedo, a reduction of 

$25,389,000 from the budget estimate. The Navy had proposed to 

enter full rate production in fiscal year 2006 for a modification involving the Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System (CBASS), 

after low rate production in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The Committee understands that the program has experienced late hardware deliveries and obligation delays during the past year. Given 

these problems, the Committee recommendation allows funding for 

30 mod kits instead of the 84 kits proposed. This is still twice the 

LRIP rate of 15 kits per year, and will allow a more gradual acceleration to full production. 

GUN MOUNT MODIFICATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of 

$29,415,000 in proposed funding for the MK 38 Mod 2 gun mount. 

The budget had proposed an increase from 16 units in fiscal year 

2005 to 113 units in fiscal year 2006, effectively funding three future years of requirements in a single year. While the Committee 

continues to support this program, the proposed rate of growth is 

neither justified nor affordable. The Committee recommendation allows one-half the planned growth, which is sufficient to fund 65 

gun mounts in fiscal year 2006. 

TOMAHAWK

The Committee recommends $301,153,000 in this appropriation 

to procure 308 Tomahawk missiles. In addition, funding of 

$81,696,000 is provided in title IX for an additional 111 missiles, 

for a total fiscal year 2006 buy of 419 missiles. The Committee is 

disturbed to learn that, in contrast to other weapon systems, the 

Navy is not replacing Tomahawk missiles consumed in the Global 

War on Terror, but is instead drawing down the existing stockpile 

and cross-decking weapons. The Committee finds this practice unacceptable. Funds in title IX will help restore the inventory losses 

caused by Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

135 


Insert graphic folio 077 21172A.066
136 


Insert graphic folio 078 21172A.067
137 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE 

CORPS 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $888,340,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 872,849,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 885,170,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +12,321,000 

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization and ammunition related material for the 

Navy and Marine Corps. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $885,170,000 for 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps, which is 

$3,170,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and 

$12,321,000 more than the request for fiscal year 2006. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the 

Committee’s recommendation. 

138 


Insert graphic folio 03 21172A.205
139 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

140 


Insert graphic folio 079 21172A.068
141 


Insert graphic folio 080 21172A.069
142 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $10,427,443,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 8,721,165,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 9,613,358,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +892,193,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new 

ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including 

hull, mechanical and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and communication systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,613,358,000 

for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SC,N) which is 

$814,085,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and 

$892,193,000 more than the request for fiscal year 2006. In addition, the bill includes rescissions of fiscal year 2005 SCN appropriations totaling $325,000,000. The following report and project level 

tables provide a summary of the Committee’s recommendation. 

143 


Insert graphic folio 081 21172A.070
144 

STABILITY OF NAVY SHIPBUILDING PLAN

The Committee remains concerned over the continued instability 

in Navy’s shipbuilding program. In last year’s report, the Committee wrote: 

‘‘The Committee remains deeply troubled by the lack of stability 

in the Navy’s shipbuilding program. Often both the current and outyear ship construction profile is dramatically altered with the submission of the next budget request. Programs justified to Congress 

in terms of mission requirements in one year’s budget are removed 

from the next. The continued shifting of the shipbuilding program 

promotes confusion and frustration throughout both the public and 

private sectors’’. 

Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2006 budget creates even more instability and uncertainty than in the recent past. The President’s 

budget for fiscal year 2006 includes funds for only 4 new ships, 

(and only 2 under the SCN appropriation). This is one-half the 

number funded in fiscal year 2005. However, the long-term Navy 

plan suggests that, in only three years, the shipbuilding program 

will be up to 9 ships with an annual budget of almost $14 billion. 

By the end of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), the Navy 

projects almost $18 billion a year for 12 ships. The Committee believes that not only does fiscal year 2006 constitute a dangerous 

‘‘notch’’ in the shipbuilding plan, but the outyear plan appears unrealistic. To more effectively address these issues, the Committee 

directs the Navy to submit to the congressional defense committees 

a ten-year shipbuilding plan, not later than the date of submission 

of the fiscal year 2007 President’s budget. This plan should include 

total program quantities required, unit and budget costs assumed, 

and an assessment of technological risks remaining in each new design class. The plan should include new construction vessels funded 

in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, the National Defense Sealift Fund, and the Shipbuilding and Conversion, 

Navy appropriation. 

The Committee recommendation, over all appropriations, includes 8 new construction ships. This provides a more stable shipbuilding program than proposed, and helps bridge the gap between 

today’s ongoing programs and future needs. Although some difficult 

choices have been made to offset these requirements, the Committee believes the proposed funding profile will maintain today’s 

shipbuilding capacity and provide additional warfighting capability 

while the Navy decides what it needs, what it can afford, and what 

technology is achievable in the outyears. Compared to the budget 

request, the Committee recommendation includes an additional 

DDG–51 destroyer, an additional T–AKE dry cargo/ammunition 

ship, and two additional littoral combat ships. 

AFFORDABILITY OF NAVY’S SHIPBUILDING PLAN

The Committee is concerned over the affordability of the Navy’s 

future shipbuilding program. Over the current Future Years Defense Plan (fiscal years 2006 through 2011), the service plans to 

construct 49 new ships at a cost of approximately $73.5 billion. 

Over that time period, the amount of funding allocated to new construction would rise from $6.2 billion in fiscal year 2006 to an estiVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
145 

mated $17.7 billion in fiscal year 2011. The Navy is currently projecting a requirement for a fleet size of between 260 and 325 ships, 

at an estimated annual ship construction cost of $12 billion to $15 

billion. However, the Congressional Budget Office, in a report 

dated April 25, 2005, concluded that those estimates are understated by approximately $3 billion per year. In other words, $18 

billion annually may be needed to sustain a program that, in fiscal 

year 2006, is budgeted at slightly more than $6 billion. OSD’s 

Force Transformation Office recently observed that none of the five 

key financial assumptions upon which the Navy’s plan relies are 

materializing. Instead, they suggest that ‘‘trends in all five areas 

are moving in the wrong direction’’. The Committee encourages the 

Navy to redouble its efforts to lower costs for ship classes on the 

drawing boards, to provide a more affordable plan for the future. 

The Committee believes the Navy will not be able to afford the 

fleet it needs if it cannot control costs better for ships under construction, and lower costs for ship classes on the drawing boards, 

as discussed more fully in the paragraphs below. 

COST GROWTH AND COST CONTROL IN ONGOING PROGRAMS

The Committee is dismayed over continuing cost growth in ongoing shipbuilding programs. The Navy is now estimating a total government liability of $6,057,000,000 on the CVN–77—a program with a statutory cost cap of $4,600,000,000. The fiscal year 2006 

budget includes funds for cost growth in this program as well as 

the LPD–17 and SSN–774 programs, and the Committee understands that even further funding may be needed to complete those 

efforts in future budgets. The Government Accountability Office, in 

a report dated February 28, 2005, found a number of problems in 

Navy’s ship cost estimating process. Among other things, GAO 

auditors concluded that: • Navy practices for estimating costs, contracting, and budgeting for ships have resulted in unrealistic funding of programs, increasing the likelihood of cost growth; 

• In the programs surveyed, Navy staff did not conduct uncertainty analyses to measure and plan for the probability of cost 

growth; 

• Navy did not conduct independent cost estimates for its most 

expensive asset, nuclear aircraft carriers; 

• Contract prices were negotiated and budgets established 

without making full use of design knowledge and construction 

experience; and 

• When unexpected events occurred, the incomplete and untimely reporting on program status delayed the identification 

of problems and timely budgeting for their correction. 

These substandard practices lead to cost growth, which drains 

away the resources needed to build additional ships. The Committee expects the Navy to expeditiously address the findings and 

recommendations of the GAO report. Further, the Committee directs the Navy to submit, not later than December 31, 2005, a plan 

for resolving contract cost growth on existing shipbuilding programs such as the Virginia-class submarine and the LPD–17, including the option of possibly converting remaining work to fixed 

price contracts. 

146 

DDG–51 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 to continue the DDG– 51 Modernization Program. This is the same level as enacted for 

fiscal year 2005. Once again this year, the Committee expects the 

program to focus on expanded warfighting capability, reduced total 

ownership cost, and the expanded use of open architecture. 

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP

The Committee recommends $440,000,000 to construct two additional Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) out of the SCN appropriation. 

The President’s budget requested, and the Committee bill includes, $249,000,000 for an additional LCS ship in the RDT&E, Navy appropriation. The Committee remains very supportive of the LCS 

program, and believes that further procurement in fiscal year 2006 

is prudent and reasonable given the status of the program at this 

point in time. The Committee directs that, prior to obligation of 

SCN funds for the third and fourth ‘‘flight zero’’ LCS ships, the 

Navy certify in writing to the congressional defense committees 

that the ship designs from each prime contractor are sufficiently 

stable to allow further construction. The Committee also believes 

that, while the LCS ship itself is of stable and mature design, the 

mission modules essential to LCS warfighting capabilities are less 

mature. A number of these technologies have not been demonstrated in an operational environment, and cost estimates for the 

mission modules appear immature as well. To address this issue, 

the Committee directs the Navy to submit, not later than February 

1, 2006, a report on the development and procurement plan for 

LCS mission modules, including a description of the development 

status of each subsystem. The report shall include a schedule showing how production of those modules align with planned LCS ship 

delivery schedules and an allocation scheme showing how modules 

would be allocated among LCS-class ships. 

LHA(R)

The Committee recommends $200,447,000 for advance procure- ment of the LHA(R), an increase of $50,000,000 above the budget 

estimate. The Committee supports the LHA(R) program, and directs the Navy to reconsider its proposal to request split funding 

for LHA(R) over the FY07–08 timeframe, and instead follow the 

full funding principle for this ship class, to ensure an adequate 

budget is in hand before contract award. 

DD(X) DESTROYER

The Committee recommendation deletes the $715,992,000 requested for advance procurement for the DD(X) next generation destroyer, and rescinds fiscal year 2005 advance procurement funding 

of $304,000,000. The recommendation on fiscal year 2006 funding 

is consistent with recommendations of the House in H.R. 1815, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The 

DD(X) program has encountered serious problems over the past 

year, on two separate fronts: 

Outyear funding and acquisition strategy.—When internal budget 

decisions in late 2004 reduced the planned buy of this ship class 

147 

to one per year, unit costs rose significantly, causing the Navy to 

propose an early downselect and ‘‘winner take all’’ competition. 

This change to the program of record was denied by the Congress. 

With such low quantities, ships included in the current FYDP 

would cost approximately $2.75 billion each. This is double the cost 

of DDG–51 destroyers procured in fiscal year 2005. 

Technological difficulties.—The development program has run 

into difficulties over the past year. The integrated power system, 

the volume search radar, the peripheral vertical launch system, 

and the integrated deckhouse have all experienced problems. Although not unusual for a program of this size and complexity, these 

difficulties highlight the fact that much development work remains 

to be done. In addition, several changes have added weight to the 

ship design, which raises technical risk and reduces flexibility for 

potential changes in the future. 

Considering the uncertainty in this program and the lack of authorization, the Committee believes the program is likely to be restructured, and a new cost and acquisition strategy developed, before proceeding to advance procurement. As discussed further 

under ‘‘Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy’’, the 

Committee bill includes $670,000,000 for DD(X) to continue development efforts. 

DDG–51 GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER

In last year’s report, the Committee expressed the view that because of likely schedule delay in the DD(X) next generation destroyer program, at least one DDG–51 destroyer would be necessary in fiscal year 2006. At that time, the Committee recommended advance procurement funding for a new DDG–51, and 

directed the Navy to include the remaining funds in its fiscal year 

2006 budget request. The DDG–51 is a highly capable warship. 

This is especially true for the most recent ships, that have been 

outfitted with crew reduction technologies. The DDG–51 program is 

currently in full rate production, with 14 ships under construction 

or in the planning phase at shipyards by the end of this year. Because of the delay in the DD(X) program, as well as significant 

technology risks remaining in the DD(X) development program, the 

Committee believes it is imperative to procure an additional DDG–

51 destroyer, and $1,400,000,000 has been included for this purpose. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

148 


Insert graphic folio 091 21172A.071
149 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $4,875,786,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 5,487,818,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 5,461,196,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥26,622,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major 

equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles and 

torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest electronic sensors for updates of naval forces, to trucks, training equipment, and 

spare parts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,461,196,000 for Other Procurement, Navy, which is $585,410,000 more than the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $26,622,000 less than the 

request for fiscal year 2006. The following report and project level 

tables provide a summary of the Committee’s recommendation. 

150 


Insert Graphic folio 092 21172A.072
151 


Insert Graphic folio @093 21172A.073
152 


Insert Graphic folio @094 21172A.074
153 


Insert Graphic folio @095 21172A.075
154 

LM–2500 GAS TURBINE

The Committee recommendation of $6,894,000 allows a smoother 

ramp up of production for FADEC shipsets by funding 3 units in 

fiscal year 2006 compared to 1 in each of the previous two years. 

The budget had proposed 5 shipsets in fiscal year 2006. 

SUBMARINE PERISCOPES AND IMAGING EQUIPMENT

This program provides funds for ship alterations (ShipAlts) of 

Patriot type 18 and type 8 rangefinder and infrared search and 

track (IRST) systems. The Committee recommendation of 

$62,642,000 allows funding for 9 systems, which is the same quantity as funded in fiscal year 2005. 

VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $128,072,000, a reduction of 

$47,500,000 from the budget estimate. The Committee believes the 

proposed technology insertion upgrades and test and maintenance 

system improvements can proceed at a slower pace without overall 

impact to the program. The recommended level is still a significant 

increase over the $57,800,000 provided in fiscal year 2005. 

SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION

The Committee recommends $202,000,000, a reduction of 

$51,960,000 from the budget estimate. This program funds a variety of upgrades to both internal and external shipboard communications. The fiscal year 2006 budget proposed to raise funding in 

this program by 58 percent, from $160,733,000 in fiscal year 2005 

to $253,960,000 in fiscal year 2006. This level of funding drops significantly in fiscal year 2007. The Committee recommendation provides a lower rate of growth that is more in line with outyear funding plans. 

COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT

This program provides for Navy-type, Navy-owned equipment for 

Coast Guard vessels such as the Integrated Deepwater Systems 

(IDS) National Security Cutter. Given the uncertainty over fiscal 

year 2006 funding for the IDS program, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Coast Guard equipment, a reduction of 

$16,377,000 from the budget estimate. This mirrors the Committee’s proposed reductions in the overall IDS program, and is well 

above the amounts provided for fiscal year 2004 and 2005. 

SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS

The President’s budget requested $6,981,000 for SSGN sustaining support, which is described in the budget justifications as 

an upgrade to the Tomahawk Weapon Control System. Since all 4 

of these vessels are in shipyards now, with sea trials not beginning 

on the first ship until later this year, the Committee believes these 

funds are premature. The Committee notes that these submarine 

conversions are on an accelerated construction schedule, which 

would suggest that their mission systems incorporate the most curVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
155 

rent technology available. The Committee defers these funds without prejudice. 

PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommendation reduces this program by 

$48,800,000, and includes such funds under title IX of the bill. The 

Committee is advised by the Navy that this funding is directly related to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and would fund the procurement 

of 16 shipsets of the Shipboard Protection System. These are urgent requirements to provide in-theater capabilities for harbor defense and shipboard protection. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

156 


Insert Graphic folio 047 21172A.076
157 


Insert Graphic folio 048 21172A.077
158 


Insert Graphic folio 049 21172A.078
159 


Insert Graphic folio 050 21172A.079
160 


Insert Graphic folio 051 21172A.080
161 


Insert Graphic folio 052 21172A.081
162 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,432,203,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,377,705,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,426,405,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +48,700,000 

This appropriation funds the procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armaments, communication equipment, tracked 

and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,426,405,000 for Procurement, Marine Corps, which is $5,798,000 less than provided in fiscal year 2005 and $48,700,000 more than the request 

for fiscal year 2006. 

163 


Insert Graphic folio @0106 21172A.082
164 

MAGTFTC RANGE TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE

The Committee recognizes the need for a large-scale urban warfare training facility to ensure realistic training is provided for our 

troops preparing to deploy overseas to hostile combat zones. The 

United States Marine Corps has proposed a fiscal year 2008 initiative to begin construction of an urban operations training complex 

of unprecedented capability. The Committee applauds this effort 

and has provided funding to accelerate this initiative in fiscal year 

2006. 

HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM (HIMARS)

The Committee fully supports the Army and Marine Corps 

HIMARS program and believes this to be an important part of 

DoD’s future force capability. However, Committee notes that there 

is a cost differential of $2,000,000 between launchers purchased for 

the Marine Corps and for the Army. The Army budget materials 

indicate the unit cost of launchers is just over $3,000,000 and the 

Marine Corps budget request indicates that the cost is just under 

$5,100,000. This difference is especially striking considering that 

the Army and Marine Corps purchase the same launcher using the 

same contracting vehicle. In this respect, the Marine Corps budget 

justification materials indicate that the unit price for HIMARS 

launchers is determined by Army contract pricing and includes a 

contract surcharge for full rate product contracting cost to the Marine Corps. The Committee believes this surcharge and cost differential are excessive, and therefore recommends a reduction of 

$30,000,000 from the budget request. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

165 


Insert Graphic folio @0107 21172A.083
166 


Insert Graphic folio @0108 21172A.084
167 


Insert Graphic folio @0109 21172A.085
168 


Insert Graphic folio @0110 21172A.086
169 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .............................................. $13,648,304,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ........................................... 11,973,933,000 

Committee recommendation .................................................. 12,424,298,000 

Change from budget request ................................................. +450,365,000 

This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and 

for modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance 

operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and 

other support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment 

and industrial facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight training simulators to increase combat readiness 

and to provide for more economical training. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,424,298,000 

for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, which is $1,224,006,000 less 

than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $450,365,000 

more than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

170 


Insert graphic folio 055 21172A.087
171 


Insert graphic folio 056 21172A.088
172 

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ADVANCE PROCUREMENT

The budget request includes $152,400,000 for procurement of 

long lead items to support the low rate initial production of five 

conventional take-off and landing variants of the Joint Strike 

Fighter. The Committee notes that under the revised aircraft build 

sequence all of these aircraft do not require full funding prior to 

the beginning of fiscal year 2008. Accordingly, a request to begin 

advance procurement of long lead items two years prior, in fiscal 

year 2006, is funding early to need and contrary to a conventional 

aircraft procurement strategy. Advance procurement funds should 

be requested in the Air Force’s fiscal year 2007 budget submission. 

Full funding for these five aircraft should be requested in the fiscal 

year 2008 budget. 

The Committee believes it remains to be seen whether the JSF 

program will be able to keep the aggressive schedule to begin production of the 23 developmental test aircraft in the next thirtythree months. Previous aircraft production programs have all faced 

significant schedule delays in delivering test aircraft, which have 

in turn consistently forced delays in the delivery of early production representative aircraft. In an effort to prevent any instability 

in the system development and demonstration (SDD) of the Joint 

Strike Fighter, the Committee has fully funded the joint Air Force 

and Navy request of $4,867,776,000 for the development program. 

The Committee believes that keeping SDD on schedule and on 

budget will be critical to preventing these kinds of production 

delays and any subsequent reductions in aircraft procurement. 

FUTURE YEARS PROCUREMENT STRATEGY FOR THE F/A–22 RAPTOR

The budget request proposes reducing advance procurement for 

three F/A–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2007 based upon a Department 

of Defense program budget decision to terminate procurement in 

fiscal year 2009. In hearings on the fiscal year 2006 request, the 

Committee questioned the basis for this decision and received a response that the decision was under review and would be evaluated 

as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). 

The Committee believes that a fair and objective review of the 

F/A–22 business case is necessary and that consideration should be 

given to options to continue procurement of this aircraft after 2009. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees on alternatives for the continued 

acquisition of the F/A–22. The report should consider, but not be 

limited to, the following; an analysis of the costs and benefits of a 

multiyear procurement program, extending the F/A–22 procurement profile, and the effects of F/A–22 procurement on the Joint 

Strike Fighter production line. 

F–15 ACTIVE ELECTRONICALLY SCANNED ARRAY PROCUREMENT

The Committee has provided an additional $72,200,000 to begin 

procurement of APG–63(V)3 radars. Of the funds provided, 

$20,000,000 is to procure low rate factory specialized test equipment, fund array verification and procure one APG–63(V)3 array 

that can be used for attrition reserve for the Alaska F–15C/D 

squadron. The remaining funds, $52,200,000, are to procure six 

173 

systems for Air National Guard F–15s. Funds have also been included in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 

for continued development of these radars to increase capability. 

C–130J MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT PROGRAM

The C–130J multiyear procurement program of record as approved in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005, 

provided advance procurement funding for nine Air Force C–130J 

aircraft in fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2006 budget request 

proposes terminating the C–130J multiyear procurement program, 

eliminating all of these aircraft, and instead providing funding in 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy, for an additional eight Marine KC– 130J aircraft for a total of twelve Marine aircraft. The Committee 

denies this recommendation and has provided funding to restore 

the multiyear procurement program of record by transferring funding from Aircraft Procurement, Navy, to Aircraft Procurement, Air 

Force, for the procurement of nine Air Force C–130J and four Marine KC–130J aircraft in fiscal year 2006. 

The Committee notes that during hearings on the fiscal year 

2006 budget request with the Secretary of Defense, the Committee 

raised significant concerns regarding the department’s recommendation to terminate the multiyear procurement program. In 

a letter to the Committee dated May 10, 2005, the Secretary of Defense acknowledged these concerns and recommended the continuation of the multiyear procurement program. 

The Committee continues to be concerned with the terms of the 

C–130J multiyear procurement contract as identified in the Committee report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 

2005, including terms that reduced future flexibility. However, 

given the capability of these new aircraft, the requirement for them 

as emphasized by the recent grounding of a large number of older 

C–130 aircraft, and the taxpayer savings derived from the 

multiyear procurement commercial nature of this contract, the 

Committee believes there are justifiable reasons for continuation of 

procurement. The Committee expects the Air Force and the manufacturer to work together to ensure that present and future C– 130Js under the multiyear contract meet all operational requirements and that manufacturing achieves economic order quantities. 

C–17 PROCUREMENT

The Committee recognizes the tremendous performance of the C– 17 and the contributions these aircraft have made in the global war 

on terrorism and other operations. Having flown over 85,000 airlift 

missions and having logged over 400,000 flying hours in support of 

the war on terror, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, C–17s have proven themselves as one of the most 

reliable of our airlift assets. These aircraft have also been key 

enablers for non-combat operations as well, such as during the tsunami relief effort in Southeast Asia when they carried over 2.4 million pounds of cargo in 30 days. 

The Committee has fully funded the budget request for 15 C–17 

aircraft in fiscal year 2006 and provided the requested advance 

procurement funding for an additional 7 aircraft in fiscal year 

2007. These funds are provided to protect the option of continuing 

174 

procurement beyond the current multiyear procurement program 

which ends in fiscal year 2007. However, the Committee believes 

it is premature to provide authorization for the Air Force to enter 

into a follow-on multiyear pending the conclusion of the Mobility 

Capabilities Study and the Quadrennial Defense Review. Should 

these efforts establish a requirement for further C–17 aircraft, the 

Committee would support procurement through a multiyear strategy in accordance with the requirements identified in section 8008 

of this bill, and section 2306b of title 10, United States Code. 

GLOBAL HAWK

The budget request includes $327,700,000 for procurement of five 

Global Hawk unmanned air vehicles and $70,000,000 for advance 

procurement of six air vehicles in fiscal year 2007. The Committee 

has reduced the request for fiscal year 2006 aircraft by 2 air vehicles and $110,000,000. Advance procurement for fiscal year 2007 is 

reduced by 1 air vehicle and $10,000,000. 

In the Committee’s report accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005, the Committee expressed concern 

with the Air Force strategy to accelerate the Global Hawk development and production programs. The compressed schedule created 

significant cost and schedule risk as the program transitioned from 

the stable design and manufacturing of the RQ–4A model to the 

larger RQ–4B model. The Air Force’s failure to heed these concerns 

has since resulted in $194,000,000 in development cost overruns, a 

Nunn-McCurdy breach due to cost growth in the average procurement unit cost of 18 percent since the last rebaseline in December 

of 2002, and air vehicle delivery delays of up to 12 months. 

The Committee does not dispute the requirement for these aircraft or their capability to provide persistent high value surveillance. However, the contractor has been unable to meet the production levels that the Air Force has requested. The Committee believes that reducing the number of air vehicles to be procured in 

fiscal years 2006 and 2007 will give the program an opportunity to 

stabilize both the development and the manufacturing programs. 

A–10 MIDS JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM

The budget request includes $42,800,000 for procurement and installation of MIDS JTRS radios on A–10 aircraft. The Committee 

notes that this request was based on a delivery schedule that has 

since experienced a six-month delay in initial deliveries. Based 

upon an estimated 12–18 month lead-time to produce the MIDS 

JTRS terminals and corresponding Group A kits, the AF requirement now is only $17,920,000. Accordingly, the request has been 

reduced by $24,000,000. 

AIRBORNE FIRE-FIGHTING SYSTEM

The Committee notes the drastically decreased availability of 

commercial firefighting aircraft and applauds the Department of 

Defense for its willingness to provide assets to assist states in mitigating the impact of wild fires. The Committee is concerned, however, that even though Congress has for three years provided funding specifically for the development and procurement of a replaceVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
175 

ment for the obsolete Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System used 

by Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units to fight wild 

fires for more than 30 years, the designated replacement system, 

the Airborne Fire-Fighting System (AFFS) has yet to be fielded. As 

civilian airborne assets become increasingly unavailable, expedited 

AFFS fielding for C–130J aircraft has become a critical issue for 

western States and other regions routinely afflicted with massive 

wild fires. 

The Committee understands that final specifications for a replacement system still have yet to be determined. In addition, specifications originally approved by an Air Force Technical Review 

Board have been substantially changed by the Air Force. These factors are causing both a delay in fielding a replacement system and 

a substantial increase in projected per unit cost. The Committee directs the Air Force to identify the specifications required for the 

AFFS system within 120 days of enactment of this legislation. In 

identifying these specifications, the Air Force shall include development representatives from all federal activities normally involved 

with fighting wild fires and from Service agencies normally involved in the air worthiness certification process. The Committee 

expects AFFS systems to be fully certified and fielded to Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units with C–130Js by March 

2006 in time to support fire fighting needs during the 2006 fire 

fighting season, and at a per unit cost commensurate with the 

original replacement system cost briefed to Congress. 

EURO-AFGHAN AIR SAFETY

Recent aircraft crashes in Afghanistan that claimed over 100 

lives and over 40 other documented incidents that required maneuver to avoid collision have raised the Committee’s concerns about 

the safety of aircraft operations along the Euro-Afghan corridor 

and in Afghanistan. Aircraft operations along this heavily traveled 

route are conducted in an area of mountainous, hostile, and remote 

terrain along a corridor that possesses minimal or no air safety capabilities. While the Committee understands that the Air Force is 

undertaking some measures to improve the air safety situation in 

Afghanistan, the Committee believes that the nature of the problem and the urgency of the matter justifies a broader comprehensive approach. The Committee directs that the Secretary of Defense 

provide the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2006, 

a report detailing a plan, timeline and budget providing options for 

improving air safety along the Euro-Afghan corridor, as well as in 

Afghanistan, consistent with authorities in existing law. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

176 


Insert graphic folio 0126 21172A.089
177 


Insert graphic folio 0127 21172A.090
178 


Insert graphic folio 0128 21172A.091
179 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $4,458,113,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 5,490,287,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 5,062,949,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥427,338,000 

This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and 

checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of inservice missiles, and initial spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program 

support. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,062,949,000 

for Missile Procurement, Air Force, which is $604,836,000 more 

than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $427,338,000 less 

than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

180 


Insert graphic folio 058 21172A.092
181 

JOINT AIR TO SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE

The Committee continues to have grave concerns regarding the 

viability of the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). Responding to the Committee’s concerns included in the House Report 

accompanying the fiscal year 2005 defense appropriations act, the 

Air Force stated that the Committee’s findings regarding flight 

tests were outdated and based on old test data. ‘‘The JASSM design 

is sound and proven in testing’’, stated the Air Force, while the 

contractor stated that the Committee’s views did not ‘‘reflect corrective actions nor validations of fixes incorporated during or after 

those flight tests’’. Despite these assurances, in the summer of 2004 

another JASSM test failed and testing was ordered to stop. 

When the program returned to test earlier this year, two successful verification tests enabled the program to resume follow-on operational tests. On April 26th, 2005, two separate JASSMs were 

launched from B-2s. One missile successfully achieved its objectives, while the other failed to obtain controlled flight and crashed 

at sea. During the most recent test on May 16th, a JASSM was 

launched from a B-52 at White Sands Missile Range. The wings 

failed to properly deploy and the missile crashed before hitting its 

target. Preliminary findings have indicated that binding of the 

wings on deployment may have caused the failure, a potential new 

production related deficiency. 

The statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 stated 

that failure to increase the reliability of JASSM would cause the 

Committee to reconsider support for the program. The Committee 

has lost the confidence it may have had in JASSM’s ability to 

achieve even its minimal reliability and mission performance requirements. Accordingly the Committee has provided no funding 

for JASSM missile procurement and instead recommends the program be terminated. 

EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (EELV)

The Air Force requested $838,347,000 for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). The Committee recommends 

$747,347,000, a reduction of $91,000,000 for the launch vehicle associated with the first Space Based Infrared High (SBIRS High) 

geo-synchronous satellite. 

The SBIRS High program is extremely troubled. The total estimated cost for the program has increased from $4 billion to over 

$10 billion. The Air Force has experienced three Nunn-McCurdy 

breaches in four years and satellite launch dates have slipped repeatedly. The Air Force request in fiscal year 2006 includes 

$91,000,000 to support a fourth quarter 2008 launch of the first 

SBIRS High satellite. Given the troubled history of this program, 

the Committee believes it is highly likely that over the next three 

and a half years the first SBIRS satellite will experience additional 

slips. A launch delay of just three months would defer the requirement to budget for the launch vehicle to fiscal year 2007. The Committee believes such a delay is highly likely, and has deferred the 

associated fiscal year 2006 funding accordingly. 

182 

The Committee recommendation also includes a Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended rescission of $92,000,000 

from the launch services associated with the first Advanced EHF 

(AEHF) satellite. These funds are available based on the restructured method the Air Force has adopted for the EELV contracting. 

