" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

REPORT

109–254 

Calendar No. 426 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2766]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

MAY 9, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGcongress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

27–434 WASHINGTON : 

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

REPORT

2006

109–254 

Calendar No. 426 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2766]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

MAY 9, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGE:Seals\congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

(109th Congress, 2nd Session) 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

CHARLES S. ABELL, Staff Director 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Democratic Staff Director 

(II) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Explanation of funding summary .................................................................... 9 

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 17 

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 17 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 17 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 17 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 19 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Joint Network Node (sec. 

111) ......................................................................................................... 37 

Comptroller General report on the contract for the Future Combat 

Systems program (sec. 112) .................................................................. 38 

Reports on Army Modularity Initiative (sec. 113) .................................. 38 

Budget Items—Army ........................................................................................ 40 

Future Cargo Aircraft ............................................................................... 40 

Surface-launched advanced medium range air-to-air missile ................ 40 

M1A1 Abrams tank and M2A2 Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades ...... 41 

M113 Armored personnel carrier family of vehicles ............................... 41 

M1028 120mm tank cartridge .................................................................. 42 

M915 105mm Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition artillery cartridge .......................................................................................... 42 

Rapid wall breaching kit ........................................................................... 42 

Ammunition peculiar equipment outloading module ............................. 42 

Automated Tactical Ammunition Classification System ........................ 42 

Corrosion protective covers ....................................................................... 43 

Insensitive munitions high-shear mixing system ................................... 43 

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant ........................................................ 43 

Modernization of forge equipment at Scranton Army Ammunition 

Plant ....................................................................................................... 43 

Radford Army Ammunition Plant upgrades ........................................... 43 

Defense advanced global positioning system receivers .......................... 44 

Nonsystem training devices ...................................................................... 44 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 44 

CVN–21 class aircraft carrier procurement (sec. 121) ........................... 67 

Construction of the first two vessels under the next-generation destroyer program (sec. 122) ..................................................................... 68 

Modification of limitation on total cost of procurement of CVN–77 

aircraft carrier (sec. 123) ....................................................................... 69 

Budget Items—Navy ........................................................................................ 70 

MH–60S and MH–60R helicopters .......................................................... 70 

T–45TS Goshawk ...................................................................................... 70 

CH–53 Integrated Mechanical Diagnostic System (IMDS) .................... 71 

Allegany Ballistics Laboratory facility restoration ................................. 71 

Mk 110 57mm naval gun .......................................................................... 71 

Mk 295/Mk 296 ammunition for Mk 110 57mm naval gun ................... 71 

M67 hand grenade ..................................................................................... 71 

M290 nuclear refueling facility ................................................................ 71 

Procurement authority for LPD–17 class ship designated LPD–25 ...... 72 

Advance procurement authority for LHA replacement (LHA(R)) ship 

designated LHA–7 ................................................................................. 73 

Outfitting and post-delivery ..................................................................... 73 

Completion of prior year shipbuilding ..................................................... 74 

Amphibious ship integrated bridge system ............................................. 74 

DDG–51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer modernization program .......... 74 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

IV 

Title I—Procurement—Continued 

Budget Items—Navy—Continued 

High performance metal fiber brushes for shipboard motors and generators ..................................................................................................... 75 

Ship support items under $5.0 million .................................................... 75 

Electronics equipment items under $5.0 million .................................... 75 

Sonobuoys .................................................................................................. 76 

Joint service and explosive ordnance disposal improvised explosive 

device countermeasures ........................................................................ 76 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy ............................................................... 76 

Command support equipment .................................................................. 76 

Combat Casualty Care Equipment Upgrade Program ........................... 77 

Lightweight 155-millimeter towed howitzer ........................................... 77 

Modification kits ........................................................................................ 78 

Laser integrated target engagement system ........................................... 78 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 78 

Procurement of Joint Primary Aircraft Training System aircraft after 

fiscal year 2006 (sec. 141) ..................................................................... 93 

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

142) ......................................................................................................... 93 

Limitation on retirement of KC–135E aircraft (sec. 143) ...................... 93 

Limitation on retirement of B–52H bomber aircraft (sec. 144) ............. 94 

Retirement of B–52H bomber aircraft (sec. 145) .................................... 94 

Prohibition on incremental funding and multiyear procurement of 

F–22A aircraft (sec. 146) ....................................................................... 94 

Budget Items—Air Force ................................................................................. 95 

Joint Strike Fighter .................................................................................. 95 

F–22A procurement ................................................................................... 96 

C–17A procurement .................................................................................. 97 

KC–135 tanker replacement ..................................................................... 98 

A/OA–10 modifications .............................................................................. 98 

C–5 aircraft avionics modernization program ......................................... 99 

Bomb insensitive munitions upgrade ...................................................... 99 

Propulsion replacement program ............................................................. 99 

Expanded intelligence support for reach-back operations ..................... 99 

Self-deploying infrared streamer ............................................................. 100 

Budget Items—Defense-wide ........................................................................... 107 

Army high performance computing research center .............................. 107 

Mini gun ..................................................................................................... 107 

Time delayed firing device/sympathetic detonators ............................... 107 

Persistent Predator operations and intelligence ..................................... 108 

Advanced lightweight grenade launcher ................................................. 108 

Special Operations Forces laser acquisition marker .............................. 108 

Special Operations Command craft modifications .................................. 108 

Joint threat warning system .................................................................... 109 

Automatic Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm .................................... 109 

Improved chemical agent monitor ............................................................ 109 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 110 

Cost control for certain helicopter acquisition programs ....................... 110 

Deployable/mobile command and control programs ............................... 110 

F–18 Hornet to Joint Strike Fighter transition ...................................... 111 

Fully funded bomber roadmap ................................................................. 112 

Littoral Combat Ship ................................................................................ 112 

Maritime Prepositioning Force, Future ................................................... 113 

Ship systems commonality ....................................................................... 115 

Submarine force structure ........................................................................ 115 

T–38 replacement aircraft ........................................................................ 116 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 119 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 119 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 121 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 121 

Independent estimate of costs of the Future Combat Systems (sec. 

211) ......................................................................................................... 121 

Funding of defense science and technology program (sec. 212) ............. 122 

Hypersonics development (sec. 213) ........................................................ 122 

Trident sea-launched ballistic missiles (sec. 214) ................................... 123 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 124 

Availability of research, development, test, and evaluation funds for 

fielding ballistic missile defense capabilities (sec. 231) ...................... 124 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

V 

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

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs—Continued 

Policy of the United States on priorities in the development, testing, 

and fielding of missile defense capabilities (sec. 232) ......................... 124 

One-year extension of Comptroller General assessments of ballistic 

missile defense programs (sec. 233) ..................................................... 127 

Submittal of plans for test and evaluation of the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense system (sec. 234) ...................... 127 

Annual reports on transition of ballistic missile defense programs 

to the military departments (sec. 235) ................................................. 127 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 128 

Extension of requirement for Global Research Watch Program (sec. 

251) ......................................................................................................... 128 

Expansion and extension of authority to award prizes for advanced 

technology achievements (sec. 252) ...................................................... 128 

Policies and practices on test and evaluation to address emerging 

acquisition approaches (sec. 253) ......................................................... 129 

Development of the propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter 

(sec. 254) ................................................................................................. 129 

Independent cost analyses for Joint Strike Fighter engine program 

(sec. 255) ................................................................................................. 130 

Sense of the Senate on technology sharing of Joint Strike Fighter 

technology (sec. 256) .............................................................................. 131 

Budget Items—Army ........................................................................................ 132 

Army basic research .................................................................................. 145 

PACE early career awards ....................................................................... 145 

Army materials technology ....................................................................... 146 

Advanced microelectronics manufacturing .............................................. 146 

Unmanned payload concepts .................................................................... 147 

Army missile technology ........................................................................... 147 

Hypervelocity ground testing ................................................................... 147 

Multifunctional robot platform ................................................................. 147 

Combat vehicle and automotive technology ............................................ 147 

Weapons and munitions technology ......................................................... 148 

Human factors engineering ...................................................................... 148 

Mapping and detection of unexploded ordnance ..................................... 148 

Warfighter technology ............................................................................... 149 

Army medical technology .......................................................................... 149 

Advanced aviation technology .................................................................. 149 

Unmanned tactical combat vehicles ........................................................ 149 

Nanotechnology manufacturing ............................................................... 150 

Combat vehicle research ........................................................................... 150 

Command and control team training ....................................................... 150 

Advanced simulated training ................................................................... 150 

Missile recycling capability ....................................................................... 151 

Advanced electronic integration ............................................................... 151 

Advanced fuel cell research ...................................................................... 151 

Advanced Hypersonic Weapon modeling and simulation ...................... 151 

Army missile and space modeling and simulation technology .............. 151 

Distributed operational control center ..................................................... 152 

HighSentinel airship ................................................................................. 152 

Low cost avionics ....................................................................................... 152 

Protected test link ..................................................................................... 153 

Standoff sensor for radionuclides and explosives ................................... 153 

Tactical operations center hardware and software integration ............. 153 

Thermal protection system technology risk reduction ........................... 153 

Translation devices ................................................................................... 154 

Advanced Hypersonic Weapon development ........................................... 154 

Architecture Analysis Program ................................................................ 155 

Environmental quality technology demonstration and validation at 

the Defense Ammunition Center .......................................................... 155 

Counter rocket, artillery, and mortar ...................................................... 155 

Unmanned aerial vehicle anti-icing technology ...................................... 156 

RAND Arroyo Center ................................................................................ 156 

Automated communications support ....................................................... 156 

Biometric identification device ................................................................. 156 

Portable iris enrollment and recognition device ..................................... 157 

Biometrics technology ............................................................................... 157 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

VI 

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

Budget Items—Army—Continued 

Army manufacturing technology .............................................................. 157 

Budget Items—Navy ........................................................................................ 157 

Navy university research .......................................................................... 170 

Thermal management systems ................................................................ 170 

Force protection applied research ............................................................ 170 

High power, lightweight battery research ............................................... 170 

Human factors and organizational design .............................................. 171 

Sea basing technologies ............................................................................ 171 

Information sharing technologies ............................................................. 171 

Power projection advanced technology .................................................... 171 

Force protection advanced technology ..................................................... 171 

Common picture advanced technology ..................................................... 172 

Warfighter sustainment technology ......................................................... 172 

APY–6 real-time precision targeting radar ............................................. 173 

Marine Corps advanced technology ......................................................... 173 

Visual integrated bridge system .............................................................. 173 

Electro-optic Passive ASW System .......................................................... 173 

Surface Navy Integrated Undersea Tactical Technology ....................... 174 

Shipboard system component development ............................................. 174 

Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms systems ................ 175 

Project Athena ........................................................................................... 175 

Directed energy and electric weapon systems ........................................ 176 

Towed array improvements ...................................................................... 176 

Submarine design ...................................................................................... 177 

Ship self-defense ........................................................................................ 178 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy development ......................................... 178 

Chiropractic treatment outcomes study .................................................. 178 

Navy medical research .............................................................................. 179 

F136 Interchangeable Engine .................................................................. 179 

Marine Corps communications systems .................................................. 179 

Polymer-based improvised explosive device detection tools ................... 180 

Expeditionary assault bridge .................................................................... 180 

Environmental intelligence for riverine operations ................................ 181 

Vessel integrity system ............................................................................. 181 

National Shipbuilding Research Program—Advanced Shipbuilding 

Enterprise ............................................................................................... 181 

Detection and recovery of unexploded ordnance, Browns Island, 

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina ............................................................ 182 

Budget Items—Air Force ................................................................................. 182 

Air Force basic research ........................................................................... 195 

Air Force materials research .................................................................... 195 

Applied aerospace propulsion ................................................................... 195 

Space technology ....................................................................................... 195 

MASINT visualization tool ....................................................................... 196 

Air Force materials technologies .............................................................. 196 

Aerospace propulsion and power technology ........................................... 196 

Radically Segmented Launch Vehicle ...................................................... 196 

Thin film amorphous solar arrays ........................................................... 197 

Massively parallel optical interconnects for battlespace information 

exchange ................................................................................................. 197 

Transformational Satellite Communications .......................................... 197 

Satellite command and control consolidation .......................................... 198 

Space Radar ............................................................................................... 198 

Increased funding for O2 diesel particulate emission reduction research ...................................................................................................... 200 

Space control test capabilities .................................................................. 200 

Joint space intelligent decision support .................................................. 200 

Global awareness presentation system ................................................... 201 

RAND Project Air Force ........................................................................... 201 

Ballistic missile range safety technology ................................................. 201 

Global command and control development center .................................. 201 

Single integrated space picture ................................................................ 202 

National Security Space Office ................................................................. 202 

Air Force industrial preparedness activities ........................................... 202 

Budget Items—Defense-wide ........................................................................... 203 

Force protection basic research ................................................................ 217 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

VII 

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

Budget Items—Defense-wide—Continued 

National Defense Education Program ..................................................... 217 

Detection of biological agents in water .................................................... 217 

Organic light emitting receptor-based nanosensors ............................... 217 

Superstructural particle evaluation ......................................................... 218 

Medical free electron laser ........................................................................ 218 

Alternative delivery of recombinant protein vaccines ............................ 218 

Chemical and biological smart materials ................................................ 218 

Escape mask .............................................................................................. 218 

Multipurpose biodefense immunoarray ................................................... 219 

Mustard gas antidote ................................................................................ 219 

Next-generation chemical biological protective suit ............................... 219 

Personal protection against infectious agents ......................................... 219 

Rapid identification of biological warfare agents .................................... 220 

Verification and validation of chemical agent persistence models ........ 220 

Tactical technology .................................................................................... 220 

Biochemical materials ............................................................................... 220 

Modeling and simulation .......................................................................... 221 

Wearable hyperspectral imaging system ................................................. 221 

Radiation detection technology ................................................................ 221 

Advanced aerospace systems .................................................................... 221 

Next Generation Gas Chromatographic Mass Spectrometer ................. 221 

Joint advanced concept technology demonstration ................................. 222 

Joint robotic autonomous systems ........................................................... 222 

Advanced mobile gas-to-liquid fueler ....................................................... 222 

Defense Logistics Agency research and technology demonstrations ..... 222 

Dendrimer enhanced water remediation research ................................. 223 

Computer modernization technologies ..................................................... 223 

Command, control, and communications systems .................................. 224 

Portable explosive detection ..................................................................... 224 

Joint modeling, simulation, and experimentation .................................. 224 

Advanced tactical airborne command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance system ............ 225 

Advanced tactical laser ............................................................................. 225 

Flashlight soldier-to-soldier combat identification system .................... 225 

Small and medium caliber recoil mitigation technologies ..................... 226 

Special Operations portable power source program ............................... 226 

Anthrax and plague oral vaccine research and development ................ 226 

Airborne Infrared System ......................................................................... 226 

Corrosion prevention research ................................................................. 227 

Playas command and control network ..................................................... 227 

Militarily critical technologies support .................................................... 228 

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

DARPA management headquarters ......................................................... 228 

Armed Forces medical and food research ................................................ 228 

High performance computational systems .............................................. 229 

Commercial airborne interferometric synthetic aperture radar imagery ....................................................................................................... 229 

Credibility assessment research ............................................................... 229 

Combat sent wideband sensor upgrade ................................................... 229 

Castings for improved readiness .............................................................. 230 

High performance defense manufacturing technology research and 

development ........................................................................................... 230 

Helmet mount track system ..................................................................... 230 

Special Operations combat assault rifle .................................................. 231 

Wavelet packet modulation ...................................................................... 231 

Multi-spectral laboratory and analytical services center program ........ 231 

Special Operations wireless management and control project .............. 232 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 232 

Airborne Laser ........................................................................................... 232 

Air Force science, technology, test and evaluation ................................. 232 

Future Combat Systems and current force interoperability .................. 233 

Information assurance progress report ................................................... 234 

Joint Tactical Radio System ..................................................................... 235 

Survey of science and engineering workforce shaping programs .......... 235 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 237 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 237 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

VIII 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations—Continued 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 237 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 272 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Army Logistics Modernization Program (sec. 311) ......................................................................... 272 

Availability of funds for exhibits for the national museums of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 312) ........................................................................ 272 

Limitation on financial management improvement and audit initiatives within the Department of Defense (sec. 313) ............................. 273 

Limitation on availability of operation and maintenance funds for 

the management headquarters of the Defense Information Systems 

Agency (sec. 314) .................................................................................... 273 

Subtitle C—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 274 

Response plan for remediation of military munitions (sec. 331) ........... 274 

Extension of authority to grant exemptions to certain requirements 

(sec. 332) ................................................................................................. 274 

Research on effects of ocean disposal of munitions (sec. 333) ............... 275 

Clarification of multi-year authority to use base closure funds to 

fund cooperative agreements under Environmental Restoration 

Program (sec. 334) ................................................................................. 276 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 

in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses 

Lake, Washington (sec. 335) ................................................................. 276 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 277 

Comptroller General report on readiness of the ground forces of the 

Army and the Marine Corps (sec. 351) ................................................ 277 

Subtitle E—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 278 

Minimum capital investment levels for public depots serviced by 

working capital funds (sec. 361) ........................................................... 278 

Permanent exclusion of certain contract expenditures from percentage limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance (sec. 

362) ......................................................................................................... 279 

Additional exception to prohibition on contractor performance of firefighting functions (sec. 363) .................................................................. 279 

Temporary security guard services for certain work caused by realignment of military installations under the base closure laws 

(sec. 364) ................................................................................................. 279 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 279 

Recycling of military munitions (sec. 371) .............................................. 279 

Incentives clauses in chemical demilitarization contracts (sec. 372) .... 280 

Extension of Department of Defense telecommunications benefit program (sec. 373) ....................................................................................... 281 

Extension of availability of funds for commemoration of success of 

the Armed Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (sec. 374) ........................................................................ 281 

Budget Items—Other Defense Programs ....................................................... 282 

Chronic pain management research ........................................................ 282 

Defense Health Program unobligated balances and administrative 

efficiencies .............................................................................................. 282 

Medical education and training on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder .... 283 

Pregnancy recovery education program for military women and military spouses ............................................................................................ 283 

Primary care enhancement for early detection and treatment of PostTraumatic Stress Disorder .................................................................... 283 

Robotic surgery for prostate cancer ......................................................... 284 

Budget Items—Army ........................................................................................ 284 

Battlefield mobility enhancers ................................................................. 284 

UH–60 add on armor ................................................................................ 284 

Rapid Data Management System ............................................................ 284 

Cognitive Air Defense Simulators ............................................................ 284 

Army corrosion prevention and control ................................................... 285 

Blood bag transport modernization project ............................................. 285 

Quadruple specialty containers ................................................................ 285 

Army Strategic Management System ...................................................... 285 

Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command Integrated 

Digital Environment pilot program ...................................................... 285 

Military to civilian conversions ................................................................ 286 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

IX 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued 

Budget Items—Army—Continued 

Working capital funds ............................................................................... 287 

Unobligated balances ................................................................................ 288 

Information assurance vulnerability alert cell ........................................ 288 

Connect and Join ....................................................................................... 288 

Budget Items—Navy ........................................................................................ 289 

Long arm high-intensity arc metal halide handheld searchlight .......... 289 

Man Overboard Identification safety system .......................................... 289 

Mark-45 gun system overhauls ................................................................ 289 

Navy Marine Corps Intranet program management .............................. 289 

Civilian personnel pay in excess of requirements .................................. 290 

Budget Items—Marine Corps .......................................................................... 290 

Acclimate high performance undergarments .......................................... 290 

Cold Weather Layering System ............................................................... 290 

Command Post-Large ................................................................................ 291 

Individual Water Purifier System ............................................................ 291 

Portable tent lighting ................................................................................ 291 

Ultra-light Camouflage Net System ........................................................ 291 

Marine Corps corrosion prevention and control ..................................... 291 

Budget Items—Air Force ................................................................................. 292 

Joint Modular Ground Targets and Urban Close Air Support site ....... 292 

F–16 supply chain management DMSMS program ................................ 292 

Air Force space surveillance system ........................................................ 292 

Consequence management ........................................................................ 292 

Interoperable communications ................................................................. 293 

National capital region operational enhancements ................................ 293 

National Security Space Institute ............................................................ 293 

Tuition assistance ...................................................................................... 294 

Budget Items—Defense-wide ........................................................................... 294 

Gamma Radiation Detection System ....................................................... 294 

Information assurance scholarship program ........................................... 294 

Meals Ready to Eat war reserve stockpile .............................................. 294 

Increased funding for conservation buffer zones .................................... 295 

Citizen-Soldier Support Program ............................................................. 295 

Institute for national security information analysis .............................. 295 

Budget Items—Army Reserve ......................................................................... 296 

Army Reserve budget justification materials .......................................... 296 

Military technicians pay in excess of requirements ............................... 296 

Budget Items—Air Force Reserve ................................................................... 296 

Air Force Reserve training, test and ferry flying hours ......................... 296 

Budget Items—Army National Guard ............................................................ 297 

Battlefield mobility enhancers ................................................................. 297 

Operator driving simulator ....................................................................... 297 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams sustainment 

training and evaluation program ......................................................... 297 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams upgrades .............. 298 

Budget Items—Air National Guard ................................................................ 298 

Warrior skills and convoy trainer ............................................................ 298 

Budget Items—Transfer Accounts .................................................................. 298 

Funding for Formerly Used Defense Sites .............................................. 298 

Increased funding for clean up of unexploded ordnance at BRAC 

sites ......................................................................................................... 299 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 299 

40 mm day/night training cartridge ........................................................ 299 

Comptroller General study of the Defense Transportation Coordination Initiative ......................................................................................... 300 

Defense Information System Network Access Transport Services ........ 300 

Defense Readiness Reporting System ...................................................... 301 

Defense Travel System ............................................................................. 301 

Department of Defense foreign language training ................................. 302 

Marine Aviation Training Transformation savings ................................ 303 

Performance of certain work by federal government employees ........... 303 

Radio frequency identification report ...................................................... 303 

Training Range Vegetation Encroachment ............................................. 304 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 305 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 305 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 305 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

X 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations—Continued 

Subtitle A—Active Forces—Continued 

Repeal of requirement for permanent end strength levels to support 

two major regional contingencies (sec. 402) ........................................ 306 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 307 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 307 

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

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 307 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 308 

Fiscal year 2007 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 308 

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 308 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations ............................................... 309 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 309 

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 422) ............................................. 309 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 309 

Unobligated balances ................................................................................ 309 

Reserves cost avoidance ............................................................................ 309 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 311 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 311 

Part I—Officer Personnel Policy Generally ............................................. 311 

Military status of officers serving in certain intelligence community positions (sec. 501) .................................................................. 311 

Extension of temporary reduction of time-in-grade requirement 

for eligibility for promotion for certain active-duty list officers 

in grades of first lieutenant and lieutenant (junior grade) (sec. 

502) .................................................................................................. 311 

Extension of age limits for active-duty general and flag officers 

(sec. 503) .......................................................................................... 311 

Modification of authorities on senior members of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps (sec. 504) ...................................................... 312 

Requirement for significant joint experience for officers appointed 

as Surgeon General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force (sec. 

505) .................................................................................................. 312 

Grade and exclusion from active-duty general and flag officer 

distribution and strength limitations of officer serving as Attending Physician to the Congress (sec. 506) ............................... 313 

Discretionary separation and retirement of chief warrant officers, 

W–4, twice failing selection for promotion (sec. 507) ................... 313 

Increased mandatory retirement ages for Reserve officers (sec. 

508) .................................................................................................. 313 

Part II—Officer Promotion Policy ............................................................ 314 

Promotions (sec. 515) ......................................................................... 314 

Consideration of adverse information by promotion selection 

boards in recommendations on officers to be promoted (sec. 

516) .................................................................................................. 314 

Expanded authority for removal from reports of selection boards 

of officers recommended for promotion to grades below general 

and flag grades (sec. 517) ............................................................... 314 

Clarification of nondisclosure requirements applicable to promotion selection board proceedings (sec. 518) .............................. 315 

Special selection board authorities (sec. 519) .................................. 315 

Removal from promotion lists of officers returned to the President by the Senate (sec. 520) ......................................................... 315 

Part III—Joint Officer Management Requirements ............................... 316 

Modification and enhancement of general authorities on management of joint qualified officers (sec. 526) ...................................... 316 

Modification of promotion policy objectives for joint officers (sec. 

527) .................................................................................................. 317 

Applicability of joint duty assignment requirements limited to 

graduates of National Defense University schools (sec. 528) ...... 317 

Modification of definitions relating to jointness (sec. 529) ............. 317 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Matters ..................................... 318 

Enhanced flexibility in the management of Reserve component personnel (sec. 531) ..................................................................................... 318 

Expansion of activities authorized for Reserves under Weapons of 

Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (sec. 532) .............................. 319 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XI 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Matters—Continued 

Modification of authorities relating to the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 533) ................................................... 319 

Pilot program on reintegration of members of the National Guard 

into civilian life after deployment (sec. 534) ........................................ 319 

Subtitle C—Military Justice and Related Matters ........................................ 320 

Applicability of Uniform Code of Military Justice to members of 

the Armed Forces ordered to active duty overseas in inactive duty 

for training status (sec. 551) ................................................................. 320 

Subtitle D—Education and Training Matters ................................................ 320 

Detail of commissioned officers as students at medical schools (sec. 

561) ......................................................................................................... 320 

Expansion of eligibility to provide Junior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps instruction (sec. 562) .................................................................. 321 

Increase in maximum amount of repayment under education loan 

repayment for officers in specified health professions (sec. 563) ....... 321 

Increase in benefits under Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program (sec. 564) ....................................................... 321 

Report on Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance 

Program (sec. 565) ................................................................................. 321 

Expansion of instruction available at the Naval Postgraduate School 

for enlisted members of the Armed Forces (sec. 566) ......................... 322 

Modification of actions to address sexual harassment and sexual 

violence at the service academies (sec. 567) ........................................ 322 

Department of Defense policy on service academy and ROTC graduates seeking to participate in professional sports before completion of their active-duty service obligations (sec. 568) ........................ 322 

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education Matters .................................... 323 

Funding for assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of 

Defense civilian employees (sec. 571) ................................................... 323 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572) ..................... 323 

Plan to assist local educational agencies experiencing growth in enrollment due to force structure changes, relocation of military 

units, or BRAC (sec. 573) ...................................................................... 324 

Pilot program on parent education to promote early childhood education for dependent children affected by military deployment or 

relocation of military units (sec. 574) ................................................... 324 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 325 

Administration of oaths (sec. 581) ........................................................... 325 

Military ID cards for retiree dependents who are permanently disabled (sec. 582) ....................................................................................... 325 

Military voting matters (sec. 583) ............................................................ 325 

Presentation of Medal of Honor Flag to primary next of kin of Medal 

of Honor recipients (sec. 584) ................................................................ 326 

Modification of effective period of authority to present recognition 

items for recruitment and retention purposes (sec. 585) .................... 326 

Military severely injured center (sec. 586) .............................................. 326 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 327 

Funding for the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command ....................... 327 

Military medical recruiting ....................................................................... 328 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 331 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 331 

Fiscal year 2007 increase in military basic pay and reform of basic 

pay rates (sec. 601) ................................................................................ 331 

Increase in maximum rate of basic pay for general and flag officer 

grades (sec. 602) ..................................................................................... 331 

Clarification of effective date of prohibition on compensation for correspondence courses (sec. 603) .............................................................. 331 

One-year extension of prohibition against requiring certain injured 

members to pay for meals provided by military treatment facilities 

(sec. 604) ................................................................................................. 332 

Additional housing allowance for Reserves on active duty in support 

of a contingency operation (sec. 605) .................................................... 332 

Extension of temporary continuation of housing allowance for dependents of members dying on active duty to spouses who are 

members of the uniformed services (sec. 606) ..................................... 332 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XII 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits—Continued 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 333 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for Reserve 

Forces (sec. 611) ..................................................................................... 333 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for certain 

health care professionals (sec. 612) ...................................................... 333 

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers 

(sec. 613) ................................................................................................. 333 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and 

special pays (sec. 614) ........................................................................... 333 

Increase in special pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals 

in critically short wartime specialties (sec. 615) ................................. 333 

Expansion and enhancement of accession bonus authorities for certain officers in health care specialties (sec. 616) ................................. 334 

Increase in nuclear career accession bonus for nuclear-qualified officers (sec. 617) ......................................................................................... 334 

Modification of certain authorities applicable to the targeted shaping 

of the Armed Forces (sec. 618) .............................................................. 334 

Extension of pilot program on contributions to Thrift Savings Plan 

for initial enlistees in the Army (sec. 619) .......................................... 335 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 335 

Expansion of payment of replacement value of personal property 

damage during transport at Government expense (sec. 631) ............. 335 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits ............................................ 336 

Modification of Department of Defense contributions to Military Retirement Fund and Government contributions to Medicare-Eligible 

Retiree Health Care Fund (sec. 641) .................................................... 336 

Repeal of requirement of reduction of SBP survivor annuities by 

dependency and indemnity compensation (sec. 642) .......................... 336 

Effective date of paid-up coverage under Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 

643) ......................................................................................................... 337 

Expansion of conditions for direct payment of divisible retired pay 

(sec. 644) ................................................................................................. 337 

Authority for cost of living adjustments of retired pay treated as 

divisible property (sec. 645) .................................................................. 337 

Notice and copy to members of court orders on payment of retired 

pay (sec. 646) .......................................................................................... 338 

Retention of assistive technology and devices by certain members 

of the Armed Forces after separation from service (sec. 647) ............ 338 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 338 

Audit of pay accounts of members of the Army evacuated from a 

combat zone for inpatient care (sec. 661) ............................................. 338 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 339 

Department of Defense child care services ............................................. 339 

Title VII—Health Care ............................................................................................ 341 

Subtitle A—Benefits Matters .......................................................................... 341 

Improved procedures for cancer screening for women (sec. 701) .......... 341 

National mail-order pharmacy program (sec. 702) ................................. 341 

Availability under TRICARE of anesthesia for children in connection 

with dental procedures for which dental anesthesia is inappropriate (sec. 703) ...................................................................................... 341 

TRICARE coverage for forensic examinations following sexual assaults and domestic violence (sec. 704) ................................................ 342 

Prohibition on increase in fiscal year 2007 in enrollment fees for 

coverage under TRICARE Prime (sec. 705) ......................................... 342 

Limitation on fiscal year 2007 increase in premiums for coverage 

under TRICARE of members of Reserve components who commit 

to continued service in Selected Reserve after release from active 

duty (sec. 706) ........................................................................................ 342 

Subtitle B—Planning, Programming, and Management ............................... 342 

Treatment of TRICARE Retail Pharmacy Network under Federal 

procurement of pharmaceuticals (sec. 721) .......................................... 342 

Relationship between the TRICARE program and employer-sponsored group health care plans (sec. 722) .............................................. 343 

Enrollment in the TRICARE program (sec. 723) .................................... 343 

Incentive payments for the provision of services under the TRICARE 

program in medically underserved areas (sec. 724) ............................ 343 

Standardization of claims processing under TRICARE program and 

Medicare program (sec. 725) ................................................................. 344 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XIII 

Title VII—Health Care —Continued 

Subtitle B—Planning, Programming, and Management —Continued 

Requirements for support of military treatment facilities by civilian 

contractors under TRICARE (sec. 726) ................................................ 344 

Uniform standards for access to health care services for wounded 

or injured servicemembers (sec. 727) ................................................... 345 

Disease and chronic care management (sec. 728) ................................... 345 

Post-deployment health assessments for members of the Armed 

Forces returning from deployment in support of a contingency operation (sec. 729) ....................................................................................... 346 

Subtitle C—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 346 

Pilot projects on early diagnosis and treatment of Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder and other mental health conditions (sec. 741) ......... 346 

Annual reports on certain medical malpractice cases (sec. 742) ........... 347 

Comptroller General study on the Department of Defense pharmacy 

benefits program (sec. 743) ................................................................... 348 

Comptroller General audits of Department of Defense health care 

costs and cost-saving measures (sec. 744) ........................................... 348 

Review of Department of Defense medical quality improvement program (sec. 745) ....................................................................................... 348 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 349 

Extension of limitation on conversion of military medical and dental 

positions to civilian medical and dental positions (sec. 761) .............. 349 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 349 

Sustaining the military health care benefit ............................................ 349 

Basrah Children’s Hospital, Iraq ............................................................. 350 

Mental Health Self-Assessment Program ............................................... 350 

Services for autism .................................................................................... 351 

TRICARE customer service ...................................................................... 351 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 353 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 353 

Additional certification requirements for major defense acquisition 

programs (sec. 801) ................................................................................ 353 

Extension and enhancement of Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 802) ....................................................................................... 353 

Baseline description and unit cost reports for major defense acquisition systems (sec. 803) ........................................................................... 354 

Major automated information system programs (sec. 804) .................... 354 

Adjustment of original baseline estimates for major defense acquisition program experiencing cost growth resulting from damage 

caused by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma (sec. 805) ................ 355 

Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of 

Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 806) ............................ 356 

Regulations on use of fixed price contracts in development programs 

(sec. 807) ................................................................................................. 356 

Availability of funds for performance-based logistics contracts for 

weapons systems logistics support (sec. 808) ...................................... 358 

Quality control in procurement of ship critical safety items and related services (sec. 809) ......................................................................... 359 

Three-year extension of requirement for reports on commercial price 

trend analyses of the Department of Defense (sec. 810) .................... 359 

Pilot program on time-certain development in acquisition of major 

weapon systems (sec. 811) ..................................................................... 359 

Subtitle B—Defense Industrial Base Matters ................................................ 360 

Removal of hand and measuring tools from certain requirements 

(sec. 821) ................................................................................................. 360 

Substitution of speciality metals with titanium and nickel under 

certain requirements (sec. 822) ............................................................ 360 

Waiver authority for domestic source or content requirements (sec. 

823) ......................................................................................................... 360 

Repeal of requirement for identification of essential military items 

and military system essential item breakout list (sec. 824) ............... 361 

Consistency with United States obligations under trade agreements 

(sec. 825) ................................................................................................. 361 

Subtitle C—Defense Contractor Matters ........................................................ 361 

Requirements for defense contractors relating to certain former Department of Defense officials (sec. 841) ............................................... 361 

Lead systems integrators (sec. 842) ......................................................... 361 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XIV 

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

—Continued 

Subtitle C—Defense Contractor Matters —Continued 

Linking of award and incentive fees to acquisition outcomes (sec. 

843) ......................................................................................................... 362 

Prohibition on excessive pass-through charges (sec. 844) ...................... 363 

Report on Department of Defense contracting with contractors or 

subcontractors employing members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 

845) ......................................................................................................... 364 

Subtitle D—Program Manager Matters ......................................................... 364 

Program Manager Matters (secs. 861–865) ............................................. 364 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 366 

Clarification of authority to carry out certain prototype projects (sec. 

871) ......................................................................................................... 366 

One-year extension of special temporary contract closeout authority 

(sec. 872) ................................................................................................. 366 

One-year extension of inapplicability of certain laws to contracting 

with employers of persons with disabilities (sec. 873) ........................ 366 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 367 

Application and interpretation of the Berry amendment ...................... 367 

Brand-name specifications ........................................................................ 368 

Clarification of rapid acquisition authority to respond to combat 

emergencies ............................................................................................ 369 

Coal gasification report ............................................................................. 369 

Contracting with Federal Prison Industries ........................................... 370 

Past performance evaluations .................................................................. 370 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 373 

Subtitle A—Duties and Functions of Department of Defense Officers and 

Organizations ................................................................................................ 373 

United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 901) ................................ 373 

Senior acquisition executive for Special Operations within staff of 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low 

Intensity Conflicts (sec. 902) ................................................................. 373 

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 373 

Establishment of operationally responsive space capabilities (sec. 

911) ......................................................................................................... 373 

Extension of authority for pilot program on provision of space surveillance network services to non-United States Government entities 

(sec. 912) ................................................................................................. 374 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 374 

Department of Defense policy on unmanned systems (sec. 921) ........... 374 

Executive Schedule level IV for Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (sec. 922) .................................. 375 

Three-year extension of joint incentives program on sharing of health 

care resources by the Department of Defense and Department of 

Veterans Affairs (sec. 923) .................................................................... 376 

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 377 

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

Transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................................. 377 

Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2006 

(sec. 1002) ............................................................................................... 377 

Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings relating to lower 

inflation (sec. 1003) ................................................................................ 377 

Increase in fiscal year 2006 general transfer authority (sec. 1004) ...... 378 

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal 

year 2007 (sec. 1005) ............................................................................. 378 

Modification of date of submittal of OMB/CBO report on scoring 

of outlays (sec. 1006) ............................................................................. 378 

Prohibition on parking of funds (sec. 1007) ............................................ 378 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels ............................................................................... 379 

Repeal requirement for 12 operational aircraft carriers within the 

Navy (sec. 1011) ..................................................................................... 379 

Approval of transfer of naval vessels to foreign nations by vessel 

class (sec. 1012) ...................................................................................... 380 

Subtitle C—Counterdrug Matters ................................................................... 381 

Extension of availability of funds for unified counterdrug and 

counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1021) ........................... 381 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XV 

Title X—General Provisions —Continued 

Subtitle C—Counterdrug Matters—Continued 

Extension of authority of Department of Defense to provide additional support for counterdrug activities of other governmental 

agencies (sec. 1022) ................................................................................ 381 

Extension and expansion of certain authorities to provide additional 

support for counterdrug activities (sec. 1023) ..................................... 381 

Subtitle D—Defense Intelligence and Related Matters ................................. 382 

Two-year extension of authority to engage in commercial activities 

as security for intelligence collection activities (sec. 1031) ................ 382 

Annual report on intelligence oversight activities of the Department 

of Defense (sec. 1032) ............................................................................ 382 

Administration of pilot project on Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps 

(sec. 1033) ............................................................................................... 382 

Improvement of authorities on the National Security Education Program (sec. 1034) ..................................................................................... 383 

Subtitle E—Defense Against Terrorism and Related Security Matters ...... 383 

Enhancement of authority to pay monetary rewards for assistance 

in combating terrorism (sec. 1041) ....................................................... 383 

Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies (sec. 1042) ....... 383 

Treatment under Freedom of Information Act of certain confidential 

information shared with State and local personnel (sec. 1043) ......... 385 

Subtitle F—Miscellaneous Authorities on Availability and Use of Funds .. 385 

Acceptance and retention of reimbursement from non-Federal sources 

to defray Department of Defense costs of conferences (sec. 1051) ..... 385 

Minimum annual purchase amounts for airlift from carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1052) ................................ 386 

Increased flexibility in the use of funds for Joint Staff exercises 

(sec. 1053) ............................................................................................... 386 

Subtitle G—Report Matters ............................................................................. 387 

Report on clarification of prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment (sec. 1061) ............................................. 387 

Reports on members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees 

of the Department of Defense serving in the Legislative Branch 

(sec. 1062) ............................................................................................... 387 

Additional element in annual report on chemical and biological warfare defense (sec. 1063) ......................................................................... 388 

Report on Local Boards of Trustees of the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home (sec. 1064) .................................................................................... 388 

Repeal of certain report requirements (sec. 1065) .................................. 388 

Subtitle H—Technical and Conforming Amendments ................................... 389 

Uniform definition of national security system for certain Department of Defense purposes (sec. 1071) .................................................. 389 

Conforming amendment relating to redesignation of Defense Communications Agency as Defense Information Systems Agency (sec. 

1072) ....................................................................................................... 389 

Technical amendment (sec. 1073) ............................................................ 389 

Subtitle I—Other Matters ................................................................................ 389 

National Foreign Language Coordination Council (sec. 1081) .............. 389 

Support of successor organizations of the disestablished Interagency 

Global Positioning System Executive Board (sec. 1082) ..................... 390 

Sense of Congress on the Quadrennial Defense Review (sec. 1083) ..... 390 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 391 

Developing a new staff structure for combatant command headquarters .................................................................................................. 391 

Distributed decision support systems ...................................................... 391 

Report on Special Operations Command UAV intelligence collection 

requirements .......................................................................................... 392 

Title XI—Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Policy ................................ 393 

Accrual of annual leave for members of the uniformed services on 

terminal leave performing dual employment (sec. 1101) ................... 393 

Strategy for improving the senior management, functional, and technical workforce of the Department of Defense (sec. 1102) ................. 393 

Authority to equalize allowances, benefits, and gratuities of personnel 

on official duty in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1103) ........................... 394 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 395 

Highly qualified experts ............................................................................ 395 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Other Nations ...................................................... 397 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XVI 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Other Nations—Continued 

Subtitle A—General Matters ........................................................................... 397 

Expansion of humanitarian and civic assistance to include communications and information capacity (sec. 1201) ................................... 397 

Modification of authorities relating to the Regional Defense 

Counterterrorism Fellowship Program (sec. 1202) ............................. 397 

Logistic support of allied forces for combined operations (sec. 1203) ... 397 

Exclusion of petroleum, oil, and lubricants from limitations on 

amount of liabilities the United States may accrue under acquisition and cross-servicing agreements (sec. 1204) ................................. 398 

Temporary authority to use acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to loan significant military equipment to foreign forces in 

Iraq and Afghanistan for personnel protection and survivability 

(sec. 1205) ............................................................................................... 398 

Modification of authorities relating to the building of the capacity 

of foreign military forces (sec. 1206) .................................................... 399 

Participation of the Department of Defense in multinational military 

centers of excellence (sec. 1207) ........................................................... 401 

Distribution of education and training materials and information 

technology to enhance interoperability (sec. 1208) ............................. 401 

Subtitle B—Report Matters ............................................................................. 402 

Report on increased role and participation of multinational partners 

in the United Nations Command in the Republic of Korea (sec. 

1221) ....................................................................................................... 402 

Report on interagency operating procedures for stabilization and reconstruction operations (sec. 1222) ...................................................... 403 

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

Union ..................................................................................................................... 405 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds 

(sec. 1301) ............................................................................................... 405 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 405 

Extension of temporary authority to waive limitation on funding 

for chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia (sec. 1303) ........ 405 

Title XIV—Authorization for Increased Costs Due to Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom ...................................................................... 407 

Overview .................................................................................................... 407 

Summary table of authorization .............................................................. 407 

Purpose (sec. 1401) .................................................................................... 413 

Army procurement (sec. 1402) .................................................................. 413 

Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1403) .................................................... 413 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1404) ........................................................... 413 

Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1405) .................................................. 413 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406) ........................................................ 413 

Military personnel (sec. 1407) .................................................................. 413 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1408) ................. 413 

Classified programs (sec. 1409) ................................................................ 413 

Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1410) ................................................................ 413 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1411) ............................... 414 

Transfer authority (sec. 1412) .................................................................. 414 

Availability of funds (sec. 1413) ............................................................... 414 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 414 

UH–60M Black Hawk helicopters ............................................................ 414 

CH–47F cargo helicopters ......................................................................... 414 

Patriot missile defense system ................................................................. 414 

M1A1 Abrams integrated management and tank urbanization upgrade kits ................................................................................................ 415 

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles ........................................ 415 

Heavy expanded mobile tactical truck extended service program ........ 416 

Land mobile radios .................................................................................... 416 

Profiler ....................................................................................................... 416 

Assault Amphibious Vehicle/7A1 product improvement program ......... 416 

High mobility artillery rocket system re-supply system armor ............. 417 

Gunner protection kits .............................................................................. 417 

Family of explosive ordnance demolition equipment ............................. 417 

Up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles .................... 418 

Abrams M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management program .................... 418 

Navy flying hour program ........................................................................ 418 

Aviation depot maintenance ..................................................................... 418 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XVII 

Title XIV—Authorization for Increased Costs Due to Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Ship operations .......................................................................................... 419 

Ship depot maintenance ........................................................................... 419 

Marine Corps depot maintenance funding .............................................. 419 

Joint improvised explosive device defeat defense fund .......................... 419 

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 421 

Explanation of funding tables .................................................................. 421 

Costs to implement the decisions of the 2005 Defense Base Closure 

and Realignment round ......................................................................... 443 

2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment accounts authorized 

for appropriations in 2006 ..................................................................... 444 

2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment accounts ......................... 448 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 455 

Title XXI—Army ...................................................................................................... 457 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 457 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 457 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 457 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) .................. 457 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ................................. 457 

Items of Special Interest ........................................................................... 457 

Planning and design, Army ...................................................................... 457 

Management of military programs in the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers ........................................................................................... 458 

Title XXII—Navy ..................................................................................................... 461 

Summary .................................................................................................... 461 

Land Acquisition, Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina .......................................................................................................... 461 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 462 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 463 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 463 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 463 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2006 projects 

(sec. 2205) ............................................................................................... 463 

Title XXIII—Air Force ............................................................................................. 465 

Summary .................................................................................................... 465 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 465 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 465 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 465 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 466 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2006 project 

(sec. 2305) ............................................................................................... 466 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 466 

Change of project title at Cape Canaveral, Florida ................................ 466 

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies ................................................................................ 467 

Summary .................................................................................................... 467 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 468 

Family housing (sec. 2402) ....................................................................... 468 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403) ................................................. 468 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2404) ............. 468 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2006 projects 

(sec. 2405) ............................................................................................... 468 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 469 

Summary .................................................................................................... 469 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 469 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 469 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 471 

Summary .................................................................................................... 471 

Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 471 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 471 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities—Continued 

Item of Special Interest—Continued 

Planning and design, Air National Guard .............................................. 471 

Title XXVII—Expiration and Extension of Authorizations .................................. 473 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2701) ................................................................................... 473 

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

2702) ....................................................................................................... 473 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2003 projects (sec. 

2703) ....................................................................................................... 473 

Effective date (sec. 2704) .......................................................................... 473 

Title XXVIII—General Provisions .......................................................................... 475 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 475 

Three-year extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation 

and maintenance funds for construction projects outside the United 

States (sec. 2801) ................................................................................... 475 

Authority to carry out military construction projects in connection 

with industrial facility investment program (sec. 2802) .................... 475 

Modification of notification requirements related to cost variation 

authority (sec. 2803) .............................................................................. 476 

Consideration of local comparability of floor areas in construction, 

acquisition, and improvement of military unaccompanied housing 

(sec. 2804) ............................................................................................... 476 

Increase in thresholds for unspecified minor military construction 

projects (sec. 2805) ................................................................................. 477 

Inclusion of military transportation and support systems in energy 

savings programs (sec. 2806) ................................................................ 477 

Repeal of authority to convey property at closed or realigned military 

installations to support military construction (sec. 2807) .................. 477 

Repeal of requirement to determine availability of suitable alternate 

housing for acquisition in lieu of construction of new family housing (sec. 2808) ........................................................................................ 478 

Updating foreign currency fluctuation adjustment for certain military 

family housing leases in Korea (sec. 2809) .......................................... 478 

Pilot projects for acquisition or construction of military unaccompanied housing (sec. 2810) .................................................................... 479 

Certification required for certain military construction projects (sec. 

2811) ....................................................................................................... 479 

Modification of land acquisition authority, Perquimans County, North 

Carolina (sec. 2812) ............................................................................... 480 

Naming of research laboratory at Air Force Rome Research Site, 

Rome, New York, in honor of Sherwood L. Boehlert, a Member 

of the House of Representatives (sec. 2813) ........................................ 480 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 480 

Consolidation of easement provisions (sec. 2821) ................................... 480 

Authority to grant restrictive easements for conservation and environmental restoration purposes (sec. 2822) ......................................... 480 

Consolidation of provisions relating to transfers of real property within the Department of Defense and to other Federal agencies (sec. 

2823) ....................................................................................................... 481 

Authority to use excess property as exchange under agreements to 

limit encroachments on military training, testing, and operations 

(sec. 2824) ............................................................................................... 481 

Modification of utility system authority and related reporting requirements (sec. 2825) ........................................................................... 481 

Increase in authorized maximum lease term for certain structures 

and real property relating to structures in foreign countries (sec. 

2826) ....................................................................................................... 482 

Modification of land transfer authority, Potomac Annex, District of 

Columbia (sec. 2827) .............................................................................. 482 

Subtitle C—Base Closure and Realignment ................................................... 482 

Defense Economic Adjustment Program: research and technical assistance (sec. 2831) ................................................................................ 482 

Extension of eligibility for community planning assistance related 

to certain military facilities not under Department of Defense jurisdiction (sec. 2832) .................................................................................. 483 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

XIX 

Title XXVIII—General Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle C—Base Closure and Realignment—Continued 

Modification of deposit requirement in connection with lease proceeds 

received at military installations approved for closure or realignment after January 1, 2005 (sec. 2833) ............................................... 483 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 483 

Land conveyance, Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia (sec. 

2841) ....................................................................................................... 483 

Modifications to land conveyance authority, Engineering Proving 

Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia (sec. 2842) ........................................... 484 

Land conveyance, Omaha, Nebraska (sec. 2843) .................................... 484 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 484 

Electronic access to data related to 2005 Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Round ............................................................................... 484 

Facilities for Headquarters, United States Southern Command .......... 485 

National Guard Training Site, Camp Atterbury, Indiana ..................... 486 

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and 

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 489 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 489 

Overview .................................................................................................... 489 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs ........................................................ 512 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 512 

Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102) ........................................... 515 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 516 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) ............................................. 517 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 518 

Notice and wait requirement applicable to certain third party financing arrangements (sec. 3111) ................................................................ 518 

Utilization of international contributions to the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (sec. 3112) ...................................................................... 518 

Utilization of international contributions to the Second Line of Defense Core Program (sec. 3113) ............................................................ 519 

Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program 

(sec. 3114) ............................................................................................... 519 

Two-year extension of authority for appointment of certain scientific, 

engineering, and technical personnel (sec. 3115) ................................ 519 

Extension of deadline for transfer of lands to Los Alamos County, 

New Mexico, and of lands in trust for the Pueblo of San Ildefonso 

(sec. 3116) ............................................................................................... 520 

Limitation on availability of funds for Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (sec. 3117) .................................................................... 520 

Limitation on availability of funds for implementation of the Russian 

Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program (sec. 3118) ............... 522 

Limitation on availability of funds for construction of MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility (sec. 3119) ............................................................. 523 

Technical correction related to authorization of appropriations for 

fiscal year 2006 (sec. 3120) ................................................................... 523 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 524 

The role of the Kansas City Plant in the nuclear weapons program .... 524 

Transparency in budgeting for security requirements ........................... 524 

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 525 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 525 

Legislative Requirements ................................................................................ 525 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 525 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 526 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 526 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 526 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 526 

Additional Views of Senator John Cornyn ..................................................... 527 

Additional Views of Senator Bill Nelson, Florida .......................................... 528 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 109–254 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 

YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

MAY 9, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. WARNER, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 2766] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 

Forces, and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2007; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2007; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
2 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2007. 

Committee overview and recommendations 

From Europe to the Middle East and from Asia to Africa, the 

presence of U.S. forces and their contributions to regional peace 

and security reassure our allies and deter our adversaries. Since 

2001, U.S. armed forces have been engaged in the global war on 

terrorism. Today, there are over 250,000 uniformed personnel deployed or stationed in approximately 120 countries. U.S. military 

forces are involved in overseas deployments at an unprecedented 

rate. 

Currently, the central battlegrounds in the war on terrorism are 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. For each of these countries, the road to 

peace, stability, and democracy has been marked by historical milestones, with elections that chose a permanent government, a referendum that adopted a permanent constitution, and progress in 

building security forces capable of protecting their nation’s freedom. Behind the backdrop of these achievements, U.S. forces continue the difficult work of counterinsurgency, stabilization, and reconstruction. Beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. 

armed forces are engaged in a broad array of missions, ranging 

from counterinsurgency and counterterrorism training to keeping 

the peace, fighting terrorists, providing humanitarian assistance 

and disaster relief, and participating in civil-military operations. 

The accomplishments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on 

terrorism are a tribute to the dedication and skills of our men and 

women in uniform who are willing to respond to the call to duty, 

and to the military leaders who lead them. The successes achieved 

have come at a great sacrifice to the members of the armed forces 

and their families and the countless civilians and contractors who 

support them. Tragically, many have been killed while serving in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, and many others have been wounded. A 

grateful nation remembers and honors their sacrifices. 

While addressing current threats to our nation’s security and 

planning for emerging threats, the military faces a number of challenges, including increasing health care costs, operational readiness 

and recruiting and retention, modernization and transformation of 

the armed forces during a time of war, and reforming the acquisition system. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 addresses these challenges, while continuing a tradition 

of providing the best training, equipment, and protection possible 

for the American warfighter. 

In conjunction with the submission of the President’s budget request, the Department of Defense released its Quadrennial Defense 

Review (QDR) Report. This QDR is the second conducted by this 

administration and the first to be conducted in wartime. The QDR 

reflects a continuing shift from the predominately conventional 

warfare of the last century toward the irregular warfare of today 

and the projected disruptive warfare of the future. The QDR also 

reflects a process of change that has occurred since the terrorist atVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
3 

tacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and has 

been accelerated by the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The Department has promised to issue updates to its originally released report as additional assessments are completed. 

This QDR is forward-looking, including recommendations on initiatives for the near and long term to provide the United States 

with the capabilities it needs to secure its freedom in the decades 

ahead. Some of these recommendations will be implemented in fiscal year 2007 and others in future years. The committee carefully 

reviewed all the Department’s proposals and included some of them 

in this bill. 

The committee believes that further explanation and analysis is 

needed on how the Department integrates threat assessments into 

its capabilities-based force structure planning; the assumptions and 

planning guidelines that informed the recommended capabilities 

necessary to meet future threats; and a more comprehensive risk 

assessment that describes the additional capabilities that would be 

needed to mitigate risks. The committee will undertake a careful 

review of the QDR in the months ahead, including a review of subsequent assessments completed by the Department. 

To date, in the second session of the 109th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services has conducted 36 hearings and received 

numerous policy and operational briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2007 and related defense issues. During 

the course of these deliberations, the committee identified seven 

priorities to guide its work on the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007. These priorities include: 

(1) providing our men and women in uniform with the resources, training, technology, equipment, and authorities they 

need to win the global war on terrorism, with a particular 

focus on supporting ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; 

(2) enhancing the ability of the Department to fulfill its 

homeland defense responsibilities by providing the resources, 

authorities, and equipment necessary for the Department to 

assist in protecting our nation against current and anticipated 

forms of attack; 

(3) providing the resources and authorities needed to rapidly 

acquire the full range of force protection capabilities for deployed forces; 

(4) continuing the committee’s commitment to improve the 

quality of life for those who serve—active, Reserve, National 

Guard, and retired—and their families; enhancing incentives to 

recruit and retain those who volunteer to serve in the armed 

forces; providing the best possible care and rehabilitation services for those who bear the wounds of combat; and ensuring 

generous support for the survivors of those military personnel 

killed in the defense of our nation; 

(5) sustaining the readiness of our armed forces to conduct 

military operations against current and anticipated threats; 

(6) supporting the Department’s efforts to develop innovative, forward-looking capabilities necessary to modernize and 

transform the armed forces to successfully counter current and 

future threats, particularly by enhancing our technology in 

areas such as unmanned systems, personnel protection sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
4 

tems, and measures to counter improvised explosive devices; 

and 

(7) continuing active committee oversight of Department programs and operations, particularly in the areas of acquisition 

reform and contract management, to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayers’ dollars. 

The President’s budget for defense for fiscal year 2007 builds on 

the investments made in recent years by providing real increases 

in defense spending to combat terrorism and secure the homeland, 

to enhance the quality of life of our military personnel and their 

families, and to modernize and transform the U.S. armed forces to 

meet current and future threats. 

In order to fund these priorities, the committee, following the 

Senate-passed budget resolution, recommended $467.7 billion in 

budget authority for defense programs for fiscal year 2007, an increase of $26.2 billion—or 4.1 percent in real terms—above the 

amount authorized by the Congress in fiscal year 2006. The committee authorized $85.7 billion in procurement funding, a $2.8 billion increase above the President’s budget request; $74.2 billion in 

funding for research, development, test, and evaluation, a $1.0 billion increase over the requested level; and $112.0 billion for military personnel, a $1.3 billion increase over the requested level. The 

committee also recommended $50.0 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal year 2007 for activities in support of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism. 

To provide the Department with the resources it needs to win the 

global war on terrorism, the committee provided the following resources to U.S. forces: 

(1) For ground forces, the committee authorized more than 

$33.0 billion for ground and aviation equipment, an increase of almost $1.0 billion, and $2.1 billion for the procurement of equipment 

needed for the global war on terrorism for the Army and Marine 

Corps in the bridge supplemental. 

(2) For special operations forces, the committee added nearly 

$90.0 million, including $66.7 million to procure critical equipment 

to prosecute the global war on terrorism; and nearly $20.0 million 

for research, development, test, and evaluation programs. 

(3) For the Navy and Marine Corps, the committee authorized 

$3.6 billion for vertical lift assets. 

(4) For air forces, the committee set forth policy prohibiting the 

incremental funding of aircraft and provided full funding for the F–

22A Raptor. The committee authorized an additional $1.4 billion 

for the procurement of 20 F–22A aircraft. 

(5) For strategic airlift, the committee authorized $2.6 billion, 

including two additional C–17A aircraft, for total procurement of 

14 C–17A aircraft. 

The committee also provided the Department with important resources and authorities to enhance its ability to defend the homeland against man-made or natural disasters or missile attacks. 

(1) In the areas of chemical and biological defense, and chemical weapons demilitarization, the committee added $71.0 million 

for chemical and biological agent detection, and the development 

and fielding of technology to counter the threat of chemical and biological weapons. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
5 

(2) To more effectively support local, state, and federal agencies in response to man-made or natural disasters, the committee 

authorized the Secretary of Defense to approve the deployment of 

Weapons of Mass Destruction–Civil Support Teams (WMD–CST) to 

Canada and Mexico, if requested; expanded the types of emergencies for which the Secretary of Defense may prepare or employ 

WMD–CST; and added $13.5 million for the development of a sustainable training program, and for equipment upgrades to ensure 

the standardization of equipment for all the teams. The committee 

also included a provision that would update the Insurrection Act to 

clarify the President’s authority to use the armed forces, including 

the National Guard in federal service, to restore order and enforce 

federal laws in cases where, as a result of a terrorist attack, epidemic, or natural disaster, public order has broken down. 

(3) To defend the United States, its deployed forces, and its al- lies against missile attack, the committee authorized $10.5 billion 

for ballistic missile defense, but shifted funds from long-term developmental efforts to support near-term capabilities. 

As our forces undertake important missions abroad and at home, 

the committee placed high priority on force protection for U.S. deployed forces. The committee closely monitors force protection capabilities available to deployed forces, and remains actively engaged 

with the Department to ensure that all requirements to improve 

force protection are fully funded. Accordingly, the committee authorized over $1.0 billion for various programs to protect personnel, 

vehicles, and installations, including: an additional $950.5 million 

for force protection equipment, including $559.8 million for up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles; and $100.0 

million for counter-IED engineer vehicles. The committee also authorized $2.1 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to facilitate the rapid development of new technology and 

tactics and the rapid deployment of equipment to counter improvised explosive devices (IED); and an additional $45.8 million for 

various projects to procure and develop IED countermeasures. 

Investing in our uniformed personnel remains among the committee’s highest priorities. To improve the quality of life of our 

armed forces—active, Reserve, National Guard, and retired—and 

their families, the committee authorized a 2.2 percent across-theboard pay raise for all military personnel and a mid-year targeted 

pay raise for mid-level non-commissioned officers and warrant officers. 

Additionally, in the area of health care, the committee recognized 

that the Department faces the challenge of increasing health care 

costs, and recommended a number of health care reform steps. The 

committee remains concerned about the ability of the military 

health care system to identify and prevent post-traumatic stress 

disorder and other mental health conditions related to deployments, and approved expansion of pilot programs to address these 

needs for both active and reserve component members. Among the 

reforms authorized, the committee included a provision to prohibit 

the payment by employers of financial incentives to TRICARE-eligible retirees to encourage them to use TRICARE instead of the 

health insurance offered to other employees. While the committee 

has acted to greatly increase use of the more economical mail order 

pharmacy program, the committee also included a provision to clarVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
6 

ify that the Department’s retail pharmacy program qualifies for 

federal pricing, as authorized in title 38, United States Code. However, the committee did not authorize requested increases in 

TRICARE enrollment fees in fiscal year 2007, and directed the 

Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the 

Department’s health care costs and savings proposal. 

Benefits and services available to family members are also important to their quality of life. The committee recognizes the sacrifices and hardships endured by family members. As such, the 

committee fully funded all of the benefits for family members included in the President’s budget request, and extended the telecommunications benefit for deployed and hospitalized soldiers. 

In addition, following the Senate-passed budget resolution, the 

committee included a provision to repeal the requirement for reduction of annuities received by surviving spouses under the Survivor 

Benefit Plan (SBP) by the amount of any dependency and indemnity compensation also received. Additionally, the committee accelerated the effective date for paid-up coverage under the SBP from 

October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2006. 

To sustain the readiness of the armed forces to perform critical 

missions, the committee added funding to address shortfalls in a 

number of key readiness accounts. Over the past five years, U.S. 

ground forces have experienced high operational tempo due to combat operations and sustained overseas missions. In response, the 

committee authorized active-duty end strengths of 512,400 for the 

Army, 30,000 over the requested level; 340,700 for the Navy; 

180,000 for the Marine Corps, 5,000 over the requested level; and 

334,200 for the Air Force. The committee also authorized end 

strength for the Army National Guard at 350,000, providing that, 

in the event the National Guard is unable to recruit up to the 

350,000 level, unused personnel funds may only be used to procure 

Army National Guard equipment. The committee supported a variety of incentives and bonuses for active duty and reserve components to ensure the Department can recruit and retain the highestquality volunteer force. 

In order to confront irregular warfare threats, the Department 

must modernize and transform the armed forces. Since 2001, the 

Department has undergone significant modernization and transformation even during a time of war. The committee supported the 

Department’s transformational activities, including authorizing 

funds for the construction of eight ships, for a total of $12.1 billion; 

including a provision to promote coordinated joint development, 

procurement, and operation of unmanned systems; adding funds for 

the continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter interchangeable engine during fiscal year 2007; authorizing the budget request 

of $3.7 billion for the Army’s Future Combat Systems program; and 

authorizing an increase of nearly $365.0 million over the President’s budget request of $11.1 billion for science and technology 

programs. 

The committee remains concerned about the size of the Navy’s 

fleet. As a maritime nation, the strength of our economy, the face 

of our diplomacy, the course of our foreign policy, and the security 

of our nation are built upon the Navy’s ability to maintain global 

presence and to exercise freedom of maneuver upon the seas. However, in the last 15 years, there has been a declining trend in shipVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
7 

building and a diminishing capacity in the shipbuilding industrial 

base. The fleet has been reduced to its smallest size since before 

World War II. The committee believes that prudent decisions must 

be made to reverse the current trend in the construction of warships, or risk our margin of naval superiority for the next generation. 

To strengthen the shipbuilding program and the industrial base, 

the committee included provisions to: 

(1) fund the construction of eight warships (one more than 

the President’s request) and two new warship classes; 

(2) implement a long-range plan for the procurement of three 

ships of the future aircraft carrier class-CVN–21, which will 

improve the affordability of the future aircraft carrier class by 

authorizing multiple ship material procurements and stable 

funding over four year increments; 

(3) lay the groundwork to increase the submarine building 

rate to ensure continued undersea superiority; and 

(4) increase investment in the National Shipbuilding Research Program. 

To provide more flexible capabilities to the warfighter, the committee supported increased investment in unmanned systems. In 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001, the committee established initial requirements for the 

use of unmanned air and ground combat vehicles. Five years later, 

the time has come to build upon the commitment made by this 

committee. Accordingly, the committee included a provision directing the Secretary of Defense to develop a department-wide policy 

for development and operation of unmanned systems. 

Increasingly, the committee has emphasized the importance of 

developing capabilities to plan and conduct coalition operations. 

Ten years ago, the committee expressed concerns regarding the 

lack of engine competition in the Joint Strike Fighter program. As 

a result, the committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106) 

that directed the Secretary of Defense to evaluate at least two propulsion concepts from competing engine companies. Recently, the 

committee held hearings to review the Department’s unilateral proposal, despite legislative direction to maintain a two-engine program, to eliminate the development of the F136 alternate interchangeable engine from the Joint Strike Fighter program. The committee remains concerned that relying on one engine provider to 

perform multiple missions, for multiple services and multiple nations presents an unnecessary operational and financial risk to the 

United States. Accordingly, the committee authorized provisions 

adding $400.8 million for the continued development of the interchangeable engine during fiscal year 2007; and directing the Secretary of Defense to continue the development and sustainment of 

the Joint Strike Fighter program with two competitive propulsion 

systems throughout the life of the aircraft or enter into a one-time, 

firm-fixed-price contract for a single propulsion system throughout 

the life of the aircraft. 

Finally, in the areas of acquisition and contract management, the 

committee took a number of steps over the last decade to improve 

the Department’s acquisition and procurement of services, equipment, and weapons systems. Similarly, the Department completed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
8 

a significant review of the defense acquisition systems for major 

weapons programs, which will impact the Department’s acquisition 

system. To continue the momentum of past efforts to improve the 

Department’s acquisition system, the committee included provisions: 

(1) requiring major automated information systems that 

breach cost, schedule, or performance goals to follow similar reporting requirements to other major defense acquisition programs; 

(2) authorizing the Department to conduct a pilot program 

using time-certain development in the acquisition of major 

weapons systems; 

(3) requiring better alignment of authority and tenure of program managers with desired acquisition outcomes; 

(4) ensuring evaluation of contract performance is linked to 

acquisition outcomes and that award and incentive fees are 

used appropriately to incentivize excellent performance; 

(5) establishing a preference for fixed-price contract for development programs; and 

(6) establishing a senior acquisition executive for U.S. Special Operations Command. 

In addition to the above priorities, the committee addressed the 

QDR priorities of strengthening interagency operations and providing greater flexibility in the United States Government’s ability 

to partner directly with nations in fighting terrorism. Increasingly, 

operations have become more interagency and coalition in nature 

and will be for the forseeable future. In this regard, the United 

States Government must employ all instruments of national power 

to achieve peace and security in the troubled regions around the 

world. Accordingly, the committee: 

(1) included a provision that would require the President to 

develop a plan to establish interagency operating procedures 

for federal agencies to plan and conduct stabilization and reconstruction operations; 

(2) included a provision that would provide the heads of all 

executive branch agencies the same authorities the Secretary 

of State has with respect to providing allowances, benefits, and 

death gratuities for Foreign Service or civilian personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan; 

(3) expanded authorities for geographic combatant commanders to train and equip foreign military forces, and to provide urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance 

to foreign nations; 

(4) expanded authority to provide logistics support, supplies, 

and services to allies and coalition partners; 

(5) expanded Department authority to lease or lend equipment for personnel protection and survivability to allies and 

coalition partners participating in combined military operations with U.S. forces; and 

(6) required a coordinated United States Government legal 

opinion on whether certain, specified interrogation techniques 

comply with the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading 

treatment or punishment set out in the Detainee Treatment 

Act of 2005. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
9 

As the committee considers the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007, much work remains to be done in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, and other locations to secure hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and freedom. To continue the momentum of the past five years in the global war on terrorism, the Congress and the executive branch must work together to build on the 

considerable strengths of our military and their record of success. 

To ensure the security of America, the U.S. armed forces must be 

sustained, modernized, and transformed. The committee believes 

that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

sustains the advances made in recent years, and provides the necessary investments to prepare for the future. 

Explanation of funding summary 

The administration’s budget authorization request for the national defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 2007 

was $505.4 billion, including a request for $50.0 billion in emergency supplemental spending for ongoing operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. According to the estimating procedures used by the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the budget implication of the 

amount requested was $512.9 billion. The funding summary table 

that follows uses the budget authority as calculated by CBO. 

The following table summarizes both the direct authorizations 

and equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2007 defense 

programs. The columns relating to the authorization request do not 

include funding for the following items: military construction authorizations provided in prior years; and other portions of the defense budget that are not within the jurisdiction of this committee, 

or that do not require an annual authorization. 

Funding for all programs in the national defense function is reflected in the columns related to the budget authority request and 

the total budget authority implication of the authorizations in this 

report. 

The committee recommends funding for national defense programs totaling $517.7 billion in budget authority, including an authorization of $50.0 billion in emergency supplemental spending for 

ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This funding is within 

the budget authority level for the national defense function recommended in the Senate version of the Concurrent Resolution on 

the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 (S. Con Res. 83), which was adopted by the Senate on March 16, 2006. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
10 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 SR254.001
11 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 SR254.002
12 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 SR254.003
13 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 SR254.004
14 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 SR254.005
15 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 SR254.006
16 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 SR254.007
(17) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title I of this Act. The tables also display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 

2007 budget request for procurement programs, and indicate those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not 

exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget 

justification documents of the Department of Defense), without a 

reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 

Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request 

are made without prejudice. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
18 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 SR254.008
19 

Subtitle B—Army Programs 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
20 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 SR254.009
21 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 SR254.010
22 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 SR254.011
23 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 SR254.012
24 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 SR254.013
25 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 SR254.014
26 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 SR254.015
27 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 SR254.016
28 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 SR254.017
29 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 SR254.018
30 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 SR254.019
31 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 SR254.020
32 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 SR254.021
33 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 SR254.022
34 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 SR254.023
35 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 SR254.024
36 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 SR254.025
37 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Joint Network 

Node (sec. 111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would withhold 50 

percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated in section 101(5) 

for the procurement of the Joint Network Node until the Secretary 

of the Army provides a report, to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 15, 2007, on the Army’s strategy for the 

convergence of the Joint Network Node, the Warfighter Information Network—Tactical, and the Mounted Battle Command On-theMove communications programs. The required report will include 

program requirements, funding, program schedule, implementation 

plan and acquisition strategy. The budget request included $7,718.6 million in Other Procure- ment, Army, including $178.0 million for the Joint Network Node, 

$79.0 million for the Mounted Battle Command on the Move 

(MBCOTM) system, but no funding for the Warfighter Information 

Network-Tactical (WIN–T) programs. The budget request also in- cluded $69.2 million in PE 64818A for Army Tactical Command 

and Control Hardware and Software, including $16.6 million for 

MBCOTM development, and $158.2 million in PE 63782A for 

WIN–T development. 

The Joint Network Node (JNN) responds to a 2004 urgent needs 

statement from U.S. Central Command to provide communications 

capabilities better than the current Mobile Subscriber Equipment 

in Army units today. The requirement was met with commercialoff-the-shelf-based equipment using a sole source contract. The 

committee notes that the JNN is not a joint program and that the 

Army General Counsel has stated that JNN must be competitively 

procured. Further, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation’s 

Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report, states that, ‘‘the Army continues 

to procure JNN as an interim satellite capability without conducting an Operational Test and Evaluation.’’ The committee is 

concerned that the required operational test and evaluation has not 

been completed for the JNN. 

The committee understands that the WIN–T program meets the 

same requirements as JNN but with greater capability. Moreover, 

WIN–T will provide a communications-on-the-move capability while 

the JNN will not. In September 2004, after competitively awarding 

two contracts for the Systems Development and Demonstration 

(SDD) phase for the WIN–T communications system, the Army received approval to merge the winning contractors into a single 

team to accelerate WIN–T development. After funding the program 

in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, due to affordability concerns, the 

Army abruptly restructured the WIN–T program, delaying fielding 

until 2010. The committee believes this is an ill-advised decision. 

JNN and WIN–T are duplicative programs, with WIN–T providing 

on-the-move capabilities to Army commanders, a long-standing requirement. It has been estimated that the Army will require an additional $1.9 billion to field JNN to all Army units. It is the committee’s understanding that the Army intends to replace JNN with 

WIN–T sometime in the future. The committee is concerned that 

the Army cannot afford to field both JNN and WIN–T. 

The committee notes the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act contained 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
38 

a requirement that the Army submit a plan, no later than January 

15, 2006, for procuring evolutionary capability in its network communications packages. The Army is still evaluating the program 

and has not yet submitted the required report. The committee believes that the Army plans to restructure the WIN–T program to 

field WIN–T in 2008 and strongly supports the initiative to accelerate the WIN–T program. The committee recommends a reduction of $100.0 million for 

JNN procurement and an increase of $100.0 million to restore 

WIN–T procurement in Other Procurement, Army. The committee 

expects the future procurement of JNN to be competitively awarded and that both JNN and WIN–T equipment should be procured 

using a firm fixed-price contract. 

Comptroller General report on the contract for the Future 

Combat Systems program (sec. 112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the participation and activities of the lead systems integrator in the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program 

under the contract of the Army for the FCS program. The report 

would provide a description of the responsibilities of the lead systems integrator and the Army under the FCS contract; an assessment of the manner in which the Army ensures that the lead systems integrator meets the goals of the FCS program; an identification of the mechanisms in place to ensure the protection of the interests of the United States in the FCS program; and an identification of the mechanisms in place to mitigate organizational conflicts 

of interest with respect to competition on FCS technologies and 

equipment under the subcontracts under the FCS program. 

Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) directed the Secretary of the Army 

to procure the FCS through a contract under part 15 of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation, rather than through a transaction under 

section 2371 of title 10, United States Code. The committee congratulates the Army on completing the definitization of the FCS 

contract on March 29, 2006 and directs the Comptroller General to 

review the contract to assist the Congress and the Department understand the complexities of contracting for a system-of-systems 

contract with a lead systems integrator. 

Reports on Army Modularity Initiative (sec. 113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 15, 2007, on the manner in 

which the Army distinguishes costs under its modularity initiative 

from costs under its modernization and reset programs; a line item 

identification of the amount of modularity funded to date and the 

amount of modularity to be funded in future budgets; how 

modularity equipment will be allocated to the active and Reserve 

components; a plan for further testing and evaluation of modular 

designs; and a summary of any lessons learned to date from the 

modular brigades that have been established and deployed to Iraq 

and Afghanistan. The provision also requires that the Comptroller 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
39 

General conduct an annual review of the modularity initiative on 

the progress the Army is making in the equipping of the active and 

Reserve components. In 2004 the Army estimated modularity costs at $28.0 billion. In 

a report, ‘‘Preliminary Observations on Army Plans to Implement 

and Fund Modular Forces,’’ dated March 16, 2005, the Government 

Accountability Office stated that ‘‘the costs associated with 

modularizing the entire Army are substantial, continuing to evolve, 

and likely to grow beyond current estimates. As of March 2005, the 

Army estimated it will need about $48 billion to fund modularity 

representing an increase of 71 percent from its earlier estimate of 

$28 billion in 2004.’’ The estimate now stands at $52.5 billion. 

However, this estimate may not reflect all potential costs, such as 

for fully equipping the modular force as designed. The committee 

expects the Secretary of the Army to address in the report all costs 

required to achieve full operational capability for all modular units, 

including, but not limited to, amounts required for equipment, 

training, and permanent facilities and infrastructure to adequately 

support military personnel and their families. The committee believes that until the Army provides a better understanding of the 

requirements and costs associated with modularity, DOD will not 

be well positioned to weigh competing priorities and make informed 

decisions nor will the Congress have the information it needs to 

evaluate funding requests. 

There is some question regarding the definition of the modularity initiative. The Army has stated that it required $5.0 billion per 

year over the fiscal years 2005–2011 for the modularity initiative. 

In a fiscal year 2006 Program Budget Decision Memorandum, the 

Department increased the Army’s top line by $5.0 billion in each 

of the fiscal years 2007–2011 for modularity to be included in the 

President’s budget request. DOD and the Army said they would use 

fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations 

to cover the requirement for those two years. Both the fiscal year 

2006 enacted bridge supplemental and the fiscal year 2006 supplemental budget request included $5.0 billion. However, the fiscal 

year 2006 supplemental request was also expected to include $3.0 

billion in additional funding for Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles required for modularity, but that request was dropped 

in the final stages of formulation before it was sent to Congress. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget request proposed to restructure the 

Army National Guard to 28 brigade combat teams and 78 combat 

support brigades and to fund the Army National Guard to its current manning level of 333,000 rather than to its currently authorized end strength of 350,000. This proposal resulted in opposition 

from Congress, governors, the National Guard Association and the 

adjutants general. As a result, the Army has announced that it will 

maintain the National Guard at its 350,000 authorized end 

strength and will fund whatever manning level the National Guard 

can recruit to in fiscal year 2007. The Army also announced it will 

follow through with its plan to change the composition of the Army 

National Guard force structure to 28 brigade combat teams and 78 

combat support brigades and commit $20.0 billion to National 

Guard equipment. This will put additional funding pressure on the 

Army as it modularizes the active and Reserve components. The 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
40 

committee believes that an annual progress report is required to 

monitor the Army’s progress in modularizing both the active and 

Reserve components. 

Budget Items—Army 

Future Cargo Aircraft 

The budget request included $109.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for the procurement of three Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA). The FCA would support the intra-theater lift mission. 

However, the aircraft mix and the number of intra-theater aircraft 

assets required for this mission have yet to be determined and 

were not addressed in the recently completed Mobility Capabilities 

Study. In recent testimony, the Commander of the United States 

Transportation Command gave his support to the Department’s 

Intra-Theater Lift Capability Study, Phases 1 and 2, to identify the 

right mix and number of intra-theater aircraft assets required. The 

Air Force is also interested in procuring a similar type of aircraft 

and is in the process of establishing a joint program office with the 

Army for a new intra-theater light cargo aircraft that will be 

known as the Joint Cargo Aircraft. The Air Force is only now beginning a series of functional analysis studies and an independent 

Air Force analysis of alternatives to define their requirement for 

the aircraft, and to consider which options will meet their requirements. Until these studies are complete, and have been presented 

to the congressional defense committees, the committee believes 

that it is premature to procure aircraft until the right mix and 

number of intra-theater aircraft assets have been determined. 

The Committee notes that the recent Request for Proposals released by the Department of the Army for procurement of the Joint 

Cargo Aircraft includes maintenance and sustainment of this new 

weapon system and provides for no organic logistics capability. The 

Committee notes that 10 U.S.C. 2464 requires the Department to 

maintain a core logistics capability and that the department develop organic maintenance capability for most weapon systems not 

later than four years after initial operating capability for such 

weapon systems. The Army Request for Proposals does not address 

this issue. The Committee further notes that the Joint Cargo Aircraft is a joint Army-Air Force program and that Air Force Air Logistics Centers could be able to sustain this weapon system. The 

Committee expects that any Request for Proposals for the Joint 

Cargo Aircraft account for the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2464. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $109.2 million in APA for the 

Future Cargo Aircraft. 

Surface-launched advanced medium range air-to-air missile 

The budget request included $12.0 million in Missile Procurement, Army, for the Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range 

Air-to-Air Missile (SLAMRAAM) and $10.0 million for advanced 

procurement funding for long-lead items. The committee understands that the SLAMRAAM Milestone C scheduled for September 

2007 has been slipped one year to September 2008. Procurement 

funds will not be needed in fiscal year 2007. The committee recVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
41 

ommends a decrease of $22.0 million in Missile Procurement, 

Army, for SLAMRAAM, for a total authorization of no funding. 