Finally, the Committee directs that all future EELV contracts be 

negotiated on an annual basis, eliminating the practice of ‘‘block 

buys’’ and ‘‘pre-awards’’ of outyear launch services. The Committee 

notes that competition has effectively been eliminated in the program, and such ‘‘multiyear’’-like contracts are no longer in the interest of the taxpayers. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

183 


Insert graphic folio 0133 21172A.093
184 


Insert graphic folio 0134 21172A.094
185 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,327,459,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,031,207,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,031,907,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +700,000 

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for 

the Air Force. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,031,907,000 for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force, which is $295,552,000 

less than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $700,000 

more than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

186 


Insert graphic folio 060 21172A.095
187 

LASER GUIDED BOMB

The Committee is pleased to note that since the Air Force started 

to procure Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) kits from two vendors in fiscal year 2002, the savings to the Treasury have been over 

$300,000,000. Since the second source supplier paid the qualification costs for entry, there were no initial costs to the government. 

A second source provides the benefits of cost competition and a 

surge capacity requiring low quantity to maintain an economic sustaining rate. The synergies of engineering expertise engendered by 

competition have led to recent improvements in the performance of 

the GBU–10, increased LGB accuracies in other configurations and 

additional cost savings. LGB capability is further enhanced by the 

competitive development of a dual mode guided bomb that would 

provide both visual and all-weather guidance for General Purpose 

Bombs. Dual source competition has produced a superior product 

with significant cost savings, better serving both the war fighter 

and the taxpayer. 

The Committee is a strong believer in the benefits provided by 

a competitive sourcing procurement strategy for LGB. Therefore, 

prior to any determination by the Air Force, which also procures 

LGBs for the Navy, to move to a single supplier, the Secretary of 

the Air Force is directed to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees detailing the benefits derived from a single 

source procurement. The report should contain a cost-benefit analysis of how a single source would retain the benefits of the current 

procurement while preventing cost growth in the future. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

188 


Insert graphic folio 0136 21172A.096
189 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation ........................................................ $13,071,297,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ..................................................... 14,002,689,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................ 13,737,214,000 

Change from budget request ........................................................... ¥265,475,000 

This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are 

vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command 

and control of operational forces, and ground support equipment for 

weapon systems and supporting structure. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,737,214,000 for Other Procurement, Air Force, which is $665,917,000 more than 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $265,475,000 less than 

the request for fiscal year 2006. 

190 


Insert graphic folio 062 21172A.097
191 


Insert graphic folio 063 21172A.098
192 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

193 


Insert graphic folio 0139 21172A.099
194 


Insert graphic folio 0140 21172A.100
195 


Insert graphic folio 0141 21172A.101
196 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $2,956,047,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 2,677,832,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,728,130,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +50,298,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement, production, and modification of equipment, supplies, materials, and spare 

parts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,728,130,000 for Procurement, Defense-Wide, which is $227,917,000 less than 

the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2005 and $50,298,000 more 

than the request in fiscal year 2006. The following report and 

project level tables provide a summary of the Committee’s recommendations. 

197 


Insert graphic folio 064 21172A.102
198 

USSOCOM—EMERGENT CRITICAL COMBAT MISSION NEEDS

The Committee is aware that the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) receives numerous Combat Mission 

Needs Statements from its war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan to 

provide equipment, which is urgently needed to fulfill unforeseen 

requirements. These requirements are often met by below threshold reprogrammings because of their urgency, which is inconsistent 

with the intent of Congress. The Committee has provided 

$43,000,000 in a new program for the Special Operations Command to begin to meet these needs and directs the Commander of 

USSOCOM to provide a quarterly report to the Congressional defense committees on the use of these funds. The Committee also 

strongly suggests that funds for this program be included in future 

budget requests. 

USSOCOM—MODERNIZATION OF THE HC–130 LEGACY FLEET

The Committee is aware and concerned about the aircraft shortfall in the Air Force Special Operations aerial refueling fleet and 

the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue HC–130 fleet. This shortfall is exacerbated by the recent groundings and operational restrictions placed on the fleet as a result of center wing box cracks 

found in the oldest models of HC–130s. The Committee directs the 

Air Force to investigate whether spending additional funds for repair of legacy C–130s would be better spent modernizing variants 

of the C–130J, and to report its findings to the Committee not later 

than six months after enactment of the fiscal year 2006 Defense 

Appropriations Act. 

BUY AMERICA

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to instruct the 

relevant offices within the Department of Defense to take note of 

subsection 2553a, of Title 10, United States Code, referred to as the 

‘‘Berry amendment,’’ giving protection to certain domestic products. 

It is not only vital, but required, that Defense FAR Supplement 

clauses relating to the ‘‘Berry Amendment’’ are incorporated by reference in all solicitation contracts by checking the clause in the appropriate box where they are applicable so as to insure that department procurements are consistent with the requirements of this 

provision. Compliance with the ‘‘Berry amendment’’ is vital to support the U.S. industrial base for these products, which help to preserve U.S. national security. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

199 


Insert graphic folio 0146 21172A.103
200 


Insert graphic folio 0147 21172A.104
201 


Insert graphic folio 0148 21172A.105
202 

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $350,000,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from the budget request ....................................................... ............................

The Committee has provided funds for National Guard and Reserve forces consistent with the budget request and has earmarked 

funds within the procurement accounts as requested. The Committee has also added funding for Guard and Reserve equipment 

in several of the procurement accounts as described elsewhere in 

this report. Therefore, the Committee considers the earmarks included in the bill designating dollar amounts for the Guard and Reserve components a floor rather than a ceiling. In addition, the 

Committee has also added $200,370,000 for Army Reserve equipment in title IX of this bill. Since Guard and Reserve forces are so 

integral to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Committee expects the Department to provide deploying and deployed Guard and 

Reserve units with the same quality and quantity of equipment as 

they provide to the active duty components. 

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $42,765,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 19,573,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 28,573,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +9,000,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,573,000 for 

Defense Production Act Purchases, which is $14,192,000 less than 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $9,000,000 more than 

the request for fiscal year 2006. 

The Committee recommendation shall be distributed as follows: 

Project Amount 

High performance coatings production initiative ................................ $3,868,000 

High performance batteries and fuel cells production initiative ....... 5,800,000 

Next generation radiation hardened microprocessors ........................ 2,905,000 

Beryllium supply industrial base ......................................................... 6,000,000 

Amplifying fluorescent polymer based IED detection devices ........... 2,000,000 

Flexible aerogel material supplier initiative ....................................... 2,000,000 

ALON and spinel optical ceramics ....................................................... 3,000,000 

Thermal battery industrial base infrastructure .................................. 3,000,000 

(203) 

TITLE IV 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 

The fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense research, development, test and evaluation budget request totals $69,356,040,000. 

The accompanying bill recommends $71,656,892,000. The total 

amount recommended is an increase of $2,300,852,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 budget estimate and is $1,724,710,000 above the 

total provided in fiscal year 2005. The table below summarizes the 

budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendations. 

204 


Insert graphic folio 0065 21172A.107
205 

SPECIAL TERMINATION COST CLAUSE

The Committee reaffirms the existing policy (as previously stated 

in House Report No. 106–244) of providing the congressional defense committees notification 30 days prior to contractual implementation of a special termination cost clause (STCC). Further, the 

Committee notes that the need to budget for termination liability 

for each contract is a fundamental financial management principle 

and therefore discourages, as a general principle, the use of special 

termination cost clauses or any variations of the special termination cost clause such as including areas not covered by STCC 

and the potential use of funds that are obligated on other contracts 

and in other Program Elements to cover termination liability. 

VISUAL INFORMATION DISPLAY SYSTEM

The Committee understands that the Air Force and the Navy are 

developing new systems for controlling and monitoring navigational 

and visual aids for implementation at their airfield towers. The 

Committee further understands that the FAA has implemented the 

Integrated Control and Monitor System (ICMS) at several airports 

nationally. ICMS controls, monitors and displays the operational/ 

ready status of many precision landing and visual aids. It also provides for the interlocking of ILSs, a NAS safety requirement, and 

archives data/information essential in providing historical information regarding the integrity of the operational status of NAVAIDS 

and VISAIDS. The Committee directs the Navy and Air Force to 

work together and leverage, as much as possible, the ICMS as the 

solution for controlling and monitoring of navigational and visual 

aids for our military airfields’ towers. 

PROBLEMS IN DOD SPACE PROGRAMS

The Committee appreciates the Administration’s emphasis on 

space programs and firmly believes that these programs provide 

critical capabilities in support of the nation’s security. However, in 

recent years the acquisition of these capabilities has become increasingly problematic with recurring rounds of significant cost 

growth and schedule delay. The Committee is deeply concerned 

about the negative trends in space acquisition which, if left unchecked, could reduce the nation’s strategic advantages in this 

area. The Committee notes that these problems are occurring despite heavy investment of taxpayer dollars. 

In 2002, DoD leadership saw unsettling trends in the management of these programs and commissioned a Defense Science Board 

(DSB) task force to conduct an independent review. In 2003, the 

task force reported numerous systemic problems, including a strong 

bias towards unrealistic cost estimates, an undisciplined process for 

requirements definition, and a serious erosion in government management and engineering expertise. Since publication of the DSB 

report, the programs have collectively gotten worse, with virtually 

every major space acquisition program under the cloud of a NunnMcCurdy cost breach. One notable example, the Space Based Infrared High (SBIRS HIGH) satellite, has experienced three NunnMcCurdy breaches in just four years. SBIRS High costs have grown 

from $4 billion to over $10 billion. 

206 

Rather than slowing down to take stock of the problems, DoD 

has instead embarked on a path that requires a significant rampup in space expenditures over the future year defense plan. Thus, 

the same space acquisition professionals (both in the government 

and in industry) that are struggling to execute the current level of 

investment will soon face greater challenges managing the additional programmatic content and complexity that comes with the 

budget ramp-up. Unless DoD takes significant corrective action, the 

Committee is very concerned that the space acquisition workforce 

may not meet these challenges effectively. In fact, the Committee 

is concerned whether DoD is in a position to make appropriate 

choices regarding which programs to pursue given the systemic deficiencies that reduce the availability of good data (cost, technical 

maturity, acquisition approach, schedule) to senior leadership. 

Given these concerns, the Committee has worked closely with the 

House Armed Services Committee to develop a package of recommendations responsive to the problems we currently face in the 

space community. In particular, the Committee has funded the 

Space Radar and the Transformational Satellite Programs at the 

levels authorized by the House. Further, the Committee has also 

included additional funds, as authorized, for the Office of Force 

Transformation to promote development of low cost, quick to 

launch satellites that have the potential of responding to 

warfighter needs in months rather than decades. The Committee 

also fully supports the space acquisition reform measures authorized by the House. The Committee expects DoD to take the problems in space acquisition seriously and implement appropriate 

management reforms expeditiously. 

JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM

The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program is developing a 

software-defined radio designed to interoperate with existing radios 

and significantly increase communications capabilities. A Joint Program Executive Office is responsible for developing the JTRS architecture and waveforms, while service-led program offices are working on development, and eventual procurement of radio hardware 

for platforms with similar requirements. Estimates from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicate that the total cost of 

JTRS Clusters 1 and 5 (ground vehicle and helicopter mounted radios, and man-portable radios, respectively) may exceed 

$24,000,000,000. The Committee supports the concepts behind 

JTRS and has generally supported full funding of the program. 

However, events of the past several months indicate that the program is experiencing serious difficulties in several respects which 

the Committee understands will result in a significant restructuring of the program. 

In January 2005, the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics) placed a stop work order on the JTRS 

program which the Committee understands will not be lifted until 

the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting scheduled for August 

2005. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) also directed 

that the schedule for JTRS development be extended by 22–24 

months. On April 25, 2005, OSD issued a Show Cause Notice for 

JTRS Cluster 1. The fundamental program concerns include: hardVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
207 

ware design immaturity; hardware components that do not meet 

specifications and will require major redesign; inability to meet 

size, weight, and power (SWaP) requirements; inability to manage 

waveform simultaneity; software immaturity; no ability to estimate 

overall costs and schedule; and no ability to estimate integration 

and its effect on cost and schedule. As a result of these developments, the Committee recommends a reduction totaling 

$340,100,000 which includes reductions for procurement of radios 

as well as hardware development, both of which will be significantly altered due to the impending changes to the program. 

$82,100,000 of this amount is taken in the form of rescissions of 

fiscal year 2005 funding since this amount has been withheld from 

the program. Despite these reductions, the Committee has fully 

funded amounts requested for fiscal year 2006 to continue waveform development, and has allowed for modest growth in research 

and development funding to continue hardware development. The 

table below summarizes the reductions included in the Committee’s 

recommendation: 

($ thousands) 

Fiscal Year 2006 Reductions: 

Aircraft Procurement, Army .................................................................... ¥12,300 

Procurement, Marine Corps .................................................................... ¥7,000 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ............................................................. ¥24,100 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army ............................ ¥69,500 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy (including Marine Corps programs) ............................................................................ ¥54,100 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force ..................... ¥94,000 

Total ............................................................................................ ¥258,000 

Rescissions: 

Other Procurement, Army FY 05/06 ....................................................... ¥60,500 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army FY 05/06 ............ ¥21,600 

Total ............................................................................................ ¥82,100 

Grant Total ...................................................................................................... ¥340,100 

In addition, the Committee directs that the Secretary of Defense 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than September 30, 2005, on the status of JTRS which shall include the following elements: mitigation plans of the Military Services to compensate for the restructuring of the JTRS program including a detailed description of the legacy or other radios required, 

as well as detailed estimates of the cost of these plans; an assessment of changes to the JTRS Waiver process which has limited procurement of legacy radios; an explanation of Army plans to meet 

Future Combat System requirements associated with all developmental spirals as a result of the JTRS program revisions to include 

a detailed description of the compatibility between legacy radios 

and the Army’s Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T) 

as well as the compatibility between JTRS and WIN–T; and a summary of DoD acquisition decisions including the results of the 

scheduled JTRS status meeting scheduled for May 2005 and the results of the JTRS rebaselining DAB scheduled for the 4th quarter 

of fiscal year 2005. In addition, the Committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to continue its ongoing review of 

the JTRS program to include a review of technical, management, 

cost and schedule issues associated with the program. 

208 

JOINT COMMON MISSILE

The Joint Common Missile (JCM) program involves the Army 

(lead), Navy and Marine Corps and an associated Cooperative Development Program with the United Kingdom. The Committee 

notes that the program is succeeding in meeting its developmental 

milestones and was the first system to successfully clear the requirements determination process implemented in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). This process 

prioritizes requirements from a joint perspective and incorporates 

revised DoD 5000 series acquisition policies early in the process. 

Given the thorough review to which JCM has been subjected, it 

strikes the Committee as counterintuitive that DoD chose to recommend terminating this program in the fiscal year 2006 budget 

request. Given the relative success of the program thus far, and the 

fact that the partners to this program will require an eventual replacement for the Hellfire missile, the Committee recommends 

$50,000,000 for this program to continue its development. Of this 

amount, $45,000,000 is provided in Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Army, and $5,000,000 is available for Research, 

Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, as described elsewhere 

in this report. 

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in 

the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrase ‘‘only for’’

or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items for the 

purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD 1414). Each of these 

items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, 

specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain 

special interest items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDANCE FOR ACQUISITION ACCOUNTS

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to 

follow the reprogramming guidance specified in the report accompanying the House version of the fiscal year 2005 Department of 

Defense Appropriations bill (House Report No. 108–553). Specifically, the dollar threshold for reprogramming will remain at 

$20,000,000 for procurement, and $10,000,000 for research, development, test and evaluation. The Department shall continue to follow the limitation that prior approval reprogrammings are set at 

either the specified dollar threshold or 20% of the procurement or 

research, development, test and evaluation line, whichever is less. 

These thresholds are cumulative. Therefore, if the combined value 

of transfers into or out of a procurement (P–1) line or research, development, test and evaluation (R–1) line exceed the identified 

threshold, the Department of Defense must submit a prior approval 

reprogramming to the congressional defense committees. In addition, guidelines on the application of prior approval reprogramming 

procedures for congressional special interest items are established 

elsewhere in this report. 

209 

REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR BELOW THRESHOLD REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee is concerned about what it considers to be the potential abuse of below threshold reprogramming authority granted 

to the Department of Defense, as discussed elsewhere in the report. 

Accordingly, the Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller), to provide a quarterly report to the congressional defense committees on all below threshold reprogrammings from or to 

accounts in this title. The report should be submitted not later 

than 30 days after the end of the previous fiscal quarter and include the reprogramming source, the account to which the funds 

have been transferred, the reason for which funds are available for 

reprogramming, and the requirement for the funds to be reprogrammed. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $10,698,989,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 9,733,824,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 10,827,174,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,093,350,000 

This appropriation finances the research, development, test and 

evaluation activities of the Department of the Army. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,827,174,000 

for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, which is 

$128,185,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 

and $1,093,350,000 more than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

210 


Insert graphic folio 0157 21172A.108
211 


Insert graphic folio 0158 21172A.109
212 


Insert graphic folio 0159 21172A.110
213 


Insert graphic folio 0160 21172A.111
214 


Insert graphic folio 0161 21172A.112
215 


Insert graphic folio 0162 21172A.113
216 


Insert graphic folio 0163 21172A.114
217 


Insert graphic folio 0164 21172A.115
218 


Insert graphic folio 0165 21172A.116
219 


Insert graphic folio 0166 21172A.117
220 


Insert graphic folio 0167 21172A.118
221 


Insert graphic folio 0168 21172A.119
222 


Insert graphic folio 0169 21172A.120
223 


Insert graphic folio 0170 21172A.121
224 


Insert graphic folio 0171 21172A.122
225 


Insert graphic folio 0172 21172A.123
226 


Insert graphic folio 0173 21172A.124
227 


Insert graphic folio 0174 21172A.125
228 


Insert graphic folio 0175 21172A.126
229 


Insert graphic folio 0176 21172A.127
230 


Insert graphic folio 0177 21172A.128
231 

FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM (FCS)

The Committee notes that within the past year the Army has initiated two major revisions to the FCS program. First, in July 2004 

the Army restructured the program and introduced developmental 

spirals with the objective of fielding mature elements of FCS more 

quickly. Second, the Army is in the process of changing the current 

FCS contract from Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to a Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract. The Committee understands that this revision will be in place by the end of fiscal 

year 2005, and will be utilized for the remainder of System Development and Design (SDD) for FCS. In addition to these changes, 

the Army describes fiscal year 2006 as a critical year during which 

there is a planned broad industry ramp-up in both the FCS network and platforms. This should include extensive software and 

hardware deliveries as well as the first major FCS field experiment: Experiment 1.1, JEFX06. 

Despite the revisions to the program, and the Army’s optimistic 

assessment of progress for the coming fiscal year, the Committee 

harbors serious concerns about the FCS program. The Committee 

notes that for the foreseeable future FCS will equip only a small 

portion of the Army. Yet it is the most expensive and complicated 

modernization program ever undertaken by the Army. At the same 

time, the Army has initiated its modular force initiative 

(Modularity), and will have to reset much of the equipment presently deployed in support of the global war on terrorism. The Committee has deep concerns about whether there will be sufficient 

funding available in the coming years for the Army to afford these 

efforts. In addition, despite the claimed acceleration of FCS due to 

the incorporation of spiral development, the Committee notes that 

the schedule to field all of the elements of FCS required for a complete Unit of Action was extended to 2014 in the restructuring described above. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction 

of $449,000,000 from the Armored Systems Modernization program 

element. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the congressional defense committees within 30 days of enactment of this Act on its plan to distribute this reduction to the 

projects within the Armored Systems Modernization program element as outlined below. In addition, the Committee directs the 

Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees 

not later than December 1, 2005, which provides a detailed list and 

description of the systems and technologies to be included in each 

of the FCS developmental spirals. 

The statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 

(House Report No. 108–622) established a structure for budget 

preparation and execution for FCS which included broadly defined 

projects within the Armored Systems Modernization program element. In addition, the conferees directed the Army to establish separate program elements for the Non Line of Sight Launch System 

(NLOS–LS) and the Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS–C). The 

Committee believes that this remains a reasonable structure and 

directs the Army to continue to use this as the basis for executing 

appropriations provided by the Congress, and as the basis for preVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
232 

paring the fiscal year 2007 and subsequent budget submissions. 

This funding structure includes the following components: 

Program Element 0604645A Armored Systems Modernization to 

include the following projects: 

F52–FCS Reconnaissance Platforms & Sensors 

F53–FCS Unmanned Ground Vehicles 

F54–Unattended Sensors 

F55–Sustainment 

F57–Manned Ground Vehicles 

F61–System of Systems Engineering and Program Management 

Program Element 0604646A Non Line of Sight Launch System 

(NLOS–LS) 

Program Element 0604647A Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS– C) 

In addition, the projects identified within program element 

0604645A, Armored Systems Modernization, are congressional special interest items for the purpose of prior approval 

reprogrammings as discussed elsewhere in this report. The NLOS– LS and NLOS–C program elements are subject to normal prior approval reprogramming procedures as described elsewhere in this 

report. 

NON LINE OF SIGHT CANNON (NLOS–C)

The Committee is increasingly concerned by the Army’s apparent 

lack of progress in complying with the provisions of section 8109 

of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 

108–287). This section requires the Army to field 8 operational preproduction NLOS–C vehicles by the end of calendar year 2008. A 

variation of this language has been included in each of the past 

three Department of Defense Appropriations Acts. The Committee 

understands that the Army has failed to adequately program and 

budget sufficient funding to meet the requirements of this provision. Informal Army estimates suggest that $77,000,000 is needed 

over the next three years, above the currently programmed levels, 

to produce the required number of vehicles. Accordingly, the Committee recommends an increase of $50,000,000 above the budget request to initiate the purchase of a sufficient number of NLOS–C 

chassis. In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary of the 

Army to provide a report to the House Committee on Appropriations prior to conference on the DoD Appropriations Act, 2006, providing detailed cost estimates and a detailed program plan to comply with the requirements of section 8109. 

EXCALIBUR, XM982 155MM EXTENDED RANGE ARTILLERY PROJECTILE

The Committee is aware that U.S. commanders in Iraq have submitted an Urgent Need Statement calling for an artillery-fired 

guided projectile that can respond to enemy mortar and rocket fire 

while minimizing collateral damage. U.S. forces are under increasing attack from insurgents employing highly mobile weapons that 

do not require great accuracy to do harm. Commanders require a 

lethal and accurate artillery-fired munition that can address this 

threat efficiently without causing civilian casualties, particularly in 

an urban environment. Based on the current demonstrated capaVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
233 

bility of the Excalibur XM982, the Committee recommends that 

this capability be fielded according to the Advance Early Fielding 

schedule which calls for fielding in the second quarter of fiscal year 

2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

234 


Insert graphic folio 089 21172A.129
235 


Insert graphic folio 090 21172A.130
236 


Insert graphic folio 091 21172A.131
237 


Insert graphic folio 092 21172A.132
238 


Insert graphic folio 093 21172A.133
239 


Insert graphic folio 094 21172A.134
240 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $17,043,812,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 18,037,991,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 18,481,862,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +443,871,000 

The appropriation provides funds for the research development, 

test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy, which 

includes the Marine Corps. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,481,862,000 

for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, which is 

$1,438,050,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 

and $443,871,000 more than the request for fiscal year 2006. The 

following report and project level tables provide a summary of the 

Committee’s recommendation. 

241 


Insert graphic folio 095 21172A.135
242 


Insert graphic folio 096 21172A.136
243 


Insert graphic folio 097 21172A.137
244 


Insert graphic folio 098 21172A.138
245 


Insert graphic folio 099 21172A.139
246 


Insert graphic folio 0100 21172A.140
247 


Insert graphic folio 0101 21172A.141
248 


Insert graphic folio 0102 21172A.142
249 


Insert graphic folio 0103 21172A.143
250 


Insert graphic folio 0104 21172A.144
251 

DD(X)

The Committee recommends $670,000,000 for further development of the next generation DD(X) destroyer. As discussed under 

‘‘Shipbuilding and conversion, Navy’’, this program has experienced 

numerous difficulties over the past year, and the total requirement 

for these vessels is still uncertain. Despite these issues, however, 

the Committee believes there is value in keeping the DD(X) development effort moving forward. In addition, many of these technologies are expected to have utility for the next generation CG(X) 

cruiser, currently funded for lead ship procurement in fiscal year 

2011 and discussed further below. Considered together, the bill includes $750,000,000 for development of the DD(X) and CG(X). 

CG(X)

The Committee recommendation accelerates concept design, concept studies, and other development work for the CG(X) next generation cruiser. Given the age of the current CG–47 Ticonderoga 

class and the potential use of CG(X) to fulfill ballistic missile defense and other missions, the Committee believes it is imperative 

to accelerate this work. The Committee bill raises this funding 

from $30,000,000 to $80,000,000. 

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP

The Committee recommends $576,454,000 for Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS), the same as the budget request. Funding includes 

$249,236,000 for construction of one flight zero LCS ship, 

$209,908,000 for mission modules, and $117,310,000 for other program costs. Additional funding of $440,000,000, for procurement of 

two ships, is discussed under ‘‘Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy’’. 

MAST-MOUNTED IN-PORT VIDEO FORCE PROTECTION SURVEILLANCE

SYSTEM

The bill includes $5,000,000 for SBIR phase III development of 

a mast-mounted, video-based system capable of detecting terrorist 

threats to naval vessels in ports and harbors. 

MARITIME BATTLE CENTER

The Committee recommendation allows $24,000,000 for Maritime 

Battle Center, an increase of $9,622,000 over the fiscal year 2005 

enacted level and $8,519,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints and lack of justification. 

EA–18(G)

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for further development of the EA–18(G) aircraft, a reduction of $9,097,000 from the 

budget estimate. The Committee continues to strongly support this 

program. However, some non-contract support costs appear to be 

overstated and excess to fiscal year 2006 needs. 

BONE MARROW REGISTRY

The Committee provides $35,000,000, to be administered by the 

C. W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research ProVerDate Aug 04 2004 14:22 Jun 11, 2005 Jkt 021675 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.000 HR119
252 

gram, also known and referred to, within the Naval Medical Research Center, as the Bone Marrow Registry. This DoD donor center has recruited more than 358,000 DoD volunteers, and provides 

more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the 

Nation. Over 1,800 service members and other DoD volunteers 

from this donor center have provided marrow to save the lives of 

patients. The Committee is aware of the continuing success of this 

national and international life saving program for military contingencies and civilian patients, which now includes over 5,600,000 

potential volunteer donors, and encourages agencies involved in 

contingency planning to continue to include the C. W. Bill Young 

Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program in the development and testing of their contingency plans. DD Form 1414 shall 

show this as a special congressional interest item, and the Committee directs that all of the funds appropriated for this purpose 

be released to the C. W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment 

and Research Program within 60 days of enactment of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006. 

MULTINATIONAL INFORMATION SHARING

The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for Multinational Information Sharing (MNIS), a reduction of $11,557,000 from the budget estimate. MNIS is a DoD joint program designed to provide an 

enterprise network standard for the exchange of classified information with foreign nations. The Navy may be designated the executive agent for this program. The recommendation defers a portion 

of funding for this new start due to lack of justification and the uncertain organization and schedule for the development effort. 

TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $41,555,000 for Target Systems Development, a reduction of $11,408,000 from the budget estimate. 

The recommendation includes $1,000,000 for development of the 

Air Coyote Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target, and $11,000,000 for 

the QF–4 Full-Scale Aerial Target. The recommendation finances 

the procurement of 3 QF–4 targets, which is the same level as in 

fiscal year 2005, and more consistent with outyear procurement 

plans. 

MOBILE USER OBJECTIVE SYSTEM

The Navy requested $470,000,000 for the Mobile User Objective 

System (MUOS) within the Satellite Communications budget lineitem. The Committee recommends $370,000,000, a reduction of 

$100,000,000. The Committee notes that the MUOS development 

contract was awarded at the end of fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 

2005, contract manning is expected to steadily ramp-up before leveling out next year. Though, on average, fiscal year 2006 will have 

significantly more personnel on the contract than in the prior year, 

the funding available to the contract in fiscal year 2006 is not comparably higher. Consequently, the Committee believes significant 

funding in fiscal year 2005 will carry forward into the following 

year and will be available to cover fiscal year 2006 requirements. 

253 

Accordingly, the Committee recommendation includes a reduction 

of $100,000,000 to account for this prior year carryforward. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

254 


Insert graphic folio 0106 21172A.145
255 


Insert graphic folio 0107 21172A.146
256 


Insert graphic folio 0108 21172A.147
257 


Insert graphic folio 0109 21172A.148
258 


Insert graphic folio 0110 21172A.149
259 


Insert graphic folio 0111 21172A.150
260 


Insert graphic folio 0112 21172A.151
261 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR 

FORCE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $20,890,922,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 22,612,351,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 22,664,868,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +52,517,000 

This appropriation finances the research, development, test and 

evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,664,868,000 

for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, which 

is $1,773,946,000 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 

2005 and $52,517,000 more than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

262 


Insert graphic folio 0114 21172A.152
263 


Insert graphic folio 0115 21172A.153
264 


Insert graphic folio 0116 21172A.154
265 


Insert graphic folio 0117 21172A.155
266 


Insert graphic folio 0118 21172A.156
267 


Insert graphic folio 0119 21172A.157
268 


Insert graphic folio 0120 21172A.158
269 


Insert graphic folio 0121 21172A.159
270 

OPTICAL MAXIMUM ENTROPY VERIFICATION

The Committee supports the Optical Maximum Entropy 

Verification (OMEV) authentication verification technology, begun 

as an Air Force prototype demonstration program. OMEV has the 

potential to satisfy several critical military, government and commercial security requirements on a global scale. The Committee 

therefore recommends an additional $5,000,000 in the Aerospace 

Sensors budget line-item only to develop integrated systems designs and prototype hardware for a fully integrated secure laboratory facility demonstration for near term fielding of OMEV. The 

Committee further encourages the Army and Navy to consider participation in this program. 

TRANSFORMATIONAL SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

The Air Force requested $835,769,000 for the Transformational 

Satellite Communications program (TSAT). The Committee recommends $435,769,000, a decrease of $400,000,000 consistent with 

the amount authorized by the House. The Committee agrees with 

the House Armed Services Committee on the risks associated with 

the TSAT program, especially given the concerns about the current 

capabilities of the space acquisition community. The Committee 

further supports an independent review and analysis that includes 

alternatives that would defer TSAT in favor of evolving the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) and the Wideband 

Gapfiller (WGF) satellite programs. 