M1A1 Abrams tank and M2A2 Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades 

The budget request included $456.1 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. Of this amount, 

$285.0 million is for the upgrade of various Bradley Fighting Vehicles (BFV) variants and $171.1 million is for the conversion of 

M1A2 Abrams tanks into the M1A2 System Enhancement Package 

(SEP) Abrams tank configuration. 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2007 budget request for 

BFV upgrades and M1A2 SEP tanks creates production breaks in 

the BFV and M1A2 SEP production lines and reflects the Army’s 

assumption that Army modularity could be funded in Defense supplemental requests for programs that should be funded in base 

budget requests. The Army’s reliance on Defense supplemental requests reflects the Army’s poor management of scarce resources 

and disregard for the impact the Army program has on the defense 

industrial base. Budget justification material submitted by the 

Army reflects an underfunded program for both BFV upgrades and 

M1A2 SEP conversions and causes breaks in production. 

Programming and budgeting based on the assumption of Defense 

supplemental requests is inefficient and wastes taxpayer dollars. 

For instance, according to Army budget justification documents, in 

fiscal year 2005, the weapon system procurement unit cost for the 

M1A2 SEP was $4.6 million based on 124 M1A2 SEPs. In fiscal 

year 2007, the weapon system procurement unit cost is listed as 

$7.4 million based on 23 M1A2 SEPs. 

Additional funding for the BFV upgrades and M1A2 Sep conversions has been included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s fiscal 

year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $238.8 million for BFV upgrades and $170.0 million for 

M1A2 SEP tank conversions, in Procurement of Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, for a total authorization of $523.8 

million for BFV upgrades and $341.1 million for M1A2 SEPs. 

The committee’s recommendation increases funding for BFV upgrades and M1A2 SEP conversions to cover minimum sustainment 

rates for the production of these vehicles. The committee strongly 

encourages the Army to develop funded BFV and M1A2 SEP programs, based on a multiyear procurement strategy, for the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request. The Army should also consider requesting multiyear procurement authority to introduce price and production stability into these programs. 

M113 Armored personnel carrier family of vehicles 

The budget request included $23.0 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, for the conversion 

of M113A2 Armored Personnel Carrier Family of Vehicles (FOV) to 

the M113A3 FOV configuration. The committee notes that the 

Army has a requirement to convert 310 M113A2s to support the 

Army’s modularity initiative. Additional funding for the conversion 

of 310 M113A2s to the M113A3 configuration has been included on 

the Chief of Staff of the Army’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
42 

list. The committee recommends an increase of $139.0 million in 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, for 

additional M113A2 conversions, for a total authorization of $162.0 

million. 

M1028 120mm tank cartridge 

The budget request included $0.9 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), for the M1028 120mm tank cartridge. The 

committee notes the utility of the M1028 in improving the M1A1 

Main Battle Tank’s urban warfare capability. The committee rec- ommends an increase of $9.2 million in PAA for the M1028. 

M915 105mm Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition artillery cartridge 

The budget request included $45.6 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), for 105 mm artillery cartridges of all types, 

but included no funding for the M915 105 mm Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (DPICM), Load, Assemble, and Pack 

(LAP) artillery cartridge. The committee is aware that the M915 is 

the only 105 mm DPICM cartridge, and that it is extremely important for light forces. The committee recommends an increase of 

$12.2 million in PAA to complete the LAP of the components already in the inventory. 

Rapid wall breaching kit 

The budget request included no funding in Procurement Ammunition, Army (PAA), for the rapid wall breaching kit. The committee notes that rapid wall breaching kits are one-man portable 

devices capable of creating man-sized holes in triple brick masonry 

or double reinforced concrete structural walls. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PAA for rapid wall breaching kits. 

Ammunition peculiar equipment outloading module 

The budget request included no funding for ammunition peculiar 

equipment outloading modules. The committee notes that a modern 

robotic-controlled strategic ammunition outloading module would 

be capable of supporting current readiness requirements, while increasing ammunition plant safety, security, and capacity. Army officials report that a design exists for modernizing current 

outloading capabilities with robotic-controlled technologies at ammunition plants. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 

million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for ammunition peculiar equipment outloading modules. 

Automated Tactical Ammunition Classification System 

The budget request included $10.3 million in Procurement Ammunition, Army (PAA), for ammunition peculiar equipment. The 

committee understands the logistical difficulties inherent in the 

large amounts of ammunition turned in by combat units leaving a 

combat theater, which must be inspected and reissued to new 

units. Previously, this inspection and processing activity has been 

done by hand, which is extremely manpower intensive. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PAA for addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
43 

tional development and procurement of a family of mobile Automated Tactical Ammunition Classification System units for nearterm battlefield deployment. 

Corrosion protective covers 

The budget request included no funding to procure and evaluate 

corrosion protective covers for configurable loaded ammunition. The 

committee is aware that corrosion in harsh environments can cause 

damage to equipment as well as ammunition. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for corrosion protective covers to prevent corrosion of 

ammunition. 

Insensitive munitions high-shear mixing system 

The budget request included no funding for any upgrades at the 

Milan Army Ammunition Plant. After many years of neglect, upgrade of the munitions industrial facilities is critical, particularly 

given the increased usage rates caused by current operations. The 

committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in Procurement 

of Ammunition, Army, to demonstrate, validate, and implement an 

insensitive munitions high-shear mixing system at the Milan Army 

Ammunition Plant. 

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant 

The budget request included $116.2 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA), for the provision of industrial facilities, 

including $35.0 million for the Small Caliber Ammunition Modernization Program at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The 

committee is aware that a significant investment in new equipment 

and facilities at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is required to 

provide the quantities of small caliber ammunition necessary to 

support ongoing operations in the global war on terror. The committee recommends an increase of $18.2 million in PAA to continue 

the modernization of the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. 

Modernization of forge equipment at Scranton Army Ammunition Plant 

The budget request included $116.2 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA), for the provision of industrial facilities, 

but included no funding for modernization at the Scranton Army 

Ammunition Plant. The committee is aware that the newest piece 

of government-owned forge equipment at Scranton is at least 30 

years old. Much of Scranton’s equipment has exceeded its useful 

life and is beginning to experience failures. The government has 

historically modernized this type of equipment at 10-year intervals. 

The committee understand the importance of investing in the munitions industrial base, after many years of deferring critical modernization. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

in PAA for modernization of forge equipment at Scranton Army 

Ammunition Plant. 

Radford Army Ammunition Plant upgrades 

The budget request included $116.2 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA), for the provision of industrial facilities, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
44 

including $56.2 million for operations and upgrades to the Radford 

Army Ammunition Plant. The committee recognizes that for many 

years, modernization of munition industrial facilities has not kept 

pace with the requirements of modern weapons systems and environmental regulations. Because of the interrelated work of these 

munitions plants, a disruption in one facility could cause disruptions in others, and thus cause a critical shortfall of munitions 

while our service members are engaged in combat operations. 

The committee is aware that there is a backlog of critical modernization projects totaling $213.0 million at Radford Army Ammunition Plant, including a new steam plant, waste processing facilities to meet current environmental standards, and new explosives 

processing plants to improve efficiencies and reduce the risk of failure in a critical production area. 

The committee recommends an increase of $63.56 million in PAA 

for the modernization of industrial facilities at the Radford Army 

Ammunition Plant, including $30.0 million to complete the new 

steam plant; $11.78 million to build new waste processing facilities 

and incinerators; $10.0 million to fund the first two phases of a 

modern nitroglycerine facility; and $11.8 million for Phase 2B of 

the upgrades to the nitrocellulose facility. The committee further 

directs the Army to develop a plan to complete the remaining 

$150.0 million in critical modernization projects at Radford over 

the next 3 years. 

Defense advanced global positioning system receivers 

The budget request included $61.6 million in other procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the procurement of Defense advanced global positioning system receivers (DAGR). DAGR provides a satellite-based 

navigation and timing system to enable warfighters to confirm 

their own locations for all phases of combat. The committee notes 

that emerging requirements associated with the global war on terrorism have led to a greater demand for DAGR than previously anticipated, and that DAGR has been included on the Chief of Staff 

of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends 

an increase of $7.0 million in OPA to procure additional DAGRS. 

Nonsystem training devices 

The budget request included $243.1 million in Other Procurement, Army, for non-standard training devices, including $3.1 million for the Call for Fires Trainer (CFFT). The CFFT is a collective 

training system that provides a simulated battlefield for training 

forward observers at the institutional and unit level. The committee notes that the CFFT has proven to be a useful tool for soldiers preparing to deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of operations. Additional funding to accelerate CFFT fielding has been 

included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 

million in Other Procurement, Army, for CFFT, for a total authorization of $247.1 million. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
45 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 SR254.026
46 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 SR254.027
47 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 SR254.028
48 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 SR254.029
49 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 SR254.030
50 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 SR254.031
51 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 SR254.032
52 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 SR254.033
53 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 SR254.034
54 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 SR254.035
55 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 SR254.036
56 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 SR254.037
57 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 SR254.038
58 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 SR254.039
59 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 SR254.040
60 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 SR254.041
61 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 SR254.042
62 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 SR254.043
63 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 SR254.044
64 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 SR254.045
65 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 SR254.046
66 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 SR254.047
67 

CVN–21 class aircraft carrier procurement (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to incrementally fund procurement of CVN–

21 class aircraft carriers over four year periods, commencing with 

CVN–78 procurement in fiscal year 2008. The budget request included $739.1 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) 

for CVN–78 advance procurement and $45.1 million in SCN for 

CVN–79 advance procurement. The provision would also authorize 

advance procurement for CVN–80, commencing in fiscal year 2007. 

In reviewing the budget request for fiscal year 2006, the committee received testimony from the Navy and industry that the low 

rate of shipbuilding was driving higher costs, which in turn further 

reduced shipbuilding rates, creating a downward spiral. The committee believes that stable ship requirements, increased funding in 

the shipbuilding budget, and increased flexibility for funding large 

capital ships are critical elements of any strategy to reverse this 

trend. 

The Secretary of the Navy’s fiscal year 2007 report to Congress 

on the long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels identifies a requirement to procure the CVN–21 class aircraft carriers at 

4-year intervals, commencing in fiscal year 2008. The Navy originally planned to procure the first CVN–21 class aircraft carrier, 

CVN–78, in fiscal year 2006. Since then, the Navy has delayed procurement to 2008, which has delayed fielding this vital capability, 

while significantly increasing the aircraft carrier’s procurement 

cost. The committee believes that procuring and delivering the 

CVN–21 class aircraft carriers over 4-year periods in accordance 

with the Navy’s long-range plan is vital to the National Defense 

Strategy, and is vital to the affordability of these capital ships. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee has expressed concern 

with cost growth on the CVN–77 program, and has urged the Navy 

and the shipbuilder to identify opportunities to improve affordability of future aircraft carriers. Procurement delays, excess inflation, and material escalation have been reported as significant contributors to CVN–77 cost growth. The shipbuilder has proposed to 

achieve significant CVN–21 class program savings through a stable 

procurement plan, and through procurement of economic order 

quantity material for CVN–79 and CVN–80 in conjunction with 

CVN–78 procurement. 

In view of the potential for significant program savings, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in SCN for CVN–

21 class advance procurement, and directs the Secretary of the 

Navy to review economic order quantity and long lead time material procurement for the CVN–21 class. The Secretary is to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request, outlining the advance procurement requirements to potentially optimize economic order quantity savings 

and escalation avoidance (to include offsetting factors) for the first 

three vessels of the CVN–21 class. Of the amount authorized to be 

appropriated for advance procurement for CVN–79 and CVN–80, 

none of the funds are available for obligation prior to 30 days following receipt of the Secretary’s report. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
68 

Construction of first two vessels under the next-generation 

destroyer program (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract to fund the detail design and construction of the first two next-generation destroyers, 

DD(X), in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), with funding 

split over fiscal years 2007 and 2008. 

The budget request included $2,568.0 million in SCN for the 

DD(X) program, which is in addition to $1,010.1 million prior year 

advance procurement and $3,004.0 million subsequent year full 

funding for the construction of two DD(X) destroyers. The Navy’s 

report on the long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels 

identified a requirement to procure a total of seven DD(X) destroyers commencing in fiscal year 2007. Section 125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) 

prohibited the Secretary of the Navy from acquiring these vessels 

through a winner-take-all competition strategy. Section 123 of that 

same Act established a cost limitation for the fifth vessel of the 

program. 

The Navy’s procurement strategy for the next generation destroyer program is to allocate dual lead ships and competitively 

award follow-on ships to both of the two shipyards which build surface combatants. The Navy is in the process of determining details 

of the acquisition strategy for the follow ship contracts. The committee agrees with the Navy’s determination that competition is an 

underlying benefit of dual sourcing, and that it is critical to meeting the fifth ship cost limitation established for the next generation 

destroyer program. 

The committee is equally concerned with the risk that the dual 

lead ship strategy adds to the program. The committee is aware 

that the Navy added $150.0 million to the second lead ship budget 

to account for this risk. Nevertheless, the Congressional Budget Office has cited a significantly higher cost estimate for the DD(X) 

lead ship(s) than currently included in the Navy’s budget. It is 

therefore critical that, in preserving the ability to compete followon ships, the Navy does not unduly increase lead ship cost risk and 

total program cost risk. 

The committee understands that the Navy intends to award lead 

ship contracts following approval by the Defense Acquisition Board 

(DAB), currently planned for January 2008. The committee urges 

the DAB to carefully weigh affordability and risk mitigation considerations in arriving at a decision to approve award of the lead ship 

contracts. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, 30 days prior 

to lead ship contract(s) award, on the Navy’s competition strategy 

for DD(X) follow ship procurement. The report shall identify the 

range of possible outcomes for awarding follow-on ships, the Navy’s 

estimated cost for the respective ships, the estimated cost benefit 

provided by competition, the basis for determining contract award, 

and the type of contract planned for the award. The report shall 

also address potential impact of follow-on ship awards on the lead 

ship costs or schedules, including an assessment of workload impacts at the respective shipyards. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
69 

Modification of limitation on total cost of procurement of 

CVN–77 aircraft carrier (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

limitation on the total cost of procurement for the CVN–77 aircraft 

carrier from $5.357 billion to $6.057 billion. 

Section 122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) imposed a $4.6 billion procurement 

cost cap for the CVN–77, and authorized the Secretary of the Navy 

to adjust the cap for certain categories of cost. In accordance with 

Section 122, the Secretary reported authorized annual cost increases, which incrementally raised the CVN–77 cost cap to $5.357 

billion. The February 2005 report on CVN–77 Program Cost identified $0.7 billion cost increase beyond the Secretary’s authority, requiring Congress to increase the cost cap. 

The procurement cost increase to $6.057 billion, which equals the 

government’s maximum contractual liability, is attributed to extraordinary escalation impacts, increased labor hours and overhead 

rates, and costs related to schedule delays. The fiscal year 2007 

budget request included $348.4 million for CVN–77 cost growth, 

with the balance of additional funding to be included in future 

budget requests. The committee is aware that the Navy has taken 

a series of management actions to contain cost on CVN–77, including deferral of upgrades that are not required for safe system operation or certification; minimization of contract change orders; implementation of a joint Navy-shipbuilder Lean Six-Sigma program; 

and a schedule revision to enable a more efficient completion of 

CVN–77. The committee is concerned, however, that despite these 

management actions, the Navy is projecting CVN–77 cost to grow 

to the contract ceiling, in excess of 30 percent above the baseline 

cost cap. 

The committee notes that the Secretary’s report to Congress on 

the long-range plan for construction of naval vessels establishes 

cost estimates for future ship construction, which target improved 

performance based on a series of management actions similar to 

ongoing efforts to control CVN–77 cost. Visibility into cost performance while completing CVN–77 is necessary in order to assess the 

effectiveness of these management actions, and will assist in determining further actions necessary to improve affordability of the future force. Improved visibility into completion cost performance will 

also afford greater opportunity to deliver CVN–77 below the contract ceiling. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to 

submit a quarterly report to the congressional defense committees, 

beginning December 1, 2006, providing the following information 

regarding the CVN–77 ship construction contract: 

(1) contract target cost; 

(2) Program Manager’s Estimate at Completion; 

(3) contractor’s Estimate at Completion; 

(4) contract ceiling price; 

(5) end of period actual costs; and 

(6) percent progress. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
70 

Budget Items—Navy 

MH–60S and MH–60R helicopters 

The budget request included $458.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) for the procurement of 18 MH–60S Knight 

Hawk helicopters and $795.3 million for the procurement of 25 

MH–60R Sea Hawk helicopters. The committee notes that the 

Navy reduced the number of MH–60 series helicopters from the 

Navy’s fiscal year 2006 program plan. The Navy requires additional funding to acquire additional MH–60S for critical surface 

warfare capability coverage for Carrier and Expeditionary Strike 

Groups, and one additional MH–60R helicopters, allowing the initial MH–60R Carrier Strike Group squadron to deploy with full rotary wing capability in accordance with the Navy’s Helicopter Concept of Operations. Additional funding for MH–60S and MH–60R 

helicopters has been included on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an increase of 

$112.0 million in APN for eight additional MH–60S helicopters, for 

a total authorization of $570.2 million and an increase of $28.0 million in APN for one additional MH–60R helicopter, for a total authorization of $823.8 million. 

T–45TS Goshawk 

The budget request included $376.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) for the procurement of 12 T–45TS Goshawk 

training aircraft for the Navy. The future-years defense program 

indicates that the Navy intends to stop production with the fiscal 

year 2007 procurement. This would yield a total of 223 aircraft. 

The committee notes that the Navy’s request for 12 T–45TS Goshawk training aircraft is nearly twice the number of aircraft requested in previous years. Moreover, the Chief of Naval Operations’

unfunded priorities list includes an additional six aircraft. 

The committee is concerned that a premature close out of T–

45TS production, particularly in one budget request, would be 

harmful for two reasons. First, the Navy’s longstanding requirement was for 234 aircraft. Since that determination, significant 

changes have occurred in the annual training requirements for pilots, and empirical data has replaced planning assumptions. Training requirements have grown rather than diminished. Moreover, 

the Navy’s ‘‘T–45 Strategic Planning Study, 2003–2035,’’ identifies 

239 trainers as the minimum number of aircraft needed to adequately support long-term pilot training requirements. For budgetary reasons, the requirement was reduced twice even as additional PTR requirements were added. The committee believes that, 

in order for the fleet to adequately support training requirements, 

the original requirement of 234 aircraft should remain the inventory objective. Second, the committee believes that the T–45TS, 

with requisite modifications, could serve as both the next-generation joint trainer and as a replacement for the Air Force T–38 

trainer. The committee recommends a decrease of $64.0 million in 

APN for the procurement of a total of 10 T–45TS Goshawk training 

aircraft, and encourages the Navy to continue procurement to 

achieve at least the 234-aircraft inventory objective. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
71 

CH–53 Integrated Mechanical Diagnostic System (IMDS) 

The budget request included $28.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) for the H–53 series helicopters, including $2.3 

million for the Integrated Mechanical Diagnostic System (IMDS). 

The committee notes that IMDS enhances safety and reduces helicopter life cycle costs. Additional funding for IMDS has been included on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in APN for 

IMDS, for a total authorization of $32.7 million. 

Allegany Ballistics Laboratory facility restoration 

The budget request included $4.6 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for various activities at government-owned, contractor operated weapons industrial facilities, but included no funding for facilities restoration at the Navy Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant, Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (ABL). Some of these 

facilities have exceeded their useful life and deteriorated beyond 

safe operations. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 

million in WPN for the facilities restoration program at ABL. 

Mk 110 57mm naval gun 

The budget request included $8.9 million in Weapons Procurement (WPN), Navy for gun mount mods for in-service gun weapon 

systems, but included no funding for the Mk 110 57mm naval gun. 

The Mk 110 57mm naval gun is the newest gun system for surface 

ships and is planned for installation on the next generation destroyer, DD(X), the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the National Security Cutter, and the Offshore Patrol Cutter. A shore-based Mk 110 

gun system for training, similar to other in-service gun training 

systems, is essential to ensure sailor proficiency in the safe operation and maintenance of shipboard Mk 110 gun systems. This is 

particularly true for new ship classes, which are designed for reduced manning and therefore less capable of supporting onboard 

training. The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million 

in WPN for procurement of a Mk 110 57mm naval gun for a shorebased training system. 

Mk 295/Mk 296 ammunition for Mk 110 57mm naval gun 

The budget request included no funding for Mark 295 or Mark 

296 ammunition for the Mark 110 57mm naval gun. Currently, the 

Navy and the Coast Guard borrow these rounds in very limited 

quantities from other friendly governments. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in Procurement Ammunition 

Navy and Marine Corps for Mk 295/Mk 296 ammunition. 

M67 hand grenade 

The budget request included $3.0 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps (PANMC), for M67 hand grenades. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in 

PANMC for M67 hand grenades. 

M290 nuclear refueling facility 

The budget request included no funding for an M290 refueling facility. The committee is aware that the Navy is developing a more 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
72 

efficient shipping system, the M290 container system, for spent fuel 

to support refueling and de-fueling U.S. Navy aircraft carriers at 

Northrop Grumman Newport News (NGNN). Implementation of a 

more efficient, secure, and improved process for disposal of fuel is 

necessary to support refueling of USS Nimitz (CVN–68) class aircraft carriers during their mid-life complex overhauls, and for 

defueling USS Enterprise (CVN–65). 

The committee believes infrastructure investment in an M290 facility is needed to support the end-to-end process changes being implemented by the Navy to prepare this special material for ultimate packaging for long-term storage at a federal facility. The committee understands that a $40.0 million capital incentive would be 

required to offset the negative net present value for the M290 facility investment, and that the incentive could be funded over 2 years 

to align with NGNN capital commitments and expenditures. The 

remainder of the funding for the facility would be provided by 

NGNN. The committee further understands that having this facility will provide an estimated $25.0 million savings per refueling/ 

defueling operation. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy to provide the first increment of 

government incentive to start construction of the M290 refueling 

facility in 2008. 

Procurement authority for LPD–17 class ship designated 

LPD–25 

The budget request included $297.5 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN) for LPD–25 advance procurement. The committee recommends an increase of $1,285.0 million in SCN for 

procurement of the LPD–17 class ship, designated as LPD–25. This 

would allow the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract for 

LPD–25 in fiscal year 2007, rather than fiscal year 2008 under the 

current Navy plan. 

The budget request for fiscal year 2006 included LPD–25 procurement for fiscal year 2007 as the ninth ship of a twelve ship 

program. The budget request for fiscal year 2007 truncated the 

LPD–17 class to nine ships and delayed LPD–25 procurement to 

fiscal year 2008. The committee is aware that procurement of 

LPD–25 in fiscal year 2007 will save $113.1 million in LPD–25 procurement cost by avoiding construction delays, escalation impacts, 

and loss of learning. Further, procurement of LPD–25 in 2007 will 

result in delivering this vital warfighting capability to the fleet at 

the earliest schedule possible, helping to reduce existing Marine 

Corps lift capability shortfalls. Additional funding for the LPD–25 

has been included on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

The committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Navy’s report to Congress on the long-range plan for construction of naval 

vessels calls for a reduction of six Expeditionary Warfare ships. 

This reduced expeditionary force size, which also reduces the LPD–

17 class to nine ships, does not meet the Navy’s established 2.5 

Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) lift requirement. In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Armed Services in March 2006, the Marine Corps stated that, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
73 

‘‘Limiting the LPD–17 production line to 9 ships places the Marine 

Corps at grave/significant risk by further decrementing the MEB 

equipment for the assault echelon.’’ As the Navy continues to 

evolve future lift requirements and evaluates capabilities that will 

comprise the expeditionary strike and sea basing forces, the committee strongly encourages the Navy to include funds for LPD–26 

in the fiscal year 2008 budget request as the most cost effective 

near-term means to satisfy projected lift requirements. 

Advance procurement authority for LHA replacement 

(LHA(R)) ship designated LHA–7 

The committee recommends an increase of $175.0 million in 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) for advance procurement 

of the second ship of the LHA replacement (LHA(R)) class, designated LHA–7. This would allow the Secretary of the Navy to 

enter into a contract for LHA–7 advance procurement in fiscal year 

2007, rather than fiscal year 2009 under the current plan. 

The Secretary of the Navy’s fiscal year 2007 report on the longrange plan for the construction of naval vessels identifies a requirement to procure the LHA replacement ships at a stable rate of one 

ship every 3 years, commencing in 2007. In testimony before the 

Committee on Armed Services, the Secretary of the Navy emphasized his number one priority is to stabilize the shipbuilding program to achieve the program’s critical affordability objectives. The 

committee understands that material cost increases and excess inflation have been notable factors in cost growth of prior year ship 

programs. Conversely, savings of approximately 15 percent have 

historically been achieved through the economic order quantity procurement of material for multiple ships of a class. 

The Navy plans to procure significant material for LHA–6 in fiscal year 2007, and further plans advance procurement for LHA–7 

in fiscal year 2009. In view of the significant potential material cost 

savings provided by combining material procurement for LHA–7 

with LHA–6, the committee recommends an increase of $175.0 million in SCN for LHA–7. 

Outfitting and post-delivery 

The budget request included $409.0 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN) for outfitting and post-delivery. Outfitting 

and post-delivery is a centrally-managed account for all SCN-funded ship programs, which is requested annually based on projected 

vessel delivery schedules. The committee is aware that delays to 

ship delivery schedules, related to performance issues and Hurricane Katrina impacts, have resulted in outfitting and post-delivery 

funding being requested in advance of execution requirements in 

the fiscal year 2007 budget request. Further, the committee urges 

the Navy to ensure that cost increases to the execution of outfitting 

and post-delivery attributed to Hurricane Katrina are properly financed in accordance with the provisions of title IX of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–148). 

The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in SCN 

for outfitting and post-delivery. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
74 

Completion of prior year shipbuilding 

The budget request included $577.8 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN) for completion of prior year shipbuilding 

programs. The committee is aware that delays to ship delivery 

schedules, related to performance issues and Hurricane Katrina 

impacts, has resulted in completion of prior year shipbuilding funding being requested in advance of execution requirements for the 

LPD–17 class. The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in SCN for completion of prior year shipbuilding. 

Amphibious ship integrated bridge system 

The budget request included $31.0 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN) for other navigation equipment, but included no funding for amphibious ship integrated bridge systems. The integrated 

bridge system (IBS) automatically collects, processes, integrates, 

and displays vital navigation sensor data on electronic charts to 

automatically and precisely control a ship’s movement in accordance with an approved voyage plan. The committee is aware that 

the Navy directed all ships in the fleet to be equipped with an electronic chart display information system—Navy capability by the 

end of fiscal year 2009. Additional funding for IBS is necessary to 

accomplish amphibious ship installations in support of this requirement. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 

OPN for amphibious ship integrated bridge system. 

DDG–51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer modernization program 

The budget request included $2.2 million in the Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) for the DDG–51 modernization program. This 

program upgrades the DDG–51 class with key technologies developed for future ships, which provide improved warfighting capability and reduce operating and support cost. The Secretary of the 

Navy’s fiscal year 2006 report to Congress on the long-range plan 

for construction of naval vessels identified the requirement to operate the 62–ship DDG–51 class for a full 35-year service life in order 

to meet the Navy’s surface combatant force structure requirements. 

The DDG–51 modernization program is essential to achieving this 

35-year expected service life. Additionally, the upgrades planned 

for incorporation, which enable reduced crew size, improved maintainability, and improved commonality, are forecasted to provide 

savings of $712.0 million in operations and support for the 62–ship 

class. 

Additional fiscal year 2007 DDG–51 modernization procurement 

funding is necessary to support planning, engineering, and initiate 

procurement activities in order to address backfit program issues, 

including configuration differences, mission life extension alterations, and initiatives to further reduce manpower requirements 

and costs in DDG–51 communications and combat systems operating spaces. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in OPN for the DDG–51 modernization program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
75 

High performance metal fiber brushes for shipboard motors 

and generators 

The budget request included $25.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN) for submarine support equipment, but included no 

funding for high performance metal brushes for shipboard motors 

and generators. Metal fiber brushes have demonstrated the capability to significantly enhance performance and reduce maintenance 

costs for motors and generators. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in OPN for completion of shore-based testing, 

development of ship alteration, and procurement of high performance metal fiber brushes. 

Ship support items under $5.0 million 

The budget request included $172.8 million in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) for ship support equipment items under $5.0 

million, but included no funding for the advanced control monitoring system, CVN propeller replacement program, or LSD–41/49 

class canned lube oil pumps. 

The advance control monitoring system will update legacy, analog ship control systems with digital applications and sensors for 

improved ship control and ship system performance monitoring. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in OPN for 

the advanced control monitoring system. 

The Navy has designed a generation III propeller for new and inservice aircraft carriers to meet the operational endurance and 

readiness requirements of today’s fleet. Replacing eroded propellers 

with generation III propellers provides improved life cycle performance and significant cost savings by extending propeller service life 

to align with aircraft carrier drydock schedules. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for continued procurement 

and installation of generation III propellers. 

The current mechanical shaft seal pumps on LSD–41/49 class 

amphibious ships experience high failure rates and increasing 

maintenance costs. The committee is aware that the Navy could realize a return on investment within 3 years through the installation of canned lube oil pumps on LSD–41/49 class ships. The committee also recommends an increase of $2.0 million in OPN for the 

procurement and installation of canned lube oil pumps to replace 

mechanical shaft seal pumps. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in OPN 

for ship support equipment items under $5.0 million, for a total authorization of $181.8 million. 

Electronics equipment items under $5.0 million 

The budget request included $22.5 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN) for communications and electronics equipment items 

under $5.0 million, but included no funding for the Naval Expedition Combatant Command (NECC) thermal imaging system capability. The use of an electro-optical/infrared system on combatant 

craft reduces risk to combat personnel and provides a surveillance 

capability to special operators at night and in conditions of obscured or reduced visibility. The committee recommends an increase of $4.2 million in OPN for communications and electronics 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
76 

equipment items under $5.0 million to outfit NECC riverine squadrons with thermal imaging systems. 

Sonobuoys 

The budget request included $66.9 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN) for sonobuoy procurement. The Navy’s current sonobuoy inventory and planned procurement for fiscal year 2007 fall 

short of the Navy’s Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirement (NNOR), 

which was established to support the National Military Strategy 

plus annual training requirements. Additional funding for multistatic search and localization sonobuoys is required to meet 

warfighting requirements. The committee recommends an increase 

of $8.0 million in OPN for sonobuoy procurement. 

Joint service and explosive ordnance disposal improvised 

explosive device countermeasures 

The budget request included $21.5 in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) equipment and $24.5 

million in PE 63654N for joint service and explosive ordnance systems development. The Navy has an immediate need to procure 

EOD electronic countermeasures (ECM) that are used to protect 

Navy EOD technicians from radio-controlled improvised explosive 

devices (RCIED) initiation and detonation. The Navy also has a requirement for research and development of a common next-generation, counter-RCIED system for joint force protection. Additional 

funding for joint service and EOD improvised explosive device 

countermeasures has been included on the Chief of Naval Operations’ fiscal year 2007 unfunded priorities list. The committee rec- ommends an increase of $7.7 million in OPN for EOD ECM, for a 

total authorization of $29.2 million and an increase of $9.1 million 

in PE 63654N for the development of joint service counter-RCIED, 

for a total authorization of $33.6 million. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy 

The budget request included $54.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN) for the procurement of eight NULKA anti-ship missile 

decoy systems and 79 NULKA decoys. The NULKA decoy is a 

quick reaction offboard electronic countermeasure to defeat advanced radar homing anti-ship missiles. 

The committee is aware that the programmed procurement rate 

for NULKA decoys will not meet the Navy’s inventory goal of filling 

50 percent of available launcher tubes by fiscal year 2008. The 

committee further understands that the economic order quantity to 

meet the most efficient NULKA production is 96 decoys, and that 

increasing production to the most economic rate will save approximately $20,000 per decoy. The committee recommends an increase 

of $6.0 million in OPN for the procurement of 17 additional 

NULKA decoys. 

Command support equipment 

The budget request included $58.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN) for command support equipment, but included no 

funding for the Multi-Climate Protection System (MCPS), or for the 

Man Overboard Indicator (MOBI) System. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
77 

The MCPS is a modular ensemble that provides total performance by layering thermal protection and shell garments. The committee is aware that the MCPS was developed to support the Commander Naval Air System requirement for improved protective 

clothing for aircrew personnel, and that the Navy has outfitted approximately 25 percent of total aircrew personnel with this improved clothing system. The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.2 million in OPN to complete initial MCPS outfitting. 

The MOBI system provides devices, which are worn by sailors 

aboard ship, to allow rescue forces to respond quickly in the event 

a sailor falls overboard. The committee is aware that the Naval 

Safety Center has recommended to the Naval Sea Systems Command that MOBI systems should be deployed throughout the fleet. 

The committee understands that 20 surface ships remain to be outfitted with the MOBI system, and that shipboard allowances limit 

the provision of personal transmitters to approximately one-third of 

crew members. The committee believes the MOBI system is an important system for shipboard safety. The committee recommends 

an increase of $4.4 million in OPN to complete surface ship MOBI 

system installations and increase personal transmitter shipboard 

allowances. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.6 million in OPN 

for command support equipment, for a total authorization of $66.2 

million. 

Combat Casualty Care Equipment Upgrade Program 

The budget request included $5.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN) for Medical Support Equipment, but included no funding for the Combat Casualty Care Upgrade Equipment Program. 

This program provides improved emergency medical equipment for 

use by the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command to more quickly 

stabilize and evacuate casualties, leading to greater survival rates 

and improved recovery times. The upgrade program complies with 

Navy authorized medical allowance list (AMAL) to provide lightweight NATO-standardized litters and litter load carriage tools, 

lightweight combat medic bags, and onboard life-saving kits for tactical vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $4.1 million in OPN for the Combat Casualty Care Equipment Upgrade 

Program. 

Lightweight 155–millimeter towed howitzer 

The budget request included $94.4 million in Procurement, Marine Corps, for the Lightweight 155–millimeter towed howitzer 

(LW–155 howitzer). The committee understands that a funding reduction in fiscal year 2006 reduced the number of Marine Corps’

LW–155 howitzers below the Marine Corps’ Acquisition Objective 

of 356 howitzers. Additional funding for the procurement of LW–

155 howitzers has been included on the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps’ fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $12.4 million in Procurement, Marine 

Corps for six additional LW–155 howitzers, for a total authorization of $106.8 million. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
78 

Modification kits 

The budget request included no funding in Procurement, Marine 

Corps, for modification kits for the M2HB .50 Caliber Machinegun. 

These kits would allow for the gun to have a quick change-barrel 

capability without conducting headspace and timing adjustments. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Procurement, Marine Corps for M2HB .50 Caliber Machinegun modification kits, for a total authorization of $5.0 million. 

Laser integrated target engagement system 

The budget request included $19.7 million in Procurement, Marine Corps for command post systems, but no funding for the Laser 

Integrated Target Engagement System (LITES). LITES is a laser 

based target location, tracking, identification and designation system. The laser designator has potential to significantly reduce the 

battery weight and deliver twice the designations at twice the 

range compared to the current generation of laser designators. The 

committee recommends an increase of $9.3 million in Procurement, 

Marine Corps for the LITES, for a total authorization of $29.0 million. 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
79 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here SR254.048
80 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here SR254.049
81 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here SR254.050
82 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here SR254.051
83 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here SR254.052
84 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here SR254.053
85 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here SR254.054
86 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here SR254.055
87 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here SR254.056
88 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here SR254.057
89 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here SR254.058
90 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here SR254.059
91 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here SR254.060
92 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here SR254.061
93 

Procurement of Joint Primary Aircraft Training System aircraft after fiscal year 2006 (sec. 141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require any 

Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) aircraft procured 

after fiscal year 2006 to be procured through a contract under part 

15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), relating to items 

by negotiated contract, rather than through a contract under part 

12 of the FAR, relating to acquisition of commercial items. 

The committee believes that the original decision to procure 

JPATS as a commercial item unnecessarily limited cost oversight 

by the government by denying the government access to certified 

cost or pricing data from the manufacturer. The committee believes 

that an agreement to change the terms and conditions of the existing JPATS contract from a commercial item contract to a standard 

defense contract is necessary to provide the government the oversight it needs to procure aircraft at a fair price. The Department 

of Defense Inspector General report, number D–2006–075, entitled 

‘‘Acquisition of the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System,’’ dated 

April 12, 2006, recommended that the Assistant Secretary of the 

Air Force for Acquisition discontinue the commercial item procurement strategy for the JPATS program and replace it with a strategy that would require the contractor to provide certified cost or 

pricing data and visibility into contractor cost and help the Government ensure prices negotiated and eventually paid are reasonable. 

The committee notes that the Air Force has announced its intent 

to renegotiate this contract to a FAR part 15 contract. This provision is intended to support that decision. 

Prohibition on retirement of C–130E/H tactical airlift aircraft (sec. 142) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of the Air Force from retiring any C–130E/H tactical airlift aircraft in fiscal year 2007. 

The committee believes it would be premature to retire any C–

130 aircraft until an Air Force Fleet Viability Board has conducted 

an assessment of the C–130E/H fleet of aircraft and the results of 

the Intra-Theater Lift Capability Study (ITLCS), Phases 1 and 2, 

identify the right mix and number of intra-theater airlift assets, 

and that the results of the assessment and the ITLCS study have 

been provided to the congressional defense committees. 

Limitation on retirement of KC–135E aircraft (sec. 143) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to retire up to and including 29 KC–

135E aircraft of the Air Force that do not have the Expanded Interim Repair and are currently removed from the flying schedule 

in fiscal year 2007. It is the intent of the committee to allow the 

Air Force to retire KC–135E aircraft in a manner consistent with 

the recommendations of the Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC–

135 Assessment Report, dated September 2005, including, but not 

limited to, the service completing a business case analysis for this 

mission area. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
94 

Limitation on retirement of B–52H bomber aircraft (sec. 144) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to retire up to and including 18 B–52H 

aircraft of the Air Force. The committee expects the remaining B– 52H aircraft inventory to be maintained in a common aircraft configuration that includes the Electronic Countermeasure Improvement, the Avionics Mid-life Improvement, and the Combat Network 

Communication Technology modification efforts. The committee expects no further reduction in the B–52H total aircraft inventory, including the current inventory levels for combat coded Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory and Primary Training Aircraft Inventory. 

The committee is concerned that any further reduction in the B– 52H total aircraft inventory will create unacceptable risk to our national security and may prevent our ability to strike the required 

conventional target set during times of war. 

Retirement of B–52H bomber aircraft (sec. 145) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of any funds available to the Department of Defense from being 

obligated or expended for retiring or dismantling any of the 93 B– 52H bomber aircraft in service in the Air Force as of June 1, 2006, 

until 30 days after the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives a report on the bomber force structure. The committee directs that the report shall be conducted by the Institute 

for Defense Analyses and provided to the Secretary of the Air Force 

for transmittal to Congress. The committee is troubled that the Air 

Force would reduce the B–52 bomber fleet without a comprehensive 

analysis of the bomber force structure similar to the last comprehensive long range bomber study, which was conducted in 1999. 

Prohibition on incremental funding and multiyear procurement of F–22A aircraft (sec. 146) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of the Air Force from using incremental funding for the 

procurement of F–22A aircraft. In the past, the Congress has approved of incremental funding of certain space programs and a select number of shipbuilding programs. Notwithstanding assertions 

to the contrary, authorizing incremental funding for the F–22A 

would set a precedent for funding aircraft. The committee sees no 

justification for setting such a precedent in the case of the F–22A, 

where the Department of Defense has proposed incremental funding merely as a way of alleviating cash flow pressures on the overall Department. 

Additionally, the provision would prohibit the Secretary of the 

Air Force from entering into a multiyear procurement of the F– 22A. Subsections (a)(1) through (6) of section 2306b of title 10, 

United States Code establish the conditions for entering into a 

multiyear procurement contract. The statute requires that the use 

of such a contract will result in substantial savings of the total anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. Although it would seem possible to achieve savings from implementing a multiyear procurement for the F–22A, the Air Force 

has not yet completed a thorough analysis of multiyear savings. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
95 

The statute also requires that the estimates of both the cost of the 

contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a 

multiyear contract are realistic. The fact that the Air Force had 

budgeted 24 F–22A aircraft in fiscal year 2006, but will only be 

able to buy 22 or 23 aircraft with available funds does not give confidence that anticipated costs are well understood. Although the 

Department of Defense and the Air Force have asked for the authority to pursue a multiyear procurement program, the Administration has not submitted any budget exhibits supporting a 

multiyear procurement strategy. 

Budget Items—Air Force 

Joint Strike Fighter 

The budget request included $869.7 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to purchase five Air Force aircraft in fiscal 

year 2007, $145.3 million in APAF to purchase long lead time materials for eight Air Force aircraft to be purchased in fiscal year 

2008, and $245.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) to 

purchase long lead time materials for eight Marine Corps aircraft 

to be purchased in fiscal year 2008. 

The purpose of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is to provide an affordable replacement strike fighter aircraft for major portions of the fleets of the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine 

Corps. The Air Force variant will be a conventional takeoff and 

landing aircraft (CTOL), the Navy variant will be aircraft carrier 

capable (CV), and the Marine Corps variant will be capable of short 

takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). Central to the whole JSF 

program is achieving an affordable option for these modernization 

efforts. Commonality within this family of aircraft is crucial in 

keeping the overall tactical aviation modernization program affordable. 

The committee strongly supports, and is committed to achieving, 

the objective of developing and deploying a technically superior and 

affordable fleet of Joint Strike Fighters that support the warfighter 

in performing a wide variety of missions, as well as meeting the 

United States Government’s stated commitments to our international partners and allies. 

The committee, however, is concerned that excessive concurrency 

between the development and procurement programs could hamper 

efforts to realize this objective in an effective and efficient manner. 

Recent testimony by a representative of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicated that, 

The JSF program expects to begin low-rate initial procurement in 2007 with less than 1 percent of the flight test 

program completed and no production representative prototypes built for the three JSF variants. Technologies and 

features critical to JSF’s operational success, such as a low 

observable and highly common airframe, advanced mission 

systems, and maintenance prognostics systems, will not 

have been demonstrated in a flight test environment when 

production begins. Other key demonstrations that will 

have not been either started or only in the initial stages 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
96 

before production begins include: (1) testing with fully integrated aircraft-mission systems and full software; (2) 

structural and fatigue testing of the airframe; and (3) shipboard testing of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. 

The committee has also learned that first flight of the first aircraft, a CTOL variant, has slipped several months, and building of 

the research and development aircraft is running three to five 

months behind schedule. 

The overlap in testing and production is the result of a business 

case and acquisition strategy that has proven to be risky in past 

programs like F–22A, Comanche, and B–2A, which far exceeded 

the cost and delivery goals set at the start of their development 

programs. JSF has already increased its cost estimate and delayed 

deliveries through a lengthy replanning effort that added over $7.0 

billion and 18 months to the development program. The committee 

believes that an evolutionary acquisition strategy to limit requirements for the aircraft’s first increment of capabilities that can be 

achieved with proven technologies and available resources could 

significantly reduce the JSF program’s cost and schedule risks. 

Such a strategy would allow the program to begin testing and lowrate production sooner and, ultimately, to deliver a useful product 

in sufficient quantities to the warfighter sooner. The Department 

of Defense’s use of an evolutionary, knowledge-based approach is 

not unprecedented. The F–16 program successfully evolved capabilities over the span of 30 years, with an initial F–16 capability 

delivered to the warfighter about four years after development 

started. 

Although the Department has scheduled the production of JSF 

aircraft to begin replacing legacy aircraft, the committee believes 

that the development and fielding of JSF variants should be eventdriven and that more of the technologies should be matured and 

risk reduced to the point that the government and the contractor 

team can sign a fixed-price contract for each production lot of aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a one-year delay in production and a reduction of $955.0 million from APAF for JSF (consisting of $869.7 million for JSF and $85.3 million from JSF advance procurement), and $245.0 million in APN. 

F–22A procurement 

The budget request included $1,981.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) as part of an incremental funding strategy 

that would lead to a production profile of 20 aircraft per year for 

a three-year multiyear procurement of 60 aircraft, beginning in fiscal year 2008. No complete F–22A aircraft were to be procured in 

fiscal year 2007. The budget request also included $200.0 million 

in F–22A advance procurement for economic order quantity (EOQ) 

items required for the F–22A multiyear procurement program. 

The committee does not agree with the Department of Defense 

acquisition strategy to incrementally fund the F–22A. The committee sees no justification for setting a precedent for funding aircraft, as in the case of the F–22A, where the Department of DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
97 

fense has proposed incremental funding merely as a way of alleviating cash flow pressures on the overall Department. 

Additionally, the committee sees no justification for entering into 

a multiyear procurement of the aircraft. Subsections (a)(1) through 

(6) of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code establish the 

conditions for entering into a multiyear procurement contract. One 

of these conditions is that such a contract will result in substantial 

savings as compared to the total anticipated costs of carrying out 

the program through annual contracts. The committee believes that 

substantial savings are not possible under the proposed acquisition 

strategy. Although the Department of Defense and the Air Force 

have asked for the authority to pursue a multiyear procurement 

program, the Administration has not submitted any budget exhibits supporting a multiyear procurement strategy. Without a 

multiyear procurement program, the $200.0 million in EOQ funds 

are in excess and should be applied to the procurement of F–22A 

aircraft in fiscal year 2007. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1,400.0 

million in APAF for a total procurement of $3,381.3 million. The 

committee authorizes the Air Force to procure up to and including 

20 F–22A aircraft in fiscal year 2007. 

C–17A procurement 

The budget request included $2,636.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), to complete the buy of 180 C–17A aircraft, 

including $433.2 million for line closure expenses. In addition, the 

fiscal year 2006 budget, as enacted, is $224.5 million for buying additional aircraft or for line closure expenses. Therefore, with the 

Air Force planned closure of the production line after the delivery 

of 180 aircraft, there would be available $657.7 million for line closure expenses. 

The committee is concerned that premature closure of the C–17A 

production line would leave the Department of Defense with inadequate lift capabilities. While the Mobility Capabilities Study 

(MCS) identified that a fleet of 180 C–17As was adequate, that recommendation was based on many assumptions, some of which, only 

months after its completion, no longer hold true. There is a clear 

need for additional C–17As in order to meet inter- and intra-theater lift requirements. 

In addition, the study assumed a standard usage rate, one significantly lower than what the Air Force has experienced over the 

past several years. In fact, the service is flying its transports in excess of 159 percent of planned usage rates, which is leading to premature aging of the fleet. Some of the older transports now fly with 

restrictions due to sustained high usage. For this reason, the committee believes that higher usage rates necessitate the production 

of additional aircraft to ensure the long-term adequacy of the fleet. 

In the Senate report accompanying S. 1042 (S. Rept. 109–69) of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the 

committee requested a further determination by the Secretary of 

Defense on the adequacy of airlift capabilities for several reasons, 

including increased humanitarian usage, the return of 70,000 personnel to the United States due to the Base Relocation and Alignment Commission results, homeland security requirements, Special 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
98 

Operations Command missions, requirements associated with the 

Army’s Strategic Brigade Airdrop goal, and lift requirements for 

the Army’s Stryker Brigades. The committee has yet to receive the 

Secretary’s report. However, it would be difficult to conclude that 

these changes have not led to growth in our lift requirements. 

In addition, the committee is further concerned that C–17A production is scheduled to cease well before the results of the C–5 

modernization demonstration program in December 2008 are available. As a recent Department of Commerce analysis points out, the 

cost to restart production of the C–17A would exceed $5.0 billion 

and take 4 years before additional transports would become available. This conclusion is fully consistent with attempts in the early 

1980s to restart the C–5 program, which was difficult, costly, and 

took years to restart. Additional funding for C–17A procurement 

has been included on the Air Force Chief of Staff’s unfunded priorities list. 

For these reasons, the committee recommends redirecting the $657.7 million planned for line closure to procure additional C–17A 

aircraft. The committee recommends $257.7 million in advance procurement (using the $224.5 million of fiscal year 2006 advance procurement with an additional $33.2 million transferred from the C– 17A procurement line to the C–17A advance procurement line in fiscal year 2007), and applying the remaining $400.0 million to buy 

two additional C–17As. 

KC–135 tanker replacement 

The budget request included $36.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to purchase long, lead time materials to 

support the first aircraft delivery of a replacement tanker for the 

KC–135 aircraft in fiscal year 2010, and $203.9 million in PE 

41221F for non-recurring engineering, test development, and program office expenses. The KC–135 tanker replacement program 

had been under a Department of Defense-directed pause which has 

resulted in a program schedule slip that will cause the contract 

award for tanker replacement to occur in fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends a decrease of $36.1 million in APAF, 

and a decrease of $199.0 million in PE 41221F for the KC–135 

tanker replacement program to reflect the schedule slip. 

A/OA–10 modifications 

The budget request included $107.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for modifications to the A/OA–10 aircraft. 

The modifications for the A/OA–10 include, but are not limited to, 

a communications and datalink upgrade, precision engagement upgrades, and a missile warning capability. A recent urgent needs request was established for an A/OA–10 robust, frequency-selectable, 

line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight secure airborne communications and datalink capability that can be provided by the ARC–210 

radio. The net effect of this improvement will be highly reliable, responsive air support of joint, coalition, and multi-national ground 

forces, and lower maintenance provided by materiel improvement. 

The precision engagement program upgrades include a digital 

stores management system, MIL–STD–1760 munitions bus, SNIPER/Litening targeting pod integration, improved hands-on-throttleVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
99 

and-stick (HOTAS) control, two new multifunctional color cockpit 

displays, an improved head-up display, and digital datalink. The 

precision engagement upgrades will permit the A/OA–10 to employ 

GPS-guided munitions such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition 

and the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser. The A/OA–10 aircraft also requires an extended duration, covert infrared countermeasures capability to protect the aircraft from infrared surface-toair missile threats that abound in its typical operating envelope for 

ground attack. Accelerated procurement of A/OA–10 modifications 

is included as the number three priority on the Chief of Staff of the 

Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. The committee recommends an increase of $83.4 million in APAF 

to accelerate the A/OA–10 modification program. 

C–5 aircraft avionics modernization program 

The budget request included $223.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for modifications to the C–5 aircraft, including $50.4 million to continue the C–5 avionics modernization 

program (AMP). AMP upgrades the C–5 cockpit by replacing unreliable cockpit avionics, installs communication, navigation, surveillance/air traffic management equipment capabilities that will improve air traffic management by taking advantage of optimum air 

routes. AMP also installs navigation safety equipment such as the 

traffic alert and collision avoidance system and the terrain awareness and warning system. To accelerate this program, the committee recommends an increase of $32.0 million in APAF for C–5 

AMP. 

Bomb insensitive munitions upgrade 

The budget request included $41.9 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF), for Mk 84 bombs, but included no 

funding for facilitation of the insensitive munitions upgrade at the 

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. The committee recommends 

an increase of $4.0 million in PAAF for facilitation of the insensitive munitions upgrade at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant 

for the Mk 84 bomb production line. 

Propulsion replacement program 

The budget request included $294.6 million in Missile Procurement Air Force (MPAF), for the Minuteman III propulsion replacement program. This program extends the life, maintains the performance, and improves reliability of the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile by remanufacturing all three solid rocket 

motor stages. Refurbishment of the motors is necessary to sustain 

the Minuteman III force through 2020. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 

MPAF, line 11, for the propulsion replacement program to offset increased costs of ammonium perchlorate and attrition hardware. 

Expanded intelligence support for reach-back operations 

The demand for intelligence exploitation from Air Force high 

mission aircraft, such as Predator, Global Hawk, and U–2, is increasing. Advances in technology allow for this imagery and signals 

intelligence exploitation to be conducted by Air Force intelligence 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
100 

organizations at home stationed in the United States rather than 

being forward deployed. Air National Guard (ANG) squadrons have 

successfully assumed portions of this mission set. 

The committee recommends that this capability be expanded in the ANG. The committee also recommends an increase of $7.5 million in Other Procurement, Air Force, Intelligence Communications, to provide necessary communications equipment and unique 

intelligence workstations to enhance the mission capabilities of 

ANG intelligence squadrons and to expand the intelligence reachback capabilities of the Department of Defense. 

Self-deploying infrared streamer 

The budget request included no funding in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF) for personal safety and rescue equipment items 

less than $4.0 million. The self-deploying infrared streamer 

(SDIRS) system aids in the rescue of downed aircrew at sea. The 

SDIRS system is attached to an ejection seat and automatically deploys and activates upon submergence in the water, making the 

wearer highly visible to search and rescue teams using the naked 

eye during daylight and night vision equipment during hours of 

darkness. The SDIRS installation requires only minimal modification to the existing system without affecting other components of 

the pilot’s survival kit. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in OPAF 

for the procurement of the self-deploying infrared streamer. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
101 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here SR254.062
102 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here SR254.063
103 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here SR254.064
104 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here SR254.065
105 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here SR254.066
106 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here SR254.067
107 

Budget Items—Defense-wide 

Army high performance computing research center 

The budget request included $84.9 million in Procurement, De- fense-wide for major equipment, including $51.2 million for the 

High Performance Computing (HPC) Modernization Program 

(HPCMP). Department of Defense (DOD) supercomputing requirements for support of the research, development, test and evaluation 

community are collected and validated annually. Current projections show that the deployed capability in fiscal year 2007 will 

meet less than half of the validated requirement. The addition of 

supercomputers at the Army HPC research center will help the Department meet a high percentage of the requirement. The committee recommends an increase of $22.3 million in Procurement, 

Defense-wide, for a total authorization of $73.5 million for the 

Army HPC research center. 

Mini gun 

The budget request included $86.8 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for Special Operations Forces (SOF), Rotary 

Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, but included no funding for the 

procurement of the M134 mini gun. 

The M134 mini gun is a six barrel Gatling gun that has proven 

itself as a workhorse for the 160th Special Operations Aviation 

Regiment (160th SOAR) due to its long service life and reliable rate 

of fire. The M134 mini gun is one of the highest priorities of the 

Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, for additional 

funding. The committee recommends an increase of $13.9 million in PDW, 

for SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, to support the 

procurement of 279 additional mini guns to ensure the 160th SOAR 

has a common weapon system capable of operating on direct-current power, while also offering a weight savings and improved reliability. 

Time delayed firing device/sympathetic detonators 

The budget request included $13.6 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for Special Operations Forces (SOF), Ordnance 

Acquisition, including $2.7 million for time delayed firing device/ 

sympathetic detonators (TDFD/SYDET), but included insufficient 

funding to fully replenish the inventory or provide sufficient munitions to train new operators as directed by the 2006 Quadrennial 

Defense Review Report. 

TDFD/SYDET is a time delayed detonating device that greatly 

enhances the capabilities and efficiency of SOF operators conducting offensive military operations. Sufficient supplies are required to ensure operators have the best possible detonators for actual missions and that the detonator is available to instructors 

training new SOF operators. TDFD/SYDET is one of the highest 

priorities of the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, 

for additional funding. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PDW, 

for SOF Ordnance Acquisition, to procure an additional 5,500 

TDFD/SYDET units for SOF operators and trainers. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
108 

Persistent Predator operations and intelligence 

The budget request included $32.7 million for Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for Special Operations Forces (SOF), Intelligence Systems, but included no funding for Persistent Predator 

operations and intelligence. 

The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) requires the 

capability to find, fix, and finish time-sensitive, high-value targets. 

These targets can often only be developed with patient, persistent 

collection, and require rapid, decisive action during the brief periods in which they present themselves. Persistent Predator operations and intelligence is the highest priority for the Commander, 

USSOCOM, for additional funding. The committee recommends an increase of $13.4 million in PDW, 

for SOF Intelligence Systems, to procure a mobile Predator operations center and distributed common ground system to conduct 

dynamic retasking of Predator assets to support SOF ground forces. 

Advanced lightweight grenade launcher 

The budget request included no funding in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for Special Operations Forces (SOF), Small 

Arms and Weapons, for continued procurement of the Advanced 

Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL). 

The ALGL system provides a much improved capability over the 

Mark 19 grenade launcher it replaced. The ALGL is a lightweight 

40MM grenade launching system with day and night fire control 

and air bursting 40MM ammunition. This capability provides SOF 

elements the ability to address targets in defilade position, and enables first burst hit capability on point targets up to 1,500 meters. 

ALGL is one of the highest priorities for the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, for additional funding. The committee recommends an increase of $12.9 million in PDW, 

for SOF Small Arms and Weapons, to procure an additional 86 

ALGL systems with fire control capability. 

Special Operations Forces laser acquisition marker 

The budget request included $105.8 million for Procurement, Defense-wide, for Special Operations Forces (SOF), Small Arms Weapons, and $1.4 million for the night vision sight subcomponent of the 

Special Operations Forces Laser Acquisition Marker (SOFLAM). 

The use of an invisible, coded laser that can only be detected by 

a targeted missile provides SOF elements with a stand off capability to engage targets, and ensures friendly delivery aircraft 

spend minimal time in enemy airspace. SOFLAM is one of the 

highest priorities for the Commander, U.S. Special Operations 

Command, for additional funding. The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million in PDW, 

for Small Arms Weapons, to procure twelve SOFLAM for tactical 

air controllers to mark and laze targets for the delivery of laser 

guided munitions. 

Special Operations Command craft modifications 

The budget request included $20.2 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for Special Operations Forces (SOF), Combatant 

Craft Systems, including $2.5 million for craft modifications, but 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
109 

included insufficient funding to fully upgrade the high speed assault craft inventory. 

The committee notes that the craft modifications will accelerate 

technology insertion, including the high performance diesel engine 

propulsion system, the integrated onboard ground operating system, and the integrated bridge system. The craft modifications are 

one of the highest priorities of the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, for additional funding. The committee recommends an increase of $8.2 million in PDW, 

for SOF Combatant Craft Systems, to fully upgrade the high speed 

assault craft currently used by Naval Special Warfare Command in 

the execution of their mission to conduct interdiction at sea, as well 

as insertion and extraction of combat force to or from shore based 

targets. 

Joint threat warning system 

The budget request included $4.5 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for Special Operations Forces (SOF), Intelligence Systems Development, for continued procurement of the 

Joint Threat Warning System (JTWS), but the amount requested 

will only equip a small portion of special operations forces with this 

much-improved threat warning capability for ground, air, and maritime forces. 

JTWS is a modular, lightweight, ground signals intelligence system that can be mounted on a variety of SOF delivery platforms 

to provide threat warning, situational awareness, and enhanced 

force protection for SOF elements. JTWS is an evolutionary acquisition program that builds upon previous efforts to separately acquire similar systems for air, ground, and maritime applications. 

Accelerating the procurement of this capability to provide a network-centric family of systems is one of the highest priorities of the 

Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, for additional 

funding. The committee recommends am increase of $5.5 million in PDW, 

for SOF Intelligence Systems Development, to procure additional 

JTWS variants that will allow operators increased situational 

awareness. 

Automatic Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm 

The budget request included $236.1 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for contamination avoidance equipment to support the procurement of chemical and biological detection, warning 

and reporting, and reconnaissance systems, such as the Automatic 

Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm (ACADA). The committee 

notes that a number of Army National Guard units are deployed 

in support of military operations. These units must have the best 

possible defense against chemical threats. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PDW to meet procurement 

shortfalls in fielding ACADA systems. 

Improved chemical agent monitor 

The budget request included $236.1 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), for contamination avoidance equipment, but included no funding for the Improved Chemical Agent Monitor 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
110 

(ICAM). ICAM is a hand-held, soldier operated, post-attack device 

that provides a means of quickly detecting the presence of nerve 

and blister agent contamination on personnel and equipment. 

The committee notes that Army National Guard units do not all 

possess the capability to rapidly and effectively detect the presence 

of chemical agents. These units must have the best available equipment to detect the presence of chemical threats. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PDW, 

for ICAM, to increase the Army National Guard’s contamination 

avoidance capabilities. 

Items of Special Interest 

Cost control for certain helicopter acquisition programs 

The Department of Defense, including the Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and Marine Corps are all buying helicopters for filling various missions. Two of these programs have generated concern because of recent developments. The Marine Corps has been developing upgrades and replacements for its existing fleet of attack 

(AH–1) and utility (UH–1) helicopters. These programs, which are 

being conducted by the same manufacturer, have experienced delayed deliveries and increasing costs. These problems appear, at 

least in part, to have been caused by deficient cost control and cost 

accounting procedures by which the contractor manages the programs and through which Department of Defense acquisition officials can manage the government’s equities in the programs. 

This raises concerns with the committee, since these same procedures have been used on other existing programs and could be used 

on future programs as well. Since the Marine Corps’ MV–22, Special Operations Command’s CV–22, the Air Force’s VH–71, and the 

Army’s Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) programs will all 

be acquired in whole or in part from the same contractor, the committee believes that Department-wide attention should be focused 

on the corrective actions that are being proposed for restructuring 

the AH–1 and UH–1 programs. 

Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) to 

conduct a thorough review of the cost control and cost accounting 

procedures for helicopter acquisition programs of the various helicopter prime contractors, not just the contractor involved in the 

AH–1 and UH–1 programs. We need to be sure that we are getting 

fair value for the billions of dollars that the taxpayer will be investing in the various helicopter acquisition programs in the current 

plan. 

The committee will reserve judgment on the plan to restructure 

the UH–1 and AH–1 programs until the Department completes its 

review. 

Deployable/mobile command and control programs 

The committee notes that there are many efforts underway in 

the Department of Defense and military services to develop and 

field battle management command and control systems. While the 

committee supports ongoing efforts to improve command and control (C2) capabilities, we are nonetheless concerned that many of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
111 

these systems are being developed as service-centric solutions rather than as joint solutions. As a result, there is likely to be unnecessary duplication of effort and cost inefficiencies and, more importantly, there is the potential that systems will lack the necessary 

interoperability to operate effectively in a joint military operation. 

The committee also notes that Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), 

in coordination with the Department of the Navy, is developing and 

fielding the first increment of the Deployable Joint Command and 

Control (DJC2) system with some success. However, with efforts 

underway to pursue further increments of DJC2 capability, it has 

become apparent that a number of service-specific solutions to the 

problem of deployable C2 have recently begun that may duplicate 

DJC2. In addition, the services have several efforts underway to 

develop various mobile C2 systems. These systems are intended to 

provide commanders with battle management and situational 

awareness capabilities while on the move. For example, the Army 

is developing the Mounted Battle Command On-The-Move 

(MBCOTM) system and the Marine Corps is developing the Command and Control On-The-Move Network Digital Over-the-Horizon 

Relay (CONDOR) system. Additionally, JFCOM is designing a 

Command and Control on the Move (C2OTM) system under limited 

acquisition authority. While each service will argue that they need 

a service-unique deployable C2 solution to meet service-specific requirements, a common solution set of equipment that could meet 

the needs of multiple services may be preferable, especially given 

the funding pressures the Department is experiencing. The committee believes that there are efficiencies to be gained from merging the services’ deployable and mobile C2 initiatives. 

As a first step in identifying the extent to which there is a problem with the military services continuing to pursue service-specific 

C2 solutions at the expense of joint solutions, the committee directs 

the Comptroller General to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees, no later than March 15, 2007, reviewing current and planned programs within the Department to develop 

deployable and mobile C2 systems. The report will include an assessment of the requirements, costs, and schedules of these programs and whether joint development approaches are warranted. 

F–18 Hornet to Joint Strike Fighter transition 

The committee is concerned that the Navy will confront a sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A–18A–D Hornets retire 

before the aircraft carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 

is available. F/A–18A–D aircraft were originally designed for a 

service life of 6,000 flight hours, and after an initial engineering 

study, that limit was raised to 8,000 flight hours. It would take additional service life extensions to reach 12,000 flight hours to ensure a smooth transition to JSF with no inventory shortfall. 

The magnitude of the problem, and the procurement cost to avoid 

a shortfall in the carrier air wing force structure, is entirely dependent on when the Navy determines that its F/A–18A/Cs are at 

the end of their service life. An ongoing Service Life Assessment 

Program (SLAP) II study, to be completed in December 2007, will 

determine the maximum service life of the aircraft. Early projections from the SLAP II study indicate that aircraft service life may 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
112 

be approved beyond 8,000 flight hours. However, the Navy has acknowledged that, even if 10,000 flight hours were achievable, the 

inventory shortfall would be 50 aircraft. If any of the assumptions 

used in the Navy’s analysis change or prove to be overly optimistic, 

the inventory gap will grow dramatically. 

The committee understands that an acquisition decision is not 

required this fiscal year. However, small steps taken now could 

prevent the requirement for major and expensive program changes 

in 2010. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the Navy 

consider buying additional F/A–18E/Fs to mitigate the known 

shortfall, while allowing the Navy to transition to the JSF as soon 

as feasible. In addition, the committee directs the Navy to report 

the preliminary findings of the SLAP II study to the congressional 

defense committees no later than June 15, 2007. 

Fully funded bomber roadmap 

The Secretary of the Air Force shall provide a bomber roadmap 

to the congressional defense committees within 120 days of enactment of this Act. The roadmap will outline a plan for long-range 

strike bombers with specific details of upgrade plans for legacy 

bombers and a schedule for development of the new long-range 

strike bomber. The roadmap shall include the amount of funding 

that would be needed to implement the roadmap through fiscal 

year 2020. 

Littoral Combat Ship 

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a small, fast Navy surface 

combatant with modular weapon systems, designed to fill critical 

capability gaps for warfighting in the littorals. The Navy plans to 

procure a total of 55 LCS vessels, plus approximately 90 mission 

modules for mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-surface warfare capability. The Navy has emphasized the criticality of 

littoral capability, modularity, and low acquisition cost as the compelling attributes for procuring this new class of small combatants. 

The Navy’s estimate for LCS procurement was $220.0 million, with 

average unit cost for mission modules estimated at $70.0 million. 

The Navy’s acquisition strategy was to procure 4 flight 0 ships, 

pause procurement in fiscal year 2008 while evaluating system performance, and then proceed with introduction of a flight 1 design 

for follow-on ship competition. 

The Navy awarded two LCS flight 0 prime contracts, with research and development (R&D) funding in fiscal years 2005 and 

2006. Congress appropriated two additional flight 0 ships in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) in fiscal year 2006, budgeted 

at the Navy’s estimated $220.0 million unit cost. Additionally, in 

view of concerns with cost growth on shipbuilding programs, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163) established a $220.0 million cost cap for the fifth 

and sixth ships of the LCS program. That cost cap is subject to authorized adjustments for inflation, outfitting, statutory changes, 

and technology insertion approved by the Secretary of the Navy. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget request included $521.0 million for 

the fifth and sixth ships of the LCS class, and identified that the 

Navy’s $220.0 million estimate for LCS unit cost was exclusive of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
113 

contract change orders, planning and engineering services, program 

management support, and other costs not included in the ship construction contract. In total, the Congressional Research Service estimates that these adjustments would increase the average unit 

procurement cost of follow-on LCS ships about 33 percent, to approximately $298.0 million. With lead ship construction less than 

50 percent complete, it is premature to refine these estimates 

based on actual construction cost return data. The Navy has also 

advised that it has revised its acquisition strategy and intends to 

continue procurement of the two flight 0 versions at least through 

the planned procurement of the fifteenth LCS in fiscal year 2009. 

The construction of lead LCS vessels at two shipyards inherently 

adds cost risk, which will persist until these ships near completion 

in 2007 and 2008. The emphasis on cost control would dictate that 

the Navy pursue competition, commonality, and the results of 

learning curves to the extent practical in the procurement of this 

55 ship class. 

The committee views LCS as an important component of the 

Navy’s strategy for conducting the global war on terror, and has 

supported the Navy’s approach to rapidly field this capability. The 

design and construction of LCS in parallel with development of the 

mission modules requires heightened management of program risk 

to ensure affordable, full mission capability of the LCS program. 

However, the committee is concerned that the affordability appeal 

of the LCS program is being overtaken by apparent cost growth, 

and that the rapid ramp up in LCS procurement will compound the 

issue. The stated emphasis on affordability is obscured by the absence of a clear acquisition strategy to guide strategic program decisions. Additionally, it is unclear that the Navy has assessed the 

added cost for training, maintenance, configuration management, 

planning and engineering, and supply support for the two flight 0 

ship classes. Further, by virtue of budgeting the costs for procuring 

the flight 0 LCS vessels in three different appropriations, total 

costs for the program’s start are difficult to discern. 

In view of these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary of 

the Navy to submit a report on the LCS program, no later than December 1, 2006 to the congressional defense committees. The report 

shall outline the Navy’s acquisition strategy for the program, including the competition plan, the flight strategy, and the cost containment strategy for the program; contain a clear representation 

of all R&D and procurement costs for the total program; and assess 

the added life cycle costs associated with operation and support for 

two dissimilar flight 0 LCS designs. 

Maritime Prepositioning Force, Future 

The Navy’s long-range plan for future force structure includes 

$14.5 billion for the development and construction of Maritime 

Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF(F)) ships and related enabling 

technologies in support of sea basing. The budget request included 

$127.7 million in PE 63236N and PE 48042N for the purpose of developing concepts of operation and enabling technologies for the 

Sea Base. The first MPF(F) ships are planned for procurement in 

fiscal year 2009, with the Sea Base initial operating capability in 

2016. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
114 

The Senate report accompanying S. 1042 (S. Rept. 109–69) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 identified 

concerns regarding whether the future concept of sea basing is 

technically feasible and fiscally prudent. The committee understands that sea basing fundamentally comprises a range of capabilities stretching across prepositioning, sealift, expeditionary force, 

and aircraft carrier operations all of which are employed by the 

fleet today when called to put forces ashore. The future Sea Base 

envisioned by the Navy would include MPF(F) squadrons capable 

of supporting brigade-size assault forces, with automated 

warehousing and selective offload capability, heavy seas ship-toship cargo transfer capability, mobile landing platforms, and shipto-shore connectors. Further, the MPF(F) squadron could sustain 

the force ashore for extended periods without reliance on access to 

other nations’ ports or bases. 

The large investment required by the MPF(F) sea basing capabilities requires careful assessment regarding the concept of operations for the MPF(F) squadrons. Specific access-denial scenarios, 

which would dictate employing the MPF(F) ships, need to be understood against the backdrop of the full spectrum of inter-service and 

inter-agency alternatives for establishing a point of departure for 

ground forces. To the extent that MPF(F) ships are maintained in 

a ready status, similar to their prepositioning counterparts, the 

timeline for deploying the MPF(F) ships and the crewing concept 

for their operations become important factors in scenario planning 

for the Sea Base. Similarly, an understanding of capstone requirements for probability of raid annihilation and other force defense 

requirements for the Sea Base is critical, since the MPF(F) ships 

will potentially embark a brigade-size force, yet they lack the selfdefense features of expeditionary warships. 

Technical challenges confronting the development of the critical 

enabling technologies for sea basing need to be assessed, and the 

risks need to be sufficiently understood to be able to warrant nearterm decisions regarding further investment in MPF(F) ship procurement. The committee believes it is important to ensure that 

these technologies can reliably support the movement of supplies 

and equipment in heavy seas, at a rate that will sustain a ground 

force engaged in combat, before large investments are made in 

MPF(F) ships. 

The Navy faces significant financial challenges as it proceeds to 

build the 313-ship fleet defined by the future force structure plan. 

In weighing the investment in MPF(F) capability, the committee 

needs to have clear insight to the full benefit the Navy intends to 

derive from this concept, an appreciation that the sea basing mission is not better achieved by other measures, and full confidence 

that the development efforts in question are achievable in the timeframe planned and budgeted. Accordingly, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees with the fiscal year 2008 budget request, addressing: (1) the Sea Base concept of operations for the MPF(F) 

ships, including timelines that detail force deployment and underway operations in defense planning scenarios; (2) Sea Base capstone requirements that address defense of the MPF(F) ships 

against swarming boats, diesel submarine threats, or high density 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
115 

anti-ship cruise missile raids; (3) MPF(F) key performance parameters; (4) MPF(F) crewing concepts, and assessment of related cost 

and operational considerations; (5) refined ship cost estimates and 

total program costs, including development and procurement for 

connectors and other capabilities required by the Sea Base; (6) the 

management plan, including consideration for assignment as a 

Major Defense Acquisition Program, for overseeing end-to-end development and integration of this joint system-of-systems; and (7) 

a program roadmap that outlines the development, test, and integration plan for the enabling technologies with the MPF(F) platforms. 

Ship systems commonality 

Navy vessels require common capabilities such as communications, surveillance, self-defense, damage control, combat systems, 

weapon deployment, propulsion, computing capability, and electrical power generation and distribution. In some cases, ship programs have developed their own solutions for some of these common capabilities. This approach has resulted in a number of different systems performing similar functions. The concept of a family of ships, which applies investments made on one ship class to 

other ship classes, could avoid redundant research and development while reducing supply and training pipelines. The direct cost 

savings associated with this approach are readily apparent. The effect of the absence on competitive pressure on the incumbent vendor in terms of cost and technology innovations is less clear. 

The modular and open architecture approach to designing and 

integrating subsystems, which can be assembled as required to 

meet the specific missions, could reduce design and integration 

costs for Navy ships. The Navy might be in a position to apply this 

concept to a number of currently planned ship classes. The committee believes that the Navy should explicitly consider whether 

having such an approach for the design, integration, installation, 

and life cycle support for common systems for future ships would 

provide better value for the government. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees, with the 

fiscal year 2008 budget request, on the analysis of costs and benefits of implementing a plan to maximize commonality in the design, 

integration, and installation of systems into new ships and existing 

ships. 

Submarine force structure 

The Secretary of the Navy submitted a report to Congress on the 

long-range plan for construction of naval vessels with the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request. This plan reflects the determination by 

the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) that the National Defense 

Strategy requires a fleet of 313 ships, including 48 attack submarines, to meet the threat in future years. In testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services, 

the Navy witnesses described the level of 48 attack submarines as 

the minimum level necessary to support both wartime and peacetime requirements. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
116 

The Navy also indicated that, with currently planned construction, attack submarine forces drop below 48 submarines for 15 

years. The future-years defense program (FYDP) supports building 

only one attack submarine per year through fiscal year 2011, with 

sufficient advance procurement during the FYDP to support increasing the production rate to two boats per year in fiscal year 

2012. The Navy’s leadership has stated that they need to get the 

price of Virginia-class attack submarines to a level of $2.0 billion 

per boat before increasing the build rate. The committee completely 

agrees with the Navy’s affordability focus, but simultaneously 

views the most important step to improve affordability is to increase the production rate of the Virginia-class to more than one 

boat per year. 

The committee understands that the Navy is trying to modernize 

in a constrained fiscal environment. However, the committee does 

not understand the continuing delays in increasing the construction rate. By the Navy’s own assessment: (1) submarines perform 

a uniquely Navy mission; (2) the minimum requirement is to have 

48 attack submarines; (3) submarine force levels will fall below 48 

during the next decade and remain there for 15 years; (4) the Navy 

needs to achieve cost reductions in attack submarine construction 

in order to increase production rates without impinging on other 

priority shipbuilding programs; and (5) there are potential technology insertion opportunities that might help reduce costs and 

permit the Navy to increase the production rate. 

Having said that, the Navy’s and industry’s plan for achieving the $2.0 billion per boat cost goal requires greater definition. The 

Navy has referred to efforts to develop a number of improvements 

for the Virginia-class that target cost reductions. The committee is 

concerned, however, that without more specific plans with defined 

goals and benchmarks, the Navy will get to the end of the FYDP 

and not necessarily be any closer to achieving real cost reductions 

in this program. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

the Navy to submit with the fiscal year 2008 budget request a detailed plan for developing cost reduction measures with defined 

goals and benchmarks for the Virginia-class production program. 

T–38 replacement aircraft 

The committee believes that the T–45, with requisite modifications, could serve as both the next-generation joint trainer and as 

a replacement for the Air Force T–38 trainer. The committee notes 

that the service plans to spend $1.5 billion over the future-years 

defense program to maintain the T–38 fleet at a cost per flying 

hour that is double that of the T–45, and that the cost of developing a different replacement trainer and training system for the 

T–38 would cost an estimated $2.0 billion. 

In addition, the 2005 RAND study, entitled ‘‘Assessing the Impact of Future Operations on Trainer Aircraft Requirements,’’

states that the ‘‘current T–38 fleet averages almost 14,000 flying 

hours per airframe, which is almost twice the original design service life,’’ and that if no replacement aircraft is programmed and the 

T–38 is operated as late as 2040, the Air Force could be training 

a sizable portion of its new pilots in airframes that are almost 80 

years old. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
117 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to conduct a study that would determine the suitability of the T– 45 and Korean built KT–50 training aircraft to replace the T–38. 

Given that all three trainers possess excellent capabilities, the 

study should focus on cost of procurement, operating costs, the 

availability of a complete training system, and developmental costs. 

In addition, if the Secretary determines that sustainment of the 

current trainer is the most cost-effective course of action, the study 

should explain how large, long-term sustainment expenditures are 

justified when readily available replacements are immediately 

available, and funds to develop a joint follow-on trainer will not become available for the foreseeable future. The Secretary of the Air 

Force should submit a report on the results of the study to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2007. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(119) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title II of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request for research, development, test and evaluation programs, and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in 

the past, the administration may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense), without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
120 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 SR254.068
121 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Independent estimate of costs of the Future Combat Systems (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would withhold $500.0 million from the amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for the development of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) 

until the Secretary of Defense submits a report of an independent 

cost estimate for FCS. The provision requires that the independent 

cost estimate be conducted by a federally funded research and development center and include the research, development, test and 

evaluation, and procurement costs for the system development and 

demonstration phase of the core FCS program; the FCS technologies to be incorporated into the equipment of the current force 

of the Army; the installation kits for the incorporation of the FCS 

technologies into the current force equipment; the systems treated 

as the complementary systems for the FCS program; science and 

technology programs that support the FCS program and any passthrough charges anticipated to be assessed by the lead systems integrator of the FCS and its major sub-contractors. 

Section 211 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) required the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) to submit a program cost estimate to the Congress prior to the FCS Milestone B update required by the acquisition decision memorandum that approved the FCS program entry 

into Milestone B. This report requirement was in response to the 

restructure of the FCS program to include costs of transferring 

FCS technology to the current force programs of the Army, and to 

restore several FCS platforms into the program. However, the report was never delivered because the Milestone B update was postponed. 

Section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) required the USD (AT&L) to submit the results of an independent cost estimate, prepared by the 

cost analysis improvement group (CAIG) of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, with respect to the Future Combat Systems program. While the CAIG independent cost estimate may provide insights into the cost of the FCS program, the committee believes 

that the Army may be underestimating FCS costs. 

The Government Accountability Office highlighted in testimony 

before the Subcommittee on AirLand of the Committee on Armed 

Services, 

The total cost for the FCS program, now estimated at 

$160.7 billion (then year dollars), has climbed 76 percent 

from the Army’s first estimate. Because uncertainties remain regarding FCS’s requirements and the Army faces 

significant challenges in technology and design maturity, 

we believe the Army’s latest cost estimate still lacks a firm 

knowledge base. Furthermore, this latest estimate does not 

include complementary programs that are essential for 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
122 

FCS to perform as intended, or all of the necessary funding for FCS spin-outs. 

The committee believes that an independent cost estimate will 

provide the committee additional assurance as to the fidelity of the 

Army’s own cost estimate and a better understanding of the factors 

that have driven up the costs of the FCS program. 

Funding of defense science and technology program (sec. 

212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

funding objective for science and technology (S&T) programs, as required by section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), to fiscal year 2012, and require the submission of two reports if the Department of Defense 

fails to meet the outlined funding objective in any single fiscal year 

budget request. The first required report would be submitted with 

the budget request in the following year and would provide a detailed, prioritized list of high-quality, military relevant, unfunded 

opportunities in defense science and technology. The second report 

would be submitted within 6 months of the current budget request 

and would contain a classified and unclassified analysis and evaluation of international research and technology capabilities that 

threaten U.S. global leadership in key areas described by the Joint 

Warfighting Science and Technology Plan, the Defense Technology 

Area Plan, and the Basic Research Plan. 

The committee continues to support stable funding for Department S&T programs, which have a demonstrated history of supporting the warfighter and exploring innovative solutions to current challenges and to emerging and projected threats. Section 212 

provided a modest funding objective for S&T of 2 percent growth 

over inflation from budget request to budget request. The committee commends the Department for supporting long-term research efforts, which have grown in rough parallel to the defense 

budget, but believes strict adherence to simple investment targets 

is necessary to ensure consistent and stable funding over time. The 

reports required by this section, if funding objectives are not 

reached, would inform the Department and Congress on the potential consequences of such decisions and would provide valuable information to Congress on priority areas that would benefit from additional resources. 

Hypersonics development (sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a joint technology office (JTO) to 

coordinate, integrate, and manage hypersonics research, development, and demonstration programs and budgets. Under the provision, the JTO would: provide for integration of all department 

hypersonics programs; coordinate Department of Defense 

hypersonics programs with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and maintain approval and certification authority for hypersonics system demonstration programs. The provision would further require the JTO to work with the joint staff and 

NASA to develop a roadmap for a joint hypersonics research program to meet short-, mid-, and long-term goals consistent with DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
123 

partment missions and requirements and with clear acquisition 

transition plans. The roadmap would be submitted to Congress 

with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

The committee has followed with great interest the development 

of hypersonic technologies over the past several years and believes 

that successful development of the capability holds tremendous potential for high-speed strike, global reach and space access missions. However, significant challenges remain. 

The committee is concerned that Department hypersonics research programs are not integrated or even coordinated, either internally or with NASA efforts, especially since the cancellation of 

the X–43A project. The committee notes that some Navy 

hypersonics research programs, conducted with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), will be completed in 

fiscal year 2007, yet a transition path has not been identified. Further, it is not clear how the Navy RATTLRS program complements 

parallel approaches to high-speed strike missions. DARPA planned 

to initiate a new hypersonics effort in fiscal year 2007 for a 

‘‘transatmospheric’’ vehicle to ‘‘further mature, integrate and flightdemonstrate propulsion technologies developed by the high speed 

reusable demonstration and Falcon programs.’’ DARPA programs 

also lack a clear transition path or tangible service transition support. Finally, the Air Force plans to conduct a first-flight demonstration of the X–51A Scramjet in fiscal year 2009, yet the Office 

of the Air Force Director of Test and Evaluation (T&E), which conducts annual surveys on future T&E requirements, indicates that 

no program office has reported a need for hypersonics testing facilities. The Army has indicated similar concern with insufficient links 

between hypersonics research efforts and service requirements. The 

committee also recognizes that the operational community views 

maturity of the technology and prospects for near-term transition 

with some skepticism. 

The activities required by the recommended provision are designed to ensure the Department pursues a joint, integrated 

hypersonics program to achieve the long-term vision of a 

reconfigurable, combined-cycle aircraft that would provide the nation with meaningful operational capabilities, including strategic 

reconnaissance, global strike, and rapid access to space. 

Trident sea-launched ballistic missiles (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit $95.0 

million of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) program from being obligated or 

expended in support of the program until the Secretary of Defense, 

in consultation with the Secretary of State, submits a report to the 

congressional defense committees. 

The report would address a wide range of issues associated with 

the Navy proposal to modify twenty-four Trident D–5 ballistic missiles, which currently carry nuclear warheads, to each carry four 

conventional kinetic warheads. Under the proposal, two modified 

D–5 missiles with conventional kinetic warheads would be deployed 

on each of the Ohio Class Trident ballistic missile submarines. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense and 

the Secretary of State to include in the report a joint statement on 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
124 

how to ensure that the use of a conventional D–5 missile will not 

result in an intentional, inadvertent, mistaken or accidental reciprocal or responsive launch of a nuclear strike by another country. 

The provision would permit the Navy to use up to $32.0 million 

of the funds authorized in PE 0604327N, for Advanced Conventional Strike Capability. The committee further directs the Navy to 

use the $32.0 million only for research and development on technologies in support of the conventional D–5 modification, but not 

to support procurement or deployment activities in support of the 

conventional Trident modification program. In addition, up to $20.0 

million of the funds authorized for the CTM program may be used 

to conduct the required study. 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs 

Availability of research, development, test, and evaluation 

funds for fielding ballistic missile defense capabilities 

(sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

use of funds, authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008, for 

research, development, test, and evaluation for the Missile Defense 

Agency, for the development and fielding of ballistic missile defense 

capabilities. 

Policy of the United States on priorities in the development, 

testing, and fielding of missile defense capabilities (sec. 

232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make it the 

policy of the United States to accord a priority within the missile 

defense program to the development, testing, fielding, and improvement of effective near-term missile defense capabilities, including 

ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot PAC–3 units, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, and sensors based on land, sea, and in space that support 

these interceptor systems. 

Over the last two years, Congress has advised the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus its efforts on those missile defense 

systems in which heavy investments already have been made and 

which are now just starting to provide a measure of protection for 

the United States and its deployed forces. Accordingly, the committee believes that rigorous and successful development, testing, 

and fielding of operational systems in sufficient numbers to counter 

the threat must take priority over the development of the next generation of missile defense systems. 

The committee notes that in its fiscal year 2007 Budget Estimate 

Overview, the MDA states that it ‘‘worked within its fiscal controls 

across the future years defense program to weigh alternatives and 

balance the approaches to a layered defense.’’ The committee believes the MDA, in pursuing a balanced investment approach, has 

funded longer-term efforts to the detriment of the successful development, testing, and fielding of the current generation of missile 

defense systems. For example, the MDA is requesting funds for 

only a single intercept test of the ground-based midcourse defense 

(GMD) system in 2007. This would appear to be a high-risk apVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
125 

proach given the importance of this program for the defense of the 

United States against long-range ballistic missile attack. The MDA 

also reduced the number of ground- and sea-based interceptor missile deliveries over the future-years defense program in order to invest more in development upgrades to these and other systems. 

While evolutionary improvements to the current systems are prudent and should continue, the committee believes additional funding is necessary to restore missile inventory to levels previously 

thought necessary by the Department of Defense to counter the 

threat. 

While reducing the funding necessary both for critical near-term 

testing and for increasing the inventory of interceptor missiles, the 

Missile Defense Agency plans to spend approximately $9.0 billion 

between fiscal years 2006 and 2015 to develop the Kinetic Energy 

Interceptor (KEI). In a prepared statement to the Subcommittee on 

Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, the Director 

of the MDA stated that the KEI is a boost-phase effort that ‘‘could 

be used as part of an affordable, competitive next-generation upgrade for our mid-course or even terminal interceptors.’’ The committee does not believe the Department of Defense 

should make such a large investment in ‘‘a next generation upgrade’’ until the current generation of missile defense systems has 

been successfully tested and fielded in numbers sufficient to address the near-term threat. Continued research and development of 

the critical technologies related to KEI is warranted, but at a much 

lower level, and as a hedge against the failure of the lead boostphase missile defense candidate, the Airborne Laser. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request for missile defense programs. 

Ground-based Midcourse Ballistic Missile Defense 

The budget request included $2.4 billion in PE 63882C for the 

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Midcourse Defense Segment to 

cover continued development, ground and flight testing, fielding, 

and support for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. The committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million in 

PE 63882C, specifically to enhance the GMD testing program and 

to enable the GMD system to perform concurrent test and operations (i.e., permit testing, maintenance, and training activities to 

continue, while simultaneously allowing the combatant commander 

to maintain readiness to execute missile defense operations in an 

emergency). The committee directs that $115.0 million be used for 

an additional integrated intercept test of the GMD system in 2007; 

$60.0 million be used to accelerate capabilities that would enable 

concurrent test and operations of the GMD system; and $25.0 million be allocated for long-lead purchases for six ground-based interceptor test missiles in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. The committee 

expects the MDA to adjust its spending over fiscal years 2008–2011 

to complete the tasks directed above. 

The committee directs the Director of the MDA to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 

1, 2007. The report should detail the efforts that would need to be 

taken and funding required to maintain continued production of 

the Boost Vehicle Plus (BV+) interceptor, and make an assessment 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
126 

of the risk of inadequate GBI availability using the Orbital Boost 

Vehicle (OBV). 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 

The budget request included $1.0 billion in PE 63892C, for the 

sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system. The Aegis 

BMD is intended to provide protection against short- and mediumrange ballistic missiles. The committee recommends an increase of 

$100.0 million in PE 63892C to restore the delivery of SM–3 interceptors to 120 by the end of fiscal year 2011, and to increase the 

overall effectiveness of the Aegis BMD system capability against 

longer-range threats. Of the increased amount, the committee directs $70.0 million be applied toward procuring 24 additional SM– 3 block 1B missiles over fiscal years 2008 to 2011, and $30.0 million be used to accelerate SM–3 and Aegis weapon system integration to take full advantage of missile and weapons systems capabilities, including the BMD signal processor and two-color seeker. 

MDA is expected to budget for the completion of these tasks over 

fiscal years 2008 to 2011. 

Patriot missile defense system 

The budget request included $489.1 million in Missile Procurement, Army (MPA), for 108 Patriot PAC–3 missiles; and $70.0 million for Patriot modifications. The Patriot ballistic missile defense 

system demonstrated its worth during Operation Iraqi Freedom by 

intercepting all nine Iraqi short-range ballistic missiles that were 

engaged by Patriot. The committee notes that the predominant foreign ballistic missile threat to United States forces is from shortrange ballistic missiles, and that the Patriot is designed to defend 

against such ballistic missile threats. The committee recommends 

an increase of $75.0 million in MPA to support the upgrade of Patriot battalions to the configuration–3 capability. This upgrade 

would significantly extend the defensive range and capability of 

over 2,000 Patriot PAC–2 missiles now in the inventory. Additional 

funding for these Patriot PAC–3 upgrades has been included on the 

Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. The committee 

also recommends an increase of $25.0 million in MPA for purchases 

of 8 additional PAC–3 missiles in fiscal year 2007, in response to 

calls from combatant commanders for more Patriot missiles to 

counter the threat. 

Kinetic Energy Interceptor 

The budget request included $405.5 million in PE 63886C, for 

Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptors, for continued development of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). The request is almost double the amount appropriated for KEI in fiscal year 2006, 

and begins a sharp rise in projected KEI spending that amounts to 

$4.6 billion between fiscal years 2007 and 2011. As noted above, 

the committee believes this level of effort is too high for a boost 

phase risk-reduction effort and next generation missile defense system. The committee recommends a decrease of $200.0 million in PE 

63886C for the KEI program. The committee believes these funds 

are more urgently required for an additional flight intercept test of 

the GMD system in fiscal year 2007 and to help increase the numVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
127 

ber of SM–3 missile deliveries starting in fiscal year 2008. The 

committee directs that remaining funds be used to mature those 

critical technologies necessary to demonstrate the viability of the 

KEI design. 

Ballistic missile defense reductions 

The budget request included $506.8 million in PE 63889C, for 

Ballistic Missile Defense Products; 473.0 million in PE 63890C, for 

Ballistic Missile Defense System Core; and $374.5 million in PE 

63891C, for MDA Special Programs. The committee recommends a 

decrease of $40.0 million in PE 63889C, for Ballistic Missile Defense Products; a decrease of $40.0 million in PE 63890C, for Ballistic Missile Defense System Core; and a decrease of $20.0 million 

in PE 63891C, for MDA Special Programs, to offset the additional 

funding necessary for the GMD and Aegis BMD programs. The Director of the MDA may take these reductions in funding from 

among the program elements mentioned above, at his discretion. 

One-year extension of Comptroller General assessments of 

ballistic missile defense programs (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

fiscal year 2008 the requirement for the Comptroller General to 

provide an assessment of the extent to which the Missile Defense 

Agency achieved the goals established for that fiscal year for each 

ballistic missile defense program of the Department of Defense. 

Submittal of plans for test and evaluation of the operational 

capability of the ballistic missile defense system (sec. 

234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

plan approved by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 

to test and evaluate the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense system, as required by section 234(a) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–

163; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note), to be submitted to the congressional defense committees within 30 days of such approval. 

Annual reports on transition of ballistic missile defense programs to the military departments (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not 

later than March 1 of 2007, and annually thereafter through 2013, 

on the plans of the Department of Defense for the transition of missile defense programs from the Missile Defense Agency to the military departments. Each report required would cover the period of 

the future-years defense program for the year in which the report 

is submitted. Each report would include: which missile defense programs are, or are not, planned for transition; the schedule for each 

transition; a description of the status of the transition plans and 

agreements; an identification of the entity responsible for funding 

each program to be transitioned; a description of the funds that 

will be used for each such program; and an explanation of the numVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
128 

ber of systems planned to be procured for each program to be 

transitioned, and a procurement schedule. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Extension of requirement for Global Research Watch Program (sec. 251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the requirement for the development of a Global Research Watch database until September 30, 2011. The committee commends the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE) for development of the Global Technology Knowledge Base program as a response to the Global Research Watch mandate under section 241 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136). The pilot database informs Department of 

Defense decision makers on the capabilities of the international 

community in areas of defense science and technology. The committee directs the DDRE to aggressively work to include international capabilities analyses from the military departments and 

defense agencies in the program as directed in the original statute, 

section 2365 of title 10, United States Code. 

The committee also notes that coordinating the efforts of the 

Global Research Watch program with the Militarily Critical Technologies Program would provide the Department with an additional 

source of data on international research capabilities and their relationships to critical defense technologies and systems. Elsewhere in 

this report, the committee recommends a transfer of $2.0 million 

from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide to PE 65110D8Z 

for critical technology support to provide for more timely updates 

to the Militarily Critical Technologies List and the Defense Science 

and Technology List. The committee urges the DDRE to consider 

establishing a domestic version of the technology knowledge base 

to inform industrial base policy decisions. The committee notes that 

this knowledge base should be developed through a collaboration of 

the Department technology development and industrial policy communities and should utilize input from defense industry. 

Finally, the committee notes that the international community 

may have capabilities, research, and technologies that could be useful in the Department’s efforts to combat improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The committee directs the Director of the Joint IED 

Defeat Office (JIEDDO) to work with the DDRE to undertake an 

international survey of research and technology that would be supportive of the combating IED mission. The committee directs the 

Director of JIEDDO and the DDRE to report to Congress on the 

results of the survey to include a description of any current or 

planned international cooperative technology development programs in this area and an accounting of funding available for such 

activities. This report should be transmitted to Congress not later 

than January 31, 2007. 

Expansion and extension of authority to award prizes for 

advanced technology achievements (sec. 252) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority to award prizes for advanced technology achievements to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
129 

September 30, 2011. The provision would also elevate the authority 

to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE), 

which would allow for its use by the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency or other components under the DDRE. The provision would further expand the authority to include the military departments, and would update reporting requirements under section 

257 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163) on the use of the authority to include information relevant to the military departments and to ensure proper 

oversight of the program. The committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to budget for anticipated costs to execute the prize competitions and to clearly identify those funds in annual budget justification materials. 

Policies and practices on test and evaluation to address 

emerging acquisition approaches (sec. 253) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (OTE) and the Director of the Defense Test Resource Management Center, to review and revise policies and practices on test 

and evaluation in light of emerging approaches to acquisition. The 

provision would require consideration of rapid, time-certain and 

traditional acquisition timeframes in review of current test and 

evaluation regulations to ensure adequate and timely testing is 

conducted. 

The committee notes that robust analysis of technology maturity 

levels combined with early planning for developmental and operational testing contribute to successful acquisition programs. The 

committee further notes that rapid fielding initiatives, which have 

proven successful in providing critically needed equipment and capabilities to the warfighter, may contain lessons learned for the 

test and evaluation process. The committee believes it is necessary 

to update policies to ensure adequate test and evaluation in the development of acquisition programs, in planning for testing facility 

requirements, and in defining test and evaluation processes for the 

growing variety of acquisition and deployment strategies. 

Finally, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to nominate a permanent Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation as soon as possible. The committee notes that this position has been vacant since February 15, 2005. This congressionallymandated, presidentially-nominated, and Senate-confirmed position 

plays a key role in ensuring the operational effectiveness of our 

weapons systems in combat. The Director supports efforts to reform 

acquisition processes and effectively and efficiently develop and deploy major, complex systems like the Future Combat Systems, Advanced Seal Delivery System, and Joint Strike Fighter, in a manner that is operationally effective, on budget, and within planned 

schedules. 

Development of the propulsion system for the Joint Strike 

Fighter (sec. 254) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to continue the development and sustainment 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
130 

of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program with two competitive propulsion systems throughout the life cycle of the aircraft, or enter 

into a one-time firm-fixed-price contract for a selected propulsion 

system for the life cycle of the aircraft following the initial service 

release of the JSF F135 propulsion system in fiscal year 2008. 

During the 1970’s and early 1980’s, Pratt & Whitney was the 

sole source provider of engines for the F–14, F–15, and F–16 aircraft. Because of persistent engine problems that resulted in the 

loss of aircraft and degraded readiness, Congress directed the Department of Defense to develop and produce an engine to compete 

with Pratt & Whitney engines on these aircraft. The benefits that 

resulted from this competition included improved performance, reduced risk, increased readiness, lower cost of ownership, improved 

contractor responsiveness to customer needs, and over $4.0 billion 

of cost savings. Congress once again directed the Department to 

provide for an engine competition for the JSF in 1996 out of concerns for a lack of competition expressed in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L. 104–106). Congress 

has consistently supported a competitive engine program for the 

Joint Strike Fighter for the past 10 years. 

The JSF program is the largest acquisition program, in terms of 

funding, in Department of Defense history. Total JSF deliveries 

may well exceed 4,000 aircraft worldwide, with a resultant level of 

propulsion business in the tens of billions of dollars. The committee 

is concerned that relying on a sole engine supplier for a single-engine aircraft to do multiple missions for multiple services and multiple nations presents an unnecessary operational and financial 

risk to our nation. 

The committee is also concerned that the Department’s analysis 

provided to the committee, as justification for the termination of 

the F136 interchangeable engine, accounted for only 30 percent of 

the engine costs over the life cycle of the aircraft and failed to comply with the Department’s policy on economic analysis that would 

have required the inclusion of the total life cycle cost. If the Department had conducted a full life cycle analysis, the committee believes that the results of the analysis would show significant cost 

savings that could be achieved through a competitive engine strategy. The committee believes that through the enduring value of 

competition, sufficient savings will be generated from a series of 

competitive engine procurements over the life cycle of the aircraft 

that will more than offset the cost of completing the F136 engine 

development. In order to ensure that the Congress has the complete picture of the full life cycle costs, the committee has recommended another provision described elsewhere in this report 

that would require the Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller 

General to conduct independent life cycle cost analyses addressing 

this issue. 

Independent cost analyses for Joint Strike Fighter engine 

program (sec. 255) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, a federally-funded research and development 

center (FFRDC) chosen by the Secretary, and the Comptroller General to conduct independent life cycle cost analyses of the developVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
131 

ment and sustainment of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program 

with two competitive propulsion systems throughout the life cycle 

of the aircraft, versus terminating the alternate engine development and proceeding with only one engine. 

The provision would also require that the Comptroller and the 

FFRDC certify that they had access to sufficient information upon 

which to make informed judgments on the life cycle costs of the two 

alternatives. 

As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is concerned 

that the Department of Defense analysis provided as justification 

for the termination of the F136 interchangeable engine did not account for all of the costs over the life cycle of the aircraft. 

Sense of the Senate on technology sharing of Joint Strike 

Fighter technology (sec. 256) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should share 

technology with respect to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) between 

the United States Government and the Government of the United 

Kingdom. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the strong political 

and military alliance between the United States and the United 

Kingdom. The committee places a high premium on ensuring that 

U.S. and U.K. armed forces can operate together seamlessly in ongoing and future combined operations. 

The committee is concerned that existing U.S. regulations and 

procedures governing U.S.-U.K. technology sharing may unnecessarily impede information-sharing and military interoperability to 

the detriment of achieving our common security interests in ongoing and future operations. With the increasing complexity of technology and its growing importance to combat power, the ability to 

share information and technology in general between the United 

States and the United Kingdom is increasingly important. Anecdotal evidence suggests that existing impediments are unnecessarily complicating the planning, coordination, and execution of 

combined military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The committee notes that technology sharing is a two-way street. 

The United Kingdom has made important contributions to a variety of U.S. military capabilities ranging from improvised explosive 

device (IED) detection technology to aircraft propulsion system 

technology. The committee believes such contributions from allies 

could become increasingly important given the many demands on 

the U.S. defense budget and the technological challenges we can 

expect to face on the battlefield of the future. 

The committee is concerned that, until the issue of technology 

sharing between the United States and the United Kingdom is resolved, the potential for full cooperation could be undermined, to 

the detriment of both countries. It is reasonable for the United 

States and the United Kingdom to seek a degree of operational sovereignty to ensure successful operation of the JSF by its military 

services, including the ability to maintain, repair, and upgrade the 

fleet to meet the future needs of U.S. and U.K. armed forces. It is 

also reasonable for both nations to protect the most sensitive techVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
132 

nologies. Resolving the tensions between these two reasonable tenets is the dilemma. 

With these considerations in mind, the committee strongly recommends that the President enter into a bilateral agreement with 

the United Kingdom to provide for the sharing of defense technology between our two governments in order to facilitate closer defense cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom. Such an agreement should: (1) promote greater interoperability in the conduct of current and future military operations; (2) 

establish a vehicle and set policy for greater and easier sharing between the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of both classified and unclassified goods, technologies, and 

services; (3) drive greater bilateral, interagency, and industry coordination at the strategic, planning, resource, and execution levels; and (4) be consistent with the national security interests of 

both nations. 

Budget Items—Army 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
133 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 here SR254.069
134 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 here SR254.070
135 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 here SR254.071
136 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 here SR254.072
137 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 here SR254.073
138 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 here SR254.074
139 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here SR254.075
140 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here SR254.076
141 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here SR254.077
142 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 here SR254.078
143 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 here SR254.079
144 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here SR254.080
145 

Army basic research 

The budget request included $137.6 million in PE 61102A, for defense research sciences; $68.5 million in PE 61103A, for university 

research initiatives; and $86.4 million in PE 61104A, for university 

and industry research centers. Through these basic research accounts, the Army supports fundamental military science at universities and innovative partnerships between academia and industry 

through Collaborative Technology Alliances. 

Ongoing work in the areas of modeling and simulation, materials 

and composites, nanotechnology, biotechnology, energy and power, 

and dynamic terrain analysis complement a new focus on network 

and information sciences. The committee recommends an increase 

of $9.1 million in PE 61102A for expansion of work in key areas, 

including $1.0 million for advanced ground reliability research; 

$2.1 for organic semiconductor modeling and simulation research; 

$2.0 million for a dynamic landscape support program; $1.0 million 

for integrated nanosensor technologies for nuclear, chemical, and 

biological detection applications; and $3.0 million for the development of nanotechnologies to enhance intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance capabilities to tag, track, and locate enemy forces or 

weapons. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 

PE 61103A for low temperature vehicle performance research. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.25 million in PE 

61104A for acceleration of defense university research, including 

$1.0 million for information assurance research; $1.0 million for integrated systems sensing, imaging, and communications research; 

$2.0 million for nanotubes composite materials research; $2.0 million for development of slow rotor concepts; $1.0 million for analyses of regional, political, social and economic issues affecting U.S. 

Southern Command’s area of responsibility; and $250,000 for transparent nanocomposite armor. 

The committee is aware of the Department of Defense’s requirement to triage large quantities of documents in foreign languages 

to provide prompt support to analytical and targeting efforts in 

support of the global war on terrorism. This capability is required 

at all echelons from tactical to strategic. The quantity and quality 

of document exploitation (DOCEX) can be enhanced by continued 

technological development in the Harmony DOCEX Suite, which is 

currently fielded. Technologies to improve the exploitation of paper 

documents as well as electronic media, to include live web sites, 

have been identified. The committee recommends an increase of 

$4.0 million in PE 61102A for the continued development, integration, and fielding of enhanced document exploitation systems. 

PACE early career awards 

The budget request included $137.6 million in PE 61102A, $366.6 

million in PE 61153N, and $250.2 million in PE 61102F for Army, 

Navy, and Air Force defense research sciences activities. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in each of the three 

program elements: PE 61102A, PE 61153N, and PE 61102F for the 

establishment of additional early career awards under the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE) program to support 

service research efforts. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
146 

The committee notes that the recent National Research Council 

(NRC) report, entitled ‘‘Assessment of Department of Defense Basic 

Research,’’ recommended that ‘‘the Department of Defense should, 

through its funding and policies for university research, encourage 

increased participation by younger researchers as principal investigators.’’ The NRC endorsed this idea in their report, entitled ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm,’’ which recommended that ‘‘the 

Federal Government should establish a program to provide 200 

new research grants each year at $500,000 each, payable over 5 

years, to support the work of outstanding early-career researchers.’’ The committee notes that it is essential to replenish the research 

community with young, innovative scientists and engineers working in defense research areas in order to support the development 

of future military capabilities. The committee further notes that 

the Department established a number of activities to support early 

career researchers, including the Navy’s Young Investigator Program and the Presidential Early Career Awards for Science and 

Engineering. The Department estimates it will support 130 early 

career awards with funding available in the current budget request. 

Although the details of the execution shall be established by the 

Secretary of Defense, the committee recommends that these awards 

be available for researchers not more than 5 years removed from 

their doctorate or other terminal degree or professional qualification, and that they should be structured to provide for stable funding support for individuals for a period of 5 years. The committee 

directs the Secretary to report to the congressional defense committees on the execution of these funds, including their coordination 

with other Department activities in supporting early career scientists and engineers, no later than May 1, 2007. 

Army materials technology 

The budget request included $18.8 million in PE 62105A, for materials technology. Army programs under this account aim to provide lightweight and affordable materials and structures to enable 

revolutionary survivability and lethality technologies along with 

improved performance and durability for Army systems and costeffective manufacturing processes. To accelerate work in selected 

areas of particular relevance to current threats, the committee recommends an increase of $5.4 million in PE 62105A, including $1.0 

million for flexible, lightweight thermoplastic composite body 

armor; $1.6 million for future affordable multi-utility materials; 

$500,000 for simulations of improvised explosive devices; $300,000 

for a control system for the laser powder deposition manufacturing 

process; and $2.0 million for munition shape charge control research. 

Advanced microelectronics manufacturing 

The budget request included $38.4 million in PE 62120A, for sensors and electronic survivability. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62120A for the development of advanced capabilities for low-volume manufacturing of flexible electronics, whose defense applications could include flexible displays, 

lightweight, miniaturized sensors, and portable power systems. The 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
147 

committee notes that this type of effort is consistent with the Defense Science Board’s recommendation in its recent report, entitled 

‘‘High Performance Microchip Supply,’’ to develop technology and 

equipment for production of low-volume microelectronics to meet 

unique Department of Defense needs. 

Unmanned payload concepts 

The budget request included $38.4 million in PE 62120A, for sensors and electronic survivability. Asymmetric threats and unpredictable battlefields increase the importance of flexible response 

and logistics options. The committee recommends an increase of 

$1.5 million in PE 62120A for acceleration of concept demonstration on a remote-operated, lighter-than-air unmanned vehicle with 

scalable payload capabilities. 

Army missile technology 

The budget request included $59.4 million in PE 62303A, for applied research on missile technology. The committee endorses the 

Army’s efforts to develop unmanned air systems as an integral part 

of Future Combat Systems (FCS). The committee recommends an 

increase of $2.5 million in PE 62303A for the development and 

demonstration of unmanned air systems technologies as part of 

FCS. The committee notes that such programs should be consistent 

with the Department’s unmanned systems policy as required elsewhere in this report. 

Hypervelocity ground testing 

The budget request included $59.4 million in PE 62303A, for missile technology. As the Department of Defense develops hypersonic 

systems for global and rapid strike missions, availability of domestic, full-scale ground test facilities would mitigate costs and risks 

associated with these complex systems. The committee recommends 

an increase of $3.5 million in PE 62303A for hypervelocity ground 

testing. 

Multifunctional robot platform 

The budget request included $16.2 million in PE 62308A, for advanced concepts and simulations. Robotic platforms continue to 

excel in the performance of dangerous missions. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62308A for rapid integration of optical technology and advanced acoustic detection and 

direction finding hardware into the Robot Enhanced Detection Outpost With Lasers platform. 

Combat vehicle and automotive technology 

The budget request included $59.3 million in PE 62601A, for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology. Component technologies 

explored under this account support the Army’s current and future 

combat and tactical vehicle fleets. To promote more fuel efficient 

engines, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in 

PE 62601A for development of advanced electric drives designed to 

result in easily replaceable, quiet, robust engines with greater 

power density and torque. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
148 

Weapons and munitions technology 

The budget request included $35.3 million in PE 62624A, for 

weapons and munitions technology. Army applied research efforts 

under this account improve the lethality, survivability, and affordability of current and future force equipment and weapons. The 

committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 62624A, 

including $2.0 million to transition the active coatings technology 

program for use on Army helicopters; $2.5 million for continued 

rarefaction wave gun research; $3.0 million for expansion of the domestic capability to produce a wider variety of parts-on-demand for 

unmanned systems; and $2.5 million for integration of Army remote weapons systems armaments on the dual track, Ripsaw, unmanned ground vehicle. 

Human factors engineering 

The budget request included $18.9 million in PE 62716A, for applied research on human factors engineering technology. As noted 

elsewhere in this report, the committee supports development of integrated and interoperable unmanned systems that can work 

seamlessly with manned systems. Army applied research on autonomous robots that work together to solve problems holds promise 

for missions that do not require a man in the loop as well as for 

improved manned-unmanned collaborations. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 62716A for team performance and optimization research and expanded complex research, modeling, and simulation of cognition and team dynamics. 

Mapping and detection of unexploded ordnance 

The budget request included $17.9 million in PE 62720A, for environmental quality technology, but included no funding for mapping and detection of unexploded ordnance. The committee notes 

that the problem of detecting and removing unexploded ordnance 

from Department of Defense facilities closed or realigned under 

rounds of base closure and realignment (BRAC), former used defense sites, and at active installations, including operational 

ranges, is an enormous and technically complex task. The current 

estimate of the cost to complete the clean up of unexploded ordnance at all of the Department’s installations, formerly used de- fense sites, and BRAC sites is $20.1 billion. 

Development of the technology to more rapidly and efficiently detect and discriminate unexploded ordnance from other waste is ongoing and has the potential to significantly reduce the overall cost 

of unexploded ordnance detection and clean up. This project would 

continue work begun in fiscal year 2005 to improve the ability of 

ground penetrating radar to detect unexploded ordnance at greater 

depths in highly magnetic soil, while reducing the number of false 

alarms. While the focus of the effort would be on ground penetrating radar systems, all detection technologies, which may have 

an application, would be investigated. Due to the geological characteristics of highly magnetic soil, the committee believes that application of multiple technologies and fusion of their outputs may be 

needed to improve detection and reduce the number of false 

alarms. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in 

PE 62720A for mapping and detection of unexploded ordnance. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
149 

Warfighter technology 

The budget request included $25.4 million in PE 62786A, for 

warfighter technology. Army applied research under this account 

concentrates on soldier survivability and performance, including 

improved deployable, temporary housing, and food safety. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 62786A for 

advances in both of these soldier safety areas, including $2.0 million for advanced materials research on ballistic tent inserts and 

$1.5 million for biosecurity research for soldier food safety. 

Army medical technology 

The budget request included $75.4 million in PE 62787A, for medical technology and $50.8 million in PE 63002A, for medical advanced technology. Research under these two accounts has yielded 

numerous advances in combat casualty care and battlefield trauma 

medicine. The committee continues to place a priority on advances 

in military-specific medical treatments, wound characterization, 

and understanding of weapons impacts. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million, in PE 62787A, including $2.0 

million for advanced bioengineering for enhancement of solider survivability; $1.0 million for blast protection research; and $2.5 million for acceleration of pilot clinical studies on protein hydrogel 

treatments. The committee further recommends an increase of 

$23.5 million in PE 63002A, including $2.0 million for rapid development of advanced, neurally-controlled lower limb prostheses; $3.0 

million for applied emergency hypothermia; $3.0 million for 

fibrinogen bandage improvements; $2.0 million for integrated clinical information systems in support of the Armed-forces Health 

Longitudinal Technology Application; $1.0 million to promote interoperability standards for medical imaging; $3.0 million for robotic 

tele-surgery research; $2.0 million for tissue engineering research; 

$2.0 million for early diagnosis and treatment of post-traumatic 

stress disorder; $3.5 million for soldier treatment and regeneration 

research; and $2.0 million for surgical safety systems designed to 

improve remote patient care in hostile environments. 

Advanced aviation technology 

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 63003A, for 

aviation advanced technology. Army aviation technology programs 

focus on maturing and demonstrating manned and unmanned rotary wing vehicle technologies in support of the current and future 

force. To explore expanded capabilities in the areas of unmanned 

systems, specifically designed for logistics and supply support, the 

committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63003A 

for a quick materiel express delivery system. 

Unmanned tactical combat vehicles 

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 63003A, for 

aviation advanced technology, but included no funding for a tactical 

unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) designed specifically for 

flexible launch and rapid response. The committee believes that the 

development of a survivable turbine-electric hybrid, vertical takeoff and landing tactical class UCAV could introduce a self-contained, rapid response, precision strike capability for use by the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
150 

tactical commander. The committee recommends an increase of 

$14.0 million in PE 63003A for design and fabrication of the first 

Excalibur tactical UCAV system. 

Nanotechnology manufacturing 

The budget request included $74.7 million in PE 63004A, for 

weapons and munitions advanced technology. Research efforts on 

manufacturing processes for composite structures and new materials developed at the nano-scale for weapons, munitions, and fire 

control applications will ensure these multifunctional materials are 

also produced efficiently. The committee recommends an increase of 

$2.0 million in PE 63004A for nanotechnology manufacturing. 

Combat vehicle research 

The budget request included $110.0 million in PE 63005A, for 

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology. Under this account, the Army pursues survivability and mobility, communications, energy and power, and autonomous technology improvements 

for manned and unmanned ground systems. The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 63005A for acceleration of research in all of these areas, including $2.0 million for advanced thermal management controls; $3.0 million for further testing and refinement of anti-ballistic windshield armor; $3.0 million 

for the composite armored cab program; $1.0 million for application 

of compressible magneto-rheological fluids for shock absorbers and 

suspension systems to increase tactical vehicle off-road mobility; 

$1.5 million for development of logistical fuel processors; $3.0 million for a phase III pilot demonstration of fuel cell powered ground 

support equipment; $3.0 million for next generation non-tactical vehicle propulsion; $1.5 million for maturation of a domestic production source for the segmented band track; $2.0 million for solid 

oxide fuel cell materials and manufacturing; $2.0 million for tactical vehicle design tools; $3.0 million for power electronics systems 

research; and $10.0 million for unmanned ground vehicle prototype 

research to promote near-term transition of robotic ground vehicle 

technologies. 

Command and control team training 

The budget request included $6.8 million in PE 63007A, for manpower, personnel, and training advanced technology. Realistic 

training repeatedly receives credit for saving the lives of 

warfighters who face current and evolving threats. The committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63007A for expansion of the successful advanced command and control team training 

program to division staffs. 

Advanced simulated training 

The budget request included $18.3 million in PE 63015A, for 

next generation training and simulation systems. The committee 

commends the Army for its innovative approach to providing up-todate and realistic training environments. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63015A for completion 

of the initial joint fires and effects training module. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
151 

Missile recycling capability 

The budget request included $10.4 million in PE 63103A, for explosives demilitarization technology. The Army estimates that 

600,000 outdated missiles at ammunition storage sites and plants 

across the country and overseas need to be recycled over the next 

10 to 15 years. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63103A for the continued development of technologies to 

disassemble missiles, and process and recover energetic materials 

for potential reuse. 

Advanced electronic integration 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for advanced electronic integration. 

The committee believes it is necessary to advance the state-ofthe-art in space and missile defense system electronics by reducing 

the size, weight, and cost of electronic circuit cards and components, wire harnesses, and electronic cabling. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63305A to be used to 

procure the special test-bed equipment and pay research personnel 

to conduct advanced electronic integration. 

Advanced fuel cell research 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for advanced fuel cell research. 

The committee notes that alternative sources of power for space 

and missile defense propulsion is an ongoing high priority requirement for the Department of Defense. Fuel cells and the associated 

hydrogen production capability may provide more efficient and long 

endurance propulsion and energy systems for space and air breathing platforms. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63305A for continued research, design, and testing for 

advanced fuel cells. 

Advanced Hypersonic Weapon modeling and simulation 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for modeling and simulation efforts in support of the Advanced 

Hypersonic weapon (AHW). 

The committee is aware that the AHW is a candidate for the Department of Defense requirement for high-volume prompt global 

strike. Flight testing is necessary to validate the design and development of AHW. The committee believes a risk reduction effort to 

provide pre-flight verification through hardware-in-the-loop simulations would benefit this and other hypersonic development programs. The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in PE 

63305A for AHW modeling and simulation. 

Army missile and space modeling and simulation technology 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army system integration (non space), but included no funding for 

interactive modeling and simulation management capabilities. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
152 

The committee notes that effective modeling and simulation is 

necessary for the development of missile defense and other military 

capabilities. Next generation architectural solutions for command 

and control and situational awareness are now being developed. 

The committee recognizes that funding could be used to mature 

technology and continue to combine government furnished components and commercial, off-the-shelf products to support the 

warfighter from the classroom to the field. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63305A to support continued development of interactive modeling 

and simulation management capabilities of the Army Space and 

Missile Defense Command. 

Distributed operational control center 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for the distributed operational control center (DOCC). 

The DOCC is envisioned to be a large network operations center 

for sensor research and development. The DOCC will provide fiberoptic connectivity with the Reagan Test Site, permitting remote operations for sensor and flight tests as well as other research and 

development efforts currently centered at the Army’s Space and 

Missile Defense Command. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63305A for DOCC hardware procurement, network integration, and 

operations control software development to support the consolidation of range and space surveillance functions. 

HighSentinel airship 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for the HighSentinel airship. 

The committee understands that there is an operational requirement and mission need statement for multi-theater target tracking 

capabilities. The HighSentinel airship is intended to meet this requirement by carrying a communications or surveillance payload 

for up to 2 weeks of operations in support of the warfighter 

throughout the theater of operations. The airship would have a limited logistics support infrastructure and could be launched in-theater without the use of a hangar. The committee recommends an 

increase of $2.0 million in PE 63305A to be used to design a high 

altitude airship to carry tactical communications or surveillance 

payloads for the warfighter. 

Low cost avionics 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for the development of low cost avionics. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63305A to support the 

research, design, and testing of avionics subsystems interfaces that 

incorporate standards utilizing a commercial, open architecture, as 

is done in the commercial marketplace. This would permit more 

timely upgrade of existing systems and lower operating costs 

caused by obsolete systems and subcomponents. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
153 

Protected test link 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for the protected test link. 

The Army Space and Missile Defense Center and Missile Defense 

Agency Modeling and Simulation Center of Excellence requires the 

capability for hardware-in-the-loop testing for ballistic missile defense system-level ground tests. A protected test link would enable 

each of the numerous missile defense system elements to participate in a systems-level test by providing physical as well as electronic protection measures for all test linkages. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63305A for the development of a protected test link. 

Standoff sensor for radionuclides and explosives 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for standoff sensors to detect radionuclides or other explosive devices. 

The committee is aware that the defeat of improvised explosive 

devices is the number one priority of the entire Department of Defense. Likewise, detecting explosive devices containing nuclear materials remains a top priority. The committee supports a robust 

multidisciplinary research effort to solve the problems posed by the 

remote detection of radiological and explosive agents. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63305A to 

continue and broaden the research effort to develop standoff, realtime sensors for radiological and explosive devices. 

Tactical operations center hardware and software integration 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A, for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for future tactical operations center (TOC) hardware and software 

integration. 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense must 

continue to build upon ongoing activities to fully integrate space capabilities into airborne, land, and maritime assets to form a full 

force integrated battle management, communications, and surveillance architecture to synchronize planning and control of assets 

within the joint battlefield and provide situational awareness of the 

battlefield for the warfighters. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63305A for TOC hardware and software activities to integrate space, air, ground, and maritime situational awareness for the warfighter. 

Thermal protection system technology risk reduction 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for thermal protection system (TPS) risk reduction efforts. 

Thermal protection is a key enabling technology to permit 

hypersonic vehicles to travel great distances within the earth’s atmosphere without overheating due to friction. Solving the TPS 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
154 

problem is essential for the development of hypersonic flight in 

support of many mission areas, including prompt global strike. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63305A for developmental, test, and manufacturing design risk reduction efforts in the area of thermal protection. 

Translation devices 

The budget request included $64.6 million in PE 63772A, for ad- vanced tactical computer science and sensor technology and $90.0 

million in PE 62236N, for warfighter sustainment applied research. 

The committee notes that the Army and Marine Corps are currently considering a variety of approaches to the development of 

handheld translation technologies. This technology has been successfully used in Iraq and Afghanistan by assisting soldiers, marines, and special operators in their daily interactions with native 

populations. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in PE 63772A for the continued development of more capable, 

handheld translation technology and $2.0 million in PE 62236N for 

the development of translation devices that can support bi-directional translations of speech, text, and other information in multiple languages. 

Advanced Hypersonic Weapon development 

The budget request included $11.8 million in PE 63308A, for 

Army Missile Defense Systems Integration, but included no funding for Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) risk reduction efforts. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report of 2006 highlights the need for ‘‘prompt 

and high-volume global strike’’ capability to deter aggression and 

provide a broader range of conventional options to the President, 

if deterrence fails. In March 2006, the Commander, U.S. Strategic 

Command (USSTRATCOM), testified before the Subcommittee on 

Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services that in situations where U.S. general purpose forces are not in a position to respond rapidly to dangerous threats to the United States, the President may require USSTRATCOM to interdict such fleeting targets 

at global range. The Department of Defense is conducting an analysis of alternatives for prompt global strike capabilities in the near, 

mid, and long term. One alternative option for prompt, conventional long-range strike is to employ advanced technologies such as 

hypersonic vehicles that can travel thousands of miles in the upper 

atmosphere in under 60 minutes. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

63308A to support a flight test demonstration program for the 

AHW. The committee is aware that hypersonic research is being 

conducted throughout the Department for efforts that go beyond 

prompt global strike. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense establish a joint technology 

office to coordinate, integrate, and manage hypersonic research. Activities related to the development of the AHW should be consistent 

with the approach adopted by this new joint technology office for 

hypersonic development so that the AHW could be considered by 

the Department as a candidate for a joint technology capability 

demonstration. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
155 

Architecture Analysis Program 

The budget request included $143.4 million in PE 63327A, for 

Air and missile defense system engineering, but included no funding for the Air, Space, and Missile Defense Architecture Analysis 

Program (A3P). 

A3P is a modeling and simulation effort to assist in the systems 

analysis of air, space, and missile defense capabilities to provide an 

effective defense against cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, 

aircraft, rockets, artillery, and ballistic missiles of all ranges. The 

committee recognizes that these simulation capabilities are necessary to support air, space, and missile defense efforts across a 

broad spectrum of military operations from major theater wars to 

homeland security. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63327A for A3P to support air, space, and missile defense modeling 

and simulation. 

Environmental quality technology demonstration and validation at the Defense Ammunition Center 

The budget request included $5.2 million in PE 63779A for environmental quality technology demonstration and validation, but included no funding for the Defense Ammunition Center to provide 

dedicated oversight for critical environmental, explosives safety, 

and munitions surveillance research and development for the Department of Defense’s conventional ammunition stocks, tactical 

missiles, and explosives. The committee notes that the Department 

has a stockpile of over 3.5 million tons of conventional ammunition, 

over one million tactical missiles, and strategic missiles with over 

100 million pounds of energetic materials. The committee believes 

a focused program to identify challenges in managing this rapidly 

aging stockpile and respond to emerging explosives is needed. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63779A to establish a separate project for the Defense Ammunition 

Center to provide the Department with dedicated oversight and response for the stockpile of conventional ammunition, tactical missiles, and explosives to support readiness. 

Counter rocket, artillery, and mortar 

The budget request included $21.8 million in PE 64741A, for the 

Air Defense Command, Control and Intelligence—engineering development, but no funding for the Counter Rocket, Artillery, and 

Mortar (C–RAM) system. The committee understands that the 

Commander, Multinational Forces-Iraq, submitted an operational 

needs statement for the C–RAM system in June 2005. Congress approved $13.1 million in the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 for C–RAM development. The committee believes the C–

RAM development should be accelerated to support MNF–I requirements. Additional funding for C–RAM development has been included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of 

$25.5 million in PE 64741A for C–RAM development, for a total authorization of $47.3 million. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
156 

Unmanned aerial vehicle anti-icing technology 

The budget request included $10.9 million in PE 64258A, for target systems development. The Department of Defense consistently 

lists all weather capability as a priority for operation of unmanned 

systems. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 

PE 64258A for icing and wind tunnel testing of the prototype 

electro-expulsive ice protection system. 

RAND Arroyo Center 

The budget request included $20.2 million in PE 65103A, for the 

RAND Arroyo Center. The committee notes that RAND studies and 

analyses have supported Army missions by conducting analytic research on major policy concerns, attempting to assist the Army in 

improving effectiveness and efficiency, and providing short-term assistance on urgent problems. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 65103A to sustain RAND analytical 

support to the Army. 

Automated communications support 

The budget request included $21.6 million in PE 65326A, for 

Concept Experimentation Program, but included no funding for further development of an automated communications recognition and 

translation capability. 

Intelligence support to time-sensitive targeting is a critical component in the global war on terrorism. The Department of Defense 

requires the capability to quickly and efficiently process volumes of 

foreign language communications audio traffic and then exploit the 

intelligence content. The ability to separate and prioritize audio 

messages is crucial. Currently, it is neither economically feasible 

nor possible to recruit, train, and field sufficient linguists to meet 

this demand. The development of an automated system to assist in 

the exploitation of the intelligence value of foreign language audio 

messages could mitigate this shortfall in the war against terrorism, 

as well as more conventional threats, and threats to uniformed personnel. This capability could also have applicablity to the Department of Homeland Defense and law enforcement agencies. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million in PE 

65326A for the development of the capability to search, translate, 

and mine foreign language audio messages. 

Biometric identification device 

The budget included $21.6 million in PE 65326A, for Concept Experimentation Program, but included no funding for further development of a rugged, portable, and easy-to-operate 10-print fingerprint scanner device. 

The requirement for biometric tools at the tactical level to support the war on terrorism is increasing. 

Such a device would have applicability across the Department of 

Defense. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 

PE 65326A for the development of a biometric identification device 

for use with tactical forces. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
157 

Portable iris enrollment and recognition device 

The budget request included $3.2 million in PE 33028A, for security and intelligence activities, but included no funding for the continued research of the portable iris enrollment and recognition 

(PIER) technology development. 

The committee notes the need for the continued enhancement of 

biometric capabilities and the development of items such as the 

PIER device. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 33028A for the continued development of a multi-modal 

portable biometric platform consistent with the development and 

integration goals of the Department of Defense for biometric identification systems. 

Biometrics technology 

The budget request included $23.8 million in PE 33140A, for the Information Systems Security Program, including $14.5 million for 

Army biometrics research and development. The committee believes that deployment of biometrics technologies is critical for successful operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in support 

of homeland defense missions. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 33140A for the continued development 

of retinal/iris multimodal biometrics technology which is consistent 

with the development, deployment, and integration goals of the Department of Defense for biometric identification systems. 

Army manufacturing technology 

The budget request included $68.1 million in PE 78045A, for 

Army end-item industrial preparedness. The committee notes that 

the recent Defense Science Board study on the manufacturing technology program recommended that the Department of Defense increase investment in the program to a level equal to 1 percent of 

the total Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation budget. 

Consistent with this recommendation, the committee is authorizing 

a number of funding increases to manufacturing technology programs of the services and the Defense Logistics Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $8.5 million in PE 78045A, including $3.0 million for manufacturing systems demonstrations to 

develop efficient, agile manufacturing cells to better support 

warfighter needs for critical machined parts; $2.0 million for large 

structure titanium machining processes; and $3.5 million for super 

pulse laser system development. 

The committee also notes that the recent report by the National 

Research Council, entitled ‘‘Linkages: Manufacturing Trends in 

Electronic Interconnection Technology,’’ found that the Department 

of Defense will have increasing difficulty in acquiring the printed 

circuit boards it requires to produce future weapons systems and 

to sustain legacy systems. The Council recommended that the Department expand its role in fostering new printed circuit board design and manufacturing technology. The committee recommends an 

increase of $3.0 million in PE 78045A for the development of novel 

packaging and interconnect technologies to advance printed circuit 

board technology. 

Budget Items—Navy 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
158 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here SR254.081
159 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here SR254.082
160 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here SR254.083
161 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here SR254.084
162 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here SR254.085
163 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here SR254.086
164 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here SR254.087
165 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here SR254.088
166 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here SR254.089
167 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here SR254.090
168 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here SR254.091
169 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here SR254.092
170 

Navy university research 

The budget request included $73.3 million in PE 61103N, for uni- versity research initiatives and $366.6 million in PE 61153N, for 

defense research sciences. Navy basic research programs explore 

innovation and discovery in areas that pose challenges in the maritime battlefield such as corrosion; fire-retardant, impact resistant 

materials and structures; neuroscience and biorobotics; electronic 

sensors and energy sciences; and information assurance. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 61103N for 

university basic defense research, including $1.5 million for multifunctional materials for Navy structures; $2.0 million for 

neurotechnology research; and $2.0 million for smart, remote sensing systems using nanotechnology. The committee also recommends 

an increase of $2.0 million in PE 61153N, for software reliability. 

Thermal management systems 

The budget request included $84.9 million in PE 62114N, for applied research on power projection technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62114N for the development of new thermal management systems with the capability to 

cool high power density electronics. Electronics in future military 

systems with highly, complex microelectronics, high processing 

speeds, and higher power operation require advanced thermal management systems to optimize their performance. The development 

of thermal management technologies are highlighted in a number 

of Defense Technology Objectives, including those related to the development of advanced radio frequency electronics technologies to 

support naval missions such as surveillance, weapons control, electronic warfare, communications, and identification of ‘‘friend or 

foe.’’

Force protection applied research 

The budget request included $123.4 million in PE 62123N, for 

force protection applied research. Naval warfighting capabilities 

supported by this program include maintaining platform and force 

mobility through stealth, area and self-defense, structural toughness, and reconfigurability. The committee recommends an increase 

of $18.0 million in PE 62123N for targeted development and transition activities, including $2.0 million for advanced simulation tools 

for aircraft structures; $2.5 million for development of a real-time 

wideband acoustic processor for fiber sensors; $5.0 million for final 

outfitting and completion of the Mark V technology demonstrator; 

$2.5 million for nano-magnetic materials for propulsion and energy 

systems; $4.0 million for thermal design, system qualification, and 

power integration on the small watercraft propulsion demonstrator; 

and $2.0 million for the undersea perimeter security integrated defense environment. 

High power, lightweight battery research 

The budget request included $37.7 million in PE 62131M, for 

Marine Corps landing force technology. Growing energy and power 

needs of the dismounted warrior must be met with advanced, reliable, high-power, batteries that are significantly lighter and smaller. The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s research 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
171 

enterprise explores various approaches to solving energy and power 

challenges for the dismounted soldier, including solid oxide fuel cell 

systems pursued by Special Operations Command. The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in PE 

62131M for prototype research on a high power, small, lightweight 

zinc-air battery specifically to scale down larger batteries for operation of smaller devices without losing power density. 

Human factors and organizational design 

The budget request included $68.4 million in PE 62235N, for 

common picture applied research. The committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million in PE 62235N for programs in social science 

based-computational models and human performance research that 

are duplicative of efforts in other services and agencies. 

Sea basing technologies 

The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 62236N, for applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies. The committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 million in PE 62236N to 

limit the number of demonstrators developed under the sea basing 

concept until it is better defined and has established transition 

paths to acquisition programs. 

Information sharing technologies 

The budget request included $76.8 million in PE 63114N, for 

power projection advanced technology. Recent operations in Iraq 

and Afghanistan have highlighted the importance of time critical 

strikes on high-value mobile targets in complex environments. The 

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63114N 

for the development of communications and information processing 

technologies that assist in the surveillance, targeting, and engagement of mobile targets. 

Power projection advanced technology 

The budget request included $76.8 million in PE 63114N, for 

power projection advanced technology research programs. The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63114N to 

limit growth of programs with no defined transition pathway to 

Navy acquisition programs. The committee recommends limiting 

funding of hypersonics programs until completion and implementation of a Department-wide strategy for hypersonics technology development and demonstration. 

Force protection advanced technology 

The budget request included $61.5 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology. This program addresses applied research associated with providing force protection capability 

for all naval platforms. 

The budget request included no funding for development of a 

transportable manufacturing and repair cell. This cell would reduce 

operating and support costs, while maintaining equipment readiness in theater. The cell would be deployable by ships and large 

ground vehicles, and would provide precision, on-demand manufacturing of critical parts for the Navy and Marine Corps. The comVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
172 

mittee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63123N for 

the development of a transportable manufacturing and repair cell. 

The budget request included no funding for completion of advanced ship service fuel cell (SSFC) power plant design. The Navy 

has invested over $30.0 million in design and development of advanced prototype fuel cell demonstration systems for shipboard application. Additional funding will enable performance characterization, including endurance and latent defect testing at the DD(X) 

land-based engineering site to demonstrate compatibility with 

DD(X) integrated power system architecture. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63123N for the continued development of a SSFC. 

The budget included no funding for the continued development of 

wide band gap semiconductor substrate materials. These materials 

offer capability for higher power and higher frequency operation in 

high temperature environments across a broad spectrum of applications. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63123N for the continued development of wide band gap semiconductor substrate material. 

The committee recommends a total authorization of $78.5 million 

in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology. 

Common picture advanced technology 

The budget request included $61.7 million in PE 63235N, for 

common picture advanced technology. Processing large quantities 

of information from a variety of sensors and assets into actionable 

information requires assistance and some degree of automation. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63235N to promote transition of research in processing of sensor 

data, including $3.0 million for near-term development of an improved shipboard command information center; and $2.0 million for 

the rail sensor testbed. 

Warfighter sustainment technology 

The budget request included $82.0 million in PE 63236N for the 

development of warfighter sustainment advanced technology, but 

included no funding for advanced composites material research, the 

Defense Systems Modernization and Sustainment Initiative, or the 

Vertical Lift Center of Excellence. 

The Marine Corps has a need for a new generation of armored, 

light-weight, long-life ground vehicles for use in a variety of adverse conditions. The Advanced Composite Materials Research 

project would apply the structural benefits of composites, including 

bio-mimetics, to develop increased survivability, improved safety 

design, and self-diagnostic structural features for military ground 

vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in 

PE 63236N for advanced composite materials research. 

The Defense Systems Modernization and Sustainment Initiative 

is a research program focused on improving the modernization, 

readiness, and sustainment of defense systems by developing processes and tools to track the status and future health of defense systems; to detect, diagnose and repair material aging failures; and to 

provide decision systems for use in determining when and how to 

upgrade these systems. The committee recommends an increase of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
173 

$8.0 million for the Defense Systems Modernization and 

Sustainment Initiative. 

The Vertical Lift Center of Excellence at Naval Aviation Depot, 

Cherry Point, provides for science and technology insertion into a 

dedicated activity to identify, demonstrate, validate, and assist in 

implementing improved maintenance products, procedures, and 

processes into depot operations. The result of these efforts is increased readiness by improving maintenance operations and decreasing maintenance cycle times for rotary wing aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the Vertical Lift 

Center of Excellence. 

The committee recommends a total authorization of $99.0 million 

in PE 63236N. 

APY–6 real-time precision targeting radar 

The budget request included $45.3 million in PE 63271N, for 

radio frequency systems advanced technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63271N for continued 

demonstrations and development of the APY, real-time precision 

targeting radar to support unmanned air vehicle mission requirements. 

Marine Corps advanced technology 

The budget request included $59.2 million in PE 63640M, for 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations. The committee 

recognizes the work and dedication of the Office of Naval Research 

and the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in meeting the short and 

long term needs of expeditionary force, particularly in the areas of 

body armor; information, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and 

chemical, biological, and radiological detection and warning. The 

committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63640M 

for Marine Corps technology demonstrations, including $12.0 million for the core advanced technology program to focus on the areas 

noted above; and $3.0 million for expeditionary water purification. 

The committee further recommends an increase of $6.0 million in 

PE 63640M for design and development of advanced combat tactical vehicle prototypes that optimize system mobility, survivability, and lethality. 

Visual integrated bridge system 

The budget request included $21.3 million in PE 63782N, for 

mine and expeditionary warfare advanced development. Navy evaluations of the Augmented Reality Visualization of the Common 

Operational Picture (ARVCOP) on numerous platforms demonstrated utility of the system for improved safety, navigation, and 

battlespace awareness. The committee recommends an increase of 

$2.0 million in PE 63782N to promote transition of the system to 

the fleet. 

Electro-optic Passive ASW System 

The budget request included $9.9 million in PE 63254N for the 

Electro-optic Passive ASW System (EPAS). EPAS is a 15-inch turret-based suite of electro-optic and magnetic anomaly detection sensors with the potential to provide a 24-hour air ASW capability for 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
174 

fixed wing, helicopter, and unmanned aircraft system ASW platforms. Additional EPAS turret systems and real-time detection, 

classification, and false alarm mitigation capabilities are required 

for realistic system operational assessment in a multi-platform 

fleet environment before transitioning to a follow-on acquisition 

program. The committee recommends an increase of $6.7 million in 

PE 63254N for development of the Electro-optic Passive ASW System. 

Surface Navy Integrated Undersea Tactical Technology 

The budget request included $130.3 million in PE 63502N for 

surface and shallow water mine countermeasures, but included no 

funding for the Surface Navy Integrated Undersea Tactical Technology (SNIUTT) program. SNIUTT would provide surface ship 

mine countermeasures sonar operators with the simulated training 

necessary to recognize mine-like contacts. SNIUTT would expand 

the mine recognition training technologies and scenario generation 

capabilities successfully demonstrated in airborne mine countermeasure to all Navy mine-hunting sonars. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63502N for SNIUTT. 

Shipboard system component development 

The budget request included $14.1 million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development, including $7.1 million 

for the development of integrated power systems, but included no 

funding for the high temperature superconductor alternating current (HTS-AC) synchronous marine propulsion motor development, 

Smart Valve development, or for gas turbine electric start system 

technology upgrade. 

A 36.5 megawatt prototype HTS-AC synchronous propulsion 

motor will be delivered to the Navy in fiscal year 2006. Design of 

a fully militarized motor, specifically for DD(X), will commence in 

2006. Additional funding is required in fiscal year 2007 to support 

full power testing of the prototype motor, and to complete the preliminary design for militarization of the HTS-AC motor for potential application to a future surface combatant. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63513N for the continued development of the HTS-AC synchronous marine propulsion 

motor. 

Smart Valve is an advancement in control system technology applied to the design for bleed air regulating, control and relief valves 

on existing and future gas turbine naval vessels. Existing bleed air 

valves for gas turbine ships are subject to high maintenance costs 

and reliability concerns. Smart Valve provides an advanced linear 

electro-mechanical actuator design for accurate, quick response; 

and includes self-diagnostic capability for preventive, conditionbased maintenance. Increased service life and improved functional 

design with Smart Valves result in reduced maintenance and reduced life cycle cost. The committee recommends an increase of 

$2.5 million in PE 63513N to complete development of a prototype 

Smart Valve. 

The gas turbine electric start system technology upgrade would 

expand the application of electric starters to naval gas turbine engines for potential use on the Navy’s CG–47 class, DDG–51 class, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
175 

and future naval ships. Electric start technology would greatly simplify gas turbine start system design, resulting in increased reliability and reduced procurement and support costs. The committee 

recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 63513N to develop 

and qualify an electric start system for naval gas turbine engines. 

The committee recommends a total authorization of $28.1 million 

in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development. 

Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms systems 

The budget request included $503,000 in PE 63635M, for the development of Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms 

systems, but no funding for moldable fabric armor or the Unit Operations Laboratory. 

Moldable fabric armor is made from a highly engineered polypropylene tape yarn which exhibits high impact resistence at a 

very light weight. The committee believes that moldable fabric 

armor has the potential to provide an alternative to the current integrated body armor worn by Marines and soldiers, who often carry 

almost 100 pounds of equipment when deployed in combat situations. 

Nonlethal weapon development initiatives aim to minimize collateral damage to infrastructure and personnel, while neutralizing 

facilities and the threats that might be posed to these facilities and 

the personnel that occupy them. An urban operations laboratory 

will provide assessment and analysis of the affects of non-lethal 

technologies to ensure minimum environmental and collateral damage when used in urban activities. The committee believes that the 

Marine Corps must have a broad range of responses to contain and 

manage emerging threats before, during, and after conflict, and 

with minimum collateral damage. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for 

moldable fabric armor development and $2.0 million for an urban 

operations laboratory in PE 62635M, for a total authorization of 

$4.5 million. 

Project Athena 

The budget request included $2.5 million in PE 63889N, for 

Project Athena. Project Athena is a situational awareness system 

that provides a common operational picture (COP) to national, regional, and local users. It fuses real-time downlinks from surveillance sensors, multiple data bases, and other sources of intelligence 

reporting into a COP that can be tailored to multiple security levels, including unclassified. Project Athena is capable of providing a 

COP to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland 

Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, first responders, and allied nations 

in a more timely and simultaneous manner. The Department of Defense Counternarcotics Technology Program Office is responsible 

for the project and has successfully tested Project Athena in maritime tracking in the United States. In fiscal year 2006, Project 

Athena is being used at the Joint Interagency Task Force South in 

Florida and jointly with the Colombian Navy. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million to PE 

63889N for the further integration of databases and sensors, and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
176 

additional operational tests with interagency, first responders, and 

allied nations. 

Directed energy and electric weapon systems 

The budget request included $41.7 million funding in PE 

61153N, PE 62114N, and PE 63114N, for directed energy technology and continued development of an electromagnetic rail gun 

(EMRG). Progress with these developments, in conjunction with 

the Navy’s programmed introduction of ship integrated power systems, has established a foundation for fielding shipboard directed 

energy and electric weapon systems. 

The Chief of Naval Operations has noted that the EMRG would 

provide an extremely long range and persistent volume of fire, significantly improving naval gunfire support for forces ashore. In 

view of research by other, non-allied nations involving similar technology, it is vital that the Navy maintains its edge in this critical 

area. The committee is aware that the Navy has moved forward 

with the establishment of the Directed Energy Technology Office 

and the Directed Energy Weapons Program Office to manage directed energy weapons research, development, integration, and acquisition for the Navy. The committee agrees with the Navy’s increased emphasis on this critical future capability, including the 

construction of the Electromagnetic Research and Engineering Facility and the new 64 megajoule railgun facility at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Dahlgren. The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in PE 63925N to accelerate 

development of directed energy and electric weapon systems, including: (1) an increase of $13.4 million to outfit the Electromagnetic 

Research and Engineering Facility to conduct high lethality 

laser and high power Radio Frequency (RF)/microwave research; 

(2) an increase of $8.6 million for electromagnetic railgun research in advanced material development for bore life engineering, projectile design, and power system requirements; 

(3) an increase of $15.0 million for RF energy application to 

counter Improvised Explosive Devices, including Terahertz system development, solid state heat capacity laser analysis and 

test, and high power microwave technology application; and 

(4) an increase of $13.0 million for high energy laser development in conjunction with ship self-protection and laser guided 

energy development and application to lethal and non-lethal 

ship weapon systems. 

Towed array improvements 

The budget request included $94.8 million in PE 64503N for Submarine Systems Equipment Development, including $5.7 million 

for affordable towed array technology development. Twin line, 

thinline towed array capability is a key technology for long-range 

passive detection against quiet diesel submarines in the littorals. 

Leveraging current TB–33 array baseline technology development 

by adding twin line, thinline capability would enhance performance 

and affordability. Advance processor technologies are required to 

solve the need for greater processing capability, while decreasing 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
177 

internal heat load on the submarine. Array/array handling system 

design improvements are necessary to increase component reliability. Additional funding to accelerate investment in twin line, 

thinline towed array capability has been included on the Chief of 

Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. The committee rec- ommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 64503N for the development of affordable towed array construction, improved towed 

array/array handler reliability, and for the development and testing 

of advance processing technologies, including the field programmable gate arrays for application to the twin line, thinline towed 

array system. 

Submarine design 

The budget request included $169.6 million in PE 64558N for the 

continuing development of the Virginia-class submarine, and 

$140.4 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development. The design and development efforts in these programs 

are to evaluate a broad range of system and technology alternatives to directly support and enhance the mission capability of 

the Virginia-class and future submarine concepts. The budget request included $20.0 million for affordability design, but included no funding for concept formulation for the next 

generation strategic submarine platform. Similarly, the budget request included no funding to continue development of a family of 

systems and capabilities, the focus of which is to spirally incorporate capabilities needed to enhance undersea superiority of the 

Virginia-class. The committee believes that continued investment 

in these capabilities is needed to meet the future threat. However, 

the most important measure to increase operational capability of 

the Virginia-class is to increase the program’s building rate as soon 

as practical. The committee is concerned that the Navy’s proposed 

shipbuilding program is insufficient to meet the submarine force 

structure requirements outlined in the Secretary of the Navy’s report on the long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels. 

The committee urges the Navy to mitigate this shortfall by moving 

toward a production goal of two submarines per year beginning in 

2010. The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations 

has established an affordability threshhold as a criterion for increasing the submarine procurement rate, and recognizes that initiatives to add critical capabilities to the Virginia-class need to be 

accomplished in a manner that supports the established affordability objectives. 

The committee recommends an increase of $65.0 million in PE 

64558N to support cost reduction initiatives for the Virginia-class 

design and construction. This additional funding is to include the 

design and development, leading to affordable integration of the 

following capabilities into the Virginia-class: 

(1) Multi-Mission Module; 

(2) Large Aperture Bow Array; 

(3) spiral Alpha for the Virginia-class Warfare Management 

System; 

(4) Common Open Architecture Weapon System Components; 

(5) Submarine Network-centric Capability Technology Insertion; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
178 

(6) Submarine Command & Control Systems Advanced Technology Insertion. 

The committee is further concerned that, for the first time in 

more than 50 years, the United States is not actively engaged in 

the design of a new class of nuclear submarine. The current Navy 

schedule to initiate the next generation submarine platform design 

causes a significant gap in the design and engineering industrial 

workload such that the industrial base will not likely be able to 

preserve the critical skills and capabilities needed for this effort. 

Testimony by industry and Navy experts before the Subcommittee 

on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services emphasized the 

criticality of maintaining a viable submarine design industrial base 

to avoid the severe delays and cost overruns experienced by other 

navies, whose design base atrophied during lengthy periods between new design efforts. The committee recommends an increase 

of $10.0 million in PE 63561N to initiate concept formulation on 

the next generation submarine platform, including alternate design 

approaches, integration of future weapons systems, and mission capabilities. 

Ship self-defense 

The budget request included $10.1 million in PE 64755N for ship 

self-defense, but included no funding for continued development of 

the autonomous unmanned surface vehicle (AUSV). The AUSV is 

being developed as a concept demonstrator for hydrographic survey, and for potential antiterrorism force protection missions in defense of harbors and coastal facilities. The committee recommends 

an increase of $4.0 million in PE 64755N for the continued development of the AUSV. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy development 

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 64757N for de- velopment of soft kill technologies for ship self-defense, and $1.0 

million for the continuing development of the NULKA decoy. 

NULKA is an offboard, active decoy designed to counter a wide variety of present and future radar-guided anti-ship missiles. Continued development of NULKA is necessary to counter anti-ship missiles, which may migrate to other frequency bands or use dual 

mode seekers. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 64757N for the continued development of the NULKA 

decoy. 

Chiropractic treatment outcomes study 

The budget request included $7.7 million in PE 64771N, for medical development. Section 702 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) 

directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to provide 

chiropractic health care services and benefits to active-duty personnel as a permanent part of the Defense Health Program. The 

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to commission a study 

by a federally-funded research and development center to assess 

progress of the program and the efficacy and application of chiropractic health care services in reducing musculoskeletal disabilities 

among active-duty personnel. The study should include: an evaluaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
179 

tion of the effectiveness of the care provided to military personnel 

including pilots and infantrymen; development of metrics for measurement of appropriate chiropractic treatment outcomes; and identification of any additional requirements for research. The committee recommends an increase of $500,000 in PE 64771N to conduct the required study. The results of the study should be reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, 

and submitted to the congressional defense committees with any 

comments not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Navy medical research 

The budget request included $7.7 million in PE 64771N, for medical development. Navy medical research programs focus on vaccines and treatments specific to the needs of the sailor and support 

efforts to address the threat posed by biological weapons and naturally occurring illnesses in areas of military operation. Enhanced 

vaccine distribution techniques and more efficient delivery of treatments would further reduce logistical and personnel requirements, 

while increasing protection. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 64771N for non-invasive vectored vaccine research to produce a consistent, highly immunogenic, and 

easily manufactured and administered vaccine. 

F136 Interchangeable Engine 

The budget request included $1,999.0 million in PE 64800F and $2,031.0 million in PE 64800N for the continued development of 

the Joint Strike Fighter, but included no funding for the development of the F136 interchangeable engine. The committee believes 

supporting competitive propulsion systems would help reduce operational risk and lead to higher confidence of achieving more affordable life cycle costs. The committee expects that the Secretary of 

Defense, along with the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force, will remain committed to the development 

and sustainment of competitive propulsion systems for the Joint 

Strike Fighter. 

The committee recommends an increase of $200.4 million in PE 

64800F and an increase of $200.4 million in PE 64800N for the 

continued development of the F136 interchangeable engine. 

Marine Corps communications systems 

The budget request included $218.5 million in PE 26313M, for 

the development of Marine Corps communications systems, including $8.6 million for AN/TPS–59(V)3 Radar System sustainment but 

no funding for the battlefield management system (BMS) or 

counter remote controlled improvised explosives device (RCIED) 

electronic warfare countermeasure systems. 

The AN/TPS–59(V)3 Radar System provides the only long-range, 

three dimensional surveillance radar in the Marine Corps inventory. Since September 2001, TPS–59 radars have been deployed in 

support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee believes that capability improvement efforts 

need to be undertaken to accelerate the development of the Low 

Earth Orbit Satellite (LEOS) capability. Additional funding for 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
180 

LEOS development has been included on the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps’ fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps’ tank and 

track vehicles do not have an on-board situational awareness capability. The BMS is an off-the-shelf situational awareness capability 

that can be integrated into the Joint Battle Command Platform. 

Additional funding for the development of software interfaces for 

the BMS has been included on the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps’ fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. 

The committee supports initiatives that address the development 

of remote controlled improvised explosives device (RCIED) electronic warfare countermeasures. The committee understands that 

additional funding is required to develop and test the next generation of High Powered Vehicle Mounted Countermeasure Systems, 

single antenna development and testing, as well as, platform integration and testing. Additional funding for the development RCIED 

countermeasures has been included on the Commandant of the Marine Corps’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 for LEOS development, $2.0 million for BMS interface software development, and 

$25.0 million for counter-RCIED development in PE 26313M, for a 

total authorization of $250.5 million. 

Polymer-based improvised explosive device detection tools 

The budget request included $47.6 million in PE 26623M, for the 

development of Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms 

systems, but no funding for amplifying fluorescent polymer-based 

improvised explosive device detection tools (FIDO XT) or the Sense 

and Respond Support System. 

The committee understands that the FIDO XT has been under 

development over the last three years and has made significant 

progress in the development of a system which mimics the action 

of dogs trained to detect explosive materials. This technology has 

proven to be successful in laboratory and field environments but requires additional work for integration into robotic vehicles. 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps is entering 

the third year of a four-year study to determine whether ultrasonic 

consolidation technology can be embedded in a variety of components of the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) as part of a Sense and 

Respond system for vehicle health monitoring. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for FIDO 

XT development and integration and $4.5 million for the LAV 

Sense and Respond System, for a total authorization of $56.1 million in PE 26623M. 

Expeditionary assault bridge 

The budget request included $16.3 million in PE 26624M, for the 

development of Marine Corps service support equipment, including 

$750,000 for the development of the Expeditionary Assault Bridge. 

Lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) proved the 

current Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge (AVLB) system, based 

on a M–60 tank chassis, cannot keep pace with maneuver forces 

and is difficult to maintain, with further degradation anticipated 

due to a shortage of M–60 spare parts. The committee believes that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
181 

development of the EAB, based on a modern M–1 chassis, should 

be accelerated to provide Marine forces with a dependable assault 

gap-crossing capability that is able to keep pace with current 

forces. Additional funding for EAB development has been included 

on the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ fiscal year 2007 un- funded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 

million in PE 26624M for EAB development, for a total authorization of $25.3 million. 

Environmental intelligence for riverine operations 

The budget request included funding in PE 31303N, for Maritime 

Intelligence to support continued analysis, tool kit development, 

and the environmental intelligence necessary to support naval 

riverine capabilities. 

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report identified a requirement to provide a Navy riverine capability for river patrol, 

interdiction, and tactical troop movement on inland waterways. 

The demand for intelligence on inland waterways in the ‘‘long war’’ against terrorists worldwide is increasing. The committee is aware 

that Naval Oceanographic Office and Naval Research Lab at Stennis Space Center, Mississippi have a proven capability in the field 

of environmental intelligence. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 

31303N, Maritime Intelligence, to improve and broaden the capability to fuse, store, and share meterological, oceanographic, and 

environmental intelligence in support of special operations, 

counterproliferation, counterterrorism, force protection, drug interdiction, and expeditionary operations in coastal and riverine areas. 

Vessel integrity system 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 

31303N, Maritime Intelligence, for the acquisition of a vessel integrity system (VIS) to complement and enhance current capabilities 

to monitor and track ocean going vessels worldwide, provide cargo 

information, provide data on cargo and port history, and estimate 

future tracks and possible port calls. The committee believes that 

VIS could enhance security of U.S. maritime borders and increase 

the capability of other U.S. maritime intelligence programs. 

National Shipbuilding Research Program—Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise 

The budget request included no funding in PE 78730N for maritime technology. The National Shipbuilding Research Program—

Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP-ASE) is a collaborative 

effort between the Navy and industry, which has yielded new processes and techniques that reduce the cost of building and repairing 

ships. Annual Navy funding, which is matched and exceeded by industry investment, has achieved savings and cost avoidance for the 

Navy, a positive return on investment, and a high research-to-implementation transition rate. The committee believes that continuation of the NSRP-ASE provides a vital contribution towards 

achieving the overarching objective of improving the affordability of 

naval warship construction and maintaining a healthy, innovative 

shipbuilding industrial base. The committee recommends an inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
182 

crease of $10.0 million in PE 78730N to support NSRP-ASE efforts, 

including: 

(1) establishing a comprehensive national program for development and training of a skilled shipbuilding production and 

engineering workforce; 

(2) establishing a concept for a national supply chain that 

will enable leveraging buying power across product lines in an 

effort to reduce the high cost of material in ship construction; 

(3) exploring secondary and commercial markets for private 

shipbuilders to broaden the business base and share the overhead applied to naval shipbuilding; and 

(4) developing and deploying an industry-wide architecture 

for computer interoperability. 

Detection and recovery of unexploded ordnance, Browns Island, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 

The budget request included $25.3 million in PE 65873M for Marine Corps Program-wide Support, but included no funding for the 

detection and recovery of unexploded ordnance at Browns Island, 

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The committee notes that developing and testing technologies that focus on wide area detection 

and discrimination of unexploded ordnance followed by precise removal efforts from environmentally-sensitive areas would provide 

benefits to long-term unexploded ordnance removal efforts throughout the Department of Defense. The committee believes that effective detection and discrimination of unexploded ordnance over a 

wide area would help identify where recovery efforts should be focused and would significantly reduce the cost of unexploded ordnance removal and environmental remediation. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

65873M to complete the recovery of unexploded ordnance begun in 

fiscal year 2006 in the vicinity of Browns Island, a former bombing 

range at Camp Lejeune. 

Budget Items—Air Force 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
183 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 SR254.093
184 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 SR254.094
185 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 SR254.095
186 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 SR254.096
187 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 SR254.097
188 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 SR254.098
189 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 SR254.099
190 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 SR254.100
191 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 SR254.101
192 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 SR254.102
193 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 SR254.103
194 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 SR254.104
195 

Air Force basic research 

The budget request included $250.2 million in PE 61102F, for de- fense research sciences and $107.6 million in PE 61103F, for university research initiatives. Air Force fundamental and university 

research focuses on defense-related technical challenges in a wide 

range of scientific and engineering disciplines are important to 

maintaining U.S. military technology superiority. The committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 61102F for improved 

measurements and simulation of hypersonic air flows. 

As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is concerned 

with deficiencies in cyber and national security information assurance capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 

million in PE 61103F for information assurance-focused research, 

including $2.0 million for high assurance software engineering; 

$1.5 million for secure grid research; and $2.0 million for secure 

grids for network-centric operations. 

Air Force materials research 

The budget request included $111.1 million in PE 62102F, for materials research. The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 

million in PE 62102F for research and development on materials, 

composites, and structural designs to protect personnel and equipment from threats such as explosives and fires, including $3.0 million for blast resistant barrier research; $2.0 million for expansion 

of advanced materials development and corresponding manufacturing trials; and $1.5 million for development of a domestic source 

for production of high modulus carbon fibers. 

The committee continues to monitor with great interest developments in materials and composites with space and unmanned systems applications. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 

million in PE 62102F for acceleration of research on complex composites and structures for manned and unmanned air vehicles and 

expects these efforts to meet objectives for joint unmanned systems 

outlined elsewhere in this report. 

Applied aerospace propulsion 

The budget request included $170.9 million in PE 62203F, for applied research in aerospace propulsion. The committee notes that 

hypersonic technologies have the potential to enable the development of new military capabilities in time of a critical strike, as 

demonstrated by the Air Force X–51 program. The committee rec- ommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62203F to pursue alternate propulsion flow path efforts on the X–51 flight test bed. The committee further recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 

PE 62203F for high energy laser research to demonstrate a capability to inspect the internal condition of military hardware with 

significant potential savings in maintenance of critical components. 

Space technology 

The budget request included $85.6 million in PE 62601F, for 

space technology. Programs supported under this account focus on 

improving satellite payload capabilities and developing technologies 

for protection of U.S. space assets. The committee recommends an 

increase of $290,000 in PE 62601F for a project to shield rocket 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
196 

payloads with particular emphasis on solving low frequency noise 

insulation challenges. 

MASINT visualization tool 

The budget request included $119.3 million in PE 62702F, for 

command, control, and communications. Measurement and signals 

intelligence (MASINT) enables identification of obscured and hidden targets, but must be integrated into user friendly information 

processors and architectures. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 62702F to accelerate development of 

MASINT visualization tools. 