SPACE RADAR

The Air Force requested $225,839,000 for the Space Radar program (otherwise known in the budget as Space Based Radar). The 

Committee recommends $100,000,000, a reduction of $125,839,000 

consistent with recommendations made by the House Armed Services Committee and approved by the House. 

The Committee recommendation includes funds only for the purposes authorized by the House, including: 1) development of ground 

exploitation capabilities; 2) horizontal integration; 3) radar technology maturation; and especially, 4) new technology breakthroughs that will lower program cost. The Committee directs that 

30 days prior to obligation of fiscal year 2006 funds, the Air Force 

provide the congressional defense committees with a spend plan for 

the funds consistent with the activities described above. 

SMALL DIAMETER BOMB

The budget request includes $46,000,000 to begin development of 

Increment II of the Small Diameter Bomb attack mode for mobile 

targets in weather. The Air Force recently announced that it would 

comply with the Government Accountability Office recommendation 

to compete Increment II. This decision was made subsequent to the 

budget submission and will likely effect program schedule as a result. The Committee recommends providing $26,000,000 of the 

funds requested for Increment II contract award due to this program delay. 

271 

PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE

The budget request includes $113,825,000 to begin development 

of the Air Force replacement for the HH–60 combat search and rescue vehicle. A Request for Proposal is scheduled to be released in 

June 2005, with a contract award in February 2006. The Committee believes that eight months from RFP to contract award on 

a program of this magnitude is unrealistic given the amount of interest in this competition. The Committee has provided 

$71,825,000 to realign the program with a more realistic schedule 

and contract award date. 

NEXT GENERATION BOMBER TIER I SUPPLIER SUSTAINMENT

The Committee directs that of the amount appropriated in PE 

060401F for Next Generation Bomber, not less than $3,500,000 

shall be applied to develop and test major structural assemblies directly applicable to technical challenges inherent in the Next Generation Bomber. This effort shall be performed by a Tier I supplier 

with the innate ability to translate system technical challenges into 

structural concepts and then design, build, and test the resulting 

structural components. The results will be provided uniformly to all 

major prime system integrators. 

LASER SPARK COUNTERMEASURE PROGRAM

The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000 in Advanced Weapons Technology only for Laser Spark development, integration, design and test with existing IRCM based subsystem elements such as tracker hardware. 

ADVANCED SATELLITE THERMAL CONTROL PROGRAM

The Committee has provided an increase of $2,000,000 in Aerospace Propulsion and Power only for the development of Plasma 

Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition techniques for thermal control satellite coatings for the Advanced Satellite Thermal Control 

Program, to enable advancement of mission ready thermal control 

satellite coatings. 

NATIONAL AEROSPACE LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE

As charged by Congress, the National Aerospace Leadership Initiative (NALI) has been initiated under the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force. This initiative is designed to counter the 

pervasive and growing global challenge to United States aerospace 

leadership and the potential adverse effects on our national defense. A primary focus of NALI is to develop programs that will enhance the U.S. aerospace manufacturing supply chain and attract 

qualified scientists and engineers into the aerospace field. The 

Committee appreciates the Air Force’s response to this initiative 

and strongly encourages the service to continue to work with the 

Committee and the participating public and private sector entities 

to further the goals of this program. As such, the Committee recommends an additional $25,000,000 under this heading for NALI. 

272 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

273 


Insert graphic folio 0123 21172A.160
274 


Insert graphic folio 0124 21172A.161
275 


Insert graphic folio 0125 21172A.162
276 


Insert graphic folio 0126 21172A.163
277 


Insert graphic folio 0127 21172A.164
278 


Insert graphic folio 0128 21172A.165
279 


Insert graphic folio 0129 21172A.166
280 


Insert graphic folio 0130 21172A.167
281 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, 

DEFENSE-WIDE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $20,983,624,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 18,803,416,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 19,514,530,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +711,114,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the research, development, 

test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Defense for 

defense-wide activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,514,530,000 

for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 

which is $1,469,094,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2005 and $711,114,000 more than the request for fiscal year 

2006. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee’s recommendation. 

282 


Insert graphic folio 0131 21172A.168
283 


Insert graphic folio 0233 21172A.169
284 


Insert graphic folio 0132 21172A.170
285 


Insert graphic folio 0235 21172A.171
286 


Insert graphic folio 0133 21172A.172
287 


Insert graphic folio 0134 21172A.173
288 


Insert graphic folio 0238 21172A.174
289 


Insert graphic folio 0135 21172A.175
290 


Insert graphic folio 0136 21172A.176
291 


Insert graphic folio 0137 21172A.177
292 


Insert graphic folio 0138 21172A.178
293 

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY—PROGRAM ELEMENT RESTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $7,631,531,000 for the Missile Defense Agency, which is a $1,151,873,000 decrease from fiscal year 

2005 and $143,712,000 below the President’s request. The Committee commends the Missile Defense Agency on achieving an initial defensive capability (IDC) by December 2004 in response to the 

Presidential Directive issued in 2002. In order for MDA to achieve 

this goal, considerable financial flexibility was granted by Congress 

to allow the agency to respond rapidly to achieve IDC. Now that 

a working system operated by trained warfighters has been fielded, 

the Committee wishes to enhance financial oversight as the missile 

defense effort continues to move forward. The Administration’s 

budget request distributed funding in only twelve program elements many of which total greater than $400,000,000 in a single 

line. This level of funding in an individual program element obscures funding details and creates significant oversight issues. Accordingly, the Committee has included in it’s recommendation a restructure of the Missile Defense Agency program elements to allow 

for greater visibility and oversight of the programs. The Committee 

directs the Missile Defense Agency to follow the recommended 

budgetary program element construction in the future. 

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY—TERMINATION LIABILITY

The Missile Defense Agency budget assumes approval of a new 

type of Special Termination Cost Clause, which waives the requirement to budget for termination liability on a contract-by-contract 

basis. The Special Termination Cost Clause (STCC) approach as 

recognized by the Department of Defense and the Congress allows 

for a contract clause that identifies certain contingent termination 

costs and allows those costs to be covered with available funds not 

on the contract. MDA proposes a variation of the STCC, with two 

modifications: all contingent termination costs are eligible (vice just 

the five categories in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations) 

and if funds are not available on contract to cover termination(s), 

termination costs are sourced from all available Ballistic Missile 

Defense System funds, including funds obligated on contracts but 

not earned (vice just unobligated funding). The Committee notes 

that the Missile Defense Agency has not yet submitted an STCClike notification letter to the Congress nor has MDA provided justification for the change. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act on 

the degree to which MDA is complying with the DFAR and FAR 

with respect to termination liability and the reasons why MDA 

would be exempt from complying with current regulations. 

DUAL BOOSTER STRATEGY

The Committee is concerned that the Missile Defense Agency is 

planning to discontinue using a dual booster strategy for the 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense program. The Committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees within 60 days after the enactment of this Act 

294 

regarding the implications of going to a single booster and its potential impact on the United States industrial base. 

SPACE SURVEILLANCE AND TRACKING SYSTEM (SSTS)

The Missile Defense Agency requested $235,536,000 for the 

Space Surveillance and Tracking System. The Committee recommends $231,358,000, a decrease of $4,178,000 including a reduction of $3,640,000 for program support and $538,000 for the SSTS 

Block 12 program. The Committee anticipates that the Block 12 

program will require significant investment. To gain a better understanding of the associated life cycle costs, the Committee expects the OSD Cost Analysis Improvement Group (OSD CAIG) to 

complete an independent cost estimate for the SSTS Block 12 program for delivery to the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 1, 2006. 

BOOST AND ASCENT PHASE ENGAGEMENT STUDY

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

joint study with the Government Accountability Office to review 

the early engagement of ballistic missiles to include boost and ascent phase intercepts. The report should be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. Specifically, the report should include but not 

be limited to the following elements in its comparison: 

(1) An assessment of the operational capabilities of 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; 

(3) Basing options; and 

(4) An assessment of life-cycle costs to include research and development efforts, procurement, deployment, operating and infrastructure costs. 

ASYMMETRIC MISSILE THREAT

The Committee has become increasingly concerned about the possibility of an asymmetric missile threat against the United States 

homeland. In particular, the Committee believes that a sea-based 

missile threat now has a low probability of detection, despite the 

fact that such a threat could place important U.S. economic assets, 

population, and property at risk. As such, the Committee recommends an additional $20,000,000 for the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) to initiate a comprehensive analysis of the need for and deployment of an asymmetric missile defense capability. This analysis should consider deployment options that would protect significant population centers, use mature technologies, and include progressions for spiral technology upgrades that would enhance missile defense capabilities over time. The Committee expects the 

MDA to periodically inform the Committee of its progress on this 

matter. 

295 

VENTURE AND INITIATIVE FUNDS

While the Committee believes the Department needs some flexibility to address emergent issues, the Committee is troubled by the 

proliferation of initiative and venture funds that have developed 

within the Department of Defense. The Committee has identified 

multiple programs in various appropriations that request funds but 

do not have specific programmatic justification and in some cases, 

the programs seem duplicative. The Committee is also concerned 

about the apparent lack of oversight across the various funds. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to review all appropriations for such programs for duplication and oversight and 

report the findings to the congressional defense committees no later 

than 60 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Additionally, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide quarterly reports beginning the first fiscal quarter after the 

enactment of this Act to the congressional defense committee detailing the specific programs that are funded from the Quick Reaction Special Projects, the Counter Terrorism Technology Support 

Program and the Combating Terrorism Technology Task Force 

Fund to include project descriptions with funding levels, potential 

transition plans to the services for further development and lessons 

learned from completed projects. The Committee further recommends that the Secretary of Defense provide the reports to the 

Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security. 

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM

The Committee commends the Department on the continued execution of the ‘‘Chem-Bio Defense Initiatives Fund’’ and recommends 

continuing the program within the Department’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program. The Committee’s recommendation provides an increase of $25,000,000 for this fund. The Secretary of Defense is directed to allocate these funds among the programs that 

yield the greatest gain in our chem-bio defensive posture. The Committee further directs that funds not be obligated for the Chem-Bio 

Initiative Fund until 15 days after a report, including a description 

of projects to be funded, is provided to the congressional defense 

committees. 

ANTI-TERRORISM PROTECTION STANDARDS

The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in 

cooperation with the military services, to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by December 30, 2005, which 

identifies the costs for implementing the DoD Minimum Anti-terrorism Standards (UFC 4–010–01) and compares DoD and GSA 

anti-terrorism standards for buildings. The report should explain 

differences in criteria used by the two agencies and propose alternatives for reconciling any conflicts between the standards to ensure that managers have one set of rules for meeting federal government anti-terrorism criteria. Finally, the report should identify 

DoD advanced anti-terrorism technology capabilities that can be incorporated into UFC 4–010–01, particularly anti-blast technologies. 

296 

ROLL-ON ROLL-OFF INFECTION CONTROL FACILITY

The Committee is aware of the role the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) play in the Nation’s efforts to protect 

the homeland. As the lead federal organization for safeguarding the 

health of the public, CDC is often called upon to investigate and 

contain disease threats caused by biological, chemical or radiological agents. The CDC collaborates closely with the Department 

of Defense, and in particular the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), on a variety of issues 

including outbreak investigations. Over the last several years, CDC 

has encountered difficulties due to a variety of reasons in transporting infectious patients and specimens from remote parts of the 

world to CDC’s Atlanta facilities that house state-of-the-art laboratories, including Biosafety level 4 labs that contain deadly microbes 

such as biological agents potentially used in terrorist events, and 

to state-of-the-art patient isolation and treatment facilities. 

To address this critical need for safe, secure, rapid, and timely 

transport, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for USAMRIID 

to collaborate with the CDC and the Air Force in the exploration, 

design, and development of a military transport aircraft-based Rollon Roll-Off Infection Control Facility. This facility shall include appropriate infection control, medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) capabilities, a patient isolation area, patient medical life support and 

treatment equipment, and a medical crew rest/operations area. 

DEMANUFACTURING OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT FOR REUSE AND

RECYCLING

The Committee recognizes the potential environmental hazards 

associated with the disposal of a rapidly increasing number of expiring legacy computer and electronic systems, and encourages the 

Department to pursue recovery methods to reuse and recycle these 

components in an environmentally friendly manner. An August 

2000 Mission Need Statement for the Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and Recycling (DEER2) expressly stated needs of industry for such methods and appropriations were 

subsequently provided to the Department for this purpose. However, it has come to the Committee’s attention that this initiative 

has since stalled. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department 

to review the need for component reuse and recycling, to investigate cost-effective partnerships with industry to utilize existing 

recovery solutions, and to provide a report to the House Committee 

on Appropriations not later than 180 days after enactment of this 

Act. 

OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$47,000,000 for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) projects. Of 

this amount, $20,000,000 is only for standardized bus development, 

and $25,000,000 is only for operationally responsive payload development. The Committee strongly supports the ORS concept and expects DoD to increase its funding commitment in this area in future budget submissions. 

297 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

298 


Insert graphic folio 0139 21172A.179
299 


Insert graphic folio 0140 21172A.180
300 


Insert graphic folio 0141 21172A.181
301 


Insert graphic folio 0142 21172A.182
302 


Insert graphic folio 0143 21172A.183
303 


Insert graphic folio 0144 21172A.184
304 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $314,835,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 168,458,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 168,458,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation funds the Operational Test and Evaluation 

activities of the Department of Defense. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $168,458,000 for Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense, which is $146,377,000 

less than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and equal to the 

budget request. The reduction from the fiscal year 2005 level in 

this account is primarily due to the transfer of the Defense Test 

Resources Management Center to the Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Defense-Wide account. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006: 

305 


Insert graphic folio 0257 21172A.185
(307) 

TITLE V 

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS 

DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,174,210,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,471,340,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,154,340,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥317,000,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,154,340,000 

for the Defense Working Capital Funds. The recommendation is a 

decrease of $19,870,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal 

year 2005 and a decrease of $317,000,000 from the fiscal year 2006 

request. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,204,626,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,648,504,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,599,459,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥49,045,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation and 

supply of pre-positioning ships, operation of the Ready Reserve 

Force, and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command, 

the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,599,459,000 

for the National Defense Sealift Fund, which is $394,833,000 more 

than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and $49,045,000 less 

than the request for fiscal year 2006. The following report and 

project level table provides a summary of the Committee’s recommendation. 

308 


Insert graphic folio 0146 21172A.186
309 

T–AKE DRY CARGO/AMMUNITION SHIP

The Committee recommends $714,143,000 for two T–AKE ships, 

which is one ship and $334,000,000 more than the budget request. 

If enacted, the budget proposal would cause termination of the existing contract options and renegotiation of the prices under those 

options. Navy officials consider the existing prices to be favorable 

to the Government as well as executable within the overall program budget. The expected additional cost to the Government, and 

potential program delay, is unacceptable to the Committee. 

MPS LEASE BUYOUT

The Committee recommends $375,000,000 for the planned 

buyout of Maritime Prepositioning System (MPS) leased vessels. 

The President’s budget proposed $749,787,000 for the buyout of 13 

vessels of the Amsea class, the Maersk class, and the Waterman 

class. The Committee believes the Navy has made a good business 

case for this program, but would support a program phased over 

the next few years rather than entirely funded in fiscal year 2006. 