Air Force materials technologies 

The budget request included $48.9 million in PE 63112F, for advanced materials for weapon systems. The committee recommends 

an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63112F to continue the development of inspection techniques to detect fatigue related damage on 

aircraft components. These techniques can support the extension of 

aircraft service life and improve operational readiness of assets and 

are consistent with the Defense Technology Objective of developing 

systems for nondestructive evaluation for system health management. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63112F for research on specialty aerospace metals as part of the 

Metals Affordability Initiative. This type of research could lead to 

cheaper and higher performance aerospace metals and alloys, 

which will contribute significantly to future military capabilities. 

Aerospace propulsion and power technology 

The budget request included $115.5 million in PE 63216F, for 

aerospace propulsion and power technology. The committee recommends an increase of $12.5 million in PE 63216F to accelerate 

development and transition of engine and fuel conversion technologies and to scale battery technology for system level charges 

and low temperature reliability. Of this amount, the committee recommends $2.0 million for certification of the flexible JP8 military 

fuel; $6.0 million for the turbine engine supersonic cruise missile; 

$2.5 million for the versatile affordable advanced turbine engine; 

and $2.0 million for bipolar wafer-cell, nickel-metal hydride aircraft 

battery research. 

Radically Segmented Launch Vehicle 

The budget request included $68.0 million in PE 63401F, for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funding for the Radically Segmented Launch Vehicle (RSLV). 

The RSLV program addresses a broad range of Department of 

Defense mission requirements for low-cost, routine, and responsive 

space launch. Currently, the program development and risk reduction for responsive space launch is jointly performed by the Air 

Force, the National Air and Space Administration, and the Defense 

Advanced Research Project Agency. The committee is supportive of 

efforts to acquire an operationally responsive space capability to 

support the warfighter. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
197 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63401F to perform engineering development, prototype hardware 

fabrication, and ground testing of the RSLV. 

Thin film amorphous solar arrays 

The budget request included $68.0 million in PE 63401F, for Advanced Spacecraft Technology, but included no funding for thin 

film amorphous solar arrays. 

The committee is aware of the need to reduce the cost of satellite 

launches, which is driven to a large extent by the weight of satellite payloads. The committee believes research on thin film amorphous solar arrays has the potential to produce solar arrays that 

are significantly less expensive, lighter, and more efficient than 

current solar arrays. The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE 

63401F for thin film amorphous solar array research and development. 

Massively parallel optical interconnects for battlespace information exchange 

The budget request included $35.8 million in PE 63789F, Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence Advanced Development, but included no funding for development of massively parallel optical interconnects (MPOI) for avionic systems. Recent advances in this technology offer potential to significantly enhance 

sensor and signals processing of unmanned and manned aircraft. 

This technology can significantly increase the communications capacity of the air fleet by replacing electronic technology with optical 

networking technology. 

The two major aspects to the on-board networking infrastructure 

of unmanned air vehicles include: (1) command and control; and (2) 

payload-related data exchange. The MPOI technology offers a unified and efficient solution to both demands by reducing space, 

weight, and power consumption, while increasing data rates to the 

multi-gigabit level. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 

63789F to develop the MPOI primarily for insertion into manned 

and unmanned aircraft. 

Transformational Satellite Communications 

The budget request included $867.0 million in PE 63845F, for the 

Transformational Satellite Communications (TSAT) program. 

While supporting the TSAT satellite program as a key enabler of 

the Department of Defense’s future communication architecture, 

Congress has, for the past 4 years, reduced funding for TSAT due 

to concerns over technological maturity and an overly aggressive 

development schedule. The committee is therefore gratified that Air 

Force leadership has restructured the TSAT program to follow an 

incremental development approach, supported by realistic cost estimates, that may serve to lower program risk and provide the first 

block of capability to the warfighter as soon as possible. The committee notes that both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

and the independent TSAT Program Review Group have acknowledged that the restructured TSAT program incorporates many of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
198 

the lessons learned from the troubled history of space acquisition 

efforts. 

While remaining fully supportive of the TSAT program, the committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year 2007 represents 

a 100 percent increase over last year’s appropriated amount of $429.0 million. The GAO does not believe the contractors associated with the space segment of the TSAT program will be able to 

increase development activities to the requested fiscal year 2007 

budget level. The committee therefore recommends a decrease of 

$70.0 million, or 8 percent, in PE 63845F, for TSAT, due to 

unexecutable growth in the program budget. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 

2007, explaining what actions the Air Force has taken to address 

the remaining concerns of the TSAT Program Review Group and 

GAO, including: (1) the need to significantly refine requirements so 

that program content can be matched to budget constraints, and 

how the Department plans to control requirements to prevent problems associated with ‘‘requirements creep’’; (2) the need to adequately staff the TSAT program office with experienced space acquisition professionals; (3) the status of refining key performance 

parameters so they provide specificity and validation metrics; (4) 

the implications for other programs, such as Space Radar and Future Combat System, of a less capable initial block of TSAT satellites; and (5) the last date by which the fourth Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite could be put on contract without 

a production break. 

Satellite command and control consolidation 

The budget request included $37.7 million in PE 63854F, for 

Wideband gap filler system, but included no funding for satellite 

command and control consolidation. The committee is aware that 

all military satellite communications systems need to be connected 

into a single consolidated command and control system to provide 

standardized operations. While the current generation of satellites 

have transitioned to Command and Control System-Consolidated, 

the Advanced Extremely High Frequency and Wideband gapfiller 

satellites have yet to do so. The committee recommends an increase 

of $8.5 million in PE 63854F to complete the development and integration of the satellite control system with the new satellites to ensure the warfighter receives increased communications capabilities 

as soon as possible. 

Space Radar 

The budget request includes $266.4 million in PE 63858F for 

Space Radar (SR). 

SR is a constellation of surveillance and reconnaissance satellites 

being developed by the Air Force to find, identify, track, and monitor moving or stationary targets under all weather conditions and 

in darkness. Although the committee supports the development of 

this important military and intelligence capability, it remains concerned about the wisdom and affordability of starting a new, expensive space acquisition program when so many current space programs remain in difficulty. This concern is compounded by the inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
199 

ability of the Air Force to identify the scope of the SR architecture, 

or provide a reasonable range of cost estimates for the objective 

system. The committee is aware that the SR program is undergoing 

restructure, and may benefit from the incremental, block approach 

chosen for the Transformational Satellite Communications (TSAT) 

program. While the committee would welcome such an approach, it 

does not believe it is prudent to move beyond technology development and concept definition activities until the Air Force provides 

the committee further definition of the progam. 

In the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375), the Congress expressed the view that 

the affordability of a space-based radar program would be dependent on the development of a single radar satellite system to meet 

both military and intelligence community needs and the integration 

of a space radar into an architecture consisting of other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. The committee is aware that in 2005 the then-Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Secretary of Defense signed a letter to the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget stating their intent to pursue joint development of a single space radar capability 

for the nation, and to develop an approach for sharing costs starting in fiscal year 2008. The committee, however, has not yet seen 

a solid cost-share agreement between the Department of Defense 

and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to jointly 

fund the SR program, nor has the committee identified funding for 

such activities in the intelligence community budget. The committee remains concerned about the inability to resolve this impasse and believes two systems are not affordable. The committee recommends a decrease of $66.4 million in PE 

63858F for the SR program, and recommends that remaining funds 

be directed toward technology development, system engineering, 

and concept definition that assumes a single SR system that will 

meet joint requirements and employ a joint concept of operations 

with the intelligence community. 

The committee directs the Secretary, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 30, 2007, containing the following elements: (1) a description of the respective roles and missions of the intelligence community and the Department with respect to the development of the SR program; (2) the process by 

which the intelligence community and the Department coordinate 

joint development efforts and requirements definition; (3) the plans 

for achieving a cost-share agreement between the intelligence community and the Department for the development and acquisition of 

a space radar capability; and (4) a commitment from the Secretary 

and the Director of National Intelligence that the SR program will 

be a single system responsive to the requirements of each organization. 

The committee further directs the Secretary to submit a report 

to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2007, addressing the following: (1) the scope of the SR architecture, including the system’s interactions with other ground and air-based platforms providing similar capability as well as interactions with 

TSAT or alternative systems for processing and transmitting SR 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
200 

data to other military applications; (2) the block, or incremental approach, that will be pursued by the SR acquisition program, including key technologies that will be included in blocks 1 and 2 as well 

as their corresponding levels of sophistication and maturity at the 

time of program initiation; (3) the extent to which blocks 1 and 2 

will meet objective requirements for the SR program and which requirements will need to be delayed as a result; and (4) the schedule 

for meeting a realistic launch date and potential risks to that 

schedule. 

Increased funding for O2 diesel particulate emission reduction research 

The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 63859F for pollution prevention, but included no funding for O2 diesel particulate 

emission reduction research. The committee notes that the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 strengthens the requirement that federal vehicle 

fleets use alternative fuels in those vehicles capable of using such 

fuels and requires ongoing assessment of renewable energy resources. The committee believes that research on O2 diesel to date 

shows demonstrated emissions benefits with regards to carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and visible smoke 

that meets or exceeds the levels achieved by the 20 percent biodiesel blend currently used in Department of Defense vehicles. The 

committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 63859F 

to continue O2 diesel particulate emission reduction research. 

Space control test capabilities 

The budget request included $47.3 million in PE 64421F, for Air 

Force counterspace systems. 

The ‘‘National Space Policy’’ of September 1996 specifies that the 

United States will develop, operate, and maintain space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space and, if directed, deny 

such freedom of action to adversaries. The committee recognizes 

that continuing development by the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center of software applications used to integrate offensive and defensive space control systems into a single system-of-systems simulated testbed could contribute to near-term capabilities for space control and situational 

awareness. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

64421F for the ground-based simulated testbed for space control assets. 

Joint space intelligent decision support 

The budget request included $121.2 million in PE 64425F, for 

space situational awareness systems, but included no funding for 

joint space intelligent decision support. 

The committee is aware that timely space situational awareness 

and decision support to Air Force and joint operators is essential 

for successful space operations. The Army currently has an effort 

underway to develop this technology for space support. The Air 

Force effort would complete research conducted by the Army and 

provide production software code to support global users who are 

connected via the secure Internet. The committee recommends an 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
201 

increase of $4.0 million in PE 64425F for completion of joint space 

intelligent decision support software development to provide space 

operators situational awareness. 

Global awareness presentation system 

The budget request included $0.2 million in PE 64740F, for integrated command and control applications. Information integration 

and exchange among the tactical, operational, and strategic levels 

of U.S. Strategic Command is essential to successful mission assignments in information operations; global intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); integrated missile defense; and 

space and global strike. Global Battlespace View (GBV) supports 

operations centers and fielded units with a seamless information 

exchange environment. The committee recommends an increase of 

$4.0 million in PE 64740F for the global awareness presentation 

system, which provides a visually fused ISR situational awareness 

and collection capability for the GBV. 

RAND Project Air Force 

The budget request included $25.2 million in PE 65101F, for 

RAND Project Air Force. The committee notes that RAND studies 

and analyses have supported Air Force planning and operations, 

particularly in acquisition planning and analyses, tanker recapitalization, and assessments of international threats and capabilities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 

65101F to sustain RAND analytical support for the Air Force. 

Ballistic missile range safety technology 

The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 65860F, for the 

rocket systems launch program, but included no funding for ballistic missile range safety technology (BMRST). 

The committee is aware that BMRST is a global positioning system based launch range safety system that has the potential to 

provide significant technical and reliability advantages and cost 

savings over current radar systems. The committee notes that several launch ranges have requested BMRST systems for local range 

certification as well as down-range reentry support. 

The committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million in PE 

65860F to support expanded BMRST system capability, critical certification, and testing requirements. 

Global command and control development center 

The budget request included $27.3 million in PE 11313F, for 

Strategic War Planning System, but included no funding for the 

global command and control development center. 

The U.S. Strategic Command is assigned multiple global missions, including space and global strike; integrated missile defense; 

integrated information operations, intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance; global command and control; and combatting weapons of mass destruction. Command and control for these missions 

requires a robust global Internet-like capability to provide the right 

information to the right people at the right time. The committee 

recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 11313F for the establishment of a global command and control development center. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
202 

Single integrated space picture 

The budget request included $51.0 million in PE 35906F for 

threat warning and attack assessment, but included no funding for 

the single integrated space picture. 

In March 2006, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee 

on Armed Services that ‘‘we must improve space situational awareness and protection.’’ Accordingly, the committee supports efforts to 

enable military commanders to understand the status of adversary 

and friendly space forces. The committee recommends an increase 

of $5.0 million in PE 35906F for the combatant commanders command and control system integrated space picture. 

National Security Space Office 

The budget request included $13.4 million in PE 35924F, for the 

National Security Space Office (NSSO). The ‘‘National Space Policy’’ signed in 1996 directs the Secretary of Defense and the thenDirector of Central Intelligence to ‘‘ensure that defense and intelligence space activities are closely coordinated,’’ and ‘‘that space architectures are integrated to the maximum extent feasible.’’ The 

committee strongly endorses this direction and believes that a coherent, effective, and efficient national security space enterprise is 

in the best interests of the United States. The committee is aware 

that the Director of National Intelligence has decided not to provide intelligence community funding and support for the collaborative, enterprise-level activities of the NSSO. The committee believes this position is short-sighted and will have serious implications for the nation’s future space capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

35924F for enterprise-level system engineering, architecture work, 

and strategy and planning efforts for national security space capabilities. The committee also urges the Director of National Intelligence to reconsider his decision to withdraw support for these important collaborative efforts. 

Air Force industrial preparedness activities 

The budget request included $36.7 million in PE 78011F, for Air Force industrial preparedness activities and $10.6 million in PE 

78611F, for support systems development. The committee notes 

that the Defense Science Board highlighted the role that the Department of Defense manufacturing technology programs play in 

reducing the cost of weapons systems and improving the acquisition process. Air Force manufacturing technology programs in propulsion, electronics, and munitions systems have enabled billions of 

dollars in cost avoidance. The committee recommends an increase 

of $10.0 million in PE 78011F, including $8.0 million for the development of advanced prototyping of nanomaterials and $2.0 million 

for rapid manufacturing and repair of composite components for 

high temperature applications. The committee also recommends an 

increase of $3.0 million in PE 78611F for aircraft sustainment and 

availability tools to improve readiness through automated tracking 

of aircraft maintenance and mission records. 

The committee commends Air Force efforts to develop and utilize 

Manufacturing Readiness Levels as a tool to accelerate technology 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
203 

transition and the acquisition process through the analysis and reduction of manufacturing risk in weapon systems and other programs. 

Budget Items—Defense-wide 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
204 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 SR254.105
205 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 SR254.106
206 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 SR254.107
207 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 SR254.108
208 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 SR254.109
209 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 SR254.110
210 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 SR254.111
211 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 SR254.112
212 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 SR254.113
213 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 SR254.114
214 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 SR254.115
215 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 SR254.116
216 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 SR254.117
217 

Force protection basic research 

The budget request included $150.7 million in PE 61101E, for defense research sciences and $99.2 million in PE 61328BP, for the 

chemical and biological defense basic research program. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 61101E and 

$3.0 million in PE 61384BP to expand research programs focused 

on development of next generation protective gear to counter smallarms threats and chemical-biological threats to service members, 

respectively. 

National Defense Education Program 

The budget request included $19.5 million in PE 61102D8Z, for 

the National Defense Education Program (NDEP). The committee 

commends the Department of Defense for supporting this targeted 

and timely program, but notes that the request includes funds for 

activities that are not authorized including institutional scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships. Of the amount requested in 

PE 61102D8Z, the committee authorizes $17.0 million specifically 

for Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation scholarships and $2.5 million for other NDEP activities; but authorizes 

no funding for institutional scholarships, fellowships, and 

traineeships. The committee recommends that the Department provide information on the need for this activity along with a request 

for legislative authority to conduct it. 

Detection of biological agents in water 

The budget request included $99.1 million in PE 61384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense basic research. The committee 

notes that the ability to detect the introduction of manmade or natural toxins into inland or coastal waterways is an important component of the overall force protection of U.S. forces. The committee 

commends the Department of Defense for supporting the advanced 

technology development of data fusion technologies and mathematical modeling to predict and counter the detection of biological 

agents in water. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 

million in PE 61384BP to support the demonstration of selected 

near real-time sensors on buoys, submerged fixtures, and potable 

water pump stations. 

Organic light emitting receptor-based nanosensors 

The budget request included $99.2 million in PE 61384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense basic research, but included no 

funding for the research and development of organic light emitting 

receptor-based nanosensors. 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

develop low-cost and lightweight nanosensors for the rapid detection of toxins and the rapid display of alerts for the presence of toxins. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

61384BP for the development of nanosensors that are capable of simultaneously generating optical and photo acoustic signals upon 

interaction with target toxins. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
218 

Superstructural particle evaluation 

The budget request included $99.2 million in PE 61384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense basic research. Basic science challenges continue to plague efforts to develop comprehensive methods 

for countering threats posed by chemical and biological warfare 

agents. The committee commends the Department of Defense for 

supporting basic research to address both the chemical and biological threat. The committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million 

in PE 61384BP to accelerate promising work in superstructural 

particle evaluation and characterization with targeted reaction 

analysis. This program will allow investigations of real-time, microscale responses of cells and microbes to the influence of a variety 

of chemical species, including chemical warfare agents, toxins, or 

potential protective or therapeutic substances. 

Medical free electron laser 

The budget request included $10.3 million in PE 62227D8Z, for 

the medical free electron laser program. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 62227D8Z to continue 

research efforts that utilize free electron lasers to address critical 

military medical requirements. 

Alternative delivery of recombinant protein vaccines 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense applied research. The committee 

commends the Department of Defense for supporting research to 

address the need for new vaccine delivery devices and powder vaccine technologies to improve the performance of biodefense vaccines 

and reduce the logistical challenges in delivering those vaccines. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.1 million in PE 

62384BP to accelerate promising work on vaccine-device combinations. This program will facilitate the rapid deployment in minimally invasive delivery formats, provide superior protection, and in 

some cases, improve the stability for stockpiled vaccines. 

Chemical and biological smart materials 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funding for the research and development of chemical and biological smart materials to enhance individual and collective protection. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has identified warfighter protection capability shortfalls in several research 

areas to include individual and collective protection. The committee 

recognizes the importance of the development of technologies for 

the improvement of chemical and biological agent individual protection ensembles. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 

million in PE 62384BP for the research and development of chemical and biological smart materials to address this shortfall. 

Escape mask 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funding for the research and development of escape masks or 

hoods. The committee notes the importance of the development of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
219 

escape masks and respirators with a capability to protect individuals from carbon monoxide. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62384BP for the development of escape 

mask capability shortfalls. 

Multipurpose biodefense immunoarray 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funding for the research and development of multipurpose biodefense immunoarray technology. 

The committee notes that protein microarrays have the potential 

to screen hundreds of proteins simultaneously for reactivity with 

serum antibodies. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 

62384BP, for the continued development of microarray diagnostics, 

which could determine previous exposure to biological agents; assess the effectiveness of vaccine immunizations; and determine the 

potential of new vaccines to elicit an immune response. 

Mustard gas antidote 

The budget request included $30.7 million in PE 62384BP, for 

medical chemical defense applied research. This program emphasizes the prevention of chemical casualties and addresses capability 

gaps in the area of prophylaxes for chemical warfare agents. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62384BP 

for mustard gas antidote research. The committee commends the 

Department of Defense for current research focused on a mustard 

gas antidote using signal transduction inhibition antioxidant 

liposomes (STIMAL), and notes that STIMAL research has demonstrated the potential to substantially reduce the effects of a 

range of chemical agents. 

Next-generation chemical biological protective suit 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funding for the research and development of the next-generation 

chemical and biological protective suit. 

The committee notes the importance of the development of a 

next-generation, self-decontaminating chemical and biological protective suit for U.S forces to reduce the physiological and logistical 

burden of protective clothing. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62384BP for the development of selfdecontaminating materials to address this shortfall. 

Personal protection against infectious agents 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funding for collaborative research and development related to personal protective masks and anti-microbial filters that protect 

against exposure to infectious agents and diseases. The committee 

recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 62384BP for research and development to improve the respiratory protection for 

individual protection ensembles from emerging infectious agents 

and diseases. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
220 

Rapid identification of biological warfare agents 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense applied research. The committee 

commends the efforts of the Department of Defense to develop the 

Joint Biological Standoff Detection System (JBSDS) as the first 

stand-off early warning biological detection system capable of providing near real time, early warning detection of biological warfare 

agents. 

The committee notes the importance of the development of technologies for the rapid detection of biological agents such as anthrax 

and ricin that could be weaponized and employed against U.S. 

forces. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in 

PE 62384BP for the research and development of an early warning, 

biological detection system capable of providing near real time detection of the biological agents most likely to be weaponized and 

employed against U.S. forces. 

Verification and validation of chemical agent persistence 

models 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funding for the verification and validation of chemical agent persistence models. 

The committee notes the agent fate program is a joint service 

program that focuses on the acquisition of chemical warfare agent 

data and the development of models from that data. The continuation of the agent fate effort to validate and verify chemical agent 

persistent models will help protect U.S. military forces and equipment, and permit those forces to operate effectively in a chemically 

contaminated environment. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62384BP, for verification and validation of chemical agent persistence models to ensure U.S. forces are capable of operating effectively in a chemically contaminated environment. 

Tactical technology 

The budget request included $383.7 million in PE 62702E, for applied research on tactical technology. The committee notes that the 

request represents an increase of nearly $40.0 million over current 

funding levels. The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 62702E, including: $2.0 million for the HEDLight program, which is not currently a high priority for the Navy; $2.0 million to delay the Tethered Urban Airborne Node new start program; and $6.0 million for research on automated battle management systems. It is unclear how this effort is coordinated with the 

major, Department-wide effort to develop a Joint Battle Management Command and Control roadmap. 

Biochemical materials 

The budget request included $297.3 million in PE 62715E, for 

materials and biological technology. The committee recommends a 

decrease of $5.0 million in PE 62715E to limit growth in biochemical materials research programs. The committee notes that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
221 

some of these activities are more appropriately performed at civilian agencies. 

Modeling and simulation 

The budget request included $105.0 million in PE 62717BR, for 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) defense technologies. Detailed 

and comprehensive characterization of catastrophic attacks and 

disasters is critical to crisis and logistical planning. The committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62717BR for development of a comprehensive national incident characterization and 

management system. 

Wearable hyperspectral imaging system 

The budget request included $12.7 million in PE 116401BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Technology Development. The 

committee notes the need to integrate technologies currently under 

development into a low cost, wearable, hyperspectral imaging system to assist SOF elements with the detection of improvised explosive devices, target location, and target identification. The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million in PE 116401BB, for 

the development of wearable hyperspectral imaging technology for 

SOF elements. 

Radiation detection technology 

The budget request included $8.7 million in PE 63160BR, for proliferation prevention and defeat radiation detection technology. The 

committee notes the importance of developing higher quality, more 

cost-effective nuclear radiation detectors to enhance the ability to 

detect and identify hazardous materials that pose a proliferation 

threat. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 

PE 63160BR for procuring glass scintillation fiber radiation detectors and developing new portable applications, including backpack 

detectors, panels for aircraft, and detectors included in clothing 

systems. The committee further recommends an increase of $2.0 

million in PE 63160BR for the development of a state-of-the-art radiation portal monitor using High Purity Germanium technology, 

which will enable the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to replace 

lower resolution technology at defense installations with better performing nuclear detection equipment with greater sensitivity. 

Advanced aerospace systems 

The budget request included $115.8 million in PE 63286E, for advanced aerospace systems research. The committee recommends a 

decrease of $16.3 million in PE 63286E, including: $5.3 million for 

efforts to develop a global range transatmospheric vehicle that is 

not consistent with current service acquisition plans or goals; $4.0 

million for the development of a heavy fuel engine for the A160, 

which lacks a transition pathway to Army Future Combat Systems; 

$4.0 million for the Cormorant air vehicle program; and a general 

decrease of $3.0 million to new start efforts in the account. 

Next Generation Gas Chromatographic Mass Spectrometer 

The budget request included $207.1 million in PE 63384BP, for 

chemical and biological defense advanced research. The Weapons of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
222 

Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) currently use 

commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) Gas Chromatographic Mass Spectrometers (GCMS) to identify threats posed by chemical warfare 

agents. The committee commends the Department of Defense for 

supporting the advanced technology development of next generation COTS GCMS. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 

million in PE 63384BP to continue the development, modification, 

test, and evaluation of next generation COTS GCMS products. This 

program will allow WMD-CST the ability to refresh their inventory 

with a technically superior GCMS capability. 

Joint advanced concept technology demonstration 

The budget request included $35.6 million in PE 63648D8Z, for 

joint capability technology demonstrations. The Department of Defense initiated this new technology transition program in the fiscal 

year 2006 budget request to update the successful advanced concepts technology demonstrations to more closely align with the 

Joint Capabilities Interoperability Development System (JCIDS) 

and to enhance the participation of the combatant commanders 

through the JCIDS process. The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 63648D8Z to accelerate transition of 

the large data image visualization capability that will assist the 

joint warfighter and the intelligence community in processing increasing volumes of data in real time. 

Joint robotic autonomous systems 

The budget request included $7.7 million in PE 63711D8Z, for 

joint robotics program/autonomous systems, but included no funding for development of a versatile, modular, diesel hybrid unmanned system capable of delivering multiple payloads in the 

2000–4000 pound range. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63711D8Z to modify existing capabilities for additional unmanned logistics support missions. 

Advanced mobile gas-to-liquid fueler 

The budget request included $23.4 million in PE 63712S, for generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations. Adequate, reliable, and cost-effective fuel supplies are important for military operations in changing or hostile environments. 

Alternative fuel systems offer possible long-term solutions in reducing the logistical footprint of deployed forces, if successfully configured to meet military requirements. The committee recommends an 

increase of $5.0 million in PE 63712S for continued development of 

mobile gas-to-liquid fuelers to demonstrate innovations in converting biomass to synthetic diesel fuel. 

Defense Logistics Agency research and technology demonstrations 

The budget request included $23.4 million in PE 63712S, for generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations. The committee notes that the Department of Defense is the 

largest single user of energy in the United States. Energy and 

power represent significant and growing burdens on the Department budget. The Defense Logistics Agency recently reported that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
223 

hydrogen as a fuel may become a viable option for the Department, 

if remaining technical and logistical challenges can be solved. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63712S 

to create a comprehensive and integrated strategy and to plan for 

the appropriate use and acquisition of hydrogen fuel. 

The committee further notes that the use of solid hydrogen storage materials for portable, vehicle, and stationary fuel cell applications shows promise in addressing safety, cost, and performance 

issues related to fuel cell systems. The committee recommends an 

increase of $8.0 million in PE 63712S for research on and technology demonstrations of solid hydrogen storage systems that can 

support military requirements and technology development goals. 

The committee further recommends an increase of $7.0 million in 

PE 63712S for the continuation of the vehicle fuel cell program to 

accelerate the development and deployment of fuel cell technologies 

in military vehicles through advanced research and demonstration 

programs. The committee also recommends an increase of $12.9 million in 

PE 63712S, including $3.0 million to support the manufacturing 

supply chain and for increased involvement of small- and mediumsized firms in meeting defense surge production requirements; $4.0 

million for the embedded passives test bed program; $4.2 million 

for aging systems sustainment and enabling technologies; and $1.7 

million for the development of an emergency power source to meet 

National Guard requirements. 

Dendrimer enhanced water remediation research 

The budget request included $67.1 million in PE 63716D8Z, for 

the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, 

but included no funding for dendrimer enhanced water remediation 

research. The committee notes that research has shown that 

dendrimers have remarkable capacity to retain a variety of metal 

and organic molecules, making them ideal materials for water remediation. This project would demonstrate the feasibility of 

dendrimers in reusable cartridges for point-of-use water filtration 

units. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63716D8Z for dendrimer enhanced water remediation research. 

Computer modernization technologies 

The budget request included $158.3 million in PE 63750D8Z, for 

advanced concepts technology demonstrations and $175.3 million in 

PE 63755D8Z for the high performance computing modernization 

program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63750D8Z for the continued development of masking shunt 

cybersecurity techniques and technologies to increase the security 

of military networks and information systems against enemy information operations. The Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Coalition Warrior 

Interoperability Demonstration Joint Management Office recommended further development and procurement of this technology 

after successful demonstration. 

The committee further recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 

PE63755D8Z for upgrades to the Space and Missile Defense Command simulation center to meet increasing computational deVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
224 

mands. The center supports high performance computing modernization efforts to accelerate the development and transition of 

advanced defense technologies into warfighting capabilities through 

supercomputing and computational modeling, including supporting 

the development of armor systems, weather forecasting models, 

and test and evaluation. 

Command, control, and communications systems 

The budget request included $232.5 million in PE 63760E, for 

command, control, and communications systems. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $2.8 million in PE 63760E for the Next 

Generation (XG) program. The XG communications technology had 

been planned for a fiscal year 2007 transition to the Army in the 

Joint Tactical Radio Systems (JTRS) clusters. The committee notes 

that the JTRS program is undergoing significant technical reevaluation and program restructuring, so transition of this and other 

technologies appears problematic. The committee further recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63760E to better align 

the budget with proposed activities of the Predictive Analysis for 

Naval Deployment Activities program. 

Portable explosive detection 

The budget request included $107.8 million in PE 63826D8Z, for 

quick reaction special projects. The committee notes that advances 

in capabilities to detect trace amounts of explosive materials support efforts to prevent attacks using bombs and improvised explosive devices. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 63826D8Z for rapid testing, training, and logistics support for a low-cost, portable, easy-to-operate explosive screening 

and countermeasure system. 

Joint modeling, simulation, and experimentation 

The budget request included $115.7 million in PE 63828D8Z, for 

joint experimentation, modeling, and simulation technologies, but 

included no funding for joint effects-based modeling and simulation 

that effectively incorporates political, economic, infrastructure, information, societal, and diplomatic factors, as well as coalition warfare, at the tactical level of operations. 

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report noted that 

the Department of Defense must ‘‘shift its emphasis from Department-centric approaches toward interagency solutions’’ to incorporate all elements of national power. Cooperation across the Federal Government is essential and can be facilitated efficiently by 

enhanced modeling, simulation, and experimentation. Similarly, 

the Report identified that the ability of the United States and its 

allies to work together to influence the global environment is fundamental to defeating terrorist networks. 

The committee believes that the Department must develop a 

world-class experimentation, modeling, and simulation capability 

that is joint, interagency, and coalition at the tactical level of operation. This is especially important since Cold War era distinctions 

between tactical and strategic have been increasingly obscured. 

The committee also believes that joint modeling, simulation, and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
225 

experimentation would be most effectively conducted at Joint 

Forces Command. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63828D8Z, for Joint Experimentation, to further develop joint, 

interagency, and coalition modeling, simulation, and experimentation. 

Advanced tactical airborne command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance system 

The budget request included $80.4 million in PE 116402BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Advanced Technology Development, but included no funding for a SOF stand-off, airborne, modular advanced tactical airborne command, control, communications, 

computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) 

system. 

The committee notes SOF elements require a C–130-based, rollon, C4ISR system to respond to current and emerging asymmetrical warfare threats. The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.2 million in PE 116402BB for the further development of a rollon C4ISR sensor and communications suite to enhance the intelligence gathering capabilities and command and control relay capability of SOF elements engaged in the global war on terror. 

Advanced tactical laser 

The budget request included $80.4 million in PE 116402BB, for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Advanced Technology Development, including $45.0 million for the advanced tactical laser (ATL) 

program. 

The ATL Advance Concepts Technology Demonstration (ACTD) is 

a long-standing effort to weaponize directed energy technology into 

an existing tactical platform. While a potentially promising concept, the program has faced formidable challenges, including the 

absence of a technology transition plan. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in PE 

116402BB, while the technical challenges associated with ATL are 

addressed and an effective transition plan for this technology is developed and implemented. 

Flashlight soldier-to-soldier combat identification system 

The budget request included $80.4 million in PE 116402BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Advanced Technology Development, but included no funding to develop new capabilities to address the identification of friendly forces for SOF elements in a 

ground combat environment. 

The committee commends the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

develop technologies to assist in the prevention and ultimate elimination of friendly fire incidents on changing and complex battlefields. Flashlight soldier-to-soldier combat identification system 

(FSCIS) is a friend-or-foe combat identification system that employs focused radio frequency beams to identify the presence of 

friendly units in an area of impending combat. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
226 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

116402BB, for SOF Advanced Technology Development, for the development of FSCIS technology. 

Small and medium caliber recoil mitigation technologies 

The budget request included $80.4 million in PE 116402BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Advanced Technology Development, but included no funding for SOF small and medium caliber 

recoil mitigation technology. 

The committee notes that the current small and medium caliber 

weapons in use today by SOF elements possess recoil technologies 

more than 50 years old. The committee further notes that recoil 

management is at the core of reducing small arms weight, while 

improving lethality and reliability. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

116402BB for the further development of advanced prototypes of 

small and medium caliber weapons to improve SOF lethality in 

close-quarter and urban combat environments. 

Special Operations portable power source program 

The budget request included $80.4 million in PE 116402BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Advanced Technology Development, but included no funding to develop solid oxide fuel cell systems. 

The committee notes such systems are designed to significantly 

reduce the weight burden of batteries for SOF operators, and that 

a reduction in battery weight will have a direct impact on increasing the capability of SOF elements and their equipment. The committee further notes that the Department of Defense is exploring 

various approaches to solving energy and power challenges for dismounted forces, including lightweight zinc-air batteries for the Marine Corps. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

116402BB for SOF, Advanced Technology Development, for the 

SOF portable power source. 

Anthrax and plague oral vaccine research and development 

The budget request included $73.1 million in PE 63884BP, for 

advanced technology development specific to medical bio-defense. 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts under 

this account to develop and test safe and effective prophylaxes and 

therapeutics for pre- and post-exposure to biological threats and 

agents. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 

PE 63884BP for the development of a single-dose oral vaccine that 

can protect against multiple biological warfare agents, including 

anthrax and plague. This effort parallels the Department’s plague 

vaccine development program and may provide superior protection 

against pneumonic plague. 

Airborne Infrared System 

The budget request included $514.5 million in PE 63884C, for 

ballistic missile defense sensors, but included no funding for the 

Airborne Infrared System (AIRS). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
227 

AIRS is a system of infrared and visible sensors that can track 

ballistic missiles and their warheads in all phases of flight. The 

committee believes that such a system, if and when deployed, could 

provide important test, operational, and technical intelligence capabilities in support of ballistic missile defense. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63884C for AIRS research and development. This increase will 

allow the Missile Defense Agency to proceed with final engineering 

development and ‘‘in-line’’ demonstrations of system connectivity, a 

closed loop fire control system, and prototype design for integration 

on manned or unmanned vehicles. 

Corrosion prevention research 

The budget request included $5.0 million in PE 64016D8Z, for 

the Department of Defense corrosion program. Established by the 

committee in section 1067 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), this program is developing a comprehensive capability to prevent and mitigate corrosion and its effects on Department weapon systems and 

infrastructure, which some estimates indicate cost the Department 

over $20.0 billion annually. 

The committee is concerned that corrosion prevention and control 

is not effectively incorporated into existing accredited undergraduate engineering curricula resulting in continued development 

of new designs that do not utilize existing corrosion data and corrosion resistant technologies and materials. The committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense, working through the Department of Defense Corrosion Executive and the Department of Defense Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, to commission a study by the National Academy of Sciences to assess undergraduate corrosion education in engineering programs and develop recommendations for 

curricula that could enhance the corrosion-based skill and knowledge base of graduating engineers. The study should build on the 

congressionally-mandated report, entitled the ‘‘2001 Corrosion 

Costs and Preventive Strategies in the United States.’’ The results 

of the study should be transmitted to the congressional defense 

committees not later than April 1, 2008. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

64016D8Z to support efforts to reduce corrosion costs to the military through improved corrosion education and training and application of corrosion prevention and control technologies. Not more 

than $0.8 million of the funds provided should be available for the 

required study. 

Playas command and control network 

The budget request included no funding for a command and control network at the training, research, development, test and evaluation complex at Playas, New Mexico. The development of a comprehensive command and control network at this facility was initiated in 2005. This network includes video and network monitoring 

equipment to control, communicate, observe, and record training 

taking place at the facility. The committee recommends an increase 

of $5.0 million in PE 63757D8Z for a command and control network 

at Playas, New Mexico. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
228 

Militarily critical technologies support 

The budget request included $2.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for specific analytical capabilities 

to enhance the militarily critical technologies program. The committee recommends a transfer of $2.0 million from OMDW to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation in PE 65110D8Z for critical technology support, which conducts the technical analysis to 

support timely updates to the militarily critical technologies list. 

Operationally responsive space payloads 

The budget request included $20.4 million in PE 65799D8Z, for 

the Office of Force Transformation (OFT) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. One of the activities, for which funding is requested, includes the critical design of a standardized bus for tactical satellite operations and the development of operationally responsive payloads in support of the warfighter. The committee 

notes that the Department of Defense has requested insufficient 

funding for fiscal year 2007 to continue development of a modular, 

standard bus, develop responsive payloads, and complete the experimentation necessary to demonstrate tactical satellite capabilities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 

65799D8Z for development of operationally responsive space capabilities. Of this amount, $20.0 million is for payloads, satellite 

busses, integration, command and control, and joint warfighter experimentation; and $5.0 million is to support adapting existing airborne reconnaissance sensor capabilities for use in response space 

missions. 

DARPA management headquarters 

The budget request included $51.0 million in PE 65898E, for the 

management headquarters overhead account for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The committee notes 

that this account has risen 58 percent between fiscal years 2000 

and 2007. The committee understands that some of these costs are 

due to additional security measures installed in the last few years, 

but believes that DARPA should continue to strive to limit overhead expenditures so that more funding is available to support 

high-risk, high-payoff research efforts. The committee recommends 

a decrease of $5.0 million in PE 65898E for research overhead 

costs. 

Armed Forces medical and food research 

The committee believes that the funding requested in PE 

31301L, for General Defense Intelligence Program (GDIP), and in 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), is insufficient 

for medical intelligence research and development. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 

31301L, for GDIP, and $2.2 million in OMDW to develop capabilities to conduct threat and vulnerability analysis of medical and 

food processing and handling systems in a laboratory environment 

using biological and chemical threat agents. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
229 

High performance computational systems 

The budget request included no funding for the General Defense 

Intelligence Program to continue the evaluation of computing technologies required for the performance of next generation analysis, 

modeling, and simulation tasks. Continued research and analysis 

in this field will lead to more effective data fusion from distributed 

sensor networks for use in combat situations and urban environments. 

The committee is aware that the Defense Intelligence Agency 

(DIA) established a laboratory for high performance computational 

systems at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2005. It was 

funded at $1.6 million in fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 31301L for the continuation and expansion of a laboratory for high performance computational systems to support the DIA. 

Commercial airborne interferometric synthetic aperture 

radar imagery 

Commercial airborne interferometric synthetic aperture radar 

(IFSAR) imagery provides imagery and elevation data used for 

mapping. Commercial IFSAR imagery is used regularly by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to update maps and 

conduct intelligence analysis. The technology was designed for 

broad area collection and is especially well-suited for regions of the 

world with frequent cloud cover, such as Colombia, Indonesia, and 

the Phillippines. It is also used to support coalition and allied countries. The use of commercial IFSAR imagery will assist NGA in its 

mapping requirements and permit collection platforms to satisfy 

other imagery requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

35102BQ, for Defense Geospatial Program, to further the use of 

commercial IFSAR imagery for map updates, intelligence analysis, 

and to support coalition and allied nations. 

Credibility assessment research 

The demand for polygraph examinations, employment screening, 

and access control in the Department of Defense has increased in 

recent years. The committee is aware of research conducted at 

Boise State University which demonstrated that automated polygraph tests conducted in the context of an employment interview 

can be significantly more accurate than those conducted by a 

human examiner. The university has also begun work a Computerized Port of Entry Screening System to meet the critical need for 

rapid and easy credibility assessment at ports of entry. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

35127BZ, for Foreign Counterintelligence Activities, to allow for 

continued research and initial laboratory validation of a fully 

standardized, machine-administered, scientifically-based polygraph 

test. 

Combat sent wideband sensor upgrade 

The proliferation of wideband threat radars drives the requirement for continued advancements in wideband signal detection, 

measurement, and identification. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
230 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

35206G, for Airborne Reconnaissance Systems, for the Combat 

Sent wideband sensor upgrade program to ensure the United 

States maintains the ability to process threat radars and effectively 

track the proliferation of potentially hostile radar equipment. The 

desired goal is to have software reprogrammable systems that will 

support rapid and cost-effective upgrades as threat radars continue 

to evolve. 

Castings for improved readiness 

The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 78011S for industrial preparedness programs of the Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA). The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in 

PE 78011S to support castings for improved readiness program, 

aimed at bringing castings expertise into defense supply centers; 

reducing backorder times for critical cast and forged parts; developing new manufacturing processes for the defense industrial base, 

and establishing a data exchange system to coordinate castings information and ensure timely parts availability. 

High performance defense manufacturing technology research and development 

The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 78011S, for industrial preparedness activities. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 78011S to enable the Joint Defense 

Manufacturing Technology Panel to execute activities mandated in 

sections 241 through 245 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). The committee notes 

that this legislation has been supported by the Defense Science 

Board (DSB) in its recent report, entitled ‘‘The Manufacturing 

Technology Program: A key to Affordably Equipping the Future 

Force.’’ The DSB report stated that ‘‘the task force supports the intent of the proposed amendment drafted by the Senate Armed 

Services Committee to enhance manufacturing technology strategies ..., which calls for public-private partnership incentives, industry roadmaps for new manufacturing and technology processes, test 

beds for technology transition, and other cooperative programs.’’

The committee endorses the DSB recommendation to establish 

an additional Defense-wide program element (‘‘D line’’) to execute 

‘‘multi-Service, multi-platform’’ manufacturing technology initiatives. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to create a Defense-wide program element, managed by the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel for execution of the High 

Performance Defense Manufacturing Technology Research and Development program, and to transfer the additional authorized 

funds above from PE 78011S into the new line for this purpose. 

Helmet mount track system 

The budget request included $45.2 million in PE 116404BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Tactical Systems Development, 

but included no funding to develop new capabilities for the helmet 

mount track system. 

The helmet mount track system has enhanced features that allows the operator to modify the position of their night vision gogVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
231 

gles, which can lower the operator’s profile, reduces the weight 

placed on the operator’s neck eliminating the cantilever effect that 

otherwise causes operator injuries, and enhances the operator’s 

combat identification capability. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.4 million in PE 

116404BB for the development of the helmet mount track system 

for SOF elements. 

Special Operations combat assault rifle 

The budget request included $45.2 million in PE 116404BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Tactical Systems Development, 

but included no funding for the Special Operations Combat Assault 

Rifle (SCAR). 

The committee notes that the SCAR is a multipurpose weapon 

that integrates an enhanced grenade launcher module and will replace five different individual weapons currently used by SOF elements, which will vastly reduce the logistics and maintenance support effort. The committee further notes that the rifle’s operating 

system and external configuration are based on an open architecture design, which will permit the system to accommodate future 

improvements in ammunition and accessories. The SCAR is characterized by unprecedented lethality, effectiveness, modularity, and 

dependability. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.1 million in PE 

116404BB for SOF Tactical Systems Development for development 

of the SCAR. 

Wavelet packet modulation 

The budget request included $45.2 million in PE 116404BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Tactical Systems Development, 

but included no funding for Wavelet Packet Modulation (WPM). 

SOF operate in a global environment where their presence and 

communications must remain undetected. WPM technology surveys 

the signal environment to adequately disburse communications so 

that it is nearly impossible to detect the signal or waveform. The 

committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in PE 116404BB 

for the continued development of WPM technology for communications and networked threat warning sensor systems. 

Multi-spectral laboratory and analytical services center program 

The budget request included $29.0 million in PE 116405BB, for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Intelligence Systems Development, but included no funding for multi-spectral sensors. The committee notes the urgent need for next generation, multi-spectral 

sensors to support the warfighter, specifically in the areas of standoff biometric collection. The committee recommends an increase of 

$6.0 million in PE 116405BB, for the development of sensors for 

SOF elements to effectively integrate stand-off biometric capabilities. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
232 

Special Operations wireless management and control 

project 

The budget request included $29.0 million in PE 116405BB for 

Special Operations Forces (SOF), Intelligence Systems Development, but included no funding to develop new capabilities for the 

Joint Threat Warning System (JTWS) as threats evolve. 

The special operations wireless management and control project 

will develop capabilities that can be integrated into the JTWS that 

will provide special operations forces the tactical capabilities to 

maintain situational awareness of the wireless communications 

being used by potential adversaries. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

116405BB for the development and integration of a wireless management and control capability for the JTWS. 

Items of Special Interest 

Airborne Laser 

The budget request contained $632.0 million in PE 63883C, for 

Ballistic Missile Defense Boost Defense Segment. The committee is 

encouraged with the recent technical progress the Airborne Laser 

(ABL) program has demonstrated over the previous two years, including first flight, firing of the high energy laser modules in 

ground tests, and flight testing of the aircraft with the beam control/fire control system installed. The committee further notes that 

these technical challenges were accomplished on the current schedule and within the current budget. 

The committee notes the decision by the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) to defer the procurement of a second ABL aircraft two years 

later than proposed in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 

2006 for purposes of assessing the results of a lethal shoot-down 

demonstration planned for late 2008. The committee further notes 

that a mature ABL platform, the primary boost phase ballistic missile defense capability, may not be ready for deployment until late 

next decade. Therefore, the Committee believes that if the planned 

shoot-down demonstration is fully successful, MDA should be prepared, consistent with its knowledge-based acquisition approach, to 

continue development, design, and testing of the ABL system in an 

effort to provide this transformational war fighting capability to 

the military commanders and war fighters. 

The committee directs the Missile Defense Agency to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007 

to provide a detailed explanation of its plan for the future of the 

ABL program, including testing, development, design, and funding 

in the future-years defense program. 

Air Force science, technology, test and evaluation 

The committee notes that the Air Force budget request for science and technology programs is $2.1 billion, an increase of over 

$150.0 million compared to the fiscal year 2006 budget request. In 

times of limited budgetary resources and increasing near-term demands, the committee commends the Air Force for committing to 

continued stable support of the critical Air Force research and technology enterprise. These well-managed and well-focused efforts are 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
233 

creating the capabilities that will shape the Air Force of the future 

and enable it to meet the threats of the 21st century. The Air Force 

appreciation of the vital role of science and technology in supporting Air Force missions and the resources required for quality 

research efforts extends to the inclusion of science and technology 

on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. 

The committee further commends Air Force efforts to leverage 

the technical skills resident in its science and technology enterprise 

to address pressing problems in weapon systems development and 

acquisition. The committee notes that the Air Force has begun a 

program to utilize assessment and analysis of manufacturing readiness levels to reduce risk in acquisition programs. The committee 

also notes that efforts led by the Air Force science and technology 

community to support the service acquisition executive with more 

disciplined systems engineering in the pre-acquisition planning 

phases will further strengthen the transition process resulting in 

acquisition programs with the latest technology and more mature 

technical planning and credibility. 

The committee notes that these activities are in contrast to Air 

Force disinvestment in vital test and evaluation (T&E) activities. 

In the fiscal year 2007 budget request, the Air Force has reduced 

T&E activities by nearly $400.0 million over the future-years defense program, relative to projected budgets for this activity presented to Congress with the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The 

committee notes that T&E activities support the acquisition process by reducing technical risk and protect the warfighter by developing technologies that are reliable, safe, and operationally effective. The committee believes that the proposed reduction in T&E 

funding could result in delayed and more expensive acquisition programs, and even potentially in the deployment of unproven or ineffective technologies to the warfighters. 

Future Combat Systems and current force interoperability 

The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program includes four ‘‘spinout’’ technologies, that will introduce FCS technologies and systems 

into the current force. These fielding spin-outs are currently 

planned to occur in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 to an experimental 

brigade and then two years later to the rest of the Army. The first 

spin-out of FCS technology in 2008 is to emphasize improved munitions and sensors connected in an initial version of the FCS network. FCS network capabilities will include a pre-engineering design module of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) radio and a 

wideband networking waveform. While the Army’s focus is on FCS 

networking capabilities, the committee is concerned that funding 

constraints may limit the spin-out of FCS technologies to the current force, especially those capabilities that will enable FCSequipped brigade combat teams (BCT) to interoperate with current 

force BCT. There is little doubt that current force systems will be 

in the inventory for decades while the Army fields FCS-equipped 

BCTs. There is also doubt that future Army budgets will be able 

to afford FCS, modularity, and reset. The Army should be exploring 

affordable alternatives to ensure that FCS-equipped and current 

force BCTs are interoperable. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
234 

The committee believes that the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) program may provide the backbone for an 

architecture that could meet FCS-equipped and current force BCTs 

interoperability requirements. The committee also believes that the 

Army’s FCS spin-out plan can provide the basis to develop, test, 

and field affordable alternatives. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees no later than March 1, 2007, on the Army’s strategy to 

ensure that FCS-equipped and current force BCTs can achieve affordable interoperability. 

Information assurance progress report 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for recent 

efforts to focus high-level attention on the importance of information assurance (IA) for classified systems and for critical Department networks and data. New directives and guidance issued by 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the U.S. Strategic Command 

in late 2005 and early 2006 have reportedly resulted in improvements to IA compliance, awareness, and accountability. Although 

these recent steps to improve information security and assurance 

are encouraging, the committee remains concerned about the vulnerability of the cyber infrastructure and the number of deficiencies that have not yet been addressed. 

In a September 2005 report, the Department Inspector General 

determined that ‘‘DoD cannot be assured that it has a complete inventory of major information systems. Without a complete inventory of DoD major information systems, answers to questions from 

OMB or Congress on major information systems may not be accurate and information assurance is at risk because there is little assurance that all systems are adequately protected.’’

The Department has issued numerous strategies, policies, directives, and implementation guidance documents designed to ensure 

protection of information systems, networks, and communications. 

As noted above and in other reports and audits, progress has been 

slow. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress no later than March 1, 2007, on progress in addressing identified deficiencies and continued vulnerabilities in IA. The report 

should address timely implementation of identified network and information systems security gaps, which continue to result in unreliable critical information systems and unknown large quantities of 

information lost or unsecured. The report should include schedules 

for, and details of, Department progress in the following areas: 

(1) development of a complete, comprehensive, enterprisewide inventory of information systems; 

(2) implementation of standards for interoperable, joint communications; 

(3) plans to incorporate IA as a critical operational training 

objective in every major joint exercise; 

(4) maturation of tactics, techniques, and procedures for information intrusion detect, react, and restore missions; and 

plans for strengthening forensic capabilities; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
235 

(5) development of information system and network failure 

response and continuity plans that keep pace with the pace of 

technology development; 

(6) implementation of firewalls or intrusion detection systems in all deployed units; 

(7) definition and identification of positions with significant 

security responsibilities; 

(8) development of training and certification requirements 

for information technology security professionals, including 

tracking and monitoring of training progress; 

(9) determination of appropriate penalties for noncompliance 

with IA directives and guidance; 

(10) standardization of a working definition of ‘‘system’’ for 

purposes of management oversight; 

(11) establishment of relationships between Department IA 

components and IA components in other federal departments 

and agencies; 

(12) establishment of mechanisms to utilitize industry technology, expertise, and knowledge to address long-term Department needs and capability to confront specific threats and 

events; 

(13) allocation of resources to support science and technology 

developments specific to national security IA requirements; 

analysis of international capabilities in IA; and 

(14) other relevant Department IA activities and efforts. 

The committee expects that the required report should focus attention on incomplete tasks and place a priority on timely implementation of completion of these tasks. 

Joint Tactical Radio System 

In the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–148), the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) budget re- quest was reduced $334.3 million due to program delays. In response to the urging of Congress, the Department of Defense established a JTRS Joint Program Executive Office (JPEO), and the program was restructured. On March 31, 2006, the Undersecretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (USD(AT&L)) 

signed the JTRS Acquisition Decision Memorandum which reflected the restructured program. 

The committee understands the complex nature of the JTRS program and the related difficulties of working within the consensusdriven Overarching Integrated Program Team management structure. The committee understands that the USD(AT&L) and the 

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have agreed to use the JTRS 

program as a pilot for a new acquisition governance model. The 

committee strongly encourages the Department to implement this 

pilot model now. 

Survey of science and engineering workforce shaping programs 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct a survey of programs 

designed to educate, train, and recruit scientists and engineers for 

Department of Defense laboratories and components. The report 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
236 

should outline the historical and current program budgets; targeted 

populations; program structures and management; and program results. The programs to be considered as part of the technical workforce shaping survey include: teacher education and mentoring; 

curriculum development; prize competitions; K–12 outreach; scholarships, fellowships, traineeships, and internships; and coordination with service academies and academic institutions specific to 

education and workforce development and recruitment activities. 

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics should submit a report on the results of the survey to the 

congressional defense committees in conjunction with the March 

2007 strategic human capital plan for civilian employees of the Department. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(237) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title III of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request for operation and maintenance programs, 

and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth 

in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as 

set forth in budget justification documents of the Department of 

Defense), without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes 

to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
238 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 SR254.118
239 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 SR254.119
240 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 SR254.120
241 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 SR254.121
242 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 SR254.122
243 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 SR254.123
244 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 SR254.124
245 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 SR254.125
246 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 SR254.126
247 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 SR254.127
248 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 SR254.128
249 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 299 SR254.129
250 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 300 SR254.130
251 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 301 SR254.131
252 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 302 SR254.132
253 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 303 SR254.133
254 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 304 SR254.134
255 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 305 SR254.135
256 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 306 SR254.136
257 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 307 SR254.137
258 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 308 SR254.138
259 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 309 SR254.139
260 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 310 SR254.140
261 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 311 SR254.141
262 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 312 SR254.142
263 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 SR254.143
264 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 SR254.144
265 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 SR254.145
266 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 SR254.146
267 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 SR254.147
268 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 SR254.148
269 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 SR254.149
270 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 SR254.150
271 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 SR254.151
272 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Army Logistics 

Modernization Program (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

expenditure of any funds for continuing the Army Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), other than $6.9 million in operation 

and maintenance funds, until the Deputy Secretary of Defense certifies that the program has adequately addressed its many shortcomings. The budget request included $109.5 million for the development, fielding, and operation of the Army LMP. Costs have doubled over the past 2 years in a program that was initially designed 

in 1999 as a fixed-price contract. The fiscal year 2007 funds represent just a fraction of the total funds now required. Since contract award in 1999, the program has fallen behind schedule by 

years, and only a fraction of logistics community is currently being 

served by the LMP. 

In a 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, entitled ‘‘Army Depot Maintenance: Ineffective Oversight of Army 

Depot Operations,’’ the GAO indicated that Tobyhanna Army Depot’s experience with the LMP—the only Army depot to have implemented LMP—is troubling. The GAO concluded that the 

Tobyhanna Army Depot still lacks financial and management reports required for depot operations. The system inefficiently causes 

orders of excess materials to be made. There is no depot level repairable process in LMP, and the lack of on-site support by the 

LMP contractor is causing delays in fixing systems problems. 

Legacy systems, which currently handle the majority of transactions within the logistics community, are annually under 

resourced while awaiting the implementation of the LMP solution. 

Additionally, other promising logistics transformation programs, 

such as Product Lifecycle Management (PLM+), remain under 

funded due to scarce resources for information technology transformation. The committee expects that the Chairman of the Defense Business Systems Management Committee will review the 

requirements for, and performance of, the LMP as part of the larger logistics modernization efforts underway within the Army and 

the Department of Defense. Only after the Chairman certifies that 

continuing the LMP is in the best interests of the Army, the Department, and the taxpayer, may the Army expend any fiscal year 

2007 funds on the Army LMP. 

Availability of funds for exhibits for the national museums 

of the Armed Forces (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make $3.0 

million of Operations and Maintenance appropriated to each armed 

force available to each Secretary of a military department for education and training purposes to contract with the entity established 

to support the official national museum for each armed force. The 

funds would be available for the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of exhibits in each museum. This provision would also authorize the Secretary of each military department to accept 

amounts as reimbursement from the entity and to credit those reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
273 

imbursements to the account used to cover the costs incurred by 

the Secretary. 

Limitation on financial management improvement and 

audit initiatives within the Department of Defense (sec. 

313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense from obligating or expending any funds for 

financial management improvement activities related to the Department’s preparation, processing, or auditing of financial statements until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional 

defense committees a determination that each activity proposed to 

be funded would likely result in real and sustainable improvements 

in the Department’s financial management systems and controls. 

The committee believes that the most effective way to fix the Department’s financial management problems is to address the root 

problems by fixing the Department’s business systems and processes so that they provide timely, reliable, and complete data for 

management purposes. By requiring that the Department pursue 

audit activities only in accordance with a comprehensive financial 

management improvement plan that coordinates such activities 

with needed systems improvements, the provision would ensure 

that the Department first addresses the underlying problems with 

its systems and processes. 

Limitation on availability of operation and maintenance 

funds for the management headquarters of the Defense 

Information Systems Agency (sec. 314) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make available only 50 percent of the operation and maintenance funding for 

the management headquarters function of the Defense Information 

Management Agency until the Secretary of Defense submits to 

Congress the report on an acquisition strategy for commercial satellite communication services, as required by section 818(b) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–136; 119 Stat. 3385). 

In April 2006, the Under Secretary of the Air Force testified before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on 

Armed Services that the Department of Defense ‘‘depends on a vast 

network of commercial ground and space-based systems to meet its 

telecommunications needs.’’ The Under Secretary also stated that 

‘‘commercial satellite communications is a large part of the space 

communication system that supports the warfighter.’’ The Under 

Secretary further indicated that commercial satellite services will 

be ‘‘an integrated part of our communications architecture going 

forward.’’ This testimony reinforces the previous view of this committee that the Department of Defense requires a strategic approach for acquiring commercial satellite services that aggregates 

purchases and leverages the purchasing power of the Department, 

including through the use of multiyear contracting, if appropriate. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
274 

Subtitle C—Environmental Provisions 

Response plan for remediation of military munitions (sec. 

331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to set remediation goals for the clean up of 

unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions 

constituents. Those goals would be to complete, by not later than 

September 30, 2007, preliminary assessments at all active installations and formerly used defense sites; to complete, by not later 

than September 30, 2010, site inspections at all active installations 

and formerly used defense sites; to achieve, by not later than September 30, 2009, a remedy in place or response complete at all 

military installations closed or realigned as part of a round of defense base closure and realignment prior to 2005; and to achieve, 

by a time certain established by the Secretary of Defense, a remedy 

in place or response complete at all active installations and formerly used defense sites (other than operational ranges) and all 

military installations realigned or closed under the 2005 round of 

defense base closure and realignment. 

The provision would require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive plan for addressing 

the remediation of unexploded ordnance by March 1, 2007. The 

plan would include a schedule, including interim goals, and an estimate of funding required, for achieving the goals for remediation 

of unexploded ordnance at all active installations and formerly 

used defense sites (other than operational ranges). The Secretary 

would be required to update this plan not later than March 15 of 

2008, 2009, and 2010. The provision would allow the goals established for unexploded ordnance clean up to be adjusted to respond 

to unforeseen circumstances as part of the annual update of the 

plan. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to submit a report, to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 

1, 2007, on the status of efforts to achieve agreement with relevant 

regulatory agencies on appropriate reuse standards or principles 

related to the remediation of unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents. 

Extension of authority to grant exemptions to certain requirements (sec. 332) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

grant an exemption for up to 3 years to the Secretary of Defense 

and the Secretaries of the military departments to transport polychlorinated biphenyls generated by, or under the control of, the Department of Defense into the United States for purposes of their 

disposal, treatment, or storage. The current period of such waivers 

is 1 year. This limited expansion of the period in which an exemption may be granted would expire on September 30, 2012, but 

would not effect the validity of any exemption that had been granted prior to that date. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to report by no later than March 1, 2011, to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
275 

Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

of the House of Representatives, on the remaining volume of polychlorinated biphenyls that may require transportation into the 

United States for disposal, treatment, or storage, and the efforts 

made by the Department and other federal agencies to reduce such 

volume. 

The committee notes that the proposed expansion of the waiver 

period that may be granted to the Secretary of Defense or the Secretaries of the military departments from 1 to 3 years would not 

change the public notice and comment process required before the 

Administrator of the EPA is authorized to grant such a waiver. 

The committee expects the Department to conduct appropriate 

planning to provide for the safe, orderly, and predictable storage, 

disposal, and shipment of polychlorinated biphenyls generated outside the United States by, or under the control of, the Department. 

The committee does not intend that the expansion of the waiver period from 1 to 3 years, as recommended by this provision, serve as 

a substitute for such long-term planning. 

Research on effects of ocean disposal of munitions (sec. 333) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Commandant of the 

Coast Guard, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the heads of other relevant 

federal agencies, to conduct a historical review of available records 

to determine the number, size, and probable locations of sites 

where the armed forces disposed of military munitions in U.S. 

coastal waters. The Secretary of Defense would be required to periodically, but no less often than annually, submit interim reports to 

Congress with the updated results of the historical review. The 

Secretary of Defense would be required to complete the historical 

review and submit the final report of the findings as part of the 

annual report to Congress on environmental restoration activities 

for fiscal year 2009. 

The Secretary of Defense would be required to provide information to the Secretary of Commerce to assist NOAA in preparing 

nautical charts and other navigation materials for coastal waters 

that identify hazards posed by disposed military munitions to private activities, including commercial shipping and fishing operations. The Secretary of Defense would be required to continue activities to inform potentially affected users of the ocean environment of the possible hazards from contact with disposed military 

munitions and the proper methods to mitigate such hazards. 

The Secretary of Defense would be required to continue to conduct research on the effects on the ocean environment and those 

who use it of military munitions disposed of in coastal waters. The 

scope of research would be required to include sampling and analysis of ocean waters and sea beds at or adjacent to representative 

disposal sites to determine whether the munitions have caused, or 

are causing, contamination of ocean waters or sea beds; investigation into the long-term effects of seawater exposure on disposed 

military munitions; investigation into the impacts on the ocean environment, including the public health risks; investigation into the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
276 

feasibility of removing or otherwise remediating the military munitions; and the development of effective safety measures. In conducting the research, the Secretary of Defense would be required 

to ensure that the sampling, analysis, and investigations are conducted at representative sites, taking into account depth, water 

temperature, nature of the military munitions, and relative proximity to onshore populations. At least two sites in areas off the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast (including Alaska), and the Hawaiian 

Islands would be required among the representative sites. 

If the historical review or the required research indicates that 

contamination is being released at a particular site, or that the site 

poses significant risk to public health or safety, the Secretary of 

Defense would be required to institute appropriate monitoring 

mechanisms at the site, and report to the congressional defense 

committees on any additional steps that may be needed to address 

the release or the risk to public health or safety. 

Clarification of multi-year authority to use base closure 

funds to fund cooperative agreements under Environmental Restoration Program (sec. 334) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

cooperative agreements with eligible entities for environmental restoration at defense facilities may extend beyond 2 years when the 

agreements are funded out of either the Department of Defense 

Base Closure Account 1990 or the Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005. The committee notes that under section 2701 

of title 10, United States Code, cross-fiscal year agreements for environmental restoration are limited to 2 years. The committee also 

notes that, for facilities closed or realigned under a round of base 

closure, environmental restoration is funded out of the base closure 

account until the account is exhausted. Funds in a base closure account do not expire annually, but continue to be available until the 

base closure account is exhausted. This provision would clarify that 

agreements for environmental restoration that are funded from 

base closure accounts may extend beyond the 2-year limitation that 

would otherwise apply. 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

certain costs in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield 

Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington (sec. 335) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide discretionary authority to the Secretary of Defense to transfer not 

more than $111,114.03 to the Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, 

10–6J special account, formerly the home of Larson Air Force Base. 

This payment would be for reimbursement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for costs incurred in overseeing a remedial investigation and feasibility study being performed by the Department of Defense at the former Larson Air Force Base. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
277 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Comptroller General report on readiness of the ground 

forces of the Army and the Marine Corps (sec. 351) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) to provide an assessment 

of the readiness of Army and Marine Corps ground forces. The 

GAO assessment would include: (1) An analysis of the current 

readiness status of the active and Reserve component ground forces 

of the Army and the Marine Corps, including a description of any 

major deficiencies identified, an analysis of the trends in Army and 

Marine Corps readiness over the past ten years, and a comparison 

of the current readiness status of those forces to these historical 

readiness patterns; (2) an assessment of the ability of the Army 

and Marine Corps to provide trained and ready forces for ongoing 

operations as well as their other worldwide commitments; (3) an 

analysis of the availability of equipment for training by units in the 

United States in configurations comparable to that being used in 

ongoing operations; (4) an analysis of the current and projected 

‘‘reset’’ requirement for repair or replacement of equipment due to 

ongoing operations and the impact of that required maintenance on 

the availability of equipment for training; (5) an assessment of the 

current personnel tempo of those forces, including an analysis of 

particular occupational specialties that are experiencing unusually 

high or low deployment rates and the retention rates in those specialties; (6) an assessment of each service’s efforts to mitigate the 

impact of high operational tempos, including cross-leveling of personnel and equipment or cross-training of personnel or units; and 

(7) a description of the current policy being used by each service 

to govern the mobilization of Reserve component personnel and an 

analysis of the number of Reserve component personnel in each 

service that are projected to be available for deployment under 

those policies. 

U.S. forces are engaged at extremely high levels at home and 

abroad. In particular, ongoing operational commitments in Iraq 

and Afghanistan are requiring significant deployments by and a 

high operational tempo of U.S. ground forces. These units must fulfill these deployment requirements in addition to other demands 

including the ongoing and impending redeployment of forces from 

overseas locations and the conversion of Army brigades to a new 

modular configuration. In addition to the impact on individual 

service members and their families, the committee is concerned 

about the impact of sustained high operational tempo due to ongoing operations on the readiness of our forces and their ability to respond to other events or threats. On March 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support held a hearing 

on the readiness of our ground forces with Army and Marine Corps 

representatives. This hearing identified a number of readiness 

challenges and the steps being taken to address those concerns. 

The committee also notes that the GAO has already undertaken 

an analysis of some of these issues, and expects the report required 

by this provision to build on the work GAO has already provided 

to the committee. While detailed information on readiness is classified, the issues being assessed in this report are of enormous imVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
278 

portance to the Department of Defense and the Congress and 

should be available for open discussion to the extent that classification rules allow. Therefore this report should be provided in both 

classified and unclassified form. The various elements required by 

this report may be provided separately, as long as all the required 

elements are submitted before March 1, 2007, and the information 

used to satisfy the reporting requirement is current. 

Subtitle E—Workplace and Depot Issues 

Minimum capital investment levels for public depots serviced by working capital funds (sec. 361) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a 

public depot that utilizes a working capital fund to invest, at a 

minimum, 6 percent of the actual total revenues from the previous 

year for capital investment within that depot, as defined by DOD 

financial regulations (DOD Financial Management Regulation 

700.14R of June 2004). The Secretary of Defense would have authority to grant a waiver to a service if that minimum is not met, 

but then must report to the congressional defense committees the 

reason(s) for missing the goal, and a plan to return to the stipulated minimum level. 

Department of Defense working capital funds are designed to 

provide flexibility, accountability, and visibility for critical defense 

customers and process owners. Within public depots, these funds 

are used to meet customer needs, operate the depots, and maintain 

the depot facilities. While the working capital fund mechanism may 

provide a stable work flow and funding stream, there have also 

been adverse consequences of under investment in depot infrastructure, equipment, information technology, and software. 

While focusing on keeping overhead costs down, working capital 

funds have chronically under funded capital investment. The Department has no established baseline or benchmark from which to 

evaluate the level of investment funding in its public depots. Further, each military department has stated that oversight of capital 

investment programs tends to reduce the level of funding during 

budget deliberations, not enhance it. For example, in 2002, the Air 

Force recognized that their public depots were suffering from 

chronic under funding of its capital budgets. The Air Force responded by establishing a Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master 

Plan. One of the central components was the commitment of the 

Air Force to allocate $150.0 million each fiscal year for 6 years, beginning in fiscal year 2004, for recapitalization and investment, including the procurement of technologically advanced facilities and 

equipment, of the nation’s three Air Force depots. The key facet of 

the Air Force strategy was to double the amount of investment, 

raising investment spending to 6 percent of total revenues—a documented private depot industry benchmark. 

Even while attempting to address the problem of chronic under 

funding, the Air Force plan only goes through 2009. Further, that 

plan falls short of the benchmark of 6 percent because the Air 

Force uses low future revenue estimates from which to determine 

their benchmark figure and includes funding for basic property 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
279 

maintenance as part of its calculation of capital investment—funding that is not defined as capital investment. 

The committee expects that this provision will address the chronic under funding of capital investment in public depots serviced by 

working capital funds. The committee further expects the Air Force 

to fully fund the projects identified in its 6 year capital investment 

plan. 

Permanent exclusion of certain contract expenditures from 

percentage limitation on the performance of depot-level 

maintenance (sec. 362) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make permanent the exclusion of work performed by non-federal personnel at 

designated Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence from the 

50 percent limitation on contracting for depot maintenance (10 

U.S.C. 2466(a)) outside the Department of Defense, pursuant to a 

public-private partnership. Currently the exemption is limited to 

funds made available in fiscal years 2003 through 2009. 

Additional exception to prohibition on contractor performance of firefighting functions (sec. 363) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide an 

exception to the prohibition on contracting for the performance of 

firefighting functions on any military installation or facility. This 

exception would only apply to contractor performance of firefighting 

functions to respond to nonstructural fires that occur on wildlands, 

such as ranges and forests, located on military installations, and to 

conduct preventative measures such as maintenance of firebreaks, 

and removal of underbrush. 

This provision would reduce or eliminate the reliance on members of the armed forces to respond to such fires, and permit needed supplementation of the civilian workforce for wildland firefighting. Other federal agencies with land management responsibilities, such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, have the authority provided for in this provision. 

Temporary security guard services for certain work caused 

by realignment of military installations under the base 

closure laws (sec. 364) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow a military department to contract for security-guard services at installations being realigned, for a period not to exceed 1 year, to safely 

relocate munitions and associated equipment as well as high-value 

items located in temporary storage areas. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Recycling of military munitions (sec. 371) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to establish a separate program to sell recyclable munitions materials resulting from the demilitarization of 

conventional military munitions in the United States and its possessions. This program would be exempt from the provisions of title 

40, United States Code, relating to the disposal of property by execVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
280 

utive agencies. The recyclable munitions material would include 

materials such as brass, scrap metal, propellants, and explosives. 

The proceeds from sales would be credited to the funds available 

to the Army for reclamation, recycling, and reuse of conventional 

military munitions. This process would be consistent with the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations. This section would assist the Army in addressing the 

increasing costs associated with its conventional munitions demilitarization program. 

Incentives clauses in chemical demilitarization contracts 

(sec. 372) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense authority to include an incentives clause in 

any contract for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal 

chemical agents and munitions in order to accelerate the safe 

elimination of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile and to reduce 

the total cost of the chemical demilitarization program by affording 

the contractor an opportunity to share in the life cycle cost savings 

that the U.S. government would realize by early completion of destruction operations and facility closure. The provision would limit 

the amount of incentive payments at each facility to $110.0 million 

for completion of destruction operations within the specified target 

incentive range, and to $55.0 million for completion of facility closure activities within the specified target incentive range. The provision would require that this authority be exercised consistent 

with the Secretary’s obligation under law to provide for maximum 

protection for the environment, the general public, and the personnel who are involved in the destruction of the lethal chemical 

agents and munitions. The authority to include an incentives 

clause in a contract would be subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose. 

The committee notes that this authority is intended to be available for all elements of the chemical demilitarization program, including the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Project, the Alternative 

Technologies and Approaches Project, and the Assembled Chemical 

Weapons Alternative Program. 

The committee notes its deep disappointment in the notification 

from the Secretary dated April 10, 2006, that the United States 

will not be able to meet the Chemical Weapons Convention extended destruction deadline of April 29, 2012, for the complete destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile. The committee 

notes the Secretary’s commitment in the notification that ‘‘The Department will continue working diligently to minimize the time to 

complete destruction without sacrificing safety and security. We 

will also continue requesting resources needed to complete destruction as close to April 2012 as practicable.’’ The committee strongly 

concurs in those sentiments and expects the Department to live up 

to them. The committee is providing the authority in this provision 

to give the Department the authority it has said it needs to 

incentivize the chemical demilitarization contractors to expedite 

their work in a safe manner. The committee urges the Department 

to continue to request the resources and authorities needed to redouble the Department’s efforts to meet the Treaty’s deadlines or, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
281 

failing that, to come as close to them as possible. It is imperative 

that the international community understand that the United 

States is doing everything in its power to honor its international 

commitments and comply with this critical Treaty obligation. 

Extension of Department of Defense telecommunications 

benefit program (sec. 373) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

termination date for the Department of Defense telecommunications benefit authorized in section 344 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), as 

amended by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), from September 30, 

2006, to 60 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense 

determines that a contingency operation has ended. The provision 

would authorize the Secretary to extend the Department telecommunications benefit to members who remain hospitalized as a 

result of wounds or injuries incurred while serving in direct support of a contingency operation, or after the benefit would have expired as a result of the end of a contingency operation. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on implementation of the Department of Defense telecommunications benefit 90 

days after the date of enactment of this Act. The committee is 

eager to be informed on the total implementation of the telecommunications benefit for members serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including 

the cost of implementation and donations received from public and 

private entities in support of this benefit. In addition, the committee seeks recommendations from the Department concerning additional policy, program, or legislative changes that are needed to 

improve the value of the telecommunications benefit for members 

of the armed services serving in support of a contingency operation. 

Extension of availability of funds for commemoration of success of the Armed Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (sec. 374) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 378(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) to extend the authority for commemoration of success of the armed forces in Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom through fiscal year 2007. 

The provision would authorize the use in fiscal years 2006 and 

2007 of up to $20.0 million to cover costs associated with the participation of members and units of the armed forces in activities associated with the commemoration and a day of celebration honoring 

soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and have 

returned to the United States. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
282 

Budget Items—Other Defense Programs 

Chronic pain management research 

The budget request included no funding for expansion of research 

on chronic pain and fatigue management. The committee believes 

that research being conducted under the auspices of the United 

States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command is contributing to better understanding of post-deployment conditions characterized by ‘‘chronic, multi-symptom illness.’’ The committee believes that by focusing on the internal mechanisms of the body 

which experience such symptoms, this research will contribute to 

more effective treatment of post-deployment related illnesses, including Gulf War Illness and fibromyalgia. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Defense Health Program 

for research and development for chronic pain management. 

Defense Health Program unobligated balances and administrative efficiencies 

The budget request included $20.2 billion in the Defense Health 

Program. The committee is concerned that the request does not accurately reflect the true costs of the health program for fiscal year 

2007. The Department of Defense has consistently under executed 

its operation and maintenance authorization and appropriation for 

the Defense Health Program. According to the Government Accountability Office, the Department returned an annual average of 

$174.3 million in unexpended Defense Health Program account balances to the U. S. Treasury for fiscal years 1996 through 2000. The 

annual average amount of unobligated balances grew to $280.6 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. 

The committee is also concerned that the President’s budget for 

fiscal year 2007 does not sufficiently identify costs attributable to 

the expense of administration of the Defense Health Program. In 

contrast to private sector trends in health cost containment, the request does not set forth specific performance measures related to 

reducing health care administrative and overhead costs. The committee directs that in the future, as part of its budget justification 

submission, the Secretary of Defense will provide the costs of administration of the Defense Health Program, including headquarters support, and provide goals for reducing those costs. Management controls also need to be instituted to reduce the amount 

of unobligated balances returned to the U.S. Treasury through a 

more careful assessment of Department health care costs. 

In the course of the committee’s consideration of Department proposals for modification of health care benefits in fiscal year 2007, 

health care experts have identified numerous opportunities for 

achieving administrative efficiencies that are consistent with good 

business practices. The Department has acknowledged that such 

opportunities exist, and the committee believes that it should proceed to implement them. The committee recommends a decrease of 

$140.3 million in the Defense Health Program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
283 

Medical education and training on Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder 

The budget request included $460.1 million in the Defense 

Health Program for education and training. The committee believes 

that additional educational resources are needed to increase dissemination of information and teaching of Department of Defense 

health care personnel to identify and treat Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD) and related mental health conditions. Mental 

health experts agree that mental health concerns most frequently 

manifest months after experiencing combat or deployment related 

trauma. The committee is concerned that as military members are 

reintegrated into the force, failure to identify combat-related mental health concerns will undermine the health of the member and 

readiness of the force. The committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million in the Defense Health Program for expanded education 

and training on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

Pregnancy recovery education program for military women 

and military spouses 

The budget included no funding for a focused pregnancy recovery 

education project for military women and military spouses. The 

committee believes that there is a need for additional research and 

educational resources to assist both women on active duty and the 

female spouses of members on active duty in their physical recovery following the birth of a child, in order to minimize the risk of 

untreated illness due to the rigors of military duty, including deployment and isolation from family members. The committee believes that such additional research and education efforts on will 

be most effective if carried out in conjunction with the Uniformed 

Services University of the Health Sciences, and that data gathering 

and testing of educational materials should be conducted on at 

least two large military installations experiencing a high level of 

deployment. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 

to the Defense Health Program for the pregnancy recovery education program for military women and military spouses. 

Primary care enhancement for early detection and treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

The budget request included no additional funding for an initiative to improve post-deployment mental health care for military 

members. The committee believes that a project initiated at Ft. 

Bragg, North Carolina by the Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

Deployment Health Clinical Center, known as RESPECT–MIL, is 

contributing to the development of educational materials and care 

models needed to enhance the capability of primary care providers 

to conduct post-deployment mental health evaluations, and to identify and treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and related 

mental health disorders. The committee believes that broader testing and evaluation of these models involving primary care and 

mental health care specialists is needed, and that ultimately effective primary care models for early identification and treatment of 

PTSD and related mental health disorders should be available 

throughout the military health system. The committee recommends 

an increase of $2.0 million in Defense Health Program for expanVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
284 

sion of the RESPECT–MIL model to two additional military installations. 

Robotic surgery for prostate cancer 

The budget request included $381.1 million in Defense Health 

Program (DHP) for medical equipment replacement and modernization, but included no funding for advanced technology robotic surgery capability at Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Robotic surgical devices use technology to allow the surgeon to operate in a minimally invasive manner with great precision. The 

committee believes that capability for procedures such as the da 

Vinci Prostatectomy, which utilizes a four-armed robotic device, 

will improve health outcomes for military victims of prostate cancer 

and also contribute to the development of robotic surgical techniques for potential new applications, including cardiac surgery. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in DHP for 

expansion of robotic surgery capability. 

Budget Items—Army 

Battlefield mobility enhancers 

The budget request included no funding for lightweight tactical 

utility vehicles (M-Gators). The committee recommends an increase 

of $6.8 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for lightweight tactical utility vehicles. The committee supports efforts by 

the Army to improve battlefield mobility and resupply. 

UH–60 add-on armor 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), for UH–60 add-on armor. The committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMA to acquire UH–60 

add-on armor for the 82nd Airborne Division. 

Rapid Data Management System 

The budget request included no funding for the Rapid Data Management System (RDMS). This program would expand a capability 

for collecting and disseminating critical information to personnel 

deployed in the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM). It provides a web-based common operating picture that is used for planning and operations, to include disaster and humanitarian relief 

and stability and reconstruction operations. The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army for the Rapid Data Management System for the 

USSOUTHCOM. 