Although the purchase price of these vessels is likely to be determined through negotiation, the Committee believes the funding 

provided will be sufficient to procure approximately 6 of these vessels. 

MARITIME PREPOSITIONING FORCE (FUTURE)

The Committee recommends $59,000,000 for further development, concept studies, and concept design for the Maritime 

Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F). This is more than twice 

the $28,000,000 provided for fiscal year 2005, and a reduction of 

$7,301,000 from the budget request. The reduction should be allocated to management, engineering, and acquisition overhead, 

which otherwise would account for approximately 40 percent of the 

total program budget. 

TAOE(X)

The Committee recommends the budget request level of 

$22,490,000 for concept studies for a new oiler class designated 

TAOE(X). This program received $9,412,000 in fiscal year 2005. 

(311) 

TITLE VI 

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS 

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $1,372,990,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 1,405,827,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,355,827,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥50,000,000 

This appropriation funds the Chemical Agents and Munitions 

Destruction activities of the Department of the Army. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,355,827,000 

for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, which is 

$17,163,000 less than the amount provided in fiscal year 2005 and 

$50,000,000 less than the request for fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2006. 

312 


Insert graphic folio 0262 21172A.187
313 

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

The Committee believes the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program has been operating at less than expected budget 

execution rates and therefore, without prejudice against any particular program or site, recommends a reduction in Operation and 

Maintenance of $50,000,000. 

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 

DEFENSE 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $906,522,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 895,741,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 906,941,000 

Change from the budget .................................................................... +11,200,000 

This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, Development, 

Test and Evaluation for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense to include activities related to 

narcoterrorism. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Defense requested $895,741,000 for Drug 

Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $906,941,000, which is $419,000 more than the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2005 and an increase of $11,200,000 above 

the budget request for fiscal year 2006. 

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Southwest Border Fence .................................................................... +$5,000 

Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-Drug Task Force Training ................ +3,500 

Florida National Guard Counter-Drug Activities ............................ +3,000 

Young Marines .................................................................................... +2,700 

Indiana National Guard Counter-Drug Activities ........................... +1,000 

Nevada National Guard Counter-Drug Program ............................. +3,500 

Project Athena Beta Site ................................................................... +2,500 

ADNET ................................................................................................ ¥1,000 

RINGGOLD ......................................................................................... ¥1,000 

OCONUS OPS Support ...................................................................... ¥2,000 

ROTHR ................................................................................................ ¥2,000 

ISR/AEW/Tanker Support ................................................................. ¥500 

SOF CN Support ................................................................................ ¥1,500 

SOUTHCOM CN Operational Support ............................................. ¥2,000 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $204,562,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 209,687,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 209,687,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $209,687,000 for 

the Office of the Inspector General. Of this amount, $208,687,000 

shall be for operation and maintenance, and $1,000,000 shall be for 

procurement. The recommendation is an increase of $5,125,000 

above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and equal to 

the fiscal year 2006 request. 

(315) 

TITLE VII 

RELATED AGENCIES 

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM 

The National Intelligence Program (NIP) consists of those intelligence activities of the government that provide the President, 

other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on U.S. national security. These concerns are stated by the National Security 

Council in the form of long-range and short-range requirements for 

the principal users of intelligence. 

The National Intelligence Program budget funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources 

for the Director of National Intelligence, the Intelligence Community Management Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the 

Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, 

the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency, the intelligence services of the Departments of the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force, and the CIA Retirement and Disability Fund. 

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

The Committee’s budget reviews are published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations are expected 

to fully comply with the recommendations and directions in the 

classified annex accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006. 

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND 

DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $239,400,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 244,600,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 244,600,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified 

beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency 

Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88–643), as 

amended by Public Law 94–522. This statute authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for 

certain CIA employees and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a fund from which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries. 

316 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $244,600,000 

for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund. This is a mandatory account. 

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $310,466,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... 354,844,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 376,844,000 

Change from budget request ............................................................. +22,000,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support 

the Director of National Intelligence and the intelligence community. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $376,844,000 for 

the Intelligence Community Management Account, an increase of 

$22,000,000 above the President’s budget. Of the amount appropriated under this heading, $39,000,000 is for transfer to the Department of Justice for operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). 

The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) has a unique position as both a member of the intelligence community and a component of the Department of Justice. As such, it serves as a critical 

link between law enforcement and intelligence activities—a connection that increases in value as the nation continues its battle 

against terrorism. The NDIC’s expertise in analyzing classified and 

open source materials to uncover possible connections between 

drug suppliers, criminal activities, and terrorists make it uniquely 

positioned to address a wide variety of threats to this country. For 

example, shortly after the September 11th attacks, NDIC deployed 

analysts to the FBI Terrorist Financing Operation Section (TFOS) 

to provide analytical and technical support. The TFOS selected a 

database created by NDIC, entitled the Real Time Analytical Intelligence Database (RAID), to collect and analyze the voluminous 

data gathered in the wake of the attacks. Further, NDIC’s document exploitation analysts have played a key role in high profile 

international investigations, to include corruption in the Nicaraguan and Haitian governments, and drug trafficking and money 

laundering in the United States, Mexico, Columbia, Canada, Jamaica, and Vietnam. 

The Committee strongly endorses the work of NDIC and provides 

a total of $39,000,000 to fund NDIC at current operating levels. 

The Committee urges the Administration to take full advantage of 

the expertise available at NDIC and allocate in future budget requests funding sufficient to maintain current operations. 

NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND 

Fiscal year 2005 appropriation .......................................................... $8,000,000 

Fiscal year 2006 budget request ....................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

317 

The National Security Education Trust Fund was established to 

provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue 

higher education studies abroad and to provide grants to U.S. institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and languages. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for these activities under 

this appropriations account, as requested. The Committee understands that funds for these activities are now included in the Community Management Account. 

(319) 

TITLE VIII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The accompanying bill includes 102 general provisions. Most of 

these provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 and many have been included 

in the Defense Appropriations Act of a number of years. 

Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year’s provisions 

or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed 

below or in the applicable section of the report. 

DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY

For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 

1987 (Public Law 100–119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 

1990 (Public Law 101–508), the following information provides the 

definition of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for appropriations contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations 

Act. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the 

most specific level of budget items, identified in the Department of 

Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, the accompanying House and 

Senate Committee reports, the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee in Conference, the related classified reports, and the P–1 

and R–1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified 

by Congressional action. 

In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department 

of Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ set forth above with the following exceptions: 

For Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance accounts 

the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ is defined as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. 

The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential 

sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or 

alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of Defense and the related agencies and no program, 

project, and activity should be eliminated or be reduced to a level 

of funding which would adversely affect the Department’s ability to 

effectively continue any program, project, and activity. 

(321) 

TITLE IX 

ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS 

INTRODUCTION

The Committee is recommending $45,254,619,000 in funding for 

overseas contingency operations as a ‘‘bridge fund’’ for the first six 

months of fiscal year 2006 in order to ensure the uninterrupted delivery of resources to our troops in the field, and to avoid any disruption in funding for the global war on terrorism. The appropriation of these funds for contingency operations related to the global 

war on terrorism is made pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 

95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for 

fiscal year 2006. The Committee is determined to ensure continuity 

of combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around 

the world as part of the global war on terrorism. 

The Committee recognizes that as in fiscal year 2005, the military services cannot support the present level of combat operations 

by the numbers of ground maneuver brigades, and expeditionary 

air and naval forces, solely by diverting resources from peace time 

training and support activities. Therefore, the Committee recommends the additional funds in this title to ensure robust and uninterrupted resourcing of military operations in Afghanistan and 

Iraq without degrading home station training, maintenance, and 

base operations. The amounts recommended are based on the best 

budget execution information available from the Department of Defense, the so-called ‘‘budget burn rate’’. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

In this title, the Committee recommends total new appropriations of $45,254,619,000. Funding by category is as follows: 

Military Personnel .............................................................................. $8,015,755,000 

Operation and Maintenance .............................................................. 32,238,450,000 

Procurement ........................................................................................ 2,857,314,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ................................. 88,100,000 

Defense Working Capital Funds ....................................................... 2,055,000,000 

Funds are provided for specific appropriations accounts, and 

quarterly reports are required on the obligation of funds. 

The Committee recommends providing appropriations for the 

Iraq Freedom Fund to provide flexibility to the Department of Defense, as was done in the Department of Defense Appropriations 

Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–287). Funds would be available for obligation five days after written notification is provided to the Congress. Also, the Committee bill provides transfer authority for 

funds in this title, permitting up to $2,500,000,000 to be reprogrammed among activities following approval by the congressional 

322 

defense committees through regular order prior-approval notification and reprogramming procedures. 

The Committee bill also includes certain authorities providing 

war-related support to allied forces, and training and equipping 

Iraqi and Afghan military and security forces, consistent with similar authorities provided in prior Acts and in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 as approved by the House. 

The following table summarizes, by appropriations account, the 

Committee’s recommendations. 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Account Recommendation 

Military Personnel: 

Military Personnel, Army .............................................................. 5,877,400 

Military Personnel, Navy ............................................................... 282,000 

Military Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................. 667,800 

Military Personnel, Air Force ........................................................ 982,800 

Reserve Personnel, Army ............................................................... 138,755 

National Guard Personnel, Army .................................................. 67,000 

Total Military Personnel ............................................................ 8,015,755 

Operation and Maintenance: 

O&M, Army ..................................................................................... 20,398,450 

O&M, Navy ..................................................................................... 1,907,800 

O&M, Marine Corps ....................................................................... 1,827,150 

O&M, Air Force .............................................................................. 3,559,900 

O&M, Defense-Wide ....................................................................... 826,000 

Iraq Freedom Fund ........................................................................ 3,500,000 

O&M, Army Reserve ...................................................................... 35,700 

O&M, Marine Corps Reserve ......................................................... 23,950 

O&M, Army National Guard ......................................................... 159,500 

Total Operation and Maintenance ............................................. 32,238,450 

Procurement: 

Procurement of WTCV, Army ........................................................ 455,427 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army .............................................. 13,900 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................. 1,501,270 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ......................................................... 81,696 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ............... 144,721 

Other Procurement, Navy .............................................................. 48,800 

Procurement, Marine Corps ........................................................... 389,900 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force .................................................... 115,300 

Other Procurement, Air Force ....................................................... 2,400 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ........................................................... 103,900 

Total Procurement ...................................................................... 2,857,314 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation: 

RDT&E, Navy ................................................................................. 13,100 

RDT&E, Defense-Wide ................................................................... 75,000 

Total RDT&E .............................................................................. 88,100 

Revolving and Management Funds: 

Defense Working Capital Funds: 

Fuel ........................................................................................... 1,738,000 

WCF Wartime Costs (war reserves, etc.) .............................. 317,000 

Total Revolving and Management Funds .......................... 2,055,000 

General Provision—Transfer Authority (non-add) ....................... [2,500,000] 

Grand Total Title IX ............................................................ 45,254,619 

323 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

Recommended adjustments to classified programs are addressed 

in a classified annex accompanying this report. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 30 days of enactment of this legislation on the allocation of the funds within the 

accounts listed in this title. The Secretary shall submit updated reports 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter until funds listed 

in this title are no longer available for obligation. The Committee 

directs that these reports shall include: a detailed accounting of obligations and expenditures of appropriations provided in this title 

for the continuation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a listing of equipment procured using funds provided in this title. 

Finally, the Committee expects that in order to meet unanticipated requirements, the Department of Defense may need to transfer funds within these appropriations accounts for purposes other 

than those specified in this report. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to follow normal prior-approval reprogramming procedures should it be necessary to transfer funding between 

different appropriations accounts in this title. 

MILITARY PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends a total of $8,015,755,000 for the active duty and Guard and Reserve military personnel accounts. Of 

the amount provided, the Committee provides $6,809,000,000 for 

six months incremental wartime costs of pays and allowances for 

active duty and Reserve personnel deployed in support of Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Noble 

Eagle; $734,800,000 to support the services’ recruiting, retention 

and advertising programs; and sufficient funds in support of the 

enhanced levels for the Death Gratuity and Servicemembers Group 

Life Insurance program, and other wartime authorities authorized 

in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 

the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005. 

The following table provides details of the recommendations for 

the military personnel accounts: 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Account Recommendation 

Military Personnel, Army: 

Incremental OIF/OEF wartime costs ............................................ 5,119,600 

Army active duty overstrength ...................................................... 346,800 

Recruiting and Retention Initiatives ............................................ 257,000 

SGLI/Death Gratuity ...................................................................... 154,000 

Total Military Personnel, Army ................................................. 5,877,400 

Military Personnel, Navy: 

Incremental OIF/OEF wartime costs ............................................ 276,000 

324 

(In thousands of dollars)—Continued 

Account Recommendation 

SGLI/Death Gratuity ...................................................................... 6,000 

Total Military Personnel, Navy ................................................. 282,000 

Military Personnel, Marine Corps: 

Incremental OIF/OEF wartime costs ............................................ 435,600 

Marine Corps active duty end strength increase ......................... 167,200 

SGLI/Death Gratuity ...................................................................... 65,000 

Total Military Personnel, Marine Corps ................................... 667,800 

Military Personnel, Air Force: 

Incremental OIF/OEF wartime costs ............................................ 752,400 

Incremental Operation Noble Eagle costs .................................... 225,400 

SGLI/Death Gratuity ...................................................................... 5,000 

Total Military Personnel, Air Force .......................................... 982,800 

Reserve Personnel, Army: 

Recruiting and Retention Initiatives ............................................ 68,000 

SGLI/Death Gratuity ...................................................................... 855 

Special Training .............................................................................. 47,700 

Branch Officer Basic Course .......................................................... 22,200 

Total Reserve Personnel, Army ................................................. 138,755 

National Guard Personnel, Army: 

Initial Entry Training .................................................................... 67,000 

Total Military Personnel ............................................................ 8,015,755 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The Committee recommends $32,238,450,000 for operation and 

maintenance accounts. Funds are provided for personnel support 

requirements including travel, subsistence, individual and organizational equipment, reserve component activation costs, and incremental civilian personnel costs. Increases for operating support 

costs include funds for military operations, including spare parts 

and consumable supplies, transportation, pre-deployment training 

and training in theater, forward base operating costs, communications, vehicle maintenance, and contracts for linguists, logistics and 

infrastructure support. 