Cognitive Air Defense Simulators 

The budget request included no funding for Cognitive Air Defense Simulators (CADS). This system would improve home station 

training for soldiers for calling for air defense. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for CADS. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
285 

Army corrosion prevention and control 

The budget request included $415.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), for logistics support activities. The 

committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million in OMA for corrosion prevention and control. 

Blood bag transport modernization project 

The budget request included no funding for modernizing the 

transport of blood on the battlefield. The committee recommends 

an increase of $17.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, 

for the blood bag transport modernization project. 

Quadruple specialty containers 

The budget request included $197.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), for strategic mobilization. The committee notes that the Army deploys quadruple specialty containers 

(QUADCONS) at key power projection platforms for early deploying units. This equipment has been particularly well used in support of ongoing contingency operations. The committee recommends 

an increase of $6.0 million in OMA for QUADCONS. 

Army Strategic Management System 

The budget request included $6.1 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), for the Army Strategic Management System 

(SMS). The SMS provides senior leadership with an Army enterprise-wide strategic performance management system that ensures 

Army Transformation Strategy is translated into actionable programs and initiatives and communicated throughout its component 

headquarters. The system also provides an automated format for 

assessing performance and managing resource allocation for attainment of the Army’s strategic objectives. Finally, the SMS meets the 

2002 DoD Management Initiative Decision 901, Performance Outcomes and Tracking Performance Results, which required the Army 

to use the Balanced Scorecard methodology in support of the President’s Performance Management Agenda. 

The committee is encouraged by the Army’s use of a strategic 

performance management system and the improvements in the 

technology supporting that system, but is concerned that the Army 

is not fully funding the requirements of the program. Therefore, 

the committee directs that the Army move forward with accelerated implementation of the program, and that, of the funds available in Operation and Maintenance, Army, $30.0 million may be 

made available to accelerate the full enterprise-wide implementation of the Army Strategic Management System. 

Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command Integrated Digital Environment pilot program 

The budget request included $453.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), for Central Supply Activities. The committee notes the utility of electronic business (e-business) portals in 

weapon systems product life cycle management. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMA to allow the Aviation 

and Missile Life Cycle Management Command Integrated Material 

Management Center to complete the expansion of the Army aviaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
286 

tion fleet logistics management e-business portal. This portal will 

demonstrate the utility of extending product life cycle management 

from the program office to the operational user at Ft. Drum, New 

York. This will allow the integration of acquisition, logistics, and 

operational communities under the Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) concept. 

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 

31, 2007, on the status of the pilot program as well as evaluating 

the effectiveness of Integrated Digital Environments in achieving 

the goals of the LCMC concept. 

Military to civilian conversions 

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense has not provided adequate information on the funding requirements and execution data for military to civilian conversions. 

While the committee recognizes that the military to civilian conversion program is an important tool to alleviate stress on the force 

by replacing uniformed service members in non-military essential 

positions with federal civilian or contractor personnel, it remains 

concerned that budget justification materials do not adequately describe the Department’s conversion program, and that the Department lacks a clear methodology for developing its budget estimates. 

According to an April 29, 2005, analysis by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

and service budget officials acknowledged that they were unable to 

provide a clear methodology to calculate the Department’s budget 

cost estimates for replacing military positions with civilians in fiscal year 2006. According to the GAO analysis, Department officials 

also acknowledged that the services had not determined the federal 

civilian employee and contractor mix for these conversions. The 

GAO analysis stated: ‘‘Without determining this mix, the Department can not be certain whether it accurately estimated its need 

for staffing resources and the funds to pay for such resources in its 

fiscal year 2006 budget.’’

The committee concurred with this assessment in the Fiscal Year 

2006 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163). The committee believed that the military to 

civilian conversions should be reviewed and validated by the Secretary of Defense to ensure that such requirements are formulated 

in a consistent manner; that there is an availability of qualified civilian employees; and that the mix of Department civilians and 

contractors be more clearly understood. The Department has yet to 

respond with adequate justification or methodology. 

In the statement of managers to accompanying the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (H. Rept. 109–359), the conferees directed the Department to include comprehensive data on 

the military to civilian conversion program in future budget justification materials. The conferees directed that the budget materials should include: the number of conversions completed in the 

two fiscal years prior to the budget request year, the mix of positions filled by civilian contractors or government employees, the 

number of conversions expected to occur in the budget year, the 

mix of civilian contractors and government employees expected to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
287 

be hired, and a detailed explanation of the cost estimates used in 

developing the budget request. This information was not provided 

in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2007 nor was it 

provided in response to subsequent requests for information. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $160.0 million in Department’s Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts 

for military to civilian conversions, as follows: 

O&M, Army (OMA)—$50.0 million; 

O&M, Navy (OMN)—$40.0 million; 

O&M, Marine Corps (OMMC)—$10.0 million; 

O&M, Air Force (OMAF)—$50.0 million; and 

O&M, Defense-wide (OMDW)—$10.0 million. 

Working capital funds 

The budget request included $2.4 billion in discretionary spending for defense working capital funds. These working capital funds 

serve a vital role in providing financial transaction flexibility for 

critical defense customer support activities. When working capital 

funds produce an annual net operating result involving a surplus— revenues exceeding expenses—consideration should be given to adjusting customer rates in future years. Working capital funds that 

do not appropriately return surplus funds to the supported departments, commands, and agencies through rate-change mechanisms 

artificially inflate the cost of support and deprive the supported 

units of limited resources. In many cases, the global war on terrorism has created increased work flow in and out of working capital funds annually over scheduled peacetime projections. 

The committee continues to urge the Department of Defense to 

anticipate the full amount of increased workload being experienced 

within the working capital funds and to budget accordingly. While 

some agencies and services have begun to take these additional 

revenue and expenses into account, the Army and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) still plan the next year revenues at only 75 

percent of current operations tempo. Consequently, end of year 

positive operating balances and excess cash balances continue to 

grow for these working capital funds. 

Revenues of the DLA have exceeded expenses for the past 3 

years. The DLA had over $539.9 million in excess balances at the 

end of fiscal year 2005. The DLA plans to use these excess balances 

in its non-energy supply accounts to supplement planned losses due 

to higher-than-expected fuel prices in its energy supply accounts. 

However, the committee believes the two accounts must be managed separately. Any actual losses due to higher-than-expected fuel 

prices should be managed as they have been in the past—either 

through increased surcharges on customers, through supplemental 

emergency appropriations, or accounted for within the overall 

budget. Allowing one working capital fund to subsidize another 

leads to inefficient management decision making, and negates the 

customer-buyer relationship created under a working capital fund. 

To ensure proper management of the funds, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million in the DLA working capital 

fund to reduce excess balances within the account. 

The current projections of net operating result for fiscal year 

2007 for the Army are also based, in part, on artificially low revVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
288 

enue estimates. Since 2002, revenues within the Army Working 

Capital Fund have risen by billions of dollars each year. However, 

the current Army plan counterintuitively calls for revenues to fall 

by $2.0 billion from fiscal years 2006 to 2007. As higher revenues 

are realized, the Army working capital fund will continue to maintain large, positive operating balances and excess cash balances. To 

ensure proper management of the funds, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million in the Army working capital 

fund to reduce excess balances within the account. 

Unobligated balances 

The Department of Defense has consistently under executed its 

operation and maintenance (O&M) authorization and appropriation 

since fiscal year 1995 for the active and Reserve components. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department returned an annual average of $976.6 million in unexpended balances to the U.S. Treasury for fiscal years 1996 through 

2000. The Department had $750.8 million in average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. While the trend 

is improving, the committee remains concerned with the Department’s inability to properly manage the funds for which it is authorized and appropriated. 

The Department reduced the O&M portion in its fiscal year 2007 

funding request and future-years defense program before submission to Congress based, in part, on the GAO analysis of unobligated 

balances. The Department did not reduce the fiscal year 2007 

amounts fully in accord with the analysis, or as significantly as in 

the out years. The committee recommends a decrease of $265.6 million in O&M accounts, as follows: 

Operation and Maintenance, Army—$67.6 million; 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy—$67.3 million; 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps—$1.6 million; 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force—$75.0 million; and 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide—$54.1 million. 

Information assurance vulnerability alert cell 

The budget request included $957.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), for service-wide communications support. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in 

OMA to complete the establishment of the logistics program manager for the information assurance vulnerability alert cell and to 

provide information security analysis and response capabilities to 

protect systems from attack. 

Connect and Join 

The budget request included no funding for the Connect and Join 

project. Connect and Join is a secure Internet web portal where 

families can share information and photographs with a service 

member during deployment. The committee believes that Connect 

and Join would significantly enhance the ability of deployed military members to communicate at no cost with family members. 

Connect and Join supports a need identified by the National Military Family Association report on the ‘‘Cycles of Deployment’’, in 

which military families expressed a need to expand communication 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
289 

for deployed members and their families throughout deployments. 

The committee believes that Connect and Join would be responsive 

to that need, and in doing so will enhance both soldier and family 

readiness. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 

in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for Connect and Join. 

Budget Items—Navy 

Long arm high-intensity arc metal halide handheld searchlight 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), for high-intensity handheld searchlights. 

The committee understands that the Navy uses high-powered 

handheld lighting to allow safer nighttime operations. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OMN to acquire 

high-intensity handheld searchlights. 

Man Overboard Identification safety system 

The budget request included no funding to procure Man Overboard Identification (MOBI) safety systems. The MOBI system provides devices, which are worn by sailors aboard ship, to allow rescue forces to respond quickly in the event a sailor falls overboard. 

The committee believes MOBI not only saves lives, but also reduces 

the time spent searching for sailors who have fallen overboard. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.9 million in Operation 

and Maintenance, Navy, for installation and maintenance of MOBI 

systems. 

Mark-45 gun system overhauls 

The budget request included $433.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), for weapons maintenance. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in OMN for Mark45 gun system overhauls. 

Navy Marine Corps Intranet program management 

The budget request included $1,681.5 million for the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) program. Of these funds, the Navy requested $94.0 million for the program management of the contract 

with Electronic Data Systems (EDS). The requested amount for fiscal year 2007 is over three times the amount requested in fiscal 

year 2004, and three times the amount budgeted for the future 

years of the contract from 2008 through 2010. The Navy should 

better define its program management roles, mission, and budget 

in future budget justification materials to the Congress. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy, for the NMCI program office—to more closely 

align the 2007 funding level with future years plans. 

The committee notes that the Navy recently had to reprogram 

$74.6 million to settle numerous legal claims between EDS and the 

Federal Government. The committee is concerned that the flawed 

development of the NMCI contract led to this additional, unplanned cost. The committee notes that many organizations within 

the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including the 

Chief Information Officers of both organizations and the Office of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
290 

Program Analysis and Evaluation, did not perform adequate oversight and analysis of the details of the contract and its terms. The 

committee believes that the Department of Defense should examine 

the development of this contract to derive lessons learned on structuring, managing, and performing adequate oversight for similar 

information technology programs in the future. Additionally, the 

NMCI program should remain on the ‘‘watch list’’ of major automated information systems which the Department uses to monitor 

the progress of such programs. 

Despite past difficulties, the committee is encouraged by the recent negotiations between the Navy and EDS. By exercising the 3 

year option on the NMCI contract, the Navy expects to realize 

lower costs per sailor and marine for information technology services. Long-standing disputes surrounding the initial contract, including fees and legacy systems migration, are being remedied. 

However, the committee notes that entering the recent renewal 

negotiation, the Navy was not in the best position to explore all 

possible options to acquire needed information technology services. 

The committee has been assured that the modified contract will enable the Navy to acquire the information technology services it requires and be in a more flexible position to adjust how it acquires 

those services in the future—should it be deemed necessary. With nearly $6.0 billion already spent, and another $3.0 billion expected 

to be expended over the next 3 years, the Congress will continue 

its close oversight of this program to ensure that sailors and marines receive world-class information technology services. 

Civilian personnel pay in excess of requirements 

The budget request included $57.3 billion for civilian personnel 

pay in fiscal year 2007. Based on an analysis of the services’ end 

strength data for civilian personnel as of April 14, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects that the Navy/Marine 

Corps’ civilian personnel costs are overstated for fiscal year 2007 

by $96.8 million. The committee recommends a decrease of $96.8 

million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy. 

Budget Items—Marine Corps 

Acclimate high performance undergarments 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), for acclimate high performance 

undergarments. The committee notes that the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps continues to support the initiative to make improvements in form, fit, and function of Marine clothing and accessories. 

Acclimate high performance undergarments allow Marines to adapt 

to all environments using one type of undergarment system. The 

committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in OMMC for 

acclimate high performance undergarments. 

Cold Weather Layering System 

The budget request included no funding for the Cold Weather 

Layering System (CWLS). The CWLS is part of the Marine Corps’

Mountain and Cold Weather Clothing and Equipment Program, 

which provides lightweight, durable combat clothing, that allows 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
291 

Marines to operate in all kinds of cold weather environments. The 

committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in Operation 

and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for the CWLS. 

Command Post-Large 

The budget request included no funding for upgrading the Marine Corps’ Command Post Shelters. The Marine Corps has a requirement for Command Post Shelters that require less manpower, 

contain more square footage, and are easier to assemble. New shelter technology would eliminate the redundancy involved with having multiple types of shelters, which would provide enhanced support to current and future Command and Control, and Medical Systems. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for Command PostLarge tactical shelters. 

Individual Water Purifier System 

The budget request included $2.2 million in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), for the Individual Water Purifier 

System. This system enables Marines to gather water from any 

source and purify it into drinking water that meets EPA standards. 

It is part of the Marine Corps’ Individual Load Bearing Equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in OMMC 

to procure additional Individual Water Purifier Systems. 

Portable tent lighting 

The budget request included $2.5 million in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), for portable tent lighting. The 

committee notes that Marine Corps portable tent lighting is 

electro-magnetic interference hardened to prevent compromising 

peripheral electronics and computers. Additional funding for portable tent lighting has been included on the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps’ Unfunded Programs List. The committee rec- ommends an increase of $8.4 million in OMMC for portable tent 

lighting. 

Ultra-light Camouflage Net System 

The budget request included $26.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), for the Ultra-light Camouflage Net System (ULCANS). The committee notes that ULCANS 

greatly enhances the ability of combat troops and support units to 

conceal military target signatures of weapons, vehicles, and semipermanent positions in situations where natural cover or concealment may be absent or inadequate. The committee recommends an 

increase of $6.0 million in OMMC for ULCANS. 

Marine Corps corrosion prevention and control 

The budget request included $10.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), for corrosion prevention and 

control. The committee notes that Marine Corps equipment is regularly subjected to extreme conditions due to the normal operating 

locations of many Marine forces. The result is a significant amount 

of rust and corrosion that, if unattended, can rapidly degrade the 

operational capability of that equipment. The committee recVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
292 

ommends an increase of $5.0 million in OMMC for the Marine 

Corps corrosion prevention and control program. 

Budget Items—Air Force 

Joint Modular Ground Targets and Urban Close Air Support 

site 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for ground targets for training at the 

Bell Fourche Range in South Dakota and the Powder River Training complex in South Dakota and Wyoming. The committee is 

aware that training at these facilities could enhance training opportunities and reduce costs. Joint Modular Ground Targets 

(JMGT) are visual and heated targets used for aircrew training. 

The committee recommends an increase of $0.1 million in OMAF 

for JMGT and shipping containers, for use as part of the Urban 

Close Air Support Site at the Bell Fourche Range and Powder 

River Training complex. 

F–16 supply chain management DMSMS program 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), for a F–16 Diminishing Manufacturing 

and Material Shortages (DMSMS). The committee recommends an 

increase of $0.9 million in OMAF for a DMSMS proactive program 

to ensure support to the warfighter throughout the life cycle of the 

F–16 weapons system. 

Air Force space surveillance system 

The budget request included $31,342.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), but included no funding for space 

situational awareness. As part of the Space Surveillance Network, 

the Air Force Space Surveillance System (AFSSS) provides observations of objects in near earth and deep space in support of U.S. 

Strategic Command’s space situational awareness mission. The 

AFSSS was transferred from the Navy to the Air Force in fiscal 

year 2004, requiring additional Air Force funding to operate and 

maintain the system. The committee recommends an increase of 

$4.5 million in OMAF to support the AFSSS. 

Consequence management 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and 

Maintencance, Air Force (OMAF), account for command and control 

integration for Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF–CS) consequence management. JTF–CS msut be capable of providing 

rapid, standardized, and integrated command and control responses to domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and 

high-yield explosive (CBRNE) consequence management events. 

The Commander, U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), 

has identified funding shortfalls for the operations and maintenance of JTF–CS to conduct effective command and control integration in response to consequence management incidents. The Commander, USNORTHCOM, has identified consequence management 

as one of the highest priorities for additional funding. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
293 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million in OMAF 

to address this funding shortfall and to support the enhancement 

of JTF–CS command and control capabilities to respond to consequence management incidents. 

Interoperable communications 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), for interoperable communications. U.S. 

Northern Command requires the capability to effectively communicate with Federal, State, and local governments in order to facilitate support to civil authorites, share information, and provide situational awareness in response to natural or manmade disasters. 

The Commander, U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), 

identified a funding shortfall for the operations and maintenance 

of interoperable communications, and has identified interoperable 

communications as his highest priority for additional funding. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in 

OMAF to address this funding shortfall and to provide the interoperable communications capability for USNORTHCOM to effectively communicate with federal, state, and local authorites. 

National capital region operational enhancements 

The budget request included no funding in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), for command and control integration for Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region (JFHQ–

NCR). 

The committee notes the Commander, U.S. Northern Command 

(USNORTHCOM), has identified funding shortfalls for JFHQ–NCR 

to effectively integrate and disseminate information during natural 

or manmade disasters and national special security events. The 

Commander, USNORTHCOM, has identified JFHQ–NCR operational enhancements as one of the highest priorities for additional 

funding. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in OMAF 

to address this funding shortfall and to provide the Commander, 

USNORTHCOM, the capability to enhance JFHQ–NCR situational 

awareness, as well as their capability to rapidly respond to natural 

or manmade disasters in the national capital region. 

National Security Space Institute 

The budget request included $19.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), for space training, education, and 

professional development, of which $12.0 million is for the National 

Security Space Institute (NSSI). The committee understands that 

NSSI is the execution arm of the congressionally-mandated Space 

Professional Development Program for the Air Force, and is designed to develop and maintain a sufficient cadre of space-qualified 

personnel to support the Air Force mission in space. The committee 

believes more should be done to support this critical training mission. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in 

OMAF for the NSSI to expand the instructor base; accelerate development of advanced space courses; develop a distance learning laboratory; and enhance NSSI interaction with space educational efVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
294 

forts outside the Air Force, to include universities, colleges, and 

primary education. 

Tuition assistance 

The budget request included $156.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), for the voluntary educational assistance program. The committee believes that voluntary educational assistance programs contributes to the quality and readiness of the armed forces. The committee recommends an increase 

of $8.0 million in OMAF for the voluntary educational assistance 

program for military members. 

Budget Items—Defense-wide 

Gamma Radiation Detection System 

The budget request included no funding for Gamma Radiation 

Detection Systems (GaRDS) at U.S. Central Command 

(USCENTCOM) facilities. USCENTCOM has a validated force protection requirement to inspect foreign workers and non-authorized 

visitors for weapons and explosives, as well as requirements to install this technology throughout Central Asia and the Middle East. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, for two GaRDS mobile units 

and six GaRDS gantry units for USCENTCOM. 

Information assurance scholarship program 

The budget request included $5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the information assurance 

scholarship program (IASP). The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMDW for this program. As noted elsewhere in this report, information and cyber security remain a challenge for the Department of Defense. There are currently 120 students in the IASP, supported in part by previous increases to the 

budget request. Ensuring adequate numbers of experts in the areas 

of information security, assurance, and architecture who are educated and recruited through the scholarship program remains a 

priority for the committee. 

Meals Ready to Eat war reserve stockpile 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) 

war reserve stockpile. The committee is aware of the potentially 

life-saving role MREs play in responding to any crisis, humanitarian or otherwise. The committee recommends an increase of 

$30.0 million in OMDW for increasing the number of MREs in the 

war reserve stockpile to ensure there are enough available to meet 

any crisis. Furthermore, the committee directs the Director of the 

Defense Logistics Agency to provide to the congressional defense 

committees not later than March 1, 2007, a report containing a description and justification of the current inventory objective for the 

MRE war reserve stockpile and any additions or reductions to that 

inventory objective over the past three years, together with an 

analysis of the usage of MREs over that time period. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
295 

Increased funding for conservation buffer zones 

The budget request included $20.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), to continue implementation 

of conservation buffer zones under the Department of Defense’s 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative. 

The committee believes that the Department should continue to 

pursue voluntary agreements with willing third parties under section 2684a of title 10, United States Code, to limit the development 

or use of property that would be incompatible with the mission of 

an installation, and preserve habitat that is compatible with environmental requirements which may reduce current or anticipated 

environmental restrictions on military installations. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in 

OMDW for the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative. 

The committee directs that, in allocating the funding provided for 

the Department’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, the Department should give priority to projects that benefit 

high-priority training sites, which have the greatest potential to reduce or prevent encroachment through the implementation of a 

compatible use buffer zone. 

Citizen-Soldier Support Program 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Citizen-Soldier Support 

Program. The Citizen-Soldier Support Program is a partnership involving academic and community-based organizations, which is developing community-based strategies designed to promote support 

systems for members of the National Guard and Reserves. The 

committee believes that the Citizen-Soldier Support Program, authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law l09–163), has begun to play a vital role in developing a model for strengthening local community support to members of the National Guard and Reserve component personnel and 

their families. The committee also believes that there is a need for 

further development of strategies to increase access to support 

services for these members, many of whom reside far away from 

military installations, and encourages expansion of the Citizen-Soldier Support Program both geographically and programmatically. 

For example, the program could focus new efforts on providing assistance to eligible family members in obtaining health care benefits under TRICARE, in addition to other needed community support services. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OMDW, for the Citizen-Soldier Support Program. 

Institute for national security information analysis 

The requirement for employees trained in national security analysis is growing across the Federal Government. Traditional liberal 

arts colleges and universities at the undergraduate level often do 

not provide training in national security analysis. This unique skill 

set requires a multidisciplinary approach with emphasis on foreign 

language training, regional studies, as well as rational decision 

theory, counterfactual reasoning, information technologies, information assurance, and statistical analysis. The 2006 Quadrennial 

Defense Review Report describes a need to develop a new breed of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
296 

warriors. Accordingly, our national security analysts require a new 

blend of skills. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, to further develop such an 

institute or program in national security analysis at a civilian undergraduate institution. 

Budget Items—Army Reserve 

Army Reserve budget justification materials 

The budget request included $2,134.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), a $325.8 million increase 

over the fiscal year 2006 appropriated amount. The committee 

notes the outstanding contributions of the Reserves in the ongoing 

global war on terrorism. The committee expects that contribution 

will continue as the United States remains engaged in this long 

war. However, the committee is concerned by the lack of detail provided in the Army Reserve operation and maintenance budget justification materials. The budget justification books differed from 

briefing materials provided to the committee. Those discrepancies 

were not adequately clarified, and the committee found the budget 

materials for this account insufficient to justify the requested increase. The committee recommends a decrease of $125.8 million in 

OMAR. 

Military technicians pay in excess of requirements 

Based on analysis of the services’ actual mobilization data as of 

April 14, 2006, the General Accountability Office projects that the 

Department of Defense could realize $28.9 million in cost avoidance 

per month for mobilized technicians (MilTechs), for a total savings 

in fiscal year 2007 of $347.0 million. Normally, compensation costs 

plus benefits for MilTechs in their capacity as civilian employees 

are included in Operation and Maintenance Appropriation accounts. When MilTechs are mobilized, their compensation is covered by the Military Personnel Appropriation account. Assuming 

that the services experience the same level of participation of the 

Reserves in the ongoing global war on terrorism in fiscal year 2007, 

the Department will not require the amounts included in its budget 

request for MilTechs. The committee recommends a decrease in Operation and Maintenance accounts by $173.5 million, as follows: 

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve—$33.7 million; 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve—$100.7 million; 

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard—$15.6 

million; and 

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard—$23.5 million. 

Budget Items—Air Force Reserve 

Air Force Reserve training, test and ferry flying hours 

The budget request included $197.9 million for Air Force Reserve 

training, test, and ferry (TTF) flying hours. The TTF is the funding 

process for the Air Force Reserve to reimburse for strategic airlift 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
297 

associate aircrew readiness training. The TTF currently funds C–

5 and C–17 aircrew flying hours for Air Force Reserve and Air Mobility Command (AMC) flight crews to maintain or upgrade readiness and flying proficiency. 

Budgeting for the TTF is based on hourly rate structures developed by the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) as a 

subset of the Transportation Working Capital Fund (TWCF). Current Department of Defense policy requires TTF rates to recover 

100 percent of the costs of the TWCF, including recouping direct 

and indirect costs—support, depreciation, and amortization—incurred by AMC in providing airlift services and operating the global air transportation system. The USTRANSCOM budget requests, 

and the TTF rates, attempt to maintain or recover TWCF operating 

balances. 

While sound in theory, in practice, encumbering readiness training flying with the full costs of maintaining the Department’s global mobility air transportation system results in substantial added 

expense. Current TTF flying hour rates are nearly double the costs 

per flying hour for Air Force Reserve units that have aircraft assigned. Additionally, the TTF account has grown 100 percent over 

the last 2 years, while another subset account that is designed to 

also maintain or recover TWCF operating balances, the Airlift 

Readiness Account (ARA), has not been utilized. Until the ARA is 

funded to help defray TWCF operating expenses, the Air Force Reserve should not be charged the full burdened rates of the TTF. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $48.0 million in the TTF. 

Budget Items—Army National Guard 

Battlefield mobility enhancers 

The budget request included no funding for lightweight tactical 

vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $11.5 million 

in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, for lightweight tactical utility vehicles. The committee supports efforts by 

the Army to improve battlefield mobility and resupply. 

Operator driving simulator 

The budget request included no funding for operator driving simulators for the Army National Guard. The committee notes that a 

number of casualties have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan as a 

result of vehicle accidents, including single vehicle accidents. Ensuring vehicle operators have quality training is vital to the readiness of the armed forces as well as their safety. These driving simulators would ensure that training time for soldiers is maximized, 

even with limited vehicle assets. The fielding plan includes 79 simulator units at 27 sites, including Army National Guard sites at 9 

states. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in 

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, for operator 

driving simulators. 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams 

sustainment training and evaluation program 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), for the development 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
298 

and implementation of a comprehensive sustainment training program to address the perishable and critical skills of the 55 congressionally-authorized Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 

Teams (WMD–CST). 

The committee notes that each WMD–CST must achieve the certification required by law in accordance with Department of Defense criteria prior to their deployment. The committee further 

notes that the National Guard must be properly resourced to develop, implement, and execute a comprehensive sustainment training program that will ensure WMD–CST maintain the highest level 

of proficiency in their critical and technical skills. 

To ensure the WMD–CST are effectively and comprehensively 

trained and exercised, the committee recommends an increase of 

$8.5 million in OMARNG for the development of a sustainment 

training and exercise program for the WMD–CST. The committee 

is aware that a number of federal entities possess the capability 

and expertise in scenario-based training that could assist in the development of a comprehensive sustainment training program, and 

encourages the National Guard to utilize those existing federal facilities when implementing this initiative. 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams upgrades 

The budget request included no funding to upgrade the original 

32 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD–CST) 

to the same level of technology as the 23 teams fielded during fiscal 

years 2004 and 2005. Because the current acquisition process has 

not kept pace with most rapid technological developments, most of 

the purchased equipment used by the WMD–CST are commercial, 

off-the-shelf. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, for 

WMD–CST equipment upgrades. 

Budget Items—Air National Guard 

Warrior skills and convoy trainer 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for warrior skills and convoy trainers for the Air National Guard. There are 4 Air National 

Guard regional training centers, and 3 do not have this equipment. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.2 million in OMANG 

for warrior skills and convoy trainers. 

Budget Items—Transfer Accounts 

Funding for Formerly Used Defense Sites 

The budget request included $242.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for environmental restoration 

of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). The committee notes that 

the budgeted amount is below the level authorized for this program 

in fiscal year 2006. The committee notes that it is Department of 

Defense’s goal to achieve a remedy in place or response complete 

at all FUDS sites by 2020 under the Installation Restoration Program for hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. It is 

also the Department’s goal to complete preliminary assessments at 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
299 

all FUDS sites by 2007, and complete site inspections at all FUDS 

sites by 2010, under the Military Munitions Response Program for 

clean up of unexploded ordnance. 

The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in 

OMDW to expedite the clean up of FUDS and to move more aggressively to achieve the Department’s goals. The committee expects the Department to demonstrate its commitment to these 

goals, and improve on them where it is possible to do so, by steadily increasing the amount of funding budgeted for this effort. 

Increased funding for clean up of unexploded ordnance at 

BRAC sites 

The budget request included $413.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Environmental Restoration Fund, Army. The committee notes that according to the Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress, the estimated cost to complete the clean 

up of unexploded ordnance under the Military Munitions Response 

Program at defense installations closed in the 1988, 1991, 1993, 

and 1995 rounds of base closure and realignment (BRAC) is $699.2 

million. Funding for environmental remediation at BRAC sites is 

provided from the applicable Department of Defense base closure 

account until the closure of that account, and afterwards from the 

applicable environmental restoration account. The committee expects the Department to fund environmental restoration accounts 

at levels that are consistent with the Department’s goal to achieve 

clean up of unexploded ordnance at BRAC sites closed prior to 2005 

by fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends an increase of 

$50.0 million in OMDW to expedite unexploded ordnance clean up 

at sites closed or realigned under BRAC rounds prior to 2005. 

Items of Special Interest 

40 mm day/night training cartridge 

The committee supports the Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, and 

Special Operations Command interests in acquiring non-developmental solutions to provide safe, ‘‘dud free’’ training ammunition to 

the operating forces in support of the 40 mm MK–19 heavy machine gun. The committee understands that these non-developmental ‘‘green ammunition’’ solutions were initially requested and 

fielded by the Marine Corps. The new 40 mm day/night training 

cartridges have been providing the Marine Corps with the ability 

to conduct safe, yet realistic day and night fire and maneuver 

training, which could not be conducted with the older pyrotechnic 

MK19 training cartridge. The committee also understands that the 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command notified the Army of 

problems related to MK19 training and requested that the Army 

rapidly replace its old pyrotechnic training cartridge with the fielded solution used by the Marine Corps. 

The committee recognizes that in addition to the reduced unit 

costs for acquisition of this new training cartridge, the Department 

of Defense will enjoy significant financial savings in operation and 

maintenance accounts related to (1) reduced frequency of fire fighting operations, (2) reduced frequency of UXO render safe operVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
300 

ations, (3) reduced costs for range clearance and safety, and (4) reduced fuel and transport expenses for transporting Reserve personnel to Department training ranges. 

Besides the obvious cost savings, the committee notes that nondevelopmental training ammunition provides all Department personnel with improved training opportunities where dry conditions 

on Department training ranges frequently preclude commanders 

from training with pyrotechnic devices. Further, the committee 

notes that the reduced frequency of range fires will directly reduce 

the environmental damage that results from range fires and UXO 

contamination. 

The committee commends the Marine Corps on their leadership 

in applying non-developmental technology to improve the quality of 

training, while reducing training costs, and encourages all Department elements to budget and quickly transition to the new 40 mm 

day/night training ammunition to provide realistic fire and maneuver training and improved utilization of Department training 

ranges. 

Comptroller General study of the Defense Transportation 

Coordination Initiative 

The U.S. Transportation Command initiated the Defense Transportation Coordination Initiative (DTCI) to change how the Department of Defense handles its transportation management services 

for freight shipping within the continental United States. The 

DTCI intends to incorporate industry best practices to decrease 

costs and improve operational effectiveness, while increasing visibility of overall traffic movement patterns and performance across 

the Department’s supply chain. The committee supports efforts by 

the Department to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its 

material shipments. However, the committee is concerned that current implementation efforts of DTCI may undermine the intended 

objectives of DTCI or weaken the additional goal of supporting 

small businesses throughout the nation. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a 

study of the DTCI and to submit a report not later than February 

1, 2007, to the congressional defense committees. The report shall: 

(1) assess the business case analysis underlying the DTCI, including the assumptions regarding cost savings; (2) identify lessons 

learned from the 3 year pilot study on improving the Department’s 

transportation management services in the southeast United 

States; and (3) examine whether those identified lessons are being 

fully incorporated into the DTCI. 

Defense Information System Network Access Transport 

Services 

The committee notes that the Defense Information Systems 

Agency (DISA) is in the process of acquiring additional network access to connect remote Department of Defense locations to terrestrial networks that are part of a component of the Global Information Grid (GIG), known as the GIG Bandwidth Expansion (GIG–

BE). This connectivity, called the Defense Information System Network Access Transport Services (DATS), will provide the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
301 

ment with a high speed fiber optic network that will greatly enhance network-centric operations. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is currently reviewing 

the analyses and underlying assumptions used by DISA in developing its DATS acquisition strategy. Preliminary analyses that the 

CBO has shared with the committee indicates that there may be 

a cost benefit to the Department in using a combination of purchases and leases of fiber optic connectivity to the remote sites, 

rather than the current approach of leasing all of the connections. 

The committee also notes that the Department’s estimates of the 

growth in required bandwidth for defense missions have changed 

over time. Estimates for the annual growth of bandwidth requirements by the Department have changed from 100 percent down to 

35 percent. The level of growth in bandwidth requirement will 

strongly influence the DATS acquisition strategy. The committee 

directs the Department’s Chief Information Officer to ensure that 

an accurate assessment of future bandwidth requirements growth, 

and the final results of the CBO review, be utilized to pursue future network access acquisitions. 

Defense Readiness Reporting System 

As the challenges to our country have grown, so too has the need 

for a readiness reporting system that more accurately assesses and 

reports the capabilities of the Department of Defense to respond to 

the increased ranges of threats to the safety of our nation. The 

committee supports the goals of the Defense Readiness Reporting 

System (DRRS) as the single, capability-based readiness reporting 

system for the Department. 

The committee is concerned that multiple, redundant readiness 

systems are both wasteful and undermine the Department’s ability 

to ensure timely and accurate information. Furthermore, the committee believes it is inexcusable to allow the expenditure of funds 

on other readiness reporting systems that do not meet the requirements of a capability-based system in light of the many demands 

on the resources of the Department. 

The existing reports submitted to Congress pursuant to section 

482 of title 10, United States Code, are not providing information 

to the Congress in a timely manner, and the committee expects the 

DRRS to enhance both the ability of Department managers to manage readiness issues and congressional oversight. The committee 

supports the full and rapid implementation of the DRRS, and believes that no funds should be expended on any other readiness reporting system in the Department other than as necessary to support the implementation of DRRS. 

Defense Travel System 

Over the last 10 years, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) and the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office 

have documented serious problems with existing Defense travel 

systems. The Department responded to these concerns by working 

to develop a new travel system, known as the Defense Travel System (DTS), which would process all Defense travel requests. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
302 

The committee is aware that DTS has experienced serious problems. More than seven years after the initial DTS contract was 

awarded, the system still is not fully functional. 

Nonetheless, the committee continues to support investment in 

the travel reengineering effort. In this regard, the committee is encouraged by the fundamental restructuring of the DTS contract, 

which took place in 2004. The Department has indicated that this 

restructuring should address many of the problems identified by 

GAO and the Department Inspector General. 

Moreover, the committee remains convinced that the Department’s travel problems must be addressed on a comprehensive 

basis. As a GAO witness explained at a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year: 

One of DOD’s long-standing problems has been the lack of 

integrated systems. To address this issue and minimize the 

manual entry of data, interfaces between existing systems 

must be developed to provide the exchange of data that is critical for day-to-day operations. For example, DTS needs to know 

before permitting the authorization of travel that sufficient 

funds are available to pay for the travel—information that 

comes from a non-DTS system—and once the travel has been 

authorized, another system needs to know this information so 

that it can record an obligation and provide management and 

other systems with information on the funds that remain available. 

At the present time, DTS remains the only integrated approach to 

these issues available to the Department. 

However, DTS will not be able to maximize savings unless it is 

utilized on a more extensive basis throughout the Department. It 

is not helpful for the Department to develop a comprehensive and 

money-saving solution to its travel problems if this system is not 

used by Defense officials at sites where it has been deployed. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to provide a 

semi-annual report on DTS to the congressional defense committees for the next 2 years, beginning in 2007. Each report should address: (1) the number of defense installations at which DTS has 

been deployed; (2) the extent of usage of DTS at such sites; (3) 

steps taken or to be taken by the Department to increase such 

usage; (4) the savings resulting from such deployment and usage; 

and (5) any continuing problems in the implementation and usage 

of DTS. 

Department of Defense foreign language training 

The budget request included $8.3 million for the Defense Language Institute in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), specifically for satellite communications language training activities 

(SCOLA). 

SCOLA is a unique and innovative satellite-based language 

training activity that provides television programming in a variety 

of languages from around the world. SCOLA also has an Internetbased streaming video capability that greatly increases the availability of this training medium to military and civilian linguists, 

virtually anywhere they can obtain an Internet connection. In addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
303 

tion, SCOLA is developing a digital archive that will allow users 

anywhere to review and sort language training on demand. 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for increasing investment in language technology. SCOLA can help sustain 

and improve foreign language skills and cultural understanding of 

military and civilian linguists in the Department. Accordingly, the 

committee expects that funding provided for SCOLA related training activities be used for the intended purpose. 

Marine Aviation Training Transformation savings 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Aviation issued the Marine Aviation Training Transformation Policy Letter (dated April 4, 2005), which directs the reorganization of Marine aviation training into a comprehensive and 

fully integrated system that more effectively links training to readiness requirements and to the Marine Corps’ Flying Hour Program, 

while increasing the efficient use of aircraft resources. To encourage maximum savings from this transformation process, the committee directs the Department of the Navy to allow Marine aviation to reinvest funds from Aircraft Acquisition Programs, Flight 

Hour Programs, and Flight Hour Other, made available through 

implementation of Marine Aviation Training Transformation, into 

Marine aviation training and readiness. 

Performance of certain work by Federal Government employees 

Section 343 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) required the Secretary of Defense 

to prescribe guidelines and procedures for ensuring that consideration is given to Federal Government employees for certain work 

that is currently performed or would otherwise be performed under 

Department of Defense contracts. These guidelines and procedures 

apply only to work that: (1) has been performed by Federal Government employees at any time since, October 1, 1980; (2) is associated with inherently governmental functions; (3) was not awarded 

on a competitive basis; or (4) was determined by a contracting officer to have performed poorly. Section 343 does not specify a deadline for the issuance of such guidelines and procedures. The committee directs the Secretary to issue the required guidelines and 

procedures not later than January 6, 2007, which is 1 year after 

the date of enactment of section 343. 

Radio frequency identification report 

The committee is aware that under the Department of Defense’s 

July 30, 2004, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Policy, all 

‘‘consolidated shipments moving to, from, or between overseas locations are tagged’’ and are made a part of the In-Transit Visibility 

Network, which tracks all material from point to point. This policy 

should substantially increase the Department’s visibility of overseas shipments of supplies, resulting in cost savings. 

The committee understands that the Department’s policy currently mandates use of active data-rich RFID for overseas shipments. The use of this tracking method within the United States 

has not been fully implemented. The committee directs the SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00325 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
304 

retary of Defense to review the potential costs and benefits of mandating the use of active data-rich RFID to track supplies and shipments within the United States, and to submit a report on the findings of that review to the congressional defense committees not 

later than February 1, 2007. 

Training Range Vegetation Encroachment 

The committee is concerned that significant amounts of Army 

training range acreage may have become unusable because of uncontrolled vegetation, such as excessive weed and tree growth as 

well as invasive species. Maintaining usable training ranges is vitally important for ensuring our armed forces remain fully prepared to execute whatever missions are required of them. Ensuring 

all of our range facilities are usable is even more important given 

the movement of forces as a result of the Global Posture Review. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a statistically significant survey of Army training ranges and 

provide a report no later than 1 February 2007, to the congressional defense committees detailing the extent of loss of training 

range acreage to vegetation and the types of vegetation involved at 

each training range site. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(305) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for Active Forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active duty end strengths for fiscal year 2007, as shown below: 

Fiscal Year 

2006 authorization 2007 request 2007 recommendation 

Army ........................................................................................................................ 512,400 482,400 512,400 

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 352,700 340,700 340,700 

Marine Corps ........................................................................................................... 179,000 175,000 180,000 

Air Force .................................................................................................................. 357,400 334,200 334,200 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163) authorized active duty end strength for the 

Army at 512,400 and 179,000 for the Marine Corps. Additional authority was also provided in section 403 of that Act to increase active duty end strength for the Army by up to 20,000 and increase 

Marine Corps active duty end strength by up to 5,000 above the fiscal year 2006 authorized levels of 512,400 and 179,000, respectively, during fiscal years 2007 through 2009. 

The Army and the Marine Corps continue substantial deployment of forces in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, although the growing number of trained Iraqi and Afghan military 

and security forces may allow reduction of U.S. commitments in the 

future. The Army continues major organizational change by creating modular units of deployment at the combat brigade level, 

shifting soldiers between the institutional Army and the operational Army, and rebalancing critical skills and units between the 

active and Reserve component forces. 

The Marine Corps continues to shift manpower to meet the requirement for high demand skills in deploying units and is establishing a Marine Corps component command within U.S. Special 

Operations Command. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has 

testified before the Committee on Armed Services that he believes 

that the Marine Corps will continue to require an active duty end 

strength of about 180,000. 

The committee believes that given the challenges the Army faces 

in continuing to meet the requirement for deploying forces in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its ongoing internal 

restructuring efforts, the authorized active duty end strength for 

the Army should remain at 512,400, while retaining the discretionary authority to increase that level by up to 20,000 through 

2009. The committee also believes that the active duty Marine 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
306 

Corps end strength should be increased to 180,000, while retaining 

the discretionary authority to increase that level up to 184,000 

through 2009. 

The Navy and the Air Force continue large manpower reductions 

achieved through major changes in organizational structure, including deleting redundancies, retiring manpower-intensive platforms, incorporating new technology, and shifting non-core military 

functions from military personnel to civilians. These efforts are extremely challenging and will be monitored closely. 

The committee recommends an active duty end strength for the 

Army of 512,400 and 180,000 for the Marine Corps for fiscal year 

2007. The Army level is 30,000 above the requested level for fiscal 

year 2007 and equal to the level authorized in fiscal year 2006. The 

recommended level for the Marine Corps is an increase of 5,000 

from the requested level and an increase of 1,000 from the authorized level in fiscal year 2006. The committee has recommended 

funding for these higher end strength levels within the regular 

budget, rather than through supplemental appropriations. The recommended active duty end strength for the Navy is decreased by 

12,000 and the recommended active duty end strength for the Air 

Force is decreased by 23,200, as requested. 

Repeal of requirement for permanent end strength levels to 

support two major regional contingencies (sec. 402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

691 of title 10, United States Code, that establishes permanent end 

strength levels necessary to support a national defense strategy 

calling for the United States to be able to successfully conduct two 

nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies. 

The committee notes that the national defense strategy has 

evolved over time since 1996 when section 691 was enacted and is 

no longer based on a response to two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies. The committee also believes that section 691 

has not been effective as a management tool for sustaining the size 

of the armed forces. During time of war or national emergency, the 

President is authorized under section 123a of title 10, United 

States Code, to waive any statutory end strength with respect to 

that fiscal year. Section 115 of title 10, United States Code, provides further management flexibility by authorizing the Secretary 

of Defense to vary end strength of the active duty forces by 3 percent, and Selected Reserve forces by 2 percent. Section 115 also authorizes service secretaries to vary the end strength of active duty 

forces by 2 percent. 

Section 691 has not precluded, and should not preclude, the 

President from proposing in the annual budget end strength levels 

that vary from those set in section 691 as the armed forces modernize, reorganize, shift manpower from military personnel to civilian employees, and rebalance skills between the active duty and 

Reserve component forces. The committee believes that the requested personnel force levels made as part of the annual budget 

submission provide a more accurate and timely measure upon 

which to judge the proper size of the armed forces and the sufficiency of funding to sustain them. Should the annually requested 

personnel levels fall short of what Congress believes provides for 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
307 

the proper size of the armed forces, Congress has the constitutional 

authority to act to increase the force levels and provide funding for 

them. Section 691 does not add to this constitutional authority and 

does not provide a more meaningful or effective means of managing 

personnel force levels. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2007, as shown below: 

Fiscal Year 

2006 authorization 2007 request 2007 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 350,000 350,000 350,000 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 205,000 200,000 200,000 

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 73,100 71,300 71,300 

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

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 106,800 107,000 107,000 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 74,000 74,900 74,900 

The Coast Guard Reserve ....................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

The budget request included $5.3 billion in National Guard Personnel, Army, to support an end strength of 332,900 for fiscal year 

2007. The committee recommends an increase of $164.0 million in 

the National Guard Personnel, Army, appropriation to support the 

requested end strength of 350,000 for the Army National Guard. 

The committee directs that the increase in authorized appropriations for Army National Guard end strength be executed only for 

Army National Guard personnel. Should Army National Guard end 

strength fall below the authorized number, the unused additional 

funds may only be used to procure Army National Guard equipment, and only after the Department of Defense complies with the 

normal budget process that includes submitting prior notification 

and a detailed justification to Congress. 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

Reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2007, as shown 

below: 

Fiscal Year 

2006 authorization 2007 request 2007 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 27,396 27,441 27,441 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 15,270 15,416 15,416 

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 13,392 12,564 12,564 

The Marine Corps Reserve ...................................................................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 13,123 13,206 13,206 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 2,290 2,707 2,707 

The committee recommends increases of 45 in the Army National 

Guard, 146 in the Army Reserve, 83 in the Air National Guard, 

and 417 in the Air Force Reserve. The committee supports inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
308 

creases in full-time support manning consistent with requested levels to increase readiness in the Reserve components. 

The committee also recommends a decrease of 828 in the Navy 

Reserve consistent with reductions in both active Navy and Navy 

Reserve end strength. The committee recommends an end strength 

for the Marine Corps Reserve equal to the fiscal year 2006 level, 

consistent with the budget request. 

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

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize end 

strengths for military technicians (dual status) for fiscal year 2007, 

as shown below: 

Fiscal Year 

2006 authorization 2007 request 2007 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 25,563 26,050 26,050 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 7,649 7,912 7,912 

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 22,971 23,255 23,255 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 9,852 10,124 10,124 

Fiscal year 2007 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish numerical limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who 

may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 

30, 2007, as shown below: 

Fiscal Year 

2006 author- ization 2007 request 2007 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 695 595 595 

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 350 350 350 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 90 90 90 

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, as of September 30, 2007, as shown below: 

Fiscal Year 

2006 authorization 2007 request 2007 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 

The Marine Corps Reserve ...................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 14,000 14,000 14,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
309 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $112.0 billion for military personnel for fiscal year 2007, an 

increase of $1.3 billion above the budget request. This includes: (1) 

$1.7 billion for active-duty Army end strength; (2) $265.0 million 

for active-duty Marine Corps end strength; and (3) $164.0 million 

for Army National Guard end strength. 

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 422) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$54.8 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2007 from the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation and 

maintenance of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Budget Items 

Unobligated balances 

The Department of Defense has consistently under executed its 

military personnel funding authorization and appropriation since 

fiscal year 1995 for the active and Reserve components. According 

to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), from fiscal years 

2000 through 2004, the lowest annual unobligated balance was 

$248.1 million and the highest was $2,049.2 million. 

The Department reduced the fiscal year 2007 military personnel 

funding request by $318.6 million based, in part, on the GAO analysis of unobligated balances. The Department stated, ‘‘While it is 

recognized that some low level of unexpended balances are likely 

to occur to avoid Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) violations, the continued loss of limited Departmental resources each year due to excessive balances is unacceptable.’’ However, the Department did not 

reduce the fiscal year 2007 amounts fully in accord with GAO’s 

analysis, or as significantly as they should have. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $752.2 million in the services’ accounts, 

as follows: 

Military Personnel, Army—$31.4 million; 

Military Personnel, Navy—$85.0 million; 

Military Personnel, Marine Corps—$88.1 million; 

Military Personnel, Air Force—$248.3 million; 

Military Personnel, Army Reserve—$66.5 million; 

Military Personnel, Navy Reserve—$17.3 million; 

Military Personnel, Marine Corps Reserve—$15.4 million; 

Military Personnel, Air Force Reserve—$25.8 million; 

Military Personnel, Army National Guard—$84.5 million; 

and 

Military Personnel, Air National Guard—$89.9 million. 

Reserves cost avoidance 

Based on analysis of the services’ current and planned mobilization of the Reserve components during fiscal year 2006 and fiscal 

year 2007, the General Accounting Office (GAO) projects that the 

services will sustain military personnel strength levels lower than 

that planned in the Department of Defense’s budget request due to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
310 

their activation for the ongoing global war on terrorism. The GAO 

estimates cost avoidance of $71.1 million for fiscal year 2007. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $71.1 million in the Reserve 

component military personnel accounts according to GAO’s estimates by component, as follows: 

Army Reserve—$34.9 million; 

Air Force Reserve—$3.3 million; and 

Air National Guard—$31.9 million. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(311) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Part I—Officer Personnel Policy Generally 

Military status of officers serving in certain intelligence 

community positions (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

status of flag and general officers assigned to certain positions in 

the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to protect the officers and organizations concerned from perceptions of organizational conflicts of 

interest or inappropriate influence. 

Officers serving in these positions shall not be subject to the supervision or control of the Secretary of Defense or exercise any supervision or control of military or civilian personnel in the Department of Defense, except as authorized by Law. While serving in 

these positions and remaining on active duty, the officers shall continue to receive military pay and allowances, but shall not receive 

pay prescribed for the position. In addition, the provision directs 

that ODNI and CIA shall reimburse the Department for the military pay and allowances of the officers serving in these positions. 

This provision is consistent with provisions formerly in place for 

certain officers assigned to the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence before they were repealed by the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 (Public Law 108–458). 

This provision is also consistent with provisions in IRTPA for flag 

and general officers assigned as the Director of National Intelligence or as the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. 

Extension of temporary reduction of time-in-grade requirement for eligibility for promotion for certain active-duty 

list officers in grades of first lieutenant and lieutenant 

(junior grade) (sec. 502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 619(a) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority 

from October 1, 2005, through October 1, 2008, to promote officers 

in the grade of first lieutenant or lieutenant (junior grade) who satisfy a time-in-grade requirement of 18 months. 

Extension of age limits for active-duty general and flag officers (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1251 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the age for 

mandatory retirement for general and flag officers from 62 to 64. 

The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to defer retirement of officers serving in grades above major general and rear 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
312 

admiral to age 66 and the President to defer retirement for such 

officers until age 68. The provision would also eliminate the numerical limit on the number of deferments of retirement that may be 

in effect at any one time. The committee believes that it is not unusual for highly qualified and experienced commissioned officers, 

and particularly the most senior general and flag officers, to exceed 

current age limits as a result of changes in the officer corps and 

military career patterns and that reducing the requirement for 

deferments by the Secretary and the President is warranted. 

Modification of authorities on senior members of the Judge 

Advocate General’s Corps (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would raise the required statutory grades of the Judge Advocates General of the 

Army, Navy, and Air Force to lieutenant general or vice admiral, 

as appropriate. These three officers would be in addition to the 

numbers that would otherwise be permitted for their armed forces 

for officers serving on active duty in grades above major general or 

rear admiral, as the case may be. The provision would also change 

the title of the Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Army to 

‘‘Deputy Judge Advocate General,’’ as is presently the case for the 

corresponding officers in the Navy and Air Force. 

The greatly increased operations tempo of the armed forces has 

resulted in an increase in the need for legal advice from uniformed 

judge advocates in such areas as operational law, international 

law, the law governing occupied territory, the Geneva Conventions, 

and related matters. In addition, the system of military justice, administered by the Judge Advocates General, has taken on increased 

importance. Section 508 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) gave permissive authority for the appointment of these three officers in the grades of lieutenant general or vice admiral. However, none of these officers has 

been so appointed. In view of the developments set out above and 

the vital importance of the duties of these officers, the committee 

believes that the time has come to raise the required statutory 

grade and to grant corresponding grade relief. 

Requirement for significant joint experience for officers appointed as Surgeon General of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force (sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 3036a and amend sections 3036, 5137, and 8036 of title 10, 

United States Code, to require that officers recommended for appointment as the Surgeon General of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force must have significant joint experience as determined by the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee believes that 

senior military medical executives who are appointed in the future 

as the Surgeon General must be afforded opportunities to develop 

joint experience and qualifications in order to effectively manage 

and lead the uniformed medical professional communities and medical commands worldwide, and to participate most effectively in the 

management of the Defense Health Program and TRICARE. In this 

regard, the committee considers key positions in the defense health 

system, particularly the TRICARE Regional Directors, as assignVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
313 

ments which provide significant joint experience. The requirements 

of this provision would become effective with respect to all appointments to the position of Surgeon General of the Army, Navy, and 

Air Force on or after October 1, 2008, but this limitation would be 

waivable by the Secretary of Defense, if warranted, until October 

1, 2010. 

Grade and exclusion from active-duty general and flag officer distribution and strength limitations of officer serving as Attending Physician to the Congress (sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add section 

722 to chapter 41 and amend section 12210 of title 10, United 

States Code, to provide that an active-duty or Reserve general or 

flag officer, while serving as the Attending Physician to the Congress, would hold the grade of major general or rear admiral and 

be excluded from the numerical and distribution requirements of 

sections 525 and 526 of title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that the important role of the Attending Physician 

to the Congress and the dedicated service of the officers who have 

held this position warrant statutory recognition and an exception 

from the limits on numbers and grades of general and flag officers. 

Discretionary separation and retirement of chief warrant 

officers, W–4, twice failing selection for promotion (sec. 

507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 580(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the service 

secretaries in their discretion to retain, retire, or separate from active duty chief warrant officers in the grade of W–4, who have 

twice failed of selection for promotion. The committee believes that 

current procedures, which require automatic retirement or separation of regular chief warrant officers who twice fail of selection for 

promotion unless they are continued by selection board action, 

should be more flexible and that this provision would support the 

retention of highly experienced and qualified chief warrant officers 

in the grade of W–4. 

Increased mandatory retirement ages for Reserve officers 

(sec. 508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

mandatory retirement age for Reserve component officers. The provision would increase the mandatory retirement age for officers in 

the grade of O–8 from 62 to 64 years; for officers in the grade of 

O–7 from 60 to 62 years; and for officers in grades below O–7 from 

60 to 62 years. The provision would also increase the mandatory 

retirement age of officers holding certain offices, such as the Chief 

of the National Guard Bureau, Chiefs of Reserve of the services, 

Directors of the Army and Air National Guard, and the adjutants 

general of the states, from 64 to 66 years. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
314 

Part II—Officer Promotion Policy 

Promotions (sec. 515) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 624 and 14311 of title 10, United States Code, relating to promotion procedures. The provision would specify that a promotion 

list that requires Senate confirmation shall be treated as being established for purposes of chapter 38 of title 10 on the date the list 

is received by the Senate for consideration. This provides a clear 

line of demarcation between the procedures applicable for processing reports of selection boards and promotion lists. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense, not later than March 

1, 2008, to prescribe regulations controlling delays in appointment 

following Senate confirmation under sections 624 and 14311. The 

committee believes that the Secretary of Defense should establish 

uniform procedures in this regard aimed at ensuring consistency in 

service practices, necessary oversight, and timely review and disposition of allegations of potentially adverse information arising 

after nomination and Senate confirmation, but prior to appointment. The provision would also clarify that delays in appointment 

to higher grade are warranted by the need to review substantiated 

and potentially adverse information which may be material to the 

decision on whether or not to appoint based on a determination 

that an officer has not fulfilled the requirements for exemplary conduct for commanding officers and those in positions of authority is 

permissible. 

Consideration of adverse information by promotion selection boards in recommendations on officers to be promoted (sec. 516) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 616(c) and 14108(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require 

that a promotion selection board may not recommend an officer for 

promotion unless a majority of the members of the board, after consideration by all the board members of any adverse information 

about the officer that is provided to the board under section 615 

of title 10, United States Code, finds that the officer is among those 

best qualified for promotion to meet the needs of the armed force 

concerned consistent with the requirement of exemplary conduct 

set forth in sections 3583, 5947, and 8583 of title 10, United States 

Code. The committee views this as an essential function of promotion board members in making their recommendations. 

Expanded authority for removal from reports of selection 

boards of officers recommended for promotion to grades 

below general and flag grades (sec. 517) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 618(d) and 14111(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 

in addition to the President, to remove the name of an officer from 

the report of a selection board with respect to officers being recommended for promotion to grades below brigadier general and 

rear admiral (lower half). The committee believes that limiting this 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
315 

removal authority to the President for officers below general and 

flag officer rank is unnecessary. 

Clarification of nondisclosure requirements applicable to 

promotion selection board proceedings (sec. 518) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 618 and 14104 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 

nondisclosure requirements applicable to deliberations of military 

promotion selection boards. The provision would specify that discussions and deliberations of selection boards, including any written or documentary records thereof, shall be immune from legal 

process; shall not be admitted as evidence; and shall not be used 

for any purpose in any action or suit, or judicial or administrative 

proceedings without the consent of the Secretary of the military department concerned. 

The committee believes that existing policies of the Department 

of Defense and the services and oversight exercised by senior military and civilian officials relating to selection board procedures provide necessary safeguards and are effective in ensuring that promotion selection board members fulfill their duty under law to recommend the best qualified officers for promotion. Erosion over time 

of the limits on judicial review and discovery in connection with 

litigation have not been consistent with the statutory framework 

and military necessity. 

Special selection board authorities (sec. 519) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 628 and 14502 of title 10, United States Code, with respect 

to authority to conduct special selection boards. The provision 

would limit the availability of special selection boards to officers 

who are in or above the primary promotion zones. This is consistent with the treatment of Reserve component officers under section 14502 and, additionally, limits the substantial administrative 

burden of conducting special selection boards only to those cases in 

which material error may have occurred. The provision would also 

clarify that errors in active and Reserve board procedures that are 

not in accordance with law must also be determined by the service 

secretaries to be material to the outcome of the board’s determination. 

Removal from promotion lists of officers returned to the 

President by the Senate (sec. 520) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 629 and 14310 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 

conditions under which officers whose nominations have not received the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate will by operation 

of law be removed from promotion lists. The committee believes, 

consistent with the intent of existing sections 629 and 14310, that 

there must be statutory procedures for automatic removal of officers from promotion lists when it is clear that these officers will 

not receive a favorable committee recommendation or the advice 

and consent of the U.S. Senate and, within a foreseeable time 

frame, fulfill the legal requirements for appointment to higher 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
316 

grade after ample opportunity for review of adverse or potentially 

adverse information. 

Currently, under these conditions, and when designated senior 

military and civilian leaders take no action to remove an officer 

from a promotion list under sections 629 or 14310, officers may be 

permitted to remain on a promotion list for protracted, indefinite 

periods. Relegation of any officer to such a ‘‘limbo’’ status serves 

the interests of neither the individual officer nor the officer corps. 

This provision would enable changes in the status quo, require the 

officer, if removed from a promotion list, to compete once again 

with his or her peers for promotion, and lead to final resolutions 

consistent with the efficient administration of officer personnel and 

the needs of the services. 

The provision would prescribe processes applicable to both activeduty and Reserve officers whose nominations require Senate confirmation. The provisions for automatic removal would not apply to 

officers on promotion lists that have been returned to the President 

by the Senate on the date of enactment of this Act. No later than 

October 1, 2008, however, any such officer would be removed from 

a promotion list. 

Part III—Joint Officer Management Requirements 

Modification and enhancement of general authorities on 

management of joint qualified officers (sec. 526) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 661 of title 10, United States Code, to restructure the system 

for designation and management of joint qualified officers. This 

provision would implement the recommendation made by the Department of Defense in its strategic plan to link joint officer development to overall missions and goals of the Department, as required by section 531 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). The 

provision would facilitate the commencement of a process aimed at 

achieving the strategic objectives of developing a joint officer management system relevant to 21st century missions and force structure requirements, producing the largest possible number of fully 

qualified and inherently joint officers for joint command and staff 

responsibilities and service as general and flag officers, and maintaining the highest quality of officers serving in joint assignments. 

Key aspects of this provision would include: (1) replacement of 

the term ‘‘joint specialty officer’’ with ‘‘joint qualified officer;’’ (2) 

authorizing the Secretary of Defense to establish criteria for designation of officers as joint qualified; (3) retention of the requirement for joint professional military education (JPME) but permitting waiver of the JPME under certain circumstances, e.g., completion of two tours of duty in joint assignments resulting in demonstrated mastery of knowledge, skills, and abilities on joint matters; and (4) replacing the system of required time in billets for 

joint qualification to a capabilities-based system in which experience and performance lead to progressive levels of joint qualification. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
317 

Modification of promotion policy objectives for joint officers 

(sec. 527) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 662(a) of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement for a separate promotion policy objective for officers who have 

the joint specialty or who are designated as joint qualified. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that officers who are serving in or have served in joint duty assignments, 

including those officers who previously have been designated as 

joint specialty officers (JSO) and are determined to be joint qualified under the changes to section 661 of title 10, United States 

Code, included in this Act, are expected, as a group, to be promoted 

to the next higher grade at a rate not less than the rate for all officers of the same armed force in the same grade and competitive 

category. The committee believes that the increased number of officers who have attained the joint specialty qualification and who 

will be designated as joint qualified, the acceptance throughout the 

officer corps of the importance of joint qualification, and the assignment of JSO and joint qualified officers to numerous ‘‘other joint’’

billets throughout the Department calls for elimination of a separate promotion policy objective for JSO. 

Applicability of joint duty assignment requirements limited 

to graduates of National Defense University schools (sec. 

528) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 663 of title 10, United States Code, to specify that joint professional military education (JPME) schools for purposes of this section are limited to schools within the National Defense University. 

The provision would limit the requirement that more than 50 percent of officers completing the second phase of JPME must be assigned to joint duty assignments as those officers’ next duty assignments following graduation. The committee believes that this 

change, in conjunction with the increased availability of JPME 

credit at service colleges, is necessary to enable the services to fill 

all joint and internal billets, particularly those in warfighting specialties, with appropriately qualified officers. 

Modification of definitions relating to jointness (sec. 529) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 668 of title 10, United States Code, to revise the definition of 

the term ‘‘joint matters.’’ The new definition would expand the concept of joint matters to include integrated use of military forces 

that may be conducted under unified action on land, sea, or air, in 

space, or in the information environment with participants from 

multiple armed forces, the armed forces and other departments and 

agencies of the United States Government, the armed forces and 

the military forces or agencies of other countries, the armed forces 

and non-governmental persons or entities, or any combination 

thereof. The committee believes that this revised definition more 

accurately reflects the nature of modern military operations and 

recognizes that jointness should be understood as broader than the 

integrated operation of two or more services. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
318 

The provision would also modify the definition of ‘‘joint duty assignments’’ to broaden the assignments that may be considered and 

recognize the value of certain assignments within the services and 

to add a definition to section 668 of the term ‘‘critical occupational 

specialty.’’

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Matters 

Enhanced flexibility in the management of Reserve component personnel (sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

members of the National Guard and Reserve serving on Active 

Guard and Reserve duty, and military technicians (dual status), to 

perform specified additional duties that would expand their flexibility to train and instruct other personnel and increase the ability 

of such personnel to support certain operations or missions. 

The provision would authorize such members, performing Active 

Guard and Reserve duty under either title 10 or title 32, to instruct 

or train active-duty members, foreign military forces (under the 

same authorities and limitations that apply to active-duty personnel), Department of Defense contractor personnel, and Department of Defense civilian employees. 

The provision would also authorize members of the National 

Guard and Reserve, on Active Guard and Reserve duty under section 12310 of title 10, United States Code, to support operations or 

missions assigned in whole or in part to the Reserve components; 

to support operations or missions performed or to be performed by 

a unit composed of elements from more than one component of the 

same armed force, or joint forces that include Reserve component 

units or personnel; and to provide advice to senior officials in the 

Department on Reserve component matters. 

The provision would also expand the duties of military technicians (dual status), in section 10216a of title 10, United States 

Code, to support operations or missions assigned in whole or in 

part to the military technician’s unit; or to be performed by elements from more than one component of the military technician’s 

armed force, or joint forces that include units or personnel of the 

military technician’s Reserve component. 

The provision would also amend title 32 to authorize members 

who have been ordered by their Governor, with consent of the secretary concerned, to perform National Guard Active Guard and Reserve duty, to perform additional duties to support operations or 

missions undertaken by the member’s unit at the request of the 

President or the Secretary of Defense, and to support federal training operations or training missions assigned in whole or in part to 

the member’s unit. 

The provision would also authorize National Guard technicians 

to perform additional duties under title 32 to support operations or 

missions undertaken by the member’s unit at the request of the 

President or the Secretary of Defense, and to support federal training operations or training missions assigned in whole or in part to 

the member’s unit. 

The additional duties that may be assigned to National Guard 

and Reserve members on Active Guard and Reserve duty, and miliVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00340 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
319 

tary technicians (dual status), would only be authorized to the extent that the additional duties do not interfere with the ability of 

such members to carry out their prescribed duties relating to organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the Reserve components. 

Expansion of activities authorized for Reserves under Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to approve the deployment of Weapons of 

Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD–CSTs) to Canada 

and Mexico, if appropriate authorities in those countries consent to 

the entry of any WMD–CST into their sovereign territory in order 

to train for or respond to cross-border incidents. The provision 

would also expand the types of emergencies for which the Secretary 

may prepare or employ WMD–CSTs to include the intentional or 

unintentional release of nuclear, biological, radiological, toxic or 

poisonous chemical materials, or natural or manmade disasters. 

The committee notes that natural disasters, criminal acts, acts of 

negligence, and unforseen accidents can result in the release of nuclear, biological, radiological, or toxic or poisonous chemical materials that could have catastrophic impacts similar to the intentional 

release of a Weapon of Mass Destruction or a terrorist attack. 

The committee further notes that WMD–CSTs are a limited resource, and as such, the use of WMD–CSTs for such disasters 

should be limited to catastrophic situations where resources of 

State governments are overwhelmed and are authorized by the Secretary and performed in an active-duty status if the activities are 

performed outside of the United States. 

Modification of authorities relating to the Commission on 

the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 513 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), which created the 

Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, to authorize the 

chairman of the commission to exercise the same waiver authority 

regarding eligibility by annuitants for pay as would be available to 

the Director of the Office of Personnel Management under sections 

8344(i)(1) and 8468(f)(1) of title 5, United States Code. Additionally, the provision would authorize extension of the commission’s 

deadline for submission of a final report from 12 to 18 months after 

its first meeting. 

Pilot program on reintegration of members of the National 

Guard into civilian life after deployment (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot program to assess the 

feasibility and advisability of a voluntary program to facilitate the 

reintegration of members of the National Guard into civilian life 

upon return from an overseas deployment. The program would consist of: (1) initial reintegration training to facilitate reintegration 

with families and communities; (2) 30-day reintegration training to 

identify signs and symptoms of combat stress; (3) 60-day reintegraVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00341 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
320 

tion training to assist in matters relating to combat stress, including chemical dependency, anger management, and gambling abuse; 

(4) 90-day reintegration training to conduct a thorough physical 

and mental health assessment; and (5) development and distribution of educational materials on reintegration for National Guard 

families and communities. The Secretary of the Army shall submit 

a report on the pilot program to the congressional defense committees not later than one year after commencement of the pilot program. 

Subtitle C—Military Justice and Related Matters 

Applicability of Uniform Code of Military Justice to members of the Armed Forces ordered to active duty overseas in inactive duty for training status (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

service secretaries, no later than March 1, 2007, to prescribe regulations, or amend current regulations, consistent with article 2 of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to provide that military personnel who are ordered to perform inactive duty for training at overseas locations shall be subject to jurisdiction under the 

UCMJ throughout the period that the orders are in effect. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense, pursuant to section 557 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163), has concluded that the differences between services’ policies regarding inactive duty for training and the 

inapplicability of the UCMJ during drill periods could present obstacles to the invocation of protections under status of forces agreements (SOFA). The committee believes that prompt regulatory action should be taken at the earliest time to enhance good order and 

discipline through extension of UCMJ jurisdiction over reservists 

training overseas and, by doing so, to make the strongest case possible for SOFA coverage for Reserve personnel performing inactive 

duty for training. 

Subtitle D—Education and Training Matters 

Detail of commissioned officers as students at medical 

schools (sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of a military department to detail up to 25 commissioned 

officers of the armed forces each year as students at accredited 

medical schools or schools of osteopathy in the United States for 

training leading to the degree of doctor of medicine. To be eligible 

for such medical training, an officer must agree to serve on active 

duty for 2 years for each year of the officer’s medical training. 

The committee recommends this provision, in addition to others 

in this subtitle, in response to significant and growing shortfalls of 

military medical personnel, in both active and Reserve components 

of the armed forces. The committee has learned, for example, that 

the Army has only 65 percent of the general surgeons and 66% of 

the thoracic surgeons required to meet requirements for the active 

component. Army transformation to the brigade combat team structure would deepen medical shortfalls. The committee intends in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
321 

this and other sections of this subtitle to provide greater flexibility 

to the Secretaries of the military departments in the recruitment 

and retention of students and fully qualified health care personnel. 

Expansion of eligibility to provide Junior Reserve Officers’

Training Corps instruction (sec. 562) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

eligibility of officers and non-commissioned officers who may be employed as Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) instructors to include retired Reserve and National Guard members. Currently, only active-duty and retired regular officers and non-commissioned officers are authorized to serve as JROTC instructors. 

The Department of Defense would be authorized to pay an institution hiring a retired Reserve or National Guard member an amount 

equal to one-half of the amount paid to the retired member by the 

institution for any period, up to a maximum of one-half the difference between the retired or retainer pay for an active-duty officer or noncommissioned officer of the same grade and years of service for that period and the active-duty pay and allowances, which 

the member would have received for that period if on active duty. 

Increase in maximum amount of repayment under educational loan repayment for officers in specified health 

professions (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an increase from $22,000 to $60,000 for each year of obligated service 

the amount the Secretary of a military department may repay for 

educational loans of a fully qualified health care professional that 

the Secretary of the military department concerned has determined 

to be necessary to meet identified skill shortages. 

Increase in benefits under Health Professions Scholarship 

and Financial Assistance Program (sec. 564) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish new 

maximum amounts for stipends and grants, under the Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program. The Health 

Professions Scholarship Program is the primary source for the accession of medical and dental corps officers for the military departments. The committee is concerned that the current statutory formula for the educational assistance programs for health care professionals does not permit flexibility for the Secretary of the military department to respond to economic factors faced by medical 

and dental students. 

Report on Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program (sec. 565) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report by March 1, 2007, to congressional 

defense committees on the success or failure of the military departments in achieving recruiting goals under the Health Professions 

Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program for active service 

during fiscal years 2000 through 2006. 

The committee is concerned that the decline in achievement of 

goals for these programs will create significant medical manpower 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
322 

challenges in future years. Elsewhere in this report, the committee 

recommends a provision that would authorize a modification to the 

amount of payment of stipends under these programs. 

Expansion of instruction available at the Naval Postgraduate School for enlisted members of the armed 

forces (sec. 566) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize all 

eligible enlisted members of the armed forces to participate in certificate programs and courses required for the performance of their 

duties offered by the Naval Postgraduate School by removing the 

current limitation that restricts such participation to enlisted members of the Navy and Marine Corps. The provision would also authorize eligible enlisted members who hold a baccalaureate degree 

to receive graduate-level instruction at the Naval Postgraduate 

School on a space-available basis in programs leading to a master’s 

degree in technical, analytical, and engineering curricula. Upon 

successful completion of the course of instruction, an enlisted member may be awarded a master’s degree by the Naval Postgraduate 

School. 

The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended realigning the Naval Postgraduate School and the Air 

Force Institute of Technology. The Commission’s recommendation 

is intended to eliminate unnecessary curricula and program development; identify, approve, and implement programs of collaboration in research and instruction between the two schools; and expand nonresident programs and arrangements with private institutions of higher learning to meet common curriculum and non-Department of Defense focused class requirements. A current distinction between the Naval Postgraduate School and the Air Force Institute of Technology is the broader authority of enlisted members 

to participate in programs at the Air Force Institute of Technology. 

The provision would expand the eligibility of enlisted members to 

receive instruction from the Naval Postgraduate School as a means 

of achieving a closer alignment of the programs of instruction at 

the two institutions. 

Modification of actions to address sexual harassment and 

sexual violence at the service academies (sec. 567) 

The committee recommends a provision that would change the 

frequency of the administration of the service academy sexual assault survey and its associated report to Congress from an annual 

to a biennial requirement. The provision would also extend until 

2010 the academy program years in which the survey is required. 

The provision clarifies that the subject of the required academy policy and the survey is sexual harassment and sexual violence, and 

that the policy and survey are directed at cadets and midshipmen. 

Department of Defense policy on service academy and 

ROTC graduates seeking to participate in professional 

sports before completion of their active-duty service obligations (sec. 568) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe a policy not later than July 1, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
323 

2007, on whether to authorize service academy and Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) graduates to participate in professional sports before completion of their active-duty service obligation, and if so, on the active-duty service obligations of such personnel. 

Prior to prescribing the policy, the Secretary of Defense would be 

required to review current policies, practices, and regulations of the 

military departments on the active-duty service obligations of graduates of the service academies and ROTC, including policies on authorized leaves of absence and excess leave programs. The Secretary of Defense would be required to consider the compatibility 

of participation in professional sports, including training for professional sports, with service on active duty; the benefits for the 

armed forces of waiving obligations for service on active duty; the 

manner in which the services have resolved issues relating to participation in professional sports, including the extent of, and any 

reasons for, differing policies by service; and the recoupment of the 

costs of education if the period of obligated service is not completed. 

Variations in the policy due to distinctive requirements of a particular armed force would be allowed, but would be specifically addressed. The Secretary of Defense would set a prospective effective 

date for the policy and address its application to personnel currently serving as commissioned officers, cadets, or midshipmen. 

The provision would require the secretary of each military department to prescribe regulations, or modify current regulations, to 

implement the policy of the Secretary of Defense by no later than 

December 1, 2007. 

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education Matters 

Funding for assistance to local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and 

Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 

(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance 

program to local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The committee also recommends authorization of $10.0 million in OMDW, for assistance 

to local educational agencies with significant changes in enrollment 

of military and civilian school-aged dependent children due to base 

closures, force structure changes, or force relocations. 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities under section 

8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in section 363 of 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for continuation of the Department of Defense’s assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents with severe disabilities. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
324 

Plan to assist local educational agencies experiencing 

growth in enrollment due to force structure changes, relocation of military units, or BRAC (sec. 573) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prepare a plan to provide assistance to local 

educational agencies that will experience a growth in enrollment of 

military and Department of Defense civilian children as a result of 

force structure changes, the relocation of military units, and the 

closure or realignment of a military installation as a result of the 

2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. The committee 

is concerned that the impact of troop relocation on local educational 

districts during the time period between 2005 and 2010 will be significant, and expects the Department to work in partnership with 

the Congress, local governments, and other governmental agencies 

to provide maximum support to local communities as they face 

growth challenges associated with troop relocations, rebasing, and 

BRAC. 

The committee intends that the plan required by this provision 

would be in addition to the report on school enrollment increases, 

including a plan for working with federal, state and local agencies, 

for the period 2004 through 2011, directed in the report accompanying section 572 of the Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). 

Pilot program on parent education to promote early childhood education for dependent children affected by military deployment or relocation of military units (sec. 574) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a 3-year pilot program to develop 

models to enhance educational tools and support for parents of preschool aged children, who are affected by deployments or the relocation of military units. The provision would require the utilization 

of models designed to identify specific risk factors for children related to military life, and maximize the educational readiness of 

young children who experience the rigors of military life. The provision would require that the Secretary designate military installations for conduct of the pilot program, and that one or more of the 

installations include outreach services to members in the National 

Guard or Reserve components who have been mobilized in the global war on terrorism. The committee recommends that $1.5 million 

be authorized for the pilot program in fiscal year 2007. 

The committee believes that high quality services for children are 

an essential factor in military quality of life, and encourages the 

Department of Defense to utilize organizations such as Parents as 

Teachers, which has broad experience through its Heroes at Home 

program in enhancing child development and school achievement 

through parent education involving military families. The committee believes that outreach is needed to families of National 

Guard and Reserve components who have been mobilized in support of the global war on terrorism, and believes that a program 

known as Our Military Kids has gained valuable experience in 

working with local community resources to provide enrichment opportunities for children of Guard and Reserve families that would 

inform the Department’s outreach to such families. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
325 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Administration of oaths (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 502 and 1031 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the 

oath required in connection with enlistment or appointment in the 

armed forces to be administered by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer of any 

armed force, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. The provision would clarify differences in 

existing law regarding who may administer oaths required for enlistment or appointment of any person in the armed forces. 

Military ID cards for retiree dependents who are permanently disabled (sec. 582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretaries of the military departments to issue a permanent military ID card to a permanently disabled dependent of a military retiree. The provision would lessen the challenges faced by a military 

retiree in arranging for support of a disabled dependent based on 

eligibility for Department of Defense benefits. 

Military voting matters (sec. 583) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1566(d) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Department 

of Defense Inspector General to periodically conduct unannounced 

assessments of the compliance of Department installations with the 

requirements of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act (UOCAVA), set forth in section 1973ff of title 42, United 

States Code. The committee believes that these assessments are 

unnecessary in view of the requirement for annual reviews of the 

effectiveness of voting assistance programs by the inspectors general of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force under section 

1566(c) of title 10, United States Code, and the requirement for an 

annual report by the Department Inspector General. 

The provision would also require the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress by March 1, 2007, on the programs and 

activities undertaken by the Department to facilitate voter registration, transmittal of ballots to absentee voters, and voting using 

electronic means. The report would assess progress made, if any, 

in developing a secure, deployable system for Internet-based, electronic voting, pursuant to section 567 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375). While the goal of providing a means for reliable, secure, 

and timely electronic voting should remain a priority, the committee believes that, in the present, every effort should be made to 

support and cooperate with state and local officials in authorizing 

and relying on electronic methods of communication, particularly 

email, to facilitate voter registration and the forwarding of balloting materials to military and civilian voters covered under 

UOCAVA. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
326 

Presentation of Medal of Honor Flag to primary next of kin 

of Medal of Honor recipients (sec. 584) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3755, 6257, and 8755 of title 10, United States Code, and section 505 of title 14, United States Code, to authorize the President 

to present a Medal of Honor Flag to all living recipients of the 

Medal of Honor. Additionally, the provision would authorize presentation of one Medal of Honor Flag to the primary, living next of 

kin of a deceased Medal of Honor recipient under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland 

Security in the case of members of the U.S. Coast Guard. The committee trusts that the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security will prescribe appropriate procedures for the presentation of the Medal of Honor Flag and issue consistent regulations 

that will designate the primary, living next of kin and readily resolve any potential conflicts over who should be presented the flag 

on behalf of a deceased recipient of the Medal of Honor. 

Modification of effective period of authority to present recognition items for recruitment and retention purposes 

(sec. 585) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2261 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the presentation of recognition items during any period of war or national 

emergency declared by the President or Congress. The committee 

believes that appropriate use of this authority during wartime and 

periods of national emergency in order to recognize the service of 

military members and their families and individuals who support 

the men and women of the armed forces is essential. 

Military Severely Injured Center (sec. 586) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a Military Severely Injured Center to augment and support programs of the military departments 

to provide individual case management services to severely injured 

members of the armed forces and their families. The provision 

would require the Secretary to establish a central data base for the 

purposes of tracking all severely injured service members who 

qualify for support by the Center. 

The committee commends the Department of Defense, including 

the service secretaries, for mobilizing support programs for severely 

injured members of the armed forces and their families. These programs include the Military Severely Injured Joint Support Operations Center, which was established in February 2002 by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Army Wounded Warrior Support Program, the Navy Safe Harbor Program, the Air Force Palace HART 

Program, and the Marine for Life Injured Support Program of the 

Marine Corps. The committee believes that the complexity of long 

term needs of severely injured service members requires a continuous, fail-safe structure of support; integration of services; and a 

capability for augmentation over a period of many years. A Military 

Severely Injured Center is essential to ensure that those needs will 

be met. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
327 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense, in cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of 

Labor, Transportation Security Administration within the Department of Homeland Security, and State and local governments, is 

meeting the challenge of providing timely, expert assistance to severely wounded members and their families. The committee, however, believes that more needs to be done. Community-based support groups and non-profit service organizations can play a key role 

in addressing many of the needs of severely wounded personnel. 

Organizations such as Still Serving Veterans in Huntsville, Alabama, provide invaluable assistance to wounded service members, 

including guiding them to successfully making use of existing support systems in their region when leaving active duty, and obtaining gainful employment and necessary support services. The committee expects the Department of Defense to ensure that the contributions of community-based support organizations are addressed 

in the comprehensive policy required by section 563 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–

163) and that the individual services and the Military Severely Injured Center will work closely with them in support of individual 

members and veterans. 

Items of Special Interest 

Funding for the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command 

The committee is concerned that the Joint POW/MIA Accounting 

Command (JPAC) may not be organized or funded to effectively accomplish its mission of achieving the fullest possible accounting of 

personnel who remain missing as a result of hostile acts. JPAC was 

created at the direction of the Secretary of Defense on October 1, 

2003, by merging the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting with the 

U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii, as a single, 

joint command reporting to the U.S. Pacific Command 

(USPACOM). JPAC functions include analysis, archival research, 

operational and technical planning, negotiation, investigation, recovery, repatriation, identification, and reporting. 

Funding for JPAC was initially established by merging the fiscal 

year 2004 operating budget for the U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory with the budget for Joint Task Force-Full Accounting. The fiscal year 2006 funding baseline for JPAC was $44.0 million, which is about $2.5 million lower than the fiscal year 2004 

baseline when JPAC was created. JPAC had planned missions for 

fiscal year 2006 to support recovery operations in Southeast Asia 

and world-wide that would have required about $50.4 million. Because JPAC is burdened with inordinately high personnel and overhead costs, the lower amount made available for fiscal year 2006 

resulted in fewer recovery missions being executed than had been 

planned in Vietnam and Laos, as well as in World War II battlefields in the Pacific. The fiscal year 2007 budget is $47.2 million. 

The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense review 

carefully the organization of the command and the funding relationship between JPAC, USPACOM, the Department of the Navy, 

and the Department of Defense to determine if the current alignment under USPACOM and funding through the Navy, as the ExVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00349 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
328 

ecutive Agent, is appropriate and efficient considering the mission 

of JPAC. The committee also recommends that the JPAC organization, management, and budget be reviewed to achieve efficiencies, 

where possible, and that JPAC be funded to sustain a robust POW/ 

MIA accounting effort. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees by March 1, 2007, on the Department’s review of these matters and actions it considers appropriate 

to address them. 

Military medical recruiting 

The committee is concerned that shortfalls in recruitment and retention of medical, dental, and nurse corps officers have received 

insufficient attention from senior Department of Defense leadership. The inability of the military departments to achieve recruiting and retention goals for critical health care professionals, in 

both the active and Reserve components, has resulted in shortages 

in critical medical, dental and nurse corps resources that could 

threaten future medical readiness. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in 

conjunction with the military personnel chiefs and senior medical 

leadership, to analyze the Department’s current and projected 

needs in medical manpower, and to report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2007, on the results of 

a comprehensive analysis of medical, dental, nurse, and medical 

service corps personnel needs and shortages. As part of its analysis, the Department must reassess its plans for conversion of military medical positions to civilian positions, an initiative which the 

committee believes has, in some instances, compounded shortages 

of personnel needed in support of military operations. 

At a minimum, the report must include the following: 

(1) a reassessment of the adequacy of current manpower 

modeling tools in capturing requirements for medical and dental personnel in the global war on terrorism; 

(2) an analysis of current and projected manpower needs for 

military medical, dental, nurse, and medical service corps personnel; 

(3) identification of shortfalls, in both active and Reserve 

components; 

(4) an analysis of monetary and non-monetary incentives to 

improve recruitment and retention, such as reexamining the 

Navy’s policy on general medical officer deployments, and examining tour lengths for key medical personnel in both active 

and Reserve components; 

(5) an analysis of medical recruitment efforts by the military 

departments, and a plan of action to make necessary improvements, including greater use of medical and dental corps officers to assist in recruiting; 

(6) reexamination of the professions deemed to be critical 

skills needed in wartime, including clinical psychologists to address combat-stress related mental health concerns; 

(7) a plan of action to provide resources necessary to address 

any shortfalls; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
329 

(8) recommendations on changes in policy and legislation 

needed to provide greater flexibility to the military departments to assist them in meeting medical readiness manpower 

requirements. 

The committee believes that in addition to the report directed in 

this section, it is critical that the Tenth Quadrennial Review of 

Military Compensation (QRMC), directed by the President on August 2, 2005, carefully examine compensation issues pertaining to 

the military’s shortage of uniformed medical personnel to support 

the global war on terrorism. The committee expects the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide the results of the analysis required by this section to the QRMC to inform its analysis of future military compensation of military medical personnel. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(331) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2007 increase in military basic pay and reform 

of basic pay rates (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise for members of the uniformed services of 2.2 percent effective on January 1, 2007; targeted pay raises for warrant officers 

and enlisted members serving in the E–5 to E–7 grades that would 

be effective on April 1, 2007; and extension of the basic pay table 

to 40 years, providing longevity step increases for the highest officer, warrant officer, and enlisted grades. 

The committee supports the goal of the Department of Defense, 

as recommended by the 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, to bring regular military compensation to the 70th percentile of private civilians when comparing experience and education. This provision contributes to its achievement. The provision 

would also accommodate longer career lengths and provide appropriate financial incentives for continued active-duty service beyond 

30 years by the most experienced and capable military, officer and 

enlisted, leaders of the armed forces. 

Increase in maximum rate of basic pay for general and flag 

officer grades (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 203(a)(2) of title 37, United States Code, to provide that the 

rates of basic pay for officers in pay grades O–7 through O–10 may 

not exceed the monthly equivalent of the rate of pay for level II, 

vice III, of the Executive Schedule. The committee notes that this 

provision will primarily affect officers serving in positions of importance and responsibility under section 601 of title 10, United States 

Code. Raising the pay cap for these officers is fully commensurate 

with the levels of authority and responsibility typically vested in 

such officers. 

Clarification of effective date of prohibition on compensation for correspondence courses (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 206(d) of title 37, United States Code, to clarify that the prohibition on compensation for work or study in connection with correspondence courses, including the prohibition as it relates to a 

member of the National Guard while not in federal service, applies 

to any such work or study performed on or after September 7, 

1962, and to any claim for compensation based on such work or 

study arising after that date. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
332 

The committee believes that judicial rulings interpreting section 

206(d) to permit compensation for completion of correspondence 

courses misinterpreted this provision and did not give adequate 

weight to the consistent practices of the services in administering 

training of members of the Reserve and National Guard in this regard. The changes to section 206(d) of title 37, United States Code, 

incorporated in section 604 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) did not, in the committee’s view, change, but rather clarified the meaning and purpose 

of this section. 

One-year extension of prohibition against requiring certain 

injured members to pay for meals provided by military 

treatment facilities (sec. 604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 402(h)(3) of title 37, United States Code, to extend for an additional year the prohibition on requiring members who are undergoing medical recuperation or therapy, or are otherwise in the status of continuous care, including outpatient care, at a military 

treatment facility for injuries, illnesses, or diseases incurred or aggravated while on active duty serving in support of Operation Iraqi 

Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. The provision would also 

require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007, on the administration of section 402(h)(3), including an assessment of the implementation by the services and recommendations regarding whether this 

authority should be continued. 

Additional housing allowance for Reserves on active duty in 

support of a contingency operation (sec. 605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403(g) of title 37, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to pay a second housing allowance in lieu of per diem to 

Reserve component members who are ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation for greater than 139 days when 

government quarters are not available. Implementation of this provision would reduce costs while ensuring that mobilized reservists 

are adequately compensated both for their civilian housing costs at 

home and while serving at their contingency operation duty locations when their mobilization will be for extended periods. 

Extension of temporary continuation of housing allowance 

for dependents of members dying on active duty to 

spouses who are members of the uniformed services 

(sec. 606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403(l) of title 37, United States Code, to provide that a member of the uniformed services, who is a spouse of a deceased member who died while serving on active duty, may continue to be paid 

the basic allowance for housing (BAH). Only non-military spouses 

currently qualify for the temporary continuation of BAH. This provision would avoid loss of income in the aftermath of a military 

spouse’s death and could encourage military spouses to continue 

serving on active duty despite their loss. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
333 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

Reserve Forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus; 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus; the special 

pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high priority units; 

the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service; the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service; and the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus 

for persons with prior service. 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

certain health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus; the repayment of education loans for certain health care 

professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve; the accession 

bonus for registered nurses; incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists; special pay for Reserve health professionals in critically 

short wartime specialties; the accession bonus for dental officers; 

and the accession bonus for pharmacy officers. 

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active service; the nuclear career accession bonus; and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays (sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus; assignment incentive pay; the reenlistment bonus for active members; the enlistment bonus for active members; the retention bonus 

for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned to high 

priority units; the accession bonus for new officers in critical skills; 

and the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage. The provision would also extend 

through December 31, 2009, the authority to pay the incentive 

bonus for transfer between the armed forces. 

Increase in special pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically short wartime specialties (sec. 

615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase from 

$10,000 to $25,000 the maximum amount of special pay the Secretary of a military department could pay health care professionals 

in the Selected Reserve who are in critically short wartime specialties. The committee is concerned that the operational tempo in the 

global war on terrorism has put intense pressure on strength levels 

of these critically needed health care specialties. An increase in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
334 

special pay for certain Selected Reserve health professionals would 

support efforts to meet vitally important retention goals in the Selected Reserve. 

Expansion and enhancement of accession bonus authorities 

for certain officers in health care specialties (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

increase in the maximum amount authorized for an accession 

bonus for dental officers from $30,000 to $200,000. The provision 

also authorizes a new accession bonus of up to $400,000 for medical 

officers and dental specialists in critically short wartime specialties. In order to be eligible for receipt of these bonuses, an individual must be a graduate of a fully accredited school of medicine 

or dentistry, and commit to remaining on active duty for 4 consecutive years. 

The committee believes that, in addition to improved recruiting 

and education provisions included elsewhere in this report, accession bonuses for fully qualified medical and dental personnel will 

allow the Secretaries of the military departments to rapidly address personnel shortfalls. The committee also believes that the 

current accession bonus level for dental officers has lost its effectiveness and has not changed since 1997. The lump sum nature of 

the existing and new accession bonuses is intended to serve as a 

recruitment inducement and recompense for the lower annual salary that medical and dental officers earn during 4 years of military 

service. 

Increase in nuclear career accession bonus for nuclearqualified officers (sec. 617) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 312b(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, to increase the maximum authorized amount of the nuclear career accession bonus for 

nuclear-qualified officers from $20,000 to $30,000. The committee 

believes that this authority is necessary to ensure that the Navy 

is able to succeed in a highly competitive recruiting environment 

for individuals who qualify for the nuclear power program. 

Modification of certain authorities applicable to the targeted shaping of the Armed Forces (sec. 618) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1175a of title 10, United States Code, to facilitate targeted 

shaping of the armed forces. The provision would make the voluntary separation incentive (VSI) available to officers and enlisted 

personnel with more than 6 but no more than 20 years of service. 

It would increase the maximum authorized amount of the VSI to 

an amount not greater than four times the full amount of separation pay for a member of the same pay grade and years of service 

who is involuntarily separated under section 1174 of title 10, 

United States Code. The provision would also extend the authority 

to use the provision through December 31, 2012, and increase the 

maximum amount of the incentive bonus for transfer between the 

armed forces from $2,500 to $10,000. The committee recognizes the 

value of the military training, skills, and experience possessed by 

certain sailors and airmen leaving active duty, and believes that an 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
335 

incentive comparable to what they would receive for affiliating with 

the Selective Reserve of their parent service would be useful in encouraging more officers and enlisted personnel to remain on active 

duty in connection with a ‘‘blue to green’’ transfer to the Army. 

Extension of pilot program on contributions to Thrift Savings Plan for initial enlistees in the Army (sec. 619) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

pilot program on contributions to Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for initial enlistees in the Army, as required by section 606 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163), until December 31, 2008. This pilot program requires the 

Army to test the effects on recruiting and levels of participation in 

the TSP stemming from the availability of matching contributions 

for the most junior soldiers (i.e., those serving under an initial enlistment for a period of not more than 2 years). The committee 

notes that the Army did not commence the pilot program until 

April 2006 and believes that additional time is necessary to demonstrate the effects of matching TSP contributions. The provision 

would also extend the due date for the report on the pilot program 

to February 1, 2008. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Expansion of payment of replacement value of personal 

property damaged during transport at Government expense (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2636a of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense, no later than March 1, 2008, to include in contracts for 

the transportation of baggage and household effects for military 

members and civilian employees a clause requiring the carrier to 

pay the full replacement value for loss or damage. The provision 

would also require certain certifications by the Secretary about, 

and a review and assessment by the General Accountability Office 

on December 1, 2006, and June 1, 2007, of the ‘‘Families First’’ program. 

The committee believes that the time is past due for implementing the contractual authority requested by the Department in 

2003 and included in section 634 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). Military 

personnel and their families have waited long enough for realization of the Families First promise of full replacement value for 

household goods lost and damaged by movers in connection with 

permanent changes of station. 

The committee has concluded that implementation of the full replacement standard for both military members and civilian employees by means of contractual changes with carriers must precede 

implementation of the Defense Personal Property System (DPS) 

under the Families First program. The collective inability over an 

extended period of the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC), its predecessor, the Military Traffic Management Command, and the Defense Information Systems Agency 

to successfully develop, test, and field a commercial, off-the-shelf 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
336 

computer application represents another troubled information technology program requiring strong oversight. In this regard, the committee believes that, in addition to the Internet application problems DPS has experienced, SDDC has not made sufficient progress 

in ensuring Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps participation 

in the design of DPS and that much work needs to be done to avoid 

problems with service acceptance and deployment. 

The committee acknowledges the efforts by Commander, U.S. 

Transportation Command, to correct the problems with DPS. However, in view of the importance of the Families First program, the 

committee urges the Secretary to transfer responsibility for the development of DPS from SDDC to the Defense Business Systems Acquisition Executive under the Department’s Business Transformation Agency. At a minimum, the Department should include 

this program on the ‘‘watch list’’ of major automated information 

systems that the Department uses to monitor the progress of such 

programs. 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits 

Modification of Department of Defense contributions to 

Military Retirement Fund and Government contributions to Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund 

(sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1111, 1465, and 1466 of title 10, United States Code, in order 

to authorize the Department of Defense to contribute into the Military Retirement Fund (MRF) at the lower, part-time normal cost 

percentage rate for Reserve component members who are mobilized 

or performing active duty for special work. This provision, which 

would become effective on October 1, 2007, would correct excessive 

retirement accrual contributions the Department currently is obligated to make to the MRF. This provision would also exclude cadets and midshipmen from the end strength figures on which accrual payments to the Medicare-Eligible Health Retiree Care Fund 

(MERHCF) are based because these individuals do not receive credit towards retirement while serving in this status. The provision 

would also clarify section 1115 of title 10, United States Code, regarding exclusion of certain active-duty members, and change references from the Ready Reserve to the Selected Reserve to achieve 

greater consistency with the actuarial calculations that establish 

the accrual rates. 

Repeal of requirement of reduction of SBP survivor annuities by dependency and indemnity compensation (sec. 

642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1450 and 1451 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the 

requirement for reduction of annuities received under the Survivor 

Benefit Plan (SBP) by the amount of dependency and indemnity 

compensation paid to certain beneficiaries under section 1311(a) of 

title 38, United States Code. The provision would require return, 

without interest, over a period of time (not to exceed 10 years) 

agreed to by the surviving spouse or specified by the Secretary of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
337 

Defense, of SBP premiums refunded to beneficiaries under section 

1450(e) of title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that 

recoupment of premiums, with provision for waiver by the Secretary in the event of hardship, is a necessary action in view of the 

substantial benefit that this provision represents. The committee 

notes that the funding for implementation of this provision was included in the Senate version of the Concurrent Resolution on the 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 (S. Con. Res. 83), which passed on 

March 16, 2006. 

Effective date of paid-up coverage under Survivor Benefit 

Plan (sec. 643) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, to change the effective 

date for paid-up coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan from October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2006. The committee notes that the 

funding for implementation of this provision was included in the 

Senate version of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 (S. Con. Res. 83), which passed on March 16, 2006. 

Expansion of conditions for direct payment of divisible retired pay (sec. 644) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1408(d) of title 10, United States Code, to provide that direct 

payments of divisible retired pay by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) may be made in all cases in accordance 

with the terms of a court decree. The committee notes that the provision would not affect the eligibility of former spouses of military 

members for a portion of retired pay and would only enable DFAS 

to provide direct payment. The committee agrees with the conclusion made in the ‘‘Report to Congress Concerning Federal Former 

Spouse Protection Laws,’’ as required by section 643 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 

105–85), with respect to this recommendation. The Report stated 

that: 

Overwhelming justification exists for abolishing this requirement. First, no other examined public or private retirement plan or system contains such a restriction. Second, repeal should prevent the courts, practitioners, and 

parties to divorce proceedings from mistakenly interpreting a rule applicable to direct payments as a prerequisite to allocation of retired pay. Third, repealing this 

requirement would allow DFAS to issue separate Federal 

income tax reporting documents to the parties for their respective shares of the allocations. 

Authority for cost of living adjustments of retired pay treated as divisible property (sec. 645) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1408 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize payment of 

cost of living adjustments in connection with awards of retired pay 

stated in dollar amounts. Existing law limits the flexibility of the 

parties and the courts in this regard in negotiating property settlement agreements and causes unnecessary confusion. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
338 

Notice and copy to members of court orders on payment of 

retired pay (sec. 646) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1408 of title 10, United States Code, to allow members to 

waive notice of an application for payment of retired pay and eliminate the requirement that a copy of the court order be sent to all 

members in every case. Under the provision, the Defense Finance 

and Accounting Service (DFAS) would notify members that, upon 

request, it would send a copy of the order to them. This would 

eliminate an unnecessary administrative burden on the DFAS. 

Retention of assistive technology and devices by certain 

members of the Armed Forces after separation from 

service (sec. 647) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize severely injured or ill members of the armed forces who have been 

provided assistive technology or devices to retain such technology 

or devices after separation from the armed forces. 

The committee commends the Department of Defense Computer/ 

Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) for its outreach to military members who have been wounded in Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Building on more than 10 

years of experience in providing assistive technology to employees 

with disabilities throughout the Federal Government, CAP has 

reached out to wounded military members at Walter Reed and 

Brooke Army Medical Centers to provide computer technology and 

assistive devices, which facilitate communication and enhance the 

capability of the wounded members for reemployment. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to provide appropriate increases in the budget in future years for CAP in recognition of its 

increased mission in support of severely injured or ill members of 

the armed forces. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Audit of pay accounts of members of the Army evacuated 

from a combat zone for inpatient care (sec. 661) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to conduct an audit of the pay accounts of 

each member of the Army wounded or injured in a combat zone 

who was evacuated from a theater of operations for inpatient care 

during the period beginning on May 1, 2005, and ending on April 

30, 2006. The provision would also require the Secretary of the 

Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, 

no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on 

the results of the audit. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish within the Department of Defense an 

assistance center through which a member of the armed forces or 

the primary next of kin of deceased members, using toll free telephone numbers, may obtain assistance in resolving difficulties relating to military pay within prescribed time standards. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
339 

Item of Special Interest 

Department of Defense child care services 

The committee is pleased with the progress the Department of 

Defense is making in reducing the shortfall of subsidized childcare 

spaces for military members and their families, based on additional 

appropriations and more flexible military construction authorities 

provided by the Congress. Phase I of the Department’s child care 

plan would increase capacity by 4,077 spaces on military installations; phase II of the plan would increase capacity by an additional 

3,799 spaces. Because of the importance of the availability of child 

care as a quality of life asset to military personnel, the committee 

expects the Department to continue to make progress toward the 

goal of reducing the remaining shortfall of 30,000 child care spaces. 

In addition, the committee is concerned that outreach to Reserve 

and National Guard families needs to be improved. The committee 

directs the Department to report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007, on strategies to improve opportunities 

for support of child care services for mobilized members of the National Guard and Reserve components who do not live in the immediate vicinity of military installations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(341) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE 

Subtitle A—Benefits Matters 

Improved procedures for cancer screening for women (sec. 

701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide additional flexibility to the Secretary of Defense in providing primary 

and preventive health care services needed by women, specifically 

screenings for cervical cancer and breast cancer. The committee is 

concerned that the current statutory limitation concerning pap 

smears and mammograms in section 1074d of title 10, United 

States Code, is a barrier to access to newly developed and more effective screening techniques. 

National mail-order pharmacy program (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

existing pharmacy benefit for military beneficiaries by requiring 

that all refill prescriptions of maintenance medications be obtained 

from the Department of Defense national mail-order pharmacy program, unless waived by the Secretary of Defense based on clinical 

need. The provision would also prohibit the Department from requiring co-payment for refills of generic medications, as well as 

brand name medications determined by a physician to be medically 

necessary, which are obtained from the national mail-order pharmacy program. 

The committee believes that the Department has ample evidence 

to support action to stimulate use of the national mail-order pharmacy program as an alternative to its more costly retail pharmacy 

program, and that benefit changes in the pharmacy program 

should be initiated in fiscal year 2007. Shifting refills of maintenance medications from military treatment facility pharmacies to 

the national mail-order pharmacy program should provide opportunities to realign hospital and clinic resources in support of other 

needs. The committee commends the Department for providing incentives and encouragement for beneficiaries to use the national 

mail-order pharmacy program. 

Availability under TRICARE of anesthesia for children in 

connection with dental procedures for which dental anesthesia is inappropriate (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

payment under TRICARE for hospitalization and anesthesia services in connection with dental treatment for a child under the age 

of six for whom conventional dental anesthesia is not advisable or 

safe. Although such services may be available in certain military 

treatment facilities, cost sharing features of the TRICARE Dental 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
342 

Program are a barrier to access to these services from civilian hospitals if care is not available in a military hospital. 

TRICARE coverage for forensic examinations following sexual assaults and domestic violence (sec. 704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

payment under TRICARE for forensic examinations following a 

sexual assault or domestic violence. Although such examinations 

may be compensated by a State’s Victim Compensation Funds, 

practices vary widely within and among states. The committee believes that a consistent policy of payment for such examinations is 

an appropriate improvement to the TRICARE program. 

Prohibition on increase in fiscal year 2007 in enrollment 

fees for coverage under TRICARE Prime (sec. 705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit any 

increase in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees during fiscal year 

2007. The committee is concerned that the proposed fee adjustments, intended to achieve a cumulative increase of 115 percent, 

comparable to that of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, by fiscal year 2008, are premature. The committee notes that 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has 

pledged to work in partnership with the Congress in determining 

future benefit changes. The committee believes that the audit of 

health care costs of the Department of Defense by the Comptroller 

General, authorized elsewhere in this report, is an essential building block prior to consideration of future increases. 

Limitation on fiscal year 2007 increase in premiums for coverage under TRICARE of members of Reserve components who commit to continued service in Selected Reserve after release from active duty (sec. 706) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the increase in premiums under the program known as TRICARE Reserve Select to 2.2 percent, the amount of the pay raise, in fiscal 

year 2007. The committee believes that the audit of Department of 

Defense health care costs required elsewhere in this report is essential prior to consideration of further significant adjustments to 

health care cost sharing requirements, including the application of 

any annual inflationary index. 

Subtitle B—Planning, Programming, and Management 

Treatment of TRICARE Retail Pharmacy Network under 

Federal procurement of pharmaceuticals (sec. 721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the TRICARE retail pharmacy network is covered by the federal 

pricing limits applicable to covered drugs under section 8126 of 

title 38, United States Code. The provision would reaffirm a decision made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on October 24, 

2002, and implemented by the Department of Defense on October 

1, 2004, that drugs purchased by the Department of Defense 

through the TRICARE retail pharmacy network are subject to the 

same federal pricing limits that have long applied to drugs purVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00364 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
343 

chased by the Department and provided through military hospitals 

and clinics and the national mail order program. 

Relationship between the TRICARE program and employersponsored group health care plans (sec. 722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit public and private employers with 20 or more employees from providing a financial incentive to TRICARE-eligible retirees to utilize 

TRICARE as the primary payer for health care in lieu of health 

care benefits offered to all other employees. The provision would establish a penalty of $5,000 for each violation. The provision would 

ensure the right of any military retiree who is eligible for 

TRICARE to obtain those benefits on the same basis as all other 

retirees who have earned such coverage in return for a career of 

military service. 

The Secretary of Defense testified before the Committee on 

Armed Services on February 7, 2006, that as a result of many private and state employers dropping their employer coverage for 

military retirees and directing or encouraging them to rely on 

TRICARE, ‘‘the military is increasingly subsidizing the health care 

costs of private corporations, organizations and state and local governments.’’ The committee believes that such efforts will drain 

needed operational resources from the Department of Defense, and 

though legal at this time, must be curtailed in the future. 

The committee expects the Department to consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General, as 

appropriate, in the administration and enforcement of this provision. 

Enrollment in the TRICARE program (sec. 723) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a system of enrollment for all 

beneficiaries who obtain health care services from the military 

health care system. The provision would authorize the Secretary to 

collect a one-time administrative fee not to exceed $25.00 for individuals and $40.00 for families, unless waived, as a condition for 

certain beneficiaries to receive military health care services under 

TRICARE standard. The provision would require the Secretary to 

reach out to covered beneficiaries through health risk assessments, 

improved communication, and surveys. The committee believes that 

a modern health care system must have the capability to reach out 

to its users in order to become more efficient, to improve customer 

service, and to identify persons whose complex medical conditions 

will benefit from improved care management. 

Incentive payments for the provision of services under the 

TRICARE program in medically underserved areas (sec. 

724) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require incentive payments for physicians who provide services to TRICARE eligible beneficiaries in medically underserved areas. The incentive 

payment would be 5 percent of the amount payable for the service 

under the TRICARE program in an area designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as a primary care scarcity 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
344 

county or specialist care scarcity county, and 10 percent of the 

TRICARE amount in an area designed as a health professional 

shortage area. The bonus amount would be in addition to the maximum authorized payment under the TRICARE program. 

The committee is concerned that eligible service members and 

their families who live in such areas, especially members of the National Guard and Reserve components, continue to experience challenges in access to health care services under TRICARE. The provision is intended to extend to the TRICARE program authority similar to that provided in the Medical Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173) to improve health care access in medically underserved areas. The committee believes that the recommended provision would be complementary to the Department’s existing authority to waive local 

reimbursement rates when access is impeded due to lack of providers, and will contribute to improvements in health care access 

for all beneficiaries, especially members of the National Guard and 

Reserve components. 

Standardization of claims processing under TRICARE program and Medicare program (sec. 725) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

by October 1, 2007, all TRICARE claims processing requirements 

with respect to identification of providers and documentation of 

medical necessity be identical to medicare claims processing requirements. The provision would also authorize Department of Defense health care claims processing contractors to collect amounts 

owed by third party payers immediately upon presentation of 

claims. Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to Congress setting forth a complete list of claims processing requirements under the TRICARE 

program that differ from the medicare program, and a business 

case justifying the Department’s unique requirement. The committee believes that increased efficiencies can be obtained through 

a higher degree of uniformity with the medical claims processing 

requirements in medicare, including greater utilization of electronic 

claims submission by providers. 

Requirements for support of military treatment facilities by 

civilian contractors under TRICARE (sec. 726) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

TRICARE Regional Office Director to develop an integrated plan 

for support of military treatment facilities by contracted civilian 

health care and administrative personnel. The provision would require approval by the TRICARE Regional Office Director of all such 

contracts, in accordance with a consistent process for developing 

cost benefit analyses of such agreements prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The provision would also require consistent 

standards of quality for contracted support personnel, including accreditation of health care staffing in accordance with the Joint 

Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organization Health 

Care Staffing Standards. 

The committee is concerned that contracting for support services 

has become fragmented and inefficient in the TRICARE program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
345 

Based on information obtained from beneficiaries and contractors 

alike, it appears to lack rigor in terms of performance outcomes, 

providing incentives for achieving efficiencies, and consistent quality standards for contracted personnel. In light of the Department’s 

intent to continue conversion of military medical personnel to civilians, either as federal employees or contracted support, it is crucial 

that the Department reexamine the effectiveness of all of its contracting approaches in order to achieve maximum efficiency in the 

military health care system. 

Uniform standards for access to health care services for 

wounded or injured servicemembers (sec. 727) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe uniform standards for the access 

of wounded or injured service members to health care services. The 

provision would ensure that if the standard established by the Secretary of Defense cannot be met due to any limitation on military 

health care resources, that services will be obtained, in accordance 

with access standards, from authorized civilian providers. The Secretary of each military department would be required to maintain 

a system to track the performance of the military health care system in achieving uniform standards of access for all types of care 

for wounded or injured members. 

In cases that have been brought to the attention of the committee, wounded members have been delayed in obtaining needed 

medical and rehabilitative services due to a shortage of providers 

in military hospitals and clinics. The required policy is intended to 

clarify the priority for service to the wounded throughout the military health care system, to ensure that care is obtained through civilian sources of care if it is not available in a timely manner in 

military hospitals and clinics, and to ensure that the performance 

of the health care system in this regard is monitored by senior 

leadership. 

Disease and chronic care management (sec. 728) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive program on disease and chronic care management for all categories of beneficiaries under TRICARE. The program would include, at a minimum, the most common chronic diseases—diabetes, cancer, heart 

disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and depression and anxiety disorders. The program would meet nationally-recognized accreditation standards for such programs, such as 

those available through the National Committee for Quality Assurance. 

The committee notes that the Defense Business Board’s 

Healthcare for Military Retirees Task Group recommended in its 

December 2005 report that the Department move aggressively in 

the establishment of wellness initiatives. The committee believes 

that a more comprehensive and structured care management program for chronically ill beneficiaries of all ages is needed. The committee recognizes that quality improvements and savings will be 

dependent on the level of financial investment, and would require 

the Secretary to eliminate financial disincentives in support of disVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00367 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
346 

ease and chronic care management programs within the Department of Defense health care system. 

Post-deployment health assessments for members of the 

Armed Forces returning from deployment in support of 

a contingency operation (sec. 729) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe requirements for post-deployment 

health and mental health assessments for each member of the 

armed forces returning from deployment in support of a contingency operation, and that each such assessment be conducted by a 

qualified health care provider. The provision would require the Secretary to prescribe the criteria to be used by health care providers 

in determining whether to refer a member of the armed forces for 

further evaluation for mental health care, and to ensure that providers are properly trained in the consistent application of the criteria. The provision would also require the establishment of tracking and quality assurance mechanisms to ensure that needed referrals for mental health care are accomplished and can be documented. 

The committee is concerned by recent findings of the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) that reveal significant shortfalls in the 

Department’s post-deployment health assessment processes in the 

area of mental health care. The GAO found that the Department 

of Defense did not provide specific criteria for health care providers 

to follow when deciding to issue a referral for mental health or 

combat/operational stress evaluation, and that there was no specific training required to ensure the consistent identification by 

health care providers of persons who are at risk for Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (PTSD). On average, only 22 percent of service 

members whose response to questions on the post-deployment 

health assessment were consistent with risk for PTSD were referred for further evaluation. In addition, the Department could not 

document that mental health services were obtained by service 

members as a result of the referral for care. The committee expects 

urgency in the resolution of the problems identified by the GAO 

concerning consistency and effectiveness of post-deployment mental 

health referrals. 

Subtitle C—Studies and Reports 

Pilot projects on early diagnosis and treatment of Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health conditions (sec. 741) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct three pilot projects during fiscal 

year 2007 to evaluate the efficacy of various approaches to improving the capability of the military and civilian health care systems 

to provide early diagnosis and treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD) and other mental health conditions experienced 

by military members returning from combat. 

The provision would require that: 

(1) one pilot project be carried out at a military medical facility that supports a large mobilization and demobilization site; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
347 

(2) a second pilot project be carried out at the location of a 

National Guard or Reserve unit located more than 40 miles 

away from a military installation; and 

(3) a third pilot project use and evaluate the utility of Internet-based automated tools to aid military and civilian health 

care providers in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD, as well 

as web-based tools available to family members to assist them 

in the identification of emerging symptoms in military members. 

The committee recommends $10.0 million for support of the pilot 

projects in fiscal year 2007. 

Studies of soldiers returning from Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom conducted over the last 2 years have 

consistently found that a significant number of military service 

members are at risk for depression or PTSD due to combat-related 

stress. Although the Department of Defense announced in January 

2005 its intention to require additional follow-up mental health assessments, the program is not fully implemented. A recent General 

Accountability Office study on post-deployment mental health care 

found that 80 percent of service members who were at risk for 

PTSD based on answers to post-deployment mental health questions were never referred for additional care. Of those that were referred, the Department could not document that care was actually 

received. Finally, as of April 21, 2007, the Department had not established the Department of Defense Task Force, as required in 

section 721 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), which was intended to be instrumental in the initiation of a broad range of mental health efforts 

for military members and their families, and has not, to our knowledge, implemented the required pilot project in section 721(b) of 

that Act, which would employ Internet-based tools for diagnosis, 

treatment, and educational assistance to families on PTSD and 

other combat-related stress disorders. 

The committee expects that the Department of Defense will, in 

the development and implementation of strategies to address the 

mental health needs of those serving in the global war on terror, 

ensure that such programs are designed to address the unique 

needs and circumstances faced by members and families of the National Guard and Reserve. 

Annual reports on certain medical malpractice cases (sec. 

742) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

Secretary of a military department to report annually to the Secretary of Defense on cases involving allegations of medical malpractice for non-active duty beneficiaries in military hospitals, and 

involving a judgment or settlement in the amount of $1.0 million 

or more. The provision would also require the Secretary of a military department to report annually to the Secretary of Defense on 

any case in which the death or serious injury of a military member 

occurred as a result of medical malpractice. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the congressional defense committees the results of the reports submitted by the Secretaries of the military departments by February 1, 2007, and annuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
348 

ally thereafter. The committee intends in this provision to increase 

timely awareness of significant cases involving medical malpractice, and actions taken to improve medical quality performance 

throughout the Department of Defense health care system. 

Comptroller General study on the Department of Defense 

pharmacy benefits program (sec. 743) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a 

study of the Department of Defense pharmacy benefits program by 

the Comptroller General 9 months from the date of enactment of 

this Act. The study would examine the cost and structure of the 

program required by section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, 

as well as the composition and function of the Pharmacy and 

Therapeutics Committee and Beneficiary Advisory Panel. The committee believes that an external review of the pharmacy benefit 

program is timely, in light of expanding utilization of pharmaceuticals in health care delivery. The Department’s pharmacy benefits program has not been reviewed externally since its implementation in 2003. 

Comptroller General audits of Department of Defense 

health care costs and cost-saving measures (sec. 744) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to conduct a detailed audit of Department of 

Defense health care costs, in order to examine the basis for comparison of costs for health care benefits provided to eligible beneficiaries from 1995 to 2005. The provision would require analysis 

of the assumptions used by the Department in estimating savings 

through increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries beginning in fiscal 

year 2007, including the annual rate of inflation of defense health 

care costs and how that rate compares with the average annual 

rate of increase in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. 

The provision would also require an audit of the costs of the Department in implementing expanded health care benefits for Reserves through the TRICARE Reserve Select Program, and a comparison of premium rates established for that program with actual 

costs of providing benefits, including the 8.5 percent increase applied in January 2005. 

The committee believes that an independent audit of the financial basis and effect of any proposed increase in TRICARE premiums or deductibles is necessary prior to proceeding with further 

consideration of future benefit changes. 

Review of Department of Defense medical quality improvement program (sec. 745) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to contract for an independent review of the 

scope and performance of the Department of Defense medical quality improvement program, and to compare the program with quality improvement programs and mechanisms used by other public 

and private health care systems and organizations. 

The committee understands that the Department is pursuing numerous quality improvement techniques, based on its annual report 

to Congress on health care quality. The committee believes that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
349 

continuous improvement in medical quality is the highest 

healthcare priority. Accordingly, the committee believes than an 

independent assessment of the Department’s program, along with 

a comparative analysis of the practices of other public and private 

health care organizations, is a valuable building block in ensuring 

health care quality for all military beneficiaries. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Extension of limitation on conversion of military medical 

and dental positions to civilian medical and dental positions (sec. 761) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend to fiscal year 2007 and future years a requirement in section 744 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163) for the Secretary of Defense to certify that conversion of military medical positions to civilian or contractor positions 

does not increase the cost, or erode access to or the quality of military health care. The provision would require that the certification 

be submitted with the President’s budget request beginning in fiscal year 2008. 

The committee intends to remain vigilant over the planned conversions of military medical positions in the Department of Defense, especially in light of challenging medical readiness requirements and anticipated shortfalls in medical personnel needed during wartime. The committee considers a conversion of a military 

medical position to a civilian or contractor position to occur on the 

effective date of the documentation converting the position. The 

committee encourages the Department to consider the full cost, including training costs, of military and civilian health care personnel in making its determination concerning cost saving in this 

initiative. 

Items of Special Interest 

Sustaining the military health care benefit 

The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense has acted 

prudently in calling attention to the increasing costs of military 

health care benefits, and concurs that reform is needed in order to 

sustain the highest quality health care benefits for all members of 

the armed forces and their families, and for retired members and 

their families. The committee is concerned, however, that the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2007 was reduced by $735.0 

million in anticipation of enactment of legislation and significant 

benefit changes related to its package of reforms, known as ‘‘Sustain the Benefit’’, without prior consultation with Congress. The 

committee believes that more time is needed to examine both the 

factual basis and the potential for savings assumed by proposed increases in enrollment fees for retirees under TRICARE Prime, increases in deductible amounts for TRICARE Standard, and a potential annual inflation index for future financial stability. The 

committee is also concerned that savings which rely on the departure from TRICARE of military retirees who have earned health 

care coverage in return for a career of military service is contrary 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
350 

to the nation’s responsibility for stewardship that such retirees deserve. 

The committee is aware of the programming and budgeting practices of the Department of Defense. As such, the committee has 

reason to believe that the Defense Health Program (DHP) has been 

decreased in the Future Years Defense Program in anticipation of 

savings from these reforms. Inasmuch as the committee is not recommending that all the reforms be enacted, the DHP is also underfunded in future years. The committee strongly urges the Secretary 

to adjust the funding programmed for the DHP accordingly before 

the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 is submitted to 

the Congress. 

Rising health care costs are not unique to the military health 

care system. In hearings conducted by the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services in April 2005, private 

sector experts described ongoing reform efforts in private industry 

that include, but are not limited to, increasing the level of financial 

participation by covered beneficiaries. Best practices in private industry also include aggressive disease management and quality improvement programs. 

The committee commends the Department for reform efforts already underway, including plans for the deployment of an electronic medical records system. However, the committee believes 

that more needs to be done. Health care reform will be incremental, but it must be achieved. The committee recommends 10 

provisions (secs.702, 721, 722, 723, 725, 726, 728, 744, 745, and 

923) for fiscal year 2007 that are intended to support the transformation of the military health system to a modern and more efficient health care system. The committee will continue to work with 

all TRICARE stakeholders in the formulation of future health care 

reforms to ensure that high quality benefits are sustainable for 

generations to come. 

Basrah Children’s Hospital, Iraq 

The Basrah Children’s hospital is a public-private venture of the 

United States Government and Project Hope to provide a 94 bed 

acute care hospital to care for severely ill children throughout Iraq. 

The facility will include a capability to provide a special focus on 

childhood cancers. In spite of schedule delays, which are consistent 

with reconstruction efforts elsewhere in Iraq, Project Hope and the 

Iraqi Ministry of Health continue to train Iraqi health care providers in specialty medical services needed by severely ill children 

in Iraq. The committee believes that the Basrah Children’s Hospital, when complete, will serve as a model of excellence for improving pediatric health care in Iraq and treatment for critically ill 

infants and children. 

Mental Health Self-Assessment Program 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has utilized the Mental Health Self-Assessment Program to facilitate identification by soldiers and their families of symptoms or warning 

signs of depression or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following deployment. The committee believes that this program can 

be an effective tool in helping service members and their families 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
351 

deal with the stress of deployments. The committee directs that the 

Secretary of Defense report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days of enactment of this Act on the Department’s 

efforts: 

(1) to include the Mental Health Self-Assessment Program in 

ongoing efforts to address PTSD and other mental health conditions related to deployment; 

(2) to include services for the children of deployed or mobilized service members in the program; and 

(3) to increase awareness of the program for military members and their families, including the National Guard and Reserve components. 

Services for autism 

The committee has learned from concerned military families that 

a recent change in policy concerning Applied Behavior Analysis 

(ABA) services for autistic children under TRICARE has resulted 

in restricted access to care for hundreds of military families who 

had previously received such services. Prior to the establishment of 

the Extended Care Health Option (ECHO) on September 1, 2005, 

military families had access to ABA services for autistic children 

under TRICARE, generally in accordance with the recommendation 

of the National Research Council report on ‘‘Educating Children 

with Autism’’ (2001), of 25 hours a week, 12 months a year, using 

trained therapists working under the supervision of a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. Upon institution of the ECHO program, 

the Department of Defense restricted reimbursement for the handson providers of ABA services to Board Certified Behavior Analysts, 

based on quality of care concerns. The committee is concerned 

about the restriction on access to care that the new policy under 

ECHO has created. The committee directs the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Health Affairs to reexamine the policy on ABA services in light of the needs of hundreds of military families for such 

services, and to report to the congressional defense committees on 

the results of such reexamination within 60 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, including any policy, program, and legislative changes needed to provide adequate ABA services to autistic 

children who are authorized TRICARE beneficiaries. 

TRICARE customer service 

The committee views improvements in customer service as a continuing challenge for the Department of Defense, and one which 

must be accorded a high priority in health care reform efforts. 

While overall satisfaction with TRICARE remains high, according 

to independent surveys and comparison with other large health 

plans, the committee believes that greater efficiencies are achievable in customer service support. TRICARE has more than 14 separate toll free lines, each operated to address a specific program, 

such as the TRICARE pharmacy program, TRICARE for Life, or 

the TRICARE Dental Program. At the local level, individual telephone access numbers for appointments, beneficiary counseling, or 

debt collection multiply even further. The committee believes that 

the proliferation of separate telephone lines in a unified health 

benefits program represents an outdated solution to modern cusVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
352 

tomer service support, and that opportunities for improved customer service need to be examined as the Department proceeds to 

define requirements for future health care support contracts. The 

committee directs the Department to conduct a study on the cost 

benefit and feasibility of establishing an enterprise-level call and 

communications system for the TRICARE program, and to report 

to the congressional defense committees its findings by February 1, 

2007. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(353) 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Additional certification requirements for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 39 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 

Defense to include additional certifications before a major defense 

acquisition program receives Milestone B approval, or Key Decision 

Point B approval in the case of a space program. 

Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) required the Secretary to make 

certain certifications regarding the maturity of technology at the 

initiation of a major acquisition program; the affordability of the 

program; the completion of an analysis of alternatives with respect 

to the program; and the validation of the operational requirements 

for the program by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. 

However, the committee understands that the Defense Acquisition 

Board takes other factors into consideration that must be considered as part of the process for Milestone B approval. 

The National Military Strategy provides the overarching guidance for the Department of Defense’s execution of the National Security Strategy and a program should be evaluated and validated 

in that context. Prior into entry into system development and demonstration, the Department conducts an independent cost estimate 

that includes the total costs of the program. The Secretary should 

pay particular attention to estimated costs of the program as it enters into full rate production to ensure that the program is affordable within an estimate of the future defense budget. 

This provision would ensure that a program certified by the Secretary meets validated requirements consistent with the National 

Military Strategy; reasonable estimates have been developed to 

execute the product development and production plan under the 

program; and funding is available to execute the product development and production plan. 

Extension and enhancement of Defense Acquisition Challenge program (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 

modify authority for the Department of Defense to execute the Defense Acquisition Challenge program. The provision would extend 

through 2012 the program originally established in the Bob Stump 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 

Law 107–314). Although the Department originally opposed the esVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
354 

tablishment of the program, the committee notes that the Department now supports the program and believes it ‘‘helps to encourage 

small and medium business innovation in weapon system products 

and facilitates rapid adoption of near-term technologies by the 

warfighter.’’ Despite the programmatic mission to increase participation by nontraditional defense contractors, the committee understands that 7 out of the Department’s 10 largest dollar volume contractors in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 have made use of the limited 

acquisition challenge budget and staff resources to pursue challenge proposals. Consistent with the original congressional and Department plans for the program, the provision would also provide 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics with authority to establish procedures to ensure that the 

program is focused on small and medium-sized businesses, as well 

as nontraditional defense contractors, who often serve as the engine of innovation in technology. 

Baseline description and unit cost reports for major defense 

acquisition systems (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

definition of the term ‘‘Original Baseline Estimate’’, and provide for 

periodic reporting of program acquisition unit costs and procurement unit costs above the significant cost growth thresholds identified in section 2433 of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) defined the term Original Baseline Estimate and restricted the circumstances in which a baseline 

estimate could be modified. The committee acknowledges that cost 

estimates made prior to a program entering into systems development and demonstration are a more realistic approximation of the 

actual costs of the program and are independently reviewed by the 

Department of Defense. The provision would modify the definition 

of Original Baseline Estimate to mean the baseline established before the program enters into system development and demonstration. 

The provision would also clarify the Department’s reporting obligations after the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit 

cost has exceeded the significant cost growth threshold. The provision would require that each Selected Acquisition Report following 

the breach include updated information concerning unit costs, but 

does not compel the program manager to submit an out of cycle report of each additional increase in unit costs. 

Major automated information system programs (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

as part of the annual budget justification materials, the Department of Defense provide to the congressional defense committees a 

report on programs designated as major automated information 

systems (MAIS). The report would include the estimate of developmental costs and total life-cycle costs (original and current), a 

schedule of major events (original and current), and a brief summary of key performance criteria (original and current). 

The provision would further require the Department to promptly 

notify the congressional defense committees when a program manVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
355 

ager responsible for a MAIS program becomes aware that a MAIS 

program may exceed 25 percent of either developmental or lifecycle cost estimates, expects to slip any major scheduled event by 

more than 1 year, or expects to deviate significantly in performance 

goals. That program would be subject to the reporting requirements 

similar to those included in section 2433, of title 10, United States 

Code, commonly referred to as the Nunn-McCurdy reporting requirements. 

Over the past several months, the committee has been disappointed to learn of multiple major automated information systems within the Department that have slipped in both cost and 

schedule without notification to Congress. The committee remains 

disturbed by the continued requirements creep and resources drain 

from which most major information technology programs suffer. 

In Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction Number 5000.2, the 

Department stipulates the criteria to be met in order to designate 

a program as a major automated information system (MAIS). Currently, 47 programs meet the MAIS criteria. The Department has 

26 internal reporting requirements for MAIS programs that incorporate aspects of cost, schedule, and performance. Additionally, the 

services are required to report deviations in accordance with Department Strategic Information Management Plans. As of June 

2004, according to the Government Accountability Office, no MAIS 

program has been reported as having deviated significantly from 

its goals, despite not one MAIS program having met cost, schedule, 

or performance criteria. This legislative provision would clarify reporting requirements to the congressional defense committees for 

MAIS programs and stipulate actions required if deviations occur 

to program cost, schedule, or performance criteria. 

Adjustment of original baseline estimates for major defense 

acquisition program experiencing cost growth resulting 

from damage caused by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma (sec. 805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to adjust the original baseline estimate under 

section 2435(d) of title 10, United States Code, for a major defense 

program that is carried out primarily in the areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma for the sole purpose of addressing 

cost growth that is directly attributable to damage caused by those 

hurricanes. The provision would require that the Secretary of Defense notify the congressional defense committees of a program adjustment under this provision and provide an explanation of the 

basis for an adjustment in the first Selected Acquisition Report 

that is submitted under section 2432 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

In division B of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–138), the Congress appropriated $1.9 billion 

‘‘for extraordinary shipbuilding and ship repair costs * * *’’ for 

areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. In the Department’s fiscal year 2006 supplemental request for hurricane relief and recovery, the Department requested an additional $1.0 billion for ship repair and shipyards-related costs. The committee acknowledges that supplemental funds added to the shipbuilding proVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
356 

grams affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma will likely 

cause the shipbuilding programs to breach Nunn-McCurdy thresholds. This provision would allow for a one-time adjustment to address cost growth associated with these natural disasters. 

Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 

806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense Inspector General (IG), in consultation with 

applicable Inspector’s General of non-defense agencies, to determine whether the policies, procedures, and internal controls of nondefense agencies for purchases on behalf of the Department are 

adequate to ensure compliance with defense procurement requirements. The provision would also expand section 811 of the National 

Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) 

to include IG reviews of the National Institutes of Health and the 

Veterans’ Administration. The provision would modify section 811 

to make clear that in case of a disagreement between the Department IG and the IG of a non-defense agency on the level of compliance with defense procurement requirements or termination of applicable limitations the Department IG would make the final determination. 

Regulations on use of fixed price contracts in development 

programs (sec. 807) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to modify Department of Defense regulations 

regarding the use of fixed-price contracts in development programs. 

The provision would permit contracts other than fixed-price contracts, only if the Secretary determines that the program is so complex and technologically challenging that it would not be practical 

to reduce program risk to the level that would permit the use of 

a fixed-price contract. The provision would also repeal section 807 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 

(Public Law 100–456), which prohibited the use of fixed-price development contracts. 

Twenty years ago, the Department experimented with the aggressive use of fixed-price development contracts, and learned that 

the use of such contracts is not practicable in development programs with a high degree of technical risk. In response, Congress 

enacted section 807, which prohibits the use of fixed-price type development contracts unless a waiver is granted by the Secretary of 

Defense. In testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of 

the House of Representatives on March 29, 2006, Mr. Terry R. Little, Acquisition Advisor to the Director, Missile Defense Agency, 

stated: 

In particular, the Department applied fixed-price contracts to very high-risk development programs and, typically, the program selected the low bidder as the winning 

contractor. These two factors together produced contracts 

with very unrealistically low prices and predictable bad results as the work unfolded. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
357 

Unfortunately, the prohibition on the use of fixed-price development contracts appears to have contributed to widespread cost and 

schedule growth on major defense acquisition programs. Mr. Little 

further explained: 

The certain prospect of a cost reimbursable contract encourages contractors and acquirers to undertake developments that are excessively high risk. A new development 

that relies on essential technologies that are immature, 

manufacturing processes that not yet proven, or beyond 

the state-of-the-art breakthroughs is surely going to be disappointing. It’s going to cost more, take longer, and deliver 

less than anyone expected when it started. I argue that 

most everything the Department needs to develop today 

can proceed in low-risk stages with each stage providing 

an increment of capability. The expectation for that capability should be consistent with what we know we can provide at low-risk and in a short, predictable development 

time. Therefore, each increment should also be compatible 

with a fixed price contract; if it’s truly not, then the risk 

is probably too high to start. 

The committee and the Department have consistently recognized 

the importance of reducing program risk by avoiding the incorporation of immature technologies and unproven manufacturing processes into major defense acquisition programs. Over the past several months, a series of major studies have reaffirmed the need for 

reducing program risk, including a July 2005 report by the Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, a January 2006 report of 

the Defense Acquisition Program Assessment, a February 2006 report by the Defense Science Board, and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. One of the common themes that ran through all 

these reports was the need for program stability and reduced program risk. 

In a March 2006 report, entitled ‘‘Improved Business Case Is 

Needed for Future Combat System’s Successful Outcome,’’ the Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted the use of technology readiness levels (TRL) as: 

a valuable decision-making tool because they can presage 

the likely consequences of incorporating a technology at a 

given level of maturity into a product development. The 

maturity level of a technology can range from paper studies (level 1), to prototypes that can be tested in a realistic 

environment (level 7), to an actual system that has proven 

itself in mission operations (level 9). 

The GAO noted that ‘‘best practices of leading commercial firms 

and successful DOD programs have shown that critical technologies 

should be mature to at least a TRL 7 before the start of product 

development.’’

According to Department acquisition policy, a technology should 

have been demonstrated in a relevant environment (TRL 6) or, 

preferably, in an operational environment (TRL 7) to be considered 

mature enough to use for product development in systems integraVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
358 

tion. DOD Instruction 5000.2 states that at the time of entry into 

the System Demonstration phase of a program: 

The management and mitigation of technology risk, 

which allows less costly and less time-consuming systems 

development, is a crucial part of overall program management and is especially relevant to meeting cost and schedule goals. * * * If technology is not mature, the DOD component shall use alternative technology that is mature and 

that can meet the user’s needs. 

The committee believes that fixed-price contracts are preferable, 

if the Department has a firm grasp of the requirements and the 

technology to meet these requirements. A prudent application of 

technology readiness levels should enable the Department to lower 

risk and develop a better understanding of program costs. At the 

same time, the committee recognizes that this contract type will 

not be appropriate for all situations. Therefore, the provision would 

authorize the Secretary to make a determination on the use of different types of contracts in appropriate to the circumstances. 

For production programs, as for development programs, the contract type selected should reflect the level of risk in the program. 

A major defense acquisition program that meets the criteria in 

DOD Instruction 5000.2 for production programs should be a relatively low-risk program for both the Department and the contractor. Absent unusual circumstances, the contract type selected 

should reflect that level of risk. 

Finally, the committee notes that the reduction of manufacturing 

risks may be measured, consistent with the recommendations of 

the Defense Science Board and in accordance with industry standards, through the use of Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRL’s). 

Similarly, the system interoperability may be measured through 

Interoperability Readiness Levels (IRL’s). The committee directs 

the Department to report to the congressional defense committees 

by no later than March 1, 2007, on the feasibility of incorporating 

MRL’s and IRL’s into DOD Instruction 5000.2 as explicit criteria 

for milestone decisions. 

Availability of funds for performance-based logistics contracts for weapons systems logistics support (sec. 808) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to use Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 

funds for Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contracts to finance 

costs associated with the implementation of engineering changes 

that result in a reduction of government O&M costs. By authorizing the use of O&M funds for these traditional investment costs, 

the contractor would have an incentive to make engineering 

changes that would actually result in a lower cost of operation, resulting in cost savings that would not otherwise be available. 

The provision would require the Secretary of the military department concerned to notify Congress not later than 30 days before 

entering into a performance-based logistics contract. That notification must include a statement that the procuring agency had demonstrated in a business case analysis that the proposed PBL contract’s implementation of engineering changes would result in a reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
359 

duction of O&M costs, including an estimate of the projected costs 

and savings along with an explanation of the basis for those estimates. 

Quality control in procurement of ship critical safety items 

and related services (sec. 809) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe in regulation a quality control 

policy for the procurement of ship critical safety items and the procurement of modifications, repair, and overhaul of such items. This 

provision would bring the quality control requirements for ship 

critical safety items and related services in line with the requirements for aviation critical safety items. 

The committee remains concerned by periodic reports about problems with the quality of critical parts for major weapon systems acquired by the Department of Defense. For this reason, the committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a comprehensive review of the quality assurance and quality 

control systems used by the Department and its largest contractors. The GAO review should compare the systems used by the Department and its contractors to the quality control and quality assurance systems used by private sector companies who are considered to be industry leaders, and make such recommendations as 

the Comptroller General determines to be appropriate. The Comptroller General will submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees no later than April 1, 2007, on the findings of the review. 

Three-year extension of requirement for reports on commercial price trend analyses of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 810) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the requirement for an annual report on price trend analyses for commercial items purchased by the Defense Logistics Agency and the 

military departments through 2009. The committee believes that 

aggressive price trend analysis can play an important role in ensuring that prices paid on Department of Defense contracts are fair 

and reasonable. This report is an important oversight tool in support of that goal. 

Pilot program on time-certain development in acquisition of 

major weapon systems (sec. 811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program on the use of 

time-certain development in the acquisition of major weapon systems. 

In a January 2006 report to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the 

assessment panel of the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) Project concluded that the Department of Defense’s 

failure to appropriately balance technology maturity, system capability, cost, and program risk before undertaking major defense acquisition programs has led to products that ‘‘take tens of years to 

deliver and cost far more than originally estimated.’’


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
360 

The panel concluded that a shift to time-certain development, 

with schedule as a key performance parameter, would help the Department address these problems. The report stated that: 

Time Certain Development enforces evolutionary acquisition by making time the focus of the up front requirement statement. Capabilities should be upgraded over 

time as technologies mature and operational requirements 

become clearer. Time Certain Development differs from 

prior attempts at valuing time to market, such as evolutionary acquisition and spiral development in that a maximum number of years is mandated, the start and end 

dates are defined, and the driving processes (requirements, 

budget, source selection, etc.) are revamped to support it.’’

The committee concurs with the panel’s recommendation that a disciplined approach to time-certain development should help reduce 

program risk, resulting in a less costly and time-consuming process 

for the acquisition of major weapon systems. 

The committee also notes that the DAPA panel recommended 

that the military departments be authorized to create management 

reserves to support stable program funding by using expiring funds 

budgeted for termination liability to reduce the impact of unexpected technical upsets during program execution. The committee 

does not believe that there is sufficient discipline in the Department’s budget, requirements, and acquisition processes to support 

the authorization of such accounts. However, this provision would 

authorize the establishment of a more limited special reserve account, similar to the accounts recommended by the DAPA panel, 

but limited to major weapon systems that are included in the pilot 

program for time-certain development under this section. 

Subtitle B—Defense Industrial Base Matters 

Removal of hand and measuring tools from certain requirements (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would remove hand 

and measuring tools from the requirement to buy certain articles 

from American sources. The committee is not aware of a current 

national security requirement to limit the production of hand and 

measuring tools to domestic sources. 

Substitution of specialty metals with titanium and nickel 

under certain requirements (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would specify that 

domestic source requirements for specialty metals be applied specifically to titanium and nickel. The committee understands the 

concerns about the domestic industrial base for specialty metals 

are specific to titanium and nickel. 

Waiver authority for domestic source or content requirements (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense the authority to waive the application of statutory domestic source requirements and domestic content requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00382 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
361 

ments, provided that: (1) the application of the requirements would 

impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items under a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and another 

country; and (2) the other country does not discriminate against 

items produced in the United States to a greater degree than the 

United States discriminates against items produced in that country. The proposed waiver is identical to the standard previously 

adopted by the Congress for products covered by the domestic content restrictions in section 2534 of title 10, United States Code. 

Repeal of requirement for identification of essential military items and military system essential item breakout 

list (sec. 824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement for identifying essential military items on a military system essential item breakout list. 

The Department has indicated that the information required by 

section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Action for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) is of limited utility. 

Consistency with United States obligations under trade 

agreements (sec. 825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

no provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall 

apply if the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Secretary of State, determines that the application of the provision 

would be inconsistent with international trade agreements of the 

United States. 

Subtitle C—Defense Contractor Matters 

Requirements for defense contractors relating to certain 

former Department of Defense officials (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require contractors that receive defense contracts in excess of $10.0 million, 

other than contracts for the procurement of commercial items, to 

report to the Department of Defense on an annual basis on certain 

former senior Department officials who receive compensation from 

the contractor. A former Department official who is identified in 

one contractor report would not have to be identified in subsequent 

annual reports. The Government Accountability Office reported 

that the monitoring of former Department employees who take positions with defense contractors is limited. The committee concludes that additional information is required to ensure the effectiveness of the Department’s ethics program. 

Lead systems integrators (sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the participation of lead systems integrators (LSI) in the development or 

construction of any individual system or element of a systems of 

systems. The provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense 

to define the term ‘‘lead systems integrator’’ and to update regulations on LSIs taking into consideration the importance of LSIs in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
362 

the production, fielding and sustainment of complex systems; the 

unique engineering skills of LSIs; and the management and organizational skills and capabilities of LSI. Finally, the provision would 

direct the Secretary to include a specification of various types of 

contracts and fee structures, including award and incentive fees, 

that are appropriate for use by LSIs. 

The committee remains concerned with organizational conflicts of 

interest, the potential for a company to end up in a situation 

whereby the company is essentially evaluating itself or its competitors in making contract awards. The potential for organizational 

conflicts of interest continues to grow as the Department of Defense contracts for more work relating to acquisition, engineering, 

planning, integrating, or managing a system of systems as a major 

defense acquisition program. 

Section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) required the Secretary to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than 

September 30, 2006, on the use of LSIs in the acquisition of major 

systems. The report required by section 805 directed that the Department include a detailed description of the actions taken, or to 

be taken, regarding ‘‘the prevention of organization conflicts of interest arising out of any financial interest of lead systems integrators without system responsibility in the development or production 

of individual elements of a major weapons systems.’’ The committee understands that this report may be a work in 

progress. However, the committee believes that the financial interests of the Department and the taxpayer need to be protected now, 

not at some point in the future. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services on 

March 1, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated, ‘‘And ideally, you’d want the LSI to be financially indifferent to 

the outcome of the program.’’ The provision would address the immediate need to place limitations on the financial interest of LSIs 

in the acquisition process. 

In a December 2005 report, entitled ‘‘DOD Has Paid Billions in 

Award and Incentive Fees Regardless of Acquisition Outcomes’’, 

the GAO noted that the Department has paid out an estimated 

$8.0 billion in award fees to date on a set of contracts they studied 

for the report. The committee believes that the Department must 

review the types of contracts involving LSIs and large complex systems, and issue guidance regarding the use of award and incentive 

contracts when contracting with LSIs for complex systems. 

Linking of award and incentive fees to acquisition outcomes 

(sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue detailed implementation guidance, including definitions for performance outcomes, for appropriate use of 

award and incentive fee contracts. The guidance should: ensure 

new award and incentive fee contracts are linked to acquisition 

outcomes; provide instruction and establish standards on evaluation of contractor performance and appropriate award of fees; ensure no award fees are paid for poor performance; and provide specific direction for roll over of fees. The provision would also require 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
363 

performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of award and 

incentive fees and mechanisms for sharing successful acquisition 

strategies. The provision would further require an independent 

evaluation of the impact of award fee payment decisions on contractor performance. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense issued an 

award fee contract guidance memo on March 29, 2006, in response 

to recommendations made by the General Accountability Office 

(GAO) in a report, entitled ‘‘Defense Acquisitions: DOD Has Paid 

Billions in Award and Incentive Fees Regardless of Acquisition 

Outcomes,’’ in December, 2005. During testimony before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services in April 2006, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Ken Krieg acknowledged that the new guidance is a first step in addressing ineffective 

use of performance contracts and that the Department must solve 

the strategic and tactical issues behind acquisition and contracting 

problems. The committee commends Department plans to provide 

senior-level strategic thinking to the manner in which the Department ‘‘governs, manages and executes its activities.’’ The committee 

believes that establishing some guidelines, standards and accountability in the use of award and incentive fee contracts, along with 

an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses when effectively 

used will improve productive use of performance contracts. 

Prohibition on excessive pass-through charges (sec. 844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to modify Department of Defense regulations 

to prohibit excessive pass-through charges on contracts or subcontracts that are entered into, for or on the behalf of the Department. The provision would exempt contracts that are not in excess 

of the simplified acquisition threshold and fixed-price contracts 

that awarded on the basis of adequate price competition or are for 

the purchase of commercial items. 

The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services has identified a potential problem with pass-through charges 

by contractors responsible for major defense acquisition programs. 

The subcommittee is particularly concerned by the possibility that 

the Department could be paying unnecessary pass-through charges 

to lead-system integrators on major weapon systems for which the 

integrator provides no value added, but that are acquired as a part 

of a system-of-systems. 

In addition, recent press articles have described a process in 

which work was passed down from the Army Corps of Engineers 

to a prime contractor, then to a subcontractor, and then to another 

subcontractor—with each company charging the government for 

profit and overhead—before finally reaching the company that 

would actually do the work. In one case, the Army Corps of Engineers reportedly paid a prime contractor $1.75 per square foot to 

nail plastic tarps onto damaged roofs in Louisiana. The prime contractor paid another company 75 cents per square foot to do the 

work; that subcontractor paid a third company 35 cents per square 

foot to do the work; and that subcontractor paid yet another company 10 cents per square foot to do the work. In a second case, the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
364 

Army Corps of Engineers reportedly paid prime contractors $28 to 

$30 per cubic yard to remove debris. The companies that actually 

performed the work were paid only $6 to $10 per cubic yard. A representative from one of the companies was quoted as saying: 

‘‘Every time it passes through another layer, $4 or $5 is taken off 

the top. These others are taking out money, and some of them 

aren’t doing anything.’’ In testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed 

Services on April 5, 2006, the Comptroller General, when asked his 

view on pass-through charges, stated that ‘‘ * * * one of the things 

that we need more visibility over is: How many layers, how many 

players, how many margins are in here?’’. 

The committee believes that the Department needs a regulation 

that addresses excessive pass-through fees to ensure that authorized and appropriated funds are spent on developing and procuring 

capabilities, rather than paying for layers of contractors who provide no value-added. 

Report on Department of Defense contracting with contractors or subcontractors employing members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 845) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on actual or potential contractors or subcontractors who employ members of the Selected Reserve. The study should address the extent to which Department 

of Defense contractors employ members of the Selected Reserve; potential disadvantages to such contractors in competing for Department contracts if their employees are mobilized; and make recommendations for any appropriate action to provide such contractors with time or assistance in meeting contract deadlines. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 

on the study to Congress within a year after the date of enactment 

of this Act, and would repeal section 819 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), 

which provided authorization for the Secretary to use employment 

of Selected Reserve members by a contractor as an evaluation factor for award of contracts. 

Subtitle D—Program Manager Matters 

Program Manager Matters (secs. 861–865) 

The committee recommends five provisions under subtitle D that 

would provide for better management of Department of Defense acquisition programs by enhancing the role of program managers. 

The committee remains concerned by continued growth in the 

cost and time it takes to field major weapon systems. In January 

2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 

the Department acquisition process ‘‘consistently yields undesirable 

consequences—cost increases, late deliveries to the warfighter, and 

performance shortfalls—in weapon system programs.’’ Similarly, a 

June 2005 memorandum from the Deputy Secretary of Defense 

concluded that ‘‘Many programs continue to increase in cost and 

schedule even after multiple studies and recommendations that 

span the past 15 years.’’


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
365 

In response to a request from the Subcommittee on Readiness 

and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services, 

GAO reviewed best management practices of private sector companies. In a November 2005 report, entitled ‘‘Best Practices: Better 

Support of Weapon System Program Managers Needed to Improve 

Outcomes,’’ GAO concluded that leading private sector companies 

empower their program managers to execute their programs and 

hold them accountable for the results. 

By contrast, GAO found that the Department fails to give program managers the authority they need to execute acquisition programs and, as a result, is unable to hold them accountable. GAO 

determined that: 

[O]nce programs begin, the program manager is not empowered to execute the program. In particular, program 

managers cannot veto new requirements, control funding, 

or control staff. 

* * * * * 

With so much outside their span of control, program 

managers say that DOD is unable to hold them accountable when programs get off track. Another reason that it 

is difficult to hold program managers accountable is that 

their tenure is relatively short. The problems being encountered today may well be the result of a poor decision 

made years ago by another program manager. 

The program manager provisions (secs. 861–865) are designed to 

help address these problems by requiring the application of best 

practices from the commercial sector to Department acquisition 

programs. 

Section 861 would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a comprehensive strategy for enhancing the role of Department 

program managers in carrying out defense acquisition programs. 

The strategy should address a wide array of issues identified in the 

GAO report, including additional recruiting incentives, enhanced 

training and educational opportunities, increased emphasis on 

mentoring, identification of career paths, improved resources and 

technical support, better collection and dissemination of lessons 

learned, better access to information and data management tools, 

increased accountability for acquisition results, and enhanced monetary and nonmonetary incentives for program managers. 

Section 862 would address the tenure and accountability of program managers for the program development period. The provision 

would establish responsibilities of such program managers and require that they be assigned to a program until a business case has 

been completed and the program is ready for a Milestone B decision. 

Section 863 would address the tenure and accountability of program managers for the program execution period. The provision 

would require each such program manager to enter into a performance agreement with the milestone decision authority (MDA) that 

establishes the expected parameters of performance, including the 

commitment of the MDA that adequate funding and resources are 

available and will be provided and assurance of the program manager that the parameters are achievable. The provision would also 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
366 

require that program managers be given authority comparable to 

the authority given to private sector program managers and that 

they be assigned to a program until the delivery of the first production units, with a narrow waiver authority. 

Section 864 would address the related issue of contingency program management. Several senior officials responsible for the reconstruction of Iraq have indicated that the effort was hindered by 

deficiencies in the Federal Government’s capability to manage 

large projects outside the United States. This provision would require the Department, in coordination with other relevant components of the Federal Government, to develop a comprehensive 

strategy to ensure the United States has the capability to deploy 

an expert force of appropriate size for rapid, independent management of large, complex programs in varied, potentially harsh environments. 

Section 865 would require the Comptroller General to submit to 

the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007 a report 

on actions taken by the Secretary of Defense to comply with the requirements of the four sections. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Clarification of authority to carry out certain prototype 

projects (sec. 871) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1994 (Public Law 103–160), as amended by section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163), to allow the director of a defense agency to make the 

written determination necessary to exercise other transaction authority on a prototype project that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $20.0 million, but not more than 

$100.0 million. 

One-year extension of special temporary contract closeout 

authority (sec. 872) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

year authority under section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) to allow the 

Department of Defense to settle contracts entered into prior to October 1, 1996, under specified conditions. 

One-year extension of inapplicability of certain laws to contracting with employers of persons with disabilities (sec. 

873) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year section 853 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) to ensure the continuation and completion of existing contracts, including any options, awarded under the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (41 

U.S.C 46 et seq) and the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et 

seq) programs for the operation of military troop dining facilities, 

military mess halls, and other similar military dining facilities. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
367 

Items of Special Interest 

Application and interpretation of the Berry amendment 

Over the last several months, the Department of Defense has 

begun to insist that contractors on major weapon systems certify 

that specialty metals included in the components of such systems, 

including every nut, bolt, screw and wire, were made in the United 

States out of domestic materials. This new interpretation of the 

specialty metals provision of the so-called ‘‘Berry amendment’’ (section 2533a of title 10, United States Code) has significantly slowed 

the acceptance of badly-needed military systems and could soon 

make it difficult for operational units of the armed forces to deploy. 

The committee notes that the Berry amendment, by its terms, 

applies to the procurement of ‘‘an item’’, including ‘‘specialty metals.’’ The committee understands that the Department has chosen 

to support the specialty metals industrial base by applying the provision to the acquisition of many items containing specialty metals. 

The specialty metals provision of the Berry amendment, by its 

terms, applies only to the purchase of specialty metals and not to 

the acquisition of major systems that include specialty metals or to 

subcontracts that are entered at various tiers under such contracts. 

However, the committee believes that the Department has ample 

flexibility to implement the provision in a manner that is consistent with the national security needs of the United States. 

For the last 30 years, the Department has taken appropriate advantage of this flexibility. The specialty metals provision of the 

Berry amendment was initially interpreted by the Department in 

a November 20, 1972, memorandum issued by then-Secretary of 

Defense Melvin Laird. The Laird memorandum stated that: 

The bulk of these specialty metals which are used in one 

form or another in myriad items purchased by the Department of Defense are actually procured at the subcontract 

level—often many subcontract tiers removed from the 

prime contract—so as to make impracticable any precise 

evaluation of all such purchases, even at enormous expense in both money and time. 

It is apparent, from the legislative history of this provision, that is was not intended that this Department 

achieve or attempt to achieve the impossible in its implementation. Rather, it is clear that its purpose is to afford 

reasonable protection to the specialty metals industry to 

help preserve our domestic production capacity to satisfy 

mobilization requirements, without forcing a massive disruption of our existing procurement methods and programs. An accommodation is therefore needed to give maximum effect to this new requirement without losing sight 

of other Congressional objectives that the Department of 

Defense function in an efficient and economical manner in 

meeting its mission. 

[For these reasons] this restriction will not be applied to 

purchases under $2,500. To do so would result in a massive and costly administrative burden, essentially impossible of real accomplishment, with apparently no more 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
368 

than a de minimis benefit to the industry. Such a result 

could not have been intended by the Congress. 

The Laird memorandum did not automatically apply the specialty metal provision of the Berry amendment to all Department 

systems. Rather, it authorized the Secretaries of the military departments to waive the applicability of the Berry amendment to 

the acquisition of specific weapon systems, upon a determination 

under the statute that the application of the restriction would preclude the procurement of a satisfactory quality and quantity of 

such systems, as and when needed. 

On this basis, the Department has, for more than 30 years, applied a rule of reason in implementing the specialty metals provision of the Berry amendment, consistent with the underlying intent 

of that provision, including the de minimis rule and waiver authority described in the Laird memorandum. This interpretation and 

exercise of administrative flexibility has enabled the Department to 

avoid the absurdity of denying a needed weapon system to our 

armed forces in the field because a single fastener contains the 

wrong specialty metal. 

The committee is concerned that the Department now appears to 

be backing away from this longstanding practice of implementing 

the specialty metals provision of the Berry amendment in a manner that provides needed flexibility in the acquisition of major 

weapon systems. The committee is not aware of any new industrial 

base requirements that would require the Department to apply 

more stringent domestic source restrictions to specialty metals at 

this time. For this reason, the committee urges the Department to 

review its policies with respect to the specialty metals provision of 

the Berry amendment to ensure that these policies do not unnecessarily restrict the Department’s ability to rapidly and economically 

purchase needed equipment for the warfighter. 

Brand-name specifications 

Part 11.105 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) states 

that ‘‘agency requirements shall not be written so as to require a 

particular brand name, product, or feature of a product, peculiar to 

one manufacturer, thereby precluding consideration of a product 

manufactured by another company.’’ On April 11, 2005, the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy issued a memorandum for 

Chief Acquisition Officers of federal agencies, expressing concern 

about the proliferation of brand-name specifications and directing 

agencies to strictly comply with the requirements of the FAR. 

The committee is aware of a particular problem with specifications for brand-name microprocessors that are associated with a 

single manufacturer. In some cases, such specifications appear to 

have had the unfortunate effect of precluding the use of newer and 

more advanced products available from the same or other manufacturers. In other cases, the use of brand-name specifications may 

unnecessarily limit competition—even if the specification permits 

the use of ‘‘brand-name or equal’’ products. 

Because of the large volume of microprocessor procurements undertaken by the Department of Defense each year and the relatively small number of products available to meet those needs, it 

should be possible for the Department to develop model specificaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00390 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
369 

tions for use by defense components that are based on performance 

benchmarks rather than brand-name specifications. The committee 

directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics to submit a report to the Committee on Armed Services on the use of product model specifications rather than brandnames not later than February 1, 2007. 

Clarification of rapid acquisition authority to respond to 

combat emergencies 

The Department of Defense submitted a legislative proposal for 

fiscal year 2007 that would expressly add domestic source and content restrictions to the categories of statutes and regulations that 

may be waived by the Department, pursuant to section 811 of the 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (Public Law 108–136), when necessary to prevent combat fatalities. 

The statement of managers accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) determined that an identical provision was unnecessary, because domestic source and content restrictions are already waivable under section 811. The statement of managers stated that: 

The conferees note that the Senate provision adding a 

new category of statutes and regulations that are waivable 

to prevent combat fatalities was not necessary, because the 

Department may already waive any provision of law, policy, directive, or regulation addressing the solicitation and 

selection of sources pursuant to the authority in section 

811 * * * for the procurement of equipment urgently 

needed to eliminate a combat deficiency that has resulted 

in combat fatalities. 

The committee concludes that the Department already has the 

authority to waive any domestic source or content restriction imposed by law or regulation in connection with the procurement of 

equipment that is urgently needed to eliminate a combat deficiency 

that has resulted in combat fatalities. 

Coal gasification report 

The administration’s Clean Coal Power Initiative includes support for developing coal gasification technologies. These technologies have the potential to produce power from coal with significantly reduced effect on the environment, while reducing the 

United States’ reliance on foreign sources of energy. At a time 

when the cost of petroleum-based fuels has increased considerably, 

the commercial development of a domestic industry to use coal to 

produce diesel, jet fuel, and other liquid fuels could have substantial benefit to satisfying the Department’s energy requirements. 

The use of coal-to-liquid technology could provide a means of 

powering a range of military vehicles at a cost savings by providing 

an alternative to volatile oil prices. 

The committee notes that the statement of managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 directed the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 

Secretary of Energy, to submit a report on the potential use of coalVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
370 

to-liquid transportation fuels by the Department of Defense by no 

later than April 7, 2006. The committee urges the two Secretaries 

to complete and submit the required report in a timely manner. 

The report should address the potential costs and benefits to the 

Department of Defense of utilizing coal gasification technologies, 

including the Fischer-Tropsch process which converts the gas into 

a liquid hydrocarbon that resembles current petroleum products. 

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the merits of specific contracting approaches to coal gasification technology projects, and to submit a report on the findings 

of the review to the congressional defense committees not later 

than March 1, 2007. This report shall include: (1) an assessment 

on whether longer-term contracts would be required to effectively 

implement such projects; (2) an assessment on whether energy savings performance contracts would be an appropriate contracting vehicle for such projects; and (3) a discussion of statutory and budgetary impediments, if any, that may prevent the Department from 

effectively implementing coal gasification technology projects and 

recommendations for new authorities necessary to enable the effective implementation of such projects. 

Contracting with Federal Prison Industries 

The website for a major Army command recently posted a notice, 

entitled ‘‘So, you want new furniture?’’ The notice stated: 

UNICOR, which is the trade name for Federal Prison Industries, is the mandatory source for furniture. That 

means federal law prescribes the way we are to purchase 

furniture. The government (including all IMPAC purchase 

cardholders) must either (1) purchase furniture from 

UNICOR, or (2) obtain a waiver from UNICOR before purchasing furniture from any other source. 