The following table provides details of the recommendations for 

the operation and maintenance accounts: 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Account Recommendation 

Operation and Maintenance, Army: 

Incremental Wartime Operating Costs ......................................... 13,543,000 

Incremental Operation Noble Eagle Costs ................................... 181,000 

Depot Maintenance ......................................................................... 1,151,400 

Reset (Unit and Intermediate Maintenance) ............................... 1,747,400 

Rapid Fielding Initiative; Force Protection; IBA ......................... 1,233,000 

Coalition Support; CERP; Other ................................................... 1,314,600 

Base Support Costs of Mobilization and Demobilization ............ 448,700 

Unit of Action Implementation ...................................................... 37,200 

Second Destination Transportation .............................................. 101,700 

Operational C2 Connectivity ......................................................... 46,000 

Sustainment System Technical Support ....................................... 168,000 

Personnel Sustainment for Added End Strength ......................... 124,700 

325 

(In thousands of dollars)—Continued 

Account Recommendation 

Recruitment and Advertising ........................................................ 200,000 

Virtual Combat Trainer ................................................................. 7,700 

Ammunition Depot Operations and Maintenance ....................... 91,800 

Travel for Family Member of Hospitalized Soldier ..................... 2,250 

Total Operation and Maintenance, Army ................................. 20,398,450 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy: 

Incremental Wartime Operating Costs ......................................... 1,870,000 

Counter IED Collection and Exploitation ..................................... 17,800 

Recruiting and Advertising ............................................................ 20,000 

Total Operation and Maintenance, Navy .................................. 1,907,800 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps: 

Incremental Wartime Operating Costs ......................................... 1,195,900 

Base Support Including Mobilization ............................................ 18,500 

Second Destination Transportation .............................................. 163,500 

Reset, Organizational Maintenance, Spare Parts ........................ 250,000 

Recruiting and Advertising ............................................................ 9,600 

Depot Maintenance ......................................................................... 151,400 

Initial Issue Including Clothing, Body Armor, Tents .................. 25,500 

Personnel Sustainment for Added End Strength ......................... 12,000 

Travel for Family Member of Hospitalized Marine ..................... 750 

Total Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................... 1,827,150 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force: 

Incremental Wartime Operating Costs ......................................... 2,967,800 

Incremental Operation Noble Eagle Costs ................................... 270,000 

Predator Operations and Support ................................................. 85,100 

B–1 Deployable Phase Maintenance Kit ...................................... 34,000 

B–52 Deployable Phase Maintenance Kit .................................... 52,000 

Depot Maintenance ......................................................................... 151,000 

Total Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ........................... 3,559,900 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: 

Incremental Wartime Operating Costs ......................................... 490,000 

DISA ................................................................................................ 62,000 

DLA .................................................................................................. 264,000 

DHRA—Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies ......... 10,000 

Total Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................... 826,000 

Iraq Freedom Fund: 

Incremental Wartime Operating Costs ......................................... 1,000,000 

Classified Programs ........................................................................ 2,500,000 

Total Iraq Freedom Fund ........................................................... 3,500,000 

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve: 

Recruiting and Retention Support ................................................ 13,900 

Army Reserve Family Support Centers ........................................ 12,500 

Advertising and Marketing Support ............................................. 9,300 

Total Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve ................... 35,700 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve: 

Operating Forces ............................................................................ 22,575 

Training Support ............................................................................ 1,000 

326 

(In thousands of dollars)—Continued 

Account Recommendation 

Base Operation Support ................................................................. 375 

Total Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ..... 23,950 

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard: 

Recruiting and Advertising ............................................................ 147,000 

National Guard Family Support Centers ..................................... 12,500 

Total Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ...... 159,500 

Total Operation and Maintenance ............................................. 32,238,450 

IRAQ FREEDOM FUND

The Committee recommends $3,500,000,000 for the Iraq Freedom 

Fund to address emergent requirements. Of this amount, not less 

than $2,500,000,000 is available only for classified programs as described in a classified annex accompanying this report. Consistent 

with direction in prior appropriations acts, funds in the Iraq Freedom Fund may not be transferred for obligation unless the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional defense committees in 

writing of the details of any transfer from this account five days 

prior to transfer. The Secretary is also directed to submit a report 

not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to the 

congressional defense committees summarizing the details of the 

transfer of funds from this appropriation. 

PROCUREMENT

The Committee recommends $2,857,314,000 for the procurement 

accounts. 

The following table provides details of the recommendations for 

the procurement accounts: 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Account Recommendation 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: 

Gun Trucks ..................................................................................... 2,450 

Small Arms Programs: 

M16 rifle mods ......................................................................... 55,300 

M240 medium machine gun mods ......................................... 9,372 

M240 medium machine gun (7.62mm) .................................. 107,944 

M4 carbine mods ..................................................................... 29,595 

M4 carbine ............................................................................... 168,237 

M249 SAW mods ..................................................................... 5,728 

M249 SAW machine gun (5.56mm) ....................................... 54,111 

M107, Cal. 50 sniper rifle ....................................................... 9,274 

Small Arms Equipment (Soldier Enhancement Program) ... 3,416 

M2HB Enhanced .50 Caliber Machine Gun Kits .................. 10,000 

Total Procurement of WTCV, Army ............................... 455,427 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army: 

First Destination Transportation .................................................. 2,000 

327 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Account Recommendation 

Ammunition Production Force Protection .................................... 11,900 

Total Procurement of Ammunition, Army ..................... 13,900 

Other Procurement, Army: 

Up-Armor HMMWVs: M1114, M1151, M1152 ............................. 170,000 

Add-on-Armor plate for level III and ballistic glass .................... 20,000 

Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Recap Modernization Program: 

HMMWV Recap ....................................................................... 193,000 

HMMWVs—Army Reserve ..................................................... 60,000 

Up-armored HMMWVs (M1114)—Army Reserve ................. 5,370 

FMTVs ...................................................................................... 50,000 

Light Medium Tactical Vehicle (LMTV) 2.5 ton—Army Reserve ...................................................................................... 15,000 

Medium Tactical Vehicle 5 ton—Army Reserve ................... 41,000 

HEMTT Recap ......................................................................... 60,400 

Truck Cargo PLS M1075—Army Reserve ............................. 37,000 

PLS Trailers—Army Reserve ................................................. 9,000 

M915A1 Replacements ............................................................ 15,000 

SINCGARS Family ......................................................................... 87,000 

High Frequency Radio—Army Reserve ........................................ 21,000 

Defense advanced global positioning system receiver (DAGR) ... 5,000 

Mounted Battle Command on the Move (MBCOTM) .................. 30,000 

Prophet/COBRA .............................................................................. 145,000 

IED Jammers .................................................................................. 35,000 

Low cost ECM production .............................................................. 10,000 

Force XXI Battle Command BDE and Below (FBCB2) ............... 116,900 

Multi-Band SHF Terminal (Phoenix)—Army Reserve ................ 12,000 

Tactical Common Data Link .......................................................... 72,000 

Biometrics Automated Toolset (BAT) ........................................... 14,700 

Tactical Operations Centers .......................................................... 84,000 

Construction Equipment SLEP ..................................................... 25,000 

Quick Clot Hemorrhage Control .................................................... 5,000 

Chitosan Hemorrhage Control Dressing ....................................... 5,000 

Self-contained Reusable Blood Container ..................................... 10,000 

HMMWV and Tactical Truck Crew Trainers ............................... 25,000 

Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C–RAM) .......................... 107,900 

Persistent Threat Detection System, OIF loss replacement ....... 15,000 

Total Other Procurement, Army ............................................ 1,501,270 

Weapons Procurement, Navy: 

Tomahawk Missiles ........................................................................ 81,696 

Total Weapons Procurement, Navy ....................................... 81,696 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps: 

Ammunition Requirements for FSRG ........................................... 20,221 

155mm Fuze-Electronic Time M762A1 ......................................... 10,000 

Igniter-Time Blasting Fuze M81 ................................................... 5,000 

Detonator, Non-Electric MK154 .................................................... 10,000 

66mm Rocket-High Explosive M72A7 ........................................... 11,000 

155mm Multi Option Fuze M782 .................................................. 6,000 

120mm Tank Ammunition-M1028 Canister ................................. 3,000 

155mm High Explosive Projectile M795 ....................................... 15,000 

.50 Caliber Cartridges .................................................................... 13,000 

7.62mm Cartridges ......................................................................... 1,500 

40mm M430 HEDP ........................................................................ 30,000 

120mm Cartridges M830A1 HEAT–MP–T ................................... 10,000 

328 

(In thousands of dollars)—Continued 

Account Recommendation 

C4 Charges M58A4 HE .................................................................. 10,000 

Total Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine 

Corps ..................................................................................... 144,721 

Other Procurement, Navy: 

Physical Security Equipment ........................................................ 48,800 

Total Weapons Procurement, Navy ....................................... 48,800 

Procurement, Marine Corps: 

Miniature Transceiver (Blue Force Tracker) ................................ 7,400 

Light Armored Vehicle (LAV)—48 vehicles to support FSRG .... 102,500 

Weapons under $5 million ............................................................. 10,800 

Night Vision Equipment ................................................................ 225,000 

PSS–14 Metal Detectors and Other Items ................................... 1,300 

Tactical Radios (PRC–117 and PRC–150 radios) ......................... 25,000 

JTRS Legacy Bridge—EPLRS ....................................................... 17,900 

Total Procurement, Marine Corps ......................................... 389,900 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: 

C–17 Modifications—LAIRCM installs ......................................... 84,000 

C–130 Modifications—LAIRCM installs ....................................... 7,200 

War Consumables—Initial/replacement of towed decoys and 

rocket launcher motors ............................................................... 24,100 

Total Aircraft Procurement, Air Force .................................. 115,300 

Other Procurement, Air Force: 

HMMWV, Up-Armored .................................................................. 2,400 

Total Other Procurement, Air Force ...................................... 2,400 

Procurement, Defense-Wide: 

MH–47 infrared engine exhaust suppressor ................................ 7,700 

High performance mobility FLIR (ground) ................................... 10,800 

High performance mobility FLIR (maritime) ............................... 6,000 

Multi-bank inter/intra team radio ................................................. 13,500 

Multi-band multi mission radio ..................................................... 65,900 

Total Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................... 103,900 

Total Procurement ........................................................... 2,857,314 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

The Committee recommends $88,100,000 for the research, development, test and evaluation accounts. 

The following table provides details of the recommendations for 

the research, development, test and evaluation accounts: 

(In thousands of dollars) 

Account Recommendation 

RDT&E, Navy: 

Classified Program ......................................................................... 13,100 

Total RDT&E, Navy ................................................................... 13,100 

RDT&E, Defense-Wide: 

Counter-Terrorism Technical Working Group ............................. 25,000 

329 

(In thousands of dollars)—Continued 

Account Recommendation 

Quick Reaction Special Projects .................................................... 50,000 

Total RDT&E, Defense-Wide ..................................................... 75,000 

Total RDT&E .............................................................................. 88,100 

DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS

The Committee recommends an additional $2,055,000,000 for the 

Defense Working Capital Funds. These funds are recommended to 

address shortfalls due to unforeseen fuel price increases as well as 

to provide for the increased rate of consumption during wartime. 

In addition, funds are provided within this account to address necessary costs such as war reserves, spare parts, and underutilized 

plant capacity. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS TITLE 

Title IX of the Committee bill contains 12 general provisions. 

Several of these extend or modify war-related authorities included 

in Public Law 108–287, enacted in August of 2005. A description 

of the recommended general provisions follows. 

Section 9001 has been included which establishes the period of 

availability for obligation for appropriations provided in this title. 

Section 9002 has been included which provides that funds made 

available in title IX are in addition to amounts provided elsewhere 

in this Act. 

Section 9003 has been included which provides for the transfer 

of funds between appropriations of up to $2,500,000,000 of the 

funds in title IX, and provides that the transfer authority in this 

section is in addition to any other transfer authority available to 

the Department of Defense. 

Section 9004 has been included which deems funds appropriated 

in this Act for intelligence activities to be authorized by the Congress until an Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2006 is enacted. 

Section 9005 has been included which provides that none of the 

funds in title IX may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress, or to initiate a new start without prior congressional notification. 

Section 9006 has been included which provides that not to exceed 

$500,000,000 of operation and maintenance funds made available 

in title IX may be used to train and equip military or security 

forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that such authority is in addition to any other authority to provide assistance. The provision also 

includes a requirement to notify congressional committees prior to 

providing assistance under the authority of this provision. 

Section 9007 has been included which makes available 

$500,000,000 of operation and maintenance funds provided by title 

IX to fund the Commander’s Emergency Response Program. In addition, the provision requires quarterly reports to the congressional 

defense committees, places certain limitations on the use of funds, 

and requires the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance on activities eligible for funding. 

330 

Section 9008 has been included which provides that operation 

and maintenance funds in title IX may be used to provide supplies, 

services, and transportation to coalition forces supporting military 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provides for quarterly reports. 

Section 9009 has been included in which the Congress reaffirms 

that torture of prisoners of war and detainees is illegal and does 

not reflect the policies of the United States government or the values of the people of the United States. 

Section 9010 has been included concerning reporting requirements for the use of funds provided in this Act. 

Section 9011 has been included which provides that the Secretary of Defense may present promotional materials, including a 

United States Flag, to military members who participate in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom. 

Section 9012 has been included which expresses the sense of the 

Congress concerning the United States Air Force Academy. 

(331) 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly 

or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities which require annual authorization or additional 

legislation, which to date has not been enacted. 

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations 

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and 

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing 

the application of existing law. 

The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically considered 

legislation. 

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for 

more than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize each extended availability. 

In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds 

within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs, 

and has adjusted some existing earmarking. 

Those additional changes in the fiscal year 2006 bill, which 

might be interpreted as changing exiting law, are as follows: 

APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE

Language has been amended in the active duty Military Personnel accounts to include language concerning the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and deletes this language from the related 

Reserve appropriations paragraphs. 

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, 

Army’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses, and earmarks funds for Fort Baker. 

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, 

Navy’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses. 

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Air 

Force’’ which provides funds for minority aviation training. 

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, 

Defense-Wide’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency 

and extraordinary expenses; deletes language which earmarks 

332 

funds for an internship program for university students to participate in Defense educational programs; deletes language which provides funds for commercial imagery purchases; deletes language 

which provides authority for the Office of Economic Adjustment to 

make grants; includes language which provides funds to conduct a 

wind test demonstration project on an Air Force installation and to 

execute a renewable energy purchasing plan; and deletes language 

which provides funds for the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program. 

Language has been amended in ‘‘Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account’’ which deletes the reference for transfer of 

funds in this paragraph to the Defense Health Program appropriation. 

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account’’ which earmarks funds for dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines. 

Language has been included in the Army’s procurement accounts 

which earmarks funds for the Army Reserve and Army National 

Guard. 

Language has been included in ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Army’’

which procures additional helicopters and designates these aircraft 

for the Army Reserve. 

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Other Procurement, Army’’ concerning the purchase of vehicles required for physical security of 

personnel. 

Language has been included in the Navy and Marine Corps’ procurement accounts which earmarks funds for the Navy Reserve and 

Marine Corps Reserve. 

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Other Procurement, Navy’’ concerning the purchase of vehicles required for physical security of 

personnel; and deletes language which allows funds to be available 

for TRIDENT modifications associated with force protection and security requirements. 

Language has been included in the Air Force’s procurement accounts which earmarks funds for the Air Force Reserve and Air 

National Guard. 

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’’

with regard to the procurement of C–17 aircraft. 

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Other Procurement, Air Force’’

concerning the purchase of vehicles required for physical security 

of personnel. 

The appropriations account ‘‘National Guard and Reserve Equipment’’ has been deleted. 

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Research, Development, Test and 

Evaluation, Army’’ which earmarks funds for Molecular Genetics 

and Musculoskeletal Research. 

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Office of the Inspector General’’

which provides funds for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. 

Language has been amended in ‘‘Intelligence Community Management Account’’ which earmarks $27,454,000 for the Advanced 

Research and Development Committee; and which transfers 

$39,000,000 to the Department of Justice. 

333 

The appropriations account ‘‘National Security Education Trust 

Fund’’ has been deleted. 

Language has been included in Title IX which provides 

$45,254,619,000 to certain appropriations accounts for additional 

war related expenses for ongoing military operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

Language has been included in Title IX in the ‘‘Iraq Freedom 

Fund’’ that provides for the transfer of funds into and out of this 

account; provides that no less than $2,500,000,000 shall be for classified programs; requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees prior to making transfers from this 

appropriation; and requires the Secretary of Defense to report 

quarterly on the transfer of funds from this appropriation. 

Language has been included in Title IX in ‘‘Other Procurement, 

Army’’ which provides that not less than $200,370,000 shall be 

available only for the Army Reserve. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of general transfer authority for the Department of Defense, and provides 

that transfers between military personnel appropriations shall not 

be taken into account for purposes of the limitation of funds which 

may be transferred under this section. 

Section 8008 has been amended to include language which provides multiyear authority for UH–60/MH–60 Helicopters, Apache 

Block II conversions, and MTADS/PNVS programs. 

Section 8024 has been amended which earmarks $33,767,000 for 

the Civil Air Patrol Corporation. 

Section 8025 has been amended to change the number of staff 

years of technical effort that may be funded for defense Federally 

Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs); deletes language on the number of staff years that may be funded for defense 

studies and analysis by FFRDCs; amends language which changes 

the name of the National Intelligence Program referenced in this 

provision; and amends the amount for reduction for FFRDCs. 

Section 8042 has been amended to make a change to the name 

of the National Intelligence Program referenced in this provision. 

Section 8043 has been included which provides that of the funds 

available under ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’, the 

Office of Economic Adjustment is authorized to make grants. 

Section 8044 has been amended to include language which rescinds $633,550,000 from the following programs: 

2005 Appropriations: 

Other Procurement, Army: 

Joint Tactical Radio System ................................................... $60,500,000 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy: 

DD(X) Advance Procurement ................................................. 304,000,000 

Service Craft ............................................................................ 21,000,000 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: 

Global Hawk Advance Procurement ...................................... 10,00,000 

Other Procurement, Air Force: 

Classified Programs ................................................................ 3,400,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: 

Joint Tactical Radio System ................................................... 21,600,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: 

Unit Operations Centers (Marine Corps) .............................. 5,100,000 

334 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: 

AEHF ........................................................................................ 92,000,000 

Classified Programs ................................................................ 50,000,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: 

GMD Flight Test Delays ......................................................... 60,000,000 

Classified Programs ................................................................ 5,950,000 

Section 8047 has been amended to make a change to the name 

of the National Intelligence Program referenced in this provision. 

Section 8060 has been amended to make a change to the name 

of the National Intelligence Program referenced in this provision. 

Regarding section 8061, the Committee has taken careful notice 

of the growing challenges to U.S. security interests in Asia. These 

include the nuclear weapons program in North Korea, the attempts 

by that government to develop more capable ballistic missiles, and 

the rapid modernization of the Chinese military. The Committee 

urges the Administration to work with U.S. allies in the region to 

meet the challenges presented by these changing realities. Discussion with U.S. allies should, where deemed appropriate, include relevant information about future planned U.S. military capabilities. 

Section 8061 of this Act should not be interpreted as inhibiting 

such discussions. 

Section 8066 has been amended which requires that funds provided under ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide’’ for a new start advanced concept technology demonstration project may only be obligated after a report is provided 

to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 8067 has been amended which requires the Secretary of 

Defense to provide quarterly reports on certain matters directed in 

the classified annex to this Act. 

Section 8075 has been amended to change the dollar amount 

available for transfer, and amends subsection (b) providing for additional transfers. 

Section 8077 has been amended which provides funds for a grant 

to the Fisher House Foundation, Inc. 

Section 8078 has been amended which reduces funds available in 

Operation and Maintenance accounts by $264,630,000 to reflect 

savings attributable to efficiencies and management improvements 

in the funding of the Services’ miscellaneous or other contracts. 

Section 8079 has been amended which reduces funds available in 

Operation and Maintenance accounts by $167,000,000 to limit excessive growth in the procurement of advisory and assistance services. 

Section 8080 has been amended which requires that of the funds 

provided in ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, DefenseWide’’ $77,616,000 shall be for the Arrow missile program; and 

$15,000,000 shall be available for producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Israel. 

Section 8081 has been amended to reflect fiscal year 2006 requirements for prior year shipbuilding costs, makes such funds 

available for obligation until September 30, 2006, and, for proper 

accounting purposes, transfers such funds to the original appropriations of the vessels for which the additional costs are needed. 

Section 8086 has been amended which reduces funds available in 

Operation and Maintenance accounts by $250,000,000 to reflect 

335 

cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments in Defense Working Capital Funds. Section 8089 has been amended which provides $14,400,000 for 

various grants. 

Section 8097 has been amended which earmarks funds in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Army’’ for the Fort Irwin Road project for 

which funds were appropriated in section 8103 of public law 106– 79, and provides for limitations on using funds in this or any other 

Act for support of certain recreational facilities at Fort Irwin until 

completion of the project; and includes language which earmarks 

funds in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps’’ for the Secretary of the Navy to make a grant for the widening of Adobe Road. 

Section 8100 has been amended which reduces funds available in 

Operation and Maintenance accounts by $147,000,000, and deletes 

language concerning the effective date of this section on travel and 

transportation of persons. Section 8101 has been included which reduces $176,500,000 from 

the title III procurement accounts for offsets due to the Global War 

on Terror. 

Section 8102 has been included which provides for the transfer 

of unobligated balances from ‘‘Research, Development, Test and 

Evaluation, Army’’ for the continuation of the Army Venture Capital Fund. 

An explanation for each of the general provisions included in title 

IX of the bill are provided in that title. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: 

336 


Insert graphic folio 0148 21172A.188
337 


Insert graphic folio 0149 21172A.189
338 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

TRANSFERS

Language has been included in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, 

Army’’ which provides for the transfer of funds to Fort Baker. 

Language has been included in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ which provides for the transfer of funds relating to 

classified activities. 

Language has been included in ‘‘Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account’’ which provides for the transfer of funds 

out of and into this account. 

Language has been included in ‘‘Drug Interdiction and CounterDrug Activities, Defense’’ which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense. 

Language has been included in ‘‘Intelligence Community Management Account’’ which provides for the transfer of funds to the 

Department of Justice for the National Drug Intelligence Center. 

Twelve provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8024, 8033, 8049, 

8056, 8075, 8080, 8081, 8099, and 8102) contain language which allows transfers of funds between accounts. 

Language has been included in title IX, ‘‘Iraq Freedom Fund’’

which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense. 

Language has been included in title IX, section 9003, which provides transfer authority for funds in title IX. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Other Procurement, Army, 2005/2007 .............................................. $60,500,000 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2005/2011 .............................. 325,000,000 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007 .................................... 10,000,000 

Other Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007 ........................................ 3,400,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2005/2006 ... 21,600,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2005/2006 ... 5,100,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 2005/ 

2006 .................................................................................................. 142,000,000 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 

2005/2006 ......................................................................................... 65,950,000 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

339 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: ‘‘Each report of a committee on a bill or 

joint resolution of a public character, shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.’’ The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: ‘‘No money 

shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .’’ Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Discretionary .................................................................................................. 363,440 372,696 363,440 371,740 

Mandatory ....................................................................................................... 245 245 245 245

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying 

bill. 

(Millions) 

Budget Authority ................................................................................... 363,440 

Outlays: 

2006 ................................................................................................. 273,635 

2007 ................................................................................................. 94,854 

2008 ................................................................................................. 25,705 

2009 ................................................................................................. 7,527 

2010 and beyond ............................................................................. 5,737 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the 

accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local governments. 

340 


Insert graphic folio 07 HR119.001
341 


Insert graphic folio 0150 21172A.190
342 


Insert graphic folio 0151 21172A.191
343 


Insert graphic folio 0152 21172A.192
344 


Insert graphic folio 0153 21172A.193
345 


Insert graphic folio 0154 21172A.194
346 


Insert graphic folio 0155 21172A.195
347 


Insert graphic folio 0156 21172A.196
348 


Insert graphic folio 0157 21172A.197
349 


Insert graphic folio 0158 21172A.198
350 


Insert graphic folio 0159 21172A.199
351 


Insert graphic folio 0160 21172A.200
352 


Insert graphic folio 0161 21172A.201
353 


Insert graphic folio 0162 21172A.202
354 


Insert graphic folio 0163 21172A.203
355 


Insert graphic folio 0164 21172A.204
(356) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID OBEY 

Two issues addressed during Committee consideration of the FY 

2006 Defense appropriations measure warrant further discussion. 

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN ‘‘BRIDGE FUND’’

In May, Congress passed an FY 2005 emergency supplemental funding bill that provided $75.9 billion for continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even as that bill was being signed 

into law, the military let it be known that additional supplemental 

funds would be need by October to avoid severe financial dislocation. 

The Republican budget resolution set aside $50 billion to cover 

the FY 2006 costs of the war. In response to the military’s pleas 

and ‘‘consistent’’ with the Republican budget resolution, this bill in- cluded $45.3 billion. At current expenditure rates, this funding will 

only cover 6 months worth of the wars’ costs. Thus, the Republican 

budget resolution fails to accurately account for the full year’s cost 

of the war, thereby continuing the fiction created by the Bush Administration surrounding our ongoing military involvement in the 

region. Since this bridge funding is only adequate to cover the costs 

of the war for half the year, the hard reality is that before the year 

is over the Pentagon will have to ask for more money for the war. 

This likely will ‘‘bust’’ the recently passed Republican budget resolution by more than $40 billion. 

I offered two amendments related to this bridge funding. The 

first would have, in essence, required that the Majority take up a 

real budget resolution that included the full cost of the war in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. The second would have paid for roughly half of 

the bridge fund by reducing the size of the tax cuts for people making more than $1 million a year in order to reduce the amount the 

deficit will rise when the full annual costs of the war is finally revealed. The Committee rejected these amendments. 

The purpose of both amendments was to force the Administration 

and the Congressional Majority to begin to face up to the full cost 

of the war in Iraq. As the Washington Post recently noted its editorial of March 12, 2005: 

For the third year in a row, the Bush administration has chosen 

to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with a grab bag 

of other programs, outside the normal appropriations process. To 

call this emergency spending is farcical. Though the precise cost of 

military operations was not known, there was no reason, especially 

as the war continued, not to budget for most, if not all, of it in the 

ordinary course of business. After a single emergency supplemental, the war in Vietnam was financed through regular appropriations. 

Of course, if the Administration requested funds for Iraq and Afghanistan through the regular appropriations process it would force 

357 

tradeoffs within the Federal budget, such as s1ending cuts or tax 

increases, to pay for the war. These are precisely the types of 

tradeoffs the Administration and the Congressional Majority have 

avoided and continue to avoid. Instead of making the tough choices, 

the cost of military operations and related expenses for these two 

engagements has been added directly to the deficit, forcing future 

generations to pay for this Administration’s failure to pay the full 

price of its Iraq policy. 

To date, according the Congressional Research Service, the Defense Department has received $277.1 billion in ‘‘emergency’’ funding for combat operations, occupation and support for military personnel or supporting operations for Iraq, Afghanistan and for enhanced security at military installations. Nearly 60 percent of these 

funds—$165.8 billion—were provided after the President declared 

an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Nearly 70 percent of 

the $277.1 billion provided—$192 billion—is solely for the Iraq 

war. Should Congress approve this $45.3 billion supplemental, 

which will only fund operations in Iraq for half the year, total funding for the Iraq war will reach nearly $240 billion. And this is not 

the end. Tens of billions, if not more, will be required as the Army 

fully expects to still be in Iraq at least through January 2007. 

To put all this in context—even as Congress prepares to bust the 

Republican budget by more than $40 billion to pay for the cost of 

this misguided war, the Republican majority is simultaneously 

slashing the Labor-HHS-Education bill by $1.6 billion, decimating 

programs for children and gutting efforts to protect workers wages, 

all in the name of fiscal responsibility. The Majority’s brand of fiscal responsibility is farcical at best, duplicitous at worst. It is past 

time the Republican Majority comes clean about the full cost of the 

Iraq policy. The Congress is being set up to bust the budget by an 

estimated $40 billion to pay for the remaining costs of the war—

an amount more than 20 times larger than the amount they are 

saving by cutting the Labor-HHS bill. 

House Democrats make no apologies for demanding greater accountability from the Administration about its conduct of the war 

in Iraq. Our efforts, however, should in no way be construed as 

criticism of our troops. Democrats strongly support the men and 

women of our military. Many of us worked in the last supplemental 

to increase the maximum death benefit for service members. We 

have also urged the Administration and the Congress to provide 

additional resources for the Veterans Administration so that returning service members receive the health care they deserve. 

It is this support for the troops that leads to question the Administration’s management of the war and to demand greater accountability. The Moran amendment, which was included in the most recent supplemental, is an example of the type of oversight Congress 

must conduct. The Moran amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to fully evaluate the situation in Iraq and provide Congress 

measurable, achievable criteria that will provide an accurate assessment of our progress in the war. If one thing has become clear 

through the fog of war, it is that this Administration will not come 

clean unless the Congress continues to ask questions. We must 

keep pressing for answers. 

358 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AT THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY

The Los Angeles Times reported on April 20, 2005, that an atmosphere existed on the campus of the U.S. Air Force Academy 

that appeared to tolerate disrespectful treatment of persons who 

were not evangelicals. Air Force officials have acknowledged the 

problem, which initially surfaced in early May 2004 when a survey 

of present and former cadets revealed that some students felt that 

‘‘born-again’’ Christians received favorable treatment and that persons of faith that did not consider themselves born-again had been 

verbally abused. 

I am pleased that the Committee responded to these reports by 

adopting an amendment condemning coercive or abusive proselytizing at the Academy and reaffirming that the military must be a 

place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds. The text of the 

amendment follows: 

SEC. 9012. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORT CONCERNING INAPPROPRIATE PROSELYTIZING OF UNITED 

STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY CADETS. 

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome in 

the United States military, but coercive and abusive religious 

proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chainof-command at the Academy, as has been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards required of 

those who serve at the Academy; 

(2) the military must be a place of tolerance for all faiths and 

backgrounds; and 

(3) the Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate civilian authorities, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and 

other appropriate military authorities, must continue to undertake corrective action, as appropriate, to address and remedy 

the inappropriate proselytizing of cadets at the Air Force Academy. 

(b) REPORT ON PLAN.—

(1) PLAN.—The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a 

plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate 

free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate 

proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain-ofcommand at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work 

with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area 

of pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan. 

(2) REPORT—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report providing the plan developed pursuant to paragraph (1). The Secretary shall include in 

the report information on the circumstances surrounding the 

removal of Air Force Captain Melinda Morton from her position at the Air Force Academy on May 4, 2005. 

There are two things we do not want at any institution of higher 

learning, especially the military academies. First, we do not want 

disrespectful treatment of any student or cadet by their colleagues 

on the basis of religious differences. Second, we do not want this 

359 

type of conduct from anyone in positions of authority or in the 

chain of command. America is blessed by the Air Force Academy 

cadets who have volunteered to serve their nation and defend our 

freedom. In taking up arms, those cadets are also agreeing to defend one of America’s most cherished rights—religious freedom. 

DAVID OBEY. 

Æ