This notice is incorrect. Congress eliminated FPI’s mandatory 

source status with the enactment of section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) 

and section 819 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). Under these provisions, the Department may not purchase any FPI product or service unless a contracting officer of the Department determines that 

the product or service is comparable to products or services available from the private sector, and meets Department needs in terms 

of price, quality, and time of delivery. If Department officials believe that better products or services are available from the private 

sector, no FPI waiver is required. This determination is in the sole 

discretion of Department contracting officials. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to ensure that accurate information on legal requirements for the purchase of products and services that are available from Federal Prison Industries is provided 

to all military commands and defense agencies. 

Past performance evaluations 

Section 1091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 

(Public Law 103–355) established the importance of past contract 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
371 

performance as an indicator of the likelihood that a vendor will 

successfully perform on a future contract. On this basis, Congress 

directed the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to establish guidance regarding the appropriate use of past performance to 

facilitate the consistent and fair evaluation of potential contractors. 

The required guidance is provided in subpart 42.15 of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

The committee continues to believe that past performance information provides key decision-making support to contracting officials carrying out their source selection responsibilities. However, 

the committee is concerned by reports that some federal agencies 

may be requiring contractors to submit to or purchase third party 

performance evaluations as a prerequisite to consideration of contractor proposals. Such third party evaluations may not meet statutory and regulatory requirements. Past performance evaluations 

should focus on information that is relevant to future performance 

and offer vendors an opportunity to supplement or rebut information provided by other sources. 

The committee does not believe that it is appropriate to require 

potential contractors to pay third parties for the right to bid on federal contracts. Moreover, any past performance evaluation conducted for or on behalf of a federal agency must comply both with 

the requirements of section 6 of the Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405) and subpart 42.15 of the FAR. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics to provide guidance to the military departments and defense agencies on the appropriate means of evaluating and considering past performance information, including the 

appropriate use, if any, of third party performance evaluation reports. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(373) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Duties and Functions of Department of Defense 

Officers and Organizations 

United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a United States Military Cancer 

Institute in the Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences. The Center would be authorized to establish a data clearinghouse on the incidence of cancer among members and former 

members of the armed forces, and to conduct research that contributes to early detection and cancer among military personnel. The 

committee recognizes that the United States Military Cancer Institute is currently operated and funded by the Department of Defense. In the committee’s view, this institution should be authorized in statute. 

Senior acquisition executive for Special Operations within 

staff of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations and Low Intensity Conflicts (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

senior acquisition executive position within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC). The senior acquisition executive in ASD 

SO/LIC would assume service secretary-level responsibility for acquisition policy and oversight for SOCOM budget, operations, research, development, and procurement programs. The committee 

notes the importance of this position in light of past failures to effectively manage the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) program by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the 

Navy, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

The committee expects that the senior acquisition executive 

should be a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES). Further, the committee expects the Secretary of Defense to provide the 

SES allocation and such other staff and resources as are necessary 

to enable the senior acquisition executive to successfully accomplish 

the committee’s intent. 

Subtitle B—Space Activities 

Establishment of operationally responsive space capabilities 

(sec. 911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

hybrid program office within the Department of Defense to demonstrate, acquire, and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
374 

an effective capability for operationally responsive space (ORS) to 

support the warfighter. 

The committee is aware that the services and other agencies 

within the Department continue to pursue low-cost, quick-response 

space capabilities for the warfighter, and that U.S. Strategic Command is in the process of developing requirements for such capabilities. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

of the Committee on Armed Services in April 2006, the U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Functional Component Commander responsible for space and global strike stated that the military would like 

to have ‘‘a truly responsive capability to put assets into space, 

something that takes hours, not months, to launch; a satellite that 

can be put up quickly and then made to operate quickly.’’

However, the committee remains concerned that such activities 

lack focus and a sense of urgency. According to a March 2006 report on low-cost responsive tactical space capabilities, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Department lacks 

a department-wide strategy for implementing ORS efforts, and recommended that the Secretary of Defense assign accountability for 

developing and implementing a department-wide strategy for ORS, 

and to identify corresponding funding. 

The provision would require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, a plan for acquisition of operationally 

responsive space capabilities. The plan shall include: (1) an identification of all departments and agencies that have a role in ORS; 

(2) the capabilities required for ORS; (3) a schedule and associated 

costs for implementing the plan; and (4) an identification of the 

chain of command, reporting structure, acquisition policy, classification requirements, and additional acquisition authorities for the 

ORS Hybrid program office. 

Extension of authority for pilot program on provision of 

space surveillance network services to non-United 

States Government entities (sec. 912) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through September 30, 2009, a pilot program that is determining 

the feasibility and desirability of providing space surveillance data 

support to non-United States Government entities. Section 913 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) authorized the Secretary of Defense to carry out 

a 3-year pilot program. Extending the pilot program would allow 

for continuation of the current service support while allowing the 

necessary time to fully determine the feasibility and desirability of 

providing space surveillance data support to non-United States 

Government entities. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Department of Defense policy on unmanned systems (sec. 

921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop a Department-wide policy for reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
375 

search, development, test, and evaluation; procurement; and operation of unmanned systems. The provision would require a seniorlevel policy for establishing unmanned system mission requirements and a preference for the use of unmanned vehicles and devices in development of new defense systems. The policy required 

by the provision would also include: strategy and schedules for replacing manned systems with unmanned for selected routine and 

dangerous missions; joint development and procurement of unmanned systems and components; divestment of service unique unmanned systems in favor of joint systems; programs to address capability gaps and technical challenges; joint management and 

budgeting for unmanned systems; and integration of unmanned capabilities with manned systems. 

Congress emphasized the future potential for unmanned systems 

to perform dull, dangerous, and difficult missions in support of the 

warfighter by establishing goals for the use of unmanned air and 

ground combat vehicles in section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 

106–398). Since that time, the proliferation and technical sophistication of unmanned vehicles and capabilities has resulted in removal of uniformed personnel from harm’s way in the performance 

of tasks such as explosive ordnance investigation and disposal and 

surveillance and reconnaissance missions over hostile territory. The 

committee believes exploration of untapped capacity for battlefield 

successes utilizing unmanned systems will likely broaden and deepen the significant accomplishments achieved to date. 

Properly trained, equipped and highly dedicated personnel are 

the nation’s most valuable military asset. The committee expects 

the Department to continue a long-standing commitment to the 

value of the American warfighter by asking ‘‘why manned?’’ when 

planning missions or considering new systems. Rapid deployment 

of vehicles such as the PackBot, Predator, and Remus demonstrate 

initial, impressive capabilities. The committee directs the Department to elevate planning for the long-term potential use of unmanned systems. Interoperability, survivability, commonality, 

sustainment, manufacturing, and training should be jointly examined for seamless integration between manned and unmanned system development, acquisition and operation in the air, on the 

ground and at sea. 

Executive Schedule level IV for Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (sec. 922) 

The committee recommends a provision that would move the position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness from Executive Schedule level III to level IV. The 

proposed change would not be applicable to an incumbent in this 

position. The committee intends that, in view of the high priority 

for performance in the acquisition field, the position of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

shall remain at Executive Level II, and the position of Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology shall 

remain at Executive Schedule level III. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
376 

Three-year extension of joint incentives program on sharing 

of health care resources by the Department of Defense 

and Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 923) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for the Department of Defense—Department of Veterans Affairs Joint Incentives Program until September 30, 2010. 

The committee believes that the program, authorized in Section 

721(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), has resulted in many worthy joint projects that increase the efficiency of the military health 

care system. The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense 

will comply with the statutory requirement for an annual contribution of a minimum of $15.0 million for the purposes of the Joint 

Incentives Program. To ensure that the Departments concerned 

have the opportunity to continue and expand efficiencies achieved 

through this program, the committee recommends a three-year extension of the joint incentives program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(377) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

Transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide fiscal 

year 2007 transfer authority to the Department of Defense for 

amounts up to $4.0 billion for the transfer of funds authorized in 

division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. The committee is 

concerned by the recent trend whereby reprogramming requests on 

important matters spend weeks or months in the Department approval process and are then presented to the Congress as urgent 

matters requiring action within a matter of days. 

In November 2005, the Army identified an overobligation of 

funds in its Reserve Personnel, Army, 05/05 appropriation, yet the 

Army and the Department waited until the account in question 

was depleted of funds in April 2006 to present the Congress with 

an urgent reprogramming request. In March 2005, another reprogramming request for funds to counter the improvised explosive 

device (IED) threat, FY06–07PA, followed a similar pattern. As the 

Department seeks increased flexibility from the Congress on the 

use of reprogramming authority, the Department must work with 

the congressional defense committees in a timely manner in order 

for the committees to appropriately perform their oversight responsibilities. 

Because of concerns the committee has over the current reprogramming process, the amount of reprogramming authority recommended is $1.0 billion lower than the President’s budget request. 

Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 

2006 (sec. 1002) 

This provision would authorize emergency supplemental appropriations pursuant to an emergency supplemental appropriations 

act for fiscal year 2006. 

Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings relating 

to lower inflation (sec. 1003) 

The Department of Defense assumed an inflation rate of 2.2 percent in its fiscal year 2007 budget submission. However, the Congressional Budget Office’s January 2006 estimate of inflation for 

2007 falls an additional 0.4 percentage points lower than the administration’s estimate. The Committee on the Budget of the Senate reported in the Senate Concurrent Resolution of the Budget for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (S. Con. Res 18) that both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office have continVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00399 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
378 

ually overstated inflation. The savings resulting from lower-thanexpected inflation for fiscal year 2007 is $951.5 million. 

Increase in fiscal year 2006 general transfer authority (sec. 

1004) 

This section would amend section 1001(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) 

to increase the fiscal year 2006 transfer authority from $3,500.0 

million to $3,750.0 million. 

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal year 2007 (sec. 1005) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

U.S. contribution to NATO common-funded budgets for fiscal year 

2007, including the use of unexpended balances from prior years. 

The resolution of ratification for the Protocols to the North Atlantic 

Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 

Republic contained a provision (section 3(2)(c)(ii)) requiring a specific authorization for U.S. payments to the common-funded budgets of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 1999, in which U.S. payments exceed the fiscal year 1998 total. 

The committee notes the significant contribution NATO is making to international peace and stability. NATO has undertaken important out of area missions such as leadership of the International 

Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and is considering additional out of area missions, to include an expanded role in Sudan’s 

western Darfur province. NATO’s expanding missions require larger budgets, and so the U.S. contribution to the NATO commonfunded budgets can be expected to grow. The committee urges the 

Department of Defense to ensure that it requests sufficient funding 

in future years’ budget requests to cover the anticipated increase 

in the United States financial contribution to NATO’s commonfunded budgets. 

Modification of date of submittal of OMB/CBO report on 

scoring of outlays (sec. 1006) 

This provision would change the date of the currently required 

report on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) outlay estimates (section 226 of 

title 10, United States Code) from January 15 to April 1 of each 

year. The committee is encouraged by the progress made by the 

OMB and CBO in reconciling differences in outlay estimates and 

expects that progress to continue. The date change reflects a more 

realistic time period for the two agencies to meet each year to discuss differences and report back to the congressional defense committees. 

Prohibition on parking of funds (sec. 1007) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit any 

officer or employee of the Department of Defense from directing the 

allocation of funds in the President’s budget or the supporting documents for such budget with the knowledge or intent that the 

funds would not be used for the purpose for which they are alloVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00400 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
379 

cated. A violation of this prohibition would be subject to the same 

penalties as a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, as codified in 

section 1341 of title 31, United States Code. 

In September 2003, the St. Petersburg Times reported allegations that the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) allocated $20.0 million to certain programs in the USSOCOM budget 

submission that was actually intended for other uses. The reports 

cited internal USSOCOM e-mails indicating that these funds had 

been ‘‘parked’’ at USSOCOM as a ‘‘favor’’ to the Department of Defense Comptroller, because the previous ‘‘agency they had it parked 

with had a problem and couldn’t do it.’’

After a lengthy review of the matter, the Department’s Inspector 

General confirmed that ‘‘USSOCOM Comptroller personnel agreed 

to ‘park’ $20.0 million’’ in six USSOCOM programs. The Inspector 

General determined that this money was placed in USSOCOM’s 

budget ‘‘in an attempt to balance the Budget Estimate Submission 

with the top line dollar amount’’ of the budget, with the understanding that it was likely to be reprogrammed for other purposes. 

According to the Inspector General, however, no witnesses could 

direct investigators to a regulation or policy that prohibited such 

‘‘parking’’ of funds. In fact, a number of employees in the Department of Defense Comptroller’s office told the Inspector General 

that the ‘‘parking’’ of money in Defense budgets is a common practice. As a result, the Inspector General concluded that no laws were 

broken, no rules were violated, and there was no impropriety in the 

‘‘parking’’ of these funds. 

The committee believes that the President’s budget and the supporting documents must accurately reflect the purposes for which 

funds are expected to be used. The practice of allocating funds for 

a particular purpose with the knowledge and intent that after 

those funds have been appropriated they will be reprogrammed for 

a different purpose, is not consistent with this principle. For this 

reason, the provision recommended by the committee would prohibit the practice of ‘‘parking’’ funds in the future. 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels 

Repeal of requirement for 12 operational aircraft carriers 

within the Navy (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include no 

fewer than 12 operational aircraft carriers. 

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report determined 

that a naval force including 11 aircraft carriers meets the combat 

capability requirements of the National Military Strategy. In testimony before the Committee on Armed Services in March 2006, the 

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) emphasized that the decision by 

the QDR followed a rigorous evaluation of future force structure requirements by the Navy, and that 11 aircraft carriers are sufficient 

to ensure the Navy’s ability to provide coverage in any foreseeable 

contingency with persistent combat power. The committee is further aware that advances in ship systems, aircraft, and precision 

weapons, coupled with fundamental changes to fleet maintenance 

and deployment practices implemented by the Navy, have provided 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
380 

today’s aircraft carrier and associated air wings substantially 

greater strike capability and greater force availability than possessed by the fleet during previous quadrennial defense reviews. 

The Navy has reported on revisions to its method and frequency 

of deployments for vessels. Under the new concept, referred to as 

the ‘‘Fleet Response Plan,’’ the Navy has reduced forward presence 

requirements in order to increase surge capability in response to 

national security demands. Under this approach, with 12 aircraft 

carriers in the fleet, the Navy proposed to have six carrier strike 

groups available for a crisis response within 30 days and two more 

carrier strike groups available in 90 days, referred to as ‘‘6 plus 2.’’ At a force structure of 11 aircraft carriers, this becomes ‘‘6 plus 1’’ or ‘‘5 plus 2,’’ which the Navy determined supports the National 

Military Strategy with acceptable risk. 

In certain cases, the success of the Fleet Response Plan relies on 

the timeliness of the decision to surge-deploy the naval forces, and 

with smaller force levels and reduced forward presence, the Fleet 

Response Plan approach may increase risk if we do not have the 

level of insight into the threat necessary for timely action. Further, 

the Navy’s long-term plan for aircraft carrier force structure declines to 10 carriers in 2013, when the USS Enterprise is scheduled 

to retire. That carrier would be replaced by CVN–21 in 2015, which 

has yet to start construction. The Navy believes that they can manage this gap through a number of added measures, but if there are 

any delays in delivering CVN–21, this gap will increase. 

The committee maintains its concern, expressed in the Senate report accompanying S. 1042 (S. Rept. 109–69) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, regarding the declining size of the naval force and the reduction to the number of aircraft carriers. The committee agrees, however, with the Navy’s determination that it is not feasible to maintain 12 operational aircraft carriers by restoring the USS John F. Kennedy (CV–67) to a 

deployable, fully mission-capable platform. The committee believes 

that it is vital to the national security of the United States that 

a fleet of at least 11 aircraft carriers be maintained to support the 

National Military Strategy, and has taken extraordinary action to 

support the CNO’s force structure plan by authorizing increased 

procurement for shipbuilding and, specific to aircraft carriers, by 

authorizing additional advance procurement and incremental funding for the construction of the first 3 CVN–21 class aircraft carriers. 

Further, recognizing the increased need for timeliness of surge 

operations that today’s smaller force structure places on the Fleet 

Response Plan, the committee reaffirms the judgment that the 

Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Clark, provided in testimony 

before the Committee on Armed Services in February 2005, that 

the Atlantic Fleet should continue to be dispersed in two 

homeports. 

Approval of transfer of naval vessels to foreign nations by 

vessel class (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 7037 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the transfer of 

a specified number of ships to a particular nation without identiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00402 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
381 

fication of each specific vessel (hull number, ship name). This provision would continue to require that Congress authorize the release of the specific naval capability and technology (characterized 

by ship class) to specific countries. 

Section 7037 requires legislative approval for the transfer to 

other nations of specific naval vessels exceeding 3,000 tons or that 

are less than 20 years old. The committee is aware that the process 

for gaining congressional approval for ship transfer notionally commences 2 years prior to the actual decommissioning of the U.S. 

Navy vessel. The effect of changes to ship operational commitments 

leading up to decommissioning, the final assessment of material 

condition in conjunction with decommissioning, and other dynamics 

associated with ship transfer can result in a lost transfer opportunity if that vessel’s decommissioning status changes and it must 

be replaced by another vessel of the same class as a transfer candidate. Further, the committee is aware that the U.S. Navy and potential customer navies place a priority on conducting ‘‘hot ship’’

transfers coincident with U.S. Navy decommissioning in order to 

avoid U.S. Navy costs for decommissioning preparation and lay-up, 

and customer navy costs for reactivation. 

Subtitle C—Counterdrug Matters 

Extension of availability of funds for unified counterdrug 

and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorities provided in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) that 

allows the Department of Defense to use funds appropriated for 

counterdrug activity to support Colombian efforts against terrorist 

organizations involved in narcotics activity in fiscal years 2007 and 

2008. It also extends the limitation on the number of U.S. military 

personnel assigned to Colombia in support of Plan Colombia to 800 

personnel, and the number of federally-funded contractor personnel 

employed in support of Plan Colombia to 600 personnel in fiscal 

years 2007 and 2008. 

Extension of authority of Department of Defense to provide 

additional support for counterdrug activities of other 

governmental agencies (sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a 5-year extension in the current authorities of the Department of Defense to assist the counterdrug activities of any other department or agency of the Federal Government or any other state, local, or foreign law enforcement agency 

through 2011. 

Extension and expansion of certain authorities to provide 

additional support for counterdrug activities (sec. 1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

current authorities of the Department of Defense to support the 

counterdrug activities of other countries through the end of fiscal 

year 2008. In addition, the provision would: (1) add 15 countries to 

the list of countries eligible for support that are situated either 

along key drug smuggling routes or are facing an increasing threat 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
382 

of narco-terrorism; (2) expand the types of equipment and supplies 

that can be provided for counterdrug support, to include vehicles, 

aircraft, and detection, interception, monitoring, and testing equipment; and (3) double the funding limit for counterdrug support 

through fiscal year 2008 from $40.0 million to $80.0 million. The 

provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to seek the concurrence of the Secretary of State on matters of counterdrug support 

to foreign nations. The committee expects that the authority granted in this section will be administered in the spirit of maintaining 

current military parity between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The provision would further require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

comprehensive report on how these counter-drug funds were expended in each of these 15 countries, not later than 60 days following the conclusion of each fiscal year for which this program is 

authorized. 

Subtitle D—Defense Intelligence and Related Matters 

Two-year extension of authority to engage in commercial 

activities as security for intelligence collection activities 

(sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 2 

years the authority to conduct commercial activities necessary to 

provide security for authorized intelligence collection abroad. 

Annual report on intelligence oversight activities of the Department of Defense (sec. 1032) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to the congressional 

defense and congressional intelligence committees on intelligence 

oversight activities of the Department of Defense. The term ‘‘intelligence oversight activities of the Department of Defense’’ refers to 

any activity undertaken by an agency element or component of the 

Department of Defense to ensure compliance with regard to intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the Department under 

law or any Presidential directive, or Executive Order, including Executive Order No. 12333. 

The report shall contain a description of any questionable activity that came to the attention of any General Counsel or Inspector 

General within the Department, or the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Intelligence, and a description of the actions taken with respect 

to such activity. The report shall also contain the results of oversight inspections and changes in the Department’s directives and 

training programs. 

Administration of pilot project on Civilian Linguist Reserve 

Corps (sec. 1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer administration of the pilot project on Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps 

from the Director of National Intelligence to the Secretary of Defense. The Corps would be comprised of U.S. citizens fluent in foreign languages who would be available to provide translation services and related duties. The Director of National Intelligence entered into a contract with the Department of Defense for services 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
383 

to carry out the pilot project, as authorized under section 613 of the 

Intelligence Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 108–487). The 

Director of National Intelligence has expressed interest in transferring responsibility of the pilot project to the Department. 

Improvement of authorities on the National Security Education Program (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1902(b)(2) of title 50, United States Code, to modify the service 

agreement associated with participation in the National Security 

Education Program. Under current law, participants in the program may perform federal service in a position of the Department 

of Defense or other entity of the intelligence community that is certified by the Secretary of Defense as appropriate to utilize the 

unique language and regional expertise acquired by the program 

participants. The provision would expand the entities in which 

mandated service could be performed to include the Department of 

Homeland Security or Department of State. The award recipients 

would be able to fulfill their service requirement in a position in 

the field of education in a discipline related to the study supported 

by the program, but only if no positions are available in federal 

agencies or offices covered under this section. 

The provision would further provide authority to the Secretary to 

hire a program participant in a position in the Department of Defense on a temporary, interim basis, for a period not to exceed 2 

years, to expedite security clearances and other personnel processes, if there is no other permanent position available for the participant. The provision would also require the Secretary to submit 

a plan to Congress, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for improving the recruitment, placement, and retention within the Department of Defense of individuals who receive assistance under the program and for improving the ability 

of the Department of Defense to meet its requirements to acquire 

individuals with critical foreign language skills and individuals 

who are regional experts. 

Subtitle E—Defense Against Terrorism and Related Security 

Matters 

Enhancement of authority to pay monetary rewards for assistance in combating terrorism (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

flexibility and responsiveness of the rewards protection program 

available to the Department of Defense for assistance in combating 

terrorism. The provision would (1) delegate approval authority to 

subcombatant commanders, like the Commander, Multi-national 

Forces-Iraq; (2) direct that delegated authority must be approved 

by the designated Under Secretary of Defense; and (3) increase the 

current maximum reward amount from $2,500 to $10,000. 

Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies (sec. 

1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 15 of title 10, United States Code, the so-called ‘‘Insurrection 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
384 

Act,’’ to clarify and update the statute, and would make corresponding changes to other provisions of law. Chapter 15 contains 

a collection of statutes authorizing the use of the armed forces to 

put down an insurrection, enforce federal authority, or suppress 

conspiracies that interfere with the enforcement of federal or state 

law. The earliest of these dates to 1795, and others were enacted 

at the beginning of the Civil War (1861) and during Reconstruction 

(the so-called ‘‘Ku Klux Act’’ of 1871). While these statutes grant 

the President broad powers to use the armed forces in situations 

of public disorder, the antique terminology and the lack of explicit 

reference to such situations as natural disasters or terrorist attacks 

may have contributed to a reluctance to use the armed forces in situations such as Hurricane Katrina. 

The provision would amend section 333 of title 10, United States 

Code. As amended, section 333 would authorize the President, in 

any situation in which he determined that, as a result of a natural 

disaster, epidemic or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition, domestic violence occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the 

State or possession were incapable of maintaining public order, and 

the domestic violence obstructed the execution of the laws of the 

United States or impeded the course of justice thereunder, to use 

the armed forces, including the National Guard in federal service, 

to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States. 

The committee emphasizes that this authority is temporary, to be 

employed only until the state authorities are again capable of 

maintaining order. The President is to notify Congress of his determination to exercise this authority as soon as practicable, and 

every 14 days thereafter for the duration of the exercise of the authority. The title of chapter 15 is changed from ‘‘Insurrection’’ to 

‘‘Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order’’ to take account 

of the broader stated purposes of the chapter. The existing language of section 333, relating to suppression of insurrections, violence, or conspiracies that interfere with federal or state law, is retained. 

The provision also amends chapter 152 of title 10 to authorize 

the President, in any situation in which he determines to exercise 

the section 333(a)(1)(A) authority, to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment necessary for the 

immediate preservation of life and property. Such supplies, services, and equipment may be provided (1) only to the extent that the 

constituted authorities of the State are unable to provide them; (2) 

only until other departments and agencies of the United States 

charged with such responsibilities are able to provide them; and (3) 

only to the extent that their provision will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing operations or functions. The authority under this section is not subject to the provisions of section 

403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)). 

A conforming amendment is made to section 12304(c) of title 10, 

United States Code, to remove a restriction on the use of the Presidential Selected Reserve callup authority in chapter 15 or natural 

disaster situations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
385 

Treatment under Freedom of Information Act of certain 

confidential information shared with State and local 

personnel (sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

sensitive but unclassified homeland security information in the 

possession of the Department of Defense that is shared with state 

and local personnel who are involved in the prevention of or response to terrorist activity does not become subject to disclosure 

under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(5 U.S.C. 552) by virtue of such sharing. 

Section 892 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 482) 

requires the President to implement procedures under which federal agencies share relevant and appropriate homeland security information with each other, and with appropriate state and local 

personnel. Such information may be either formally classified or 

unclassified but of a sensitive nature. Any information shared with 

state and local officials is not subject to disclosure under state or 

local disclosure laws. 

Concern has been expressed over the necessity for the Department to share such information with first responders and others involved in defense against a terrorist attack. Much of this information came from entities outside the Department, such as universities, power companies, transportation agencies, and the like. 

Classification of such information raises obvious problems with respect to sharing it with state and local personnel. However, much 

of the information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA either as 

confidential business information or under other exemptions. This 

provision would make it explicit that sharing of unclassified but 

sensitive information for homeland defense purposes under section 

892 does not change the status of that information with respect to 

disclosure under FOIA. 

Subtitle F—Miscellaneous Authorities on Availability and 

Use of Funds 

Acceptance and retention of reimbursement from non-Federal sources to defray Department of Defense costs of 

conferences (sec. 1051) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a statutory exception to the Miscellaneous Receipts Act (31 U.S.C. 

3302(b)) by authorizing the Department of Defense to accept and 

retain reimbursement from non-federal sources for its conference 

costs. The Secretary of Defense would be permitted to accept reimbursement into its applicable appropriation or account from which 

its conference costs were paid. The Secretary would also be allowed 

to employ general business practices when conducting conferences 

and symposiums. 

This provision would further require the Secretary of Defense, as 

part of the annual submission of budget justification materials, to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the use 

of the authority granted by this provision. The report should include: a listing of conferences held in the previous year(s), receipts 

and expenses, vendor fees collected, and a list of planned events for 

the upcoming fiscal year. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
386 

Currently, the miscellaneous receipts statute effectively prohibits 

the Department from collecting conference fees from individual conference participants to defray the costs of the conference. The statute requires these collections to be deposited into the general 

Treasury and not into any appropriation available to the Department. 

The committee recognizes the business practice of employing conference planners to orchestrate the conference—often at no additional cost to the government. Conference planners are experts at 

conducting such events and, as such are best able to minimize 

costs, while allowing Department employees to focus on mission-related functions. When vendors participate in exhibitions, the conference planner can defray costs of the conference through exhibitor fees and advertising, thereby reducing the costs ultimately 

borne by the Department through the reimbursement of employees’ conference fees. 

The committee expects that this provision would provide the necessary authority for the Department to collect conference fees from 

conference participants and use the amounts collected to pay the 

conference expenses, such as commercial conference space, audiovisual support, educational materials, authorized refreshments, 

speakers’ fees, and advertising. The government would also be permitted to collect reasonable fees from vendors at government exhibitions. 

Minimum annual purchase amounts for airlift from carriers 

participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1052) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to guarantee higher minimum levels of business than are currently authorized by law to United States air carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Awarding sufficient guaranteed amounts of the Department’s peacetime business 

has been an effective incentive to convince air carriers to commit 

aircraft to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program. This provision 

would authorize the Department of Defense to guarantee a minimum level of peacetime business for the Civil Reserve Air Fleet 

participants so that air carriers will commit a sufficient number of 

aircraft to the program to meet the Department’s contingency 

transportation requirements. The guarantee would not be based on 

known requirements at the time of the award. The minimum guarantee of business would instead be based on the Department’s forecast needs for the following year, but capped at a maximum of 80 

percent of the annual average expenditures of peacetime airlift for 

the prior 5-year period utilizing transportation funds already appropriated annually to the services. 

Increased flexibility in the use of funds for Joint Staff exercises (sec. 1053) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

flexibility of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to use funds 

earmarked for the Chairman’s joint exercise program to be available for expenses relating to self-deploying watercraft under the jurisdiction of a military department; port facilities support activities; 

and prepositioned watercraft and lighterage for joint logistics and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
387 

over the shore exercises in connection with such exercises. Currently, the Chairman’s exercise transportation funds can only be 

used for strategic airlift and sealift of equipment and forces, port 

handling, and inland transportation. 

Subtitle G—Report Matters 

Report on clarification of prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or 

degrading treatment or punishment (sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to prepare a report that sets forth unclassified legal opinions on whether certain interrogation techniques constitute cruel, 

inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in section 1403 (d) of the Detainee Treatment Act for 2005 of title XIV 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163). The report shall be transmitted to the congressional defense committees not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. The provision would also direct the President 

to ensure that these legal opinions be disseminated to all personnel 

of such departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and 

all contractors of such departments. 

In testimonies before Senate committees, senior military commanders, Judge Advocates General, and various civilian officials of 

the executive branch have given incomplete or varying answers to 

questions on what constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This provision would ensure consistency on treatment of detainees for members of the armed forces engaged in detention and 

interrogation operations. 

Reports on members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of Defense serving in the Legislative Branch (sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a monthly report to the congressional defense committees if a member of the armed forces or a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, who has been assigned to the legislative branch as a detailee or as a legislative fellow, exceeds 1 year in such an assignment. The report would require information about the nature of the projects or tasks undertaken by the detailee or fellow and the anticipated date of completion. Additionally, the provision would require reporting if a military member receives such an assignment as the last tour of duty 

before retirement or separation from active duty. The committee 

believes that the Department has prescribed effective policies controlling the assignment of legislative fellows and detailees to the 

legislative branch, but that greater efforts are required to ensure 

compliance by the services and effective oversight within the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense. The committee believes that this reporting requirement should be terminated after a sufficient time 

has elapsed for evaluation of the reasons for extended details or fellowships and a determination that the professional qualifications 

and career progression of individual officers and civilian employees 

are not being adversely affected. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
388 

Additional element in annual report on chemical and biological warfare defense (sec. 1063) 

Section 1701 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160; 50 U.S.C. 1522) authorized a separate program in research and development for chemical and biological warfare defense for the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA), but directed that the DARPA director ‘‘shall coordinate the activities under the program with those of the military 

departments and defense agencies.’’ In prior years, it appeared that the DARPA biological warfare defense program was not sufficiently coordinated with the military 

departments and defense agencies. The committee commends 

DARPA for its successful recent efforts to transition several technologies to the joint Department of Defense chemical and biological 

defense program, and to improve its coordination with, and support 

for, that program. The committee is interested in ensuring that the 

DARPA program remains effectively coordinated and integrated in 

the overall Department chemical and biological defense program. 

Therefore, beginning in fiscal year 2008, the committee directs 

the Department to include a description of any DARPA research 

and development efforts on chemical and biological warfare defense 

in the annual report on the Department chemical and biological defense program, as required by section 1703 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160; 50 

U.S.C. 1523). The report should include a discussion of the coordination and integration of relevant DARPA work with the overall 

Department chemical and biological defense program, and the degree to which DARPA’s work supports the Department’s overall 

program. 

Report on Local Boards of Trustees of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to Congress within 30 days of the 

date of enactment of this Act on the composition and activities of 

the Local Board of Trustees of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, 

as required by section 1516 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Act of 1991 (Public Law 101–510). The committee expects the Chief 

Operating Officer to facilitate participation of the Local Board of 

Trustees in an advisory capacity as required by law in the evaluation of options for future development and improvement to the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Repeal of certain report requirements (sec. 1065) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement for certain personnel reports that are no longer necessary. These would include: (1) the annual report on aviation career incentive pay under section 301a of title 37, United States 

Code; (2) the annual report required by section 1015 of title 37, 

United States Code, on the effects of certain recruitment and retention initiatives taken in fiscal year 2000; (3) the report of the Secretary of Defense’s recommendation on the need for Department of 

Defense review of proposed federal agency actions to consider possible impact on national defense; (4) the report on a pilot program 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
389 

to enhance military recruiting by improving military awareness of 

school counselors and educators; (5) the annual report on the activities of the Medical Informatics Advisory Committee and on coordination of informatics systems within the Federal Government; 

and (6) the reporting requirement associated with changes made by 

service academies in the amount of authorized charges or fees. 

Subtitle H—Technical and Conforming Amendments 

Uniform definition of national security system for certain 

Department of Defense purposes (sec. 1071) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify three 

sections of title 10, United States Code, to ensure the definition of 

national security system is consistent with the current definition in 

the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Public 

Law 107–347) and with the definition of information technology in 

44 U.S.C. section 3542(b)(2). 

Conforming amendment relating to redesignation of Defense Communications Agency as Defense Information 

Systems Agency (sec. 1072) 

The committee recommends a provision that would update the 

definition of ‘‘combat support agency’’ in section 193 of title 10, 

United States Code, by changing the ‘‘Defense Communications 

Agency’’ to the ‘‘Defense Information Systems Agency.’’ The Department of Defense officially renamed and rechartered the Defense 

Communications Agency as the Defense Information Systems 

Agency in June 1991 (title 32 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations part 362). This proposed correction would eliminate any continuing confusion between the retired agency name and the current 

name. 

Technical amendment (sec. 1073) 

The Committee recommends a provision that would make technical and conforming changes in section 341(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). 

This change corrects section 341(e) to exempt a pilot program for 

best-value selection of information technology services, authorized 

by section 336 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), from a portion of the requirements of the public-private outsourcing competition process. The 

exempted portion of the public-private outsourcing competition 

process would require the continued performance of a function by 

Department of Defense employees, unless the difference in the cost 

of performance of that function is at least 10 percent of the personnel-related costs for that function or $10 million. 

Subtitle I—Other Matters 

National Foreign Language Coordination Council (sec. 1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

National Foreign Language Coordination Council to develop and 

monitor the implementation of a comprehensive national foreign 

language strategy. The strategy shall include: (1) an identification 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
390 

of priorities to expand foreign language skills in the public and private sectors; (2) recommendations for improving coordination of foreign language programs and activities among federal agencies, enhancing foreign language programs and activities, and allocating 

resources appropriately to maximize the use of resources; (3) effective ways to increase public awareness of the need for foreign language skills and career paths in the public and private sectors that 

can employ those skills; (4) recommendations for incentives for developing related educational programs, including foreign language 

teacher training; and (5) effective ways to coordinate public and 

private sector efforts to provide foreign language instruction and 

acquire foreign language and area expertise. The Council shall prepare and transmit to the President and the relevant committees of 

Congress the strategy not later than 18 months after the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

The committee recognizes that deficits in foreign language and 

regional expertise undermine U.S. national security. On January 5, 

2006, the President launched the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) to increase the number of Americans learning critical foreign languages through new and expanded programs from 

kindergarten through university and into the workforce. The committee acknowledges that the NSLI is a positive step toward immediately expanding critical foreign language skills to strengthen national security. However, the committee believes that a longer term 

strategic effort is needed to increase language and cultural competency in the United States. 

Support of successor organizations of the disestablished 

Interagency Global Positioning System Executive Board 

(sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical change to the Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–405) to reflect the subsequent 

disestablishment of the Interagency Global Positioning Executive 

Board and its replacement by a new organizational structure created by National Security Presidential Directive 39, entitled United 

States Space-based Position, Navigation, and Timing Policy. 

Sense of Congress on the Quadrennial Defense Review (sec. 

1083) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is 

a vital document in laying out the strategic military planning and 

threat objectives of the Department of Defense. The committee believes the QDR is critical to building the correct mix of military 

planning assumptions, defense capabilities, and the strategic focus 

of the armed forces of the United States. 

The committee notes the QDR is intended to provide more than 

an overview of global threats and the general strategic orientation 

of the Department. The committee reiterates that the QDR analysis and recommendations were not intended to be constrained by 

the Department’s budget submission. 

The committee further believes that the QDR process would benefit from: (1) more specific guidance on the defense capabilities recVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00412 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
391 

ommended in the QDR, including the numbers and types of systems or platforms required to achieve the strategic and war-fighting objectives; (2) an official ‘‘red team’’ assessment of the QDR assumptions, planning guidelines, and recommended capabilities, and 

having the red team provide its results to the Congress; and (3) a 

more comprehensive risk assessment from the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff that describes the additional capabilities needed to reduce the risks identified in his assessment. 

The committee has requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct an assessment on whether the 2006 

QDR Report was consistent with congressional intent. The committee intends to review the QDR process and make any legislative 

changes that may be needed before the submission of the next 

QDR. The GAO assessment will represent one element of that review. 

The committee looks forward to working with the Department of 

Defense, the GAO, and outside experts in its review of the QDR 

process. 

Items of Special Interest 

Developing a new staff structure for combatant command 

headquarters 

Strengthening interagency operations is one of the major tenets 

of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report. The QDR 

states that ‘‘success requires unified statecraft: the ability of the 

U.S. Government to bring to bear all elements of national power 

and to work in close cooperation with allies and partners abroad.’’

In the years since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 

1986, ‘‘jointness’’ has promoted more unified direction and action of 

the armed forces. In recent months, senior military leaders, including combatant commanders, have emphasized the importance of 

interagency planning and coordination for interagency operations. 

The committee recognizes the importance of interagency operations and supports intiatives to strengthen interagency planning 

and coordination. Currently, interagency presence in the staffs of 

combatant commands is usually limited in number and serves primarily as a liaison from the parent organization to the combatant 

command. 

The committee believes there is benefit to increasing the size of 

the interagency presence in the staff of each command headquarters and fully embedding the interagency personnel in the 

combatant command structure. The committee also believes this 

may require a realignment or restucture of the basic staff components. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

a study on the development of an integrated interagency structure 

or organization for combatant commands. The Secretary should 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 1 

year after the enactment of this Act. 

Distributed decision support system 

Commanders and staffs conducting military operations in the 

21st century will find themselves responsible for planning and executing tasks outside the scope of their military training and experiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00413 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
392 

ence. Deploying or deployed commanders could be aided significantly by having more ready access to expertise and technology, either resident or non-resident in the Department of Defense or U.S. 

Federal Government, on an array of topics not normally included 

in a commander’s professional military education. These commanders would benefit significantly from routine and readily available access to subject matter experts, centers of expertise, and tailored data. This distributed decision support system will require an 

agent to broker the expertise and a data mining, retrieval, and 

interface tool capable of performing data query, visualization, organization, statistical analysis, and posting. 

The committee recommends that the Department of Defense conduct a proof of concept demonstration that would develop a distributed decision support system to leverage available communications 

infrastructures to assemble an on-demand network of subject matter experts, specialized organizations, databases, and computing resources to assist joint force commanders and staffs in planning, decision-making, and complex problem solving. The committee does 

not intend that such a system would replace any existing system, 

but would augment the force with non-resident expertise to enhance dynamic plannng and decision-making. The committee recommends that the Department conduct the proof of concept demonstration in one combatant command area and submit a report to 

Congress no later than 6 months after the completion of the proof 

of concept demonstration. 

Report on Special Operations Command UAV intelligence 

collection requirements 

The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) to study 

and report on the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) intelligence collection requirements in future years for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), specifically the number of Predator 

UAVs needed as intelligence collection platforms in the futureyears defense program. 

The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the 

Committee on Armed Services held a hearing on April 6, 2006, 

with, among others, USSOCOM Deputy Commander, Vice Admiral 

Eric Olson. In that hearing, Admiral Olson indicated that his command was not slated to receive a sufficient quantity of Predator 

UAVs and ground sensors for intelligence collection capabilities according to the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report. 

Admiral Olson further informed the subcommittee that USSOCOM 

would be best served by a second squadron of 24 Predator UAVs, 

beyond the first squadron planned for in the QDR planning process. The Commander, USSOCOM has been designated as the lead 

combatant commander with the responsibility for the military engagement in the global war on terrorism. 

The committee believes that sufficient intelligence collection capabilities are critical to develop the actionable intelligence necessary to find, fix, and eliminate terrorist threats. The committee 

directs the Department to submit an unclassified, and if necessary 

classified, report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than 120 days after enactment of this legislation. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(393) 

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY 

Accrual of annual leave for members of the uniformed services on terminal leave performing dual employment (sec. 

1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military members on terminal leave, who are entitled to accrue 

leave authorized in section 5534a of title 5, United States Code, 

based on civilian federal employment, to accrue such leave while 

remaining in a terminal leave status. 

Strategy for improving the senior management, functional, 

and technical workforce of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to include a strategy for the senior management, functional, and technical workforce of the Department in the 

Strategic Human Capital Plan as required by section 1122 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163). 

The committee is aware that several of the military departments 

have initiated efforts to realign their senior civilian workforces to 

ensure that they are building the leaders the Department of Defense will need to meet future challenges. The committee’s review 

of these efforts has identified a number of questions that merit further examination by the Department. For example: 

(1) The number of senior executives assigned to the Department dropped dramatically in the 1990s, and has not changed 

as the Department’s budget and responsibilities have increased 

since September 11, 2001. Does the Department have an adequate number of senior executives to meet its responsibilities? 

(2) The Department has initiated a process of military-to-civilian conversions to ensure that the Department can make the 

best use of its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. How does 

the process of military-to-civilian conversions impact the demands placed on the Department’s senior civilian workforce? 

(3) Congress has provided the Department a number of different authorities to hire senior management, functional, and 

technical personnel. Do these authorities give the Department 

the authority and the flexibility required to recruit and retain 

the categories of senior management and technical personnel 

that it needs? 

(4) Section 1125 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) authorized increased pay for senior executives in agencies (including the Department of Defense) that are certified as having effective perVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00415 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
394 

formance appraisal systems. Comparable changes in the pay 

system and pay levels were not made for senior scientific and 

technical personnel serving in the Department. Should some 

adjustment be made to ensure that the Department can attract 

and retain highly-qualified senior scientific and technical personnel? 

The provision is not intended to limit the ability of the Secretary 

to reexamine the structure and salary for all senior level employees, and make recommendations for change to the congressional defense committees as the Secretary believes are appropriate. The 

committee believes that this evaluation is critical to the future of 

the Department, and encourages the Department to begin the evaluation even before the enactment of this Act. The committee also 

urges the Department to develop a program which would expand 

joint capabilities at senior levels within the civilian workforce. 

Authority to equalize allowances, benefits, and gratuities of 

personnel on official duty in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 

1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend to the 

heads of all agencies, for their civilian personnel serving in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, the same authority as the Secretary of State already has under section 413 and chapter 9 of title I of the Foreign 

Service Act (22 U.S.C. § 4081 et seq.) with respect to allowances, 

benefits, and death gratuities for Foreign Service personnel. This 

authority would not derogate from any existing authority granted 

by law to an agency head. 

The heads of a number of U.S. agencies whose personnel traditionally serve abroad already have authority to grant to their personnel serving abroad allowances, benefits and death gratuities 

comparable to those granted by the Secretary of State to similarlysituated Foreign Service personnel serving abroad. For example, 

with respect to allowances and benefits, the Secretary of Defense 

has such authority for civilian and military defense attache ́ personnel (10 U.S.C. § 1605 and 37 U.S.C. § 431) and National Security Agency personnel (50 U.S.C. § 402 note); the Secretary of the 

Treasury has such authority with respect to Treasury international 

affairs personnel (31 U.S.C. § 325); the Secretary of Agriculture has 

such authority with respect to agricultural attache ́ personnel (7 

U.S.C. § 1766c); the Secretary of Transportation has such authority 

with respect to personnel with aviation powers and duties (49 

U.S.C. § 322(d)(6)); and the Director of the Central Intelligence 

Agency has such authority with respect to Central Intelligence 

Agency personnel (50 U.S.C. § 403e(b)(1)). Similarly, for Central Intelligence Agency and certain Department of Defense personnel (10 

U.S.C. §§ 1475, 1478, and 1489; 50 U.S.C. § 403k), agency heads 

may provide death gratuities comparable to those afforded with respect to Foreign Service personnel (22 U.S.C. § 3973). 

The committee believes that the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan requires coordinated and integrated action among all federal 

departments and agencies. In recent months, General Peter Pace, 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General John P. Abizaid, 

Commander, United States Central Command, have emphasized 

the importance of strengthening interagency coordination in Iraq 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
395 

and Afghanistan. In his 2006 posture statement to the Committee 

on Armed Services, General Abizaid stated that ‘‘We need significantly more non-military personnel . . . with expertise in areas 

such as economic development, civil affairs, agriculture, and law.’’

Strengthening interagency operations has also become a principal theme in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report. The QDR aptly states that ‘‘success requires unified 

statecraft: the ability of the U.S. Government to bring to bear all 

elements of national power at home and to work in close cooperation with allies and partners abroad.’’ In the years since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, ‘‘jointness’’ has promoted more unified direction and action of our armed forces. The 

committee believes that the time has come for similar changes to 

take place elsewhere in the Federal Government. 

Item of Special Interest 

Highly qualified experts 

Section 9903 of title 5, United States Code, provided the Department of Defense new authority to hire up to 2,500 appropriately 

qualified experts from outside the civil service to oversee and direct 

its reform process, without going through normal hiring processes. 

The committee is concerned that only 12 of the 2,500 high-qualified 

experts have been hired. The committee is also concerned that the 

Department has imposed restrictions on the use of the new authority that were not included in the legislation, such as prohibiting 

highly qualified experts from participating in policy or decisionmaking and limiting the delegation of authority for hiring to certain senior level Department officials. The committee has also been 

informed that the Department has implemented the new hiring authority in an unnecessarily bureaucratic manner. 

As a result, Department reform activities remain severely understaffed and highly dependent on contractors to perform critical acquisition and financial management functions. 

For example, the committee has learned that bureaucratic impediments have prevented the Business Transformation Agency 

(BTA), which was established by the Deputy Secretary of Defense 

on October 7, 2005, to address pervasive problems in the Department’s business systems, from filling a significant number of critical positions despite having documented requirements and funding 

for those positions. 

In a letter to the Committee on Armed Services dated March 24, 

2006, the Deputy Secretary of Defense acknowledged that the 

guidelines and policy concerning the highly qualified expert authority were too restrictive and implementation of the authority has 

yielded few results. The committee understands that work is underway to revise the guidance, and strongly urges the Department 

to promptly issue improved guidance, consistent with the authorizing statute, in order to produce the intended results for the highly qualified expert authority. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees no later than June 15, 2006, on 

steps that the Department has taken and a schedule for additional 

steps the Department plans to take to: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
396 

(1) address unnecessary restrictions in the guidelines for hiring Highly Qualified Experts; 

(2) eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic barriers in the hiring 

process; 

(3) strengthen recruiting efforts; and 

(4) ensure that the BTA is fully staffed and able to meet its 

important mission. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(397) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—General Matters 

Expansion of humanitarian and civic assistance to include 

communications and information capacity (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 401, title 10, United States Code, to expand the authority of 

the Secretary of Defense to provide humanitarian and civic assistance in conjunction with military operations to include information 

and communications technology as necessary to provide basic information and communications services. 

The committee acknowledges that rudimentary construction and 

repair of information and communications technology facilities 

should be considered a fundamental element of humanitarian and 

civic assistance. The committee, however, expects that humanitarian and civic assistance carried out in conjunction with military 

operations will promote: (1) the security interests of both the 

United States and the country in which the activities are to be carried out; and (2) the specific operational readiness of the U.S. 

armed forces who participate in humanitarian and civic activities. 

Further, the assistance shall complement, and may not duplicate, 

any other form of foreign assistance that may be provided to the 

country by the United States. 

Modification of authorities relating to the Regional Defense 

Counterterrorism Fellowship Program (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2249c of title 10, United States Code, to change the title of the 

‘‘Regional Defense Counterterrorism Fellowship Program’’ to the 

‘‘Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Program.’’ The provision 

would also increase the amount of authorized annual funding for 

the program from $20.0 million to $25.0 million. 

The committee recognizes the critical need to provide education 

and training opportunities to our allies in the global war on terror 

and further notes the importance of the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Program as an integral part of that effort. 

The committee expects the Department of Defense to continue to 

ensure that the program conforms to the spirit of statutory guidelines governing the administration of related programs. 

Logistic support of allied forces for combined operations 

(sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, permanent authority to use up to $100.0 million from operVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
398 

ation and maintenance funds in any fiscal year to provide logistic 

support, supplies, and services to allied forces participating in combined operations with the armed forces of the United States. The 

provision would require the Secretary of Defense to make a determination that the allied forces to be provided the logistic support, 

supplies, and services are essential to the success of the combined 

operations, and that the allied forces would not be able to participate in the combined operations without the provision of the 

logistical support, supplies, and services. The provision would also 

authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide up to an additional 

$5.0 million from operation and maintenance funds in any fiscal 

year to provide logistic support, supplies, and services to allied 

forces participating in combined operations with the armed forces 

of the United States solely for the purposes of enhancing the interoperability of the logistical support systems of the allied forces with 

the logistical support systems of the United States in order to facilitate combined operations. 

Exclusion of petroleum, oil, and lubricants from limitations 

on amount of liabilities the United States may accrue 

under acquisition and cross-servicing agreements (sec. 

1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would exclude the 

acquisition of petroleum, oil, and lubricants from the monetary limitations placed on acquisitions made under Acquisition and Crossservicing Agreements (ACSA) with foreign allies. The ACSA limitations have not been raised for over 10 years. The rising cost of and 

demand for petroleum, oil, and lubricants make it reasonable to exclude these items from the ACSA monetary caps, which were intended to place a reasonable, but not overly restrictive, limit on the 

value of acquisitions that could be made through ACSA agreements. 

Temporary authority to use acquisition and cross-servicing 

agreements to loan significant military equipment to 

foreign forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for personnel 

protection and survivability (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense temporary authority to treat significant military equipment as logistical support, supplies, and services under 

subchapter I of chapter 138 of title 10, United States Code, authorizing the use of Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements. The 

provision would permit this authority to be used only for purposes 

of providing for the use of such equipment by military forces of foreign nations participating in combined operations with U.S. forces 

in Iraq and Afghanistan if the Secretary, with the concurrence of 

the Secretary of State, determines in writing that it is in the national security interest of the United States to provide for the use 

of such equipment for that purpose. The provision would limit the 

duration of the loan of equipment under this authority to 1 year, 

and would require that the equipment be used by foreign military 

forces solely for personnel protection or to aid in the personnel survivability of such forces. The provision would stipulate that the 

provision of equipment under this authority shall be subject to the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
399 

Arms Export Control Act and any other export control regime 

under law relating to the transfer of military technology to foreign 

nations. 

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit semi-annual reports 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on International Relations of the House of 

Representatives. The reports would include for each exercise of this 

authority: a copy of the written determination; a statement of each 

recipient of equipment under this authority; a statement of the 

type, quantity and value of the equipment supplied under this authority; and the terms and duration of the loan of the equipment. 

This authority would expire on September 30, 2008. 

The committee notes that this authority is intended to permit the 

temporary loan of equipment such as armored HMMWVs or 

HMMWVs with add-on armor kits, counter-improvised explosive 

device equipment, and defusing equipment to our coalition partners 

in Iraq and Afghanistan so that they can be better protected 

against improvised explosive devices and other weapons they are 

encountering in those theaters. 

Modification of authorities relating to the building of the 

capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) by permitting the Secretary of Defense 

to use funds available for operation and maintenance to conduct or 

support the activities authorized under that section, and by extending the duration of the authority provided in that section through 

September 30, 2008. 

The provision would also provide new authority to the Secretary 

of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to authorize any commander of a geographic combatant command to respond to unanticipated changes in a security environment within 

that commander’s area of responsibility (AOR) to build the capacity 

of the national military forces of a country within that AOR in 

order for that country to conduct counterterrorist operations or participate in or support military and stability operations. The provision would require that a program constructed under this authority 

promote observance of and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and respect for legitimate civilian authority within the country concerned. A program constructed under this authority could include the provision of equipment, supplies, and 

training. The provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to use 

funds available for operation and maintenance for fiscal years 2007 

and 2008, up to $200.0 million in a fiscal year for this purpose. Of 

that amount, no more than $50.0 million may be available for any 

one geographic combatant commander in a fiscal year. This authority could not be used to provide assistance that is otherwise prohibited by any provision of law, nor could it be used to provide assistance to any foreign nation that would otherwise be prohibited from 

receiving such assistance. The provision would further require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe guidance for programs conVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00421 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
400 

structed under this authority. That guidance shall require a combatant commander to formulate any program under this authority 

for a country jointly with the U.S. Ambassador or Chief of Mission 

to that country, and to coordinate with the U.S. Ambassador or 

Chief of Mission to that country in implementing any program 

under this authority. The provision would further require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to 

provide a notification to specified congressional committees no later 

than 15 days after the initiation of activities in a country under 

this authority. This authority would expire on September 30, 2008. 

The provision would also provide the Secretary of Defense new 

authority to authorize a geographic combatant commander to respond to urgent and unanticipated humanitarian relief or reconstruction requirements in a foreign country within the commander’s AOR if the commander determines that the provision of 

such assistance will promote the security interest of the United 

States and of the country to which such assistance would be provided. The provision would permit such assistance to be provided 

without regard to chapters 137, 140, or 141 of title 10, United 

States Code, or any other provision of law that would otherwise 

prohibit, restrict, or limit the provision of such assistance. Assistance provided under this authority could include: construction, reconstruction or repair of municipal, educational, cultural or other 

local facilities; reconstitution or improvement of utilities or other 

local infrastructure; and provision of any other goods and services 

necessary to respond to urgent and unanticipated humanitarian relief or reconstruction requirements. The provision would prohibit 

this authority from being used in Iraq or Afghanistan. The provision would limit the amounts available for this authority to 

$200,000 in any country in a fiscal year. Funding for the exercise 

of this authority would come from funds available for operation and 

maintenance for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The provision would 

further require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe guidance for 

the provision of assistance under this authority. That guidance 

shall include a requirement that any assistance to a country be 

provided only with the concurrence of the U.S. Ambassador or 

Chief of Mission to that country. The provision would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide the guidance, and any modification 

of that guidance, to the congressional defense committees. The provision would further require the Secretary of Defense, no later than 

November 1, 2007 and 2008, to submit to the congressional defense 

committees a report on the provision of assistance under this authority in the preceding fiscal year. The report shall include the 

source of funds used to provide assistance, identification of each 

country to which assistance was provided, and for each country, the 

type and amount of assistance provided. This authority would expire on September 30, 2008. 

The committee underscores that the authorities provided in this 

section are provided in the spirit of a pilot program. The committee 

intends to review carefully how these authorities are implemented 

so as to have a basis for determining whether and, if so, in what 

precise manner, to reauthorize these or provide other authorities 

after the conclusion of the pilot program. Important factors in the 

committee’s future consideration of these matters will be the report 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
401 

that is to be provided under section 1206, and the record of implementing these authorities that is built by the Department of Defense and the geographic combatant commanders over the next 2 

years. The committee strongly discourages further modifications to 

these authorities until a track record implementing the pilot program authorized in this section has been developed. The committee 

believes it will be important to demonstrate through experience 

that these expanded authorities can and will be exercised consistent with the effective coordination of U.S. foreign policy writ 

large. 

Participation of the Department of Defense in multinational 

military centers of excellence (sec. 1207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

during fiscal year 2007 the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to permit the participation of Department of Defense civilian and military personnel in multinational military centers of excellence for the purpose of enhancing 

the ability of participating nations to engage in joint exercises or 

coalition or international military operations, or to improve their 

interoperability. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to enter into memoranda of understanding, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that would govern the terms of the 

Department’s participation in such centers. The provision would permit the Secretary of Defense to use up to $3.0 million from 

funds available for operation and maintenance in fiscal year 2007 

to pay the U.S. share of the expenses of such centers in which the 

Department participates, and to pay for the salaries and expenses 

of the Department personnel participating in such centers. The provision would further authorize the use of Department facilities and 

equipment to support such centers that are hosted by the Department. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 

October 31, 2007, on the use of this authority, including a detailed 

report on the centers and activities in which the Department participated, and the cost of that participation. 

The provision would define a center of excellence as an entity 

sponsored by one or more nations that is accredited and approved 

by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Military Committee as offering recognized expertise and experience to personnel 

participating in the activities of such entity for the benefit of 

NATO. 

The committee notes that it requires further information regarding the Department’s expressed interest in expanding the authority 

beyond NATO-approved centers of excellence. 

Distribution of education and training materials and information technology to enhance interoperability (sec. 

1208) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to provide electronically-distributed learning 

content and associated information technology for the education 

and training of military and civilian personnel of friendly foreign 

governments and personnel of internationally-recognized non-govVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00423 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
402 

ernmental organizations to enhance allied and friendly military capabilities for multinational operations, including joint exercises and 

coalition operations. The provision would require the concurrence of 

the Secretary of State if the activity proposed to be undertaken is 

not authorized by another provision of law. The provision would 

further require that the provision of learning content and information technology under this authority shall be subject to the Arms 

Export Control Act and any other export control regime under law 

relating to the transfer of military technology for foreign nations. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to: develop and 

issue guidance on the procedures for the use of this authority; submit a report to the congressional defense committees on that guidance no later than 30 days after it is issued; and submit any modifications of the guidance to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee recommends that the guidance include procedures 

for vetting by the Department of State and/or the U.S. country 

team of the proposed recipients of any materials or information 

technology to be provided under this authority. The provision 

would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report 

to the congressional defense committees on the use of the authority 

during the preceding fiscal year. The authority would expire on 

September 30, 2008. 

Subtitle B—Report Matters 

Report on increased role and participation of multinational 

partners in the United Nations Command in the Republic of Korea (sec. 1221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, 

to submit a report within 180 days of enactment of this Act to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 

Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the House 

of Representatives on an increased role and participation of multinational partners in the United Nations Command in the Republic 

of Korea. The report shall include: (1) a list of the nations that are 

current members of the United Nations Command and a detailed 

description of the role and participation of each member nation in 

the responsibilities and activities of the United Nations Command; 

(2) a detailed description of efforts being taken by the United 

States to encourage enhanced participation in United Nations Command responsibilities and activities by the member nations; (3) a 

discussion of whether and how United Nations Command members 

might be persuaded to deploy military forces in peacetime to the 

Republic of Korea to bolster the deterrence mission of the United 

Nations Command; (4) an assessment of how the military and political requirements for U.S. military forces in the Republic of Korea 

might be affected were multinational partners in the United Nations Command to increase their contribution of military forces stationed in the Republic of Korea; and (5) an assessment of whether 

and how the contribution of additional military forces to the United 

Nations Command in the Republic of Korea by a multinational 

partner might affect that partner’s approach to facilitating a diploVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
403 

matic resolution of the nuclear challenge posed by the Democratic 

Peoples Republic of Korea. The report should be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. 

Report on interagency operating procedures for stabilization and reconstruction operations (sec. 1222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to develop a plan to establish interagency operating procedures for federal agencies to plan and conduct stabilization and 

reconstruction operations. The provision would require the President to prepare and transmit to Congress a report on the plan not 

later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

The report shall include: (1) a delineation of roles, responsibilities, and authorities of federal agencies involved in support of stabilization and reconstruction operations; (2) a description of the 

operational processes for setting policy direction to guide agency 

operational planning and making funding decisions for programs, 

overseeing policy implementation, integrating all programs and activities of designated federal agencies into an implementation plan, 

interfacing and integrating civilian and military planning efforts 

for stabilization and reconstruction operations, providing guidance 

to field-level personnel on program direction and priorities, and 

monitoring field implementation of assistance programs; (3) a description of available capabilities and resources of each federal 

agency that could be used in support of stabilization and reconstruction activities and identification of additional resources needed; (4) a description of how the capabilities and resources of federal 

agencies will be coordinated among the federal agencies; (5) a description of existing, or planned, protocols between federal agencies 

on the utilization and allocation of assets in field operations; (6) 

recommendations for improving interagency training, education, 

and simulation exercises in order to adequately prepare civilian 

and military personnel in federal agencies to perform stabilization 

and reconstruction activities; (7) a discussion of statutory and 

budgetary impediments, if any, that prevent civilian agencies of the 

Federal Government from fully and effectively participating in stabilization and reconstruction activities, and recommendations for 

new authorities necessary to enhance the ability of the executive 

branch to conduct stabilization and reconstruction activities; and 

(8) guidance on implementation of the plan. 

Since 1945, the U.S. military has undertaken numerous stabilization and reconstruction operations and related missions, with 

varying degrees of success and each operation generally wider in 

scope and more ambitious in intent than the last. In the post-Cold 

War era, the United States led six major operations, including in 

Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

In each of these recent and current operations, the United States 

Government has lacked a standard, integrated approach to the 

planning and conduct of interagency operations, with each new administration issuing new guidance on how to manage complex operations and creating new arrangements to coordinate civil-military 

operations. This ad hoc approach has hindered the effective performance of the United States in achieving its national security objectives. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
404 

In response to recent operational experiences, the administration 

has taken a number of steps to improve the United States performance in contingency operations. In 2004, the administration created 

the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization 

within the Department of State to coordinate and strengthen efforts of the United States Government to prepare, plan for, and 

conduct interagency operations. In 2005, the President issued National Security Presidential Directive-44, entitled ‘‘Management of 

Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization,’’ to improve coordination, planning, and implementation for reconstruction and stabilization assistance. Additionally, the Department of Defense issued Directive number 3000.05, entitled ‘‘Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction 

Operations,’’ making stability operations a core military mission 

comparable to combat operations. 

The committee commends the administration for taking these 

steps to strengthen interagency operations. The committee, however, believes that the United States government should develop a 

standardized approach to the planning and conduct of interagency 

operations to ensure a coherent and unified United States Government response to contingency operations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(405) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET 

UNION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 

and funds (sec. 1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs; define the funds as 

those authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act; and 

authorize the CTR funds to be available for obligation for three fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$372.1 million, the amount included in the budget request, for the 

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision would 

also authorize specific amounts for each CTR program element; require notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2007 funds for a purpose 

other than the purposes described in each of the CTR program elements; and provide limited authority to exceed the amount authorized for a specific CTR program element. 

Extension of temporary authority to waive limitation on 

funding for chemical weapons destruction facility in 

Russia (sec. 1303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2011, the President’s authority to waive, on 

an annual basis for each calendar year, existing certification requirements before obligating or expending funds for the construction of the Shchuch’ye chemical weapons destruction facility in 

Russia. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(407) 

TITLE XIV—AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED 

COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM 

AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM 

Overview 

The committee recommends a supplemental authorization of 

$50.0 billion in funds to be appropriated for fiscal year 2007 to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism. The committee notes that the President’s fiscal year 2007 

budget request included a $50.0 billion supplemental fund in anticipation of additional needs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global 

war on terrorism. Providing authorization of these funds in advance of need ensures our troops in the field will be given adequate 

resources to meet ongoing demands of current military operations 

and any emergent needs of the ongoing global war on terrorism. 

Summary table of authorization 

The following table summarizes authorizations included in this 

title for ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global 

war on terrorism for fiscal year 2007. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
408 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 474 SR254.152
409 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 475 SR254.153
410 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 476 SR254.154
411 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 477 SR254.155
412 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 478 SR254.156
413 

Purpose (sec. 1401) 

This section would establish this title as an authorization of appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007, in 

addition to the amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, of $50.0 

billion to be available for activities in support of operations in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism. 

Army procurement (sec. 1402) 

This section would authorize an additional $1.8 billion for fiscal 

year 2007 Army procurement. 

Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1403) 

This section would authorize an additional $319.8 million for fiscal year 2007 Marine Corps procurement. 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1404) 

This section would authorize an additional $51.8 million for fiscal 

year 2007 Air Force procurement. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1405) 

This section would authorize an additional $32.2 billion for fiscal 

year 2007 operation and maintenance programs. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406) 

This section would authorize an additional $960.2 million to the 

Defense Health Program for operation and maintenance for fiscal 

year 2007. 

Military personnel (sec. 1407) 

This section would authorize an additional $7.3 billion for fiscal 

year 2007 to the Department of Defense for military personnel. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1408) 

This section would authorize an additional $2.1 billion for fiscal 

year 2007 for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. 

The funding provided for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Fund would ensure the rapid development and deployment 

of intelligence; tactics, techniques and procedures; training; and the 

associated procurement of equipment to counter improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Classified programs (sec. 1409) 

This section would authorize an additional $3.0 billion for fiscal 

year 2007 for classified programs. 

Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1410) 

This section would authorize an additional $2.2 billion for an 

Iraqi Freedom Fund to be available until expended for activities in 

support of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on 

terrorism. These funds would be available for transfer to other accounts in this title, subject to a 5 day prior notification to the congressional defense committees. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
414 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1411) 

This section designates that the authorization of appropriations 

in this title are in addition to the amounts otherwise in this Act. 

Transfer authority (sec. 1412) 

This section would provide fiscal year 2007 transfer authority of $2.5 billion to the Department of Defense for the authorizations 

contained in this title. 

Availability of funds (sec. 1413) 

This section would require that the funds provided in this title 

be made available for obligation by the end of the second quarter 

of fiscal year 2007. 

Budget Items 

UH–60M Black Hawk helicopters 

The budget request included $740.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army, for UH–60M Black Hawk helicopters. The committee 

notes that the budget request contained no funding for UH–60M 

helicopter battle losses in the U.S. Central Command area of operations. Additional funding for five UH–60M Black Hawk helicopters has been included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s fiscal 

year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $71.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army, for UH–60M 

Black Hawk helicopters, for a total authorization of $811.4 million. 

CH–47F cargo helicopters 

The budget request included $622.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army, for CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications. The committee notes that the budget request contained no funding for CH–

47D cargo helicopter battle losses in the U.S. Central Command 

area of operations. The committee also notes that the CH–47D 

cargo helicopter is no longer in production. Additional funding for 

11 new-build CH–47F cargo helicopters as replacement for CH–47D 

cargo helicopter battle losses has been included on the Chief of 

Staff of the Army’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $333.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army, for new-build CH–47F cargo helicopters, for a 

total authorization of $955.2 million. 

Patriot missile defense system 

The budget request included $489.1 million in Missile Procurement, Army (MPA) for 108 Patriot PAC–3 missiles; and $70.0 million in MPA for Patriot modifications in MPA. The Patriot ballistic 

missile defense system demonstrated its worth during Operation 

Iraqi Freedom by intercepting all nine Iraqi short-range ballistic 

missiles that were engaged by Patriot. The committee notes that 

the predominant foreign ballistic missile threat to U.S. forces is 

from short-range ballistic missiles, and the U.S. Central Command 

recommends the acceleration of upgrades for Patriot and additional 

PAC–3 missile production. 

The committee recommends an increase of $400.0 million in MPA 

to support the upgrade of Patriot battalions to the configuration–


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
415 

3 capability. This upgrade would significantly extend the defensive 

range and capability of over 2,000 Patriot PAC–2 missiles now in 

the inventory. Additional funding for these Patriot PAC–3 upgrades has been included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. The committee also recommends an increase 

of $50.0 million in MPA for purchases of 16 additional PAC–3 missiles in fiscal year 2007, in response to calls from combatant commanders for more Patriot missiles to keep pace with the threat. 

M1A1 Abrams integrated management and tank urbanization upgrade kits 

The budget request included $364.9 million in Procurement of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat, Army, but no funding for the M1A1 

Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) program or tank urbanization survival kits (TUSK). 

The committee understands that the Army has decided to ‘‘pure 

fleet’’ Army tanks in two configurations, Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) tanks and M1A1 AIM tanks. Although 

numerous improvements have been made to the M1A1 tank, it retains its analog backbone and will not be interoperable with the 

M1A2 SEP without further improvements to the M1A1 AIM tank 

configuration. The committee notes that the M1A1 AIM program 

appears to be funded in the future years defense program (FYDP) 

and encourages the Army to retain M1A1 AIM tanks in base budget requests. The Secretary of the Army will submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees, no later than March 15, 2007, 

that provides an explanation of how heavy brigades in the active 

and Reserve components will achieve interoperability on the battle 

field. The report will detail the specific equipment required for 

interoperability, the quantities required by brigade combat teams, 

and the costs associated with this equipment. 

TUSK components are add on kits for M1A1 and M1A2 series 

tanks to increase crew survivability in urban environments. The 

Army requires 505 TUSK to meet the operational needs of the combatant commanders. 

Additional funding for the M1A1 AIM program and TUSK has 

been included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s fiscal year 2007 

unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of 

$136.5 million for M1A1 AIM tanks and $77.9 million for TUSK, 

in Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, 

for a total authorization of $579.3 million. 

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles 

The budget request included $582.6 million in Other Procurement, Army, for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles 

(HMMWV), including $428.9 million for the procurement of the 

M1151 and M1152 HMMWV variants with armor. The committee 

supports the Army’s decision to transition from the up-armored 

HMMWV variant to a more versatile M1151/M1152 HMMWV variant with removable armor. However, the committee also understands that the Army Component Commander of the U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM) has determined that all Level II HMMWVs 

in the CENTCOM area of operations will be upgraded to the Level 

I configuration. The requirement was validated on February 24, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
416 

2006. The Army has funded 16,129 of the 18,669 requirement. Additional funding for HMMWVs has been included on the Chief of 

Staff of the Army’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The com- mittee recommends an increase of $508.0 million in Other Procurement, Army, for the procurement of up-armored HMMWVs or 

M1151/M1152 HMMWV variants with armor, for a total authorization of $1,090.6 million. 

Heavy expanded mobile tactical truck extended service program 

The budget request included $220.4 million in Other Procurement, Army, for the heavy expanded mobile tactical truck 

(HEMTT) extended service program (ESP). HEMTT–ESP is the primary source of M1120A2R1 HEMTT Load Handling System (LHS) 

variants, which reduce the logistics footprint on the battlefield to 

support the Army’s evolving transportation-based, just-in-time supply system. Additional funding for HEMTT has been included on 

the Chief of Staff of the Army’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $125.0 million in 

Other Procurement, Army for HEMTT–ESP, for a total authorization of $345.4 million. 

Land mobile radios 

The budget request included $33.8 million in Other Procurement, 

Army, for base support communications, but no funding for land 

mobile radios. Lessons learned from the natural disasters of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005 indicate that the Department has an immediate need for a handheld radio capability which 

allows interoperability with the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency and other civilian agencies. Additional funding for land mobile radios has been included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s 

fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends 

an increase of $30.0 million in Other Procurement, Army, for land 

mobile radios, for a total authorization of $63.8 million. 

Profiler 

The budget request included $2.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Army, for the Profiler meteorological system. The committee notes 

that the budget request contained no funding for the Profiler system for units deploying to the U.S. Central Command area of operations. The Profiler system is the only system capable of providing 

accurate meteorological data used in calculations for accurate delivery of precision munitions. Additional funding for 17 Profiler systems has been included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s fiscal 

year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $23.6 million in Other Procurement, Army, for the Profiler system, for a total authorization of $25.7 million. 

Assault Amphibious Vehicle/7A1 product improvement program 

The budget request included $12.5 million in Procurement, Marine Corps, for the Assault Amphibious Vehicle 7A1 Product Improvement Program (AAV7A1 PIP). Title IX of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–148) approVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00438 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
417 

priated $80.6 million for the AAV7A1 PIP. The Department of Defense requested $58.1 million for the AAV7A1 PIP in the Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Request for Fiscal Year 

2006. The Marine Corps provided information that indicated there 

is a $22.5 million unfunded requirement that could not be executed 

in fiscal year 2006 but could be executed in fiscal year 2007. The 

committee recommends an increase of $22.5 million in Procurement, Marine Corps for AAV7A1 PIP, for a total authorization of 

$35.0 million. 

High mobility artillery rocket system re-supply system 

armor 

The budget request included $57.5 million in Procurement, Marine Corps, for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System 

(HIMARS) but no funding for HIMARS re-supply system (RSS) 

armor. Armoring of the HIMARS RSS not only supports a key performance parameter of a Joint Requirements Oversight Council requirement but also provides enhanced personnel survivability for 

Marines operating the HIMARS RSS. Additional funding for the 

procurement of HIMARS RSS armor has been included on the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $85.3 million 

in Procurement, Marine Corps for HIMARS RSS armor, for a total 

authorization of $142.8 million. 

Gunner protection kits 

The budget request included no funding in Procurement, Marine 

Corps, for gunner protection kits for High Mobility Multipurpose 

Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) and Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) vehicles. The Marine Corps has developed 

armor kits which provide protection for Marines exposed in unprotected turrets while traveling in HMMWV or in unprotected truck 

beds in MTVRs. These gunner protection kits include side and door 

armor, underbelly armor, transparent armor, fuel tank fire suppression kits, and rear door armor. The committee recommends an 

increase of $100.0 million in Procurement, Marine Corps, for armor 

kits, for a total authorization of $100.0 million. 

Family of explosive ordnance demolition equipment 

The budget request included $14.8 in Procurement, Marine 

Corps, for explosive ordnance demolition systems, but no funding 

for the procurement of assault breacher vehicles, Cougar hardened 

engineer vehicles, or Buffalo armored vehicles. 

The Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) is a single platform that 

provides deliberate and in-stride obstacle and minefield breaching 

capability to the Ground Combat Element of the Marine Air 

Ground Task Force (MAGTF). The committee understands that the 

ABV is currently in the System Development and Demonstration 

Phase, with plans for a full-rate production decision in fiscal year 

2007. The Marine Corps acquisition objective is for 33 vehicles but 

only 24 vehicles are funded. Additional funding for the procurement of three ABVs has been included on the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps’ fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
418 

The Cougar and Buffalo vehicles have proven to meet the Marine 

Corps’ immediate need for hardened engineer and explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) vehicles with a V-shaped hull designed to 

withstand both anti-personnel and anti-tank mine blasts and a nuclear, biological and radiological over-pressure system. The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for 

ABVs and $100.0 million for the procurement of Cougar and Buffalo armored vehicles, in Procurement, Marine Corps for a total authorization of $126.8 million. 

Up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles 

The budget request included $11.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force, for up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV). The committee notes that the Air Force has a new 

requirement for 1,041 up-armored HMMWVs because of additional 

mission requirements. Specifically, Air Force security teams have 

an immediate requirement for 205 up-armored HMMWVs to support security and counter-improvised explosive device missions in 

the U.S. Central Command area of operations. Additional funding 

for 205 up-armored HMMWVs has been included on the Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force’s fiscal year 2007 unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $51.8 million in Other Procurement, Air Force, for additional up-armored HMMWVs, for a 

total authorization of $63.1 million. 

Abrams M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management program 

The budget request included $974.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), for Land Forces Depot Maintenance, 

including $56.0 million for the Abrams M1A1 Abrams Integrated 

Management (AIM) program. This program upgrades the capabilities of the Abrams tank, and is an integral part of the Army 

modularity transformation process. The committee recommends an 

increase of $231.0 million in OMA, to support M1A1 AIM tanks for 

three more Brigade Combat Teams, in order to accelerate the 

Army’s transformation to a modular combat force. 

Navy flying hour program 

The budget request included $31,331.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), including $3,587.8 million for Mission 

and Other Flight Operations. The budget request is insufficient to 

support the Training and Readiness T-rating goals of 2.3 for the 

Navy and 2.0 for the Marine Corps tactical aviation. The committee 

recommends an increase of $75.0 million in OMN for the Navy flying hour program to increase the Navy and Marine Corps tactical 

Aviation T-ratings to the Training and Readiness goals. 

Aviation depot maintenance 

The budget request included $31,331.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), including $902.9 million for Aircraft 

Depot Maintenance. Naval aircraft are in high demand around the 

world, and supporting critical combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. To maintain necessary operational availability, both for 

current operations, and for unforseen requirements, maintenance 

on naval aircraft must keep pace with operational demands. The 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
419 

committee recommends an increase of $174.0 million in OMN for 

aviation depot maintenance. 

Ship operations 

The budget request included $31,331.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), including $3,166.9 million for Mission 

and Other Ship Operations. The budget request is insufficient to 

support the goal of 51 steaming days per quarter while deployed. 

The committee recommends an increase of $121.0 million in OMN, 

to increase the number of deployed steaming days per quarter to 

51. The committee is disappointed that the Navy did not properly 

fund one of its most basic operational requirements, and expects 

the Navy to provide adequate funding to support its required deployments in future budget requests. 

Ship depot maintenance 

The budget request included $31,331.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), including $3,722.7 million for ship 

depot maintenance. As the number of ships in the Navy continues 

to decrease, the demands on the remaining ships will increase, resulting in increased maintenance. Required maintenance must be 

conducted on the remaining ships to ensure the Navy can meet any 

unexpected threats that may arise around the world. The committee recommends an increase of $145.0 million in OMN for ship 

depot maintenance. 

Marine Corps depot maintenance funding 

The budget request included $424.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), for depot maintenance activities, but included insufficient funds to perform depot maintenance 

for all Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) and M1A1 Abrams 

tanks identified on the Marine Corps’ mandatory Operation Iraqi 

Freedom principal end item rotation plan. The committee recommends an increase of $106.0 million in OMMC for depot maintenance of AAVs and M1A1 Abrams tanks. 

Joint improvised explosive device defeat defense fund 

In the Senate Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee 

(SAC–D) markup of the Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Request for Fiscal Year 2006, the SAC–D recommended the 

initiation of a Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

(JIEDDF) to provide adequate funding and management flexibility 

to the Department in developing and fielding the necessary tactics, 

equipment, and training to defeat improvised explosive devices 

(IED). 

The budget request included no funding for the development or 

procurement of IED countermeasures. Over the past two years, the 

Committee has worked closely with the Department and the Joint 

IED Defeat Task Force (JIEDDTF) to provide the authority and 

funding for the Department to deal with the IED threat. The committee supported the Secretary of Defense’s decision to elevate the 

position of the director of the JIEDDTF and to make a permanent 

organization to ‘‘expand upon existing efforts to ensure innovative 

solutions across ground, air, maritime and special operations doVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00441 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
420 

mains by integrating technology and training with battlefield tactics, techniques and procedures, while leveraging outside sources 

for rapid acquisition of technical solutions.’’ The committee understands that the new organization, named the Joint IED Defeat Office (JIEDDO) will also provide for governmentwide coordination of 

resources and analysis. 

The committee supports the Department and the JIEDDO in 

their pursuit of measures to defeat IEDs and expects the JIEDDO 

to not only use all the resources available within the Department 

of Defense but also reach out to the private sector to find technical 

solutions to countering the IED threat, giving equal opportunity to 

big as well as medium and small-sized firms that desire to participate. Additionally, the committee believes that more non-technical 

means should be employed to defeat IEDs. 

Discussions with the JIEDDO indicate that the JIEDDO anticipates the organization will require $2.1 billion for the rapid development and deployment of intelligence; tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP); training; and the associated procurement of equipment to counter IEDs. The committee recommends that $2.1 billion 

be authorized for the JIEDDF. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(421) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense. It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military family 

housing and military construction for the Reserve components, the 

defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) Security Investment program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that funds military construction, 

environmental cleanup and other activities required to implement 

the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The following tables provide the project-level authorizations for 

the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this 

Act and summarize that funding by account. 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 included authorization of 

appropriations for military construction and housing programs totaling $16,698,423,000. Of this amount, the budget request included authorization of appropriations for $5,626,223,000 to implement the results of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round. The amount authorized for appropriation is 

included in the following table in a line designated ‘‘Base Realignment & Closure V’’. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

military construction and housing programs totaling 

$17,098,423,000. The total amount authorized for appropriations 

reflects this committee’s commitment to continue a strong investment in the recapitalization of facilities and infrastructure in the 

Unites States, while continuing to invest prudently in overseas installations that are identified in the Integrated Global Presence 

and Basing Strategy released by the President in September, 2004 

as enduring installations with firmly defined, long-term operational 

missions. Of the $400.0 million added to the budget request for 

military construction, the committee recommends authorization of 

appropriation of $363.5 million for projects which will recapitalize 

existing deteriorated facilities identified by military installation 

commanders as urgent unfunded priorities. The committee strongly 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the level of future investment in military installations meets goals established by 

the Department for rates of recapitalization and sustainment. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
422 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 491 SR254.157
423 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 492 SR254.158
424 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 493 SR254.159
425 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 494 SR254.160
426 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 495 SR254.161
427 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 496 SR254.162
428 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 497 SR254.163
429 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 498 SR254.164
430 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 499 SR254.165
431 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 500 SR254.166
432 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 501 SR254.167
433 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 502 SR254.168
434 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 503 SR254.169
435 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 504 SR254.170
436 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 505 SR254.171
437 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 506 SR254.172
438 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 507 SR254.173
439 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 508 SR254.174
440 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 509 SR254.175
441 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 510 SR254.176
442 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 511 SR254.177
443 

Costs to implement the decisions of the 2005 Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment round 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 includes $5.6 billion to 

carry out military construction and environmental activities related 

to the decisions in the 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) round. This amount is in addition to $1.5 billion, which 

was authorized in fiscal year 2006. The Secretary of Defense included in the justification data to support the request a budget 

plan to implement the BRAC 2005 round with a one-time cost of 

over $18.4 billion between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2011. 

The plan includes an additional $9.5 billion to be spent for recurring costs related to operations and maintenance and military personnel. The Secretary is required by law to complete all installation 

closures and realignments no later than September 15, 2011. 

The Secretary submitted the BRAC 2005 investment plan with 

the caveat that ‘‘the out-year program does not fully reflect the expected costs for the remainder of the BRAC implementation period.’’ The Department of the Army included in its justification data 

accompanying the 2007 budget request for BRAC 2005 an assessment that the requirements currently identified by the Army to implement its recommendations will cost $5.7 more than the $9.5 billion budgeted by the Department of Defense for the Army. In subsequent testimony to Congress, Army representatives estimated 

that the shortfall may be as high as $8 billion. The Department of 

the Air Force has identified a similar problem in which currently 

identified requirements are estimated to cost $1.8 billion more than 

currently budgeted by the Department of Defense. 

The committee is extremely concerned that the Department proposes to address the BRAC 2005 shortfalls by pursuing two courses 

of action which may result in long-term detrimental impact to the 

operational capability of all military units, regardless of whether 

these units were affected by BRAC 2005. 

The first course of action, currently underway in the military departments, is to ‘‘scrub’’ requirements generated from the military 

units affected by BRAC in order to carry out the minimal number 

of construction projects required to meet the needs of the department. In many cases, the military unit being moved to another installation may not have the same quality and availability of facilities, infrastructure and training areas comparable to what was 

available at their original location. 

The second course of action will be to use funds currently 

planned by the military departments for military construction 

projects not associated with BRAC 2005 to make up the shortfall 

in BRAC plans. This proposal would result in the deferral of critical recapitalization and modernization projects at military installations not impacted by BRAC. The committee has consistently supported the Department’s goal to request authorization of appropriations for military construction, facility restoration, and modernization in the fiscal year 2008 budget at a level that will equate to 

a recapitalization rate of 67 years. This goal must not be sacrificed 

due to the lack of an adequate budget for BRAC 2005 activities. 

The committee finds neither of these courses of action to be an 

acceptable solution. The committee expects that the Secretary of 

Defense will fully budget for all activities required to carry out 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
444 

BRAC 2005 and will not assume risk or reduce the operational capability of military units in carrying out the decisions. 

2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment accounts authorized for appropriations in 2006 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163) included authorization of appropriations of $1,504.5 million to carry out military construction, environmental 

activities and certain operating expenses related to the results of 

the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round. 

Section 2404(c) of the aforementioned Act required the Secretary of 

Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report 

describing the specific programs, projects, and activities for which 

the authorized amounts would be used. 

The Department of Defense imposed a 1 percent reduction upon 

the appropriation for the BRAC account, which resulted in an 

amount of $1,489.4 million being available for obligation. 

On February 10, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics submitted to the committee a report detailing the planned expenditures of funds to support implementation of the Department of Defense’s BRAC requirements. The planned expenditures included $1,160.3 million to initiate planning, design, and construction of facilities; $82.3 million for activities required by the National Environmental Policy Act and 

other environmental actions; $193.8 million to carry out personnel 

permanent changes of station (PCS), transportation of personnel 

property, sustainment of real property, and BRAC program management; and $52.6 million for the procurement of collateral equipment, information technology systems, training, and other transition support services. 

The following table provides the projects and other activities 

which were identified by the Department to be carried out by each 

service using amounts made available in fiscal year 2006. 

The committee continues to review the justification for the construction projects and other BRAC V activities within these accounts to ensure amounts authorized for this program are used 

solely to carry out the decisions of the 2005 BRAC round. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
445 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 515 SR254.178
446 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 516 SR254.179
447 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 517 SR254.180
448 

2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment accounts 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$5,626.2 million for fiscal year 2007 to carry out military construction, environmental activities and certain operating expenses related to the results of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) round. 

The following table provides the projects and other activities 

identified by the Department of Defense to be carried out with 

amounts authorized for appropriation within each Service’s BRAC 

V account. 

The budget request did not account for savings to be realized 

from the cancellation of construction projects authorized in previous years. Specifically, the committee was notified on March 8, 

2006 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs of the 

intent to cancel a project at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, authorized in 

the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

The Secretary noted that these savings would be transferred into 

the BRAC account to satisfy BRAC requirements. Therefore, the 

committee recommends a decrease of $99.3 million to the authorization of appropriations for defense agencies for BRAC 2005 to account for the savings. 

The committee continues to review the justification for the construction projects and other BRAC V activities within these accounts to ensure amounts authorized for this program are used 

solely to carry out the decisions of the 2005 BRAC round. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
449 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 519 SR254.181
450 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 520 SR254.182
451 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 521 SR254.183
452 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 522 SR254.184
453 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 523 SR254.185
454 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 524 SR254.186
455 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would cite Division 

B of this Act as the Military Construction Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(457) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$2,059.8 million for military construction and $1,271.8 million for 

family housing for the Army in fiscal year 2007. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

$2,180.8 million for military construction and $1,271.8 million for 

family housing for fiscal year 2007. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Army construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized 

amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Army for fiscal year 2007. It would also authorize funds for 

facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize improvements to existing Army family housing units for fiscal year 

2007. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

specific appropriations for each line item contained in the Army’s 

military construction and family housing budget for fiscal year 

2007. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the 

amount the Army may spend on military construction projects. 

Items of Special Interest 

Planning and design, Army 

The committee directs that the amount of $1.0 million, added to 

the authorization of appropriation for planning and design for the 

Army, be used to start design of a military construction project to 

construct a Joint Asymmetrical Warfare Group headquarters, operational, and training complex at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. 

The committee also directs that the amount of $500 thousand, 

added to the authorization of appropriation for planning and design 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
458 

for the Army, be used to design a military construction project to 

install a ground water treatment system at Hawthorne Army 

Depot, Nevada. 

Management of military programs in the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers 

The committee notes that the Commander of the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently implemented a reorganization of the responsibilities within the 45 districts in USACE to 

establish ‘‘centers of standardization.’’ These centers would facilitate the consolidation of design requirements from the USACE’s 

military customers for specific types of facilities, such as dining facilities and dormitories, to one or a few districts in order to improve efficiency. The centers would then be able to carry out large 

contracts to construct multiple facilities of similar design, potentially saving the USACE’s customers millions of dollars in lower 

bids and material costs. 

The committee also notes that this consolidation, as well as other 

innovations such as state-of-the-art computer-aided design programs, increased use of pre-manufactured building systems, and 

expanded reliance on design-build and delivery order acquisition 

contracts, should decrease, within both the districts and the divisions, the overhead costs required to provide design and construction management services to USACE customers. The USACE has 

estimated cost savings of 15 percent and a time savings of 30 percent, which equates to lower overall overhead costs. 

The committee is aware that USACE currently is conducting an 

internal assessment of the technical capabilities and core competencies required to sustain an acceptable level of readiness and 

responsiveness in support of national security objectives around the 

world, including disaster response, as well as enhancing reliability 

in the performance of civil works and military missions. This internal assessment will include an analysis of how the sustainment of 

core capabilities and manpower are funded by fees paid by USACE 

customers for services in civil and military programs. 

The committee expects that the USACE’s assessment of sustained capabilities, when combined with an analysis of efficient 

business processes, should yield a comprehensive strategy for an effective and value-driven balance of resource management to assist 

in the development of future budgets. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, United States Corps of Engineers to submit 

to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2006 a 

report containing the following information: 

(1) a list of districts, identifying the centers of standardization and types of facilities to be specialized at each district; 

(2) a description of the results and recommendations of the 

internal assessment conducted by USACE; 

(3) a description of the core capabilities identified by the 

USACE to be sustained; 

(4) a business plan detailing the investment required to sustain the core capabilities and the sources of the funds; 

(5) an estimate of the savings to be achieved by the implementation of more efficient methods of design, construction and 

contract management to satisfy customer requirements; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
459 

(6) an estimate of how the savings will be realized, how 

much will be saved annually, and how the savings will be 

passed on to military customers. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(461) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1,162.0 million for military construction and $814.2 million for 

family housing for the Navy in fiscal year 2007. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1,268.8 million for military construction and $803.6 million for 

family housing for fiscal year 2007. 

The committee also recommends a decrease of $10.6 million to 

the authorization of appropriations of the housing operations and 

maintenance leasing account to reflect the justification data submitted with the budget request. 

Land Acquisition, Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South 

Carolina 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$7.3 million for the first phase of a military construction project to 

acquire land interests in approximately 600 acres in areas surrounding MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina. The Department of the 

Navy has proposed that $18.2 million for the second phase of this 

project would be included in the budget request for Fiscal Year 

2008. The Navy proposes to acquire land interests in order to protect the installation from encroachment by ensuring properties in 

the local community within certain Air Installation Compatible 

Land Use Zones (AICUZ) established around the installation would 

be used for purposes compatible with military operations. The 

AICUZ program was initially established by the Department of Defense in response to the Noise Control Act of 1972 to promote an 

environment free from noise that jeopardizes public health or welfare. 

The justification data accompanying the budget request for the 

project stated, ‘‘The once vacant farmlands surrounding MCAS 

Beaufort are being converted to high density development without 

local government land use and zoning control oversight needed to 

plan for and permit development that is compatible with high performance aircraft operations. The weak county ‘Airport Overlay 

Zoning District’ zoning ordinance did not prevent the recent development of incompatible Vivian’s Island within the AICUZ.’’ The 

justification data also stated that, in deciding whether to purchase 

protective easements for property versus fee simple acquisitions of 

deeds for properties, ‘‘historically, it has shown that in the Beaufort 

area, easements generally run 80% of the fee value. Should easements quotes be this high, fee purchase is advised.’’

The committee notes that encroachment of local community development upon military operations is a prevalent problem at many 

installations. In response, the Department of Defense has promulVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00483 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
462 

gated a policy of working with local communities to adopt local zoning ordinances to protect military operations by precluding incompatible property use. The Department of Defense’s Office of Economic Adjustment has a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program established to assist military installation commanders and local community leaders deal with urban encroachment. The Department 

has, in the past, strongly discouraged the acquisition of real property that did not support a valid military requirement. On November 17, 2002, The Deputy Secretary of Defense reaffirmed the existing moratorium on land acquisitions to ensure that an interest in 

land would be acquired by the Services only where there is a clearly demonstrated need. The committee notes that the Department of 

the Navy has not obtained a waiver from the Department of Defense to use military construction funds to purchase property in the 

AICUZ at MCAS Beaufort. 

The committee is aware of the proactive efforts currently underway within the local community and the State of South Carolina 

to address encroachment at MCAS Beaufort through the development of a State sponsored JLUS that will include proposals for annexation of county land to the City of Beaufort. This initiative offers the Department of the Navy the opportunity to review existing 

local ordinances with new local government representatives and to 

work towards more cooperative agreements on local zoning policies. 

The committee supports the Department’s policy of pursuing all 

possible means to address encroachment before granting a waiver 

to the Department’s moratorium on the acquisition of land interests. This policy ensures that the Department of Defense does not 

rely on taxpayer funds to purchase property it does not need, or for 

which a better solution exists to satisfy the requirement. The decision to purchase property in the AICUZ at MCAS Beaufort may 

undermine the Department’s efforts to encourage local communities 

to address encroachment with zoning ordinances. Communities will 

have less incentive to adopt protective measures knowing that they 

can potentially avoid difficult and politically-charged land-use decisions by relying instead on the Federal Government to purchase 

property. 

Therefore, the committee recommends deferring the authorization of appropriations of $7.3 million for military construction for 

the Navy at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, until the Secretary 

of Defense certifies that all possible options to prevent incompatible 

development in the vicinity of MCAS Beaufort have been fully pursued, including using the authorities granted by Section 2684a of 

title 10, United States Code, and the Secretary has granted a waiver to the moratorium to the acquisition of land interests for the use 

of military construction funds. The committee strongly supports the 

efforts of the Department of the Navy to work with the local community to ensure encroachment does not hinder safe aircraft operations at this critical Marine Corps installation. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized 

amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
463 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Navy for fiscal year 2007. It would also authorize funds for 

facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize improvements to existing Navy and Marine Corps family housing 

units for fiscal year 2007. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

specific appropriations for each line item in the Navy’s military 

construction and family housing budget for fiscal year 2007. This 

section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy may 

spend on military construction projects. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2006 projects (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109–163) to change project authorizations for Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, 

and Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(465) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1,156.1 million for military construction and $1,938.2 million for 

family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2007. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1,257.3 million for military construction and $1,938.2 million for 

family housing for fiscal year 2007. 

The committee also recommends deferring the authorization of 

appropriations of $28.0 million to construct the first phase of utility 

infrastructure and road expansions at Anderson Air Force Base, 

Guam. The committee is concerned that force structure requirements for all military services on Guam have not been finalized. 

Furthermore, the Department of Defense does not have a 

masterplan that incorporates all proposed infrastructure and facility projects and investments required to support new missions on 

Guam, including the relocation of 7,000 U.S. Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. The committee notes that recent estimates 

of the costs to relocate U.S. Air Force and Marine forces to Guam 

may exceed $11.0 billion. The committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report 

detailing planned investments in projects for facilities and infrastructure by both the U.S. and Japan for new missions on Guam 

before submitting future budget requests for amounts required for 

military construction. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized 

amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Air Force for fiscal year 2007. It would also authorize funds 

for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize improvements to existing Air Force family housing units for fiscal 

year 2007. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
466 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

specific appropriations for each line item in the Air Force’s budget 

for fiscal year 2007. This section would also provide an overall limit 

on the amount the Air Force may spend on military construction 

projects. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2006 project (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109–163) to decrease a project 

authorization for MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. 

Item of Special Interest 

Change of project title at Cape Canaveral, Florida 

The committee agrees to change a project title for the Air Force 

at Cape Canaveral, Florida in the table, ‘‘Military Construction Authorizations for Fiscal Year 2006’’ contained in the statement of 

managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) from ‘‘Satellite Processing Operations Support Facility’’ to ‘‘Satellite Alert Facility.’’


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(467) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1,208.2 million for military construction and $57.3 million for family housing for Defense agencies in fiscal year 2007. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

$1,344.7 million for military construction and $57.3 million for family housing for fiscal year 2007. 

The budget request also included authorization of appropriations 

of $191.2 million to carry out environmental activities on military 

installations affected by the rounds of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) conducted in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $5,626.2 million 

to carry out military construction, environmental activities and certain operating expenses related to the decisions of the 2005 BRAC 

round. 

The budget request did not account for savings to be realized 

from the cancellation of construction projects authorized in previous years. Specifically, the committee was notified on March 8, 

2006 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs of the 

intent to cancel a project to construct a hospital at Fort Belvior, 

Virginia, authorized in the Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005. The Secretary noted that these savings would 

be transferred into the BRAC account to satisfy BRAC requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $99.3 

million to the authorization of appropriations for defense agencies 

for BRAC 2005 to account for the savings. The budget request included $130.9 million to carry out construction activities in support of the chemical demilitarization program 

at Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado and Blue Grass Army Depot, 

Kentucky. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million 

to authorization of appropriations for Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky to accelerate construction activities at the plant. 

The committee acknowledges that the Department of Defense’s 

Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program will 

develop and implement new cost and schedule baselines in 2007 for 

the destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile. The committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to submit the revised ACWA baselines, as well as updated military construction project data, costs, 

and timelines at Pueblo Chemical Depot and Blue Grass Army 

Depot to the congressional defense committees with the budget request for fiscal year 2008. 

The committee recommends a decrease to the authorization of 

appropriations for military construction for the National Security 

Agency of $4.5 million to upgrade Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition system servers, workstations, and associated software 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
468 

at Fort Meade, Maryland, as these computer system upgrades are 

not consistent with the use of funds for military construction and 

should be funded through appropriations for procurement or operations and maintenance. 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize defense agency construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Family housing (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for defense agencies for fiscal year 2007. It would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

specific appropriations for each defense agency military construction program for fiscal year 2007. This provision also would provide 

an overall limit on the amount that may be spent on such military 

construction projects. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2006 projects (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109–163) to increase project 

authorizations for the National Security Agency for Augusta, Georgia; Kunia, Hawaii; and Menwith Hill, United Kingdom. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(469) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriation of $221.0 million for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2007. The 

committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $206.0 

million for fiscal year 2007, due to the availability of unobligated 

amounts available from appropriations in prior fiscal years. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program in an 

amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in 

section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the 

United States for construction previously financed by the United 

States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $206.0 million for the United States’ contribution to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2007. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(471) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropria- tions of $858.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2007 

for National Guard and Reserve facilities. 

The committee recommends authorizations of appropriations for fiscal year 2007 of $1,049.3 million to be distributed as follows: 

Account Millions 

Army National Guard ..................................................................................... $524.0 

Air National Guard ......................................................................................... 242.1 

Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 189.8 

Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................ 44.9 

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve .................................................................. 48.5 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1,049.3 

Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction for the Guard and Reserve by 

service component for fiscal year 2007. The state list contained in 

this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at 

each location. 

Item of Special Interest 

Planning and design, Air National Guard 

The committee directs that the amount of $1.8 million, added to 

the authorization of appropriation for planning and design for the 

Air National Guard, be used to complete design of a military construction project to replace the jet fuel storage complex at Selfridge 

Air National Guard Base, Michigan. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(473) 

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations for military construction projects, 

repair of real property, land acquisition, family housing projects, 

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and National Guard and Reserve military construction projects as October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of an act 

authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2010, 

whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to authorizations for projects for which appropriated funds have been obligated 

before October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funding for military construction for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2004 

projects (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain fiscal year 2004 military construction 

projects until October 1, 2007, or the date of enactment of an act 

authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2008, 

whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2003 

projects (sec. 2703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain fiscal year 2003 military construction 

projects until October 1, 2007, or the date of enactment of an act 

authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2008, 

whichever is later. 

Effective date (sec. 2704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act shall take 

effect on October 1, 2006, or the date of enactment of this Act, 

whichever is later. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(475) 

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Three-year extension of temporary, limited authority to use 

operation and maintenance funds for construction 

projects outside the United States (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2004 (Public Law 108–136) to extend for three years the temporary 

authority provided to the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated for operations and maintenance to carry out construction 

projects intended to satisfy certain operational requirements in 

support of a declaration of war, national emergency, or other contingency. 

The committee notes that the Secretary has used this temporary 

authority sparingly and has not requested a waiver to exceed the 

annual statutory limits of the authority. The committee also notes 

that military construction projects to support the Combatant Commander’s urgent requirements in the Global War on Terrorism 

have been included in requests for supplemental appropriations. Finally, the Secretary has a permanent authority provided by Congress in Section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, to undertake 

military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law in 

support of the armed forces in the event of a declaration of war or 

a national emergency. 

Therefore, the committee supports an extension of the limited authority to provide military commanders flexibility to quickly carry 

out military construction to satisfy temporary, operational requirements at installations that are not planned to have an enduring 

presence of U.S. armed forces. 

Authority to carry out military construction projects in connection with industrial facility investment program (sec. 

2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a military construction project not 

previously authorized, using funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available for that purpose, to carry out activities to re-engineer industrial processes related to section 2474(a)(2) of title 10, United 

States Code. The provision would also authorize the Secretary to 

credit appropriations made under this authority to the amount required under section 2208 of title 10, United States Code, as 

amended by section 361 of this Act, for capital investment budgets 

for public depots. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
476 

The committee notes that, at the present time, military construction projects intended to improve industrial processes must compete for scarce resources within each military department with 

other construction requirements to support new weapon systems, 

readiness and training, improvements to the quality of life for military personnel and their families, and other equally important requirements. While generally supporting the priorities established 

by the Department of Defense for military construction investments, the committee notes that every opportunity to realize immediate and substantial savings from a process improvement at an industrial facility has a positive impact on force readiness and operations. 

This provision would grant the Secretary the authority to establish an ‘‘Industrial Facilities Investment Program,’’ and to request 

an annual appropriation for unspecified military construction 

projects to respond to emerging requirements identified by a military department to improve industrial processes. The committee intends that the program would provide the Secretary the flexibility 

to invest in construction projects which would result in significant 

savings in terms of working capital funds, man-hours, down-time 

for major weapon systems, and efficient processes at the Department’s industrial facilities. The committee expects the Secretary to 

be able to quantify the estimated savings from each project carried 

out under this authority. 

Modification of notification requirements related to cost 

variation authority (sec. 2803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2853(c) of title 10, United States Code, to modify the requirement for the Secretary of a military department to notify the congressional defense committees of a variation in the cost of a military construction contract and to wait 21 days before carrying out 

the project. The provision would authorize the Secretary to carry 

out a project at a cost less than the appropriated amount immediately, and to notify the congressional committees within 14 days 

after the date funds are obligated in connection with the military 

construction project or the military family housing project. 

Consideration of local comparability of floor areas in construction, acquisition, and improvement of military unaccompanied housing (sec. 2804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2856 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretaries 

of the military departments to ensure that the floor areas of unaccompanied housing does not exceed the floor areas of similar housing in the local private sector. This provision is intended to remove 

an unequal treatment for the determination of maximum net allowable square footage between unaccompanied housing acquired 

through traditional military construction and unaccompanied housing acquired under the alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing granted by subchapter IV of Chapter 

169 title 10, United States Code. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
477 

Increase in thresholds for unspecified minor military construction projects (sec. 2805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2805(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by raising the 

threshold of the cost of a construction project authorized by this 

section from $1.5 million to $2.5 million. This provision would also 

raise the threshold of the cost of a construction project intended 

solely to correct a deficiency that is life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening from $3.0 million to $4.0 million. 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office, 

in a report released in February 2004 entitled ‘‘Long-term Challenges in Managing the Military Construction Program,’’ estimated 

that construction costs for the military have increased by an average of 41 percent since the thresholds amended in this provision 

were last adjusted. 

Inclusion of military transportation and support systems in 

energy savings programs (sec. 2806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2865 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to designate energy performance goals consistent, where 

appropriate, with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109– 58). The provision would also expand the application of the section 

to include the consideration of alternate energy initiatives for vehicles and military support equipment. The provision would also 

grant the Secretary the authority to consider longer positive net 

present value returns for certain equipment upgrades supporting 

industrial processes. The committee notes that recent technological 

advancements offer the opportunity for the Department of Defense 

to invest in resources which would conserve energy in military operations, in addition to traditional improvements to facility systems, utilities, and infrastructure. These new technologies, such as 

alternative fuel vehicles and more efficient engines, have the potential to save the Department substantial operation and maintenance 

funds in the current environment of relatively high energy prices. 

The committee also recognizes that certain upgrades and improvements to large equipment items and systems supporting industrial facilities and processes offer a substantial return on investment over the life-cycle of the item or system, but not within 

ten years. The committee intends for the Secretary to have the discretion to assess these proposed investments with a more realistic 

positive net present value requirement. 

Repeal of authority to convey property at closed or realigned military installations to support military construction (sec. 2807) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

2869 of title 10, United States Code authorizing the Secretary of 

a military department to transfer property at military installations 

that have been closed or are subject to closure to persons who, in 

exchange, construct or provide family housing, unaccompanied 

housing, and military construction activities. 

The committee notes that only one military department satisfied 

the minimum requirement directed by Section 2869(c) of title 10, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
478 

United States Code, to use the conveyance authority at least once 

before December 3l, 2004. The committee also notes that the Department of Defense has not provided to the congressional defense 

committees in the previous two years a plan for the use of the authority pursuant to section 2869(f)(2) of title 10, United States 

Code. Furthermore, the committee acknowledges that the burdensome annual reporting requirement in the section does not warrant 

the limited additional authority and the substantial effort by the 

Secretary to carry out a transaction using the authority. 

The committee is aware of the difficulty in the evaluation of fair 

market value and best offers in proposals that exchange new construction for land, which may expose the military departments to 

increased liability and resultant claims during the solicitation and 

bid process. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretaries of 

the military departments to continue to receive, as compensation 

for the disposal of excess land resulting from base closures, 

amounts in cash which can then be used to accelerate the completion of environmental requirements at closed installations. 

Repeal of requirement to determine availability of suitable 

alternate housing for acquisition in lieu of construction 

of new family housing (sec. 2808) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

2823 of title 10, United States Code, which requires the Secretaries 

of military departments to consult with the Secretary of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) on the availability of suitable alternate housing before entering into contracts to construct authorized family housing units in the United States. This cumbersome 

requirement curtails the ability of the Department of Defense to 

carry out housing construction programs of vital interest to military members and their families. Furthermore, due to the current 

requirements for military housing, this requirement has not yielded any type of agreement for the use of alternative HUD housing 

in over ten years. 

Updating foreign currency fluctuation adjustment for certain military family housing leases in Korea (sec. 2809) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2828 of title 10, United States Code to modify the adjustments 

made by a secretary of a military department to maximum lease 

amounts for family housing in Korea to account for foreign currency fluctuations. 

The Committee notes that section 2801 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) 

amended section 2828 of title 10, United States Code to authorize 

the secretaries of military departments to lease an additional 

amount of family housing units in Korea at an increased maximum 

amount of $35,000 per unit per year. This authority was granted 

in addition to an existing authority for the secretary concerned to 

lease a certain number of family housing units at $25,000 per unit 

per year, which was provided by Congress in 1987. Both authorities 

were accompanied by direction from Congress to the secretary concerned in section 2828 of title 10 to adjust the statutory maximum 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
479 

amounts annually to account for foreign currency fluctuation and 

changes to the consumer price index. 

Congress clearly intended the legislative provision in 2003 to provide the secretary concerned with an increased maximum lease authority equal to $10,000 more per unit per year than was then currently authorized by statute for a certain number of family housing 

units in Korea. Therefore, any adjustments for foreign currency 

fluctuation and the consumer price index made by the secretary 

concerned to either of the maximum lease amounts should reflect 

the intent of Congress. 

Pilot projects for acquisition or construction of military unaccompanied housing (sec. 2810) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2881a of title 10, United States Code, to extend the expiration 

date of the authorization for the pilot projects for unaccompanied 

housing privatization from September 30, 2007 to September 30, 

2009. This provision would also reduce from 90 days to 30 days the 

period for certain notification periods to Congress. The committee 

expects that the Secretary of the Navy will carry out all three authorized pilot projects within the revised time period granted by 

this provision and will submit a report as required by section 

2881a before requesting that Congress provide authority for additional projects. 

Certification required for certain military construction 

projects (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the 

obligation of funds for military construction projects that would 

provide training in urban operations, including urban assault 

courses, range complexes, shoot houses, and combined arms training facilities, beginning in fiscal year 2007. The provision would require the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), 

after consultation with the Commander, United States Joint Forces 

Command, to certify to the congressional defense committees that 

the Secretary of Defense has approved a strategy for training and 

facility construction for operations in urban terrain, that each such 

project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with 

that strategy, and that each such project has incorporated appropriate capabilities for joint and interagency use in accordance with 

that strategy, before construction of such projects may proceed. The 

certifications could be provided for one or more projects at a time. 

The committee is concerned that the Department has yet to complete this strategy. The committee first requested a report describing the requirements for such facilities four years ago in the report 

(S. Rept. 107–151) accompanying S. 2514, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The conferees reaffirmed the 

need for a strategy to guide the investment in facilities supporting 

urban operations in the statement of managers (H. Rept. 109–360) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). The committee notes that the Department’s increased emphasis on urban operations requires a comprehensive strategy for resource management and effective investments in ranges and infrastructure to support combined arms, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
480 

joint, and interagency training for all sizes and types of military 

units. 

Modification of land acquisition authority, Perquimans 

County, North Carolina (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2846 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107–107) as amended by section 2865 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (division B of Public Law 108–375) to increase, from 840 

acres to 1,550 acres, the amount of acreage that the Secretary of 

the Navy is authorized to acquire. 

Naming of Research Laboratory at Air Force Rome Research Site, Rome, New York, in honor of Sherwood L. 

Boehlert, a Member of the House of Representatives 

(sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate an 

engineering center at the Air Force Rome Research Site in Rome, 

New York as the Sherwood L. Boehlert Engineering Center. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Consolidation of easement provisions (sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2668 of title 10, United States Code to consolidate and clarify 

authorities available to the Secretaries of the military departments 

to grant real property easements. This provision would also redesignate section 2668 as section 2672 and would repeal section 2669 

of title 10, United States Code. 

Authority to grant restrictive easements for conservation 

and environmental restoration purposes (sec. 2822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

secretary of a military department to grant restrictive easements 

on real property transferred by deed to limit future uses of the 

property. Such restrictive easements would be authorized to ensure 

preservation of the property for conservation purposes and to ensure the continued effectiveness of any environmental remedy on 

the property. The provision would authorize granting a conservation easement to State or local governments, or qualified organizations, with their consent. The provision would not authorize granting a conservation easement unless the secretary concerned determines that conservation of the property can not be effectively 

achieved through the application of state law by units of the State 

or local government without such an easement; that the jurisdiction that encompasses the property authorizes such easements; and 

that the secretary concerned can give or assign a third party the 

responsibility for enforcing such an easement. The provision would 

also authorize the secretary concerned to grant an environmental 

easement to a State or local government, with their consent, to ensure the future effectiveness of an environmental remedy. This provision would not alter the established base closure disposal process. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
481 

Consolidation of provisions relating to transfers of real 

property within the Department of Defense and to other 

Federal agencies (sec. 2823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2696 of title 10, United States Code to consolidate and clarify 

the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to screen for use by 

the Department of Defense or other federal agencies proposed 

transfers or conveyances of real property currently deeded to the 

Department of Defense. The provision would also incorporate into 

section 2896 the existing requirement, with a certain exception, for 

the Secretary of Defense to notify the Attorney General of the 

availability of excess Department of Defense real property for correctional facilities purposes. 

Authority to use excess property as exchange under agreements to limit encroachments on military training, testing, and operations (sec. 2824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

secretary concerned to use land that is determined to be excess to 

the needs of the Department of Defense in an exchange under an 

agreement with eligible third parties under section 2684a of title 

10, United States Code. Such agreements are authorized to create 

buffer zones to address the use or development of real property in 

the vicinity of a military installation to prevent encroachment, or 

to preserve habitat that may eliminate or relieve current or anticipated environmental restrictions on military training, testing, or 

operations. The provision would authorize the exchange of excess 

land for non-federal land located within the same State as the installation that is the subject of the agreement. The provision would 

broaden the type of consideration that may be used as part of an 

agreement with eligible third parties under section 2684a to include appropriated funds, excess lands, or a combination of the two. 

Modification of utility system authority and related reporting requirements (sec. 2825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2688 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the authority 

provided to the Secretary of a military department. The provision 

would authorize the secretary to enter in a contract for utility services for a period not to exceed 50 years without the requirement to 

assess the relative cost of a 10 year lease period. The provision 

would also modify the requirement for the secretary of a military 

department to submit to the congressional defense committees certain data before carrying out utility system conveyances under the 

authority of the section. The provision would remove the requirement for the Secretary concerned to incorporate within an economic 

analysis an estimated margin of error of the costs resulting from 

conveyance or continued ownership by the government. 

The committee acknowledges that the two requirements removed 

by this provision would pose an unnecessary burden on the Secretary concerned, without any substantive effect on the Secretary’s 

decision to carry out transactions using the authority provided by 

Congress. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
482 

Increase in authorized maximum lease term for certain 

structures and real property relating to structures in 

foreign countries (sec. 2826) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2675 of title 10, United States Code, to increase from five 

years to ten years the maximum time period authorized for the 

lease of a structure required for a military purpose other than family housing in a foreign country. This provision would grant the 

Secretary of a military department more flexibility to enter into 

lease agreements containing more favorable terms for the government. 

Modification of land transfer authority, Potomac Annex, 

District of Columbia (sec. 2827) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1997 (Public Law 104–201) to authorize the Secretary of the Navy 

to convey, without consideration other than certain reimbursement 

requirements, to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) administrative jurisdiction over one acre and two buildings located 

thereon, known as building 6 and building 7, in addition to the 3 

acres originally authorized. 

The committee understands that this additional authorization 

would have no negative impact on the Navy’s plan to transfer the 

remainder of the Potomac Annex to another federal agency as a result of a decision in the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment round. 

The committee supports the efforts of the USIP to create a national center for professional education and training in conflict 

management and peacebuilding. This center would be sited in 

buildings 6 and 7, adjacent to the future site of the USIP campus. 

The committee notes the important work being done by the USIP 

to educate and train individuals from military departments, federal 

agencies, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, foreign governments, and the domestic and foreign private 

sectors in the skills necessary to prevent conflicts, manage and resolve active conflicts, and support post-conflict peacebuilding operations. The committee believes the USIP can make a positive contribution toward professionalizing the field of conflict management 

and peacebuilding through establishment and adoption of common 

concepts, development and propagation of best practices, and promotion of shared doctrine and training. Such education and training is critical for U.S. military and civilian personnel who could be 

deployed on new and challenging stabilization missions in the future. 

Subtitle C—Base Closure and Realignment 

Defense Economic Adjustment Program: research and technical assistance (sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2391 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to award grants, conclude cooperative agreements, and 

supplement other federal funds for research and technical assistVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00504 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
483 

ance. This provision would allow the Department of Defense’s Office of Economic Adjustment to obtain research and technical assistance without the need to carry out the requirement through 

other federal agencies. 

Extension of eligibility for community planning assistance 

related to certain military facilities not under Department of Defense jurisdiction (sec. 2832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2391 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to award grants, conclude cooperative agreements, and 

supplement other federal funds for the purpose of addressing encroachment by civilian communities upon State-owned and operated National Guard facilities used by the armed forces. 

The committee notes that the unrestricted development of private property adjacent to military training areas continues to have 

a detrimental impact on the safe training operations. This provision would allow the Department of Defense’s Office of Economic 

Adjustment to expand their current program of working with local 

communities to develop joint use land studies and other activities 

at federal installations to include opportunities to address concerns 

at State-owned military reservations which are used by all 

branches of the armed forces. 

Modification of deposit requirement in connection with 

lease proceeds received at military installations approved for closure or realignment after January 1, 2005 

(sec. 2833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667(d) of title, 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to deposit lease proceeds received as a result of 

2005 base realignment and closure decisions into the Department 

of Defense Base Closure Account 2005. This provision would provide an authority consistent with previous base realignment and 

closure rounds. 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances 

Land conveyance, Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia (sec. 2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, a parcel of property consisting of approximately 80 acres located at the Radford Army Ammunition 

Plant, Radford, Virginia for the purpose of establishing a veterans 

cemetery operated by Commonwealth. This provision would also 

authorize the Secretary to include a reversionary clause in the 

terms of the conveyance, in the event the property conveyed was 

not used in accordance with the purpose stated in the authorization. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
484 

Modifications to land conveyance authority, Engineering 

Proving Grounds, Fort Belvoir, Virginia (sec. 2842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2836 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107–107) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out an alternate agreement with the 

Commonwealth of Virginia for the design and construction of a 

parkway portion as part of the conveyance of two parcels of real 

property totaling 182 acres at the Engineering Proving Grounds, 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The provision would require the Commonwealth to pay all costs for the design and construction of the parkway portion in the alternate agreement. The provision would require the Commonwealth to acquire all property not under the jurisdiction of the Secretary required to design and construct the 

parkway portion in the alternate agreement. The provision would 

also amend the authority for the Secretary to receive consideration 

from the Commonwealth for real property conveyed under the section to include receipt of funds to construct a security barrier at the 

Engineering Proving Grounds. 

With the pending arrival of over 12,000 personnel and their families to Fort Belvior as a result of decisions in the 2005 Defense 

Base Closure and Realignment round, the committee expects the 

Secretary to work with the Commonwealth to expedite the design 

and construction of this parkway extension. Because this Parkway 

portion will be vital to the transportation requirements of military 

operations and the local community, the committee has included in 

the recommended provision the authority for the Secretary of the 

Army to consider the use of the Defense Access Roads program to 

carry out the design and construction of the parkway portion. 

Land conveyance, Omaha, Nebraska (sec. 2843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretaries of the Army and the Navy to convey to the Metropolitan Community College area four parcels of property consisting of 

approximately 12 acres currently under the control of the Army 

and Navy Reserve at the Fort Omaha campus of the College in 

Omaha, Nebraska for educational purposes. This provision would 

require the Secretaries concerned to receive as consideration fair 

market value, which may be provided in the form of reduced tuition rates for the military personnel attending the college. The 

committee intends for the Secretaries concerned to enter into an 

agreement with the college that would enhance the cooperation between the two parties to provide educational opportunities for military personnel as well as providing continued military access to the 

college to support recruiting and retention efforts. 

Items of Special Interest 

Electronic access to data related to 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Round 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has maintained a comprehensive electronic data base containing information 

used by the Department to support recommendations to the 2005 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission. This 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
485 

database, accessible through the internet, continues to serve the 

general public as a valuable tool during the current phase of implementation of the BRAC decisions by providing data, cost estimates, 

and analysis conducted by the Department. Of particular importance is the continued access to the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) data used by the Department to support their recommendations. With the recent disclosure by the Department that 

the actual costs to implement the BRAC 2005 decisions may substantially exceed COBRA estimates, public access to COBRA data 

is essential to facilitate an understanding of the model. The committee also notes that the Department conducted a thorough and 

exhaustive security review in May 2005 to ensure all information 

contained on the website was unclassified and did not pose a threat 

to military personnel, installations, or operations. 

The Department has also assumed maintenance of the electronic 

database established by the 2005 BRAC Commission to provide a 

public record of all data received, meetings held, and other information obtained during the course of the Commission’s activities. 

This database continues to serve the general public as a vital 

source of information and history of the Commission’s work during 

BRAC 2005. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

maintain, and provide public access to both the BRAC 2005 Department’s website and the BRAC Commission website with, at a 

minimum, all information contained on the site, and in associated 

electronic links, as of May 1, 2006. The committee encourages the 

Secretary to continue to add information to the site related to economic assistance for affected communities, pertinent re-use manuals, and other useful information for the implementation of BRAC 

2005 decisions. 

Facilities for Headquarters, United States Southern Command 

The headquarters (HQ) for United States Southern Command 

(USSOUTHCOM), with 750 personnel, relocated from Panama into 

a leased facility in Miami, Florida in September 1997. By 2004, a 

series of leases for the HQ building, support facilities, buffer land, 

and family housing to support 2,464 USSOUTHCOM HQ personnel 

were being carried out at a total annual cost of approximately $6.0 

million. 

The committee notes that the current facility complex housing 

USSOUTHCOM HQ is not adequate to support assigned personnel. 

The facilities are undersized, separated from each other, and do not 

meet Department of Defense standards for force protection and 

anti-terrorism measures. Despite the Department of Defense’s goal 

to reduce leased space during the 2005 Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment (BRAC) round, the Department did not make a recommendation to the BRAC Commission to relocate USSOUTHCOM 

HQ onto a military installation, consistent with other BRAC recommendations for leased space. 

In September 2004, the State of Florida offered to construct a 

new headquarters facility to meet USSOUTHCOM’s specific requirements, and to lease it to the Department of Defense for ten 

years with four ten-year renewal options. The Department is curVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00507 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
486 

rently in the process of working with the General Services Administration (GSA) to assess a proposal being developed by the State. 

GSA intends to enter into the lease with the State and then to sublet the new facility to the Department of Defense. The committee 

anticipates that the offer to lease facilities on State-owned land 

that is essentially ‘‘rent free’’ could result in significant savings in 

the annual lease cost. 

The Committee expects the Department of Defense, as with any 

proposal for the lease of facilities, to perform an analysis using estimates of cumulative net present value to demonstrate that the 

lease, in comparison to both traditional military construction with 

government ownership on a military installation, and continuation 

of the current lease arrangement, is the most economical method 

to satisfy the military requirement. The committee notes that this 

analysis would be consistent with the Department’s deliberations 

during BRAC 2005 assessing commercial leases versus the costs of 

military construction of facilities on military installations, noting 

the advantages gained for security, force protection, and the availability of support services. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, before entering into a 

lease agreement for new USSOUTHCOM HQ facilities, a report 

with the following information: 

(1) a review of the personnel authorizations and functions to 

be located in the new USSOUTHCOM HQ; 

(2) the costs and benefits of extending the current lease with 

or without an expansion of facilities on the existing leased parcels or adjacent parcels; 

(3) the costs and benefits of acquiring the current leased facility; 

(4) the costs and benefits of the lease of facilities from the 

State of Florida through the General Services Administration, 

to include all anticipated recurring operating and maintenance 

expenses; 

(5) the costs and benefits for the construction and government ownership of new facilities meeting USSOUTHCOM HQ 

requirements; and 

(6) the costs and benefits of constructing the facilities necessary to locate USSOUTHCOM Headquarters at Homestead 

Air Reserve Base, taking into account the existing facilities 

and services at that base. 

The report shall include an economic analysis of the estimated 

cumulative net present value over a 30-year period for each of the 

options listed above. 

National Guard Training Site, Camp Atterbury, Indiana 

The committee notes that the Adjutant General of the State of 

Indiana has identified a requirement related to the transportation 

infrastructure for the National Guard training area at Camp 

Atterbury, Indiana to expand the rail out-load capability. The expansion of the rail out-load capability would require the use of 

property currently under the control of the Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
487 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to work with 

the Military Department of the State of Indiana and the Director, 

Fish and Wildlife Service to transfer administrative jurisdiction of 

over 1,605 acres surrounding the current railhead at Camp 

Atterbury from the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of 

the Interior to the Military Department of the State of Indiana in 

order to expand the transportation infrastructure at Camp 

Atterbury. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(489) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2007, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry 

out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act 

(Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in four categories, which are: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA); (2) defense environmental cleanup; (3) other defense activities; and (4) defense nuclear waste disposal. 

The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the 

Department totaled $15.8 billion, a 2.5 percent decrease below the 

fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. Of the total amount requested: 

(1) $9.3 billion is for NNSA, of which 

(a) $6.4 billion is for weapons activities, 

(b) $1.7 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, 

(c) $795.1 million is for naval reactors, and 

(d) $386.6 is for the Office of the Administrator; 

(2) $5.4 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; 

(3) $717.8 million is for other defense activities; and 

(4) $388.1 million is for defense nuclear waste disposal. 

The budget request also included $6.1 million within energy supply. 

The committee recommends $15.7 billion for atomic energy defense activities at the Department, a decrease of $96.8 million 

below the budget request. 

Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: 

(1) $9.3 billion for NNSA, of which 

(a) $6.5 billion is for weapons activities, an increase of 

$47.5 million above the budget request; 

(b) $1.7 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, the amount of the budget request; 

(c) $795.1 million is for naval reactors, the amount of the 

budget request; and 

(d) $356.6 million is for the Office of the Administrator, 

a decrease of $30.0 million below the budget request; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
490 

(2) $5.4 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities, an increase of $40.0 million above the budget request; (3) $624.5 million for other defense activities, a decrease of 

$93.3 million below the budget request; and (4) $333.1 million 

for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease of $55.0 million 

below the budget request. 

The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a reduc- tion of $6.1 million. 

The following table summarizes the budget request and the authorizations: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
491 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 557 SR254.187
492 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 558 SR254.188
493 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 559 SR254.189
494 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 560 SR254.190
495 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 561 SR254.191
496 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 562 SR254.192
497 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 563 SR254.193
498 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 564 SR254.194
499 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 565 SR254.195
500 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 566 SR254.196
501 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 567 SR254.197
502 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 568 SR254.198
503 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 569 SR254.199
504 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 570 SR254.200
505 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 571 SR254.201
506 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 572 SR254.202
507 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 573 SR254.203
508 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 574 SR254.204
509 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 575 SR254.205
510 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 576 SR254.206
511 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 577 SR254.207
512 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a total of $9.3 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 

2007 for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to 

carry out programs necessary to national security. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $6.5 billion for weapons activities, an increase of $47.5 million above the budget request. The committee authorizes the following activities: $1.4 billion for directed 

stockpile work; $1.9 billion for campaigns; $1.7 billion for readiness 

in the technical base; $209.3 million for secure transportation 

asset; $135.4 million for nuclear weapons incidence response; 

$780.2 for safeguards and security; $291.2 million for facilities and 

infrastructure recapitalization; and, $17.2 million for environmental projects and operations. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $1.4 billion for directed stockpile 

work, the amount of the budget request. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, 

including day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to support planned 

life extension programs. This account also includes fabrication and 

assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and support equipment. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $1.9 billion for campaigns, the 

amount of the budget request. The campaigns focus on science and 

engineering efforts involving the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the weapons production plants. 

Each campaign is focused on a specific activity to support and 

maintain the nuclear stockpile without full-scale underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the Department’s certification that the stockpile remains 

safe, secure, and reliable. 

The committee notes that the work breakdown structure, and 

budget and reporting system for the campaigns, while perhaps appropriate during the early years of the stockpile stewardship program, have become less representative of the work now being conducted within each campaign. The committee is concerned that the 

current work breakdown structures for each campaign are not 

clear, and in some cases obscure the content and objectives of each 

campaign. At a minimum, this lack of clarity diminishes the capability of both the Department and the Congress to perform effective 

oversight. 

The effort by the Department during fiscal years 2005 and 2006 

to revamp the work breakdown and budget structure for the advanced simulation and computing campaign will, in the committee’s opinion, substantially improve the tracking of progress and 

make more clear the contribution of each participant in the camVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00534 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
513 

paign to the overall objectives of the campaign. The committee encourages the Department to undertake similar efforts to improve 

the work breakdown and reporting systems for other campaigns. 

Readiness in the technical base 

The committee recommends $1.7 billion for readiness in the technical base and facilities (RTBF), an increase of $21.7 million above 

the budget request. This account funds facilities and infrastructure 

in the nuclear weapons complex to ensure the operational readiness of the complex and includes construction funding for new facilities. 

The $21.7 million in additional funds should be used to address 

additional deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs. Specifically, this amount consists of $11.7 million additional for operations of facilities to be used for critical infrastructure and nuclear 

safety upgrades at the Pantex Plant including replacement of nuclear facility hoists and high pressure fire loop lead-ins. The committee further recommends $10.0 million in additional construction 

funding for the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility 

(HEUMF), Project 01–D–124, at the Y–12 National Security Complex. The committee is aware that the Department may need to revise the compliance approach for HEUMF to withstand attacks postulated under the design basis threat and that these changes will 

have a significant impact to design and construction of the 

HEUMF. The committee notes that the Department is completing 

a detailed analysis of these changes and intends to provide the results to the committee before the end of fiscal year 2006. When this 

analysis is completed, the committee expects the Department to be 

able to estimate the final total project cost. 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $209.3 million for the secure transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The secure 

transportation asset is responsible for transportation of nuclear 

weapons, weapons materials and components, and other materials 

requiring safe and secure transport. The committee commends the 

secure transportation asset and its federal agents for increasing the 

number of secure convoys in recent years, under constrained funding. The committee is aware that workload requirements for the secure transportation asset will escalate significantly if the Department proceeds with the consolidation of its nuclear materials and 

urges the Department to budget adequate funding to undertake 

this important activity. 

Safeguards and security 

The committee recommends $780.2 million for weapons safeguards and security, an increase of $25.8 million above the budget 

request. This amount includes additional funding of $11.8 million 

for security upgrades at the Pantex Plant and $14.0 million for security upgrades at the Y–12 National Security Complex above the 

budget request. 

The committee is encouraged by those aspects of the NNSA’s 

transformation plans for the nuclear weapons complex that would 

result in the storage of special nuclear material at fewer NNSA 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
514 

sites. The committee is concerned with the lack of results coming 

from the Department’s nuclear materials consolidation coordinating 

committee. The Department has been analyzing consolidation opportunities since 2002, but has yet to consolidate the storage of any 

materials or to issue recommendations to do so. While the Department continues to analyze this issue, the nation continues to invest 

significant resources to upgrade security at nuclear facilities which 

may be de-inventoried over the next decade. The committee believes, however, that NNSA has the opportunity, under its transformation initiative, to make real progress in the consolidation of 

nuclear materials at NNSA sites and encourages NNSA in these efforts. The committee understands, however, that to be fully successful NNSA and the Department must work together. 

Facilities and infrastructure 

The committee recommends $291.2 for the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP), the amount of the 

budget request. FIRP is a capital renewal and sustainability program which was established to reduce the approximately $2.4 billion backlog of NNSA deferred maintenance which developed during the 1980s and 1990s. The fiscal year 2007 budget request for 

FIRP, coupled with the funding profile in the Future Years Nuclear 

Security Program (FYNSP), reflects the Department’s commitment 

to achieving the FIRP objective in a timely manner. The committee 

acknowledges that past levels of appropriated funding have been 

insufficient to allow the completion of FIRP by the statutory sunset. The committee has recommended a provision to extend FIRP 

by two years elsewhere in this title. 

Environmental projects and operations 

The committee recommends $17.2 million for environmental 

projects and operations, the amount of the budget request. The 

committee has not supported previous initiatives to transfer responsibility for environmental cleanup from the Environmental 

Management program to the NNSA. The Environmental Management program was created expressly to address the Department’s 

environmental legacies. 

The committee is cautiously supporting the creation of the environmental projects and operations account with the understanding 

that its purpose is narrowly confined to long term stewardship activities such as groundwater monitoring, reporting and liaison requirements with states and other regulators, and surveillance of 

contaminated, decommissioned buildings which have not yet been 

demolished by the Environmental Management program. The committee will review the effectiveness of this approach in future 

years. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program 

The committee recommends $1.7 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Program, the amount of the budget request. The 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has management and oversight responsibilities for the nonproliferation programs of the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program. The committee recommends funding for these programs, as follows: $268.9 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
515 

million for nonproliferation and verification research and development; $127.4 million for nonproliferation and international security; $413.2 million for international nuclear materials protection 

and cooperation; $206.7 million for elimination of weapons-grade 

plutonium production; $638.0 million for fissile materials disposition, of which $3.6 million is to begin procurement of enriched 

Boron-10 from domestic sources; and $106.8 million for the global 

threat reduction initiative. 

The committee notes its serious concerns regarding the Russian 

and United States Fissile Materials Disposition Programs. These 

concerns are discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. 

Separately, the committee notes that the enriched Boron-10 isotope is critical to the process of fabricating weapons-grade plutonium into mixed-oxide fuel. The committee believes the Department of Energy should have a secure and steady supply of Boron10 for the plutonium disposition program as well as for other purposes. The committee expects that beginning the initial buy of 

Boron-10 in fiscal year 2007 will help ensure a stable domestic supply at favorable rates for the duration of the plutonium disposition 

program, assuming the program goes forward as currently planned. 

The committee urges the Secretary to undertake discussions with 

the commercial nuclear power industry to establish a plan for a 

stable supply of Boron-10. 

Naval Reactors 

The committee recommends $795.1 million for Naval Reactors, 

the amount of the budget request. 

Office of the Administrator 

The committee recommends $356.6 million for program direction for the NNSA, a decrease of $30.0 million below the budget request. This account provides program direction funding for all elements of NNSA, except for the Naval Reactors program and the secure transportation asset. The committee notes that the current 

level of federal staffing of the NNSA is approximately 1,860 fulltime equivalent employees. Under the budget request, NNSA federal staffing would grow to 1,943 federal employees. The committee 

does not support growing the federal payroll for a program which 

is not likely to experience significant growth over the period of the 

FYNSP. The committee has, however, recommended funds sufficient for the implementation of government-wide cost of living increases and escalation in the cost of health and pension benefits for 

current NNSA payroll. 

Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $5.4 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 

2007 for environmental clean-up activities, an increase of $40.0 

million above the budget request. 

The committee recommends no funds for the new ‘‘project management agent’’ requested in the budget for the Waste Treatment 

and Immobilization Plant project, resulting in a recommended decrease for this project of $10.0 million. The project structure for environmental clean up of the high-level waste tanks currently inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00537 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
516 

volves three federal offices (Department of Energy Headquarters, 

the Department’s Office of River Protection, and the Department’s 

Richland Operations Office) and two government contractors (one 

to operate the tank waste system and one to construct the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant). The Department has failed 

to convince the committee that adding a project management agent 

with unspecified advisory duties is needed or will benefit this already complex project. The committee recommends, instead, that 

$10.0 million be added to tank farm activities at Hanford for the 

management of the 177 tanks containing over 50 million gallons of 

the most toxic waste in the Department’s custody. The committee also recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in 

program direction. The Department is experiencing significant 

challenges in managing its largest construction projects within the 

environmental management program. In the committee’s view, the 

Department has been too eager to adopt cosmetic fixes such as adding new layers of contractors, consultants, and other advisors. 

These actions, while in some cases helpful and appropriate, are no 

substitute for better management of projects by the Department’s 

own federal workforce. 

The Department has nearly 300 federal employees at its Washington, DC Headquarters working exclusively on the Environmental Management program and has a total of over 1500 federal 

employees on the program nationwide. The committee agrees that 

the Department is deficient in project management and certain 

contracting and technical skills, but believes the Department must 

first analyze its capability to reassign, retrain or rebalance within 

its current 1500 employees prior to requesting funds for consultants or additional federal employees. The committee is 

unpersuaded that the Department has analyzed how it can help 

itself, first, and urges the Department to undertake such an evaluation. 

The committee recommends additional funding of $80,000,000 

above the budget request for 2012 and 2035 completion projects 

and tank farm activities at the Savannah River Site. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$624.5 million for the Department of Energy for other defense activities, $93.3 million below the budget request. 

Security and safety performance assurance 

The committee recommends $298.5 million for security and safety performance assurance, the amount of the budget request. 

Environment, safety and health 

The committee recommends $80.8 million for environment, safety 

and health, the amount of the budget request. 

Office of Legacy Management 

The committee recommends $167.9 million for the Office of Legacy Management, the amount of the budget request, and $123.2 

million above the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. The Office of 

Legacy Management is responsible for ensuring pension and benVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00538 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
517 

efit continuity to the Department’s former contractor work force. 

This workforce was formerly employed at seven of the Department’s sites at which clean up has now been completed. As additional sites are cleaned up and closed down, and their benefit programs transferred to the Office of Legacy Management, the budget 

for the Office of Legacy Management is expected to increase sharply. The committee encourages the Department to avail itself of the 

ready expertise existing in the private sector specializing in administering health and pension benefit programs instead of ‘‘reinventing the wheel’’ inside the Department. 

Nuclear energy 

The committee recommends $75.9 million for nuclear energy, the 

amount of the budget request. 

Defense related administrative support 

The budget request included $93.3 million for defense related administrative support. The committee recommends no funds for 

these activities. The committee views these administrative support 

activities as inherently part of the nondefense activities of the Department and resists their categorization as defense-related. The 

committee does not support the use of atomic energy defense funds 

for nondefense activities. 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

The committee recommends $4.4 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount of the budget request. 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $333.1 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease of 

$55.0 million below the budget request. The committee notes that 

the Department of Energy is currently unable to provide a predicted timetable for either the submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission of a license application for the geologic repository or 

a prediction of when a repository might begin operating. In light 

of this uncertainty, the committee believes certain transportation 

activities such as the procurement of long lead transportation hardware and the implementation of emergency preparedness grant 

programs along predicted shipping routes are premature and unwarranted in fiscal year 2007. 

Energy supply 

The budget request included $6.1 million for infrastructure security and energy restoration within the Department of Energy’s energy supply and conservation account. The committee recommends 

no funds for these activities. The budget request describes these activities as: assisting states with energy security activities and energy disruption plans; conducting energy security exercises with 

state and local governments; and, partnering with industry to facilitate in-depth vulnerability assessments for critical energy assets 

in the oil, gas, and electricity sectors. These responsibilities constitute a coordinated function between the Departments of Energy 

and Homeland Security related to civilian energy infrastructure 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
518 

and, in the committee’s view, have little, if anything, to do with the 

atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. The 

committee does not support using atomic energy defense funds for 

nondefense activities. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Notice and wait requirement applicable to certain third 

party financing arrangements (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to notify the congressional defense committees 

30 days prior to entering into certain alternative financing arrangements. The Department of Energy has referred to such arrangements as alternative financing, third party financing, public-private partnership, privatization, or private capital arrangements. 

Such arrangements share the common element that they are conducted without the traditional Congressional line-item authorization required for construction projects. 

The committee is aware that the Department is developing an internal policy to guide the use of such financing arrangements within the Department and by its contractors on behalf of the Department. The committee directs the Secretary to provide this policy 

guidance to the congressional defense committees as soon as it is 

issued for use within the Department. 

The committee is concerned that alternative financing arrangements not be seized upon by elements of the Department or its national laboratories as a ‘‘quick fix’’ for the Department’s infrastructure needs. While such arrangements may have the potential to be 

an appropriate means of meeting the Department’s mission needs, 

such arrangements must stand up to rigorous review and analysis, 

must not obscure accurate budget depiction, and must provide a 

clear financial advantage to the taxpayer. The committee believes 

that cases capable of satisfying these criteria will likely be exceedingly rare. 

Utilization of international contributions to the Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Energy authority to accept international contributions 

to the following programs of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative: 

the International Radiological Threat Reduction subprogram; the 

Emerging Threats and Gap Materials subprogram; the Reduced 

Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors subprogram; the Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return subprogram; the Global Research Reactor Security subprogram; and the Kazakhstan Spent 

Fuel subprogram. The provision would permit the Secretary to: (1) 

enter into agreements, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, with any person, foreign government or international organization for this purpose; and (2) use such contributions without further authorization or appropriation. The provision would require 

the Secretary to notify the congressional defense committees: (1) of 

the receipt of any international contributions for this program 

within 30 days of their receipt; and (2) of the intended use of any 

funds received 30 days before they may be utilized. The provision 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
519 

would also require the Secretary to submit an annual report to the 

congressional defense committees on the receipt and utilization of 

amounts received pursuant to this authority for each fiscal year. 

The provision would require that any funds not used within five 

years be returned to the contributor. The authority provided by 

this provision would expire on December 31, 2013. 

Utilization of international contributions to the Second Line 

of Defense Core Program (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Energy authority to accept international contributions 

to the Second Line of Defense Core Program. The provision would 

permit the Secretary to: (1) enter into agreements, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, with any person, foreign government or international organization for this purpose; and (2) use 

such contributions without further authorization or appropriation. 

The provision would require the Secretary to notify the congressional defense committees: (1) of the receipt of any international 

contributions for this program within 30 days of their receipt; and 

(2) of the intended use of any funds received 30 days before they 

may be utilized. The provision would also require the Secretary to 

submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees 

on the receipt and utilization of amounts received pursuant to this 

authority for each fiscal year. The provision would require that any 

funds not used within five years be returned to the contributor. 

The authority provided by this provision would expire on December 

31, 2013. 

The committee notes that this authority is intended for the Second Line of Defense Core Program, and is specifically not intended 

for the Megaports program. 

Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization 

Program (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) for 

two years, until September 30, 2013. The committee acknowledges 

that appropriated funding levels have been insufficient to address 

the full scope of deferred maintenance targeted for elimination 

under the program by the current termination date of September 

30, 2011. The committee urges the Department to put forward its 

best efforts to complete the program within the two-year extension 

provided. 

Two-year extension of authority for appointment of certain 

scientific, engineering, and technical personnel (sec. 

3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4601(c)(1) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 

2701(c)(1)) to extend excepted service authority for an additional 

two years, until September 30, 2008. The committee notes that the 

current excepted service authority has given the Department of Energy hiring flexibility in appointing scientific, engineering, and 

technical personnel. The committee intends for the Department to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
520 

use this authority to continue building the technical expertise and 

credibility of the Department. 

Extension of deadline for transfer of lands to Los Alamos 

County, New Mexico, and of lands in trust for the Pueblo of San Ildefonso (sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 632 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 

Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public 

Law 105–119) to extend the deadline for completing certain land 

transfers by the Secretary of Energy to Los Alamos County, New 

Mexico and to the Secretary of the Interior of lands to be held in 

trust for the Pueblo of San Ildefonso. The provision would extend 

the deadline for these transfers by five years, until November 26, 

2012, to allow additional time to complete environmental restoration activities which are required under the provision being amended. 

Limitation on availability of funds for Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (sec. 3117) 

The budget request for defense environmental cleanup included $690.0 million for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

[Project 01–D–416]. The committee recommends a provision that 

would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from obligating or expending more than a percentage of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant prior to 

performing certain actions. Prior to obligating or expending more 

than 30 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated, the 

Secretary of Energy shall submit to the congressional defense committees proof of certification of the earned value management system used to track and report project costs. Prior to obligating or expending more than 60 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the congressional 

defense committees the final seismic and ground motion criteria 

approved by the Secretary, and directed by the contracting officer, 

to be used in the final design of the Pretreatment and High-Level 

Waste facilities of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. 

The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant project is the 

largest and most complex nuclear-chemical plant project ever undertaken in the United States, and arguably, the world. Since April 

of 2003, cost estimates for this project have spiraled from $5.8 billion to the current estimate of over $14.0 billion. The Department 

has directed a number of reviews into the causes of this escalation. 

The results of these reviews have been provided to the committee 

and are the basis of the committee’s action in the recommended 

provision. At their most fundamental level, the committee believes 

the root causes of the cost escalation to be threefold: (1) fundamental project management inadequacies on the part of the Department of Energy; (2) technical uncertainties raised by outside 

reviewers which have been neither definitively accepted nor rejected by the Department, clouding the project in hesitation and 

delay; and (3) cost escalation which is inherent in any undertaking 

of this magnitude but for which the Department and its contractor 

failed to provide adequate contingency and advance planning. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
521 

The committee is disappointed that the Department would undertake the largest project in its history without having a certified 

earned value management system in place. The ‘‘After Action FactFinding Review’’ prepared at the Department’s request and issued 

in January of 2006, found that the project ‘‘submitted cost and 

schedule data into the Headquarters’’ Project Assessment and Reporting System that were virtually useless and, indeed, misleading.’’ The committee understands that the Department plans to 

certify the earned value management system for the project by the 

end of calendar year 2006. The committee recommends this provision in order to focus the Department’s commitment to achieving 

that goal. 

The committee is also concerned over the Department’s failure to 

arrive at final seismic and ground motion criteria against which 

the facilities of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant will 

be designed. The Department has undertaken the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant as a concurrent design-construct 

project. Design of the facility occurs slightly ahead of, but nearly 

apace with, construction of the facility. In April of 2005—after 

three years of dialogue with the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety 

Board regarding the appropriateness of the seismic criteria applied 

in the existing design, the necessity of drilling boreholes to validate 

the criteria, and the need for additional analysis—the Department 

stated that it had accepted the Board’s recommendations and approved new interim seismic criteria for the project. The Department directed the project contractor to adopt the interim seismic 

criteria and stop impacted construction activities. 

The committee is concerned that the Department, since adopting 

the interim seismic criteria, has lost focus on the necessity of developing final criteria. Planned borehole drilling to validate the interim criteria has not been initiated, planned for, or affirmatively 

decided upon. According to the Department’s ‘‘After Action FactFinding Review’’, the additional engineering effort to validate the 

design and construction against the interim criteria will add an estimated $258.0 million in direct costs. Additionally, because this effort effects activities on the project’s critical path, the cost of schedule delay has added another $500.0 million to the project costs. The 

committee believes that the outlay of funds for design and construction will continue to be an ‘‘at risk’’ expenditure as long as the 

project proceeds without the establishment of final seismic criteria. 

For this reason, the committee has recommended a provision requiring the establishment of such criteria. 

The committee notes that the shared services, referred to as the 

‘‘hotel load’’ of the project, which include project overhead and ongoing costs associated with project management and support, continue as a fixed cost to the project and the taxpayer whether or not 

meaningful engineering and construction progress is taking place. 

According to the Department’s ‘‘After Action Fact-Finding Review’’, 

by shifting work downstream beyond July of 2011, the project adds 

approximately $15.0 million to $20.0 million each month to the 

cost, over and above the actual construction. In other words, each 

month’s construction of $55.0 to $60.0 million that is shifted later 

in the schedule pays a premium of 25 to 35 percent in additional 

hotel load. The committee is concerned that these economic facts, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
522 

when coupled with the ongoing delay caused by a lack of risk-informed decision making, may eventually imperil the continued will 

and ability of Congress to fund this project to completion. The committee believes that the citizens of the State of Washington deserve 

the timely cleanup of the Hanford site for which they have waited 

so long. The committee intends for the recommended provision to 

drive the Department to take actions which are both fundamental 

and neglectfully overdue. 

Limitation on availability of funds for implementation of 

the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program (sec. 3118) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation of fiscal year 2007 funds to implement the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program, other than continuation 

of the research and development associated with the Gas TurbineModular Helium Reactor (GT–MHR), until 30 days after the Secretary of Energy provides to the congressional defense committees 

written recommendations regarding whether and in what manner 

the program should proceed. The provision would require the recommendations to include: a description of the disposition method 

Russia has agreed to use; a description of the assistance the United 

States plans to provide under the program; an estimate of the total 

cost and schedule of the U.S. assistance to the program; and an explanation of how parallelism is to be defined for purposes of the 

program and whether such parallelism can be achieved if the U.S. 

mixed-oxide (MOX) plutonium disposition program continues on 

the current planned schedule without further delays. 

The committee notes its growing concerns regarding the fissile 

materials disposition program. Under the agreement, the United 

States and Russia each agreed to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium, and both countries planned to dispose of the plutonium by fabricating it into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel 

for use in existing nuclear reactors. It has been both executive 

branch policy and a condition of the Congress that the U.S. and 

Russian programs would proceed in parallel. This program was delayed for more than two years as the United States and Russia negotiated an agreement on liability protections for U.S. contractors 

associated with the project. While a liability agreement was finally 

reached last fall, it has not yet been signed, and Russian officials 

have stated that the agreement will require ratification by the Russian Duma. Even more troubling is the possibility that now Russia 

may no longer support the use of MOX fuel for the plutonium disposition program, and the Department of Energy is beginning to 

explore alternative disposition paths with Russia. Uncertainties 

concerning Russia’s level of commitment raise real questions about 

the viability and future direction of the Russian Surplus Fissile 

Materials Disposition Program, and of the continued relationship of 

that program to the U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program, given that these two programs are required to proceed in 

parallel. In light of these circumstances, the committee believes it 

is necessary to receive the recommendations required by this provision before fiscal year 2007 funds are obligated for the Russian 

Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
523 

Limitation on availability of funds for construction of MOX 

Fuel Fabrication Facility (sec. 3119) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation of fiscal year 2007 funds for construction of the MOX 

Fuel Fabrication Facility until 30 days after the Secretary of Energy provides to the congressional defense committees: (1) an independent cost estimate for the United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program and facilities; and (2) a written certification that the Department of Energy (DOE) intends to use the 

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility for U.S. plutonium disposition regardless of the future direction of the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program. 

The committee notes its growing concerns regarding the fissile 

materials disposition program. Under the agreement, the United 

States and Russia each agreed to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium, and both countries planned to dispose of the plutonium by fabricating it into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel 

for use in existing nuclear reactors. It has been both executive 

branch policy and a condition of the Congress that the U.S. and 

Russian programs would proceed in parallel. This program was delayed for more than two years as the United States and Russia negotiated an agreement on liability protections for U.S. contractors 

associated with the project. Now there are questions as to whether 

Russia still supports the use of MOX fuel for the plutonium disposition program, and the Department of Energy is beginning to explore alternative disposition paths with Russia. Uncertainties concerning Russia’s level of commitment to the program raise real 

questions about the viability and future direction of the Russian 

Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program, and of the continued relationship of that program to the U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition Program, given that these two programs are required to proceed in parallel. 

The committee is further concerned that the U.S. MOX program 

has experienced significant cost overruns and schedule delays, irrespective of the problems with the Russian program. A December 

2005 audit by the DOE Inspector General (IG) concluded that while 

the original 2002 budget estimate for the U.S. MOX facility was 

$1.0 billion, the total cost is now estimated at around $3.5 billion, 

and the plant will not begin producing MOX until 2015, six years 

later than originally planned. The IG audit was highly critical of 

DOE’s management of the MOX program, asserting that weaknesses in project management and limited administration of the 

program contributed to cost growth. 

In light of these developments, the committee believes it is necessary to have an independent cost estimate for the program, and 

a certification from the Secretary that the Department will use the 

MOX facility for plutonium disposition regardless of the future direction of the Russian program, before fiscal year 2007 funds are 

obligated for construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. 

Technical correction related to authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2006 (sec. 3120) 

The committee recommends a provision that strikes the amount 

‘‘$9,196,456’’ and inserts ‘‘$9,196,456,000’’ in section 3101(a) of the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
524 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163). 

Items of Special Interest 

The role of the Kansas City Plant in the nuclear weapons 

program 

The committee acknowledges the unique role of the Department 

of Energy’s Kansas City Plant within the nuclear weapons complex. 

The mission of the Kansas City Plant is to provide procurement, 

production, and life-cycle support of the non-nuclear components 

for the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The Kansas City Plant 

provides 85 percent of the components of a nuclear warhead while 

consuming 6 percent of the Department’s weapons activities budget. 

Under the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the Kansas City 

Plant makes an essential contribution to the life extension of each 

nuclear weapon. The Kansas City Plant supports 120 distinct technologies and processes across 42 product lines, including precision 

assembly and packaging of specialty mechanisms and microelectronics, micro initiation systems, specialty materials, and leading 

edge technologies like high-speed optical-electronic telemetry systems. The Kansas City Plant is rapidly becoming the only domestic 

source for many of the non-nuclear technologies needed to support 

the nuclear weapons complex. The committee believes the Kansas 

City Plant is therefore a unique national asset providing one-of-akind technical expertise to the National Nuclear Security Administration and its national laboratories. 

Transparency in budgeting for security requirements 

The committee notes that the costs of providing security for the 

atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy and 

of providing appropriate safeguards for the Department’s nuclear 

materials will exceed $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2007. These costs 

have increased significantly in response to the threat environment 

of recent years. To provide greater clarity and exert greater control 

over these costs, the Department elected to segregate its security 

costs into a separate budget line. This segregation of costs has allowed the committee to examine more directly the adequacy of the 

Department’s security expenditures. 

By the end of calendar year 2008, the Department intends to 

bring its nuclear facilities into compliance with the design basis 

threat established in December 2004. In light of this goal, the Department should continue to segregate security costs within the 

budget requested for fiscal year 2008 so that the committee may 

have a transparent view of the security expenditures needed to 

achieve that compliance. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(525) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $22.3 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (the 

Board), the amount of the budget request. The committee is frustrated with the apparent lack of a process to allow for timely resolution of technical issues between the Board and the Department 

of Energy. The Department is now in a period of renewed construction activity for complex nuclear and nuclear-chemical facilities. 

The committee is aware of technical differences of opinion between 

the Board and the Department which remain unresolved, years 

after first being raised. The resulting technical uncertainty has an 

adverse effect on project schedules and costs. In some cases, issues 

raised during pre-conceptual design remain unresolved well into 

construction. The committee recognizes that because the role of the 

Board is advisory, the Secretary of Energy is not required to adopt 

all of the Board’s recommendations. Nevertheless, the Secretary 

should have a well-reasoned and technically defensible basis, if he 

elects to proceed contrary to the Board’s view. In the committee’s 

opinion, both the Department and the Board would benefit from a 

more structured process for issue resolution which would allow 

issues to be raised, evaluated, and adjudicated at logical points in 

the design and construction process. 

The committee understands that the Department and the Board 

are engaged in discussions to develop a process to provide for more 

timely identification and resolution of technical differences over design standards and other issues at the Department’s nuclear facilities. The committee directs the Board and the Department to report jointly to the congressional defense committees on the results 

of the ongoing efforts to improve the timeliness of issue resolution, 

including recommendations, if any, for legislation that would 

strengthen and improve technical oversight of the Department’s 

nuclear design and operational activities. Until such time as this 

report is submitted, the committee directs the Board to provide to 

the congressional defense committees quarterly reports to identify 

and report the status of significant unresolved issues. 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

By letter dated April 3, 2006, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed 

legislation ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for other purVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 May 18, 2006 Jkt 027434 PO 00000 Frm 00547 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR254.XXX SR254

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
526 

poses.’’ The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 6284 to the Committee 

on Armed Services on April 3, 2006. 

Executive Communication 6284 is available for review at the 

committee. 

Committee Action 

The Committee ordered reported a comprehensive original bill 

and a series of original bills for the Department of Defense, military construction and Department of Energy authorizations. There 

was one recorded vote during the course of the markup. The vote, 

which occurred on the motion to report out the comprehensive 

original bill and the series of original bills, was unanimous, 24–0. 

This roll call vote has been made public and is available at the 

committee. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2007. 

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(527) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR CORNYN 

While the Committee has produced a good bill that will support 

members of our military and their families, I strongly oppose the 

Committee’s recommendation to delay by one year production of 

the Joint Strike Fighter. I share my colleagues’ commitment to acquisition reform and am pleased that the Committee bill contains 

many provisions to improve our acquisition process. We must get 

acquisition costs under control if we are going to be able to procure 

the weapons systems our nation needs to meet the threats of the 

21st century. However, I am deeply concerned that the Committee’s 

recommendation will undermine the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program in terms of cost increases and schedule slips. 

I fully recognize that the JSF program is the largest acquisition 

program in the history of the Department of Defense. There are legitimate questions regarding the level of concurrency between R&D 

and procurement in this program that have been subject to criticism by the GAO. The Committee recommendations closely follow 

those from a recent GAO report on the Joint Strike Fighter, but I 

would also note that the GAO recommendations have not been subject to a business-case analysis. In fact, implementation of the GAO 

recommendations could likely cost more and further delay the program. 

These are all issues we must address, but I am very concerned 

that the Committee’s mark which recommends, and I quote, ‘‘a oneyear delay in production,’’ will possibly drive up costs, delay the 

Initial Operational Capability (IOC) of the aircraft, and adversely 

affect our international partners. 

I commend the Chairman for convening hearings on the JSF alternate engine program so that we would fully understand the DoD 

legislative proposal to eliminate the alternate engine program. 

However, I wish we also would have had the same understanding 

of this proposed delay before the Committee made its recommendations. I strongly believe that we need answers to the following 

questions before undertaking major changes to the program. 

1. Do we know how the proposed one-year delay in production will affect the overall cost of the JSF program? 

2. Do we know how the proposed one-year delay in production will affect the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date of 

the Joint Strike Fighter? 

3. Do we know how the proposed one-year delay in production will affect our international partners? 

It is premature to make any changes to the Joint Strike Fighter 

program without answers to the above questions. 

JOHN CORNYN. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(528) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR NELSON OF FLORIDA 

The committee includes a provision that would repeal section 

5062(2), title 10 U.S. Code that would require the Navy to have a 

minimum of twelve operational aircraft carriers in the fleet. I oppose this repeal. I am convinced that as a nation at war we should 

not increase our strategic risk by reducing our naval aviation capability or increase the time required to respond to crises around the 

world. 

The committee’s statement makes the case that, while lifting the 

12-carrier minimum requirement, we should not allow our carrier 

fleet to fall dangerously lower than eleven ships. I believe strongly 

that the size and capability of our carrier fleet is a matter of highest national concern. Once mothballed, scrapped or a combat loss, 

a carrier is difficult and expensive to replace. The nation needs 

twelve carriers for worldwide presence and crisis response. Congress should support a funding program to ensure that we achieve 

and sustain that level as soon as practical. 

As concerned as I am about reducing the size of our carrier fleet, 

I am equally concerned about the risk of failing to adequately disperse them. Stationing all our Atlantic coast carriers in a single 

port only compounds the challenges we will face with a smaller 

fleet. I am not alone in that assessment. The former Chief of Naval 

Operations, Admiral Vernon Clark, told the Armed Services Committee in February 2005 that in his view, ‘‘over-centralization of 

the [carrier] port structure is not a good strategic move * * * the 

Navy should have two carrier-capable home ports on each coast.’’

Admiral Clark went on to say, ‘‘* * * it is my belief that it would 

be a serious strategic mistake to have all of those key assets of our 

Navy tied up in one port.’’ As recently as March this year Deputy 

Secretary of Defense and former Secretary of the Navy, Gordon 

England, testified to this committee that the Navy needed to disperse its Atlantic coast carriers saying, ‘‘My judgment is that [dispersion] is still the situation * * * a nuclear carrier should be in 

Florida to replace the [USS John F.] Kennedy to get some dispersion.’’ Secretary England explained that, ‘‘the concern there was always weapons of mass destruction. Even though carriers were at 

sea, the maintenance facilities, et cetera, are all still there and the 

crews * * * so having some dispersion would be of value to the Department of the Navy.’’ At the same hearing Vice Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Edmund Giambastiani, shared his 

own judgment that we should disperse our carriers. He illustrated 

his sense of risk to the nation’s east coast carriers when he recalled 

his own visit to Norfolk one Christmas, ‘‘where we had five aircraft 

carriers all sitting next to one another, and that is not something 

we’d like to routinely do.’’

I am opposed to cutting our nation’s aircraft carrier fleet as a 

matter of strategic necessity during time of war. The risk, in my 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
529 

view, is unacceptable. As a matter of protecting our smaller carrier 

force, I am convinced that the nation must establish a second Atlantic coast nuclear carrier base as quickly as possible. An environmental impact study in 1997 found Naval Station Mayport, Florida, 

current home of the USS John F. Kennedy, suitable to permanently 

station a nuclear aircraft carrier. The Navy should complete its update of that study as quickly as possible. Additionally, in order not 

to lose any time once the study is complete, the Navy should include funding in its fiscal year 2008 Future Years Defense Program 

to begin building the maintenance and support facilities necessary 

to stationing a nuclear aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport. 

Availability of these funds should naturally be contingent upon but 

timed in the budget’s out-years to coincide with the completion of 

an updated environmental impact study. I look forward to working 

with my colleagues on both these vital issues. 

BILL NELSON. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING