" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

REPORT

109–452 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 5122 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY 5, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTScongress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

27–368 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

REPORT

2006

109–452 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 5122 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY 5, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

KEN CALVERT, California 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan 

CATHY MCMORRIS, Washington 

MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

IKE SKELTON, Missouri 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS, Staff Director 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

Rationale for the Committee Bill ........................................................................... 12 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 16 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION .................... 16 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 16 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 16 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 18 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 18 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 22 

AH–64 modern signal processing unit ..................................................... 22 

Joint cargo aircraft .................................................................................... 22 

HH–60 aircraft wireless intercom system upgrade ................................ 23 

UH–60A to UH–60L helicopter upgrade ................................................. 23 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 23 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 23 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 26 

Patriot modifications ................................................................................. 26 

TOW missile inventory ............................................................................. 26 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 26 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 26 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 30 

Army current to future force modernization strategy ............................ 30 

Army modularity .................................................................................... 30 

Heavy brigade combat teams ................................................................ 31 

Abrams tank modernization ................................................................. 32 

Bradley base sustainment program ..................................................... 32 

Integrated air burst weapon system ........................................................ 32 

Ammunition Procurement, Army .................................................................... 33 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 33 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 37 

Desert optimized equipment ..................................................................... 37 

Modernization of .50 caliber ammunition production line ..................... 37 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 37 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 37 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 48 

Bridge to future networks ........................................................................ 48 

Combat medical support ........................................................................... 48 

Immersive group simulation ..................................................................... 49 

M915A3 production ................................................................................... 49 

Simulated combat training capability for Army National Guard .......... 49 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 50 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 50 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 55 

EP–3E service life extension .................................................................... 55 

H–53 series modifications ......................................................................... 55 

P–3C modernization .................................................................................. 55 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 56 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 56 

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


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

IV 

Conventional trident modification ........................................................... 60 

Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps ........................................ 60 

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

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 63 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 63 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 67 

313 ship navy force structure ................................................................... 67 

Aircraft carrier force structure requirements ......................................... 67 

Arleigh Burke class destroyer modernization ......................................... 67 

Battleship transfer .................................................................................... 68 

Incremental funding for shipbuilding ...................................................... 68 

Littoral combat ship program .................................................................. 69 

Next-generation destroyer ........................................................................ 69 

Shipbuilding/ship repair industrial base capacity .................................. 70 

Ship cost estimates .................................................................................... 71 

Virginia class submarine .......................................................................... 71 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 72 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 72 

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

AEGIS land based test site modernization ............................................. 82 

Amphibious ship integrated bridge system ............................................. 82 

AN/SPQ–9B radar ..................................................................................... 82 

AN/SPS–48 radar obsolescence, availability and recovery .................... 83 

Boat lifts for small boats .......................................................................... 83 

Canned lube pumps for amphibious ships .............................................. 83 

CVN propeller replacement program ....................................................... 83 

Laser marksmanship training systems ................................................... 84 

Man overboard identification system ....................................................... 84 

Materials handling equipment ................................................................. 84 

Medical support equipment ...................................................................... 85 

Multi-climate protective system ............................................................... 85 

Multi-spectral threat emitter system ...................................................... 85 

Serial number tracking system ................................................................ 86 

Submarine communications upgrades ..................................................... 86 

Submarine non-tactical application delivery interface system shore 

interface .................................................................................................. 86 

Ultrasonic maintenance tools ................................................................... 87 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 87 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 87 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 94 

Envelope protective covers for marine expeditionary unit weapon systems and platforms ................................................................................ 94 

Intelligent surveillance systems ............................................................... 94 

Laser perimeter awareness system .......................................................... 94 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 95 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 95 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 102 

B–1B molecular sieve oxygen generation system ................................... 102 

B–2 radar modification program .............................................................. 102 

B–52 force structure .................................................................................. 103 

C–130 modifications .................................................................................. 103 

C–5 modernization programs ................................................................... 104 

C–9 hush kits ............................................................................................. 104 

F–22 ............................................................................................................ 105 

F–35 ............................................................................................................ 105 

KC–135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program ................... 106 

P5 combat training systems ..................................................................... 107 

Strategic airlift force structure ................................................................ 107 

T–38 ejection seat upgrade program ....................................................... 108 

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force .............................................................. 109 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 109 

Item of Special Interest ................................................................................ 112 

Insensitive munitions upgrade ................................................................. 112 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 112 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 112 

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 116 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 116 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

V 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 123 

Cheyenne Mountain complex ................................................................... 123 

Combat survivor radios ............................................................................. 123 

Combat training ranges ............................................................................ 123 

Enterprise data collection solution .......................................................... 124 

Force protection near real time surveillance .......................................... 124 

High frequency ground control station antennas ................................... 124 

Mobile approach control system ............................................................... 125 

Self-deploying infra-red streamer ............................................................ 125 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 125 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 125 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 131 

Advanced SEAL Delivery System ............................................................ 131 

Chemical and biological defense procurement ........................................ 131 

Special operations forces operational enhancements ............................. 131 

Unmanned aerial systems to counter improvised explosive devices ..... 132 

U.S. Special Operations Command aviation modernization .................. 132 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 133 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 133 

Sections 101-104—Authorization of Appropriations .................................. 133 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 133 

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Family of Medium 

Tactical Vehicles ........................................................................................ 133 

Section 112—Multiyear Procurement Authority for MH–60R Helicopters and Mission Equipment ............................................................... 134 

Section 113—Funding Profile for Modular Force Initiative of the Army . 134 

Section 114—Bridge to Future Networks Program ................................... 134 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 134 

Section 121—Attack Submarine Force Structure ...................................... 134 

Section 122—Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for CVN–21 Class 

of Aircraft Carriers .................................................................................... 135 

Section 123—Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for LHA Replacement 

Amphibious Assault Ship Program .......................................................... 135 

Section 124—Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for San Antonio 

(LPD–17) Class Amphibious Ship Program ............................................ 135 

Section 125—Multiyear Procurement Authority for V–22 Tiltrotor Aircraft Program ............................................................................................. 136 

Section 126—Quality Control in Procurement of Ship Critical Safety 

Items and Related Services ...................................................................... 136 

Section 127—DD(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program ........................ 136 

Section 128—Sense of Congress that the Navy Make Greater Use of 

Nuclear-Powered Propulsion Systems in its Future Fleet of Surface 

Combatants ................................................................................................ 136 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 137 

Section 131—Requirement for B–52 Force Structure ................................ 137 

Section 132—Strategic Airlift Force Structure ........................................... 137 

Section 133—Limitation on Retirement of U–2 Aircraft ........................... 137 

Section 134—Multiyear Procurement Authority for F–22A Raptor 

Fighter Aircraft ......................................................................................... 137 

Section 135—Limitation on Retirement of KC–135E Aircraft During 

Fiscal Year 2007 ........................................................................................ 137 

Section 136—Limitation on Retirement of F–117A Aircraft During Fiscal Year 2007 ............................................................................................. 138 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION ................ 138 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 138 

Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ....................................... 141 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 141 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 155 

Advanced hypersonic weapon mission planning and control ................. 155 

Applied communications and information networking ........................... 155 

Armored systems modernization .............................................................. 155 

AT4 confined space weapon system enhancements ................................ 157 

Center for rotorcraft innovation ............................................................... 157 

Digital array radar .................................................................................... 157 

Dominant military operations on urban terrain viewer ......................... 158 

Environmental quality technology ........................................................... 158 

Excalibur precision guided artillery munition ........................................ 158 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

VI 

Flexible display initiative ......................................................................... 159 

Gas-engine driven air conditioning system demonstrations .................. 159 

High assurance secure object proxy ......................................................... 159 

Human systems integration ..................................................................... 159 

Integrated digital environment service model ........................................ 160 

Intelligent surveillance sensor suite ........................................................ 160 

Joint land attack cruise missile defense and micro electro mechanical 

system ..................................................................................................... 160 

Light utility vehicle ................................................................................... 161 

Lightweight small arms technologies ...................................................... 161 

Long-term armoring strategy ................................................................... 161 

Medical advanced technology ................................................................... 162 

Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment—SDD ............. 162 

Miniaturized sensors for small and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles .......................................................................................................... 162 

Missile recycling capability technology .................................................... 163 

Mobile assessment detection and response system ................................ 163 

Next-generation advanced materials research ........................................ 163 

Polymer matrix composites for rotorcraft drive systems ....................... 163 

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system ................................ 164 

Product lifecycle management plus ......................................................... 164 

Radiation hardening initiative ................................................................. 164 

Smart energetics architecture .................................................................. 165 

Stryker vehicle open architecture electronic enhancements .................. 165 

Tactical wheeled vehicle product improvement program ....................... 165 

Training-based collaborative research in military consequence management .................................................................................................. 166 

Transparent armor .................................................................................... 166 

Warfighter sustainment ............................................................................ 166 

Navy Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ........................................ 166 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 166 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 181 

Advanced composite riverine craft ........................................................... 181 

Advanced materials for acoustic window applications ........................... 181 

Affordable towed array construction/fiber optic towed array construction .......................................................................................................... 181 

Affordable weapon system ........................................................................ 182 

Airborne reconnaissance systems ............................................................ 182 

Aircraft carrier launch and recovery and support equipment modernization ................................................................................................ 182 

Ballistic trajectory extended range munition .......................................... 183 

Bio-film packaging applied research ........................................................ 183 

Cobra Judy ship replacement ................................................................... 183 

Common submarine radio room ............................................................... 184 

Conventional Trident modification .......................................................... 184 

Defense research sciences ......................................................................... 185 

Detection and recovery of unexploded ordnance ..................................... 185 

Dismounted soldier training test instrumentation ................................. 186 

Distributed common ground system ........................................................ 186 

DockShock ship shock test system ........................................................... 186 

DP–2 vectored thrust aircraft .................................................................. 187 

E–2 advanced hawkeye identification friend or foe technology development .................................................................................................... 187 

Electro-optic passive antisubmarine warfare system ............................. 187 

F/A–18 squadrons ...................................................................................... 188 

Flexible payload module and payload interface module development .. 189 

High performance FM fiber-optic link ..................................................... 189 

Human systems integration ..................................................................... 189 

Integrated shipboard intelligent surveillance ......................................... 189 

Joint integrated systems for advanced digital networking .................... 190 

Large aperture bow array ......................................................................... 190 

Large displacement unmanned undersea vehicle at-sea launch and 

recovery system ...................................................................................... 190 

Lightweight multi-threat encapsulated ceramic body armor ................ 191 

Lithium battery technology ...................................................................... 191 

Marine expeditionary rifle squad ............................................................. 191 

Maritime identification surveillance technology phased array radar ... 192 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

VII 

Maritime technology ................................................................................. 192 

National shipbuilding research program ............................................. 193 

Shipbuilding industrial base improvement grants ............................. 193 

Shipbuilding industrial base improvement loan guarantees ............. 193 

Naval surface fire support ........................................................................ 193 

Network communication system technology for extreme environments ...................................................................................................... 194 

Next-generation electronic warfare simulator ........................................ 195 

Next-generation Phalanx .......................................................................... 195 

Permanent magnet motor ......................................................................... 196 

Retroreflecting optical communications for special operations .............. 196 

Sea fighter (X-Craft) .................................................................................. 196 

Secure infrastructure technology laboratory ........................................... 197 

Shipboard wireless maintenance assistant ............................................. 197 

Small arms and crew served weapons shot counter ............................... 197 

Smart valve ................................................................................................ 197 

Tactical electric field buoy development program .................................. 198 

Validation of prognostic and health management systems ................... 198 

VH–71 ......................................................................................................... 198 

Virtual-at-sea training technologies ........................................................ 199 

Warfare protection advanced technology ................................................. 199 

Wet end installation system element ...................................................... 200 

Wireless maritime inspection system ...................................................... 200 

Air Force Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ................................. 200 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 200 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 214 

Active feedback flow control technology .................................................. 214 

Advanced engine starter/generator system prototype ............................ 214 

Advanced optics and laser space technology ........................................... 214 

Advanced spacecraft technology ............................................................... 215 

Affordable lightweight power supply development ................................. 215 

B–52 internal weapons bay upgrade ....................................................... 216 

B–52 stand-off jammer program .............................................................. 216 

Biostatic protective clothing ..................................................................... 216 

C–130 airlift squadrons ............................................................................ 217 

Combatant commanders’ integrated command and control system ...... 217 

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit program ............................ 218 

Engineering tool improvement program .................................................. 218 

High accuracy network determination system ........................................ 218 

High modulus polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber ........................................... 218 

Human systems integration ..................................................................... 219 

Interactive avionics roadmap ................................................................... 219 

Joint advanced global strike demonstration ........................................... 219 

Joint strike fighter development .............................................................. 220 

KC–135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program ................... 221 

Large aircraft countermeasures system for AC–130U aircraft ............. 221 

Laser peening fatigue life extension ........................................................ 222 

Low emission hybrid electric engine propulsion ..................................... 222 

Major test and evaluation investment ..................................................... 222 

Materials .................................................................................................... 223 

Measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) visualization 

tools program ......................................................................................... 223 

Metals affordability initiative ................................................................... 223 

Nanocrystalline diamond coatings ........................................................... 223 

Operationally responsive space ................................................................ 224 

Radio frequency identification tag rapid adoption initiative, phase 2 ... 224 

Small diameter bomb ................................................................................ 224 

Space-based radar ..................................................................................... 224 

Space control test capabilities .................................................................. 225 

Space technology ....................................................................................... 225 

Tactical automated security system advanced communications module ........................................................................................................... 225 

Transformational satellite communications system ............................... 226 

Winglets for in-service aircraft ................................................................. 226 

Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation .......................... 227 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 227 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 240 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

VIII 

Accelerated intelligence analyst education and training ....................... 240 

Advanced data encryption technololgy .................................................... 240 

Advanced SEAL Delivery System ............................................................ 240 

Advanced surface radar technologies ....................................................... 241 

Advanced tactical laser program .............................................................. 241 

Ballistic missile defense ............................................................................ 241 

Aegis ballistic missile defense .............................................................. 242 

Boost defense segment .......................................................................... 242 

Core ......................................................................................................... 243 

Midcourse defense segment .................................................................. 243 

Multiple kill vehicle ............................................................................... 244 

System interceptor ................................................................................. 244 

Technology .............................................................................................. 245 

Biological warfare defense ........................................................................ 245 

Business transformation agency .............................................................. 246 

Chemical-biological collective protective shelters ................................... 246 

Chemical and biological defense program ............................................... 246 

Advanced technology development ....................................................... 247 

Applied research .................................................................................... 247 

Basic research ........................................................................................ 247 

Combating terrorism technology support ................................................ 248 

Generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations ........................................................................................................ 248 

Improved suborbital operations ............................................................... 249 

Joint training transformation .................................................................. 249 

Office of force transformation ................................................................... 249 

Special operations advanced technology development ........................... 250 

Special operations forces operational enhancements ............................. 250 

Special operations intelligence systems development ............................ 250 

Special operations tactical systems development ................................... 251 

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

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 252 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 252 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 252 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 252 

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 252 

Section 202—Amount for Defense Science and Technology ...................... 252 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 252 

Section 211—Alternate Engine for Joint Strike Fighter ........................... 252 

Section 212—Extension of Authority to Award Prizes for Advanced 

Technology Achievements ......................................................................... 252 

Section 213—Extension of Defense Acquisition Challenge Program ........ 252 

Section 214—Future Combat Systems Milestone Review ......................... 253 

Section 215—Independent Cost Analyses for Joint Strike Fighter Engine Program ............................................................................................. 253 

Section 216—Dedicated Amounts for Implementing or Evaluating 

DD(X) and CVN–21 Proposals Under Defense Acquisition Challenge 

Program ...................................................................................................... 253 

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................................. 253 

Section 221—Fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities ............... 253 

Section 222—Limitation on Use of Funds for Spacebased Interceptor .... 253 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 254 

Section 231—Review of Test and Evaluation Policies and Practices 

to Address Emerging Acquisition Approaches ........................................ 254 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 255 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 255 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 288 

Budget Request Adjustments—Readiness ...................................................... 288 

Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery ............................................... 289 

Capital Security Cost Share ......................................................................... 289 

Combat Enhancement Forces and Combat Communications ................... 290 

Homeland Defense Operational Planning System ..................................... 290 

Maritime Prepositioning Ship Lease Buyout .............................................. 290 

Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network ............................................... 291 

Navy Marine Corps Intranet ....................................................................... 291 

Port of Corpus Christi .................................................................................. 291 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative .................................. 291 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

IX 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams .................................. 292 

Environmental Issues ...................................................................................... 292 

Fuel Tank Replacement at Point Loma, California ................................... 292 

Non-thermal Treatment of Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Material . 292 

Report on Uranium Located in Gore, Oklahoma ....................................... 292 

Site Assessment of Former World War II Ordnance Manufacturing 

Facility, Rosemount, Minnesota ............................................................... 293 

Information Technology Issues ........................................................................ 293 

Information Technology Overview ............................................................... 293 

Business Transformation Agency and Enterprise Risk Assessment 

Model .......................................................................................................... 294 

Readiness Issues ............................................................................................... 294 

Air Force Transformation ............................................................................. 294 

Army Logistics Modernization ..................................................................... 295 

Base Operating Support and Facilities Recapitalization Budget Shortfalls ............................................................................................................. 295 

Beryllium Supply Industrial Base ............................................................... 296 

Depot Maintenance Strategy and Implementation Plans ......................... 296 

High Altitude Aviation Training ................................................................. 297 

National Space Studies Center Study ......................................................... 298 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 298 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 298 

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 298 

Section 302—Working Capital Funds ......................................................... 298 

Section 303—Other Department of Defense Programs .............................. 298 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 299 

Section 311—Revision of Requirement for Unexploded Ordnance Program Manager ........................................................................................... 299 

Section 312—Identification and Monitoring of Military Munitions Disposal Sites in Ocean Waters Extending from United States Coast 

to Outer Boundary of Outer Continental Shelf ...................................... 299 

Section 313—Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

Certain Costs in Connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund 

Site, Moses Lake, Washington ................................................................. 299 

Section 314—Funding of Cooperative Agreements Under Environmental Restoration Program .................................................................... 299 

Section 315—Analysis and Report Regarding Contamination and Remediation Responsibility for Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply Point, Norwalk, California ......................................................................................... 300 

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 300 

Section 321—Extension of Exclusion of Certain Expenditures from Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Depot-Level Maintenance ........ 300 

Section 322—Minimum Capital Investment for Air Force Depots ........... 300 

Section 323—Extension of Temporary Authority for Contractor Performance of Security Guard Functions .................................................... 300 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 301 

Section 331—Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Depot Maintenance 301 

Section 332—Report on Navy Fleet Response Plan ................................... 301 

Section 333—Report on Navy Surface Ship Rotational Crew Programs .. 301 

Section 334—Report on Army Live-Fire Ranges in Hawaii ...................... 302 

Section 335—Comptroller General Report on Joint Standards and Protocols for Access Control Systems at Department of Defense Installations ............................................................................................................ 302 

Section 336—Report on Personnel Security Investigations for Industry 

and National Industrial Security Program ............................................. 302 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 303 

Section 341—Department of Defense Strategic Policy on Prepositioning 

of Materiel and Equipment ...................................................................... 303 

Section 342—Authority to Make Department of Defense Horses Available for Adoption at End of Useful Working Life ................................... 304 

Section 343—Sale and Use of Proceeds of Recyclable Munitions Materials ............................................................................................................. 304 

Section 344—Capital Security Cost Sharing .............................................. 304 

Section 345—Prioritization of Funds Within Navy Mission Operations, 

Ship Maintenance, Combat Support Forces, and Weapons System 

Support ....................................................................................................... 304 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

X 

Section 346—Prioritization of Funds Within Army Reconstitution and 

Transformation .......................................................................................... 305 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 306 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 306 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 306 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 306 

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 306 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels .............................................................................................. 307 

Section 403—Additional Authority for Increases of Army and Marine 

Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 ...... 307 

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

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 307 

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

of the Reserve Components ...................................................................... 308 

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ....... 308 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2007 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status Technicians .......................................................................................... 309 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized to 

be on Active Duty for Operational Support ............................................. 309 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 309 

Section 421—Military Personnel ................................................................. 309 

Section 422—Armed Forces Retirement Home .......................................... 310 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 310 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 310 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 312 

Academy Language Training ....................................................................... 312 

Closure of Article 32 Investigations in Cases of Sexual Assault or 

Domestic Violence ..................................................................................... 312 

Department of the Navy Personal Responsibility and Values: Education 

and Training Program .............................................................................. 313 

Educational Opportunities in Interagency Coordination at the Military 

War Colleges .............................................................................................. 313 

Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies ...................................... 314 

Operation of Army Air Ambulance Detachments ....................................... 314 

Permanent Identification Cards for Adult Disabled Children .................. 315 

Personnel Plan for Linguists ........................................................................ 315 

Process for Restructuring the Army National Guard ................................ 315 

Social Security Numbers on Military Identification Cards ....................... 316 

Trafficking in Persons .................................................................................. 316 

Victim Service Organization Privilege in Cases Arising Under Uniform 

Code of Military Justice ............................................................................ 317 

Web-based Enhancement to Support Family Readiness Programs .......... 318 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 318 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 318 

Section 501—Authorized Strength of Navy Reserve Flag Officers ........... 318 

Section 502—Standardization of Grade of Senior Dental Officer of the 

Air Force with that of Senior Dental Officer of the Army ..................... 318 

Section 503—Management of Chief Warrant Officers ............................... 319 

Section 504—Reduction in Time-in-Grade Requirement for Promotion 

to Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and Lieutenant 

in the Navy ................................................................................................ 319 

Section 505—Military Status of Officers Serving in Certain Intelligence 

Community Positions ................................................................................ 319 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 319 

Section 511—Revisions to Reserve Call-up Authority ............................... 319 

Section 512—Military Retirement Credit for Certain Service by National Guard Members Performed While in a State Duty Status Immediately After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 ............... 320 

Section 513—Report on Private Sector Promotion and Constructive Termination of Members of the Reserve Components Called or Ordered 

to Active Service ........................................................................................ 320 

Subtitle C—Education and Training .............................................................. 320 

Section 521—Authority to Permit Members Who Participate in the 

Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship Program to Participate 

in the Health Professions Scholarship Program and Serve on Active 

Duty ............................................................................................................ 320 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XI 

Section 522—Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Instruction Eligibility Expansion ......................................................................................... 320 

Section 523—Authority for United States Military Academy and United 

States Air Force Academy Permanent Military Professors to Assume 

Command Positions While on Periods of Sabbatical .............................. 321 

Section 524—Expansion of Service Academy Exchange Programs with 

Foreign Military Academies ..................................................................... 321 

Section 525—Review of Legal Status of Junior ROTC Program .............. 321 

Subtitle D—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 322 

Section 531—Test of Utility of Test Preparation Guides and Education 

Programs in Enhancing Recruit Candidate Performance on the 

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and Armed 

Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) ............................................................ 322 

Section 532—Nondisclosure of Selection Board Proceedings .................... 322 

Section 533—Report on Extent of Provision of Timely Notice of LongTerm Deployments .................................................................................... 322 

Subtitle E—Authorities Relating to Guard and Reserve Duty ..................... 323 

Section 541—Title 10 Definition of Active Guard and Reserve Duty ....... 323 

Section 542—Authority for Active Guard and Reserve Duties to Include 

Support of Operational Missions Assigned to the Reserve Components and Instruction and Training of Active-Duty Personnel ............. 323 

Section 543—Governor’s Authority to Order Members to Active Guard 

and Reserve Duty ...................................................................................... 323 

Section 544—National Guard Officers Authority to Command ................ 323 

Section 545—Expansion of Operations of Civil Support Teams ............... 324 

Subtitle F—Decorations and Awards .............................................................. 324 

Section 551—Authority for Presentation of Medal of Honor Flag to 

Living Medal of Honor Recipients and to Living Primary Next-ofKin of Deceased Medal of Honor Recipients ........................................... 324 

Section 552—Cold War Victory Medal ........................................................ 324 

Section 553—Posthumous Award of Purple Heart for Prisoners of War 

Who Die in or Due to Captivity ............................................................... 324 

Section 554—Advancement on the Retired List of Certain Decorated 

Retired Navy and Marine Corps Officers ................................................ 324 

Section 555—Report on Department of Defense Process for Awarding 

Decorations ................................................................................................ 325 

Subtitle G—Matters Relating to Casualties ................................................... 325 

Section 561—Criteria for Removal of Member from Temporary Disability Retired List .................................................................................... 325 

Section 562—Department of Defense Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program for Severely Wounded Members ...................................... 325 

Section 563—Transportation of Remains of Casualties Dying in a Theater of Combat Operations ....................................................................... 325 

Section 564—Annual Budget Display of Funds for POW/MIA Activities 

of Department of Defense ......................................................................... 326 

Subtitle H—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for Defense Dependents Education ...................................................................................... 327 

Section 571—Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational 

Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces 

and Department of Defense Civilian Employees .................................... 327 

Section 572—Enrollment in Defense Dependents’ Education System 

of Dependents of Foreign Military Members Assigned to Supreme 

Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe ...................................................... 327 

Subtitle I—Postal Benefits .............................................................................. 327 

Section 575—Postal Benefits Program for Members of the Armed 

Forces ......................................................................................................... 327 

Section 576—Funding ................................................................................... 327 

Section 577—Duration .................................................................................. 328 

Subtitle J—Other Matters ............................................................................... 328 

Section 581—Reduction in Department of Defense Accrual Contributions to Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund .................. 328 

Section 582—Dental Corps of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery ........ 328 

Section 583—Permanent Authority for Presentation of Recognition 

Items for Recruitment and Retention Purposes ..................................... 328 

Section 584—Report on Feasibility of Establishment of Military Entrance Processing Command Station on Guam ...................................... 328 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XII 

Section 585—Persons Authorized to Administer Enlistment and Appointment Oaths ........................................................................................ 328 

Section 586—Repeal of Requirement for Periodic Department of Defense Inspector General Assessments of Voting Assistance Compliance at Military Installations ................................................................... 329 

Section 587—Physical Evaluation Boards .................................................. 329 

Section 588—Department of Labor Transitional Assistance Program ..... 330 

Section 589—Revision in Government Contributions to Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund .................................................................. 330 

Section 590—Military Chaplains ................................................................. 331 

Section 591—Report on Personnel Requirements for Airborne Assets 

Identified as Low-Density, High-Demand Airborne Assets ................... 331 

Section 592—Entrepreneurial Service Members Empowerment Task 

Force ........................................................................................................... 331 

Section 593—Comptroller General Report on Military Conscientious 

Objectors .................................................................................................... 331 

Section 594—Commission on the National Guard and Reserves .............. 331 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 332 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 332 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 332 

Elimination of the Survivor Benefit Plan Two-Tier Annuity Computation System ................................................................................................ 332 

Military Decorations and Uniform Accounterments Sold in Military 

Exchange Stores ........................................................................................ 333 

Recoupment of Survivor Benefit Plan Overpayments ............................... 333 

Second Destination Transportation of Exchange Store Goods .................. 334 

Treatment of Dual Military Couples ........................................................... 334 

United Service Organizations ...................................................................... 334 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 335 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 335 

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2007 ......................... 335 

Section 602—Targeted Increase in Basic Pay Rates .................................. 335 

Section 603—Conforming Change in General and Flag Officer Pay Cap 

to Reflect Increase in Pay Cap for Senior Executive Service Personnel ......................................................................................................... 335 

Section 604—Availability of Second Basic Allowance for Housing for 

Certain Reserve Component or Retired Members Serving in Support 

of Contingency Operations ........................................................................ 335 

Section 605—Extension of Temporary Continuation of Housing Allowance for Dependents of Members Dying on Active Duty to Spouses 

Who are Also Members ............................................................................. 336 

Section 606—Clarification of Effective Date of Prohibition on Compensation for Correspondence Courses .................................................... 336 

Section 607—Payment of Full Premium for Coverage Under 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Program During Service in 

Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom ................... 336 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 336 

Section 611—Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay Authorities 

for Reserve Forces ..................................................................................... 336 

Section 612—Extension of Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for 

Health Care Professionals ........................................................................ 336 

Section 613—Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities for Nuclear Officers .............................................................................................. 337 

Section 614—Extension of Other Bonus, Special Pay, and Separation 

Pay Authorities .......................................................................................... 337 

Section 615—Expansion of Eligibility of Dental Officers for Additional 

Special Pay ................................................................................................. 337 

Section 616—Increase in Maximum Annual Rate of Special Pay for 

Selected Reserve Health Care Professionals in Critically Short Wartime Specialties ......................................................................................... 337 

Section 617—Authority to Provide Lump Sum Payment of Nuclear 

Officer Incentive Pay ................................................................................. 337 

Section 618—Increase in Maximum Amount of Nuclear Career Accession Bonus .................................................................................................. 337 

Section 619—Increase in Maximum Amount of Incentive Bonus for 

Transfer Between Armed Forces .............................................................. 337 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XIII 

Section 620—Clarification Regarding Members of the Army Eligible 

for Bonus for Referring Other Persons for Enlistment in the Army ..... 338 

Section 621—Pilot Program for Recruitment Bonus for Critical Health 

Care Specialties ......................................................................................... 338 

Section 622—Enhancement of Temporary Program of Voluntary Separation Pay and Benefits ............................................................................ 338 

Section 623—Additional Authorities and Incentives to Encourage Retired Members and Reserve Component Members to Volunteer to 

Serve on Active Duty in High-Demand, Low-Density Assignments ..... 338 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowance ........................................ 338 

Section 631—Authoriy to Pay Costs Associated with Delivery of Motor 

Vehicle to Storage Location Selected by Member and Subsequent 

Removal of Vehicle .................................................................................... 338 

Section 632—Transportation of Additional Motor Vehicle of Members 

on Change of Permanent Station to or from Nonforeign Areas Outside the Continental United States ......................................................... 339 

Section 633—Travel and Transportation Allowances for Transportation 

of Family Members Incident to Illness or Injury of Members ............... 339 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits ........................................... 339 

Section 641—Military Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiaries Under Insurable Interest Coverage .............................................................................. 339 

Section 642—Retroactive Payment of Additional Death Gratuity for 

Certain Members Not Previously Covered .............................................. 339 

Section 643—Equity in Computation of Disability Retired Pay for Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action ..................................... 339 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits .......................................................................................................... 340 

Section 651—Treatment of Price Surcharges of Tobacco Products and 

Certain Other Merchandise Sold at Commissary Stores ....................... 340 

Section 652—Limitation on Use of Department of Defense Lease Authority to Undermine Commissaries and Exchange and Other Morale, 

Welfare, and Recreation Programs and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities .......................................................................................... 340 

Section 653—Use of Nonappropriated Funds to Supplement or Replace 

Appropriated Funds for Construction of Facilities of Exchange Stores 

System and Other Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities, Military 

Lodging, Facilities, and Community Facilities ....................................... 340 

Section 654—Report on Cost Effectiveness of Purchasing Commercial 

Insurance for Commissary and Exchange Facilities and Facilities 

of Other Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities ...................................................... 340 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 341 

Section 661—Repeal of Annual Reporting Requirement Regarding Effects of Recruitment and Retention Initiatives ....................................... 341 

Section 662—Pilot Project Regarding Providing Golf Carts Accessible 

for Disabled Persons at Military Golf Courses ....................................... 341 

Section 663—Enhanced Authority to Remit or Cancel Indebtedness 

of Members of the Armed Forces Incurred on Active Duty ................... 341 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 342 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 342 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 343 

Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center .......................................... 343 

Comptroller General Report on a Unified Medical Command Plan ......... 343 

Fort Drum Health Care Pilot Program ....................................................... 343 

Mental Health Programs for Combat Veterans and Their Families ........ 344 

Screening for Traumatic Brain Injury ........................................................ 344 

TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Program ................................................. 344 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 345 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program Improvements ............................................. 345 

Section 701—TRICARE Coverage for Forensic Examination Following 

Sexual Assault or Domestic Violence ....................................................... 345 

Section 702—Authorization of Anesthesia and Other Costs for Dental 

Care for Children and Certain Other Patients ....................................... 345 

Section 703—Improvements to Descriptions of Cancer Screening ........... 345 

Section 704—Prohibition on Increases in Certain Health Care Costs 

for Members of the Uniformed Services .................................................. 345 

Section 705—Services of Mental Health Counselors ................................. 346 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XIV 

Section 706—Demonstration Project on Coverage of Selected Over-theCounter Medications Under the Pharmacy Benefit Program ................ 346 

Section 707—Requirement to Reimburse Certain Travel Expenses of 

Certain Beneficiaries Covered by TRICARE for Life ............................. 346 

Section 708—Inflation Adjustment of Differential Payments to Children’s Hospitals Participating in TRICARE Program ............................ 346 

Section 709—Expanded Eligibility of Selected Reserve Members Under 

TRICARE Program .................................................................................... 347 

Section 710—Extension to TRICARE of Medicare Prohibition of Financial Incentives Not to Enroll in Group Health Plan ............................... 347 

Subtitle B—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 347 

Section 711—Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care ....................................................................................... 347 

Section 712—Study and Plan Relating to Chiropractic Health Care 

Services ...................................................................................................... 347 

Section 713—Comptroller General Study and Report on Defense Health 

Program ...................................................................................................... 348 

Section 714—Transfer of Custody of the Air Force Health Study Assets 

to Medical Follow-up Agency .................................................................... 348 

Section 715—Study on Allowing Dependents of Activated Members of 

the Reserve Components to Retain Civilian Health Care Coverage ..... 348 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 349 

Section 721—Costs of Incentive Payments to Employees for TRICARE 

Enrollment Made Unallowable for Contractors ...................................... 349 

Section 722—Requirement For Military Medical Personnel to be 

Trained in Preservation of Remains ........................................................ 349 

Subtitle D—Pharmacy Benefits Program Improvements .............................. 349 

Section 731—TRICARE Pharmacy Program Cost-Share Requirements .. 349 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 350 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 350 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 352 

Major Defense Acquisition Program Reform .............................................. 352 

Prime Vendor Program ................................................................................. 352 

Special Operations Command Requirements ............................................. 353 

Undefinitized Contract Actions .................................................................... 353 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 353 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 353 

Section 801—Requirements Management Certification Training Program ........................................................................................................... 353 

Section 802—Additional Requirements Relating to Technical Data 

Rights ......................................................................................................... 354 

Section 803—Study and Report on Revisions to Selected Acquisition 

Report Requirements ................................................................................ 354 

Section 804—Quarterly Updates on Implementation of Acquisition Reform in the Department of Defense ......................................................... 355 

Section 805—Establishment of Defense Challenge Process for Critical 

Cost Growth Threshold Breaches in Major Defense Acquisition Programs .......................................................................................................... 356 

Section 806—Market Research Required for Major Defense Acquisition 

Programs Before Proceeding to Milestone B ........................................... 357 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 358 

Section 811—Applicability of Statutory Executive Compensation Cap 

Made Prospective ...................................................................................... 358 

Section 812—Prohibition on Procurement from Beneficiaries of Foreign 

Subsidies .................................................................................................... 358 

Section 813—Time-Certain Development for Department of Defense 

Information Technology Business Systems ............................................. 358 

Section 814—Establishment of Panel on Contracting Integrity ............... 358 

Subtitle C—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 359 

Section 821—Extension of Special Temporary Contract Closeout Authority ......................................................................................................... 359 

Section 822—Limitation on Contracts for the Acquisition of Certain 

Services ...................................................................................................... 359 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XV 

Section 823—Use of Federal Supply Schedules by State and Local 

Governments for Goods and Services for Recovery from Natural Disasters, Terrorism, or Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, or Radiological 

Attack ......................................................................................................... 359 

Section 824—Waivers to Extend Task Order Contracts for Advisory 

and Assistance Services ............................................................................ 359 

Section 825—Enhanced Access for Small Business ................................... 360 

Section 826—Procurement Goal for Hispanic-Serving Institutions .......... 360 

Section 827—Prohibition on Defense Contractors Requiring Licenses 

or Fees for Use of Military Likenesses and Designations ...................... 360 

Subtitle D—United States Defense Industrial Base Provisions ................... 361 

Section 831—Protection of Strategic Materials Critical to National Security .......................................................................................................... 361 

Section 832—Strategic Materials Protection Board ................................... 361 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 362 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 362 

Importance of Placing Foreign Area Officers in Combat Units ................ 362 

Increased Budgetary Confidence Level Implementation in Space Acquisition ........................................................................................................... 362 

National Security Space Management ........................................................ 362 

Report on Developing Expertise in Emerging National Security Challenges .......................................................................................................... 363 

Report on Coordination and Oversight of Military Cultural and Linguistic Policies and Training .................................................................... 363 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 364 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 364 

Section 901—Standardization of Statutory References to ‘‘National Security System’’ within Laws Applicable to Department of Defense ...... 364 

Section 902—Correction of Reference to Predecessor of Defense Information Systems Agency ............................................................................ 364 

Section 903—Addition to Membership of Specified Council ...................... 364 

Section 904—Consolidation and Standardization of Authorities Relating 

to Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies ........ 364 

Section 905—Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps ........................................... 365 

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 365 

Section 911—Designation of Successor Organizations for the Disestablished Interagency Global Positioning Executive Board ........................ 365 

Section 912—Extension of Authority for Pilot Program for Provision 

of Space Surveillance Network Services to Non-United States Government Entities ....................................................................................... 365 

Section 913—Operationally Responsive Space ........................................... 365 

Subtitle C—Chemical Demilitarization Program .......................................... 365 

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

Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program ............................ 365 

Section 922—Comptroller General Review of Cost-Benefit Analysis of 

Off-Site Versus On-Site Treatment and Disposal of Hydrolysate Derived from Neutralization of VX Nerve Gas at Newport Chemical 

Depot, Indiana ........................................................................................... 366 

Section 923—Sense of Congress Regarding the Safe and Expeditious 

Disposal of Chemical Weapons ................................................................. 366 

Subtitle D—Intelligence-Related Matters ...................................................... 366 

Section 931—Repeal of Termination of Authority of Secretary of Defense to Engage in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence 

Collection Activities Abroad ..................................................................... 366 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 366 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 366 

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 366 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 366 

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

Budget requests ......................................................................................... 367 

Counternarcotics Policy for Afghanistan ................................................. 367 

Intelligence and technology ...................................................................... 368 

Maritime Domain Awareness ................................................................... 368 

Southwest Border Fence ........................................................................... 368 

U.S. Central Command operations support ............................................ 369 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XVI 

U.S. Northern Command operations support ......................................... 369 

U.S. Pacific Command operations support .............................................. 369 

U.S. Southern Command operations support ......................................... 369 

Other Activities ................................................................................................. 369 

Aircraft Carrier Force Structure ................................................................. 369 

‘‘Commercial First’’ Maritime Sealift Policy ............................................... 370 

Department of Defense Civil Support ......................................................... 370 

Department of Defense Interagency Coordination in the Global War 

on Terrorism .............................................................................................. 371 

Department of Defense Participation in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ................................................................. 372 

Homeland Security/Defense Management Programs ................................. 372 

Improving International Pandemic Preparedness through Theater Security Cooperation Programs ....................................................................... 373 

Increasing the Availability of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Assets in the Event of a Catastrophic Natural or Manmade 

Disaster ...................................................................................................... 373 

Joint Training and Certification for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological 

Defense ....................................................................................................... 373 

National Counter Proliferation Center ....................................................... 374 

Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels Carrying Department 

of Defense Cargo ........................................................................................ 375 

Report on Strategic Language Skills ........................................................... 375 

Special Operations Command as the Supported Command in the Global 

War on Terrorism ...................................................................................... 376 

Status and Implementation of Military Support for Stability, Security, 

Transition, and Reconstruction Operations ............................................ 376 

Terrorist Use of the Internet ....................................................................... 377 

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

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

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

Section 1002—Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006 ............................................................................................. 377 

Section 1003—Increase in Fiscal Year 2006 General Transfer Authority ................................................................................................................ 377 

Section 1004—United States Contribution to NATO Common-Funded 

Budgets in Fiscal Year 2007 ..................................................................... 378 

Section 1005—Report on Budgeting for Fluctuations in Fuel Cost 

Rates ........................................................................................................... 378 

Section 1006—Reduction in Authorizations Due to Savings Resulting 

from Lower than Expected Inflation ........................................................ 378 

Subtitle B—Policy Relating to Naval Vessels and Shipyards ....................... 378 

Section 1011—Transfer of Naval Vessels to Foreign Nations Based 

upon Vessel Class ...................................................................................... 378 

Section 1012—Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards ........................................................................................... 379 

Section 1013—Report on Options for Future Lease Arrangements for 

Guam Shipyard ......................................................................................... 379 

Section 1014—Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement Program ....... 380 

Section 1015—Transfer of Operational Control of Certain Patrol Coastal Ships to Coast Guard ............................................................................ 380 

Section 1016—Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels ................ 380 

Section 1017—Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels Carrying 

Department of Defense Cargo .................................................................. 381 

Section 1018—Riding Gang Member Documentation Requirement ......... 381 

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 381 

Section 1021—Restatement in Title 10, United States Code, and Revision of Department of Defense Authority to Provide Support for 

Counter-Drug Activities of Federal, State, Local, and Foreign Law 

Enforcement Agencies ............................................................................... 381 

Section 1022—Restatement in Title 10, United States Code, and Revision of Department of Defense Authority to Provide Support for 

Counter-Drug Activities of Certain Foreign Governments .................... 382 

Section 1023—Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counter-Drug 

and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia ........................................ 382 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XVII 

Section 1024—Continuation of Reporting Requirement Regarding Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign Counter-Drug 

Activities .................................................................................................... 383 

Section 1025—Report on Interagency Counternarcotics Plan for Afghanistan and South and Central Asian Regions .................................. 383 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 383 

Section 1031—Revision to Authorities Relating to Commission on the 

Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the United States .... 383 

Section 1032—Enhancement to Authority to Pay Rewards for Assistance in Combating Terrorism ................................................................... 384 

Section 1033—Report on Assessment Process of Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff Relating to Global War on Terrorism ............................. 384 

Section 1034—Presidential Report on Improving Interagency Support 

for United States 21st Century National Security Missions ................. 384 

Section 1035—Quarterly Reports on 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review 

Report Implementation ............................................................................. 385 

Section 1036—Increased Hunting and Fishing Opportunities for Members of the Armed Forces, Retired Members, and Disabled Veterans .. 386 

Section 1037—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 386 

Section 1038—Database of Emergency Response Capabilities ................. 386 

Section 1039—Information on Certain Criminal Investigations and 

Prosecutions ............................................................................................... 387 

Section 1040—Date for Final Report of EMP Commission ....................... 387 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 387 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 387 

Performance Periods Established in Connection with Public-private 

Competitions .............................................................................................. 387 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 388 

Section 1101—Increase in Authorized Number of Defense Intelligence 

Senior Executive Service Employees ....................................................... 388 

Section 1102—Authority for Department of Defense to Pay Full Replacement Value for Personal Property Claims of Civilians ................. 388 

Section 1103—Accrual of Annual Leave for Members of the Uniformed 

Services Performing Dual Employment .................................................. 388 

Section 1104—Death Gratuity Authorized for Federal Employees .......... 388 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 389 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 389 

Addressing the Threat Posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran .................. 389 

International Military Education and Training Programs ........................ 390 

Report on Certain Cooperative Activities Involving the United States 

and India .................................................................................................... 390 

Report on Department of Defense Activities in Support of Multinational 

Peacekeeping Operations in Sudan ......................................................... 391 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 391 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 391 

Section 1201—Logistic Support for Allied Forces Participating in Combined Operations ....................................................................................... 391 

Section 1202—Temporary Authority to Use Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements to Lend Certain Military Equipment to Foreign 

Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for Personnel Protection and Survivability ......................................................................................................... 392 

Section 1203—Recodification and Revision to Law Relating to Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining Assistance ........................... 392 

Section 1204—Enhancements to Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program ...................................................................... 392 

Section 1205—CAPSTONE Overseas Field Studies Trips to People’s 

Republic of China and Republic of China on Taiwan ............................. 393 

Section 1206—Military Educational Exchanges Between Senior Officers 

and Officials of the United States and Taiwan ...................................... 393 

Subtitle B—Nonproliferation Matters and Countries of Concern ................ 393 

Section 1211—Procurement Restrictions Against Foreign Persons That 

Transfer Certain Defense Articles and Services to the People’s Republic of China .......................................................................................... 393 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 394 

Section 1221—Execution of the President’s Policy to Make Available 

to Taiwan Diesel Electric Submarines .................................................... 394 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XVIII 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF 

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION ........................................................................ 394 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 394 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 

and Funds .................................................................................................. 394 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 394 

Section 1303—Temporary Authority to Waive Limitation on Funding 

for Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia ........................... 395 

Section 1304—National Academy of Sciences Study ................................. 395 

TITLE XIV—HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ................ 395 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 395 

Sections 1401–1403—Homeland Defense Technology Transfer ................ 395 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM ...... 396 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 396 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................... 396 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 404 

Budget Realignment ..................................................................................... 404 

Procurement .................................................................................................. 404 

Improvised electronic devices countermeasures ..................................... 404 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system utilization ..................... 405 

Manned tactical persistent surveillance aircraft .................................... 406 

Operation and Maintenance ......................................................................... 407 

Military Personnel ........................................................................................ 407 

Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation .............................................. 407 

U–2 aircraft sensor development ............................................................. 407 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 407 

Section 1501—Purpose ................................................................................. 407 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 408 

Section 1502—Army Procurement ............................................................... 408 

Section 1503—Navy and Marine Corps Procurement ................................ 408 

Section 1504—Air Force Procurement ........................................................ 408 

Section 1505—Defense-Wide Activities Procurement ................................ 408 

Section 1506—Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ..................... 408 

Section 1507—Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 408 

Section 1508—Defense Health Program ..................................................... 408 

Section 1509—Classified Programs ............................................................. 408 

Section 1510—Military Personnel ............................................................... 408 

Section 1511—Treatment as Additional Authorizations ........................... 408 

Section 1512—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 408 

Section 1513—Availability of Funds ........................................................... 409 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 409 

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 409 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW ......... 409 

Section 2001—Short Title ............................................................................ 429 

TITLE XXI—ARMY ................................................................................................. 429 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 429 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 429 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 429 

Future Year Programming ........................................................................... 430 

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 430 

Safety-Critical Projects ................................................................................. 430 

Unspecified Minor Construction .................................................................. 430 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 430 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 430 

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 431 

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 431 

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 431 

TITLE XXII—NAVY ................................................................................................ 431 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 431 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 431 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 431 

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 432 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 432 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XIX 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 432 

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 432 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 432 

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 432 

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2004 and 2005 Projects .................................................................... 432 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE .................................................................................... 432 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 432 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 433 

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 433 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 433 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 433 

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 433 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 433 

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 433 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES .................................................................. 433 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 433 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 434 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 434 

Fuel Storage at Naval Base Point Loma, California .................................. 434 

Missile Defense Agency Construction Activities ........................................ 434 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 435 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ....................................................................................... 435 

Section 2402—Family Housing .................................................................... 435 

Section 2403—Energy Conservation Projects ............................................. 435 

Section 2404—Authorized Base Closure and Realignment Activities 

Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 . 435 

Section 2405—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 435 

Section 2406—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2006 Projects ..................................................................................... 435 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY 

INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................. 435 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 435 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 436 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 436 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 436 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 436 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 436 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 436 

Planning and Design, Air National Guard ................................................. 436 

Planning and Design, Army National Guard ............................................. 436 

Planning and Design, Air Reserve .............................................................. 437 

Planning and Design, Army Reserve .......................................................... 437 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ............................................................................... 437 

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 437 

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS ..... 437 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 437 

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to 

be Specified by Law ................................................................................... 437 

Section 2702—Effective Date ....................................................................... 437 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ....... 438 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 438 

Energy Savings and Renewable Energy Opportunities at Joint Bases .... 438 

Remediation of Property at the Former Fort Ord, California ................... 438 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 438 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ...................................................................................................... 438 

Section 2801—Increase in Maximum Annual Amount Authorized to 

be Obligated for Emergency Military Construction ................................ 438 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XX 

Section 2802—Applicability of Local Comparability of Room Pattern 

and Floor Area Requirements to Construction, Acquisition, and Improvement to Military Unaccompanied Housing .................................... 438 

Section 2803—Authority to Use Proceeds from Sale of Military Family 

Housing to Support Military Housing Privatization Initiative ............. 439 

Section 2804—Repeal of Special Requirement for Military Construction 

Contracts on Guam ................................................................................... 439 

Section 2805—Congressional Notification of Cancellation Ceiling for 

Department of Defense Energy Savings Peformance Contracts ........... 439 

Section 2806—Expansion of Authority to Convey Property at Military 

Installations to Support Military Construction ...................................... 439 

Section 2807—Pilot Projects for Acquisition or Construction of Military 

Unaccompanied Housing .......................................................................... 439 

Section 2808—Consideration of Alternative and More Efficient Uses 

for General Officer and Flag Officer Quarters in Excess of 6,000 

Square Feet ................................................................................................ 439 

Section 2809—Repeal of Temporary Minor Military Construction Program ........................................................................................................... 440 

Section 2810—One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority 

to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects 

Outside the United States ........................................................................ 440 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 440 

Section 2821—Consolidation of Department of Defense Authorities Regarding Granting of Easements for Rights-of-Way ................................ 440 

Section 2822—Authority to Grant Restrictive Easements in Connection 

with Land Conveyances ............................................................................ 440 

Section 2823—Maximum Term of Leases for Structures and Real Property Relating to Structures in Foreign Countries Needed for Purposes 

Other than Family Housing ..................................................................... 440 

Section 2824—Consolidation of Laws Relating to Transfer of Department of Defense Real Property Within the Department and to Other 

Federal Agencies ....................................................................................... 440 

Section 2825—Congressional Notice Requirements in Advance of Acquisition of Land by Condemnation for Military Purposes ......................... 441 

Subtitle C—Base Closure and Realignment ................................................... 441 

Section 2831—Treatment of Lease Proceeds from Military Installations 

Approved for Closure or Realignment After January 1, 2005 ............... 441 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 441 

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, 

Hawaii ........................................................................................................ 441 

Section 2842—Modification of Land Acquisition Authority, Perquimans 

County, North Carolina ............................................................................ 441 

Section 2843—Land Conveyance, Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Pulaski County, Virginia ............................................................................... 441 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 442 

Section 2851—Availability of Community Planning Assistance Relating 

to Encroachment of Civilian Communities on Military Facilities Used 

for Training by the Armed Forces ............................................................ 442 

Section 2852—Prohibitions Against Making Certain Military Airfields 

or Facilities Available for Use by Civil Aircraft ..................................... 442 

Section 2853—Naming Housing Facility at Fort Carson, Colorado, in 

Honor of Joel Hefley, a Member of the House of Representatives ........ 442 

Section 2854—Naming Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center at Rock 

Island, Illinois, in Honor of Lane Evans, a Member of the House 

of Representatives ..................................................................................... 442 

Section 2855—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 ............................................. 442 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ................................... 442 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY 

PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................... 442 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 442 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 459 

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 459 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 459 

Weapons Activities ........................................................................................ 459 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XXI 

Directed Stockpile Work ........................................................................... 459 

Reliable Replacement Warhead ............................................................ 459 

Responsive Infrastructure ..................................................................... 459 

Study of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty Methodology ... 460 

Transformation Plan for the Nuclear Weapons Complex ................... 461 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign ......... 462 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities ............................................ 462 

Safeguards and Security ........................................................................... 463 

Test Readiness ........................................................................................... 464 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................................... 464 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative .......................................................... 464 

International Materials Protection and Cooperation ............................. 464 

Megaports Program ............................................................................... 465 

Radiation Detection Technology ........................................................... 465 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility ........................................................................ 465 

Transfer Authority to Fund New or Emerging Activities Outside 

the United States Under the Global Threat Reduction Initiative ..... 468 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 468 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 468 

Disposition of Plutonium Unsuitable for Conversion to Mixed Oxide 

Fuel ............................................................................................................. 469 

Hanford Defense Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant ......... 469 

Savannah River Site Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................. 470 

Tank Waste Cleanup Research and Development Program ...................... 471 

Yucca Mountain ............................................................................................ 471 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 471 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 471 

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 471 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 471 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 472 

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................ 472 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 472 

Section 3111—Plan for Transformation of National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nuclear Weapons Complex ............................................ 472 

Section 3112—Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program .............................................................................................. 472 

Section 3113—Utilization of Contributions to Global Threat Reduction 

Initiative ..................................................................................................... 472 

Section 3114—Utilization of Contributions to Second Line of Defense 

Program ...................................................................................................... 472 

Section 3115—Two-Year Extension of Authority for Appointment of 

Certain Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Personnel ..................... 472 

Section 3116—National Academy of Sciences Study of Quantification 

of Margins and Uncertainty Methodology for Assessing and Certifying the Safety and Reliability of the Nuclear Stockpile ...................... 472 

Section 3117—Consolidation of Counterintelligence Programs of Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration .... 473 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 473 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 473 

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

Role of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................. 473 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 473 

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 473 

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE ........................................ 474 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 474 

Sale of Strategic and Critical Materials ...................................................... 474 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 474 

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds .... 474 

Section 3302—Revision of Limitations to Required Receipt Objectives 

for Previously Authorized Disposals from National Defense Stockpile 474 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 475 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 475 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 475 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 475 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 485 

Fuel Assistance Payments to State and Regional Maritime Academies .. 475 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
Page

XXII 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 475 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007 ...... 00 

Section 3502—Limitation on Transfer of Maritime Security Fleet Operating Agreements ...................................................................................... 476 

Section 3503—Applicability of Certain Maritime Administration Vessels 

of Limitations on Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels in 

Foreign Shipyards ..................................................................................... 476 

Section 3504—Vessel Transfer Authority ................................................... 476 

Section 3505—United States Merchant Marine Academy Graduates: 

Alternate Service Requirements .............................................................. 477 

Section 3506—United States Merchant Marine Academy Graduates: 

Service Obligation Performance Reporting Requirement ...................... 477 

Section 3507—Temporary Authority to Transfer Obsolete Combatant 

Vessels to Navy for Disposal .................................................................... 477 

Section 3508—Temporary Requirement to Maintain Ready Reserve 

Force ........................................................................................................... 477 

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 477 

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 477 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 479 

Communications From Other Committees ............................................................ 479 

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 487 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 487 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 490 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 490 

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 490 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 491 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 491 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 491 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 498 

Additional and Dissenting Views ........................................................................... 499 

Additional views of Ike Skelton, Steve Israel, Solomon P. Ortiz, Ellen 

O. Tauscher, Adam Smith, G.K. Butterfield, Loretta Sanchez, Silvestre 

Reyes, John Spratt, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Robert E. Andrews, Mark 

Udall, Neil Abercrombie, Marty Meehan, Jim Langevin, Susan Davis, 

Vic Snyder, Tim Ryan, Rick Larsen, Jim Marshall ....................................... 499 

Additional views of Jeff Miller ............................................................................ 502 

Additional views of Jim Marshall ....................................................................... 503 

Additional views of Cathy McMorris .................................................................. 508 

Dissenting views of Cynthia McKinney ............................................................. 510 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
27–368 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–452 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2007 

MAY 5, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 

Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5122] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 5122) 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 purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with 

amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill 

and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported 

bill. 

The title of the bill is amended to relfect the amendment to the 

text of the bill. 

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS 

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 5122. The title of the bill 

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The 

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
2 

PURPOSE 

The bill would—(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation 

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) 

Authorize for fiscal year 2007: (a) the personnel strength for each 

active duty component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed forces; (c) the military training student loads for 

each of the active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military 

personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military construction and family 

housing; (6) Authorize emergency appropriations for increased costs 

due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; 

(7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions 

related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the Maritime Administration. 

RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS 

The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts provide 

budget authority. The bill addresses the following categories in the 

Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance; working 

capital funds, military personnel; and military construction and 

family housing. The bill also addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and the Maritime Administration. 

Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in this 

bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel 

determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization 

of specific dollar amounts for personnel. 

SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL 

The President requested budget authority of $513.3 billion for 

the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2007. Of this 

amount, the President requested $491.5 billion for the Department 

of Defense, including $16.7 billion for military construction and 

family housing and $50 billion for estimated emergency costs for 

the Global War on Terror. The defense budget request for fiscal 

year 2007 also included $17.0 billion for Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board. 

The committee recommends an overall level of $512.9 billion in 

budget authority. This amount represents an increase of approximately $21.4 billion from the amount authorized for appropriation 

by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
3 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS 

The defense authorization act provides authorization for appropriations but does not generally provide budget authority. Budget 

authority is provided in appropriations acts. In order to relate the 

recommendations to the budget resolution, matters in addition to 

the dollar authorizations contained in this bill must be taken into 

account. A number of programs in the national defense function are 

authorized in other legislation. The following table summarizes authorizations included in the bill for fiscal year 2007 and, in addition, summarizes the implications of the committee action for the 

budget authority totals for national defense (budget function 050). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
4 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 28 HR452.001
5 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 29 HR452.002
6 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 30 HR452.003
7 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 31 HR452.004
8 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 32 HR452.005
9 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 33 HR452.006
10 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 34 HR452.007
11 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 35 HR452.008
12 

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL 

H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007, reflects the House Armed Services Committee’s steadfast support of the courageous, professional and dedicated men and 

women of the United States armed forces and the committee’s appreciation for the sacrifices they make to accomplish their required 

missions. Events of the last year—ranging from on-going operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to robust counter-terrorism efforts 

around the globe to time-sensitive disaster and humanitarian responses both at home and abroad—serve to highlight the United 

States military’s flexibility and responsiveness in defending our nation’s interests and addressing security challenges, wherever and 

whenever they may arise. 

For example, with the support of our coalition partners and over 

220,000 Iraqi Security Forces personnel, members of the United 

States military helped to establish secure, stable conditions under 

which more than 12 million Iraqis could cast their votes for new 

national assembly representatives last December. That month also 

figured prominently in Afghanistan, where United States, Afghan 

and allied forces maintained security and stability as 351 men and 

women from all provinces, tribes and ethnic groups were inaugurated into the National Assembly. At home, United States forces 

actively contributed to Hurricane Katrina relief efforts with approximately 20,000 Active Duty and 50,000 National Guard troops 

providing military support to civil authorities. 

The committee considers it critical that the capabilities and capacity of the armed forces continue to improve so they can accomplish the full range of diverse 21st century missions, minimize 

risks associated with such challenges and effectively engage in hostilities, when necessary, as far from American shores as possible. 

Thus, the committee’s top priority remains ensuring that our military personnel receive the best equipment, weapons systems and 

training possible. As such, H.R. 5122 would provide for both nearand longer-term military personnel and force structure requirements. It also highlights the need for improvements in acquisition 

processes and cooperation among key federal departments and 

agencies. 

Taking Care of Our Military Personnel 

Through H.R. 5122, the committee continues its support for the 

outstanding Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, who selflessly 

make significant personal sacrifices to protect and defend our nation. To ensure that the United States armed forces remain robust 

enough to meet the full range of 21st Century security challenges, 

particularly those related to the Global War on Terrorism, the committee recommends for Fiscal Year 2007 additional active duty 

growth of 30,000, or 6 percent, for the Army and 5,000, or about 

3 percent, for the Marine Corps above the budget request. These 

recommendations would bring the Army end strength to 512,400 

and the Marine Corps to 180,000. In addition, the committee supports the Department of the Army’s decision to request an Army 

National Guard (ARNG) end strength of 350,000 and recommends 

adding about 2,300 full-time ARNG support personnel. To support 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
13 

this additional manpower, H.R. 5122 would increase ARNG funding by $789 million for personnel and equipment costs. 

H.R. 5122 also reflects the committee’s on-going commitment to 

improving the efficiency and effectiveness of servicemembers’ benefits. The committee recommends an across-the-board pay raise, 

which would decrease the 4.5 percent gap between military and 

private sector pay to about 4.0 percent. Moreover, this legislation 

completes the transition to full TRICARE health program coverage 

for selected reserve personnel and, in light of the Department of 

Defense’s proposed TRICARE cost-sharing arrangement, requires 

further study to ensure that a comprehensive policy and fiscal 

basis for sustaining future military health care benefits are in 

place. H.R. 5122 also improves programs for our nation’s wounded 

military personnel and the surviving family members of those who 

have died or have been seriously injured in service. 

Balancing Near- and Longer-Term Military Capabilities 

The committee believes strongly that the Department of Defense 

must not focus on long-term military capabilities at the expense of 

resetting and recapitalizing the warfighting force that is serving 

the United States so well in current operations. In particular, this 

legislation sends a clear signal that force protection remains this 

committee’s top priority. Through oversight hearings, briefings and 

numerous trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, committee members continue to follow the significant threat to our soldiers and marines 

from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), or makeshift road-side 

bombs. H.R. 5122 reflects the committee’s initiative to ‘‘take back 

the roads’’ and provide the best available IED jamming devices and persistent surveillance capability this includes $109.7 million for 

jamming devices that will prevent the radio-initiation of road-side 

bombs, which currently cause the majority of U.S. casualties in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, and $100 million for at least 10 manned persistent surveillance aircraft to patrol road segments and other 

areas where IED activity is greatest. 

H.R. 5122 also provides insight into how the committee believes 

the Department of Defense should strike the right balance between 

accepting technical risk and providing increased capabilities to 

these warfighters. It reflects the committee’s continuing concerns 

about the long lead times required for major systems and the possibility that programs do not focus adequately on the near-term requirements of the United States armed forces. 

For example, the committee questions how the Department of the 

Army plans to fund the Future Combat System (FCS), the Modular 

Force Initiative and reset programs—three costly efforts that would 

require funding in excess of the funds programmed for the next five 

years. H.R. 5122 reflects the committee’s decision to balance the 

health and capability of the current force with the future needs of 

the Army by reducing the FCS program by $326 million and requiring a Defense Acquisition Board review of the FCS program. 

In addition to reflecting concerns about the growing cost of the 

FCS program, this legislation puts into place spending limits on 

programs for other major programs for which cost estimates are 

rapidly increasing. These legislative initiatives would contain shipbuilding costs by holding the Department of the Navy accountable 

to their cost estimates on the CVN–21 aircraft carrier, the Landing 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
14 

Helicopter Assault (LHA–R) amphibious assault ship, and the 

LPD–17 Landing Platform Dock amphibious ship and would increase competition for elements of the Joint Strike Fighter (F–35) 

and next generation destroyer (DD(X)) programs. 

The committee notes that the Fiscal Year 2007 budget request included $2 billion for the Department of the Air Force’s F–22 aircraft program. However, despite the Fiscal Year 2006 projection for 

procurement of 29 F–22’s in Fiscal Year 2007, the funds requested 

for Fiscal Year 2007 were for subassemblies and not aircraft. Rather than authorize incremental funding for major aircraft programs, 

which Congress has not done in decades, the committee recommends an additional $1.4 billion for the full funding for procurement of 20 F–22 aircraft. 

Over the last five years, the Global War on Terrorism has demonstrated time and again that U.S. intelligence, surveillance and 

reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities are critical to military effectiveness. The Department of Defense’s most recent Quadrennial Defense Review, released in February 2006, highlighted gaps in ISR 

capabilities, and as a result of several hearings and briefings over 

the last year, the committee agrees that the United States currently has insufficient capacity and capability to meet all national 

and combatant commander requirements or provide tactical control 

over needed ISR assets at the small-unit level. One key area for 

improvement is persistent surveillance platforms, which the DOD 

could usefully deploy for operations ranging from combat and 

counterterrorism scenarios to stability and humanitarian operations and domestic crises. For example, unmanned aerial vehicles 

could provide a reliable battlefield picture on a 24-hours-a-day/7- 

days-a-week basis. However, the committee notes with concern that 

despite highlighting existing ISR gaps, DOD officials decided to retire U–2 aircraft to achieve savings without identifying a similar 

capability that will be available in the near-term. H.R. 5122 would 

prohibit this retirement until the Department certifies to Congress 

that the U–2 program is not required to mitigate gaps in ISR capabilities. 

Finally, H.R. 5122 underscores the need for operationally responsive space capabilities. Adversaries recognize that the backbone of 

the United States military’s command, control, communication, 

computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) 

system is space-based, making it vulnerable to asymmetric attack 

and not easily reconstituted. The committee believes that the 

United States must develop a responsive space infrastructure, including flexible space launch and rapidly deployable C4ISR platforms, to address this vulnerability and reduce the temptation for 

adversaries to attack our space assets. This legislation would establish an Office of Operationally Responsive Space in the DOD to 

contribute to the development of low-cost rapid reaction payloads 

to fulfill joint military operational requirements. 

Fielding the Right Equipment at the Right Time 

The rising cost and lengthening production schedules of major 

defense acquisition programs has led to more expensive platforms 

fielded in fewer numbers. The committee believes that internal 

DOD pressure to develop follow-on weapons systems that include 

all necessary and anticipated military capabilities may create an 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
15 

over-reliance on individual ‘‘mega’’ systems that are potentially 

more expensive and time-consuming to develop than less sophisticated but capable systems. These increases in cost and development time generally result in smaller numbers of platforms purchased, creating a ‘‘high demand, low density’’ situation in which 

the needed platforms have higher operational tempos, wear out 

faster, increase stress on military personnel, undermine the ability 

to conduct traditional presence missions intended to shape the strategic choices of potential adversaries and limit the strategic depth 

of United States forces responding to multiple contingencies. Moreover, the shrinking pool of skills and experience maintained by the 

acquisition workforce and the inadequate prioritization of combatant commands’ requirements in deference to the military services’ priorities are strong concerns of the committee. At the end of the 

day, the Department needs to recognize that its acquisition process 

must result in cost-effectively ‘putting metal on targets’—which in 

some cases will not require costly, leading-edge technologies. H.R. 

5122 would address these issues by requiring training programs, 

improving management oversight and internal controls and closely 

monitoring implementation of acquisition reform in the Department of Defense. 

Developing Partnerships 

The committee notes that international coalition partners have 

proven essential to military successes in Afghanistan, Iraq and 

elsewhere and appreciates the diplomatic, financial and military 

contributions made by foreign governments to the Global War on 

Terrorism. However, the committee believes that several key federal departments and agencies may lack the same operational commitment to success in the on-the-ground war effort. 

Achieving United States security objectives requires the integration of all national power—political, military and economic. In 

many cases, non-military departments and agencies lack planning, 

surge and overseas deployment capabilities, and the interagency 

process—which coordinates national-level policy development—has 

not been effective in executing national security policy. As a result, 

our servicemembers routinely fill gaps in civil capabilities, such as 

reconstruction efforts, coordination of humanitarian relief and 

training and equipping police forces. These missions are in addition 

to the full range of military operational requirements and may, in 

some cases, place an unfair burden on our armed forces. 

H.R. 5122 would require that the President assess the non-DOD 

elements required to achieve the full spectrum of U.S. national security interests, including organizational structures, planning and 

assessment capabilities, information-sharing policies, command and 

control systems, personnel policies and acquisition authorities. The 

President would also provide specific legislative proposals to improve interagency capacity and enhance civilian capabilities for national security purposes. 

Supplemental Funding 

The committee recommends authorization of $50 billion in funds 

to support the defense activities principally associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF). These funds are designated for emergency contingency operVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
16 

ations to support force protection equipment, operational needs and 

military personnel requirements of the units deployed and engaged 

in the Global War on Terrorism. 

Included in the force protection recommendation is funding for 

up-armored Humvees, tactical wheeled vehicle recapitalization and 

modernization programs for the most heavily used vehicles in OIF 

and OEF, night vision devices and improvised explosive device 

jammers. In addition, the committee recognizes the need to replenish critical small-arms and ammunition procurement programs, including funding for the M16 rifle, M240 medium machine gun and 

M4 carbine modifications, and .50 caliber cartridges, 120mm tank 

ammunition canisters and 155mm high explosive projectiles. Incorporated in the day-to-day operation recommendation is funding to 

pay for food, fuel, spare parts, maintenance, transportation, base 

expenses, as well as costs incurred by stateside installations for increased mobilizations and demobilizations due to OIF and OEF. 

Over the past four years, the committee has recommended increases in the active component manpower to sustain the full range 

of capabilities required of the mission assigned to the armed forces. 

The committee recommends funding a cumulative active component 

increase of 30,000 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps 

over the budget request. 

HEARINGS 

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 results from hearings that began on February 1, 2006, and that were completed on April 7, 2006. The full 

committee conducted fifteen sessions. In addition, a total of thirtytwo sessions were conducted by 6 different subcommittees on various titles of the bill. 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $84.2 billion 

for procurement. This represents a $6.2 billion increase from the 

amount authorized for fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommends authorization of $85.9 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion from the fiscal year 2007 request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 procurement program are identified in the table below. Major issues are 

discussed following the table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
17 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 42 HR452.009
18 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $3.6 billion for 

Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $3.7 billion, an increase of $148.3 million, for fiscal year 

2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Aircraft 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
19 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 44 HR452.010
20 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 45 HR452.011
21 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 46 HR452.012
22 

Items of Special Interest 

AH–64 modern signal processing unit 

The budget request contained $775.6 million for AH–64 modifications, but no funds were requested for the modern signal processing unit (MSPU) initial integration and production for the AH– 64. 

The MSPU is an embedded digital vibration diagnostic technology already developed by the Army for the AH–64A Apache and 

the AH–64D Longbow to monitor the tail rotor gearbox, the intermediate gearbox, and the auxiliary power unit clutch for incipient 

failures. The MSPU is a direct replacement for the 30-year-old analog signal processing unit which is known to experience high failure rates and shown to be unreliable in detecting incipient gearbox 

failures. The improved diagnostics of the MSPU will improve flight 

safety and reduce maintenance test costs. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to integrate the modern signal processing unit into the AH–64A and AH– 64D production line and to procure the MSPU for fielding as spares 

for both the active Army and Army National Guard Apache and 

Longbow aircraft. 

Joint cargo aircraft 

The committee supports the decision to establish a joint program 

office and to utilize a single capability development document as 

the basis for requirements for the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA). The 

committee believes that cost control is the most critical factor in 

determining the likelihood for success of the JCA program, and 

that the imperative for cost containment will necessitate a strict 

control of requirements and the use of maximum jointness and 

commonality in training, sustainment and maintenance. The committee recommends that the joint program office work to develop 

an acquisition and sustainment strategy for JCA that is joint in all 

phases of the program. The acquisition and sustainment strategy 

should address the purchase of sufficient rights in technical data 

required to provide competition in maintaining and sustaining the 

aircraft throughout its complete lifecycle. The committee notes that 

it has included a provision (section 802) that would require acquisition programs to acquire sufficient technical data required for 

lifecycle sustainment. The committee also notes that the core logistics capability for cargo aircraft currently in the Department of Defense (DOD) inventory resides largely in the Air Force Air Logistics 

Centers and the committee believes the JCA should be identified 

as a core logistics capability under subsection (a)(2) of section 2464 

of title 10, United States Code, with no waiver under subsection 

(b), if the JCA is acquired in sufficient numbers to warrant such 

a designation. At a minimum, the Department should acquire the 

technical data necessary to enable the government to utilize its 

core logistics capability to maintain the JCA, if required. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report on the plan to acquire 

and sustain the JCA. The committee directs that the report be delivered no later than 60 days after the acquisition and sustainment 

strategy is approved by the appropriate milestone decision authority. The committee further directs that the report shall include 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
23 

DOD’s recommendations regarding whether or not the JCA will be 

identified as a core logistics capability under subsection (a)(2) of 

section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, and if so identified, 

whether the Department intends to waive the limitation on contracting under subsection (b) of such section for the JCA. 

HH–60 aircraft wireless intercom system upgrade 

The budget request contained $30.9 million for H–60 modifications, but included no funds for procurement of non-encrypted aircraft wireless intercom system (AWIS) upgrades for active and reserve HH–60 medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) helicopters. 

The committee notes there is no integrated or qualified wireless 

communication system onboard HH–60 rotorcraft for use by crewmembers. Consequently, this does not allow onboard medical personnel, while in flight or during ground operations, freedom to use 

both hands to perform emergency medical procedures while communicating with the flight crew. Early fielding of non-encrypted 

AWIS would eliminate the operational hazards and restrictions inherent in the existing tethered system for MEDEVAC crews. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to modify 

HH–60 rotorcraft with wireless intercom systems. 

UH–60A to UH–60L helicopter upgrade 

The budget request included $554.6 million in aircraft procurement for 38 UH–60M aircraft, but included no funds for the nonrecurring costs of replacement of UH–60A engine transmission and 

engine upgrades as part of the UH–60A upgrade program. 

The committee notes the significant reduction in flying hour costs, of over $700 per hour, offered by replacement of the original 

UH–60A engines. The committee recommends an additional $15.0 million for the 

non-recurring development and engineering costs of upgrading the 

UH–60A engine transmission and engine to the UH–60L configuration. 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $1.4 billion for 

Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.5 billion, an increase of $140.0 million, for fiscal year 

2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Missile 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
24 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 49 HR452.013
25 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 50 HR452.014
26 

Items of Special Interest 

Patriot modifications 

The budget request contained $69.9 million for the procurement 

of Patriot modifications. 

The committee understands that the Army has an unfunded requirement to transition or pure fleet existing Patriot Advanced Capability–2 (PAC–2) missile battalions to an upgraded PAC–3 missile battalion configuration capable of deploying the PAC–3 missile 

by the end of fiscal year 2009. The committee supports this initiative and recommends $209.9 million, an increase of $140.0 million for the purpose of restarting 

the PAC–3 production line, and for upgrading tactical Patriot fire 

units to the PAC–3 configuration capability. 

TOW missile inventory 

The budget request contained $31.6 million to procure 949 TOW 

missiles. 

The committee recognizes the Army and Marine Corps face a significant challenge in maintaining an adequate inventory of TOW 

missiles. The TOW requirement is perceived to be at a minimum 

20,000 missiles but the Army’s current program of record supports 

an inventory of only 6,500 missiles. The committee is aware the 

Army and Marine Corps have fired more than 6,000 TOW missiles 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), yet by 2009, based on missile 

shelf life, the Army will have fewer TOW missiles in its inventory 

than it had at the start of the OIF. 

While the committee notes the Army’s intent to increase TOW 

procurement and encourages the Army to proceed with this course 

of action, the committee also notes the Army staff has not defined 

a minimum warfighting inventory requirement for TOW missiles. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 

15, 2007, that details the acquisition strategy for TOW procurement across the Future Years Defense Program and specifies the 

current, minimum warfighting requirement for the TOW missile. 

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $2.3 billion for 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $2.3 billion, an increase of $33.1 million, 

for fiscal year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are identified in 

the table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 

following the table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
27 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 52 HR452.015
28 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 53 HR452.016
29 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 54 HR452.017
30 

Items of Special Interest 

Army current to future force modernization strategy 

The Army is implementing its current to future force modernization strategy at a time when U.S. ground forces continue to operate 

at high operational tempos in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as fill 

a critical role in the global war on terrorism. The committee notes 

that while the Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the Army’s longterm transformation strategy, modularity and equipment reset constitutes the near-term strategy. Given fiscal realities, the Army’s 

challenge of simultaneously funding reset and modularity, and the 

high technical risks associated with the development of FCS, the 

committee is concerned the Army may sacrifice the warfighting capability of the current force in order to resource FCS. 

While conceptually supporting modularity, the committee continues to have concerns about the details, not the least of which is 

its escalating costs, uncertainty in adequate resources for active 

Army and Army National Guard equipping strategies, and whether 

the new modular designs for brigade combat teams (BCTs) will provide sufficient capability for sustained, high-intensity combat operations. Specifically, the committee is concerned about the Army’s 

decision to field modular heavy BCTs with only two maneuver battalions, instead of three. The committee understands that Stryker 

BCTs have three maneuver battalions and FCS BCTs will also 

have three maneuver battalions. Accordingly, the committee is concerned that the Army’s decision to field modular heavy BCTs with 

two instead of three maneuver battalions is resource vice strategy 

driven. 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), the Congressional Budget Office, and the Institute for Defense Analysis have also expressed similar concerns in reference to 

modularity. The committee further notes soldiers returning from 

Iraq have indicated that while technology can be a critical combat 

enabler, technology alone cannot serve as a replacement for force 

structure, ‘‘boots on the ground.’’ The committee commends the 

Army for adding a reconnaissance battalion to the modular brigade 

design. The committee believes that although the reconnaissance 

battalion is a critical force multiplier, it alone should not be required to perform missions that would normally be performed by 

a third maneuver battalion. 

The Army has stated that the procurement funding for 

modularity is within the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) 

and the procurement funding for FCS is beyond the FYDP. However, the committee notes this position is not supported by the information provided by the Army to the committee. The committee 

agrees with GAO’s assessment that given the degree of uncertainty 

in modularity cost estimates and the likely cost growth from FCS; 

the Army’s modularity and FCS programs are at risk of becoming 

unaffordable. 

Army modularity 

The committee continues to support the Army’s restructuring 

from a division based force to a more readily deployable brigade 

centric force, a process known as modularity, and the committee 

understands that modularity remains a top priority of the Chief of 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
31 

Staff of the Army. However, the committee remains concerned that 

the Army has not provided sufficient information for Congress to 

assess the capabilities, costs, affordability, and risks of the Army’s 

modularity implementation plans. The committee notes that the 

Army’s cost estimate for completing modularity by 2011 has grown from an initial estimate of $28.0 billion in 2004 to a current estimate of $52.5 billion. Further, in the ‘‘2005 Modularity’’ report submitted to Congress, the Army states a requirement for 77 brigade 

combat teams (BCTs). Of the 77 BCTs, 35 were to be heavy BCTs 

consisting of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. In the 

‘‘2006 Modularity’’ report and the 2007 budget request the requirement is for 70 BCTs, of which 33 would be heavy BCTs. The committee is concerned about the Army’s rationale to reduce the total 

BCT requirement and furthermore, it remains unclear to the committee what impact the current modularity strategy will have on 

meeting the needs of the combatant commanders. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

obtain from each combatant commander, an assessment of the 

Army’s modularity initiative to include issues or concerns regarding modularity designs, equipment, personnel and/or rotation strategy. Further, the committee directs the Secretary to submit a report, including the assessments from the combatant commanders, 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services with the submission of the President’s 

budget for fiscal year 2008. 

Heavy brigade combat teams 

The budget request included $171.1 million for the M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) tank and $285.0 million for the Bradley base sustainment program. 

The committee remains concerned about the Abrams tank and 

Bradley fighting vehicle modernization programs and the associated funding. Current operations continue to demonstrate that 

there are few conflicts where main battle tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles do not play a significant role in ensuring the survivability and offensive firepower of the armed forces. The committee 

remains resolute in its assessment that the Army should pure fleet, 

at a minimum, 18 of its active component heavy brigade combat 

teams (BCTs) with the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and the Bradley 

A3 fighting vehicle. 

The committee notes that in the Army’s March 2006 report to 

Congress, ‘‘The Army Modular Initiative,’’ it clearly states that one 

of the key criteria for modularity funding was ‘‘modernization of 

older equipment.’’ The report further states that modularity equipment modernization includes major systems upgrades such as 

Apache and Chinook helicopters, but does not include the M1A2 

Abrams SEP tank or the Bradley A3 as part of modernization. The 

committee believes that the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and the Bradley A3 are critical components of modular heavy BCTs. 

The committee is concerned that the Army’s current procurement 

strategy will not adequately fund the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank program and the Bradley A3 program, to at least the minimum economic quantity of approximately 60 and 144 per year, respectively. 

The committee is also concerned that the Army’s current plan results in paying more to get fewer M1A2 Abrams SEP tanks and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
32 

Bradley A3s, which will result in a significant delay in meeting the 

total requirement of 18 M1A2 Abrams SEP tanks and Bradley A3 

heavy BCTs. The committee notes that even if the Army develops 

a plan that funds the M1A2 SEP tank and the Bradley A3 production at the minimum economic quantity it will take the Army up 

to 10 years to meet the total requirement for 18 M1A2 Abrams 

SEP tank and Bradley A3 equipped heavy BCTs. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit a report by February 28, 2007, to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services providing the feasibility and rationale for multiyear procurement authority for the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and the Bradley A3. At a 

minimum, the report shall include the impact that a multiyear procurement would have on the unit cost and the impact this authority would have on meeting the total M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and 

Bradley A3 requirement, consisting of 18 heavy BCTs. 

Abrams tank modernization 

The budget request included $171.1 million for 23 M1A2 Abrams 

System Enhancement Program (SEP) retrofit tanks. 

The M1A2 Abrams SEP tank is an upgraded, fully digitized, first 

generation M1A2 Abrams tank which enhances lethality, survivability, and mobility, as well as providing improved situational 

awareness for its crew. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $128.9 

million for the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank program. 

Bradley base sustainment program 

The budget request included $285.0 million for 16 Bradley A3 

fighting vehicles and 90 Operation Desert Storm (ODS) vehicles. 

The Bradley base sustainment program upgrades earlier variants 

of the Bradley A2 ODS and the Bradley A3 standard. The Bradley 

A3 is more lethal and survivable; provides enhanced command and 

control; and allows shared situational awareness. The Bradley A3 

continues to maintain combat overmatch above current and future 

threat forces and remains compatible with the M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program tank. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $147.0 

million for the Bradley A3 program. 

Integrated air burst weapon system 

The budget request contained $32.3 million for the integrated air 

burst weapon system family. 

The committee understands this funding line would provide procurement dollars for the low rate initial production of the Objective 

Individual Combat Weapon, Increment One (OICW–1) program; a 

family of small arms that are projected to be replacements for existing carbines, rifles, and light machine guns. The committee is 

aware that the official request for proposals (RFP) for the OICW–

1, originally announced in May 2005 was delayed and now has 

been terminated. The committee is also aware that the program 

was redirected to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

(JROC) for further review. 

The committee notes the OICW–1 program has not yet been reviewed by the JROC nor has an estimated date for a review been 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
33 

established. The committee understands that pending the outcome 

of this future JROC review, the new RFP would incorporate additional joint requirements that would require further development 

and refinement. The committee also notes the Army is currently restructuring the procurement program for small arms in support of 

the recently approved small arms acquisition strategy, and recognizes these funds would be redistributed to other small arms acquisition programs in accordance with this new strategy. 

Therefore, the committee believes the budget request for the integrated air burst weapon system family is not justified and recommends a decrease of $32.3 million. The committee also recommends the redistribution of these funds to other small arms acquisition programs as reflected in this report based on urgent need 

and in support of the Army’s recently restructured small arms acquisition strategy. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $1.9 billion for 

Ammunition Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.7 billion, a decrease of $211.7 million, for fiscal 

year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Ammunition Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed following 

the table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
34 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 59 HR452.018
35 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 60 HR452.019
36 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 61 HR452.020
37 

Items of Special Interest 

Desert optimized equipment 

The budget request contained $10.3 million for ammunition peculiar equipment, but included no funds for desert optimized ammunition peculiar equipment. 

The committee understands that the harsh desert conditions of 

Iraq and Afghanistan are causing ammunition peculiar equipment 

to degrade at a much greater rate than anticipated. The committee 

notes that there is great benefit to upgrading forward deployed ammunition peculiar equipment with desert optimized equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to optimize ammunition peculiar equipment for desert environments. 

Modernization of .50 caliber ammunition production line 

The budget request included $116.2 million for modernization of 

ammunition production facilities, but included no funds to modernize the line for production of .50 caliber ammunition. 

The committee notes that much of the existing facilities and 

equipment used in the production of .50 caliber ammunition date 

from the era of World War II. While this equipment has been able 

to support .50 caliber ammunition production in recent years, the 

production line is extremely difficult to maintain and the obsolete 

nature of this equipment limits the ability of the Army to increase 

production quantities on short notice. 

The committee directs the Army to develop a plan to modernize 

the production line for .50 caliber ammunition, and submit the plan 

to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 

2007. Furthermore, the plan should include a proposed schedule for 

modernization consistent with continued production of .50 caliber 

ammunition at levels similar to those occurring in 2006, and a recommended funding program associated with this schedule. 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $7.7 billion for 

Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $7.0 billion, a decrease of $211.7 million, for fiscal year 

2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Other 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
38 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 63 HR452.021
39 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 64 HR452.022
40 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 65 HR452.023
41 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 66 HR452.024
42 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 67 HR452.025
43 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 68 HR452.026
44 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 69 HR452.027
45 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 70 HR452.028
46 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 71 HR452.029
47 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 72 HR452.030
48 

Items of Special Interest 

Bridge to future networks 

The budget request contained $340.2 million for bridge to future 

networks. 

The Bridge to Future Networks program is comprised of two elements: area common user system (ACUS) modernization and joint 

network node (JNN). The committee is concerned about the Army’s 

plan to meet its battle command network requirement for both the 

current and future force. The Army began the acquisition of the 

JNN with funds appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13) that would provide an urgent warfighting demand for a networking capability in support of 

the global war on terrorism. The JNN is not a program of record 

and the committee believes that continued procurement of JNN 

through emergency supplemental appropriations is not appropriate. 

The committee further understands that the Department of Defense’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and the General Counsel have determined that JNN should not proceed beyond 

low rate initial production before completing operational testing. 

The committee also understands that the Army is developing the 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T) program at the 

same time that it is procuring the JNN. According to the Army, 

WIN–T is the foundation for network-centric brigade operations 

and is applicable to not just the Future Combat Systems (FCS) 

force, but also to today’s current force of modular brigade combat 

teams. 

The committee is aware the Army has not developed a plan that 

assesses how best to transition from JNN to WIN–T. It remains 

unclear to the committee whether the Army will attempt to accelerate development of WIN–T or pursue a parallel course that continues to procure JNN while realigning the WIN–T program with 

FCS. Therefore, the committee included a provision (section 114) in 

this Act that would require the Secretary of the Army to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees on the analysis of 

how the JNN and the WIN–T will be integrated and whether or 

not there are opportunities to leverage JNN technologies and 

equipment as part of the WIN–T development effort. 

Combat medical support 

The budget request contained $20.5 million for combat medical 

support, but included no funding for Golden Hour—4 units of red 

blood cells (GH4) and Golden Hour—30 units of red blood cells or 

frozen plasma (GH30) blood bags. The committee recommends 

more fully equipping the U.S. military with Golden Hour technology blood bags to enable safe transport of blood to the battlefield, resulting in more saved lives during military conflicts and increasing the availability of useable blood. 

The committee recommends an increase of $17.0 million for Golden Hour blood bags. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
49 

Immersive group simulation 

The budget request included $16.9 million for the Army’s 

networked system of manned simulators, but included no funds for 

its immersive group simulation project. 

The committee supports simulation efforts by the Army to replicate elements on the combined arms battlefield. This reduces 

overall training costs and provides training that might otherwise 

be foregone because of limitations on live training ranges. 

Immersive group simulations complement and enhance training 

programs by allowing groups of trainers to place groups of soldiers 

into synthetic training environments that replicate real world conditions to stress reactive and decision making capabilities, train on 

appropriate tactics and techniques, and make mistakes where the 

consequences are non-lethal. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million 

for the immersive group simulation project. 

M915A3 production 

The budget request contained $31.2 million for truck, tractor, 

and line-haul equipment, including funds to procure 160 M915A3 

line-haul tractor trucks. 

The M915A3 is used by Army transportation companies to transport breakbulk, containers, water and petroleum over primary and 

secondary roads. The committee notes that previous models of the 

M915 are experiencing operational readiness rates below the Army 

goal and are difficult to support. The committee also notes that 

there are significant inventory shortages across the Army, but particularly in transportation companies of the national guard and reserve forces. 

The committee recommends $40.5 million for truck, tractor, and 

line-haul equipment, an increase of $9.3 million to accelerate fielding of the M915A3 to the Army National Guard. 

Simulated combat training capability for Army National Guard 

The budget request contained $38.5 million for combat training 

centers support and other associated costs, but included no funds 

for simulated combat training capability systems for the Army National Guard. 

The committee understands this system would provide effective 

pre-mobilization and post-mobilization home-station training for 

Army National Guard units engaged in the global war on terrorism. The committee recognizes that although there is no substitute for the robust live-fire and simulated training capabilities 

provided at Combat Training Centers (CTCs) and through the Joint 

National Training Capability (JNTC), this particular system would 

supplement CTC and JNTC activities, as well as provide additional 

training opportunities for Army National Guard units at their 

home stations. Furthermore, the committee believes that this additional training capability would potentially contribute to more effective CTC and JNTC training exercises for national guard units. 

The committee recommends $47.8 million, an increase of $9.3 

million to provide simulated, flexible and expandable combat training capability to Army National Guard units. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
50 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $10.9 billion 

for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $10.8 billion, a decrease of $108.1 million, for fiscal 

year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
51 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 76 HR452.031
52 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 77 HR452.032
53 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 78 HR452.033
54 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 79 HR452.034
55 

Items of Special Interest 

EP–3E service life extension 

The budget request contained $56.8 million for EP–3E aircraft 

modifications, but included no funds for service life extension modifications in lieu of the Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program cancellation. 

The committee is concerned about the impact the cancelled ACS 

program may have on the qualitative service life of the EP–3E. The 

committee understands that continued support of the legacy EP–3E 

airframes and mission systems will be tenuous until a viable joint 

or service-specific replacement is identified and fully operational. 

The EP–3E capability contributes significantly to the national collection posture of the defense intelligence community and combatant commanders. 

The committee understands that the EP–3E program was not 

fully prepared for the cancellation of the ACS, and that significant 

deficiencies to aircraft mission systems are expected in fiscal year 

2007. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $66.8 million, an increase 

of $10.0 million for additional service life extension modifications 

needed to sustain the EP–3E. 

H–53 series modifications 

The budget request contained $28.3 million for H–53 series modifications, but included no funds for the advanced helicopter emergency egress lighting system (ADHEELS). 

The ADHEELS provides crew escape lighting for helicopters in 

the event of water impact. The committee understands that the Department of the Navy has selected ADHEELS as its future helicopter escape lighting system due to its superior performance, significantly increased operational reliability, and lower life cycle 

costs, and has recently equipped all SH–60 helicopters with this 

system; and therefore, the committee recommends that the 

ADHEELS also be installed on the Navy’s fleet of H–53 helicopters. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $31.3 million for H–53 

series modification, an increase of $3.0 million to begin the installation of ADHEELS in the Navy’s H–53 helicopter fleet. 

P–3C modernization 

The budget request contained $204.6 million for P–3C aircraft 

modifications, but contained no funds for the P–3C high resolution 

digital recorder. 

The committee understands the P–3C aircraft has been used extensively in the global war on terrorism as a surveillance and targeting platform to provide time-sensitive targeting information to 

ground forces and other airborne assets. As part of the P–3C antisurface warfare improvement program (AIP) upgrade, a next generation high resolution combined video and radar recorder has been 

developed to replace the legacy recorder. The committee understands that without key technology upgrades and aircraft parts obsolescence management, the P–3C ability to meet the Navy’s Fleet 

Response Plan will be degraded. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
56 

Therefore, the committee recommends $207.6 million, an increase of $3.0 million for procurement of ten high resolution digital 

recorders. 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $2.6 billion for 

Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $2.5 billion, a decrease of $38.0 million, for fiscal year 

2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
57 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 82 HR452.035
58 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 83 HR452.036
59 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 84 HR452.037
60 

Item of Special Interest 

Conventional Trident modification 

The budget request contained $957.6 million for Trident II mis- sile modifications, including $38.0 million for the conventional Trident modification (CTM) program. The budget request also contained $111.1 million for strategic missile systems equipment, including $12.0 million for CTM. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 

working to develop the prompt, precision, global conventional strike 

capability called for in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, and in 

the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee also understands that the existing Trident II weapons system provides an opportunity to develop a long range conventional strike capability by 

leveraging existing technology at relatively low risk. 

However, the committee is concerned that the development of 

this conventional ballistic missile capability for a submarine that 

has historically carried nuclear armed ballistic missiles could cause 

a missile launch misinterpretation regarding which type of a warhead a ballistic missile may be carrying. The committee is encouraged that the Department has begun to engage military and civilian leaders of the international community to discuss the United 

States’ intent behind this conventional strike capability, and is also 

developing measures to preclude misinterpretation of a conventional launch. 

However, until this vital policy matter can be resolved, the com- mittee recommends $919.6 million for Trident II missile modifications, a decrease of $38.0 million, and $99.1 million for strategic 

missile systems equipment, a decrease of $12.0 million. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY & MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $789.9 million 

for Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $758.8 million, a decrease of 

$31.2 million, for fiscal year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps program are identified 

in the table below. Major changes to the Navy & Marine Corps request are discussed following the table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
61 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 86 HR452.038
62 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 87 HR452.039
63 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $10.6 billion 

for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $11.2 billion, an increase of $604.6 million, for fiscal year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following 

the table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
64 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 89 HR452.040
65 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 90 HR452.041
66 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 91 HR452.042
67 

Items of Special Interest 

313 ship navy force structure 

The committee applauds the Chief of Naval Operations for developing the Navy’s future force structure and the accompanying longterm shipbuilding plan to build it. This long-term plan provides the 

shipbuilding industry a view into the future that has been lacking. 

However, the committee is concerned that the plan was developed 

using unrealistic assumptions that will not make the plan executable. Of greatest concern to the committee is the affordability of 

the ship construction plan. According to the Navy’s estimates, execution of this plan requires a significant increase in shipbuilding 

funds from $8.7 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $17.2 billion in fiscal 

year 2011. Obtaining these additional funds in a period of anticipated federal spending reductions will be difficult. The plan also 

assumes that individual ship acquisition programs can avoid the 

cost growth that has plagued most Navy ship acquisition programs. 

The committee is concerned about the affordability of the Navy’s 

long-term shipbuilding plan, recreating much of the uncertainty 

about the future of naval shipbuilding that the plan was designed 

to eliminate. 

Aircraft carrier force structure requirements 

The committee is concerned by the Chief of Naval Operation’s 

plan to retire the USS John F. Kennedy. According to the Navy’s 

long range shipbuilding plan, if the Navy retires the Kennedy, then 

the aircraft carrier force will drop to 11 between now and 2012, 

and then drop to 10 in 2013 and 2014. With the commissioning of 

CVN–78 in 2015, the aircraft carrier force increases to 11 and then 

back to 12 in 2019 and beyond. 

The committee believes it is the objective of the Chief of Naval 

Operations to maintain a force of 12 aircraft carriers since the long 

range shipbuilding plan shows a total of 12 aircraft carriers between 2019 and the far range of the plan in 2036. It is apparent 

to the committee that the decision to allow the force structure to 

fall to 10 in the near future is fiscally rather than operationally 

driven. 

The committee believes that the Navy should continue to maintain no less than 12 operational aircraft carriers in order to meet 

potential global commitments. The committee believes that a reduction below 12 aircraft carriers puts the nation in a position of 

unacceptable risk. 

Arleigh Burke class destroyer modernization 

The budget request contained $2.2 million for the Arleigh Burke 

class destroyer (DDG–51) modernization program. 

The committee understands that the DDG–51 modernization program is a comprehensive mid-life modernization effort to ensure 

mission relevant service life of 35 years for the Arleigh Burke class 

destroyers. The modernization will include hull, mechanical and 

electrical technology upgrades to reduce manning and total ownership costs, combat system integrated warfighting improvements, 

and installation of an open architecture computing environment to 

allow future ballistic missile defense, air defense and other upgrades. The committee also understands that this modernization efVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
68 

fort will focus on earlier Flight I ships (DDG–51 to DDG–71) to ensure they support the Chief of Naval Operations Sea Power 21 requirements of Sea Strike, Sea Shield and ForceNet. The committee 

believes that because the next generation destroyer, DD(X), will not 

be fielded until 2013, the DDG–51 fleet must be modernized at an 

accelerated rate to take earlier advantage of the operating cost reductions and the improved combat system capabilities. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million to accelerate the modernization program by two years. 

Battleship transfer 

In the conference report (H. Rept. 109–360) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, the committee included instructions regarding the transfer of the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa to the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of California, respectively, and the President’s reversion authority pursuant to a national emergency. The committee 

seeks to clarify that the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa 

must be regarded as potential mobilization assets and both the recipients and the U.S. Navy are instructed to treat them as such. 

The committee notes that the following measures should be taken: 

(1) the ships must not be altered in any way that would impair 

their military utility; (2) the ships must be preserved in their 

present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection 

and dehumidification systems and any other preservation methods 

as needed; (3) spare parts and unique equipment such as 16-inch 

gun barrels and projectiles, be preserved in adequate numbers to 

support the two ships, if reactivated; and (4) the Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of the two battleships should 

they be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency. 

Incremental funding for shipbuilding 

The budget request recommends incremental funding for 3 of the 

7 ships in the request, including for the first time construction of 

a surface combatant, the next-generation destroyer DD(X). Furthermore, during the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), the Navy 

sought and was granted the authority to use incremental funding 

for the next aircraft carrier, which will be recorded as procured in 

2008. 

The committee remains concerned that the use of incremental 

funding is not a solution to the Navy’s problem in funding shipbuilding. While incremental funding can allow the Navy to smooth 

out the dramatic spikes in shipbuilding funding required as a result of aircraft carrier construction every four or five years, it does 

not fundamentally increase the number of ships that a given 

amount of money will purchase. During the committee’s hearings 

on shipbuilding, all witnesses emphasized the importance of program and funding stability as the top priority for reducing the cost 

of shipbuilding and sustaining the shipbuilding industrial base. 

The committee notes that Congress adopted the full funding policy 

in the 1950s in part because of a concern that incremental funding 

was detrimental to funding stability. Future congresses may find 

themselves unwilling, or unable, to fund completion of ships begun 

in prior years and only partially funded. The committee remains 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
69 

convinced that the full funding policy is the correct policy for funding shipbuilding. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense this 

year considered submission of a legislative proposal that would permanently authorize the use of ‘‘split funding’’ for aircraft carriers 

and large deck amphibious ships, and the Navy’s fiscal year 2007 

shipbuilding plan already assumes such authority for the second 

LHA class amphibious assault ship. The committee has approved 

the use of split funding for certain ships in certain cases. However, 

the committee does not believe that a blanket policy supporting incremental funding for any class of ship is appropriate, and has not 

included such a provision in the bill. 

Littoral combat ship program 

The committee is concerned about the uncertainty in the Navy’s 

acquisition strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The Navy 

recently announced its intention to continue with the Flight Zero 

design through fiscal year 2009. The Navy plans to procure 15 

LCSs through this initial design phase. How long the Navy intends 

to continue with two separate designs for these vessels remains unclear. The committee believes that it is also unclear when the Navy 

will place this program into the discipline of the normal acquisition 

process with definitive and mature requirements and Director, 

Operational Test and Evaluation, review before continuing with 

procurement. The Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan calls for procuring 55 LCSs, and the committee encourages the Navy to develop 

an acquisition strategy for the long-term that clarifies any ambiguity in the current build profile. The committee further encourages the Navy to downselect to one of the two LCS variants currently in procurement in order to achieve economy of scale, or 

present a compelling case to the congressional defense committees 

on why both variants should be procured. 

Next generation destroyer 

The budget request contained $2.6 billion for split procurement 

of two next generation destroyers (DD(X)). 

The committee does not believe the DD(X) is affordable. The committee supports recent efforts by the Navy to ‘‘design cost out’’ of 

the lead ship and to focus on threshold instead of objective requirements in an effort to reduce the risk of cost growth. However, due 

to the unusually large number of new technologies being integrated 

on the next generation destroyer, the committee understands there 

is no prospect of being able to design and build the two lead ships 

for the $6.6 billion budgeted. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy is attempting to insert 

too much capability into a single platform. As a result, the DD(X) 

is now expected to displace over 14,000 tons and by the Navy’s estimate, cost almost $3.3 billion each. Originally, the Navy proposed 

building 32 next generation destroyers, reduced that to 24, then finally to 7 in order to make the program affordable. In such small 

numbers, the committee struggles to see how the original requirements for the next generation destroyer, for example providing 

naval surface fire support, can be met. In this day of netted operations, the committee advocates reducing the capabilities resident 

on the next generation destroyer, to instead rely on the netted senVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
70 

sors and weapons systems of other ships in the strike group. By reducing the requirements for the DD(X), a smaller, less expensive 

destroyer could be procured in greater numbers. 

Because of its expense, the committee does not believe that 

DD(X) will be procured in sufficient numbers to meet the operational need. However, the committee does believe that the DD(X) 

program’s engineering development models show the potential for 

some impressive advances in warfighting capability. The committee 

supports the construction of up to two DD(X)s to demonstrate technologies that could be incorporated into future, more affordable, 

major surface combatants. The committee recommends that these 

ships demonstrate as wide a range of technologies as is reasonably 

feasible, including both the advanced induction and permanent 

magnet motor propulsion concepts that were originally investigated 

for DD(X). 

Therefore, the committee recommends $2.6 billion to fund one 

next generation destroyer as a technology demonstrator. 

Shipbuilding/ship repair industrial base capacity 

The committee believes that the ability to build naval ships and 

submarines is a critical national asset. Therefore, it is imperative 

that the United States sustain a healthy ship design, engineering 

and construction capability. 

The first tier shipbuilding/ship repair industrial base is made up 

of six private and four public shipyards. Since there is very little 

commercial large-ship shipbuilding currently being executed in 

these shipyards, all 10 shipyards are almost wholly dependent on 

Department of Defense (DOD) work for sustainment. 

The committee is concerned that the U.S. shipbuilding/ship repair industrial base has significant capacity beyond what is necessary for all anticipated DOD new construction and maintenance 

work, and believes that Navy ship acquisition programs are paying 

the price. 

The Navy recently published a long-term shipbuilding plan that 

supports the goal of building and maintaining a 313 ship Navy by 

2020. Although this plan provides the needed ‘‘stability’’ that the 

U.S. shipbuilding industry has been looking for, it does not appear 

to generate enough work to keep the major U.S. shipbuilders operating at their current capacity. Evidence of this is most obvious at 

General Dynamics Electric Boat Division where the contractor is 

planning to lay off hundreds of designers and engineers and thousands of production workers in the next several years. The plan to 

increase the procurement of Virginia class submarines from 1 to 2 

per year has been delayed for over 10 years and the latest plan has 

the increase happening in fiscal year 2012. Similar challenges will 

affect the shipyards now constructing the last of the DDG–51 destroyers. Those yards are starting to ramp up to build the next 

generation destroyer, however, the next generation destroyer is not 

expected to be built in a sufficient quantity to keep the current 

workforce fully employed. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the 

congressional defense committees on measures that can be taken to 

manage the capacity of the shipbuilding/ship repair industrial base 

in a manner that would make Navy shipbuilding more affordable. 

Such report shall be submitted by the submission of the President’s 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
71 

request for fiscal year 2008, as required by section 1105 of title 31, 

United States Code. 

Ship cost estimates 

The committee is deeply concerned about the process used for establishing the Navy’s ship cost estimates. The committee notes that 

the original cost estimates on numerous existing ship classes have 

regularly been described by the Navy as inaccurate and unrealistic 

when those ships near completion of construction. The committee 

notes that in several cases it has been informed that ship cost estimates delivered to the committee in prior years either intentionally 

or unintentionally excluded certain known shipbuilding costs such 

as escalation, and that these cost estimates were known to be inaccurate on the day they were first delivered to the committee. The 

committee recommends that the process for deriving ship cost estimates be revised to ensure that all major known elements of ship 

cost are routinely included in all ship cost estimates. 

The committee notes that Sections 122, 123, and 124 of the bill 

would impose cost limitations on three current ship classes based 

on the Navy’s latest costs estimates. The committee further notes 

that the imposition of these statutory cost limitations makes the 

need for a high level of confidence in the cost estimates for these 

ship classes unusually important. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy revalidate the cost estimates 

for CVN–21, for the ships currently programmed in the LHA Replacement program, and for the eight ships of the San Antonio 

class amphibious ship that follow the lead ship. The committee further directs that the revalidated costs estimates be submitted for 

review and approval by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Finally, the committee directs that 

no later than July 1, 2006, the Secretary of the Navy submit a report in writing to the congressional defense committees containing 

the revalidated cost estimates for these ship classes including a 

certification by the Secretary that all known and anticipated major 

elements of cost have been included in the estimate. 

Virginia class submarine 

The budget request contained $676.6 million for advance procurement funding for Virginia class submarines. 

The committee believes that the Navy’s attack submarine force 

structure must be maintained at no less than 48 submarines in 

order to meet potential global commitments. The Navy’s Annual 

Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for fiscal year 

2007 shows that the force will decrease below 48 attack submarines 

between 2020 and 2033, reaching a low of 40 attack submarines in 

2028 and 2029. The committee believes that a reduction below 48 

attack submarines puts the country in a position of unacceptable 

risk. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $1.1 billion for advance 

procurement of Virginia class submarines, an increase of $400.0 

million for the procurement of a second Virginia class submarine 

in fiscal year 2009. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
72 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $5.0 billion for 

Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $5.0 billion, an increase of $74.9 million, for fiscal year 

2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Other 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
73 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 97 HR452.043
74 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 98 HR452.044
75 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 99 HR452.045
76 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 100 HR452.046
77 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 101 HR452.047
78 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 102 HR452.048
79 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 103 HR452.049
80 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 104 HR452.050
81 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 105 HR452.051
82 

Items of Special Interest 

AEGIS land-based test site modernization 

The budget request contained $75.3 million for AEGIS support 

equipment, but included no funds for modernizing AEGIS landbased test sites. 

The committee understands that the AEGIS land-based test sites 

are essential to the operational effectiveness of the AEGIS weapons 

system, including the development of an integrated missile defense 

system capable of providing a layered defense against ballistic and 

cruise missiles. The committee is aware that in order to maintain 

the highest possible level of effectiveness, the land-based test sites 

require state-of-the-art upgrades to peripheral emulators and 

switching systems used to collect and analyze combat system performance data. Modernization of the emulators and switches will 

ensure timely testing, certification and delivery of updated AEGIS 

baselines to the fleet. 

The committee recommends $80.3 million for AEGIS Support Equipment, an increase of $5.0 million to be used for modernizing 

AEGIS land-based test sites. 

Amphibious ship integrated bridge system 

The budget request contained $31.0 million for other navigation 

equipment, but included no funds for the amphibious ship integrated bridge system. 

The committee is aware that the Navy has directed that all ships 

in the fleet will use electronic navigation/electronic charting by the 

end of fiscal year 2009. The committee believes that additional 

funding will allow for the conversion of amphibious ships to electronic navigation/electronic charting, allowing them to meet the 

Navy’s goal. Conversion to electronic navigation/electronic charting will allow a reduction in bridge manning, saving an estimated $0.6 

million per ship per year, more than paying for the conversion in 

less than three years. 

The committee recommends $35.5 million for other navigation 

equipment, an increase of $4.5 million to be used for the amphibious ship integrated bridge system. 

AN/SPQ–9B radar 

The budget request contained $2.5 million for the AN/SPQ–9B 

radar, but included no funds for testing of the AN/SPQ–9B on the 

littoral combat ship (LCS). 

The committee is aware that the two LCS variants now under 

construction are to be delivered with tactical/fire control radars 

chosen by the prime contractors. The committee believes that the 

AN/SPQ–9B tactical/fire control radar, already in the Navy inventory, may provide superior self-protection against anti-ship sea 

skimming missiles than the radars being provided. The AN/SPQ–

9B radar has been thoroughly tested by the Navy and a successful 

radar operational assessment was completed in September 2002. 

The committee is aware that an identification friend or foe capability, an LCS requirement, was successfully added in 2005. The 

ability to provide volume surveillance, another LCS requirement, is 

presently under development and scheduled for completion in the 

spring or summer of 2006. The committee believes that additional 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
83 

funds will be used for the procurement of the AN/SPQ–9B radar for 

the LCS program. The committee recommends $8.5 million for the AN/SPQ–9B 

radar, an increase of $6.0 million to be used for the testing of the 

AN/SPQ–9B on the LCS. 

AN/SPS–48 radar obsolescence, availability and recovery 

The budget request contained no funds for radar support and no 

funds for the AN/SPS–48 radar obsolescence, availability and recovery (ROAR) program. 

The committee is aware that the AN/SPS–48 ROAR program’s 

goal is to maintain and support the air defense capabilities on aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships and the San Antonio class 

amphibious warfare ships. The committee recommends $7.3 million for the AN/SPS–48 

radar obsolescence, availability and recovery program to accelerate 

the ROAR program by two years. 

Boat lifts for small boats 

The budget request contained $41.1 million for standard boats, 

but included no funds for boat lifts for shore-based small boats. 

The committee understands that the current inventory and generally poor material condition of boat lifts at shore activities has 

reduced the level of boat readiness and increased lifecycle costs. 

The committee is aware that modern, state-of-the-art boat lifts, due 

to their design and capabilities, will expand boat service life, reduce maintenance costs, and permit quick and safe docking and 

boarding. Therefore, the committee recommends that modern commercial-off-the-shelf boat lifts be purchased and installed at small 

boat shore facilities to reduce lifecycle costs and improve operational readiness of the shore-based small boat fleet. 

The committee recommends $42.1 million for standard boats, an 

increase of $1.0 million to be used for the procurement of modern 

boat lifts for shore activities. 

Canned lube pumps for amphibious ships 

The budget request contained $172.8 million for items under $5.0 

million, but included no funds for installing canned lube pumps on 

the Harpers Ferry and Whidbey Island class amphibious ships. 

The committee believes that the currently installed lube oil 

pumps have a high failure rate, leak excessively, and are driving 

up maintenance costs. Installation of the canned lube oil pumps 

will provide operating efficiency and reduce maintenance costs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for items 

under $5.0 million, to be used for installing canned lube pumps on 

the Harpers Ferry and Whidbey Island class amphibious ships. 

CVN propeller replacement program 

The budget request contained $172.8 million for items under $5.0 

million, but included no funds for the CVN propeller replacement 

program. 

The committee understands that the old-design propellers on the 

Nimitz class aircraft carriers suffer from blade erosion caused by 

cavitation and the high operating tempo of recent years. Propeller 

refurbishment on the outboard and inboard propellers is required 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
84 

every three and six years, respectively. The committee believes that 

the new-design propellers will require refurbishment every 12 

years, more closely corresponding to the interval of aircraft carrier 

drydockings. The committee also believes that propeller replacement will lead to increased ship operational availability and reduced disruptions to planned maintenance schedules. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for items 

under $5.0 million, to be used for the CVN propeller replacement 

program. 

Laser marksmanship training systems 

The budget request contained $18.2 million for training support 

equipment, but included no funds to procure laser marksmanship 

training systems (LMTS) for the Navy Reserve. 

The LMTS is a proven laser-based marksmanship training system that simulates live-fire training, can be used in various environmental conditions and locations, as well as allowing sailors to 

train with their own primary personal defense weapon to engage 

various types of targets. 

The committee is aware this system contributes to individual 

sailor and unit readiness, improves skill retention, reduces unit 

training costs and achieves environmental cost avoidance associated with traditional live-fire training exercises. The committee understands the Navy Reserve has a program to field LMTS to all 

Navy Reserve Centers. The committee recommends $26.2 million for training support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million to accelerate the fielding of 

LMTS to all Navy Reserve Centers. 

Man overboard identification system 

The budget request contained $58.6 million for command support 

equipment, but included no funds for the man overboard identification system. 

The committee is aware that the man overboard identification 

system provides an active means by which a Navy ship can be immediately alerted to a man-overboard incident and further allows 

for precise location of the individual in the water, thus reducing 

the chance of serious injury or death. Each sailor or marine wears 

a small transmitter on his life jacket, that, when activated upon 

water entry, transmits a signal to the ship identifying the specific 

sailor, the ship from which he fell and the global positioning system coordinates of the incident. A direction finder then tracks the 

location of the man-overboard during the rescue effort. Under the 

current installation plan, the Navy would provide man-overboard 

transmitters only to those sailors and marines identified as at risk, 

approximately a third of all crew onboard. The committee believes 

that the Navy needs to consider providing a transmitter for every 

crewmember on the ship, not just those considered at risk. 

The committee recommends $67.4 million for command support 

equipment, an increase of $8.8 million to be used for the man overboard identification system. 

Materials handling equipment 

The budget request contained $13.7 million for materials handling equipment (MHE), but contained no funding to procure an 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
85 

11,000 pound rough terrain, self deployable, manually operated 

forklift system capable of operating efficiently in nuclear, biological, 

and chemical environments for the Navy Construction Force (NCF) 

Seabees. 

The committee is aware the NCF Seabees are in the process of 

recapitalizing their fleet of construction equipment and MHE. The 

committee supports this initiative and notes that the high operational tempo coupled with the harsh environment of Iraq has consequently resulted in some equipment becoming uneconomical to 

either repair or to rebuild through service life extension programs 

or recapitalization programs. 

The committee notes this system would address NCF Seabees lift 

requirements for fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends 

$23.7 million in materials handling equipment, an increase of $10.0 

million to accelerate the procurement and delivery of 100 forklift 

material handling equipment systems for the NCF Seabees. 

Medical support equipment 

The budget request contained $5.6 million for medical support 

equipment, but included no funding for 3,600 lightweight and 

NATO-standard litters and litter load carriage tools; 2,500 lightweight, combat medics’ bags; or 4,500 onboard kits for tactical vehicles, which include pelvic stabilization devices, ear nose and throat 

packs, airway tools, and tourniquets. The committee recommends 

more fully equipping naval expeditionary forces to enable field 

medical personnel in tactical units to stabilize and evacuate casualties more rapidly, efficiently, and safely. 

The committee recommends $11.8 million for medical support 

equipment, an increase of $6.2 million for combat casualty care 

equipment upgrades. 

Multi-climate protective system 

The budget request contained $18.6 million for various aviation 

life support items, but included no funds for the multi-climate protective system (MCPS). 

The MCPS is a modular protective aircrew clothing ensemble 

that provides flame protection, thermal protection, and sufficient 

insulation while reducing the heat stress and bulk commonly associated with cold weather clothing systems. Components of the system can be used in a wide range of temperatures and climate conditions. The committee understands that funding to procure 5,532 

MCPSs has been obligated thus far, and that the Department of 

the Navy’s MCPS requirement is for 25,000 systems. The committee believes that procurement of the MCPS should continue. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $22.6 million for aviation life support, an increase of $4.0 million for procurement of the 

MCPS. Additionally, the committee strongly encourages the Department of the Navy to include the necessary funds for the MCPS 

in its future budget requests to meet MCPS requirements. 

Multi-spectral threat emitter system 

The budget request contained $56.2 million for weapons range 

support equipment, but included no funds for the multi-spectral 

threat emitter system (MTES). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
86 

The MTES provides a mobile surface-to-air and air defense artillery electronic threat simulation for aircraft along the East Coast 

of the United States to provide for more realistic aircrew proficiency training. The committee notes that Congress appropriated 

$2.5 million for fiscal year 2005 and $2.1 million for fiscal year 

2006 for the MTES, and recommends authorization of additional 

funds to complete the procurement of two MTES systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $64.2 million for weapons range support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million for procurement of two MTESs. 

Serial number tracking system 

The budget request contained $12.1 million for other supply support equipment, but included no funds for implementation of the 

serial number tracking system. 

The serial number tracking system provides a web-based, cradleto-grave total asset visibility of individual components through the 

supply, maintenance and transportation processes. The technology 

enables rapid and accurate data collection for information systems 

and permits logistics data to be used Navy-wide for increased readiness. The committee recommends the implementation of the serial 

number tracking system application in the areas of shipboard medical equipment, warehouse and ground support equipment management at Naval and Marine Corps Air Stations. The committee believes that the use of modern commercial-off-the-shelf automatic 

identification and data collection technologies like the serial number tracking system for critical asset management will yield significant improvements in productivity and effectiveness. 

The committee recommends $15.1 million for command support 

equipment, an increase of $3.0 million to be used for implementation of the serial number tracking system. 

Submarine communications upgrades 

The budget request contained $12.3 million for satellite communications systems, but included no funds for the Miniaturized Demand Assigned Multiple Access (mini-DAMA) communications set 

upgrades. 

The committee understands that the mini-DAMA communications set provides communications links necessary for command 

and control of battlegroups, as well as for control, targeting and 

battle damage assessment for deployed tomahawk weapons. The 

committee is aware that due to program delays in the Joint Tactical Radio System, it is necessary to perform mini-DAMA upgrades 

in the submarine fleet to avoid degradation of combat missions. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.1 million to be 

used for mini-DAMA communications set upgrades in the submarine fleet. 

Submarine non-tactical application delivery interface system shore 

interface 

The budget request contained $24.8 million for submarine training device mods, including $2.9 million for the submarine non-tactical application delivery interface system (SNADIS) shore interface. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
87 

The committee recommends authorizing additional funds to allow 

the Navy to accelerate the development and integration of the 

shore command system with the existing deployed ship based 

SNADIS. When these two systems are fully integrated and sharing 

information, both the ship’s commanding officer and shore commander will have the information available to assess and evaluate 

the readiness of the submarine force. 

The committee recommends $27.8 million for submarine training device mods, an increase of $3.0 million to be used for the SNADIS 

shore interface. 

Ultrasonic maintenance tools 

The budget request contained $172.8 million for items less than $5.0 million, but included no funds for ultrasonic maintenance 

tools. 

The committee understands that ultrasonic maintenance tools 

have the potential to significantly reduce ship maintenance manhours by eliminating several time consuming maintenance procedures currently used to locate and identify compartment integrity 

breeches, fluid system leaks, bearing and gear anomalies and 

clogged engine fuel injectors. The committee believes significant 

cost-savings may be attained with maintenance reducing technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for the 

procurement of ultrasonic maintenance tools. 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $1.3 billion for 

Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $1.2 billion, a decrease of $49.7 million, for fiscal year 

2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Marine Corps request are discussed following 

the table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
88 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 112 HR452.052
89 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 113 HR452.053
90 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 114 HR452.054
91 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 115 HR452.055
92 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 116 HR452.056
93 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 117 HR452.057
94 

Items of Special Interest 

Envelope protective covers for marine expeditionary unit weapon 

systems and platforms 

The budget request contained $31.8 million for fire support systems, but included no funds to procure envelope protective covers 

for Marine Corps Expeditionary Units’ (MEUs) weapon systems 

and platforms. 

The committee understands the Navy currently employs envelope 

protective covers for equipment platforms and weapon systems. 

The committee notes that widespread use of envelope protective 

covers by the Navy is generating higher equipment readiness ratings for protected naval weapon systems and platforms, as well as 

lower maintenance requirements, reduced manpower requirements, 

and higher return on equipment investments. The committee encourages the Marine Corps to field similar envelope protective covers to seven MEUs to cover such equipment platforms as the M777 

lightweight 155mm howitzers and M198 155mm howitzers, as well 

as to capitalize on the economic and performance benefits provided 

by these protective covers. The committee recommends $34.8 million in fire support sys- tems, an increase of $3.0 million to procure envelope protective 

equipment covers for seven MEUs. 

Intelligent surveillance systems 

The budget request contained $13.8 million for training devices, 

but contained no funding for a modular intelligent surveillance 

training system. 

The committee understands a modular intelligent surveillance 

system would provide Marine Corps trainers with improved situational awareness of military personnel conducting urban training 

exercises, and would provide immediate feedback to the training 

unit in after action review format. Further, the committee is aware 

this system would allow trainers to observe in real-time a training 

event either from a ‘‘blue’’ or ‘‘opposing’’ force perspective; a capability not currently employed by existing training systems. 

The committee recommends $18.8 million for training devices, an 

increase of $5.0 million to procure modular intelligent surveillance 

training systems. 

Laser perimeter awareness system 

The budget request contained $5.2 million for physical security 

equipment, but included no funds to procure laser perimeter awareness systems (LPAS). 

The LPAS is an all-weather surveillance sensor system that 

would detect the presence and track the motion of intruders, locating them in range, bearing, and elevation with respect to the position of the sensor. 

The committee understands Marine Corps regulations governing 

the security of arms, ammunition, and explosives, as well as aviation assets, mandate constant surveillance and restricted access to 

these assets. The committee is aware that Marine Corps installations are currently equipped with base-wide electronic security systems that are outdated and require extensive modernization. The 

committee notes the LPAS would provide critical enhancements to 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
95 

existing security and force protection technology to meet current 

Marine Corps security requirements outlined in the Marine Corps’s 

Flightline Security Enhancement Program (FSEP), as well as increase the effectiveness of available security manpower. Therefore, the committee recommends $14.7 million for physical security equipment, an increase of $9.5 million to procure three 

LPAS and associated equipment, as well as to address a Commandant of the Marine Corps unfunded requirement. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $11.5 billion 

for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends 

authorization of $13.0 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion, for fiscal 

year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
96 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 120 HR452.058
97 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 121 HR452.059
98 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 122 HR452.060
99 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 123 HR452.061
100 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 124 HR452.062
101 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 125 HR452.063
102 

Items of Special Interest 

B–1B molecular sieve oxygen generation system 

The budget request contained $53.1 million for B–1B aircraft 

modifications, but included no funds for the molecular sieve oxygen 

generation system (MSOGS) reliability improvement program. 

The committee understands the MSOGS is the B–1B oxygen generation system which consists of a concentrator, water separator, 

and a back-up oxygen system that provides the aircrew with an unlimited source of oxygen for breathing during flight. The committee 

notes that while operating in forward basing locations containing 

a high humidity level, the rate of repair for the MSOGS has doubled causing negative impacts to operationally available aircraft. 

The committee is aware that the original equipment manufacturer 

has identified an improved, high-efficiency water separator that 

would enhance the reliability of the MSOGS, increase operational 

availability of the aircraft, and eliminate the need for a depot level 

repair. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $57.6 million, an increase 

of $4.5 million for the MSOGS reliability improvement program. 

B–2 radar modification program 

The budget request contained $191.3 million for B–2 modernization, including $160.7 million for the B–2 radar modification program (RMP). 

The committee understands that in October 2000, the Department of Commerce notified the Department of Defense that the B–

2 must vacate its current operating frequency before a classified 

near-term date (NTD) and relocate to a frequency band where the 

U.S. Government is the primary user. The committee understands 

that this raised a significant challenge for the Air Force due to 

budget cycle timing. The committee notes the Air Force started the 

program in fiscal year 2003 to replace the B–2 radar system by the 

NTD and modeled the program around a traditional acquisition 

structure. 

The committee notes the B–2 RMP plans to make a low-rate production decision in February 2007, to procure four radar modification units in fiscal year 2007. However, the committee understands 

that radar flight testing will not have progressed to the point that 

the first of two planned radar software blocks is fully tested and 

certified until the beginning of fiscal year 2008. Although flight 

testing will be underway, only 23 percent of the flight testing is expected to be completed by the beginning of fiscal year 2007. The 

committee recognizes that producing RMP units before ensuring 

that the design is mature and functions in its intended environment can increase the likelihood of design changes that lead to cost 

growth, schedule delays, and performance problems. 

Although the committee realizes the challenges presented to the 

Air Force to correct the radar frequency issue promptly, the committee strongly discourages future programs from this methodology 

of proceeding into low-rate production before program components 

have been fully tested and certified. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
103 

B–52 force structure 

The budget request included a proposal to retire 18 B–52 aircraft 

in fiscal year 2007, and 20 B–52 aircraft in fiscal year 2008. 

The committee understands that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 

Review directed the Air Force to reduce the B–52 force to 56 aircraft and use the savings to fully modernize the remaining B–52s, 

B–1s, and B–2s to support global strike operations. However, the committee understands that the estimated $680.0 million savings 

garnered from the proposed B–52 retirement in the remaining Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) has not been reinvested into 

modernizing the current bomber force, but has instead been applied 

towards Air Force transformational activities. The committee also 

understands that the current B–52 combat coded force structure is 

insufficient to meet combatant commander requirements for conventional long-range strike, if the need should arise to conduct simultaneous operations in two major regional conflicts. 

Additionally, the committee is concerned that the decision to retire 38 B–52 aircraft is primarily based on the nuclear warfighting 

requirements of the Strategic Integrated Operations Plan, and did 

not consider the role of the B–52 in meeting combatant commander’s conventional long-range strike requirements. The committee disagrees with the decision to reduce the B–52 force structure given that the Air Force has not begun the planned analysis 

of alternatives to determine what conventional long-range strike 

capabilities and platforms will be needed to meet future requirements. 

The committee is deeply concerned that retirement of any B–52 

aircraft prior to a replacement long-range strike aircraft reaching 

initial operational capability status is premature. Further, the committee strongly opposes a strategy to reduce capability in present 

day conventional long-range strike capability in order to provide 

funding for a replacement capability that is not projected to achieve 

initial operational capability until well into the future. 

Therefore, the committee included a provision (section 131) in 

this Act that would prohibit the Air Force from retiring any B–52 

aircraft, except for the one B–52 aircraft no longer in use by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration for testing. Additionally, this section would require the Air Force to maintain a 

minimum B–52 force structure of 44 combat coded aircraft until 

the year 2018, or until a long-range strike replacement aircraft 

with equal or greater capability than the B–52H model has attained initial operational capability status. 

C–130 modifications 

The budget request contained $217.7 million for C–130 modifications, but included no funds for the C–130 scathe view communication systems improvement, or for procurement of the AN/APN–241 

radar for the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC). 

The C–130 scathe view system provides a near-real-time imaging 

capability to support humanitarian relief and non-combatant evacuation operations. The committee understands that the C–130 

scathe view system currently has a short-range, line-of-sight capability to transmit full motion video, but this capability could be extended to longer ranges with a tactical common data link (TCDL) 

upgrade. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.8 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
104 

million for procurement of a TCDL upgrade to the C–130 scathe 

view system. 

The AN/APN–241 is a weather and navigation radar that replaces the 1950’s-era AN/APN–59 radar currently installed on the 

AFRC’s C–130 aircraft fleet. The committee understands that the 

AN/APN–241 radar has significantly improved performance capabilities and a much lower mean-time-between-failure rate. The 

committee also understands that procurement and installation of 

the AN/APN–241 radar is the second highest C–130 unfunded priority for the AFRC. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million to procure AN/APN–241 radars for the 

AFRC’s C–130 fleet. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.8 million 

for the C–130 scathe view communication systems improvement and an increase of $5.5 million for the AN/APN–241 radar for the 

AFRC. 

C–5 modernization programs 

The budget request contained $223.1 million for C–5 modernization programs, including $50.4 million for the C–5 avionics modernization program (AMP), $66.7 million for advanced procurement 

of three reliability and re-engining program (RERP) kits, and $28.9 

million for aircraft defensive systems. 

The committee understands that the average C–5 aircraft has 

approximately 70 percent of its forecasted structural life remaining 

and supports the initiatives to modernize the C–5 fleet. The committee notes that the AMP and the RERP are expected to increase 

the C–5 wartime operational availability from a current average of 

60 percent, to at least 75 percent. Further, the committee understands that the AMP and the RERP have the potential to reduce 

the total ownership cost of the C–5 aircraft fleet by $24.0 billion 

(fiscal year 2005 dollars) over the remaining service life of the fleet, 

and that a return on investment of approximately $13.0 billion (fiscal year 2005 dollars) could be realized by the year 2028. 

The committee understands that C–5A aircraft are prohibited 

from directly delivering cargo into airfields assessed as having a 

man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) threat. Further, the 

committee understands that the C–5A aircraft must land at a base 

outside of these MANPADS threat areas and transfer its cargo onto 

another aircraft installed with an operational missile warning and 

countermeasure system, causing an increased delay in getting supplies and equipment to the warfighter. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $289.8 million, an increase of $32.0 million for procurement of 8 additional AMP kits; 

an increase of $12.5 million for procurement of 10, AN/AAR–47 and 

AN/ALE–47 missile warning and countermeasure dispensing systems; and an increase of $22.2 million for advanced procurement 

of 1 additional RERP kit. 

C–9 hush kits 

The committee understands that funds appropriated in fiscal 

year 2005 for Department of the Air Force C–9 hush kits remain 

unobligated due to the near-term retirement of these aircraft from 

the inventory. Hush kits are required to allow the ground maintenance of C–9 engines to meet various locality noise standards for 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
105 

engine ground-run maintenance. The committee also understands 

that the Department of the Navy plans to maintain its C–9 aircraft 

for at least the next 10 years, and therefore encourages the Department of Defense to transfer the funding provided for Department 

of the Air Force C–9 hush kits to the Department of the Navy, ensuring that these funds will be executed to best support the needs 

of the Department of Defense. 

F–22 

The budget request contained $1.5 billion for the F–22 aircraft 

procurement program, but included insufficient funds to procure 20 

F–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2007. The F–22 is a multi-mission fighter aircraft that combines a low-observable radar signature with an 

ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of thrust augmentation, and performs air dominance, homeland and cruise missile defense, and air-to-ground attack missions. The F–22 achieved 

its initial operational capability in the first quarter of fiscal year 

2006. 

The budget request included an F–22 multiyear acquisition strategy to procure 3 lots, numbered as lots 7 through 9, each consisting 

of 20 aircraft, between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. As part of this 

strategy, the budget request included a plan to incrementally fund 

each of these three lots over a three year period through budgeting 

for advance procurement two years prior to full funding, subassembly activities to be budgeted one year prior to full funding, 

and final assembly to be budgeted in the third year. The committee 

understands that the Department of Defense’s F–22 multiyear acquisition strategy is inconsistent with the full-funding policy which 

would allow for advance procurement of long-lead items to protect 

a delivery schedule, and require a budget for procurement of complete and useable end items in a fiscal year. 

The committee considers the F–22 incremental funding acquisition strategy to be wholly unacceptable. The committee believes 

that the full-funding policy should apply to the F–22 aircraft procurement program, and any other Department of Defense aircraft 

procurement program contemplated in the foreseeable future. The 

committee further believes that incremental funding of aircraft procurement programs presents an unacceptable budgeting risk that, 

due to unforeseen circumstances, future funding increments may 

not be authorized and appropriated to provide the required funding 

increments which would result in partially completed end items 

that are of no military value to the Department of Defense or to 

warfighting commands. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $2.9 billion to fully fund 

and procure 20 F–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2007, an increase of 

$1.4 billion. The committee very strongly urges the Department of 

Defense and the Department of the Air Force to restructure its future F–22 procurement budget plans to comply with the full-funding policy. 

F–35 

The budget request contained $245.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy for F–35 advance procurement to procure the long-lead 

items necessary to build eight short take-off and vertical land 

(STOVL) Navy and Marine Corps variants, which would be fully 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
106 

funded in fiscal year 2008. The budget request also contained 

$118.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for F–35 advance 

procurement to procure the long-lead items necessary to build eight 

conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) Air Force variants, which 

would also be fully funded in fiscal year 2008. Additionally, the 

budget request contained $869.7 million for the first five CTOL Air 

Force F–35 variants. 

The F–35 program, also known as the joint strike fighter (JSF) 

program, is developing a family of three strike fighter aircraft for 

the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. About 70 percent of the 

parts for all three fighter variants will be common. The Air Force 

CTOL variant will replace the F–16 and A–10 fleets; the Navy variant, or aircraft carrier version (CV), will complement the F/A–18E/ 

F; and the Marine Corps variant, or short take-off, vertical landing 

(STOVL) version, will replace the AV–8B and the F/A–18C/D fleets. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 109–89) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the committee recommended that the F–35 program not begin its low-rate 

initial procurement program in fiscal year 2007 because testing to 

determine whether or not the redesigned, lower-weight F–35 production configuration would meet mission requirements would not 

be known until after the first flights of the lower-weight STOVL 

and CTOL test aircraft. The committee notes that the first flight 

of the higher-weight CTOL aircraft has been delayed by three 

months, resulting in corresponding delays in the first flights of the 

lower-weight STOVL and CTOL test aircraft, now planned for the 

second and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2008, respectively. 

The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a hearing on March 16, 2006, at which the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) witness testified, that, ‘‘the JSF program remains 

committed to a business case that invests heavily in production before testing has demonstrated an acceptable level of performance of 

the aircraft,’’ and that the ‘‘program expects to begin low-rate initial procurement in 2007 with less than one percent of the flight 

test program completed and no production representative prototypes built for the three JSF variants.’’ As a result, the committee 

remains very concerned that concurrent development and production of the F–35 is likely to result in further cost increases and 

schedule delays. The committee notes that the GAO reports that 

only three percent of the flight test program will be complete in fiscal year 2008, and believes that JSF procurement for fiscal year 

2008 should also remain at the fiscal year 2007 procurement quantity of five aircraft. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $92.0 million in Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy for the advance procurement of long-lead components for three STOVL F–35 aircraft in fiscal year 2008, a decrease of $153.0 million. The committee also recommends $30.3 

million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the advance procurement of long-lead components for two CTOL F–35 aircraft in fiscal 

year 2008, a decrease of $88.0 million. 

KC–135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program 

The budget request contained $36.1 million for advanced procurement for the KC–135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization proVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
107 

gram (KC–X). The budget request included a proposal to retire 78 

KC–135E aircraft. 

The committee fully supports recapitalization of the KC–135 aerial refueling fleet. The committee notes that a system development 

and design contract would likely not be awarded until the end of 

fiscal year 2007, in accordance with the estimated acquisition 

schedule of the Air Force. The committee believes it is premature 

to authorize advanced procurement funding at such an early stage 

of the KC–X program. 

The committee notes that the Air Force has been restricted since 

fiscal year 2004 from retiring KC–135E aircraft. However, the committee believes that it is premature to retire 78 KC–135E aircraft 

in fiscal year 2007 based on the tanker recapitalization program 

still being in its early stages of execution. The committee recognizes that 29 of the requested 78 KC–135E aircraft selected for retirement have been grounded from flight since fiscal year 2004. 

Therefore, the committee included a provision (section 135) in 

this Act that would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to retire 

the 29 KC–135E grounded aircraft, and require the Secretary of 

the Air Force to maintain all retired KC–135Es, beginning in fiscal 

year 2007, in a condition that would allow recall to future service 

in the Air Force reserve, guard, or active forces aerial refueling 

force structure. The committee will consider additional KC–135E 

retirements based on the future progress of the KC–X program. Lastly, the committee recommends a decrease of $36.1 million for 

advanced procurement for the KC–X program. 

P5 combat training systems 

The budget request contained $474.9 million for other production charges, including $4.9 million for the P5 combat training system 

(P5CTS). 

The P5CTS is an airborne instrumentation subsystem pod used 

by fighter and attack aircraft which provides the capability to conduct air-to-air, air-to-surface, and electronic warfare combat training while providing real-time aircraft monitoring and recording 

events for post- mission debrief and analysis. The committee notes 

that the P5CTS budget for fiscal year 2006 was $13.9 million and 

had been planned for $14.1 million in fiscal year 2007, but understands that this amount was decreased to $4.9 million because the 

Department of the Air Force reprogrammed $9.2 million for other 

purposes. As a result, the committee further understands that this 

decrease will delay P5CTS fielding at various Air Force Bases 

(AFB), including Shaw AFB where the current P5CTS fielding plan 

will meet only half of its requirement for 48 P5CTSs. 

To address this shortfall, the committee recommends $478.1 million for other production charges, an increase of $3.2 million to procure 24 additional P5CTSs. 

Strategic airlift force structure 

The budget request contained $2.6 billion for procurement of 12 

C–17s, including $389.6 million for shutdown costs of the production line. 

The Commander, U.S. Transportation Command and the Commander, Air Mobility Command, both testified before the House 

Committee on Armed Services March 2, 2006, that no more than 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
108 

20 C–17s, in addition to the 180 C–17s currently in the Department of Defense’s program of record, are needed to meet both the 

inter-theater and intra-theater airlift requirements, and provide a 

recapitalization solution for older C–17s being used at a higher 

than planned utilization rate. Further, the Commanders testified 

that the range of 292 to 383 strategic airlift aircraft set forth in 

the Mobility Capability Study (MCS), should not be considered a 

strict composition of a specific type of aircraft, but should instead 

be considered a capacity requirement based on an acceptable level 

of risk. Lastly, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force identified seven 

additional C–17s as the number one request on the Air Force’s unfunded priority list. 

The committee is concerned that the decision by the Department 

to maintain a strategic airlift force structure of 292 aircraft is not 

based on meeting future airlift requirements, but based on fiscal 

constraints. Further, the committee is concerned about the acceptable level of risk provided with a strategic airlift force structure of 

292 aircraft with critical uncertainties such as defining future 

Army modularity and intra-theater airlift requirements, the outcome of the C–5 modernization program, the C–130 wing-box repair strategy, and the viability of the Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet to 

augment future airlift requirements. The committee is concerned 

that the MCS scenarios used for the modeled year were not intended to fully stress the defense transportation system and is 

deeply concerned by the shortsightedness of the MCS to project capabilities required past the year 2012. The committee supports the 

initiative to modernize the C–5 fleet and supports the evaluation 

of a C–5A aircraft in the Reliability Enhancement and Reenginging Program (RERP) configuration. Lastly, the committee 

urges the Secretary of the Air Force when determining the composition of the future strategic airlift fleet, to thoroughly examine 

the benefits of including both the C–5 and C–17 platforms. 

Therefore, the committee included a provision (section 132) in 

this Act that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain a minimum strategic airlift aircraft force structure of 299 aircraft beginning in fiscal year 2009. Additionally, the provision 

would repeal section 132 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), to allow the Air Force 

flexibility in managing its strategic airlift fleet composition. Lastly, 

the committee recommends $2.9 billion, an increase of $299.8 million for procurement of 3 additional C–17s. The committee strongly 

encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to apply the $389.6 million of shutdown costs towards the procurement of these 3 additional C–17s. 

T–38 ejection seat upgrade program 

The T–38 ejection seat upgrade program (ESUP) upgrades the T–

38 ejection seat system with an inter-seat sequencing system that 

would accommodate a larger population of pilot heights and 

weights. 

The committee notes that the Air Force maintains an inventory 

of 509 T–38 aircraft, but only 243 aircraft are planned for the 

ESUP. The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to budget 

for the ESUP for the entire T–38 fleet. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
109 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $1.1 billion for 

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends 

authorization of $1.1 billion, an increase of $4.0 million, for fiscal 

year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Ammunition Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
110 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 133 HR452.064
111 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 134 HR452.065
112 

Item of Special Interest 

Insensitive munitions upgrade 

The budget request contained $235.5 million for general purpose 

bombs of various types and weights. The committee notes that the 

Department of the Air Force indicates that 40 percent of the MK– 84 2,000-pound general purpose (GP) bombs requested for fiscal 

year 2007 would be loaded, assembled and packed with a new, 

more expensive explosive fill, known as MNX–795, instead of 

trinitroluene (TNT), which are classified as insensitive munitions 

(IMs). 

IMs are those providing a higher degree of safety in the handling, manufacturing, storage, and use because they are more insensitive to unplanned stimuli. The committee understands that 

IMs will provide substantial improvements in decreasing unplanned high-order detonations due to heat induced by fire, bullet 

impact, fragment impact, and adjacent detonations; and the committee believes that the percentage of IMs procured for fiscal year 

2007 should be expanded. Accordingly, the committee recommends $239.5 million for gen- eral purpose bombs, an increase of $4.0 million to procure additional IMs. 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $4.2 billion for 

Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $4.2 billion, a decrease of $32.7 million, for fiscal 

year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Missile 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
113 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 136 HR452.066
114 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 137 HR452.067
115 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 138 HR452.068
116 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $15.4 billion 

for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $15.4 billion, an increase of $20.6 million, for fiscal 

year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Other 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
117 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 140 HR452.069
118 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 141 HR452.070
119 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 142 HR452.071
120 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 143 HR452.072
121 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 144 HR452.073
122 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 145 HR452.074
123 

Items of Special Interest 

Cheyenne Mountain complex 

The budget request contained $19.3 million for procurement of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, including $14.9 million for tactical warning/attack assessment systems. 

The committee believes that the modernization and integration of 

the command and control systems at Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado 

is critical to adequately support the North American Aerospace Defense Command, U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Strategic Command. However, the committee is aware of management deficiencies in the Commander’s integrated command and control system (CCIC2S) program, which are resulting in a significant cost 

overrun and an undefined delivery schedule. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to maintain essential operation and maintenance activities, and limit future investment to 

only the developmental activities deemed essential to national security needs. The committee recommends $4.4 million for procurement of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, a decrease of $14.9 million. 

Combat survivor radios 

The budget request contained a total of $69.2 million for combat 

survivor evader locator (CSEL) radios for the Departments of the 

Army, Navy and Air Force. 

The CSEL radio provides combat forces with secure, encrypted, 

low probability of exploitation, two-way, over the horizon, near 

real-time data-burst communications with precise location and nonsecure, unencrypted line-of-site voice and beacon capability to support survival evasion, and personnel recovery operations. In the 

committee report (H. Rept. 109–89) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the committee expressed its belief that procurement funds should be made available 

for either the CSEL, or an alternate survival radio, to meet immediate user requirements since the CSEL radio program was late in 

delivering radios to meet warfighter needs. The committee understands that the Department of Defense requires over 40,000 survival radios, that the CSEL radio program has been able to meet 

less than a third of those requirements thus far, and that combatant commanders still have an urgent need for survival radios. 

Therefore, the committee directs that procurement funds requested for CSEL radios be made available to procure either CSEL 

radios or alternate survival radio systems that can address the urgent survival radio need. 

Combat training ranges 

The budget request contained $35.4 million for combat training 

ranges, but included no funds for the unmanned threat emitter 

(UMTE) modernization program. 

The UMTE modernization program provides updated electronic 

threat simulations for combat aircrew training. The committee understands that the UMTEs located at the Eielson Air Combat 

Training Range have been modernized to more accurately replicate 

current electronic threat systems and that this upgrade has also reduced manpower, operations and support costs. The committee furVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
124 

ther understands that five UMTEs located at the Nellis Test and 

Training Range require the UMTE modernization, and believes 

that these systems should be upgraded. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $47.4 million for combat training ranges, an increase of $12.0 million for the UMTE 

modernization program. 

Enterprise data collection solution 

The budget request contained $14.6 million for mechanized material handing equipment, but included no funding for the Enterprise 

Data Collection Solution (EDCS). The committee understands that 

the EDCS assembles data from various Air Force logistics systems 

across the enterprise, thus eliminating the need to manually enter 

data for each transaction. This system will not only save time and 

money, but it will reduce errors and speed the flow of logistics. 

The committee recommends $18.6 million for mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $4.0 million for the procurement of common EDCS equipment for four key Air Force installations. 

Force protection near real time surveillance 

The budget request contained $41.4 million for various types of 

Air Force physical security systems, but included no funds for the 

force protection surveillance system (FPSS). 

The FPSS consists of a tactical communications intercept system, 

a near real-time video surveillance system, and a tactical internet 

communications system for dissemination of surveillance information. The committee notes that Congress appropriated an increase 

of $1.0 million for fiscal year 2006, and believes that additional 

FPSSs should be acquired. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $44.4 million for Air 

Force physical security systems, an increase of $3.0 million for the 

acquisition, deployment and integration of the FPSS into mission 

planning systems and surveillance platforms. 

High frequency ground control station antennas 

The budget request contained $7.7 million for radio equipment, 

including $1.3 million for high frequency ground control station 

(HFGCS) antennas. 

The HFGCS is a strategic and tactical command and control network that provides beyond line-of-sight interoperable voice and 

data for aircrews. The HFGCS serves as the primary command and 

control resource for the Air Mobility Command’s (AMC) cargo and 

tanker aircraft. The committee understands that most of AMC’s 

HFGCS antenna inventory is nearing or past its design life and 

that numerous high frequency antenna are inoperative. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff included 20 additional HFGCS antennas among his unfunded priorities for fiscal 

year 2007. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $12.7 million for radio 

equipment, an increase of $5.0 million for the procurement of 20 

HFGCS antennas. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
125 

Mobile approach control system 

The budget request contained $6.2 million for air traffic control 

and landing systems, but included no funds to procure a mobile approach control system (MACS). 

The MACS provides military forces with next-generation mobile 

air traffic control services, day and night, in all weather conditions, 

to military and civilian aircraft, and will replace the aging TPN–

19 and MPN–14K landing control centers employed by the Department of the Air Force combat communications squadrons and Air 

National Guard (ANG) air traffic control squadrons. The committee 

understands that of 10 ANG air traffic control squadrons, only 4 

have the MACS, and believes that its procurement for the ANG 

should continue. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $23.5 million for air 

traffic control and landing systems, an increase of $17.3 million for 

one MACS for the ANG. 

Self-deploying infra-red streamer 

The budget request contained no funds for personal safety and 

rescue equipment items less than $2.0 million, or for the self-deploying infra-red streamer (SDIRS) system. 

The SDIRS system is an 11-inch by 40 foot orange rescue streamer distress signal which includes a water-activated light system. 

The SDIRS is used in ejection seat-equipped aircraft and is automatically deployed in the event of a water landing. The committee 

believes that this system assists in more rapidly locating and rescuing downed crew members and that it should be installed on all 

Department of the Air Force ejection seat-equipped aircraft. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $4.0 million for personal safety and rescue equipment items less than $2.0 million, an 

increase of $4.0 million for procurement and installation of 5500 

SDIRS systems. 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $2.9 billion for 

Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends authorization of $2.9 billion, a decrease of $5.0 million, for fiscal year 2007. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
126 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphio folio 149 HR452.075
127 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphio folio 150 HR452.076
128 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphio folio 151 HR452.077
129 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphio folio 152 HR452.078
130 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphio folio 153 HR452.079
131 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced SEAL Delivery System 

The committee acknowledges the Department of Defense’s recent 

decision to cancel the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) 

program due to its performance and reliability to date. The committee has expressed its continued concern regarding technical 

issues, contractor performance, and cost growths throughout the 

life of the program and will continue to closely monitor the development and fielding of this capability. Additionally, due to the troubled history surrounding the development of ASDS, the committee 

wants to ensure that the ASDS improvement program (AIP) and 

accompanying ASDS concept study consider the most current technologies for incorporation into future ASDS capabilities and designs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an ASDS design competition during fiscal year 2007 and authorizes an additional $10.0 million in research and development 

funding specifically for this competition. Design competition in fiscal year 2007 will ensure that ASDS program decisions made upon 

completion of the critical systems review portion of the AIP and of 

phase three of the ASDS concept study take into account current 

technologies and designs available through related industry research and development as well as the lessons learned from the 

critical systems review and ASDS concept study. Finally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by June 1, 2007, on the results of the AIP’s critical systems review and on the status of an overall ASDS program decision. 

Chemical and biological defense procurement 

Section 1703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160) establishes the Chemical and Biological Defense Program. The Joint Program Executive Office for 

Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO(CBD)) is now the joint 

services single focal point for advanced research and development, 

acquisition, fielding, and lifecycle support of chemical and biological 

defense equipment. Nevertheless, the military services possess legacy chemical and biological defense equipment, procured prior to 

the establishment of the JPEO(CBD). The committee directs the 

Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical 

and Biological Defense Programs, acting through the JPEO(CBD), 

in coordination with the military services, to develop a modernization plan for legacy nuclear, biological, and chemical contamination 

avoidance; biological defense; collective protection; individual protection; and decontamination systems and to also develop service 

sustainment plans for systems initially fielded by the JPEO(CBD). 

Special operations forces operational enhancements 

The budget request contained $434.5 million for special operations forces (SOF) operational enhancements, but included no 

funds for secure wireless local area network (LAN) cryptographic 

devices, and only $2.5 million for craft modifications. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
132 

The committee recognizes that U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has the need to access and transmit classified 

data over a wireless LAN. Funding would allow USSOCOM to replace the legacy SECNET 11 wireless card with the SECNET 54 

card. The committee notes that this item is on the unfunded priority list of the Commander, USSOCOM to provide required secure 

wireless capability. 

The committee recognizes that naval special warfare relies on 

maritime combatant craft platforms to conduct target interdiction 

and insertion/extraction of combatant forces. Additional funds for 

craft modifications would fully equip the entire operational inventory with key technological upgrades. The committee notes that 

this item is on the unfunded priority list of the Commander, 

USSOCOM to accelerate technology insertion into this platform. The committee recommends $444.5 million for SOF operational enhancements, an increase of $1.8 million for the procurement of 

secure wireless LAN cryptographic devices, and an increase of $8.2 

million for craft modifications. 

Unmanned aerial systems to counter improvised explosive devices 

The committee is aware of numerous systems being offered by 

non-traditional defense companies seeking to support the global 

war on terrorism by providing already developed capabilities to 

counter the improvised explosive device threat. 

The committee recommends that the Department of Defense fully 

review and consider all viable sensor technologies and currently 

available conventional and vertical take-off and landing unmanned 

aerial vehicles to address the improvised explosive device threat. 

U.S. Special Operations Command aviation modernization 

The committee recognizes that U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) relies primarily on the modification of C–130 

aircraft to special operations-capable aircraft to provide its fixed 

wing special operations mission capability. USSOCOM has maintained its AC–130 and MC–130 fleet through several upgrade programs, to sustain USSOCOM’s mission capability until a future 

fleet of special operations aircraft could be developed and fielded. 

Because of the increased operating hours placed on USSOCOM’s 

fleet from on-going combat operations, USSOCOM will be unable to 

maintain its fixed wing capability until a future fleet can be fielded. The committee further understands that the C–130J model aircraft offers USSOCOM a platform that can be recapitalized and 

modified into tanker, infiltration/exfiltration, and gunship platforms. 

Further, the committee recognizes that USSOCOM is expanding 

its fixed wing fleet with the CV–22 aircraft. The current CV–22 

program projects an initial operating capability of 10 aircraft by fiscal year 2009 and a full operational capability of 50 aircraft by fiscal year 2017. 

The committee believes that accelerated procurement both of the 

C–130J for conversion into special operations capable aircraft and 

of the CV–22 would allow USSOCOM to maintain its special operations mission capability that is currently stretched due to 

USSOCOM’s high operational tempo. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report by April 1, 2007, to the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
133 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services on the feasibility of accelerated procurement of the 

CV–22 and the C–130J aircraft. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–104—Authorization of Appropriations 

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 

2007 funding levels for all procurement accounts. 

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Family of 

Medium Tactical Vehicles 

This section would grant authority to the Secretary of the Army 

in fiscal year 2008 to enter into a 3-year multiyear procurement 

(MYP) contract for the family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV) 

for fiscal years 2008–2010. This section would require that should 

the Secretary of the Army exercise his MYP authority for FMTVs, 

the contract would follow all federal procurement regulations including full and open competition. Finally, this section would also 

require that FMTVs procured under this MYP contract to incorporate improvements from lessons learned from operations involving the global war on terrorism, as well as existing FMTV product 

improvement programs in the areas of force protection, survivability, reliability, network communications, situational awareness 

and safety. 

The committee recognizes the current 5-year MYP contract for 

FMTV A1R vehicles ends with fiscal year 2007 funding and calendar year 2008 deliveries. The committee notes the Army’s Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV) Modernization Strategy Report to 

Congress stated, ‘‘As a risk mitigator, use of contract options will 

be sought to permit extension of current production models to avoid 

any breaks in vehicle supply.’’ The committee is concerned that single year contract awards would be extremely costly for the Army 

given the large quantity requirements that continue to exist for 

FMTVs within the modular force construct as well as the quantity 

requirements that should result from the Army ‘‘resetting the 

force’’ through repair, recapitalization and replacement of vehicles 

across the Future Years Defense Program. The committee expects 

the Army to modernize and recapitalize its TWV fleet with a more 

capable vehicle or platform that would at the minimum incorporate 

lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). 

The committee is aware approximately 31,000 FMTVs have been 

produced under three successive multiyear contracts that have 

saved approximately 6–10 percent versus single year procurements. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that a MYP contract would potentially assure favorable, cost effective prices for a more advanced 

configuration FMTV that would incorporate lessons learned from 

OIF, as well as ensure stability in the industrial base. 

The committee is aware the Army is conducting an advanced 

concept technology demonstration (ACTD) for a future tactical 

truck system as part of its TWV Modernization Strategy. The comVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
134 

mittee notes an essential component of this ACTD is the maneuver 

sustainment vehicle (MSV). The committee also notes this vehicle 

would potentially replace the FMTV and other heavy TWVs, as 

well as understands the MSV would help shape requirements for 

the next medium to heavy TWV. The committee notes no formal 

production schedule exists for the MSV other than the Army would 

conduct a system demonstration in late calendar year 2006. The 

committee recognizes that previous comparable TWV schedules 

would indicate a notional schedule for an MSV production beginning in the 2011 timeframe. 

Section 112—Multiyear Procurement Authority for MH–60R 

Helicopters and Mission Equipment 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army, acting 

as the executive agent for the Department of the Navy, to enter 

into a five-year, multiyear procurement contract for 144 MH–60R 

helicopters and associated mission equipment beginning with the 

fiscal year 2007 program year. Further, the multiyear procurement 

contract authority would be executed in accordance with section 

2306b of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 113—Funding Profile for Modular Force Initiative of the 

Army 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to include 

the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and Bradley A3 fighting vehicles within the Army’s modularity funding profile beginning with the 2008 

budget submission, in accordance with the March 2006 Army report to Congress, ‘‘The Army Modular Initiative.’’

Section 114—Bridge to Future Networks Program 

This section would limit the amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to the authorization 

of appropriations for the bridge to future networks program, to not 

more than 70 percent until the Secretary of the Army submits a 

report to the congressional defense committees. The report would 

include an analysis of how the Joint Network Node (JNN) and the 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T) will be integrated and whether or not there are opportunities to leverage JNN 

technologies and equipment as part of the WIN–T development effort. The report would also describe the extent to which JNN and 

WIN–T components would be used together as elements of a single 

tactical network and the Army’s strategy for completing the systems engineering necessary to ensure the end-to-end interoperability of this network. 

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 121—Attack Submarine Force Structure 

This section would amend section 5062 of title 10, United States 

Code, mandating the Secretary of Defense maintain a minimum 

force structure of 48 operational attack submarines. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
135 

Section 122—Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for CVN–21 Class 

of Aircraft Carriers 

This section would limit the total amount to be obligated or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available for 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other procurement 

account, for the detail design, non-recurring engineering and actual 

construction of the lead ship of the CVN–21 class aircraft carrier 

program to $10.5 billion. This section would further limit the total 

amount to be obligated or expended from funds appropriated or 

otherwise made available for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 

or for any other procurement account, for the actual construction 

of the follow-on ships of the CVN–21 class aircraft carrier program to $8.1 billion. This section would allow the Secretary of the Navy 

to adjust the limitation amount for economic inflation; changes in 

federal, State or local laws enacted after September 30, 2006; outfitting and post-delivery costs; and the amounts of increases or decreases in costs of the ship that are attributable to the insertion 

of new technology. The insertion of new technology would be limited to those technologies that could be used to either lower 

lifecycle costs or meet an emerging threat. This section would require the Secretary to report any adjustment to the cost limitation 

with the submission of the annual budget request. 

Section 123—Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for LHA 

Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program 

This section would limit the total amount to be obligated or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available for 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other procurement 

account, for each ship of the LHA replacement amphibious assault 

ship program to $2.8 billion. This section would allow the Secretary 

of the Navy to adjust the limitation amount for economic inflation; 

changes in federal, State or local laws enacted after September 30, 

2006; outfitting and post-delivery costs; and the amounts of increases or decreases in costs of the ship that are attributable to the 

insertion of new technology. The insertion of new technology would 

be limited to those technologies that could be used to either lower 

lifecycle costs or meet an emerging threat. This section would require the Secretary to report any adjustment to the cost limitation 

with the submission of the annual budget request. 

Section 124—Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for San Antonio 

(LPD–17) Class Amphibious Ship Program 

This section would limit the total amount to be obligated or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available for 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other procurement 

account, for eight San Antonio class amphibious ships (LPD–18, 

LPD–19, LPD–20, LPD–21, LPD–22, LPD–23, LPD–24 and LPD– 25) to the cost estimates submitted for those ships with the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request. This section would allow the Secretary 

of the Navy to adjust the limitation amounts for economic inflation; 

changes in federal, State or local laws enacted after September 30, 

2006; outfitting and post-delivery costs; and the amounts of increases or decreases in costs of the ship that are attributable to the 

insertion of new technology. The insertion of new technology would 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
136 

be limited to those technologies that could be used to either lower 

lifecycle costs or meet an emerging threat. This section would require the Secretary to report any adjustment to the cost limitation 

with the submission of the annual budget request. 

Section 125—Multiyear Procurement Authority for V–22 Tiltrotor 

Aircraft Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy, acting as 

executive agent for the Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to enter into a 

multiyear contract, beginning with the fiscal year 2008 program 

year, for procurement of up to 211 V–22 tiltrotor aircraft, of which 

not more than 185 would be in the MV–22 configuration and not 

more than 26 would be in the CV–22 configuration. 

Section 126—Quality Control in Procurement of Ship Critical 

Safety Items and Related Services 

This section would amend chapter 633 of title 10, United States 

Code, by appending a new section 7317 that would require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe in regulations a quality control policy 

for the procurement of ship critical safety items and the procurement of modifications, repair, and overhaul of such items. This section would require the head of the design control activity for ship 

critical safety items establish processes to identify and manage 

these activities, the head of the contracting activity for a ship critical safety item enter into a contract for these activities only with 

an approved source, and the ship critical safety items delivered and 

the services performed meet the technical and quality requirements 

specified by the design control activity. This section would define 

the term ‘‘ship critical safety item’’ as any part, assembly, or support equipment of a vessel, the failure, malfunction, or absence of 

which may cause a catastrophic or critical failure resulting in loss 

or serious damage to the vessel, or unacceptable risk of personal 

injury or loss of life. This section would also make conforming 

amendments to section 2319 of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 127—DD(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program 

This section would authorize $2.6 billion in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy for the next generation destroyer (DD(X)) program. This section would further authorize the Secretary of the 

Navy to enter into two contracts simultaneously for the DD(X) program during fiscal year 2007. One contract would provide for detail 

design and construction of a DD(X), while the other contract would 

provide only for detail design of a DD(X). 

Section 128—Sense of Congress that the Navy Make Greater Use 

of Nuclear-Powered Propulsion Systems in its Future Fleet of 

Surface Combatants 

This section finds that securing and maintaining access to affordable sources of oil is a vital national security interest for the 

United States, and that the nation’s dependence of foreign oil is a 

threat to that security. The section expresses the sense of Congress 

that the Navy should make greater use of alternative technologies, 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
137 

including nuclear power, as a means of vessel propulsion for its future fleet of surface combatants. 

SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 131—Requirement for B–52 Force Structure 

This section would prohibit the Air Force from retiring any B–

52 aircraft, except for the one B–52 aircraft no longer in use by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration for testing. Additionally, this section would require the Air Force to maintain a 

minimum B–52 force structure of 44 combat coded aircraft until 

the year 2018, or until a long-range strike replacement aircraft 

with equal or greater capability than the B–52H model has attained initial operational capability status. 

Section 132—Strategic Airlift Force Structure 

This section would require the Air Force to maintain a minimum 

strategic airlift aircraft force structure of 299 aircraft beginning in 

fiscal year 2009, and would repeal section 132 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). 

SECTION 133—LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF U–2 AIRCRAFT

This section would preclude the Department of Defense from retiring the U–2 aircraft in fiscal year 2007, and would permit retirement after fiscal year 2007 only if the Secretary of Defense certifies 

to Congress that the U–2’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities are no longer required. 

Section 134—Multiyear Procurement Authority for F–22A Raptor 

Fighter Aircraft 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

enter into a multiyear contract, in accordance with section 2306b 

of title 10, United States Code, beginning with the fiscal year 2007 

program year, for procurement of up to 60 F–22A Raptor fighter 

aircraft, for three program years, subject to the Secretary of Defense’s certification that the conditions specified in subsection (a) of 

section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, have been satisfied 

with respect to that contract, and 30 days have elapsed after the 

date on which the Secretary has submitted the certification to Congress. 

Section 135—Limitation on Retirement of KC–135E Aircraft 

During Fiscal Year 2007 

This section would prohibit the Air Force from retiring more 

than 29 KC–135E aircraft during fiscal year 2007, and require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to maintain all retired KC–135Es, beginning in fiscal year 2007, in a condition that would allow recall to 

future service in the Air Force reserve, guard, or active forces aerial refueling force structure. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
138 

Section 136—Limitation on Retirement of F–117A Aircraft During 

Fiscal Year 2007 

This section would limit the number of F–117A aircraft to be retired by the Secretary of the Air Force in fiscal year 2007 to 10 aircraft, and would require that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain each F–117A aircraft, retired after September 30, 2006, in a 

condition that would allow recall of that aircraft to future service. 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & 

EVALUATION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $73.2 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee recommends 

$74.1 billion, an increase of $908.6 million to the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
139 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 161 HR452.080
140 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 162 HR452.081
141 

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $10.9 billion for Army research, 

development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $10.9 billion, an increase of $76.7 

million to the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
142 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 164 HR452.082
143 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 165 HR452.083
144 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 166 HR452.084
145 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 167 HR452.085
146 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 168 HR452.086
147 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 169 HR452.087
148 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 170 HR452.088
149 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 171 HR452.089
150 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 172 HR452.090
151 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 173 HR452.091
152 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 174 HR452.092
153 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 175 HR452.093
154 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 176 HR452.094
155 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced hypersonic weapon mission planning and control 

The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for development of mission planning and control for the advanced 

hypersonic weapon. 

The committee understands that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 

Review focuses on the need to provide a prompt global strike capability and the advanced hypersonic weapon (AHW) has the potential to meet this mission with a rapid strike response over long distances. The committee notes that the U.S. Strategic Command and 

the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command are already 

exploring the AHW concept. The committee is aware of the need to 

conduct research into the mission planning and control battle management capability that would integrate the AHW system into future command and control systems. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63305A to design, prototype and demonstrate the mission planning 

and control battle management capability for integration of the 

AHW into joint warfighting command exercises and simulations. 

Applied communications and information networking 

The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 63008A for 

electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funds for 

applied communications and information networking (ACIN). 

The committee notes the importance to the Department of Defense (DOD) to integrate state-of-the-art commercial technologies in 

DOD command, control, communications, computer and 

intelligences systems. ACIN has supported this objective to enhance high-value military systems with rapidly advancing commercial information technologies and innovative applications of those 

technologies. 

The committee supports the application of state-of-the-art commercial technology to improve military systems and recommends 

an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63008A for ACIN. 

Armored systems modernization 

The budget request included $3.3 billion in PE 64645A for armored systems modernization, including $65.5 million for reconnaissance platforms and sensors; $107.7 million for unmanned 

ground vehicles; $17.7 million for unattended sensors; $146.1 million for sustainment; $570.2 million for manned ground vehicles; 

and $2.4 billion for system of systems engineering and program 

management, as part of approximately $3.7 billion requested for 

the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. 

The committee continues to support a FCS program strategy that 

is affordable and enables early spin out of FCS technologies into 

the current force, a top priority of the Chief of Staff of the Army. 

The committee continues to have several concerns with the FCS 

program: 

(1) In a prepared statement before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on April 4, 2006, the Government 

Accountability Office indicated, ‘‘The program remains a long 

way from having the level of knowledge it should have had beVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
156 

fore it started product development . . . FCS has all the markers for risk that would be difficult to accept for any single system, much less a complex multi-system effort.’’ (2) The FCS Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM), approving the programs entry into systems development and 

demonstration, was signed on May 17, 2003. The ADM directed 

that there be a milestone B update and independent cost estimate by November 2004. Almost three years later there has 

been no milestone B update nor an independent cost estimate. 

(3) Although firm system-level requirements should have 

been established at the start of the program, the process of setting and refining FCS system-level requirements may not be 

complete until the preliminary design review in 2008. 

(4) The projected dates for maturing critical technologies 

have slipped, and some technologies are not expected to mature until well into the design phase of the program and possibly into production. 

(5) FCS design and production maturity would not be demonstrated under the current acquisition strategy until after the 

production decision is made. 

(6) The low level of knowledge available today on requirements and technologies makes FCS cost projections very uncertain. FCS program costs are estimated at $160.7 billion, an increase of 76 percent since the program began. 

The committee notes that funding for the FCS program represents a significant portion of the Army’s modernization budget 

for the next 20 or more years. According to the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO), the Army estimates that total procurement 

costs for the first 15 brigades’ worth of systems is just over $100.0 

billion, which translates into an average unit procurement cost of 

$6.7 billion per brigade at three FCS BCTs per year. In 2005, 

based on resource constraints, the Army reduced the yearly procurement goal of three FCS brigade combat teams (BCTs) per year 

to 1.5 per year. With the planned purchase of 1.5 brigades per year 

to begin in 2015, the FCS program requires $8.0 billion to $10.0 

billion annually. CBO notes that based on historical trends, the 

FCS program costs could grow by 60 percent. CBO estimates that 

such high rates may push the average annual funding needed for 

the FCS program from $8.0 billion to 10.0 billion per year to between $14.0 billion to 16.0 billion per year. 

The committee is concerned that the spiraling cost growth for 

Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition programs is at a point 

where it directly places at risk the ability of the United States to 

field weapons platforms in sufficient numbers to support U.S. military strategy and national security requirements. The committee 

notes that the Army’s spiraling costs per FCS BCT are forcing the 

Army into a situation similar to that experienced by the Navy with 

its next generation destroyer (DD(X)) program. Similar to the 

DD(X) program, the costs for a FCS BCT is approaching a price 

where the Army will have to continue to slow down procurement 

to make the program more affordable, reduce the quantities of FCS 

BCTs, or attempt to reduce force structure. 

The committee believes that as the Department proceeds with its 

decisions in reference to the FCS program, that it must preserve 

its ability to change course on acquiring FCS capabilities to guard 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
157 

against a situation in which FCS would have to be acquired at any 

cost. The Department must hold the Army accountable for delivering FCS within programmed resources. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $325.8 million in PE 64645A for armored systems modernization. 

AT4 confined space weapon system enhancements 

The budget request contained $118.1 million in PE 64808A for 

system development and demonstration of landmine warfare and 

barrier technology, but included no funds for enhancements to the 

AT4 confined space (CS) weapon. 

The AT4CS is a shoulder fired weapon system that employs a 

warhead that produces high lethality and incendiary effects against 

armored combat vehicles. The committee notes the AT4CS has 

been utilized in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom by dismounted infantrymen and special operation forces 

to great effect, and is currently the only shoulder-fired weapon in 

the Department of Defense inventory capable of being fired from 

inside a room; making this weapon a critical combat multiplier in 

military operations over urban terrain. 

The committee understands an anti-structure tandem warhead is 

in development for the AT4CS. The committee is aware this warhead would provide military personnel operating within a confined 

space the capability to penetrate 8-inch reinforced concrete and 12- 

inch triple brick walls. The committee is supportive of rapidly developing technologies that would promote the survivability of military personnel conducting the global war on terrorism. 

The committee recommends $121.1 million in PE 64808A, an increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of an anti-structure tandem warhead for use in the AT4CS. 

Center for rotorcraft innovation 

The budget request included $32.8 million in PE 62211A for aviation and applied research and technology, but included no funds for 

the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation (CRI). 

The Center for Rotorcraft Innovation is a joint effort between the 

rotorcraft industry, academic research centers and government 

partners to increase rotorcraft research in the United States. CRI 

collaborates to expand rotorcraft research and development already 

underway between the rotorcraft industry and its government partners in the National Rotorcraft Technology Center. It will focus its 

new research efforts on dual-use technologies that have national 

security and homeland defense applications. The committee is 

aware that the CRI is the only initiative of its kind and seeks to 

further international competitiveness and long-term growth of the 

U.S. rotorcraft industry. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 62211A for the CRI. 

Digital array radar 

The budget request included $64.6 million in PE 63772A for advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology, but included no funds for digital array radar development. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
158 

The committee notes the need for reliable counter-fire radars for 

protection against short-range mortar attack. Technology advances 

warrant research and development to demonstrate this technology. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

to complete development and test digital array radar prototype antenna technology. 

Dominant military operations on urban terrain viewer 

The budget request included $19.2 million in PE 62270A, but included no funds for the dominant military operations on urban terrain viewer (DMV). 

The committee is aware of an applied research technology that 

has been successfully demonstrated that provides the capability to 

detect, locate, and track moving and stationary persons within 

structures from in excess of 100 meters. Employment of such a capability could provide field commanders with a tactical advantage, 

improved situational awareness, and save lives. A tactical prototype is necessary to complete field evaluation and testing of this capability. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $7.4 million 

in PE 62270A for the design, development, and testing of a DMV 

prototype. 

Environmental quality technology 

The budget request contained $5.2 million in PE 63779A for 

projects focused on validating the general military utility or cost reduction potential of environmental quality technologies, but included no funds for promising research ongoing at facilities around 

the United States and in other countries to develop lightweight vanadium micro-alloyed steels. The committee recommends that the 

Department of Defense proceed with full-scale demonstration 

projects and the transfer of this technology to the domestic steel industry to increase the potential benefits of vanadium micro-alloyed 

steels. 

The committee recommends $9.6 million in PE 63779A, an increase of $4.4 million for the Vanadium Technology Partnership. 

Excalibur precision guided artillery munition 

The budget request contained $102.5 million in PE 64814A for 

the Excalibur XM982 precision guided extended range artillery projectile and lifecycle management cost reduction strategies. 

The committee recognizes the potential benefits provided through 

studies of manufacturing technologies and methodologies to help 

lower production costs without sacrificing stated performance requirements of a weapon system. The committee notes in fiscal year 

2005, Excalibur XM982 lifecycle improvement program efforts were 

able to reduce the production cost of each projectile by 14.1 percent. 

The committee also notes the fiscal year 2006 cost reduction efforts 

built upon previous work and expanded production cost reduction 

of the canard actuation system, as well as insensitive munitions design improvements for the base and warhead of the projectile identified in the lean design review. 

The committee is aware the Excalibur XM982 projectile is proceeding into early production to support an urgent fielding requirement in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee understands the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
159 

Excalibur XM982 would potentially reduce collateral damage in 

urban environments and serve as a significant combat multiplier to 

military personnel. Therefore, the committee recommends $112.5 million in PE 

64814A, an increase of $11.0 million for the rapid fielding of the 

Excalibur XM982 Block Ia–1 projectile and for the continuation of 

lifecycle improvement costs. 

Flexible display initiative 

The budget request contained $38.4 million in PE 62120A for 

electronics and electronic devices, but included no funds for the 

flexible display initiative. 

The committee is aware that new flexible display technology has 

the potential to provide the military with technology to fabricate 

high definition displays on rugged conformable, flexible substrates. 

The committee notes that the United States Display Consortium 

coordinates these efforts with over 80 companies, using investments from both the public and private industry to accelerate the 

development of technologies and products needed by the Army, 

other military services, and various national security agencies. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in PE 62120A for the flexible display initiative. 

Gas-engine driven air conditioning system demonstrations 

The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 63734A for military engineering, but included no funds for unitary gas-engine driven air conditioning (GEDAC) system demonstrations. 

The committee is aware that GEDAC use on bases in the southwest has the potential to save significant electric power and reduce 

water usage. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million 

in PE 63734A for GEDAC system demonstrations. 

High assurance secure object proxy 

The budget request contained $120.5 million in PE 35208A for 

distributed common ground/surface systems, but included no funds 

for high assurance secure object proxy technology development. 

The committee notes that high assurance secure object proxy 

(HASOP) technology could significantly enhance the ability of the 

Army to synchronize and integrate organic, joint and multinational 

sensors and collection capabilities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

35208A, for HASOP development. 

Human systems integration 

The budget request contained $18.9 million in PE 62716A for 

human factors engineering applied research, including $3.1 million 

for efforts supporting manpower and personnel integration 

(MANPRINT). 

The committee recognizes human systems integration (HSI) initiatives as a means for reducing total ownership costs of weapons 

programs, and continues to support efforts to more formally consider HSI issues earlier in the acquisition cycle. As previously 

noted in the committee report accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (H. Rept. 109–89), the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
160 

mittee remains concerned about the overall level of coordination 

and support of HSI efforts throughout the Department of Defense 

(DOD). 

The committee notes the reporting requirement included in H. 

Rept. 109–89 to assess HSI activity throughout DOD acquisition 

programs. The committee is in receipt of a preliminary assessment 

and understands that a more comprehensive review is forthcoming. 

Concurrent with the recommendations contained in the interim report, the committee urges the department to establish a joint HSI 

Steering Group, continue the collaborative development of HSI 

modeling within and across all services, and strive for greater procedural and regulatory HSI uniformity throughout the Department. 

Further, the committee expects the completion of the comprehensive HSI review in an expeditious manner. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

in PE 62716A for MANPRINT. 

Integrated digital environment service model 

The budget request contained $21.2 million in PE 62782A for 

command, control, and communications technology, but included no 

funding for the Integrated Digital Environment Service Model. The 

committee understands that this program will allow the Army to 

conduct much needed interoperability analysis of the various communications, command, and control technologies now under development. Most of today’s systems were designed for specific needs; 

such systems must be integrated into the overall Global Information Grid for continued effectiveness. 

The committee recommends $25.2 million in PE 62782A for command, control, and communications technology, an increase of $4.0 

million for the Integrated Digital Environment Service Model. 

Intelligent surveillance sensor suite 

The budget request included $44.3 million in PE 63710A for 

night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for the intelligent surveillance sensor suite. 

The intelligence surveillance sensor suite is intended to be used 

for perimeter security and intrusion detection at high value sites, 

including chemical storage facilities, securing ammunition caches, 

and forward operating bases. It employs multiple detection and assessment technologies for a variety of terrain applications. 

The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE 

63710A for the fabrication and testing of multiple versions of the 

intelligent surveillance and sensor suite to validate technical data 

prior to competitive procurement. 

Joint land attack cruise missile defense and micro electro mechanical system 

The budget request contained $264.5 million in PE 12419A for 

the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missiles Defense (JLENS) project. 

The committee understands the critical role that the JLENS Elevated Netted Sensor program plays in cruise missile defense. The 

committee further understands that the Micro Electro Mechanical 

(MEMS) demonstration radar system is an important risk reduction effort in the JLENS acquisition strategy. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
161 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

12419A to complete Phase II development of the Lightweight XBand Radar MEMS Electronically Steerable Antenna technology 

demonstration. 

Light utility vehicle 

The budget request contained $59.3 million in PE 62601A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funds 

for the continued development of a light utility vehicle (LUV) demonstrator. 

The committee is aware the development of a LUV demonstrator 

could be accelerated due to previous research in LUV technology by 

the National Automotive Center. The committee understands the 

base LUV platform would be improved based on lessons learned 

through previous development testing. The committee notes improvements to the base platform would include prognostics and 

diagnostics for systems such as the drive-train, suspension, and 

steering. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 62601A to continue the design, development, and delivery of an improved LUV demonstrator. 

Lightweight small arms technologies 

The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 63607A for the joint service small arms program, including $6.2 million for lightweight small arms technologies (LSAT). The LSAT program is attempting to reduce the weight of current soldier small arms and 

small caliber ammunition by 30 to 40 percent. 

The committee understands small arms and small caliber ammunition account for two of the four heaviest items an infantryman 

wears or carries into combat. The committee notes that the basic 

infantryman entering combat can be required to carry combat configured loads of equipment, that combined, can exceed 90 pounds. 

The committee is supportive of efforts that would accelerate advanced technologies to reduce the combat carrying equipment load 

for dismounted infantrymen, as well as notes the benefits lighter 

combat configured equipment loads would have on soldier performance and mobility. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $14.7 million in PE 

63607A, an increase of $7.5 million to accelerate the development 

of caseless small caliber ammunition and to accelerate the early 

‘‘spin out’’ of lightweight technology enhancements to existing small 

arms weapon programs. 

Long-term armoring strategy 

The committee understands the Army’s long-term armoring 

strategy (LTAS) is a long-term capabilities-based armoring strategy 

for tactical wheeled vehicles (TWVs) that would provide greater 

protection to TWVs than the currently fielded add-on-armor kits, as 

well as provide battlefield commanders with the capability to 

change protection levels based on the mission, threat, or technology 

changes by using an A–Kit/B–Kit concept. 

The committee understands LTAS is not a program in itself, but 

rather an armor initiative that would address commonality and 

standardization of armor-related components across the TWV fleet. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
162 

The committee notes the LTAS supports the development of an integral A–Kit composed of hard-to-install components and armor 

panels with structural attachment points for B–Kit armor panels 

and components. The committee further notes the B–Kit concept 

would provide units with the flexibility to remove armor during 

peacetime operations, as well as improve reliability, maintainability, and fuel economy for TWVs. Finally, the committee notes 

the LTAS would allow for the upgrade of armor protection as the 

threat increases or as new armoring technologies are developed. 

The committee supports this initiative and commends the Army 

for pursuing this capabilities based strategy. The committee has 

concerns over the implementation strategy and whether adequate 

resources are programmed for the LTAS for all families of TWVs 

across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). The committee 

strongly encourages the Army to adequately fund LTAS within the 

FYDP and to continue to pursue light weight vehicle armor technology solutions to maximize ballistic protection and vehicle payload capacity. 

Medical advanced technology 

The budget request contained $50.8 million in PE 63002A for advanced technology research for healthy, medically protected soldiers, but included no funds for the advancement of smart sensing 

technologies for remote notification of catastrophic physiological 

events, for evaluating the effectiveness of oxygen diffusion 

dressings to accelerate wound healing and reduce infection for soft 

tissue trauma care, or for advancements of the Propaq monitor. The committee recommends $58.3 million in PE 63002A medical 

advanced technology, an increase of $3.0 million for Nightengale, 

remote on-body sensing technologies; an increase of $1.0 million for 

evaluation and development of oxygen diffusion dressings for accelerated healing of battlefield and other wounds; and an increase of 

$3.5 million for Thunderbolt, the advanced Propaq monitor. 

Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment—SDD 

The budget request contained $14.5 million in PE 64807A for advanced development of medical materiel within the system demonstration and low rate initial production portions of the acquisition lifecycle, but included no funds for a Leishmania diagnostic 

skin test phase III clinical trial. The development of a diagnostic 

skin test for Leishmaniasis shows promise, having successfully 

been tested in phase I safety trials and with a phase II trial scheduled for 2006. Leishmaniasis is not easily diagnosed, yet U.S. military hospitals have treated over 700 clinical cases of Leishmaniasis 

in military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.7 million in PE 

64807A for development of a Leishmania Diagnostic Skin Test. 

Miniaturized sensors for small and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles 

The budget request included $23.9 million in PE 62709A for 

night vision technology, but included no funds for miniaturized sensors for small and tactical unmanned aerial systems (UAVs). 

The committee notes that among the major requirements for 

UAVs are miniaturized and wide bandwidth visible, infrared, and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
163 

radar imaging sensors. Emphasis has been on the larger UAVs and 

sensor development has continued to lag behind vehicle development, which presents significant power, weight, and cooling challenges in adapting sensors for use in small and tactical UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $6.0 million 

for miniaturized sensor development for small and tactical UAVs. 

Missile recycling capability technology 

The budget request contained $10.3 million in PE 63103A for explosives demilitarization technology, but contained no funds for 

missile recycling capability technology. 

The committee is aware missile recycling capability technology 

provides the Army with an environmentally friendly and cost effective means of disposal for tactical missiles. The committee is also 

aware this capability is transitioning to prototype production capability. The committee notes this capability reduces the usage of 

open burn/open detonation for disposing of tactical missiles, as well 

as complies with current environment regulations. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63103A to accelerate the transition of missile recycling capability 

technology. 

Mobile assessment detection and response system 

The budget request included $74.7 million in PE 63004A for 

weapons and munitions advanced technology, but included no 

funds for the mobile assessment detection and rapid response system (MDARS). 

The MDARS unmanned ground vehicle currently provides the capability to patrol, detect intruders, and remotely determine inventory status. The committee is aware of requirements to increase vehicle speed, incorporate operator-controlled non-lethal weapons, 

and incorporate on-the-move intruder detection. The committee recommends an additional $6.5 million in PE 

63004A to integrate additional capabilities into MDARS. 

Next-generation advanced materials research 

The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration. 

The committee understands that the development of advanced 

composite materials can enhance the performance of both current 

and next generation weapons systems. The committee notes that 

lighter composite materials can significantly improve the design, 

manufacturing, and performance of future Army conventional missile launchers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63305A to fabricate an integrated missile canister/multi-round pack 

using state-of-the-art lightweight high strength carbon composites. 

Polymer matrix composites for rotorcraft drive systems 

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology, but included no funds for the demonstration of polymer matrix composite drive trains. 

The committee notes the low level of funding for technology development for rotorcraft. Improving the capability of rotorcraft 

drive systems and reducing the operational cost of rotorcraft operVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
164 

ation is fundamental to programs like the Joint Heavy Lift Program. These improvements may be achieved through the introduction of non-metallic structures as critical drive system components. 

Advancements in composite materials and process technologies 

offer significant improvements over their metallic counterparts and 

provide for the elimination of corrosion, less fatigue, significant reductions in weight, and lower acquisition and ownership costs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63003A to demonstrate full scale polymer matrix composite drive 

train test articles under the rotorcraft drive system–21 program. 

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system 

The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 63008A for 

electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funds for 

the portable and mobile emergency broadband system. 

The committee is aware the portable and mobile emergency 

broadband system, based on emerging commercial technology, 

would allow for the rapid establishment of emergency communications networks. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63008A to complete the critical development of the portable and 

mobile emergency broadband system. 

Product lifecycle management plus 

The budget request contained $55.3 million in PE 33141A for the 

global combat support system, but contained no funding to accelerate the Product Lifecycle Management Plus system. 

The committee believes that the Army’s legacy logistics business 

systems are outmoded and supports the creation of an integrated 

Army logistics environment. The committee believes the Product 

Lifecycle Management Plus system is an essential part of future 

Army logistics systems and supports its rapid deployment. 

The committee recommends $61.3 million in PE 33141A for the 

global combat support system, an increase of $6.0 million to accelerated deployment of the Product Lifecycle Management Plus system. 

Radiation hardening initiative 

The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration. 

The committee is aware of the military requirement to protect 

our space assets from the effects of high-altitude nuclear weapons 

and the resulting electro-magnetic pulse. The committee supports 

efforts to enhance the ability of the developers of space technology 

to leverage the use of existing radiation hardened (RadHard) technology initiatives resident in the Missile Defense Agency’s Spacebased Infrared Phase II Radiation-Hardening Catalog effort and 

other space programs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63305A for the radiation hardening initiative to collect RadHard 

technology and component information into one central database. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
165 

Smart energetics architecture 

The budget request included $42.1 million in PE 63313A for missile and rocket advanced technology, but included no funds for the 

smart energetics architecture project. 

The committee is aware that the smart energetics architecture 

project offers the potential to reduce traditional tactical missile 

launch system weight by 60 percent, significantly lower system 

power requirements, and provide savings in lifecycle costs by simplifying assembly, installation and use. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $6.0 million 

in PE 63313A for the smart energetics architecture project. 

Stryker vehicle open architecture electronic enhancements 

The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 63653A for the 

advanced tank armament system, but included no funds for 

Stryker vehicle open architecture electronic enhancements. 

The committee understands the Army’s modernization strategy 

has identified capability gaps in current forces that require the integration of network-centric capabilities into the current Stryker 

brigade combat teams. The committee notes that the incorporation 

of open systems electronics architecture into the Stryker vehicles 

would support block upgrades and the early adoption of emerging 

network-centric warfare capabilities into the Stryker brigade combat teams. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63653A for Stryker vehicle open architecture electronic enhancements in support of the Army’s modernization strategy. 

Tactical wheeled vehicle product improvement program 

The budget request contained no funds for the tactical wheeled 

vehicle (TWV) product improvement program (PIP). 

The committee understands the Army is faced with the difficult 

challenge of implementing its TWV modernization strategy and 

must leverage three competing factors in support of current operations and fleets, transforming TWVs to attain future fleet capabilities and achieving modularity requirements. The committee 

notes the Army requires the flexibility to rapidly evaluate and integrate readily available technology into TWV platforms as part of 

this TWV modernization strategy. 

The committee has concerns over the lack of funding programmed for the TWV PIP initiative in the President’s request. 

The committee believes TWV PIP technologies would have a realtime impact and effect on existing TWVs and would provide increased capability in the areas of performance and survivability. 

Consistent with committee views as expressed in the committee report (H. Rept. 109–89) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the committee continues to support a TWV PIP initiative, as well as strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to adequately fund this initiative in the Future 

Years Defense Program. 

The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to continue the TWV PIP initiative. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
166 

Training-based collaborative research in military consequence management 

The budget request contained $18.9 million in PE 62716A for 

human factors engineering applied research, but contained no 

funding for training-based collaborative research in military consequence management efforts. 

The committee recognizes the need for innovative approaches to 

improve military consequence management initiatives, especially in 

complex and dynamic threat environments. The committee understands advanced capabilities are necessary in the fields of military 

law enforcement, engineering, chemical-biological management and 

training, mines and unexploded ordnance, and non-lethal weapons. 

The committee believes a commitment to technology transfer initiatives, coupled with efforts to establish well-defined training performance measurements, offers the greatest potential for advances 

in training effectiveness. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 62716A for training-based collaborative research. 

Transparent armor 

The budget request contained $64.7 million in PE 63003A for 

aviation advanced technology, but contained no funding for advanced lightweight armored window technology. 

The committee recognizes the unique threat confronting air 

crews operating rotary aircraft in forward deployed areas. The committee is supportive of efforts to rapidly field advanced technologies 

to enhance the protection of military personnel. The committee understands that significant opportunities exist to facilitate the transition of technologies from research and development to testing and 

fielding, particularly in the area of self-protection. The effort to develop transparent, lightweight armor is one such opportunity, as it 

offers the promise of improving rotary aircraft survivability. 

The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63003A for lightweight armored window technology. 

Warfighter sustainment 

The budget request included $25.4 million for warfighter technology in PE 62786A, but included no funds for improved packaging and content of combat rations. 

The committee is aware of technology that offers to improve nutrition of combat rations, as well as reduce the cost and bulk of associated packaging. The committee is also aware that while combat 

rations meet the military recommended daily allowances for nutrients, but improved nutraceutical content could improve battlefield 

acuity and readiness. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million 

in PE 62786A for warfighter sustainment. 

NAVY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $16.9 billion for Navy research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
167 

The committee recommends $17.4 billion, an increase of $465.5 

million to the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
168 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 189 HR452.095
169 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 190 HR452.096
170 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 191 HR452.097
171 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 192 HR452.098
172 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 193 HR452.099
173 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 194 HR452.100
174 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 195 HR452.101
175 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 196 HR452.102
176 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 197 HR452.103
177 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 198 HR452.104
178 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 199 HR452.105
179 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 200 HR452.106
180 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 201 HR452.107
181 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced composite riverine craft 

The budget request contained $16.3 million in PE 63713N for 

ocean engineering technology development, but included no funds 

for advanced composite riverine craft. 

The committee remains concerned with the maturity of the operational concept for the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command 

(NECC) and has reservations about the rapid pace with which the 

Navy is moving ahead with its development. The committee encourages the Navy to fully develop its operational requirements for 

the NECC mission. However, the committee does believe that the 

Navy should investigate options for advanced composite hulls for 

the specialized missions the NECC might be required to perform. 

Advanced composite hulls are expected to provide the Navy with 

the technology for critical capabilities in speed, weight, draft, stability, wake and g-force reduction. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63713N for development and construction of advanced 

composite riverine craft. 

Advanced materials for acoustic window applications 

The budget request contained $9.4 million in PE 25620N for surface anti-submarine warfare combat system integration, but included no funds for advanced materials for acoustic window applications. 

The committee is aware that advanced materials for acoustic 

window applications have the potential to reduce signature and improve survivability of naval sonar dome windows at a reduced cost. 

Current materials used to minimize turbulence and hydrodynamic 

drag, and protect the sonar system from impacts with debris use 

a non-corroding sandwich dome concept constructed using fiber reinforced polymer composite skins with a layered elastomeric core. 

Although this technology meets current mission requirements, the 

committee understands there is a need for lower-cost, structurally 

robust materials for acoustic window applications. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

in PE 25620N for a development program on lower cost advanced 

materials for warship design concepts. 

Affordable towed array construction/fiber optic towed array construction 

The budget request contained $94.8 million in PE 64503N for 

submarine systems equipment development, including $5.7 million 

to continue the development of affordable towed array technology. 

The affordable towed array construction program utilizes fiber 

optic thin line arrays to provide increased operational capabilities 

and reliability improvements over existing submarine thin line 

towed systems. The committee believes that the development and 

fielding of fiber optic towed array technology is important to maintain clear acoustical, tactical and operational undersea dominance 

in the littorals. 

Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5 

million in PE 64503N to accelerate reliability testing and introduction into the fleet of fiber optic towed arrays. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
182 

Affordable weapon system 

The budget request contained $18.6 million in PE 63795N for 

land attack technology, but included no funding for affordable 

weapon system (AWS). 

AWS is a low cost surface launched cruise missile based on commercial-off-the-shelf technology that is designed to carry a 200 

pound payload to a range of over 600 miles. AWS is a global positioning system/inertial navigation system guided weapon with both 

line-of-sight and satellite data links to allow reprogramming in 

flight. Designed with the capability to loiter, the weapon can be 

commanded by a forward observer to attack precise targets on the 

ground in support of expeditionary operations. 

The committee continues to support the concept of a loitering 

missile and is encouraged that the Navy is reviewing a capabilities 

development document for a multipurpose loitering missile. The 

committee supports the restructuring of this program to implement 

a more disciplined approach to system engineering and quality assurance, which the committee believes is achievable without substantially altering the cost objectives of the program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million for PE 

63795N to complete system design and demonstration, to support 

live-fire testing aboard an amphibious warfare vessel subsequent to 

successful testing from the Self Defense Test Ship, and for limited 

rate initial production (LRIP) of an additional 40 missiles. However, the committee expects that no funds shall be available for 

LRIP prior to successful completion of an operational evaluation 

with production representative missiles. 

Airborne reconnaissance systems 

The budget request contained $35.0 million in PE 35206N for airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funding for passive 

collision avoidance and reconnaissance (PCAR). 

The committee is aware that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 

must fly in regions that make them a potential hazard to commercial and other manned aircraft. The committee notes that PCAR 

will sense an impending collision and allow the UAV to safely avoid 

approaching aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $40.0 million, an increase 

of $5.0 million in PE 35206N for PCAR to improve the safety of 

UAV operations. 

Aircraft carrier launch and recovery and support equipment modernization 

The budget request contained $33.4 million in PE 64512N for 

shipboard aviation systems development, but included no funds to 

continue development of the aircraft carrier launch and recovery 

(ALRE) and support equipment (SE) modernization program. 

The committee understands that the ALRE/SE modernization 

program would develop modernization strategies for existing 

ALRE/SE systems to reduce human error and operating costs while 

improving safety and reliability. The committee also understands 

that ALRE/SE technologies and design tools are being developed 

for the CVN–21 future carrier, and believes that application of 

these technologies to the Navy’s existing aircraft carrier fleet could 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
183 

substantially reduce operating costs for the remainder of their useful life. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 64512N to continue the ALRE/SE modernization program. 

Ballistic trajectory extended range munition 

The budget request contained $18.6 million in PE 63795N for 

land attack technology, but included no funds to continue the ballistic trajectory extended range munition (BTERM) demonstration 

program. 

The committee notes that the Navy’s current effort to field the 

extended range guided munition (ERGM) faces significant technological, cost and schedule performance challenges to meet the 

Navy’s requirement for precision targeting. The committee understands that the BTERM program provides the Navy with an alternative to the ERGM global positioning system/inertial navigational 

system long-range, precise fire capability. The committee further 

notes that until recently, the Navy intended to re-compete the system design and development contract, but later decided to reverse 

course and continue with ERGM development. The committee remains greatly concerned with the Navy’s ability to provide naval 

surface fire support for expeditionary forces ashore and strongly 

recommends that the Navy re-compete this requirement. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63795N, to continue the development of the BTERM 

demonstration program. 

Bio-film packaging applied research 

The budget request contained $90.0 million for PE 62236N for 

warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds for 

bio-film packaging applied research. 

The committee notes that environmental quality technologies enable sustained world-wide Navy operations in compliance with all 

local, State, regional, national and international laws, regulations 

and agreements. The committee understands that bio-film packaging offers an environmentally friendly alternative to solve the 

plastic waste disposal issue aboard Navy ships. Unlike plastic 

packaging that cannot be thrown overboard and disposed of because it is derived from hydrocarbons, bio-film packaging waste can 

be disposed of at sea because it will break down into bio-compatible 

components in ocean water. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62236N for development of durable bio-pallet wrap and packaging. 

Cobra Judy ship replacement 

The budget request contained $135.4 million in PE 35149N for 

the Cobra Judy ship replacement program. 

The Cobra Judy program is a single ship-based radar suite for 

world-wide technical data collection against ballistic missiles in 

flight. The current Cobra Judy ship, the USNS Observation Island, 

is unsustainable and is scheduled to go out of service in 2012. The 

radar data and imaging from the Cobra Judy platform supports a 

range of activities including Department of State treaty monitoring 

and verification, and ballistic missile defense development and testVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
184 

ing. Failure to replace the Cobra Judy ship by 2011 will result in 

a potential gap in coverage. 

The committee fully supports the Cobra Judy ship replacement program and recommends $135.4 million in PE 35149N, the 

amount of the budget request. 

Common submarine radio room 

The budget request contained $94.8 million in PE 64503N for 

SSN–688 and Trident modernization, but included no funds for the 

common submarine radio room. 

The committee is aware that the common submarine radio room 

provides a modern, automated, high capacity, interoperable communications system across submarine classes. It employs an open 

system architecture that maximizes the use of commercial-off-theshelf hardware and software. The committee recommends funds to 

accelerate the development and deployment of the common submarine radio room. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 

64503N to be used for the common submarine radio room. 

Conventional Trident modification 

The budget request contained $77.0 million in PE 64327N for development of an advanced strike capability which will demonstrate 

the feasibility of modifying the Trident II (D5) strategic weapon 

system to carry conventional payloads. 

The Navy is undertaking this effort to develop the conventional 

precision global strike capability called for in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. The committee understands that the existing Trident 

weapons system provides an opportunity to develop this long-range 

conventional strike capability by leveraging existing technology at 

relatively low cost. 

The committee, however, is concerned that the development of 

this conventional capability on a submarine platform that has historically carried nuclear armed ballistic missiles may present concerns relating to the misinterpretation of the launch of a missile 

carrying a conventional warhead for one carrying a nuclear warhead. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 

beginning to engage members of the international community to 

discuss the U.S. intent behind the conventional strike capability, as 

well as measures to preclude misinterpretation of a conventional 

launch. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to continue 

this important policy dialog with others in the international community. 

The committee is also concerned with the costs associated with 

the expenditure of a conventional warhead carried on a Trident 

missile. While there may be high-value targets worth the price of 

a conventionally equipped Trident missile, it is not clear what scenarios would call for employment of the conventional Trident missile. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007, a report on the following: 

(1) The status of discussions with other countries on the concern of misinterpretation of a conventional Trident missile 

strike for a nuclear attack; 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
185 

(2) The proposed concept of operations detailing the sequence of events for employing this weapon; and 

(3) An assessment of the cost-effectiveness of using this 

weapon against selected targets. 

The committee recommends $30.0 million in PE 64327N to explore the feasibility of modifying the Trident II strategic weapon 

system to carry conventional payloads, a decrease of $47.0 million. 

Defense research sciences 

The budget request contained $366.6 million in PE 61153N for 

defense research sciences, but included no funds for investigations 

of carbon nanotube-based radiation hard non-volatile random access memory (RAM) or for expanding the naval science and educational pipeline pilot program. 

The committee recognizes the need to protect essential electronic 

systems and applications during critical operations from the harsh 

effects of natural and man-made radiation. Therefore, the committee believes there is a need to ensure the continual improvement of radiation-hardened memory, with particular emphasis on 

a new generation of radiation hardened devices constructed with 

single-walled carbon nanotube materials. 

The committee also recognizes the need to reverse the trend of 

fewer U.S. students entering college programs to pursue science, 

technology, engineering, and math degrees. The naval science and 

educational pipeline (N–STEP) pilot program in Virginia has provided science-related curriculum enhancements at the K–12 level, 

in partnership with the Naval Surface Warfare Center—Dahlgren 

Division. 

The committee recommends $383.1 million in PE 61153N, an increase of $9.0 million for development of carbon nanotube-based radiation hard non-volatile RAM and an increase of $7.5 million to 

expand the N–STEP pilot program to other states with naval warfare center laboratories, such as California, Maryland, and Rhode 

Island. 

Detection and recovery of unexploded ordnance 

The budget request contained $25.3 million in PE 65873M for 

Marine Corps program wide support, but included no funds to provide technology that would advance the detection and recovery of 

unexploded ordnance (UXO). 

The committee is aware that many former and current military 

training sites pose a high safety risk because of the presence of 

UXO that could sometimes include 1,000 pound bombs. The committee understands that no single sensor is capable of providing 

the complete solution for detection, recovery, and removal of UXO. 

The committee encourages the continued development of a system 

of systems approach that would utilize existing and near-term technology to identify, recover, and remove UXO at military training 

sites. 

The committee recommends $29.3 million in PE 65873M, an increase of $4.0 million to advance the development of a sensor suite 

and platform that would rapidly detect, recover, and remove UXO 

at military training sites. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
186 

Dismounted soldier training test instrumentation 

The budget request contained $218.5 million in PE 26313M for 

Marine Corps communications systems development, but included 

no funds for dismounted soldier or marine training test instrumentation. 

The committee understands this system provides advanced training capabilities for marines conducting individual and small unit 

operations through the use of commercially available communication system and movement tracking technology. The committee recognizes this project develops an instrumentation capability that allows real-time tracking of individual dismounted infantrymen or 

marines conducting training on military training ranges as well as 

allows for rapid post-operation reconstruction and feedback to soldiers and marines. The committee notes this particular capability 

augments the training readiness of soldiers and marines preparing 

for combat deployment in the global war on terrorism. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 

26313M for dismounted soldier or marine training test instrumentation. 

Distributed common ground system 

The budget request included $16.6 million in PE 35208N for the 

Distributed Common Ground System-Navy (DCGS–N), as well as 

$78.3 million in Common Imagery Ground Surface Systems for the 

DCGS–N. 

The committee recognizes the potential benefits of a fully capable, completely interoperable DCGS–N system for service, joint, 

and interagency connectivity in support of combatant command priorities. The committee understands that the acquisition plan includes funding for the procurement and fielding of 34 DCGS–N 1.1 

systems, with an eventual transition to a more advanced 1.2 configuration. The committee understands the DCGS–N 1.2 version 

represents a greater level of capability in terms of enterprise interoperability with other service, joint, and interagency connections. 

The committee is concerned about the DCGS–N program delay 

since submission of the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The committee understands that the fiscal year 2007 budget request included funding for the procurement of as many as six 1.1 DCGS–

N systems prior to completion of the program’s operational evaluation (OPEVAL) milestone, and notes that OPEVAL is not expected 

to occur until the latter part of the fiscal year. The committee notes 

that a typical low to moderate risk acquisition schedule completes 

OPEVAL prior to low-rate initial production (LRIP) activities. 

The committee strongly recommends that the Department of the 

Navy further accelerate technology development for a more robust 

and interoperable DCGS–N system. The committee further urges 

the Department to reduce programmatic risk resulting from a lack 

of concurrency between research and development and LRIP activities. 

DockShock ship shock test system 

The budget request contained $61.5 million for PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but included no funds for 

DockShock ship shock test system. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
187 

The committee is aware that DockShock is a proposed replacement system for the current practice of conducting ship shock testing using large explosives in the open ocean. The DockShock concept employs non-explosive, electro-chemical or electro-mechanical 

pressure source arrays that can be used at shore side or near shore 

locations. The committee understands that the DockShock system 

would provide the Navy with a more accurate, environmentally 

friendly, less costly process for testing the survivability of Navy 

ships. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63123N to continue development and testing of the DockShock ship 

shock test system. 

DP–2 vectored thrust aircraft 

The budget request contained $76.8 million in PE 63114N for 

power projection advanced technology, but included no funding for 

the DP–2 vectored thrust aircraft program. 

The committee understands that the DP–2 is a twin engine, 

thrust vectored, high-speed combat transport aircraft capable of 

hover, as well as vertical take-off and landing. DP–2 has the potential to provide leap-ahead capabilities to special operations forces 

and other forces. The Office of Naval Research set a series of milestones for unmanned tethered and untethered hover testing, leading to manned, untethered testing in ground effect at Yuma Proving Ground. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for PE 

63114N to continue execution of the current DP–2 program test 

plan. 

E–2 advanced hawkeye identification friend or foe technology development 

The budget request contained $497.8 million in PE 64234N for 

the development, demonstration and testing of the E–2 advanced 

hawkeye (AHE) aircraft, but included no funds to accelerate the development of identification friend or foe (IFF) systems. 

The E–2 AHE program is developing a replacement for the existing radar and other system components to modernize the E–2C 

weapon system to maintain open ocean mission capability while 

providing an effective littoral surveillance, battle management and 

theater air and missile defense capability. The committee understands that one of the key technologies in the E–2 AHE program 

is the development of Mode 5 and Mode S IFF systems which will 

provide improved identification of friendly or civilian aircraft. The 

committee is aware that accelerating the development of this technology in fiscal year 2007 would reduce program risk and ensure 

that Mode 5 and Mode S IFF capabilities are integrated into the 

first E–2 AHE prior to delivery. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $505.0 million in PE 

64234N for the E–2 AHE development program, an increase of $7.2 

million for acceleration of Mode 5 and Mode S development. 

Electro-optic passive antisubmarine warfare system 

The budget request contained $16.8 million in PE 63254N for 

antisubmarine warfare (ASW) systems development, including $9.9 

million for the electro-optic passive ASW system (EPAS). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
188 

The committee is concerned by the proliferation and expansion of 

submarine forces worldwide, and views as a high priority the development of ASW capabilities for acoustically challenging littoral environments. The committee understands that EPAS will incorporate a variety of optical and infrared sensors into fieldable prototype systems to improve airborne ASW capability. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63254N for EPAS to accelerate development, fielding, and testing 

of prototype systems. 

F/A–18 squadrons 

The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 24136N for F/ 

A–18 squadron development, but included no funds for an aircraft 

composite missile launcher improvement program, for accelerated 

development of a digital electronic warfare (EW) system for F/A– 18C/D and AV–8B aircraft, or for an F/A–18 digital heads-up display (HUD) upgrade. 

The committee understands that existing aluminum aircraft missile launch suspension equipment may have limited life and may 

not support the next generation of guided missiles. The committee 

further understands that new technologies have emerged that may 

have the potential to increase missile launch suspension equipment 

service life and reduce lifecycle costs. Consequently, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million to develop, design, and 

demonstrate technologies that would improve missile launcher suspension equipment. The demonstration should include a side-byside test of the improved missile launcher with an existing system 

to evaluate the advantages of new technologies. 

The committee understands that EW technologies developed for 

the future F–35 and F–22 aircraft can be applied to address deficiencies in the Navy and Marine Corps’ existing ALQ–126B defensive countermeasures system, the ALQ–164 jamming pod, and the 

ALR–67(V)2 radar warning receiver. The committee also understands that development of a digital EW system for the Navy’s F/ 

A–18C/D and the Marine Corps’ AV–8B aircraft would provide improved capabilities against future electronic threats and improve 

commonality across the F/A–18C/D and AV–8B aircraft fleets, 

thereby reducing future operations and support costs. Accordingly, 

the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 to accelerate the 

development of a digital EW system for F/A–18C/D and AV–8B aircraft. 

The F/A–18 HUD, which serves as the pilot’s primary targeting 

system, currently uses a cathode ray tube (CRT) and is characterized as an analog solution to display targeting information to the 

pilot. The committee understands that the F/A–18’s CRTs are becoming unreliable and that procurement sources for CRTs are diminishing. To address this supportability problem, the committee 

believes that migration to a digital HUD solution will lower 

lifecycle costs, improve reliability and performance, and provide 

higher accuracy with a capability to process and display more information to the pilot. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.1 million to begin the development of an F/A–18 digital 

HUD upgrade. 

In total, the committee recommends $48.2 million in PE 24136N 

for F/A–18 squadron development, an increase of $17.1 million. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
189 

Flexible payload module and payload interface module development 

The budget request contained $169.6 million in PE 64558N for 

the new design SSN, but included no funds for flexible payload 

module and payload interface module development. 

The committee understands the flexible payload module will 

allow payloads, such as Tomahawk missiles, to be located outside 

of the submarine’s pressure hull, resulting in significant cost savings. The flexible payload module will house the new or existing 

payloads in a pressure proof or free-flooded environment. The payload interface module is the shipboard structure and standardized 

interface linking the submarine’s combat system with the payload. 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 

64558N to be used for the flexible payload module and payload 

interface module development. 

High performance FM fiber-optic link 

The budget request contained $84.9 million in PE 62114N for 

power projection applied research, but included no funding for high 

performance FM fiber-optic links. 

The committee understands that FM fiber optic links could be 

used for high bandwidth transmission of microwave and millimeter 

wave signals, and have potential military applications for remoting 

of communication and radar antennae. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for PE 

62114N for applied research leading to development of high performance FM fiber-optic links. 

Human systems integration 

The budget request included $82.0 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology and $8.8 million in 

PE 64703N for personnel, training, simulation, and human factors, 

but contained no funding for Navy manpower and personnel integration (SEAPRINT). 

The committee supports further development of SEAPRINT in 

conjunction with other Department of Defense human systems integration efforts, and urges additional resources in this area. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in PE 63236N and $1.0 million in PE 64703N for SEAPRINT, in 

an effort to further develop human systems integration modeling 

throughout the Department. 

Integrated shipboard intelligent surveillance 

The budget request contained $817.5 million for total ship system engineering, but included no funding for integrated shipboard 

intelligent surveillance (ISIS). 

The committee places a particularly high priority on force protection. The committee believes that commercial-off-the-shelf surveillance and monitoring technologies offer opportunities to improve 

shipboard security, with respect to both the exterior environment 

and critical interior engineering and control spaces. From an engineering and cost perspective, the best point to integrate those technologies is early in the design process. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for PE 

64300N for integration of ISIS on future Navy combatants. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
190 

Joint integrated systems for advanced digital networking 

The budget request contained $748.7 million in PE 33109N for 

satellite communications, but included no funding for joint integrated systems for advanced digital networking (JIST–NET). 

JIST–NET has shown great promise in providing integrated communications systems situational awareness to combatant commanders by identifying satellite communications systems gaps and 

performance issues. The committee is encouraged by JIST–NET 

progress to date and believes further funding to complete integration of the network will provide important communications capability for the warfighting commander. 

The committee recommends $754.7 million in PE 33109N, an increase of $6.0 million for JIST–NET. 

Large aperture bow array 

The budget request contained $169.6 million in PE 64558N for 

the new design SSN, but included no funds for the development of 

the large aperture bow (LAB) array sonar for the Virginia class attack submarine. 

The committee is aware that the LAB array is a water-backed replacement for the air-backed spherical array in the bow of Virginia 

class submarines. The LAB uses longer-lived, lower cost sensors 

and commercial-off-the-shelf electronics, yielding a cost savings of 

about $15.0 million per ship and additional lifecycle cost savings. 

The committee is also aware that with a larger aperture and expanded frequency coverage, there will be a significant improvement 

to the anti-submarine warfare capabilities of the Virginia class 

submarine. Importantly, the LAB also allows additional payload by 

providing bow dome arrangement flexibility and allows for rapid insertion of future sensor technologies, and is a transformational approach to outboard sonar array design. The committee understands 

the preliminary design will be completed in 2006 and if inserted in 

the 2009 Virginia class hull, would provide $300.0 million in savings for the remainder of the Virginia class submarine construction 

program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

64558N to be used for the development of the LAB array sonar for 

the Virginia class attack submarine. 

Large displacement unmanned undersea vehicle at-sea launch and 

recovery system 

The budget request contained $140.4 million in PE 63561N for 

advanced submarine system development, but included no funds to 

develop an at-sea launch and recovery system for the large displacement unmanned undersea vehicle (LD–UUV). 

The committee understands that the LD–UUV provides the Navy 

with next-generation capability to detect, track, mitigate and defeat 

enemy threats. The committee notes that the LD–UUV is to be 

compatible with the SSGN platform, serving as a force multiplier 

with its improved payload capabilities and enhanced long-range endurance for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. 

The committee strongly encourages the Navy to devote adequate 

resources within the Future Years Defense Program to continue 

concept design, development and integration of the LD–UUV into 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
191 

the SSGN platform, including its requisite stowage, launch and recovery systems. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63561N to develop and demonstrate the LD–UUV at-sea launch 

and recovery hardware for the SSGN. 

Lightweight multi-threat encapsulated ceramic body armor 

The budget request contained $47.6 million in PE 26623M for 

Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms systems, but included no funds to advance the development of encapsulated ceramic body armor. 

The committee recognizes encapsulating ceramic tiles through 

enhanced bonding and residual compression could potentially improve the ballistic performance and durability of enhanced small 

arms protective inserts used in outer tactical vests that constitute 

the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) system. The committee understands the Army and the Marine Corps are continuously upgrading 

and modifying existing IBA components. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

26623M to refine and test encapsulated ceramic protective inserts. 

Further, should these tests prove to generate a more effective solution than existing IBA ceramic inserts, the committee encourages 

the Secretary of the Navy to use portions of funds provided in title 

XV of this report to begin initial procurement of these inserts. 

Lithium battery technology 

The budget request contained $124.5 million in PE 11221N for 

strategic submarine and weapons system support, but included no 

funds for superior lithium polymer battery development. 

The committee understands that the Navy and the Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana are moving away from traditional 

lead acid, nickel cadmium and silver zinc batteries and toward 

newer lithium secondary batteries. 

The committee also understands that a new technology known as 

the superior lithium polymer battery offers improved power densities, higher continuous discharge and recharge capabilities and 

wider operating temperatures, with potential military application 

to submersibles and other vehicles. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

11221N for superior lithium polymer battery development. 

Marine expeditionary rifle squad 

The budget request contained $0.5 million in PE 63635M for Marine Corps ground combat support systems, but included no funds 

for the development of the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad 

(MERS) program. 

The MERS program focuses on the holistic, system level integration of all items worn, consumed or carried by the marine infantry 

rifle squad and is integral to the Marine Corps concept of distributed operations (DO). The committee understands MERS, in the 

near-term would address integration issues resulting from the 

rapid fielding of urgently needed weapons and equipment to infantry squads currently operating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 

committee understands MERS’s long-term objective strategy would 

provide marine infantry rifle squads with fully integrated future 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
192 

equipment systems that would be integral to the effectiveness of 

conducting DO. The committee recommends $3.5 million in PE 63635A, an increase of $3.0 million to continue the phase development strategy 

of the MERS program. 

Maritime identification surveillance technology phased array radar 

The budget request contained $61.7 million in PE 63235N for 

common picture advanced technology, but included no funds for the 

maritime identification surveillance technology (MIST) phased 

array radar system. 

The development of the MIST phased array radar system is expected to provide continuous surveillance, identification and tracking of all surface ships around naval platforms at sea, or in coastal 

waters and harbors. In addition, the committee is aware that this 

radar system will provide the Navy with an advanced phased array 

radar technology test bed to support future radar system technology development and validation. The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 

63235N for the development and demonstration of a prototype 

phased array radar system for integration into a MIST sensor and 

networking technology test bed. 

Maritime technology 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 78730N for the 

maritime technology program. 

The committee understands that the purpose of the maritime 

technology (MARITECH) program is to reduce the cost of naval 

ship construction, modification, and repair by enhancing the efficiency and competitiveness of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair 

industries. The committee understands that since the late 1970s 

the Navy has considered capital for facility investments to be an 

allowable cost on contracts that are not firm fixed price. The committee is also aware that in the past three years, the Navy and industry have agreed to specific recapitalization contract incentives 

in the Virginia class submarine and the CVN–21 programs. These 

incentive clauses have allowed the Navy and the contractors to 

identify improvements in sequencing and build processes to lower 

construction costs. The committee encourages the expansion of 

these efforts to all ship procurements, including the Lewis and 

Clark (T–AKE) class program. 

The committee includes a provision (section 1014) that creates a 

shipbuilding industrial base improvement program through which 

the Secretary of the Navy shall award grants and loan guarantees 

to qualified shipyards to improve their productivity and cost effectiveness. These authorities will allow the Navy to work to an even 

greater extent with shipbuilders to identify and finance process 

changes, equipment investments, and facilities improvements to 

lower the cost of Navy ship procurement. The committee expects 

that these authorities will allow the Navy to achieve savings in the 

construction of the T–AKE class ships, in addition to other ship 

classes, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. shipyards. Consequently, the committee recommends providing funds for the shipbuilding industrial base improvement program and for the enhancement of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industrial base. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
193 

The committee recommends $120.0 million in PE 78730N for the 

maritime technology program. 

National shipbuilding research program 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 78730N for the national shipbuilding research program. 

The committee understands that the national shipbuilding research program (NSRP) provides a unique collaborative environment where shipbuilders and government agencies examine processes, tooling and management techniques to improve the efficiency 

of the United States shipbuilding industry. The committee understands that NSRP operates on a 50–50 cost share between government and industry, all results are shared with all members, and 

a conservative estimate for NSRP’s return on investment is five to 

one. 

The committee recommends $20.0 million in PE 78730N for the 

national shipbuilding research program. 

Shipbuilding industrial base improvement grants 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 78730N for shipbuilding industrial base improvement grants. 

The committee understands the national security importance of 

sustaining viable and efficient shipbuilding and ship repair industries in the United States. Accordingly, the committee recommends 

providing grants to U.S. shipyards to facilitate the development of 

innovative design and production technologies and processes for 

naval vessel construction, and the development of modernized shipbuilding infrastructure. The committee recommends $50.0 million in PE 78730N for shipbuilding industrial base improvement grants. 

Shipbuilding industrial base improvement loan guarantees 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 78730N for shipbuilding industrial base improvement loan guarantees. 

The committee understands the national security importance of 

sustaining viable and efficient shipbuilding and ship repair industries in the United States. Accordingly, the committee recommends 

providing loan guarantees to U.S. shipyards to facilitate the acquisition of technologies, processes and infrastructure to enhance the 

efficiency and competitiveness of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industries. 

The committee recommends $50.0 million in PE 78730N for shipbuilding industrial base improvement loan guarantees. 

Naval surface fire support 

The committee remains deeply concerned by Navy shortfalls in 

providing naval surface fire in support of expeditionary warfare. 

At the Navy’s request, in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) Congress authorized the 

Secretary of the Navy to strike from the Naval Vessel Register the 

battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa. With these retirements, 

the Navy loses the longest range guns in its fleet, 16-inch 50-caliber guns capable of ranging 24 nautical miles. In the meantime, 

Navy efforts to improve upon, much less replace, this capability 

have been highly problematic. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
194 

The near-term effort involves extending the range of 5-inch 62- 

caliber guns on existing Arleigh Burke class destroyers from 13 

nautical miles to more than 40 nautical miles with a rocket assisted projectile. The 5-inch extended range guided munition 

(ERGM) contains only 7.2 pounds of high explosive, but incorporates global positioning system/inertial navigation system guidance to provide precision targeting. 

The ERGM program was initiated in 1996 with a planned re- search and development cost of $78.6 million, which has now grown 

more than 400 percent. Schedule performance has been similarly 

disappointing, with initial operational capability slipping a decade 

from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2011. As late as the submission 

of the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2007, the Navy 

planned to recompete the system demonstration and development 

(SDD) contract in the third quarter of fiscal year 2006, but recently 

reversed course and elected to continue the current contract. The 

committee questions the advisability of this decision. Notwithstanding the not insignificant technical challenges, the committee 

believes that program performance has been wanting. The committee further notes the existence of other responsible sources for 

the capabilities provided by ERGM, specifically the ballistic trajectory extended range munition (BTERM) program and a five-inch 

variant of the long-range land attack projectile (LRLAP). The committee strongly believes that fair and open competition would best 

serve the near-term naval surface fire support objectives of the 

Navy. 

The Navy plans to meet its mid-term precision strike requirement of greater than 63 nautical miles with the 6-inch LRLAP projectile in combination with the advanced gun system (AGS), both 

of which are under development as part of the Navy’s next generation destroyer (DD(X)) program. The committee is encouraged by 

the progress demonstrated in both the LRLAP and AGS engineering development models. The committee notes, however, that the 

first DD(X) will not become operational until 2012, assuming current timelines hold. Further, the committee does not expect that 

DD(X) will be procured in the quantity determined by the Marine 

Corps as necessary to support major combat operations within desired timeframes. In fact, the Navy’s current long-range shipbuilding plan calls for procurement of only seven DD(X)s. Accordingly, the committee has strong reservations regarding the Navy’s 

ability to meet mid-term fire support requirements. 

In summary, the committee is concerned that the Navy has foregone the long-range fire support capability of the battleship, has 

given little cause for optimism with respect to meeting near-term 

developmental objectives, and appears unrealistic in planning to 

support expeditionary warfare in the mid-term. The committee 

views the Navy’s strategy for providing naval surface fire support 

as ‘‘high risk,’’ and will continue to monitor progress accordingly. 

Network communication system technology for extreme environments 

The budget request contained $218.5 million in PE 26313M for 

Marine Corps communication systems, but included no funds to 

demonstrate network communication system technology for extreme environments. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
195 

The committee understands this technology would use digital signal processing software that would enable military personnel to 

rapidly transmit and receive networked services such as voice, 

video, and data, while operating in dense urban or heavily forested 

areas. The committee notes this technology would provide capability to transmit services with greater bandwidth and more flexibility than provided by current systems. The committee also notes 

this technology could improve command decision times and enhance situational awareness at the tactical level in both non-lineof-sight and beyond-line-of-sight conditions. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE 

26313M for Marine Corps communication systems to allow for further research and engineering support for network communication 

system technology for extreme environments. 

Next-generation electronic warfare simulator 

The budget request contained $372.4 million in PE 64269N for 

the development, demonstration and testing of the EA–18G electronic attack aircraft, but included no funds to develop, configure 

and install next-generation electronic warfare simulators in the Advanced Weapons Laboratory (AWL) at Naval Air Station (NAS) 

China Lake, California. 

The EA–18G electronic attack aircraft program is developing a 

replacement for the currently used and aging EA–6B aircraft to 

provide a capability to detect, identify, locate, and suppress hostile 

emitters. The committee understands that the Department of the 

Navy has used the F–18 AWL for integration and development 

testing of previous F–18 variants, and believes that EA–18G development, test, and evaluation will require next-generation electronic 

warfare simulators to maximize laboratory testing, avoid additional 

flight testing, and reduce cost and schedule risk. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $380.4 million in PE 

64269N for the EA–18G development program, an increase of $8.0 

million to develop, configure and install next-generation electronic 

warfare simulators in the AWL at NAS China Lake. 

Next-generation Phalanx 

The budget request contained $46.4 million in PE 64756N for 

ship self defense (hard kill), but included no funding for next-generation Phalanx. 

Phalanx has been a mainstay of close-in ship self defense against 

anti-ship cruise missiles. The committee believes that the Phalanx 

weapon system has evolutionary potential for improved performance, broader capability, and lower lifecycle cost. This capability 

could be applied to the detection, tracking, and engagement of 

small water craft in swarm attacks. The committee particularly 

notes the rapid fielding and recent operational success of a landbased Phalanx system for defeating indirect fire in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, a mission for which the system was not originally intended. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for PE 

64756N for development of a next-generation Phalanx weapon system. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
196 

Permanent magnet motor 

The budget request contained $817.5 million in PE 64300N for 

next generation destroyer (DD(X)) total ship systems engineering, 

but included no funds to continue development and testing of the 

permanent magnet motor (PMM). 

The committee is aware that the Navy originally intended to integrate the PMM propulsion and power support technology into the 

DD(X) due to its enhanced power density, acoustic performance and 

weight reduction advantages over competing motors. The committee understands that the PMM technology experienced a stator 

insulator failure during the factory testing phase; consequently, the 

Navy decided to forgo this technology in favor of the backup advanced induction motor (AIM) technology. Since then, the committee understands that the stator insulator failure problem encountered with the PMM technology has been rectified by substituting a conventional insulation material and that the motor has 

repeatedly passed successful tests at full power. The committee recognizes that the PMM technology offers significant power efficiency 

and weight reduction advantages over the AIM technology and encourages the Navy to consider incorporating this technology into future Navy ships. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 64300N to continue land-based testing of the PMM. 

Retroreflecting optical communications for special operations 

The budget request contained $84.9 million in PE 62114N for 

power projection applied research, but included no funding for 

retroreflecting optical communications for special operations. 

The committee understands that free space optical communications provide advantages over longer wavelength techniques in 

terms of bandwidth, spectrum congestion, resistance to jamming, 

and probability of detection and interception. A compact modulating retroreflector with a special operations team on the ground 

would secure a tactical data link to an airborne platform without 

requirement for precise pointing. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for PE 

62114N to continue development of retroreflecting optical communications and to fabricate prototype hardware for a tactical data 

link. 

Sea Fighter (X–Craft) 

The budget request contained $61.5 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but included no funding for 

Sea Fighter. 

Sea Fighter, formerly known as X–Craft, is a high speed, shallow 

draft demonstration vessel for littoral warfare. The vessel as currently configured has limitations with respect to its deployability. 

The committee believes that deployment of Sea Fighter can demonstrate and validate many of the Navy’s operational concepts for 

littoral warfare, and more specifically reduce risk in the Littoral 

Combat Ship program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.7 million for PE 

63123N for modifications to survivability, command and control, armament, and other ship systems to make Sea Fighter an operationally deployable asset. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
197 

Secure infrastructure technology laboratory 

The budget request contained $61.5 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but included no funding for 

Secure Infrastructure Technology Laboratory (SINTEL). SINTEL 

has developed a suite of sensing technologies and complementary 

computer analysis that shows great potential to reliably detect hostile, underwater threats in both domestic and foreign ports, a critical force protection requirement for the Navy. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63729N for the Secure Infrastructure Technology Laboratory. 

Shipboard wireless maintenance assistant 

The budget request contained $14.1 million in PE 63513N for 

shipboard system component development, but included no funding 

for the shipboard wireless maintenance assistant (SWMA). 

The committee believes that advances in information technology 

can help to dramatically improve productivity and reduce manning 

for shipboard maintenance. The committee understands that 

SWMA allows maintenance data, text, and associated drawings and 

imagery to be shared wirelessly in the shipboard environment, and 

provides real-time ‘‘reach back’’ to remote experts. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for PE 

63513N for SWMA prototype shipboard testing and development of 

pre-production models. 

Small arms and crew served weapons shot counter 

The budget request contained $47.6 million in PE 26623M for 

Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms systems, but included no funds for the test and evaluation of weapon shot counters 

for Marine Corps small arms and crew-served weapons. 

The committee understands the Marine Corps has a requirement 

to track service life and wear rates of small arms and crew-served 

weapon systems. The committee notes a lightweight, easily manageable weapons shot counter that could readily fit into the stock 

or grip of existing small arms and crew-served weapon systems 

would potentially address this requirement. The committee recognizes the additional funds would be used to initiate a lightweight 

weapons shot counter program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.3 million in PE 

26623M for the initiation, demonstration and evaluation of weapon 

shot counters for Marine Corps small arms and crew-served weapon systems. 

Smart valve 

The budget request contained $14.1 million in PE 63513N for 

shipboard system component development, but included no funding 

for smart valve. 

The committee understands that in a shipboard environment 

with plentiful power and robust networking, linear 

electromechanical actuator technology presents some interesting 

opportunities to eliminate high pressure hydraulic and pneumatic 

systems. The committee believes that technologies like smart valve 

can offer reduced size and weight, lower maintenance, and a self 

diagnostic capability that would warn of impending malfunction. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
198 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for PE 

63513N for development of smart valve technology. 

Tactical electric field buoy development program 

The budget request contained $16.8 million in PE 63254N for 

anti-submarine warfare systems development, but included no 

funding for the tactical electric (E) field buoy development program. 

The committee supports the Navy’s efforts to develop enhanced 

anti-submarine warfare capabilities using networked sensor systems. Countering emerging threats in the acoustically problematic 

littorals may require the exploitation of phenomenology that has 

previously received little attention. The tactical E-field buoy development program designs and tests air deployable sensors capable 

of detecting the electric field signature of a threat submarine. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for PE 

63254N to design, build and test 10 engineering development 

model E-field buoys for evaluation at sea. 

Validation of prognostic and health management systems 

The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology, but included no funds 

for a program to validate prognostic and health management systems. 

The committee understands that advanced modeling and simulation software has been developed for determining the remaining 

life of critical joint strike fighter engine components. However, the 

committee further understands that a program to certify the key 

models used in the software are required to validate prognostic and 

health management systems, and that such a program would enable engine life assessment modeling tools to be verified for fleet 

management purposes. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 

million in PE 63236N for a program to validate prognostic and 

health management systems. 

VH–71 

The budget request included $682.6 million in PE 64273N for the 

VH–71 helicopter program. 

The committee understands that the VH–71 will replace the current fleet of VH–3 and VH–60 helicopters which provide transportation to the President. Section 220 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) limited 

the expenditure of funds on VH–71 until the Secretary of the Navy 

delivered to Congress an event driven acquisition strategy that incorporates no more than moderate risk for increment two of the 

program. Section 220 also required an operational evaluation using 

production representative test vehicles. Further, section 220 directed that the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation 

(DOT&E) provide an evaluation of the acquisition strategy. 

The committee received the Navy’s report on the new acquisition 

strategy for the VH–71 program along with comments from the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation on March 14, 2006. Although some beneficial changes have been made to the program including the creation of a Senior Leadership Council (SLC), the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
199 

schedule for the program remains high risk and the test and evaluation planned to occur prior to production of increment two aircraft will not include production representative test vehicles. Further, the DOT&E recommends the addition of readiness reviews 

prior to award of contracts for production of low rate initial production (LRIP) lots two and three. The current program plan would 

approve all three lots of LRIP at the same time. The committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy include the readiness reviews 

recommended by the DOT&E in the VH–71 program schedule. The 

committee further directs that these additional reviews should 

occur with the participation of the SLC, and that approval be given 

for LRIP contract award only with the consensus of all members 

of the SLC. 

The committee notes that the budget request included $39.0 million to procure long lead materials for three LRIP aircraft in the 

increment two configuration, known as the VH–71B. The committee understands that the first contractor-provided test article 

for the VH–71B will not be delivered to the Navy until 2008, and 

that the modification of VH–71A test articles into the VH–71B configuration will not start until the later half of fiscal year 2008 and 

will not be completed until the later half of fiscal year 2009. The 

committee believes that the obligation of funds to begin long lead 

procurement of materials for VH–71B aircraft in fiscal year 2007 

is premature. The committee recommends $643.6 million, a decrease of $39.0 

million in PE 64273N for the VH–71 helicopter program. 

Virtual-at-sea training technologies 

The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology, but included no funding for leveraging virtual-at-sea training (VAST) technologies in 

support of qualification and readiness training for the Littoral 

Combat Ship (LCS). 

The committee understands that training in a simulated environment can provide valuable crew experience in a cost effective manner, and provides in some cases the only means to train for certain 

contingencies. The committee notes that the Navy’s ‘‘Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2007’’ describes a future force structure that includes 

55 LCSs, although none have been commissioned to date. Given the 

large number of ships in this class planned for procurement, the 

committee believes investment in training technologies is particularly prudent. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for PE 

63236N for extension of VAST technologies to support crew training for LCS. 

Warfare protection advanced technology 

The budget request contained $18.0 million in PE 63729N for 

warfare protection advanced technology, but included no funds for 

the Naval Special Warfare Performance and Injury Prevention Program. The committee is aware that the Performance and Injury 

Prevention Program would implement intervention models that 

will permit Navy special operations forces to mitigate the risk of 

musculoskeletal injury and optimize physical performance. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
200 

The committee recommends $20.5 million in PE 63729N, an increase of $2.5 million for the Naval Special Warfare Performance 

and Injury Prevention Program. 

Wet end installation system element 

The budget request contained $58.3 million in PE 64784N for 

distributed surveillance system, but included no funding for the 

wet end installation system element (WISE). 

The committee supports the Navy’s efforts to enhance anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability by shifting the focus from expensive platforms to relatively inexpensive networked sensors. The 

Navy’s current program, the advanced deployable system, is a passive acoustic surveillance system that will be deployed from a littoral combat ship equipped with the ASW mission package. The 

committee believes the value of such systems is further enhanced 

by covert deployment. WISE will employ submarine based expendable unmanned underwater vehicles to install fixed sensor fields, 

with a goal of reducing system cost by 50 percent. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million for PE 

64784N for continued development of WISE and the expendable 

array installation vehicle. 

Wireless maritime inspection system 

The budget request contained $817.5 million in PE 64300N for 

SC–21 total ship engineering, but included no funds for the wireless maritime inspection system. 

The wireless maritime inspection system will establish an operational capability that reduces the risk associated with military 

interception operations. The committee recognizes that this system 

will allow Navy personnel to board ships, as needed, to effectively 

inspect personnel, cargo and other items on the suspect ship while 

being connected in near real-time to critical Navy organizations. 

Specifically, it will enable boarding teams to transmit intelligence 

such as photos of crew, passports and evidence to the operational 

commander and national agencies in near-real time. The committee 

notes this will allow senior personnel to remotely make decisions 

without having to recall a portion of the interdiction team. This capability will provide improved force protection, as well as enable 

real-time correlation with other interdiction operations to ensure 

broader effectiveness. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

64300N to be used for the wireless maritime inspection system. 

AIR FORCE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $24.4 billion for Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $24.8 billion, an increase of $413.3 

million to the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
201 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 221 HR452.108
202 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 222 HR452.109
203 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 223 HR452.110
204 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 224 HR452.111
205 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 225 HR452.112
206 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 226 HR452.113
207 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 227 HR452.114
208 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 228 HR452.115
209 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 229 HR452.116
210 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 230 HR452.117
211 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 231 HR452.118
212 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 232 HR452.119
213 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 233 HR452.120
214 

Items of Special Interest 

Active feedback flow control technology 

The budget request contained $112.8 million in PE 62201F for 

aerospace vehicle technologies, including $2.0 million for advancement of intelligent aerospace systems (AIAS). 

The committee understands that AIAS focuses on the concept 

and development of valuable simulation tools for Air Force engineers and scientists for assessment of proposed future Air Force 

weapons systems. AIAS incorporates active feedback flow control 

(AFFC) technology for simulation and modeling tools in the evaluations of unsteady aerodynamic, turbulence, thermal and noise studies. Currently, there are no universal, validated tools available for 

the new weapon systems development program designer interested 

in using AFFC concepts at the beginning stages of design. The committee also understands AFFC tools are highly relevant for a broad 

spectrum of designs and development such as onboard intelligence 

for maneuvering missiles and projectiles, and onboard intelligence 

for unmanned air vehicles, and micro-unmanned air vehicles utilizing neurobiological inspired computational processes. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in PE 62201F for AIAS in the development of AFFC. 

Advanced engine starter/generator system prototype 

The budget request contained $170.9 million in PE 62203F for 

aerospace propulsion, but included no funds for the development of 

an advanced engine starter/generator (AESG) system for future aircraft. 

The committee notes that existing engine starter/generator systems on current and future designed aircraft are physically heavy 

and expensive to procure and sustain. The AESG contains design 

and technology advancements in power-electronics and high-speedmachinery. Subsequently, the AESG has the potential to provide 

future aircraft with a high-powered, engine starter/generator system that is 30 percent less in weight and 28 percent lower in 

lifecycle cost. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million 

for development of an advanced engine starter/generator system. 

Advanced optics and laser space technology 

The budget request contained $51.3 million in PE 63605F for advanced weapons technology, including $21.4 million for advanced 

optics and laser space technology. 

The committee believes that characterization of laser propagation 

through atmospheric turbulence and demonstration of advanced 

adaptive optical and tracking technologies are critical enabling 

technologies for applications such as high-resolution satellite imaging, space object illumination and tracking, and satellite 

diagnostics testing. However, the committee is concerned by the potential applicability of this technology development for anti-satellite and advanced space weapons capabilities. Therefore, the committee directs that none of the funds authorized for this program 

element shall be used for development or demonstration of laser 

space technologies with anti-satellite weapons purposes. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
215 

The committee recommends $44.8 million in PE 63605F, a decrease of $6.5 million for advanced optics and laser space technology. 

Advanced spacecraft technology 

The budget request contained $68.0 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for precision 

integrated navigation and position-intelligent networking technology (PINPOINT), small, low-cost reconnaissance spacecraft, or 

intelligent free space optical satellite communications nodes. 

The committee is aware that PINPOINT operates through cooperative navigation, which enables an array of satellites to form a 

more accurate, integrated navigation solution through the fusion of 

all global positioning satellite system information available within 

the array. With this approach, a satellite that cannot form a complete navigation solution on its own, due to poor geometry plasma 

effects, jamming or interference, can now accurately determine its 

position through interaction with other array members. The committee believes that this technology directly improves warfighter 

capabilities by enabling improved situational awareness and relative position accuracies. 

The committee recognizes that small reconnaissance spacecraft that cost less than $4.0 million each could fulfill a variety of military and intelligence applications. The committee believes that a 

program focused on integrating low-mass, low-cost components into 

a single purpose imaging satellite, while maintaining 80 percent of 

the performance specifications of other larger imaging spacecraft 

currently in development could be of great value to the Department 

of Defense and the Intelligence Community. 

Further, the committee is aware that on-going military operations require dramatic increases in space communications bandwidth through secure communications networks. The committee 

feels that lightweight, low-cost spacecraft laser communications 

hardware technology can reduce the development risk of the transformation communication architecture program by providing the 

capability for low-cost, adaptive, multi-access laser and radio frequency communications. 

The committee recommends $84.0 million in PE 63401F, an increase of $16.0 million, including $5.0 million for PINPOINT, $4.0 

million for small, low-cost reconnaissance spacecraft, and $7.0 million for intelligent free space optical satellite communications 

nodes. 

Affordable lightweight power supply development 

The budget request contained $170.9 million in PE 62203F for 

applied research in aerospace propulsion, but included no funds for 

lightweight proton exchange membrane fuel cells. 

The committee notes the need of U.S. armed forces for efficient 

and robust power sources. Fuel cells, which are lighter than conventional batteries or generator power supplies, offer a high potential for reducing vehicle fuel consumption, the weight of the subsistence and combat load carried by individual soldiers, marines, 

sailors, and airmen in the field, environmental pollution, and an 

enemy’s ability to detect combat vehicles. The committee further 

notes advances in technology and the potential for development of 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
216 

durable and cost-effective high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells that would address these operational requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million in PE 

62203F for applied research in lightweight proton exchange membrane fuel cells. 

B–52 internal weapons bay upgrade 

The budget request contained $71.4 million in PE 11113F for B– 52 squadrons, but contained no funds for the military-standard1760 (MIL–STD–1760) integration for the B–52 internal weapons 

bay upgrade. 

The committee understands modernization and upgrade efforts 

are underway for the B–52 aircraft to enable employment of precision guided weapons from both the internal weapons bay and the 

external wing pylons. These upgrades will allow the aircraft to employ advanced precision guided weapons such as the joint direct attack munition, the joint air-to-surface stand- off missile, and the 

joint stand-off weapon. The committee understands that the MIL– STD–1760 provides a common interface between the weapons and 

the aircraft, and is used to transfer guidance information to the 

weapons located in the internal bay racks and on the external wing 

pylons. Therefore, the committee recommends $77.4 million in PE 

11113F, an increase of $6.0 million for accelerated integration of 

the MIL-STD–1760 into the internal weapons bay of the B–52. 

B–52 stand-off jammer program 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64429F for the B– 52 stand-off jammer (SOJ) program. The budget request also terminated the B–52 SOJ program in order to fund Air Force transformational activities in the remaining Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). 

The committee notes that in PE 64429F, Congress appropriated $107.1 million in fiscal year 2006 for the B–52 SOJ program. The 

committee notes that current Air Force electronic attack requirements are being fulfilled by Marine Corps EA–6B platforms scheduled to be completely retired in 2012. Further, the committee understands the B–52 SOJ program was originally developed to fulfill 

future Air Force electronic attack requirements beginning in 2012 

to mitigate the capability gap created by the retirement of the EA–

6B. 

Consequently, the committee is deeply concerned that the Air 

Force will not have a replacement electronic attack capability once 

the Marine Corps EA–6B platform is retired, and strongly encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to reexamine the decision to 

cancel the B–52 SOJ program in light of this capability gap. 

Biostatic protective clothing 

The budget request contained $1.0 million in PE 48011F for agile 

combat support, but included no funds for development of biostatic 

protective clothing. 

The committee understands that the capabilities of biostatic protective clothing include a thermally efficient wicking concept made 

with an extruded continuous filament yarn which has the potential 

for superior moisture management. The committee is aware that 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
217 

early biostatic protective clothing prototypes have been tested and 

found to resolve some shortcomings associated with clothing used 

by those military personnel currently deployed to combat theaters 

of operation. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $3.9 million in PE 

48011F, an increase of $2.9 million for biostatic protective clothing. 

C–130 airlift squadrons 

The budget request contained $248.3 million in PE 41115F for 

C–130 development programs, but included no funds for development of the automated inspection, repair, corrosion and aircraft 

tracking (AIRCAT) system. 

The AIRCAT system develops tools for collection and analysis of 

data for the purpose of instituting a condition-based maintenance 

(CBM) program on the C–130 aircraft. The committee understands 

CBM techniques are used in many aviation activities because they 

improve fleet maintenance planning and management, improve 

safety through a better awareness of flight worthiness, and reduce 

total ownership costs. The committee notes that Congress appropriated $2.5 million for the AIRCAT system for fiscal year 2006, 

and believes that this program should be continued. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $255.4 million in PE 

41115F for C–130 development programs, an increase of $7.1 million for the AIRCAT system. 

Combatant commanders’ integrated command and control system 

The budget request contained $50.9 million in PE 35906F for the 

combatant commanders’ integrated command and control system 

(CCIC2S). 

The committee believes that the modernization and integration of 

the command and control systems at Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado 

is critical to adequately support the North American Aerospace Defense Command, U.S. Northern Command, and U.S. Strategic Command. However, the committee is aware of management deficiencies in the program that are resulting in a significant cost overrun and an undefined delivery schedule. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

maintain essential operation and maintenance activities, and limit 

future investment to only the developmental activities deemed essential to national security needs. Prior to proceeding with further 

development, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Department of Defense (DOD) approves an acquisition approach that designates the program as a major automated 

information system. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by March 1, 2007, to the congressional defense committees that includes an affordability assessment to demonstrate that the program’s resource estimates will be 

available and realistic in terms of DOD’s overall long-range modernization priorities and investment plans, an economic analysis 

that assesses the lifecycle costs and benefits of the program, and 

an independent estimate of program lifecycle cost. 

The committee recommends no funding in PE 35906F for 

CCIC2S, a decrease of $50.9 million. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
218 

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit program 

The budget request contained $0.2 million in PE 64740F for development of integrated command and control applications, but included no funds for the distributed mission interoperability toolkit 

(DMIT) program. 

The DMIT is a suite of software tools that enables on-demand, 

trusted, interoperability among and between air mission command, 

control, communication, computer and intelligence (C4I) systems 

and mission simulator models. The committee understands that the 

DMIT program leverages best practices from the commercial sector 

including the use of open architectures, existing and emerging web 

standards, and state-of-the-art technologies to provide a more efficient translation of air mission tasks from C4I systems into a format compatible with mission simulator formats. The committee 

notes that Congress appropriated an increase of $5.0 million in fiscal year 2006 for this purpose, and believes that the DMIT program should be continued in fiscal year 2007. Accordingly, the committee recommends $5.2 million in PE 64740F, an increase of $5.0 million for continuation of the DMIT 

program. 

Engineering tool improvement program 

The budget request contained $106.1 million in PE 62500F for 

multi-disciplinary space technology, but included no funding for the 

engineering tool improvement program (ETIP). 

The committee notes Congress has appropriated funding for the 

ETIP since fiscal year 2003. The ETIP effort provides the Air Force 

Research Laboratory with the ability to rapidly assess system viability and mission suitability by performing design and analysis of 

aerospace vehicles and propulsion technologies during the design 

phase. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

62500F for ETIP. 

High accuracy network determination system 

The budget request contained $6.0 million in PE 63444F Maui 

space surveillance system, but included no funds for the high accuracy network determination system (HANDS). 

The committee believes that low cost, innovative technologies are 

needed to address critical space situational awareness needs and 

notes that HANDS research is leading to a networked, operationally secure, multi-sensor system, which could obtain highly accurate observations of space objects and reduce the potential for collisions of space objects by reducing errors in the current space-object 

maintenance catalog. The committee recommends $11.0 million for PE 63444F, an increase of $5.0 million for HANDS. 

High modulus polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber 

The budget request contained $111.1 million in PE 62102F for 

materials, but included no funds for high modulus polyacrylonitrile 

(PAN) carbon fiber. 

The committee notes that high modulus PAN carbon fiber research and development is in line with and supportive of the Air 

Force’s initiatives for advanced composite parts development and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
219 

carbon fiber sourcing. High modulus PAN carbon fiber is in demand by composite manufacturers for the production of military 

aircraft, as well as components of missiles and satellites where 

there is a need for material stiffness at a relatively low weight. 

Currently only one manufacturer of high modulus PAN carbon 

fiber exists and is located overseas. The committee urges the Department of Defense to secure a domestic-based manufacturer of 

high modulus PAN carbon fiber. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in PE 62102F for the development and certification of a domesticbased manufacturer of high modulus PAN carbon fiber. 

Human systems integration 

The budget request included $92.9 million in PE 62202F for 

human effectiveness applied research, but contained no funding for 

improved performance research integration (IMPRINT). 

The committee supports further development of IMPRINT in 

support of the airman performance integration (AIRPRINT) program and in conjunction with other Department of Defense human 

systems integration efforts. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in PE 62202F for IMPRINT to further develop human systems integration modeling throughout the Department. 

Interactive avionics roadmap 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 72239F for avionics 

component improvement programs, and other program elements included no funds for development of the interactive avionics roadmap. 

The interactive avionics roadmap is a tool that provides program 

managers with real-time, internet web-based data that is used to 

continually monitor and forecast program requirements. The interactive avionics roadmap would enable program managers to monitor changes as they occur and implement mitigation alternatives 

as required on a real-time basis. The committee understands that 

existing roadmap documents are heavily manpower dependent, and 

are subject to degradation as changes in program requirements are 

encountered; and the committee believes that the use of interactive 

avionics roadmaps would automate data feeds, reduce costs for avionics systems, and enhance the ability of program managers to 

more proactively manage and prioritize budgets based on more upto-date system requirements. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $2.0 million in PE 72239F, 

an increase of $2.0 million for development of the interactive avionics roadmap. 

Joint advanced global strike demonstration 

The budget request contained $14.7 million in PE 65860F for the 

Rocket Systems Launch program, but included no funds for prompt 

global strike development. 

The committee notes that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review 

called for improved capability for prompt, conventional global 

strike. The committee is aware that U.S. Strategic Command has 

approved the concept of a joint advanced global strike (JAGS) demonstration that would use ballistic missile boosters currently in the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
220 

inventory, as vehicles for a new land-based prompt global strike capability. The committee notes that the Rocket Systems Launch program can use its excess ballistic missile assets to develop a landbased prompt conventional global strike capability. The committee recommends $26.7 million in PE 65860F, an increase of $12.0 million for the JAGS demonstration program. 

Joint strike fighter development 

The budget request contained $2.0 billion in PE 64800F for the 

Department of the Air Force’s development of the joint strike fighter (JSF), also known as the F–35, but included no funds for research and development of a second aircraft tire source for the JSF 

and other existing combat aircraft, or for development of an alternate JSF engine. The committee notes that the budget request also 

includes $2.0 billion in PE 64800N for the Department of the 

Navy’s development of JSF. 

The committee understands that aircraft tires are a high-demand, critical component needed to sustain high military operational tempos, and believes that a second JSF tire source should 

be established in the United States to ensure that a reliable and 

sustainable source of aircraft tires are available to meet requirements for the JSF and other aircraft. Consequently, the committee 

recommends an increase of $1.5 million for research and development of a second tire source for the JSF and other existing combat 

aircraft. The committee expects that these funds will be used for 

the development of advanced reinforced materials and new materials for combat aircraft tires. 

The JSF alternate engine program is developing the F136 engine 

which would provide an alternative to the currently-planned F135 

engine. In the committee report (H. Rept. 109–89) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Report for Fiscal Year 2006, 

the committee expressed its belief that a two-engine source for the 

single-engine JSF would be the most cost effective and operationally effective engine solution during the JSF’s service life, and is 

disappointed that the budget request did not include funds for development of an alternate JSF engine beyond fiscal year 2006. During a hearing held by the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 

Forces on March 16, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics testified, ‘‘While the benefits of 

a second supplier are undeniable, our judgment is that those benefits are not worth the substantial financial cost of a second supplier.’’ To confirm those judgments, the committee requested that 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) witness at the hearing 

review and report on the Department of Defense’s analysis that resulted in the judgment to terminate the JSF alternate engine program. On April 12, 2006, the GAO witness reported to the committee that the ‘‘Department of Defense’s quantitative analysis focuses only on potential savings for engine acquisition and does not 

appear to fully examine potential savings that may be possible 

when competition exists for providing support for maintenance and 

operations over the lifecycle of the engine.’’ The committee concurs 

with GAO’s observation, and believes that the JSF alternate engine 

program should continue until the Department of Defense fully 

analyzes potential costs and savings resulting from competition 

over the JSF engine’s lifecycle. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
221 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $408.0 

million to continue the JSF alternate engine program for fiscal year 

2007. Additionally, the committee recommends a provision (section 

211) that would require that the Department of the Navy and the 

Department of the Air Force obligate not less than $408.0 million, 

of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the system development and demonstration program for the Joint Strike Fighter, for 

continued development of an alternate engine for the Joint Strike 

Fighter. The committee also recommends a provision (section 215) 

that would require both the Secretary of Defense, acting through 

the Department of Defense Cost Analysis Improvement Group, and 

the Comptroller General to conduct independent analyses of the 

JSF alternate engine program and provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2007. 

In total, the committee recommends $2.4 billion in PE 64800F for 

the Department of the Air Force’s portion of JSF development, an 

increase of $409.5 million. 

KC–135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program 

The budget request contained $203.9 million in PE 41221F for 

the KC–135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program (KC–

X). 

The committee fully supports recapitalization of the KC–135 aerial refueling fleet. The committee notes that a system development 

and design (SDD) contract would not likely be awarded until the 

end of fiscal year 2007, in accordance with the estimated acquisition schedule of the Air Force. Further, Congress appropriated 

$100.0 million in fiscal year 2005 for the Tanker Replacement 

Transfer Fund, and $97.8 million in fiscal year 2006 for the KC–

X program, of which only $10.2 million has been obligated thus far. 

The committee understands that approximately $70.0 million is required to execute an SDD contract in fiscal year 2007. The committee believes the unobligated balance of $187.6 million should be 

sufficient to support funding requirements for the KC–X program 

in fiscal year 2007. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $152.4 million in PE 

41221F, a decrease of $51.5 million for the KC–X program. 

Large aircraft countermeasures system for AC–130U aircraft 

The budget request contained $34.9 million in PE 41134F for development and integration of the large aircraft countermeasures 

(LAIRCM) system on various airlift and tanker aircraft, but included no funds to integrate the LAIRCM system on the AC–130U 

aircraft. 

The AC–130U is a heavily-armed aircraft which uses side-firing 

weapons integrated with sensor, navigation, and fire control systems to provide precise firepower for close air support, air interdiction and force protection missions. The LAIRCM system, which is 

planned for integration on various airlift and tanker aircraft, provides a capability to detect, track, jam and counter incoming surface-to-air, infra-red guided missiles. The committee notes that the 

Air Force Chief of Staff has included the integration of the 

LAIRCM system on the Air Force Special Operations Command’s 

(AFSOC) HC–130 and MC–130 aircraft among his top unfunded 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
222 

priorities for fiscal year 2007, and believes that the LAIRCM system should be integrated into AFSOC’s AC–130U fleet. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $49.9 million in PE 

41134F, an increase of $15.0 million to integrate the LAIRCM system on the AC–130U aircraft. 

Laser peening fatigue life extension 

The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 78011F for 

various manufacturing technology programs, but included no funds 

for testing, demonstration, and evaluation of laser peening technology for military aircraft landing gear. 

The committee understands that the laser peening process has 

the potential to strengthen metals thereby extending the life and 

improving the fatigue strength, while also providing increased resistance to corrosion and cracking. The committee further understands that the laser peening process is used in the commercial 

aviation industry and has shown promise in improving the fatigue 

strength of commercial aircraft landing gear. Based on commercial 

experience, the committee believes that the laser peening process 

also has the potential to improve fatigue strength for military landing gear systems. 

Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 

million in PE 78011F for the testing, demonstration and evaluation 

of laser peening technology as a metal fatigue prevention tool to extend the life of military aircraft landing gear. 

Low emission hybrid electric engine propulsion 

The budget request contained $10.6 million in PE 78611F for 

support systems development, but included no funds for the testing 

of low emission and fuel efficient hybrid electric engine propulsion 

systems for Air Force heavy tactical wheeled vehicles such as aviation refueling trucks. 

The committee is aware that existing Air Force aviation refueling 

trucks operate over short distances in a manner that causes high 

fuel use, high emissions and decreased engine life. The committee 

notes that a first generation hybrid electric vehicle has been delivered to the Air Force for testing and understands this technology 

would potentially deliver a better than 40 percent improvement in 

fuel efficiency. 

The committee recommends $13.6 million in PE 78611F, an increase of $3.0 million for the continued refinement in system development and demonstration of low emission and fuel efficient hybrid 

electric engine propulsion for use by aviation refueling trucks. 

Major test and evaluation investment 

The budget request contained $58.5 million in PE 64759F for 

major test and evaluation investment, but included limited funds 

for acquisition of hardware and software for data management and 

archiving systems for the effective collection, management, distribution, and long-term availability of flight test data. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE 

64759F for an enterprise test data management system at the Air 

Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California, and 

an additional increase of $3.0 million in PE 64759F for hardware 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
223 

and software to improve the flight test ground infrastructure and 

tools at the Air Armament Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. 

Materials 

The budget request contained $111.1 million in PE 62102F for 

materials applied research, but included no funds for research for 

electronic type-specific buckytubes. 

The committee recognizes the national need for electronic typespecific buckytubes for military, intelligence, and homeland security applications. Therefore, the committee believes there is a need 

to ensure the continual improvements of capabilities in these areas. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.4 million in PE 

62102F for development of electronic type-specific buckytubes. 

Measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) visualization 

tools program 

The budget request contained $119.2 million in PE 62702F for 

command, control and communications, but included no funds for 

the measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) visualization tools program. 

The committee notes that the (MASINT) visualization tools program would integrate measurement and signature intelligence into 

existing and future information processing architectures so that information could be managed and displayed in real-time without 

processing delays. 

The committee recommends $125.2 million in PE 62702F, an increase of $6.0 million for the accelerated development of the 

MASINT visualization tools program. 

Metals affordability initiative 

The budget request included $48.9 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapon systems. 

The committee supports the continued government-industry collaboration provided through the Metals Affordability Initiative, providing significant improvements in the manufacturing of specialty 

metals for aerospace applications for the private and government 

sectors of the aerospace industry. 

The committee recommends an additional $11.3 million in PE 

63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative. 

Nanocrystalline diamond coatings 

The budget request included $111.1 million in PE 62102F for materials applied research and $64.7 million in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology, but included no funds for nanocrystalline 

diamond coatings. 

The committee understands that a nanocrystalline diamond coating has been developed with characteristics that offer increased durability, transparency, and protective characteristics to include 

anti-icing and abrasion protection for aircraft surfaces. 

The committee recommends an additional $2.9 million in PE 

62102F and $2.9 million in PE 63003A for development and application of nanocrystalline coatings on radome and high wear aircraft 

components for testing. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
224 

Operationally responsive space 

The budget request contained $35.6 million in PE 64857F for 

operationally responsive space. 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense recently began developing an affordable, rapid reaction combination 

of spacelift, launch control, and satellites in an effort to provide responsive tactical satellite capabilities to the warfighter. The committee commends this effort and believes that continued pursuit of 

low-cost, responsive tactical capabilities can fill a niche capability 

requested by the warfighter and lead to long-term benefits by advancing technology, enhancing the skills of the space cadre, and 

broadening the space industrial base. The committee recommends $55.6 million in PE 64857F, an increase of $20.0 million for operationally responsive space. 

Radio frequency identification tag rapid adoption initiative, phase 

2 

The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 78011F for industrial preparedness, but contained no funding for the Frequency 

Identification Tag Rapid Adoption Initiative, Phase 2. 

The committee believes that great efficiencies can be gained, and 

more importantly, capability delivered rapidly to the front line 

troops, through a systemic adoption of radio frequency identification tagging within the Department of Defense’s logistics enterprise. Given the disparate logistics systems throughout the Department, no single entity is focused on the system wide adoption of 

this promising technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

78011F for the Radio Frequency Identification Tag Rapid Adoption 

Initiative, Phase 2. 

Small diameter bomb 

The budget request included $224.2 million in PE 64240F for the 

B–2 advanced technology bomber, but contained no funds for the 

integration of the small diameter bomb. 

The committee recognizes the unique attributes of the B–2 bomber as a stealthy, long-range delivery platform and supports further 

development of the fleet as a means to address the evolving nature 

of potential threats. 

The committee recognizes the potential benefit of maintaining a 

long-range delivery system with the capacity to carry heavy and 

medium, as well as relatively lightweight munitions. The committee is encouraged with the potential capabilities of the 250- 

pound small diameter bomb and intrigued with the possibility of 

coupling this technology with the B–2 program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE 64240F to integrate the small diameter bombs aboard 

the B–2 bomber. 

Space-based radar 

The budget request contained $266.4 million in PE 63858F for 

space-based radar. 

The committee is aware that the Executive Agent for Space of 

the Department of Defense is taking steps to restructure the spacebased radar program in order to address concerns about the affordVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
225 

ability of space-based radar, and is evaluating the potential to develop on-orbit demonstration satellites to validate technology maturity and costs. The committee commends the Department for this 

effort and encourages continued progress towards an effective and 

affordable space radar capability. However, the committee believes 

that a 171 percent increase over fiscal year 2006 funded level is unwarranted as the space radar program does not have a finalized development approach or a concept of operations. 

The committee recommends $236.4 million in PE 63858F, a decrease of $30.0 million for space-based radar. 

Space control test capabilities 

The budget request contained $47.3 million in PE 64421F for 

counterspace systems, but contained no funds for space control test 

capabilities (SCTC). 

The committee is aware that the integration of new space control 

systems and requirements into the existing command and control 

architecture requires significant objective analysis in order to optimize systems effectiveness and prevent degradation or failure of 

the command and control infrastructure. The committee believes 

that SCTC provides a method of assessing the effects of loading 

data from newly developed systems into the existing command and 

control infrastructure, thereby providing a test capability prior to 

development of system requirements. 

The committee recommends $52.3 million in PE 64421F, an increase of $5.0 million for space control test capabilities. 

Space technology 

The budget request contained $85.6 million in PE 62601F for 

space technology, but contained no funds for elastic memory composites or for deployable structures for space. 

The committee notes space-qualified elastic memory composite 

materials can significantly improve the reliability of on-orbit spacecraft deployment mechanisms and may enable composite tank 

structures for spacecraft applications. 

The committee believes that continued improvement in spacecraft deployment systems is necessary to achieve the large apertures needed to support enhanced imaging and improved space situational awareness requirements. 

The committee recommends $91.6 million for PE 62601F, an increase of $6.0 million, to include $3.0 million for elastic memory 

composites and $3.0 million for deployable space structures. 

Tactical automated security system advanced communications module 

The budget request contained $0.2 million in PE 63287F for 

physical security equipment, but included no funds for the tactical 

automated security system (TASS) advanced communications module. 

TASS systems are widely deployed by the U.S. Air Force and 

other services supporting current operations and provide both 

physical security and force protection. The committee is aware the 

current communications element of TASS has limited bandwidth 

capability and is subject to obsolescence due to age. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
226 

The committee recommends $3.2 million in PE 63287F, an increase of $3.0 million to complete the development of the TASS advanced communications module. 

Transformational satellite communications system 

The budget request contained $867.1 million in PE 63845F for 

the transformational satellite communications systems (TSAT). 

The committee is aware that the TSAT program has been restructured into a block-build approach that will reduce the complexity and capacity of the first block of satellites in an effort to 

reduce development and integration risk and increase schedule confidence. While the committee believes this restructuring, along with 

budgeting TSAT to 80/20 cost confidence, is appropriate based on 

historical performance of the TSAT program, the committee is concerned that the two-fold increase in the TSAT budget can not be 

prudently executed. 

The committee recommends $787.1 million in PE 63845F, a decrease of $80.0 million for TSAT. 

Winglets for in-service aircraft 

The committee commends the Air Force in its efforts to increase 

aircraft fuel efficiency and decrease fuel consumption. The committee notes that initiatives such as re-engining aircraft, modifying 

in-flight profiles, and revising aircraft ground operations contribute 

to decreased fuel consumption and increased life-cycle savings. 

The committee is aware that winglet technology exists for aircraft to increase fuel efficiency, improve take-off performance, increase cruise altitudes, and increase payload and range capability. 

The committee notes that winglets are currently used on commercial aircraft and result in a five to seven percent increase in fuel 

efficiency. On September 16, 1981, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration released the KC–135 Winglet Program Review on the incorporation of winglets for KC–135 aerial refueling 

aircraft. However, the Air Force concluded that the cost of adding 

winglets to the KC–135 did not provide sufficient payback in fuel 

savings or increased range to justify modification. Although the Air 

Force did conclude that modifying aircraft with winglets could increase fuel efficiency, the Air Force determined that re-engining 

the KC–135 aircraft produced a greater return on investment. The 

committee believes that incorporating winglets on military aircraft 

could increase fuel efficiency on certain platforms and that the Air 

Force should reexamine incorporating this technology onto its platforms. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by 

March 1, 2007, examining the feasibility of modifying Air Force aircraft with winglets. The report shall include a cost comparison 

analysis of the cost of winglet modification compared to the return 

on investment realized over time for each airlift, aerial refueling, 

and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft in the 

Air Force inventory; the market price of aviation fuel at which incorporating winglets would be beneficial for each Air Force platform; all positive and negative impacts to aircraft maintenance and 

flight operations; and investment strategies the Air Force could imVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
227 

plement with commercial partners to minimize Air Force capital investment and maximize investment return. 

DEFENSE-WIDE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $20.8 billion for Defense-wide research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $20.8 billion, a decrease of $46.9 

million to the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
228 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 247 HR452.121
229 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 248 HR452.122
230 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 249 HR452.123
231 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 250 HR452.124
232 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 251 HR452.125
233 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 252 HR452.126
234 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 253 HR452.127
235 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 254 HR452.128
236 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 255 HR452.129
237 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 256 HR452.130
238 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 257 HR452.131
239 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 258 HR452.132
240 

Items of Special Interest 

Accelerated intelligence analyst education and training 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 33140G within the 

information systems security program for intelligence analyst education and training. 

The committee is aware that the defense intelligence community 

needs a new generation of intelligence analysts due to the emergence of new missions and the retirement of older analysts. The 

committee further understands that there are very few colleges and 

universities that provide organized degree programs that can lead 

to intelligence analyst certification in preparation for subsequent 

entry into the defense intelligence analyst career field. The lack of 

such programs is compounded by the lengthy security clearance 

process, making it more challenging to develop a qualified analyst 

pool. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

33140G for the National Security Agency to establish a process to 

identify those college and university curriculums that may lead to 

intelligence analyst certification. The committee also recommends 

this funding be used to identify those security clearance eligible 

students enrolled in such programs who may also be interested in 

pursuing a career as an intelligence analyst. 

Advanced data encryption technology 

The budget request contained $404.3 million in PE 33140G for 

the information systems security program, but included no funding 

for advanced data encryption technology. 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s (DOD) increased emphasis on information assurance programs in the budget 

request, but believes that more should be done to address future 

cyber security threats. The committee is concerned that the proliferation of super computers around the globe renders DOD systems vulnerable to cyber attack, and believes that the Department 

should pursue the development and deployment of polymorphic 

encryption and decryption technology to provide for more secure 

computer and data systems. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

33140G for the development of the polymorphic encryption and detection protocol. 

Advanced SEAL Delivery System 

The budget request contained $32.5 million in PE 1160426BB for 

advanced SEAL delivery systems development, but included no 

funds for a new design competition. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense recently cancelled the advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS) due to 

its performance and reliability to date. The committee believes a 

new design competition will ensure that the most current technologies are incorporated into future ASDS designs and will provide valuable information for future decisions regarding the ASDS 

program. 

The committee recommends $42.5 million in PE 1160426BB for 

advanced SEAL delivery systems development, an increase of $10.0 

million for a new design competition. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
241 

Advanced surface radar technologies 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 63720S for advanced surface radar technologies (ASuRT). 

The ASuRT program will focus on the development and adaptation of electronic components for application in the Navy’s nextgeneration surface ship radar systems. The committee notes that 

future theater air and missile defense (TAMD) radar systems for 

next- generation surface ships must be modular and scalable, have 

a designed-in growth path for technology insertion upgrades, and 

must include major improvements over current radar systems in 

power, sensitivity and cost. 

To support these requirements, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 63720S and encourages the Defense 

Microelectronics Activity organization to focus on the development 

of lower cost, modular and open architecture radar components for 

use in future TAMD radar systems. 

Advanced tactical laser program 

The budget request contained $80.4 million in PE 1160402BB for 

special operations advanced technology development, including 

$45.0 million for the advanced tactical laser advanced concept technology demonstration (ATL ACTD). 

The committee has previously expressed concern with the ATL 

ACTD program but recognizes that funding in the fiscal year 2007 

budget allows a full test of the integrated system and completion 

of the ACTD. 

Therefore, the committee recommends that no change be made to the budget request of $45.0 million for the completion of the ATL 

ACTD. The committee makes it clear that this funding completes 

the ATL ACTD and that no further funding will be provided past 

fiscal year 2007. 

Ballistic missile defense 

The budget request contained $9.3 billion for the ballistic missile 

defense programs of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 

The committee supports the more cautious, measured approach 

to missile defense testing arising out of the Independent Review 

Team recommendations and standup of the Mission Readiness 

Task Force in 2005. While the committee understands that the spiral development strategy employed by the Department of Defense 

(DOD) for ballistic missile defense (BMD) is appropriate to the research and development nature of the BMD program elements, the 

committee also notes that rigorous testing that leads to fielding of 

operational systems should take priority over future block research 

and development efforts. 

A March 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled, ‘‘Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial Capability but Falls 

Short of Original Goals,’’ is critical of several fundamental manage- ment processes within the MDA, and cites costs overruns at $458.0 

million in fiscal year 2005, with Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

(GMD) accounting for $365.0 million of this overrun, as well as a 

failure to meet program goals for many program elements. The report states that while both the Airborne Laser (ABL) and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) programs follow a knowledge-based 

strategy, the GMD program has not. The GMD program is perVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
242 

mitted by the Department to concurrently mature technology, complete design activities, and produce and field assets before end-toend testing of the GMD system. The GAO report finds that the failure to require this knowledge-based strategy of the GMD program 

has resulted in poor quality control, cost overruns, and inability to 

achieve performance goals. 

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

implement a knowledge-based acquisition strategy for all Ballistic 

Missile Defense System (BMDS) program elements, which the committee understands is consistent with the DOD’s acquisition regulations. The committee agrees with GAO’s findings that BMDS program elements would benefit from the more detailed knowledgebased review conducted by other DOD acquisition programs. 

The committee also agrees with certain aspects of GAO’s report, 

which questions whether MDA’s current two-year block strategy is 

compatible with the knowledge-based development strategy. While 

stopping short of directing the Department to restructure the twoyear block organization of BMDS elements, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to conduct a detailed review of the knowledge-based strategy in the context of the existing two-year block organization of BMDS elements, and report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2007, the findings and recommendations of this review. This report shall specifically assess whether 

there are changes that need to be made to the two-year block organization to more appropriately reflect wider application of knowledge-based strategies as has been utilized in the restructuring of 

the ABL and KEI programs. 

The committee recommends a reallocation of the request to focus 

on testing and fielding of near-term capability ballistic missile defense elements while deferring more long-term efforts. The committee recommends $9.1 billion, a decrease of $183.5 

million for BMD programs of the Missile Defense Agency. 

Aegis ballistic missile defense 

The budget request contained $1.0 billion in PE 63892C for Aegis 

ballistic missile defense (BMD). 

The committee is encouraged by the Aegis BMD program performance and overall cost/schedule performance. The committee 

understands that budget constraints have reduced planned SM–3 

interceptor procurement, thereby delaying SM–3 interceptor deployment to Aegis BMD platforms. 

The committee recommends $1.1 billion in PE 63892C for Aegis 

BMD, an increase of $40.0 million, to include: $10.0 million for continued S-band advanced radar algorithm work for missile defense 

applications, $10.0 million for Aegis open architecture program acceleration, and $20.0 million to increase the SM–3 production rate 

from two per month to four per month. 

Boost defense segment 

The budget request contained $631.6 million in PE 63883C for 

boost phase defense. 

The committee notes that the Airborne Laser (ABL) program 

achieved several significant milestones in 2005, including the successful System Integration Laboratory laser long run performance 

test and is scheduled to conduct a lethal demonstration in calendar 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
243 

year 2008. While the ABL program still faces risks associated with 

cutting-edge technology, the committee believes that the potential 

benefits to national security of a successful lethal demonstration 

warrant continued program support. The committee notes with approval the knowledge point-based foundation for the ABL program. The committee recommends $631.6 million for PE 63883C, the 

amount of the budget request. 

Core 

The budget request contained $473.1 million in PE 63890C for 

ballistic missile defense systems (BMDS) core. 

The committee is concerned with the results of a March 2006 Department of Defense Inspector General report finding weaknesses 

in the Missile Defense Agency’s systems engineering plans and 

processes. The committee is particularly concerned with the report’s finding that the Aegis missile defense system, an element of 

the BMDS that has achieved success in actual intercept tests and 

that is being fielded and deployed now, lacks an approved systems 

engineering plan. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007, stating the specific deficiencies in the Aegis systems 

engineering plan and the required corrective action. The committee recommends $483.1 million in PE 63890C, an increase of $10.0 million for additional support for the Aegis missile 

defense system information assurance and systems engineering integration efforts. 

Midcourse defense segment 

The budget request contained $2.9 billion in PE 63882C for ballistic missile defense (BMD) midcourse defense segment. 

The committee supports the restructured Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) testing program following the recommendations of the Independent Review Team and the new charter from 

the Mission Readiness Task Force. As in previous years, the committee continues to urge the Director of the Missile Defense Agency 

to focus on robust testing of near-term block capabilities even 

where that means deferring work on future blocks. As noted above, 

the committee shares the concerns of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in their March 2006 report, ‘‘Missile Defense 

Agency Fields Initial Capability but Falls Short of Original Goals,’’

that the rush to deploy GMD capabilities while concurrently developing future blocks has negatively impacted the program. In order 

to sustain the current fielded system, the committee recommends 

an increase of $20.0 million to support concurrent test and operations of the existing block 2004/2006 capability. 

The committee notes that the budget request contained $354.9 

million for block 2008 development, including the development and 

testing of new and evolving BMD systems technologies. The budget 

request specifically referenced Block 2008 efforts that will include 

enhanced exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) and sea-based X-band 

radar capabilities, and additional GMD fire control capabilities and 

countermeasures mitigation. While the committee understands that 

investing in future capabilities is integral to a spiral development 

program, the committee also believes it is premature to spend 

funds on future technology development when the initial block 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
244 

2004/2006 capability is yet to be tested in a successful end-to-end 

flight intercept test. While the committee recommends authorization of the requested $354.9 million for GMD Block 2008 development, the committee also withholds $200.0 million of the request 

until 30 days after receiving certification from the Secretary of Defense that the planned FTG–04 and FTG–05 intercept tests referenced in the March 17, 2006, GMD corrected testing schedule forwarded to the committee have met their test objectives. In the 

event that these tests objectives are not met, the committee directs 

the Secretary to report to the congressional defense committees 

within 30 days of the completion of these intercept tests as to 

whether the remaining block 2008 funds should be reallocated for 

additional testing of the block 2004/2006 configuration. The committee notes that the budget request contained $118.9 million for block 2010, including $55.8 million for the third site in 

Europe, and $63.1 million for long-lead items for European site 

interceptors. The committee believes it is premature to invest in 

the third site until the existing block 2004/2006 GMD configuration 

successfully completes integrated end-to-end testing. Accordingly, 

the committee authorizes no funds for the third site. With respect 

to long-lead procurement of third site interceptors, the committee 

authorizes $63.1 million, the amount of the request, to initiate 

long-lead procurement for interceptors 41–50 understanding that 

these interceptors could be available for use as assets at either the 

Fort Greeley, Alaska, or Vandenberg, California GMD sites. 

The committee is concerned with reports of GMD costs overruns, $365.0 million was reported by the GAO in the March 2006 report, 

as well as with problems GAO noted with the EKV. The committee 

urges the Department of Defense to swiftly address these issues 

with contractor performance. The committee recommends $2.8 billion in PE 63882C, a decrease of $35.8 million for the midcourse defense segment. 

Multiple kill vehicle 

The budget request contained $165.0 million in PE 63894C for 

the Multiple Kill Vehicle program. 

The committee notes that the request is triple the amount of 

funding in fiscal year 2006 and is for a program that would support 

the ballistic missile defense system program no earlier than 2010. 

The committee believes the amount of the request to be excessive 

for a program that is oriented for block 2010 prior to successful 

demonstration of the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle technology resident in the block 2004/2006 Ground-based Midcourse Defense configurations. 

The committee recommends $100.0 million, a decrease of $65.0 

million in PE 63894C for the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, and 

encourages the Department of Defense to focus on risk reduction 

for critical technologies. 

System interceptor 

The budget request contained $405.5 million in PE 63886C for 

system interceptor. 

The committee notes that in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), the conferees stated 

that the Department of Defense had designated the Airborne Laser 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
245 

(ABL) program as the primary boost phase defense and that the 

system interceptor, or Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program, 

represented a risk-mitigation strategy should ABL fail to perform 

as expected. The conferees directed that fiscal year 2006 funding 

for the program be focused on reducing high-technology challenges. 

The committee understands that future funding profiles have resulted in shifting the system interceptor from a 2012 to 2014 capability and that the Department is also exploring use of the interceptor in midcourse defense scenarios. 

The committee is concerned with the affordability of pursuing 

both the ABL and KEI programs in parallel through the projected 

2008 knowledge point demonstrations. Given that ABL is the primary boost phase defense program and that the KEI capability is 

not scheduled to be fielded until the 2014 time-frame, the committee believes that the KEI program should focus on only those 

critical technology efforts that support the 2008 booster demonstration. Any long-term efforts not directly associated with the 2008 

booster tests should be deferred until a decision is made on the future of both the ABL and KEI programs. The committee recommends $305.5 million in PE 63886C, a decrease of $100.0 million for the system interceptor program, and directs that the KEI program focus its priority on the 2008 booster 

demonstration. 

Technology 

The budget request contained $206.7 million in PE 63175C for 

ballistic missile defense (BMD) technology. 

The committee notes that the BMD technology request includes $40.7 million for the High Altitude Airship (HAA); however, the 

HAA program did not meet its weight or advanced concept technology demonstration criteria last year. The committee also notes 

that the request states that the benefit to the ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) is for potential use as a sensor and communications and/or weapons platform without any greater connection 

to a specific BMDS element. The committee does not view the HAA 

program as an essential element of the BMDS system. 

The committee recommends no funding for the HAA program. 

The committee provides an additional $8.0 million in PE 63175C 

for the Net-Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) to continue the NCADE risk-mitigation program that commenced in fiscal year 2006. 

The committee recommends $173.9 million in PE 63175C for 

BMD technology, a decrease of $32.7 million. 

Biological warfare defense 

The budget request contained $112.2 million in PE 62383E for 

biological warfare defense applied research, but included no funds 

for the development of asymmetrical protocols to enhance biological 

defense capabilities. 

The committee notes that there are a number of biological agents 

that could, with the appropriate development and weaponization, 

be used in biological warfare and terrorist attack. Yet, developing 

specific protections against all possible biological agents is not feasible. The cost of developing one new medicine is currently estimated at $800.0 million and the average development time is 10 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
246 

to 15 years. As a result, the committee believes there is a need for 

therapeutics that would provide broad spectrum protection against 

a range of possible biological agents, necessitating research in approaches for enhancing individual non-specific immunities and 

blocking pathogens to a degree commensurate with the biological 

warfare threat. 

The committee recommends $124.2 million in PE 62383E for biological warfare defense, an increase of $12.0 million for asymmetrical protocols for biological defense enhancement. 

Business transformation agency 

The budget request contained $140.2 million in PE 65020BTA for 

the research and development activities of the Business Transformation Agency (BTA). 

The committee supports the mission of the agency, but believes 

that a new agency such as BTA will not be able to effectively execute this funding. 

The committee recommends $190.2 million in PE 65020BTA, a 

decrease of $50.0 million for the Business Transformation Agency. 

Chemical-biological collective protective shelters 

The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but contained no 

funds for low-cost collective protection shelters. 

The committee continues to support efforts to improve collective 

protection against chemical and biological agents. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in PE 62384BP for low-cost collective protection shelters. 

Chemical and biological defense program 

The committee recommends continuation of the chemical and biological basic research, applied research, and advanced technology 

development initiatives established in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375). These initiatives would provide opportunities for emerging technologies and concepts to compete for funding on the basis 

of technical merit and on the contribution that such technologies 

could make to the chemical and biological defense capabilities of 

the armed forces and to homeland defense. 

The committee also notes that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review recommended an investment of more than $1.5 billion over 

the next five years to develop broad-spectrum medical countermeasures against advanced bio-terror threats, referred to as the 

Transformational Medical Technology Initiative (TMTI). This is an 

ambitious program, for which initial efforts began in late fiscal 

year 2006. While the committee supports both TMTI and the concept of broad-spectrum medical countermeasures, the committee is 

concerned that the supporting technologies identified in fiscal year 

2006 will not be sufficiently mature in fiscal year 2007 to execute 

the funding proposed in the President’s request for related applied 

research and advanced technology development. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
247 

Advanced technology development 

The budget request contained $207.1 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological warfare defense advanced technology development. 

The committee recommends that the technologies to be considered for funding under the chemical and biological advanced technology development initiative, would include, but would not be limited to the following: 

(1) Antioxidant micronutrient therapeutic countermeasures 

for chemical agents; and 

(2) Advanced technologies for biological and chemical agent 

detection sensor systems. 

The committee recommends $197.1 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense, an increase of $10.0 million for the 

chemical and biological advanced technology development initiative 

and a decrease of $20.0 million for the Transformational Medical 

Technology Initiative. 

Applied research 

The budget request contained $280.4 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological warfare defense applied research. 

The committee recommends that the technologies to be considered for funding under the chemical and biological applied research 

initiative, would include, but would not be limited to the following: 

(1) Novel vaccine/therapeutic delivery means, particularly 

for recombinant protein vaccines; 

(2) Multipurpose biodefense immunoarrays and diagnostic 

tools; 

(3) Self-decontaminating polymer-based coatings for fabrics 

and other substrates; and 

(4) Novel prophylaxis/therapeutics effective against biological warfare agents. 

The committee recommends an increase in PE 62384BP of $20.0 

million for the chemical and biological applied research initiative 

and a decrease of $30.0 million in PE 62384BP for the Transformational Medical Technology Initiative. 

Basic research 

The budget request contained $99.2 million in PE 61384BP for 

chemical and biological warfare defense basic research. 

The committee recommends that the technologies to be considered for funding under the chemical and biological basic research 

initiative, would include, but would not be limited to the following: 

(1) Mismatch repair technology for the development of 

human antibodies for prophylactic and therapeutic treatments; 

and 

(2) Superstructural particle evaluation and characterization 

with targeted reaction analysis of emerging prophylactics for 

chemical and biological agent protection. 

The committee recommends $109.2 million in PE 61384BP for 

chemical and biological defense, an increase of $10.0 million for the 

chemical and biological basic research initiative. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
248 

Combating terrorism technology support 

The budget request contained $65.8 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

combating terrorism technology support, but included no funds for 

additional prototypes of technologies for which the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) and its international partners have 

previously invested. 

The committee recommends TSWG support the development of a 

limited number of additional prototypes of the following systems for 

more rapid military utility evaluation: (1) SHIELD, (2) COLD 

FIRE, (3) Wall Street, and (4) Muzzle Flash Detection System. 

The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE 

63122D8Z for cooperative research, development, and prototyping. 

Generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations 

The budget request contained $23.4 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations, but included no funds for the expansion of the Connectory 

program for rapid identification of technology sources for the Department of Defense (DOD), for the emerging critical interconnection technology program, or for vacuum-aided mobility packing 

technology. 

The committee notes that the Department needs access to the 

best available technologies from all sources, especially small and 

medium size companies not normally accessed by the defense acquisition process. The committee encourages the Defense Logistics 

Agency to: 

(1) Expand Connectory profiles to include detailed sources 

for high-priority DOD required products and services; 

(2) Collaborate with DOD agencies and other government organizations having databases of technology products in order 

to test the feasibility of linking the Connectory to these other 

data sources; and 

(3) Explore ways to allow small companies to obtain firsttime business with the Department using the Connectory program. 

The committee also notes that printed circuit boards are fundamental components of military navigation, guidance and control, 

electronic warfare, missile, and surveillance and communications 

equipment. Printed circuit boards for military systems have unique 

design requirements for high performance, high reliability, and the 

ability to operate under extreme environmental conditions that require the use of high density, highly rugged, and highly reliable 

interconnection technology. Moreover, the commercial printed circuit board industry focuses on the design and high-volume production of low-cost boards and the United States has lost much of its 

printed circuit board manufacturing capability to overseas sources. 

The committee recognizes the need to enhance the United States’

capability for development and production of high density, highly 

reliable printed circuit boards for use in U.S. military systems. 

Finally, the committee understands vacuum-aided mobility packing technology may provide considerable benefits for transporting 

troop supplies. The committee is aware that such technology may 

provide significant improvements in weight, space, and handling 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
249 

requirements and may facilitate more efficient utilization of military lift assets. 

The committee recommends $34.4 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations, an increase of $1.0 million for the Connectory program for 

rapid identification of technology sources for the Department and 

an increase of $10.0 million for the emerging critical interconnection technology program. The committee also urges the Secretary 

of Defense to explore vacuum-aided mobility packing technology as 

a potential cost saving measure. 

Improved suborbital operations 

The budget request contained $254.9 million in PE 63287E for 

space programs and technology, but contained no funds for improved suborbital space operations. 

The committee believes that the design and development of an 

unmanned, reusable suborbital launch vehicle to provide a platform 

for tactical battlefield surveillance, can provide quick reaction, fast 

turnaround, and frequent regional reconnaissance capabilities. 

The committee recommends $259.9 million in PE 63287E, an increase of $5.0 million for improved suborbital space operations. 

Joint training transformation 

The budget request contained $72.9 million in PE 63757D8Z for 

joint training transformation, but included no funds for the development of a joint simulation capability for linking campaign analysis to warfighter mission rehearsal. The committee recommends 

the Department of Defense capitalize on the joint infrastructure 

and connectivity built into the Joint Warfare System (JWARS) simulation program to expand into complementary mission space 

areas, by linking in-theater tools to campaign analysis capabilities 

and database providers in the continental United States. 

The committee recommends $76.9 million in PE 63757D8Z for 

joint training transformation, an increase of $4.0 million for joint 

simulation for linking campaign analysis to warfighter mission rehearsal. 

Office of force transformation 

The budget request contained $20.4 million in PE 66799D8Z for 

the Office of Force Transformation, including unspecified funding 

for the Project Sheriff initiative, but included no funds for the tactical re-directed energy technology initiative. 

The committee notes that the Project Sheriff initiative meets a 

validated and approved urgent operational need to provide combat 

commanders with more options for dealing with the chaos of urban 

operations. Project Sheriff is a combat system that incorporates a 

unique blend of lethal and non-lethal capabilities that have never 

before been integrated together into a single vehicle. 

The tactical re-directed energy technology initiative intends to 

quickly develop an experimental prototype that can be rapidly 

fielded to gain new insights into the use of directed energy at the 

tactical level. The committee notes that this initiative focuses on 

targeting those who lay improvised explosive devises (IEDs) rather 

than the IEDs themselves. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
250 

The committee recommends $30.4 million in PE 66799D8Z, an 

increase of $10.0 million, $5.0 million for the Project Sheriff initiative and $5.0 million for the tactical re-directed energy initiative 

program. 

Special operations advanced technology development 

The budget request contained $80.4 million in PE 1160402BB for 

special operations advanced technology development, but included 

no funds for special operations modular computing technology, for 

the surveillance augmentation vehicle-insertable on request (SAVIOR) system, or for Foxhound Arabic software. 

The committee understands that U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is currently procuring non-ruggedized modular 

personal computers and that the Naval Postgraduate School’s Coalition and Operating Area Surveillance and Targeting System 

(COASTS) plans to further develop the modular personal computer 

application to broader configurations. Additional funds would allow 

the development of a ruggedized version of the modular PC. 

The committee understands that the SAVIOR system is a mobile, 

intelligent sensor suite that can alert ground forces to the presence 

of a threat with its intensive surveillance network. SAVIOR meets 

USSOCOM’s need for a rapidly configurable, highly mobile sensor 

and command and control platform. 

The committee understands that Foxhound Arabic transliteration 

and genealogical search software provides USSOCOM with enhanced capability to conduct automated transliteration and linkanalysis key to counter-terrorism operations. The software is currently being used at headquarters level and further funding would 

provide the capability to operator levels. The committee recommends $92.9 million in PE 1160402BB for 

special operations advanced technology development, an increase of 

$5.0 million for special operations modular computing technology, 

an increase of $3.5 million for development of the SAVIOR system 

and an increase of $4.0 million for Foxhound Arabic software. 

Special operations forces operational enhancements 

The budget request contained $99.0 million in PE 1160408BB for 

special operations forces (SOF) operational enhancements, but included no funds for miniaturized tracking devices. The committee 

understands that these devices provide SOF the ability to successfully track and monitor high value targets. 

The committee recommends $106.0 million in PE 1160408BB for 

SOF operational enhancements, an increase of $7.0 million for miniaturized tracking devices. 

Special operations intelligence systems development 

The budget request contained $29.0 million in PE 1160405BB for 

special operations (SO) intelligence systems development, but included no funds for the U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) joint meteorological and oceanographic (METOC) program. The joint METOC program provides USSOCOM with 

deployable sensors to measure weather conditions and other environmental and situational parameters. The joint METOC program 

would further develop an air-droppable version and would meet requirements for additional measurement capabilities. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
251 

The committee recommends $34.0 million in PE 1160405BB for 

SO intelligence systems development, an increase of $5.0 million 

for the joint METOC program. 

Special operations tactical systems development 

The budget request contained $45.3 million in PE 1160404BB for 

special operations tactical systems development, but contained no 

funds for the special operations forces (SOF) combat assault rifle 

(SCAR) or for Dominant Vision, and only $1.4 million for covert 

wave packet modulation (WPM). 

The committee understands that SCAR will replace five different 

weapons systems currently used by SOF and that low rate initial 

production will support milestone C final validation for inclusion of 

SCAR in U.S. Special Operations Command’s (USSOCOM) 2008 

program objective memorandum. 

The committee understands that Dominant Vision enhances 

USSOCOM’s capability to conduct special operations by enhancing 

aircrew’s situational awareness and ability to locate, identify and 

engage targets. Additional funding would continue development of 

spectral targeting, integrated defense capability, and ground station capability, and would integrate and test the digital sensor recorder. 

The committee understands that covert WPM waveform modules 

will be embedded into USSOCOM communication, networked 

threat warning and networked sensor systems that are critical to 

the safety and covertness of special operations missions. The effort 

will develop a new joint tactical radio system-compliant covert communication capability with embedded positive threat identification. 

The committee recommends $58.3 million in PE 1160404BB for 

special operations tactical systems development, an increase of $4.1 

million for the SOF combat assault rifle, an increase of $4.5 million 

for Dominant Vision, and an increase of $4.4 million for covert 

WPM waveform modules. 

Special operations technology development 

The budget request contained $12.7 million in PE 1160401BB for 

special operations technology development, but included no funds 

for AngelFire and no funds for Global Observer. 

The AngelFire program is derived from the full-spectrum active 

protection close-in layered shield (FCLAS) to protect special operations forces’ assets from rocket propelled grenades by using 

counter munitions. The committee understands that AngelFire will 

provide increased protection to lightly protected aircraft and vehicles operating in hostile environments. 

Global Observer promises to fulfill U.S. Special Operations Command’s (USSOCOM) requirements for persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Global Observer will develop a seven 

day endurance, hydrogen-fueled unmanned aircraft system that 

will significantly expand USSOCOM’s ability to identify, track, and 

interdict targets, as well as enhance force protection of U.S. forces. 

The committee recommends $32.7 million in PE 1160401BB for 

special operations technology development, an increase of $10.0 

million for the AngelFire for FCLAS program, and an increase of 

$10.0 million for the Global Observer program. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
252 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview 

The budget request contained $181.5 million for Operational Test 

and Evaluation, Defense. 

The committee recommends $181.5 million, no change to the 

budget request. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would establish the amounts authorized to be appropriated for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007. 

Section 202—Amount for Defense Science and Technology 

This section would establish basic, research, applied research, 

and advanced technology development funding levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211—Alternate Engine for Joint Strike Fighter 

This section would require that the Departments of the Navy and 

the Air Force obligate not less than $408.0 million of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the system development and demonstration program for the Joint Strike Fighter, for continued development of an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. 

Section 212—Extension of Authority To Award Prizes for Advanced 

Technology Achievements 

This section would amend section 2374a of title 10, United States 

Code, to extend the authority of the Director, Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (DARPA), to award prizes for advanced 

technology achievements through September 30, 2010. The Director’s current prize authority would expire on September 30, 2007. 

Section 213—Extension of Defense Acquisition Challenge Program 

This section would amend section 2359b of title 10, United States 

Code, to remove the September 30, 2007, termination clause for the 

Defense Acquisition Challenge Program. This program, established 

as a pilot program, has shown its value to provide opportunities for 

the increased introduction of innovative and cost-saving technology 

in acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. 

This section would also direct the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition Technology and Logistics to ensure that the identity of 

each proposed challenger is not disclosed outside the federal government, without the consent of the challenger. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
253 

Section 214—Future Combat Systems Milestone Review 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

Future Combat Systems (FCS) milestone review, following the preliminary design review, by September 30, 2008. This section would 

also require the Secretary to submit a report on the results of the 

FCS milestone review which will be a go/no-go review of the FCS 

program that is based on its demonstration of a sound business 

case to the congressional defense committees not later than February 13, 2009. 

Section 215—Independent Cost Analyses for Joint Strike Fighter 

Engine Program 

This section would require the Comptroller General and the Secretary of Defense through the Cost Analysis Improvement Group to 

conduct independent cost analyses and provide independent reports 

on alternate engine acquisition strategies for the Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF). The reports would include an analysis of an acquisition strategy resulting in the JSF powered with the F135 engine, 

an acquisition strategy resulting in the JSF powered by either the 

F135 or the F136 engine through a competitive program, or any 

other alternative, whether competitive or sole source, that would 

reduce the total program lifecycle cost, improve program schedule, 

or both. 

Section 216—Dedicated Amounts for Implementing or Evaluating 

DD(X) and CVN–21 Proposals Under Defense Acquisition Challenge Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 

the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program with an additional $4.0 

million to evaluate or implement challenge proposals specifically 

for the DD(X) next-generation destroyer and the CVN–21 next-generation aircraft carrier programs. 

SUBTITLE C—BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 221—Fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities 

This section would allow funds to be authorized to the Secretary 

of Defense for research, development, test, and evaluation for the 

Missile Defense Agency to be used for the development and fielding 

of ballistic missile defense capabilities. 

Section 222—Limitation on Use of Funds for Space Based 

Interceptor 

This section would prevent the Department of Defense from obligating funds for the testing or deployment of a space-based interceptor program until 90 days after submitting a report to Congress 

describing the program and its national security implications. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
254 

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 231—Review of Test and Evaluation Policies and Practices 

To Address Emerging Acquisition Approaches 

This section would amend section 239(b)(2) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to state whether the results of operational test and 

evaluation of major defense acquisition programs confirm that the 

items tested are operationally acceptable under limited conditions. 

Under current law, DOT&E prepares a report at the conclusion of 

operational test and evaluation, stating: (1) whether the test and 

evaluation performed were adequate, and (2) whether the results 

of such test and evaluation confirm that the items tested are effective and suitable for combat. 

The committee is aware that in the Director’s report, DOT&E 

evaluates a system as not operationally effective or suitable for 

combat if the system does not fully meet the Capabilities Development Document (CDD), or similar description of the user’s standards for effectiveness and suitability as reflected in the requirements process. DOT&E has also informally included assessments of 

military utility for mission environments which are less than those 

set forth in the system’s requirements. This section would formalize this valuable analysis by DOT&E to enable reasoned decision making by the combatant commanders and acquisition program managers regarding the fielding of systems which meet some, 

but not all, of the systems’ requirements. 

This section would also require the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), in coordination with DOT&E and the Director of the Defense Test Resource 

Management Center (DTRMC) to review Department of Defense 

test and evaluation (T&E) policies and practices and issue new or 

revised guidance, as necessary, to ensure test and evaluation practices keep pace with emerging acquisition approaches. 

The committee is aware that T&E policies and practices have 

been impacted by both the spiral development authorities and the 

rapid acquisition authorities of sections 803 and 806, respectively, 

of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). T&E policies and practices could 

potentially be further impacted by other emerging acquisition approaches. For example, should USD(AT&L) accept the recommendations of the ‘‘Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment’’ (DAPA) report issued in January 2006, T&E policies and 

practices could be affected by the implementation of time-certain 

development programs. The DAPA report defines time-certain development programs as development programs which are assigned, 

‘‘. . . a specific length of time in which milestone events will be accomplished by contract.’’ The committee wishes to ensure that T&E 

policies and practices neither impede the intended flexibilities of 

these authorities nor fail to provide an independent assessment of 

system capabilities. Lastly, the committee believes T&E policies 

and practices should be reviewed to ensure the Department is properly testing and evaluating materiel, such as outer tactical vests, 

that do not fall within the purview of DOT&E, because they do not 

meet the acquisition thresholds set forth in sections 2366 and 2399 

of title 10, United States Code, but which do require limited operVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:32 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
255 

ational test and evaluation to ensure the safety and survivability 

of the materiel and the personnel using the materiel. 

This section would also require the Director of DTRMC to ensure 

that any revisions to T&E policies and practices are reflected in a 

description of and in the budgeting for the testing needs of the Department. Finally, this section would require USD (AT&L) to report to the congressional defense committees within nine months 

after the enactment of the this Act on the review conducted and on 

any new or revised guidance issued. 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained approximately $154.8 billion in operation and maintenance funds to ensure the U.S. military can 

meet the demands identified by each combatant commander. These 

funds will be used to train U.S. forces, purchase equipment and 

spare parts, repair older equipment, and transport equipment and 

personnel around the world. The budget request represents an increase of $7.4 billion over spending levels authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2006. The challenge for the Department of 

Defense is that most of the $7.4 billion covers civilian pay raises 

and general inflation ($4.0 billion) and price growth due to rising 

fuel costs ($3.0 billion). The committee is concerned that the total 

budget increase does not accurately reflect the impact of inflation 

and increased fuel prices. 

The committee is concerned about the state of military readiness, 

as the global war on terrorism (GWOT) enters its fifth year. The 

committee notes that the increased budget request actually funds 

fewer operation and maintenance related activities critical to ensuring the armed forces’ ability to fight and win our nation’s wars. 

As the Department faces rising health care costs, fuel costs and inflation, budget challenges are found in the operation and maintenance accounts. Currently, all the services are funded below the 

levels required to conduct the minimal training necessary to maintain military readiness. For example, the shortfalls in fiscal year 

2007 budget are as follows: 

(1) Navy funds only 36 steaming days a quarter versus the 

required 51 steaming days per quarter; 

(2) Navy increases deferred maintenance from $54.0 million 

in fiscal year 2005 to $240.0 million in fiscal year 2007; 

(3) Army funds 615 tank miles a year versus the combined 

arms training strategy requirement of 899 miles; 

(4) Army funds 11.6 helicopter flying hours per month 

versus 14.5 helicopter flying hours per month; 

(5) Marine Corps funds 88 percent of the combat ready 

days—equipment and training requirement; and 

(6) Air Force funds 98 percent of the flying hour training requirement while mission capable rates are scheduled to fall to 

75 percent for the first time since 1998. 

In the fiscal year 2006 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), the services anticipated receiving $154.7 billion for operation and 

maintenance programs in fiscal year 2007. Instead, this year’s 

budget request is $154.8 billion, a decrease of $0.1 billion. ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
256 

bined with the $4.0 billion in price growth due to inflation and the 

$3.0 billion in price growth due to rising fuel costs, the budget request reduces critical training and maintenance programs by close 

to $7.0 billion. The committee is concerned by this overall decrease 

in the dollars available to conduct training and maintenance activities and its long-term impact on military readiness. 

In addition, the committee notes an increasing propensity by the 

Department to fund activities, or portions of activities, formerly 

found in the procurement and military construction accounts with 

operation and maintenance dollars. In particular, the military services are increasing their use of service contracts for military flight 

simulator training and initial flight screening and classifying this 

training as a ‘‘commercial’’ service. These contracts include facility 

site surveys, construction of training facilities and leasing of training equipment. The committee is concerned about the consequences 

of poor performance on any of these service contracts and the potential gap in vital military training if these contracts are terminated, leaving the department with no organic capacity to conduct 

the training. 

For the last three years, the committee has closely examined the 

ability of the secretaries of the military departments to reset and 

reconstitute military equipment that has returned from deployment. The committee is concerned that the high rate of equipment 

damage and battle loss, coupled with continuing equipment requirements in theater and at home station, present the services 

with a growing problem. To address this critical challenge, the 

service secretaries must develop sound strategies to fulfill their 

reset requirements. The committee believes that, despite other 

service initiatives such as transformation and modernization, 

equipment reset must be among the services’ highest priorities. 

This requires not only a commitment to adequately fund, but also 

carefully considered policies in areas that support equipment reset, 

such as industrial facility utilization and the procurement of next 

generation weapons systems. The service secretaries must also 

base these well reasoned strategies on full and accurate information. The committee is concerned that, in some cases, a lack of information prevents the services from accurately programming for 

equipment reset. For example, the Department has not yet made 

a decision on what will be done with the equipment currently in 

Iraq. The committee urges the service secretaries to adequately 

provide for the equipment needs of the reserve component, and in 

the case of the Army, to identify and segregate the requirements 

and funding associated with equipment reset and the service’s 

transformation to modularity. 

Finally, the committee recognizes the contribution and performance of the public depots and arsenals. The GWOT requirement on 

these industrial facilities continues and the committee commends 

them for their ongoing role in ensuring our national security. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
257 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 275 HR452.133
258 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 276 HR452.134
259 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 277 HR452.135
260 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 278 HR452.136
261 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 279 HR452.137
262 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 280 HR452.138
263 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 281 HR452.139
264 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 282 HR452.140
265 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 283 HR452.141
266 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 284 HR452.142
267 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 285 HR452.143
268 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 286 HR452.144
269 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 287 HR452.145
270 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 288 HR452.146
271 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 289 HR452.147
272 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 290 HR452.148
273 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 291 HR452.149
274 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 292 HR452.150
275 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 293 HR452.151
276 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 294 HR452.152
277 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 295 HR452.153
278 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 296 HR452.154
279 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 297 HR452.155
280 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 298 HR452.156
281 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 299 HR452.157
282 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 300 HR452.158
283 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 301 HR452.159
284 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 302 HR452.160
285 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 303 HR452.161
286 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 304 HR452.162
287 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 305 HR452.163
288 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS—READINESS

The committee recommends the following adjustments to the fiscal year 2007 amended budget request: 

[in millions of dollars] 

Department of the Army Adjustments: 

BA 1 Army Management Headquarters Activities .............................. (19.1) 

BA 1 Combat Development Core .......................................................... (47.7) 

BA 1 M-Gator ......................................................................................... +1.0 

BA 1 Restoration of Training Requirement ......................................... +82.1 

BA 1 Standing Joint Forces Headquarters .......................................... (5.0) 

BA 1 Unfunded Requirements in Depot Maintenance ........................ +101.0 

BA 2 Logistics Modernization Program ............................................... (2.3) 

BA 2 Restoration of Prepositioned Stocks ............................................ +105.8 

BA 3 Live Training Instrumentation for Air and Missile Defense 

Units ...................................................................................................... +4.0 

BA 3 Leadership for Leaders Command and General Staff College +1.0 

BA 3 Spirit of America JROTC Youth Conference .............................. +0.4 

BA 4 Army Operations Center Headquarters ..................................... (50.0) 

BA 4 Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery .............................. +3.5 

BA 4 Combat Readiness Center ............................................................ (16.2) 

BA 4 Continue Holocaust Education Exhibits ..................................... +0.5 

BA 4 Future Business Systems ............................................................ (4.9) 

BA 4 Logistics Modernization Program ............................................... (4.6) 

BA 4 Other Contracts—Excessive Growth .......................................... (31.1) 

Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances Estimate ................ (100.0) 

BA 1 National Guard Advanced Solar Covers ..................................... +1.0 

BA 1 National Guard Army National Guard Battery Modernization 

Program ................................................................................................. +6.0 

BA 1 National Guard Extended Cold Weather Clothing System ...... +1.0 

BA 1 National Guard Homeland Defense Operational Planning 

System ................................................................................................... +10.0 

BA 1 National Guard Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network ... +2.5 

BA 1 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams ................. +9.5 

BA 4 National Guard Citizen Soldier Support Program .................... +0.9 

Undistributed National Guard restore Funding to Support 350K End 

Strength ................................................................................................. +220.0 

BA 4 Reserve Citizen Soldier Program ................................................ +0.9 

Department of the Navy Adjustments: 

BA 1 Damage Control Inventory Management and Stowage System +3.0 

BA 1 Man Overboard Safety System Installation ............................... +3.0 

BA 1 METBENCH Automated Calibration System ............................ +3.7 

BA 1 Navy Enterprise Resource Planning ........................................... (10.0) 

BA 1 Restore Ship Deferred Maintenance ........................................... +145.0 

BA 1 Restore Steaming Day Reduction ................................................ +121.0 

BA 1 Shipyard Rate Savings—Mission Funding Conversion ............. (262.0) 

BA 1 Unfunded Aviation Requirements ............................................... +75.0 

BA 2 U.S. Navy Ship Disposal Program .............................................. +8.0 

BA 3 Continued Education for Childcare Providers ........................... +1.0 

BA 3 Naval Sea Cadet Corps ................................................................ +0.3 

BA 3 Navy National Guard RINGGOLD Linguists ............................ +0.4 

BA 4 Flash Detection System ............................................................... +4.0 

BA 4 FYDP Improvement Project ......................................................... (9.6) 

BA 4 Navy/Marine Corps Intranet ....................................................... (70.0) 

BA 4 NAV 2030 Vision Principals ........................................................ (2.0) 

BA 4 Other Contracts—Excessive Growth .......................................... (15.0) 

BA 4 PR–07/POM–08 Planning and Analysis ..................................... (3.0) 

BA 4 Special Project Aircraft ................................................................ +3.0 

BA 4 Trident ........................................................................................... +3.0 

BA 4 Unjustified Growth for HQ Staff ................................................. (8.9) 

Undistributed Navy Civilian Personnel Overstatement ....................... (96.8) 

Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances Estimate ................ (135.0) 

United States Marine Corps Adjustments: 

BA 1 Cold Weather High Performance Layering System ................... +2.0 

BA 1 EMI Hardened Fluorescent Stringable Tent Lighting System +7.0 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
289 

[in millions of dollars]—Continued 

BA 1 Marine Air Traffic Control and Landing System ....................... +9.0 

BA 1 Maritime Prepositioning Reconstitution ..................................... +9.9 

BA 1 Redesignation / Establishment of Unnecessary Command 

Structures .............................................................................................. (5.9) 

BA 1 Unfunded Requirements in Depot Maintenance ........................ +40.1 

BA 3 Formal School Support ................................................................. +8.6 

BA 3 Recruit Training Support ............................................................. +2.4 

BA 3 Training Support Requirements ................................................. +25.0 

Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances ................................. (3.0) 

Department of the Air Force Adjustments: 

BA 1 B–52 Attrition Reserve ................................................................ +49.8 

BA 1 Counter Space Operations ........................................................... (10.0) 

BA 1 MBU–20/P Oxygen Mask with Lights ........................................ +2.0 

BA 1 Nevada Test and Training Range / Utah Test and Training 

Range ..................................................................................................... +8.0 

BA 1 Unjustified Transformational Efficiencies .................................. +70.0 

BA 3 Euro NATO Jet Pilot Training .................................................... (10.0) 

BA 3 Initial Flight Screening ................................................................ (5.0) 

BA 3 National Space Center Study ...................................................... +2.0 

BA 4 Administration—General Reduction ........................................... (10.0) 

BA 4 Air Force Manufacturing Technical Assistance Production ...... +4.0 

BA 4 Unjustified Growth ....................................................................... (115.0) 

Undistributed Executive General Schedule ........................................... (180.0) 

Undistributed Other Contracts—Excessive Growth .............................. (50.0) 

Undistributed Ranch Hand Data ............................................................ +0.9 

Defense-Wide Activities Adjustments: 

BA 1 JCS—Excessive Growth ............................................................... (10.0) 

BA 4 Capital Security Cost Share ........................................................ (33.0) 

BA 4 Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CMTA) +15.0 

BA 4 Kids Voting Pilot Program ........................................................... +0.2 

BA 4 Meals Ready to Eat Reserve ........................................................ +5.0 

BA 4 Port of Corpus Christi Seaport Infrastructure ........................... +5.0 

BA 4 Procurement Technical Assistance Program .............................. +6.8 

BA 4 Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) ..... +30.0 

BA 4 Starbase ......................................................................................... +1.0 

BA 4 WHS Excessive Growth ............................................................... (14.0) 

Undistributed Cold War Medal ............................................................... +2.0 

Undistributed DOD Supplementary Impact Aid ................................... +50.0 

Undistributed DOD Supplementary Impact Aid—Force Structure/Relocation ................................................................................................... +15.0 

Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances Estimate ................ (272.1) 

Undistributed Ranch Hand Data ............................................................ +0.2 

Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery 

The budget request contained $70.8 million for the Army Knowledge Management program. 

The Knowledge Management program is an enterprise wide program that will transform the Army into a network-centric, knowledge-based force. An essential part of this effort is the Army 

Knowledge Online (AKO) Disaster Recovery initiative, which serves 

as the communications center for AKO Disaster Recovery operations throughout the Army. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $74.3 million for the 

Knowledge Management program, an increase of $3.5 million in operation and maintenance for the Army to upgrade the AKO Disaster Recovery operation. 

Capital Security Cost Share 

The budget request contained $126.7 million for capital security 

cost share. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
290 

The committee notes that a November 2004 Government Accountability Office report estimated the cost share for the Department of Defense (DOD) for fiscal year 2007 to be $93.1 million. 

Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense has no accounting of defense personnel stationed in overseas 

diplomatic facilities and therefore can not reconcile the cost share 

levied by the Secretary of State. Accordingly, this Act contains a 

provision (Section 344) that would require the Secretary of Defense 

to perform an annual accounting of DOD overseas staffing requirements. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $93.7 million for the Cap- ital Security Cost Share program, a decrease of $33.0 million. 

Combat Enhancement Forces and Combat Communications 

The budget request contained $603.7 million for Air Force com- bat enhancement forces and $1.6 billion for combat communications. 

The committee notes that most of these critical forces have been 

operating above maximum surge levels since the beginning of the 

global war on terrorism and reports continue to reflect a declining 

trend in the readiness of these forces. The committee strongly believes that special operations forces and weather teams, combat 

rescue forces, combat control teams, manned reconnaissance platforms, and electronic warfare capabilities are critical defense assets 

and this decline in readiness must be addressed. 

The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for combat enhancement forces and an increase of $30.0 million for combat 

communications. 

Homeland Defense Operational Planning System 

The budget request contained no funds for operation and maintenance of the California Army National Guard’s homeland defense 

operational planning system (HOPS). 

The committee understands HOPS received initial funding in fiscal year 2004 and continued collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will further develop the operational capability of HOPS, which provides highly detailed situational awareness that enhances the California Army National Guard’s ability to 

prepare for, and respond to, weapons of mass destruction attacks 

and to defend facilities critical to the U.S. infrastructure. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for 

HOPS. 

Maritime Prepositioning Ship Lease Buyout 

The budget request contained $35.1 million in the National Defense Sealift Fund to exercise the purchase options on 1 of the 10 

remaining maritime prepositioning ships on long- term lease. 

The committee is aware of the continuing need for these ships 

beyond the original 25-year-term and the lifecycle cost savings garnered by exercising the purchase options. The committee recommends exercising the purchase option on all of the 10 remaining 

maritime prepositioning ships, as soon as possible. 

The committee recommends $101.9 million in the National Defense Sealift Fund to exercise the purchase option on 2 of the 10 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
291 

remaining maritime prepositioning ships on long-term lease, an increase of $66.8 million. 

Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network 

The budget request contained no funding for the Nationwide 

Dedicated Fiber Optic Network (NDFON). 

NDFON will provide a dedicated, high speed, high bandwidth 

fiber optic network backbone to support national guard operations. 

The committee continues to urge the Department of Defense to 

complete this network, which showed its value in the national 

guard’s response to Hurricane Katrina. When no cell phones were 

working on the storm ravaged Gulf Coast, the NDFON backbone 

provided critical, reliable communications capability. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in operation and maintenance for the Army National Guard to 

complete the NDFON nationwide engineering design package. 

Navy Marine Corps Intranet 

The committee supports the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) 

and commends the Secretary of the Navy for resolving the long 

standing contract dispute on the NMCI contract. The committee remains concerned, however, about the cost of the contract and the 

enduring nature of legacy programs that a now mature NMCI was 

designed to replace. For that reason, the committee cannot support 

the increased funding contained in the budget request. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $240.5 million in 

servicewide communications for NMCI, a decrease of $70.0 million. 

Port of Corpus Christi 

The committee directs the Director of the Department of Defense 

Office of Economic Adjustment to provide $5.0 million to the Port 

of Corpus Christi for military seaport infrastructure upgrades. 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 

The budget request contained $20.0 million for the Readiness 

and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). 

The committee expects the secretaries of the military departments to use the authority and funding available through the REPI 

program to enter into agreements with willing entities to prevent 

or limit the use of property in the vicinity of a military installation 

that would impede the mission of that military installation. The 

committee is pleased by the recent successes of the REPI program 

at installations such as Fort Carson, and expects the Secretary of 

the Army to continue to adequately fund the REPI efforts at Fort 

Carson, which the Army identifies as its highest priority site. The 

committee also encourages the other services to explore the utilization of this authority at installations such as Whiteman Air Force 

Base, McChord Air Force Base, Fairchild Air Force Base, and 

Naval Air Station Whidby. 

The committee recommends $50.0 million for the Readiness and 

Environmental Protection Initiative, an increase of $30.0 million. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
292 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams 

The budget request contained no funding for additional Weapons 

of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD–CST). 

The committee recognizes the value of the Army National 

Guard’s WMD–CST in rapid support of civilian first responders in 

the event of a chemical, biological, or radiological incident. Now 

that each state’s national guard has a WMD–CST, the committee 

believes that states possessing obvious targets should be identified 

for a second team. In that regard, the committee is pleased to note 

that California has a second team, and believes that New York 

should have a second team as well. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $9.5 million for the Army National Guard to establish a second WMD–CST 

in New York. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Fuel Tank Replacement at Point Loma, California 

The committee is concerned about the fuel tank leakage at the 

Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) Fuel Storage Point (DFSP) 

at Naval Base Point Loma, California. Data from recent monitoring 

of the ground soil indicate that the leakage is more extensive than 

originally estimated. In addition to ongoing mitigation efforts, the 

committee is aware that the DESC has a military construction 

project in the fiscal year 2008 Future Years Defense Program that 

would replace all existing bulk storage infrastructure with modern, 

Department of Defense-standard storage tanks and support equipment. The committee notes that the DFSP is part of the strategic 

reserve, and its capabilities and readiness are matters of national 

security. The committee expects the Navy and the DESC to expedite to the furthest extent practicable their clean up actions, and 

to continue an ongoing dialogue about data, findings, and status 

with the congressional defense committees and the local community. 

Non-thermal Treatment of Asbestos and Asbestos Containing 

Material 

The committee is concerned about the long-term effects of the 

disposal of asbestos and asbestos containing material (ACM). The 

committee recognizes the benefits of transforming asbestos and 

ACM into a non-hazardous material and notes the problems associated with thermal treatment of hazardous waste. The committee is 

aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) is currently testing 

the application of non-thermal treatment processes. The committee 

encourages the Department to continue its exploration of non-thermal asbestos technology and to consider its use when treating asbestos or ACM at DOD installations. 

Report on Uranium Located in Gore, Oklahoma 

The committee acknowledges that since completion of work in 

1993, 1.5 million pounds (approximately 1,200 barrels) of U.S. Government-provided uranium is being stored at the former Sequoyah 

Fuels Corporation site located in Gore, Oklahoma. This site was 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
293 

used to convert DU6 to DU4 for use by the Army in anti-tank ammunition. The storage of this uranium at the Gore, Oklahoma, site 

may impede the efforts to decontaminate and decommission the facility. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

work in conjunction with the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services no later than six months after the 

enactment of this Act that would identify whether a remediation 

plan is necessary regarding the uranium located in Gore, Oklahoma, and, if so, the plans for remediation. 

Site Assessment of Former World War II Ordnance Manufacturing 

Facility, Rosemount, Minnesota 

The committee is aware that the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers recently completed a preliminary assessment of property 

in Rosemount, Minnesota. The property, once the site of an ordnance manufacturing facility (Gopher Ordnance Works), is now 

owned by the University of Minnesota. The committee notes that 

one potential next action in this environmental cleanup process is 

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a site inspection 

of the property. The committee is interested in the expeditious resolution of this matter, and therefore requests the Secretary of the 

Army to initiate the next action in the process. Furthermore, the 

committee expects the Secretary to continue an ongoing dialogue 

about data, findings, and status with the congressional defense 

committees and the local community. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

Information Technology Overview 

The committee remains deeply concerned with information technology (IT) development, procurement, and management across the 

Department of Defense (DOD). The committee recognizes the challenges of building a fully integrated, secure, reliable system for a 

world-wide deployable military force. The committee also recognizes that the challenge is complicated by conflicting user requirements and a decentralized procurement system. In many ways, the 

Department’s IT difficulties are a subset of DOD’s larger acquisition challenges. Notwithstanding the difficulties, the committee believes that too many of the Department’s IT programs are poorly 

managed and would benefit from increased scrutiny and a new way 

of doing business. 

The committee supports the Department’s broad goal of net centric operations, but is troubled by the procurement history of the 

Global Information Grid, the backbone of net centric operations. 

The committee notes the findings of the Government Accountability 

Office report ‘‘DOD Management Approach and Processes Not WellSuited to Support Development of Global Information Grid,’’ dated 

January 30, 2006. This report clearly describes the great risk of attempting to build an enterprise-wide system for which no one entity is in charge and for which no one can enforce operational or investment decisions. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
294 

For these reasons, the committee believes a prudent pause in selected IT programs is in order to allow the broader development of 

the Global Information Grid to progress. In that way, spending on 

these systems of the future can be more precisely directed to the 

reality of a more mature GIG backbone, resulting in greater efficiency and more rapid deployment of new systems. To that end, the 

committee has recommended funding reductions elsewhere in this 

report in several programs. 

Similarly, the committee has recommended legislation that 

would require new business systems to come swiftly to fruition or 

lose funding. The committee believes that this change, along with 

other, broader acquisition initiatives recommended by the committee, will begin to realize greater efficiencies in DOD information 

technology programs. The committee believes that information 

technology is one of the critical elements that make our military 

forces as lethal as they are—but for almost $31 billion, we must 

do better. 

Business Transformation Agency and Enterprise Risk Assessment 

Model 

The committee is heartened by the Deputy Secretary of Defense’s 

decision to create the Business Transformation Agency (BTA), and 

will monitor its activities closely to ensure it adds value to the 

management of enterprise-wide business programs. Far too often, 

information technology (IT) programs are created with great promise, only to fall victim to the impossible goal of perfection. The result: expensive new programs drag on for years, not realizing their 

potential, while the legacy systems they were designed to replace 

continue to consume operation and maintenance dollars. 

To that end, the committee also supports the recently announced 

Enterprise Risk Assessment Model (ERAM), which promises to 

speed the delivery of DOD wide business systems and provide 

streamlined execution of programs. The committee applauds these 

initiatives and urges the Secretary of Defense to support these new 

enterprises. 

READINESS ISSUES

Air Force Transformation 

The committee is aware that the Air Force has initiated a transformation plan in an effort to modernize and recapitalize the force 

structure by focusing on three major areas: streamlining the organizational structure, incorporating process efficiencies, and continuing force structure reductions to become a more lethal, agile, 

and balanced total force. Although not clearly justified, the fiscal 

year 2007 operation and maintenance budget request reflects a 

$945.0 million reduction due to efficiencies that the Air Force anticipates reaping through transformation. The committee is aware 

of declining trends in readiness, and is concerned that these trends 

will continue to decline as a result of this swift move to organizational change. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2007, describVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
295 

ing transformational initiatives, evaluating the impact of these 

changes on unit-level readiness, detailing force structure realignments and reductions, and accounting actual cost savings accrued 

through the transformational initiatives. 

Army Logistics Modernization 

The committee is encouraged by the Army’s efforts to transform 

its logistics processes and is interested in the potential of the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) to streamline logistics and 

improve financial management. However, a June 2005 report by 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Army Depot Maintenance: Ineffective Oversight of Depot Maintenance Operations and 

Systems Implementation Efforts, describes the problems associated 

with the implementation of LMP at Tobyhanna Army Depot. The 

committee is concerned with these findings and directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the House Committee on 

Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services by 

December 31, 2006, on the status of the LMP deficiencies outlined 

in GAO’s report. 

Base Operating Support and Facilities Recapitalization Budget 

Shortfalls 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 109–89) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the committee expressed concern that shortfalls in base operating support 

(BOS) budgets at U.S. military installations were causing the services to consider a decrease in basic services such as child care, dining hall operations, and facilities management activities. As such, 

the committee urged the Department of Defense (DOD) to fully 

fund and execute BOS sustainment, and facilities recapitalization 

accounts. 

Despite this level of congressional interest in and commitment to 

BOS and facilities recapitalization accounts, the fiscal year 2007 

budget request once again contains severe shortfalls in these areas. 

For instance, Army BOS budgets are underfunded by at least $1.9 

billion, Army National Guard and Reserve BOS budgets are underfunded by more than $360.0 million, and Air Force BOS budgets 

are underfunded by more than $250.0 million. 

In general, BOS requirements are ‘‘must pay’’ bills, failure to 

fully fund these accounts will result in a decrease in base services, 

such as shortened hours at dining facilities, elimination of recreational activities, or increased fees for morale, welfare, and recreation activities. While DOD leaders have expressed their intent to 

transfer funds into these accounts during the fiscal year, this approach is a haphazard manner of managing budget accounts that 

are significant both in size and impact on personnel. 

In addition to the Department’s general failure to support BOS 

requirements, analysis of facilities restoration, and modernization 

budgets indicates that the services have essentially ceased to fund 

these accounts. 

The services have justified their actions, in part, by citing DOD 

models for facilities sustainment and recapitalization which show 

facilities ‘‘recap rates’’ that are below DOD targets. Unfortunately, 

these indicators were skewed by the impact of base closure activiVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
296 

ties and funding to rebuild after natural disasters. Nevertheless, 

these results, which effectively overstate the level of funding provided to the general inventory of facilities, have been used to justify severe decreases in restoration and modernization accounts. 

The committee is greatly concerned with this misapplication of facilities management model results. 

After decades of failing to fund facilities construction, 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization budgets, the Department’s recent efforts to ensure that its facilities are properly maintained over their lifecycles is ‘‘one step forward’’. Unfortunately, 

budget requests that virtually eliminate facilities restoration and 

modernization funding, such as the fiscal year 2007 request, represent ‘‘two steps backward’’. 

This ‘‘pause’’ in restoration and modernization budgets will be 

difficult to reverse in the current budget environment, likely resulting in an entire generation of facilities passing through midlifecycle periods without renovations required to maintain the ability to support military requirements. 

The committee urges the service secretaries to increase funding 

for facilities restoration and modernization in future budget requests. Supporting such requirements is critical to extending the 

useful lifecycle of DOD facilities while maintaining quality work 

and living environments. 

In general, the committee is greatly concerned by the direction 

of the Department’s requests for installation operation and management budgets. If the Department continues to fail to fund these 

accounts, there will be substantial negative impacts on both military readiness and quality of life. As such, the committee urges 

DOD leadership to renew its commitment to installations management budgets by fully funding BOS sustainment, restoration, and 

modernization accounts in current and future fiscal years. 

Beryllium Supply Industrial Base 

The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a report in May 2004, 

at the direction of Congress, concluding that the strategic and critical metal, beryllium, plays a key role in systems that support the 

transformational armed services. This report also noted that the 

domestic supply of beryllium is in danger of being depleted because 

the only domestic supplier has closed its primary metal production 

facility. 

A total of $10.8 million was appropriated by congress during the 

past two years, through the Defense Production Act purchases for 

the design and construction of a new beryllium production plant. 

In order to complete the timely construction of the plant, the committee supports the $7.5 million in the President’s request for the 

Beryllium Supply Industrial Base Project. 

Depot Maintenance Strategy and Implementation Plans 

The committee notes that in fiscal year 2005 the Air Force’s 

three air logistics centers exceeded scheduled aircraft production, 

reduced costs, achieved the highest ever on-time delivery record, 

and improved overall quality of work. The committee believes that 

the implementation of the 2002 Air Force Depot Maintenance MasVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00320 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
297 

ter Strategy was a driving factor in this transformational success 

and commends the Air Force for these achievements. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that despite the direction in 

the committee report (H. Rept. 108–106) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the Secretary of Defense has not developed a comprehensive, results-oriented management plan to guide future service depot maintenance 

and has not provided a framework that assures the long-term viability of the depot system. The committee believes that it is essential that the Secretary build upon past strategic planning efforts, 

including the recent successes generated by implementation of the 

Air Force’s Depot Maintenance Master Strategy, to help guide future service depot maintenance. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary to develop an overarching depot maintenance strategy for the department and to submit a report on this strategy, by 

March 1, 2007, to the congressional defense committees. This report, at a minimum, shall include: 

(1) An assessment of the extent to which current facilities 

will continue to be used; 

(2) An assessment of the extent to which the appropriate 

work is being performed in the depots to maintain core capability; 

(3) Future planning for core capability and the identification 

of workloads by depot and commodity group that are currently 

being performed in the depots; 

(4) Current workforce breakdown and a personnel requirements strategy for maintaining the required workforce; 

(5) Planned equipment and facility improvements and the 

associated funding stream, by depot with distinction made for 

that which is planned as a replacement and that which will 

provide capability for a new system; 

(6) A specification of statutory, regulatory or operational impediments, if any, to achieving a strategy that enables a capital investment in facilities, equipment, processes and personnel of an amount not less than six percent of the actual 

total revenue; and 

(7) A description of the benchmarks established by each 

depot for capital investment and the relations of the benchmarks to applicable performance methods used in the private 

sector. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to evaluate this 

report and provide comment and analysis to the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days after the Secretary of Defense submits the report. 

High Altitude Aviation Training 

The committee is aware that a portion of non-hostile losses of 

Army rotary winged aircraft in Operation Enduring Freedom and 

Operation Iraqi freedom are related to operations in high elevations and mountainous terrain. The committee believes that high 

altitude aviation training can reduce the number of the accidents 

by ensuring that crews are properly trained and current in the procedures for operating in such a challenging environment. Therefore, 

the committee requests the Secretary of the Army provide a report 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
298 

on high altitude aviation training to the congressional defense committees by December 15, 2006. The report should include: 

(1) The current location and type of high altitude training, 

to include the percentage of pilots who receive such training on 

an annual basis at each location and the types of aircraft used 

in such training; 

(2) The number and type of helicopters required to provide 

the high altitude aviation training needed to sustain the war 

strategies contained in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, 

assuming that priority for such training is given to commanders, instructor pilots, aviation safety officers, and deploying units; and 

(3) A thorough evaluation of the accident rates for deployed 

Army helicopter pilots who received high altitude training and 

deployed helicopter pilots who did not receive such training, including the number of accidents related to power management, 

using high and low estimates and the number of accidents involving combat and non-combat environments. 

National Space Studies Center Study 

The committee is well aware of the increasing reliance on space 

to support both our warfighters and our global economy and believes that it is imperative to have a comprehensive understanding 

of how dependence on space assets, both military and commercial, 

can impact U.S. national security and economic security. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, through the National Space Studies Center, to expand ongoing efforts to assess the 

value of space contributions with emphasis on the United States 

dependence on space, innovative ideas contributing to ensuring 

freedom of action in space, and integration of all space forces. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding 

This section would authorize $129.8 billion in operation and 

maintenance funding for the military departments and defensewide activities. 

Section 302—Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize $2.6 billion for working capital 

funds of the Department of Defense and the National Defense Sealift Fund. 

Section 303—Other Department of Defense Programs 

This section would authorize $22.4 billion for other Department 

of Defense Programs for (1) the Defense Health Program; (2) Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction; (3) Drug Interdiction and 

Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide; and (4) the Defense Inspector General. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
299 

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 311—Revision of Requirement for Unexploded Ordnance 

Program Manager 

This section would rescind the authority extended to the Secretary of Defense to delegate the unexploded ordnance program 

manager position to one of the military departments. This section 

would also add research to the list of duties for this position. 

Section 312—Identification and Monitoring of Military Munitions 

Disposal Sites in Ocean Waters Extending From United States 

Coast to Outer Boundary of Outer Continental Shelf 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to identify, 

research, monitor, and provide navigational and safety information 

on conventional and chemical military munitions disposal sites in 

the ocean waters that extend from the United States coast to the 

outer boundary of the outer continental shelf. Specifically, it would 

require the Secretary to review historical records to determine the 

number and probable locations of disposal sites, the size of these 

sites, and the types and quantities of military munitions disposed 

of at these sites. The Secretary shall release periodically to the 

public and submit annually to Congress the information obtained 

in this review. This section would also require the Secretary to cooperate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

to inform those who use the ocean environment of known or potential hazards. Finally, this section would require the Secretary to 

conduct research on the effects of military munitions, and to monitor certain disposal sites to recognize and track potential contamination. 

Section 313—Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency 

for Certain Costs in Connection With Moses Lake Wellfield 

Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer 

not more than $111,114.03 to the Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund 

Site, 10–6J Special Account, to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency for costs incurred in overseeing a remedial investigation and feasibility study performed by the Department of the 

Army. 

Section 314—Funding of Cooperative Agreements Under 

Environmental Restoration Program 

This section would amend section 2701(d)(2) of title 10, United 

States Code, to allow cooperative agreements entered into for environmental restoration at defense facilities to extend beyond the 

present two-year limitation 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
300 

Section 315—Analysis and Report Regarding Contamination and 

Remediation Responsibility for Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply 

Point, Norwalk, California 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to report to Congress not later than January 30, 2007, on matters relating to contamination and remediation of property at the Norwalk 

Defense Fuel Supply Point in Norwalk, California. This section 

would also prohibit the Secretary from conveying the property by 

public auction before pursuing a fair market value transfer of the 

property to the city of Norwalk, submitting the report required, 

and providing an explanation of why efforts to transfer the property to the city have not been successful. 

SUBTITLE C—WORKPLACE AND DEPOT ISSUES

Section 321—Extension of Exclusion of Certain Expenditures From 

Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Depot-Level Maintenance 

This section would extend for five years the authority to exclude 

amounts expended for the performance of depot-level maintenance 

and repair workload by non-federal government personnel at a 

Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence from the percentage 

limitation in section 2466(a) of title 10, United States Code, if the 

personnel performing the work are provided pursuant to a publicprivate partnership. 

Section 322—Minimum Capital Investment for Air Force Depots 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to invest a minimum of six percent of the total revenue of the Air Force 

depots in the capital investment budget to improve or sustain depot 

maintenance facilities, equipment, or processes. 

Section 323—Extension of Temporary Authority for Contractor 

Performance of Security Guard Functions 

This section would amend subsection 332(c) of the Bob Stump 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 

Law 107–314) to extend the temporary authority to contract for increased performance of security guard functions. The authority 

would expire at the end of fiscal year 2008. This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by February 1, 

2007, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed Services detailing progress towards implementing 

the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office report entitled, ‘‘Army’s Guard Program Requires Greater Oversight 

and Reassessment of Acquisition Approach.’’ The extension of authority granted in this section would not be effective until the report is submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
301 

SUBTITLE D—REPORTS

Section 331—Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Depot 

Maintenance 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit 

a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2007, on criteria used when a nuclear attack submarine is sent for maintenance to a facility other than a facility located at the homeport of 

the submarine. 

Section 332—Report on Navy Fleet Response Plan 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit 

a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2006, on the 

Navy Fleet Response Plan. The committee expects the report would 

include assessments from senior enlisted officers, for example chief 

engineers and command master chiefs, who served on aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers that participated in the Fleet Response Plan regarding the following: 

(1) material condition of the ship; 

(2) maintenance of the ship; 

(3) en-route training; 

(4) professional development training available on the ship; 

(5) combat skill training; 

(6) personnel assignments and manning; 

(7) retention of personnel; and 

(8) suggestions for improvement. 

This section would also require the Comptroller General to submit a review of the Secretary of the Navy report to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services that includes a recommendation on the extension of the 

Fleet Response Plan to expeditionary strike groups by March 15, 

2007. Finally, this section would postpone the expansion of the 

Fleet Response Plan beyond the carrier strike groups until October 

1, 2007. 

The committee has concerns regarding expansion of the Fleet Response Plan to other ships beyond those in a carrier strike group. 

The committee notes the Navy has neither fully tested and evaluated the Fleet Response Plan nor formally implemented the required operational, training and personnel directives to manage 

this program. 

Section 333—Report on Navy Surface Ship Rotational Crew 

Programs 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit 

a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2007, on ship rotational crew experiments. This section would also require the Comptroller General to submit an assessment of the Secretary of Navy’s 

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by July 15, 2007. 

This section would further require the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to submit a report to the Senate Committee 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
302 

on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services 

that examines long-term benefits and costs of surface ship crew rotational programs by July 15, 2007. Finally, this section would 

postpone the implementation of any new surface ship rotational 

crew experiment or program until October 1, 2009. 

The committee is concerned about the expansion of the surface 

ship rotation crew program formally known as Sea Swap to other 

surface ships. Potential disadvantages of Sea Swap include extensive wear and tear on the deployed ship due to a lengthy period 

of time at sea, reduced sense of crew ownership of a given ship, reduced opportunities for transit port calls and a negative impact on 

crew morale and retention. 

Section 334—Report on Army Live-Fire Ranges in Hawaii 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to submit 

a report to Congress by March 1, 2007, on the adequacy of live-fire 

training facilities in the state of Hawaii in relation to current and 

future training requirements, and plans for modifications or additions to the live-fire training infrastructure in Hawaii. 

Section 335—Comptroller General Report on Joint Standards and 

Protocols for Access Control Systems at Department of Defense 

Installations 

This section would require the Comptroller General to submit a 

report to the Senate Committee Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services within one year of enactment of this 

Act, on joint standards and protocols for access control systems at 

Department of Defense (DOD) installations. The report would contain an assessment of whether the establishment of joint standards 

and protocols for access control at DOD installations would improve 

access control across all installations by providing greater consistency and improved force protection. 

Section 336—Report on Personnel Security Investigations for 

Industry and National Industrial Security Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit, 

within 90 days of enactment, a report on the future requirements 

of the Department of Defense with respect to the Personnel Security Investigations for Industry and the National Security Investigations for Industry Security Program of the Defense Security 

Service. The report would be delivered to the congressional defense 

committees, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government 

Reform of the House of Representatives. 

This report would include an accounting of clearance investigations completed, the number of each type of clearance granted, the 

unit cost of each clearance granted, the unit cost to the Department 

of Defense of each security clearance granted, the amount of any 

fee or surcharge paid by the Office of Personnel Management as a 

result of conducting a personnel security clearance investigation, a 

description of the procedures used to estimate future investigations 

to be performed, and a plan for meeting increased demand of clearances. It would also require subsequent semi-annual reports on future funding requirements, backlog size, and progress toward meetVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00326 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
303 

ing implemented changes in the investigation process. Lastly, it 

would require the Government Accountability Office to examine the 

Department’s plan and to conduct an independent assessment after 

the initial report is submitted by the Department of Defense. 

The Committee recommends that the Office of Management and 

Budget further open and extend its review and reform efforts for 

the security clearance process to include the appropriate external 

expert sources such as defense contractors, academic institutions, 

workforce providers, and research and development organizations 

to provide intelligence and resources to assist in the development 

of a new clear human capital management system, as current process does not fully address the needs and impacts of the institutions 

and organizations outside of the federal government and related 

agencies. 

The committee is disappointed by an announcement that the Defense Security Service has suspended the processing of new clearances and is concerned about the potential impact on national security and the defense industrial base. The committee is concerned by 

the Defense Security Service’s failure to warn Congress of this failure in advance so that the problem might have been averted. The 

committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem 

of clearance investigations as soon as possible. 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 341—Department of Defense Strategic Policy on 

Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment 

This section would amend chapter 131 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive approach to Department of Defense (DOD) prepositioning programs. This section would also limit the diversion of materiel and 

equipment from prepositioned stocks except for the purpose of supporting a contingency operation, or in accordance with a change to 

the prepositioning policy required under this section. This section 

would require the Secretary to notify the congressional defense 

committees before implementing or changing the prepositioning 

policy. Finally, this section would require the Secretary to establish 

the prepositioning policy within six months after the enactment of 

this Act. 

The committee recognizes that prepositioned materiel offers significant strategic flexibility, as demonstrated in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. The committee is concerned, however, that there is a lack 

of clear DOD policy to guide the prepositioning programs of the 

services. Furthermore, the committee notes that the Secretary of 

Defense has failed to report on DOD prepositioned equipment and 

materiel as required in section 1046 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375). 

Additionally, the committee is discouraged by recent decisions regarding Army prepositioned stocks. For example, the Army recently 

programmed the download of an entire brigade set from its afloat 

prepositioned combat capability. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before the Subcommittees on 

Readiness and Tactical Air and Land Forces on March 30, 2006, 

that the Army is making plans to reduce its contractor workforce 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
304 

in Charleston, South Carolina, where it performs the maintenance 

on its afloat stocks. GAO also noted that the Army has a large military construction project well underway at a site in Italy, but the 

Army’s draft prepositioning strategy identifies no significant 

prepositioning mission in Europe. The committee believes these recent changes to the Army prepositioning program, together with 

the continued challenge of maintaining the combat capability of the 

Army prepositioned stocks in Korea and Southwest Asia, contribute 

to a severe underinvestment in these assets. 

Section 342—Authority to Make Department of Defense Horses 

Available for Adoption at End of Useful Working Life 

This section would amend section 2583 of title 10, United States 

Code to include horses owned by the Department of Defense. The 

committee notes that currently private adoption of caisson horses 

from the 1st Battalion, 3rd United States Infantry Regiment is prohibited. The committee notes the contributions of these animals 

and their service to the public good. 

Section 343—Sale and Use of Proceeds of Recyclable Munitions 

Materials 

This section 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 such as brass, scrap metal, propellants, and explosives. Furthermore, this section would credit the proceeds from the sales 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, commonly referred to 

as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 

seq.) and its implementing regulations. 

Section 344—Capital Security Cost Sharing 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to perform 

an annual accounting of Department of Defense (DOD) overseas 

staffing requirements in order to reconcile cost-sharing fees levied 

by the Secretary of State, in accordance with section 629(e)(1) of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447). 

Section 345—Prioritization of Funds Within Navy Mission Operations, Ship Maintenance, Combat Support Forces, and Weapons 

System Support 

This section would require the Secretary of Navy to ensure that 

100 percent of the requirements for steaming days per quarter for 

deployed and non-deployed ship operations and 100 percent of the 

projected ship and air depot maintenance workload are funded before funds appropriated to the Department of Navy for operation 

and maintenance may be expended for the Navy Expeditionary 

Combat Command. This section would also require the Secretary of 

Navy to submit a report with the annual budget request that certifies these requirements are fully funded. 

The committee is aware that the Department of Navy has funded 

ship and air operations and depot maintenance below the operVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00328 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
305 

ational requirements. For example, ship operation funding for deployed ships was funded at 71 percent of the requirement. Accordingly, carrier strike groups and expeditionary strike groups will be 

unable to fully execute missions in their assigned area of responsibility. 

Against this backdrop, the committee has learned that the Department of Navy has expanded its role and function to ground and 

river combat missions. The Navy Expeditionary Combat Command 

was established on January 13, 2006, in order to expand the Navy’s 

capabilities for participating in the global war on terrorism. The 

Navy will deploy Riverine Group 1 to patrol the waterways of 

Baghdad, Iraq in 2007. At the moment, these sailors have no boats, 

no manuals, and no past mission to draw experience from before 

they engage in combat operations. 

While the committee understands the Department of Navy’s desire to expand its role from the sea to the river and land, we have 

concerns that the traditional role and mission of the Navy is not 

being adequately funded. 

Section 346—Prioritization of Funds Within Army Reconstitution 

and Transformation 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to fully 

fund in each fiscal year after fiscal year 2007 the reset of equipment used in the global war on terrorism, the fulfillment of equipment requirements for units transforming to modularity, and the 

reconstitution of prepositioned stocks. This section would require 

the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense committees at the time the budget request is transmitted to Congress. 

This report would provide information on the funding priorities described in this section and would be required annually until the requirements of these priorities are met. This section would also limit 

to $2.85 billion the funds to be appropriated in any fiscal year after 

fiscal year 2007 for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) until the 

funding priorities described in this section are met in that fiscal 

year. If the Army does not meet this requirement, this section 

would require funds that were not expended for FCS to be used for 

the identified funding priorities. 

For the purposes of this section, the requirements of the identified funding priorities shall be based on the following guidelines. 

The Army has testified, based on equipment combat losses and battle damage, that the amount needed in fiscal year 2006 to repair, 

recapitalize, and replace equipment used in the global war on terrorism is $13.5 billion. The committee is also aware that a recent 

cost estimate to payback equipment to the reserve component in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1225.6 is $4.8 billion. The committee assumes that the current use of equipment in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom will 

continue at the same level as experienced in fiscal year 2006. 

Therefore, the committee calculates that at least $72.3 billion over 

the fiscal year 2008 Future Years Defense Program would be required to adequately fund equipment reset in both the active and 

reserve components. 

The committee considers the equipment requirements for units 

transforming to modularity to be those that were described in the 

Modular Force Initiative report submitted to Congress in March 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
306 

2006. Additionally, the committee expects the Army to include the 

procurement of M1A2 Abrams SEP tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicle A3s in the funding requirements for modularity. The cost estimate for equipment requirements for modularity stated in this section includes this additional requirement. 

The committee also considers the requirement for the reconstitution of Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) to be consistent with the 

materiel configuration outlined in APS Strategy 2012 or a subsequent strategy created in accordance with section 2229 of title 10, 

United States Code, a section added to title 10 in another section 

of this Act. 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to believe that the manpower levels in 

the budget request for the active components of the Army and the 

Marine Corps are too low for the requirements placed on those 

services by the national security strategy. Beginning with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as passed by 

the House of Representatives, the committee has recommended active end strength levels, especially for the Army, greater than those 

requested. Similarly, the committee’s recommendations for fiscal 

year 2007 increase the active Army end strength by six percent, 

and the Marine Corps end strength by nearly three percent above 

the budget request. In recognition of the integral roles and missions performed by the reserve components, the committee commends and supports the decision by the Secretary of the Army and 

the chief of staff of the Army to request an Army National Guard 

end strength of 350,000, and recommends an increase of $789.0 

million in Army National Guard personnel, operations and maintenance, defense health and procurement accounts to support the 

Army leadership’s request. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 30, 2007: 

Service FY 2006 

authorized 

FY 2007 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2007 

request 

FY 2006 

authorized 

Army .......................................................... 512,400 482,400 512,400 30,000 0 

Navy ........................................................... 352,700 340,700 340,700 0 ¥12,000 

USMC ......................................................... 179,000 175,000 180,000 5,000 1,000 

Air Force .................................................... 357,400 334,200 334,200 0 ¥23,200 

DOD .................................................. 1,401,500 1,332,300 1,367,300 35,000 ¥34,200 

The authorizations contained in this section for the Army and 

Marine Corps exceed by 30,000 and 5,000 respectively the end 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
307 

strengths for those services requested in the budget because the 

committee does not believe that the budget request provided adequate manning levels for the Army and Marine Corps. Additional 

funding for these increases is provided in title XV of the bill. 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 

Minimum Levels 

This section would establish new minimum active duty end 

strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force as of 

September 30, 2007. The committee recommends 504,400 as the 

minimum active duty end strength for the Army. The minimum 

strengths of the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are identical to 

the committee recommendations for those services shown in section 

401. 

Section 403—Additional Authority for Increases of Army and Marine Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 2008 and 

2009 

This section would authorize additional increases of active duty 

end strength for the Army and for the Marine Corps in fiscal years 

2008 and 2009 above the strengths authorized for those services in 

fiscal year 2007. Over the two-year period, the Army would be authorized to increase active duty end strength up to a total of 

532,400, and the Marine Corps would be authorized to increase active duty end strength to 184,000. 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for selected reserve personnel, including the end strength for reserves on 

active duty in support of the reserves, as of September 30, 2007: 

Service FY 2006 

authorized 

FY 2007 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2007 

request 

FY 2006 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................. 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................. 205,000 200,000 200,000 0 ¥5,000 

Navy Reserve ............................................. 73,100 71,300 71,300 0 ¥1,800 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................... 106,800 107,000 107,000 0 200 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 74,000 74,900 74,900 0 900 

DOD Total ......................................... 848,500 842,800 842,800 0 ¥5,700 

Coast Guard Reserve ................................ 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 

The committee notes that subsequent to the receipt of the budget 

request, which proposed a fiscal year 2007 end strength for the 

Army National Guard of 332,900, the Secretary of Defense submitted a revised Army National Guard end strength authorization 

of 350,000 for fiscal year 2007. The committee recommendation 

supports that higher authorization and provides the required additional funding of $471.0 million in the authorizations of appropriations for military personnel, operations and maintenance and defense health. Title I of this Act also recommends an additional 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
308 

$318.0 million for Army National Guard procurement to support 

the recommended end strength. 

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 

Support of the Reserve Components 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of September 30, 

2007: 

Service FY 2006 

authorized 

FY 2007 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2007 

request 

FY 2006 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................. 27,396 27,441 28,165 724 769 

Army Reserve ............................................. 15,270 15,416 15,416 0 146 

Naval Reserve ........................................... 13,392 12,564 12,564 0 ¥828 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................... 13,123 13,206 13,291 85 168 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 2,290 2,707 2,707 0 417 

DOD Total ......................................... 73,732 73,595 74,404 809 672 

The committee’s recommendation in section 411 would support 

the Secretary of Defense’s revised request for an end strength higher than what was initially requested for fiscal year 2007 for the 

Army National Guard. Consistent with that recommendation, the 

committee also recommends an increase in the end strength of 

Army National Guard personnel on active duty in support of that 

component. Furthermore, the committee recommends an increase 

of 85 Air National Guard personnel to improve the capability of the 

E–8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint 

STARS) to support the combatant commanders. In title XV of this 

Act, the committee recommends the funding for this Air National 

Guard increase. 

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

This section would authorize the following end strengths for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2007: 

Service FY 2006 authorized (floor) 

FY 2007 Change from 

Request 

Committee recommendation 

(floor) 

FY 2007 

request 

FY 2006 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................. 25,563 26,050 27,615 1,565 2,052 

Army Reserve ............................................. 7,649 7,912 7,912 0 263 

Air National Guard .................................... 22,971 23,255 23,255 0 284 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 9,852 10,124 10,124 0 272 

DOD Total ......................................... 66,035 67,341 68,906 1,565 2,871 

The committee’s recommendation in section 411 would support 

the Secretary of Defense’s revised request for an end strength higher than what was initially requested for fiscal year 2007 for the 

Army National Guard. Consistent with that recommendation, the 

committee also recommends an increase in the end strength of 

Army National Guard military technicians (dual status). The committee’s recommendation would provide for a 4.3 percent growth in 

the strength of military technicians above the levels authorized in 

fiscal year 2006. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
309 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2007 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual 

Status Technicians 

This section would establish the maximum end strengths for the 

reserve components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual status 

technicians as of September 30, 2007: 

Service FY 2005 

authorized 

FY 2006 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2006 

request 

FY 2005 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................. 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0 

Army Reserve695 ....................................... 595 595 595 0 ¥100 

Air National Guard .................................... 350 350 350 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 90 90 90 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................... 2,735 2,635 2,635 0 ¥100 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 

To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support 

This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) of 

title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of reserve component personnel who may be on active duty or full-time national 

guard duty during fiscal year 2007 to provide operational support. 

The personnel authorized here do not count against the end 

strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412. 

Service FY 2006 

authorized 

FY 2007 Change from 

Request Committee recommendation 

FY 2007 

request 

FY 2006 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................. 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 

Naval Reserve ........................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize $1,098.2 million to be appropriated 

for military personnel. This authorization of appropriations reflects 

both reductions and increases to the budget request for military 

personnel that are itemized below: 

Military personnel 

Amount (in thousands 

of dollars) 

H411 ARNG: Restore funding to support 350,000 end strength ....... 189,000 

H411 ARNG: Restore TRICARE accrual funding ............................... 62,000 

H601 Additional 0.5% basic pay raise ................................................. 300,000 

H615 Expanded eligibility of dental officers for special pay .............. 4,000 

H623: Incentives for high-demand, low density skills ........................ 5,000 

H632 Ship second privately owned vehicle to non-foreign overseas 

areas .................................................................................................... 30,000 

Army: Recruiting and retention bonuses ............................................. 100,000 

Army: Expanded Army early commissioning program (Skelton) ....... 3,500 

USAR: Army-wide office basic course funding .................................... 39,200 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
310 

Military personnel—Continued 

Amount (in thousands 

of dollars) 

Navy: Deferred PCS (CNO UFR) ......................................................... 100,000 

Air Guard: Recruiting and retention bonuses ..................................... 59,000 

Leg. proposal not adopted: Extend basic pay table to 40 years of 

service ................................................................................................. ¥4,000 

Targeted pay raise savings due to 0.5% basic pay increase ............... ¥5,000 

Unexpended MILPERS balances .......................................................... ¥1,839,000 

Section 422—Armed Forces Retirement Home 

This section would authorize $54.8 million to be appropriated for 

the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home during fiscal 

year 2007. 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

OVERVIEW 

The committee’s recommendations reflect heavily the views and 

issues raised by servicemembers to committee Members and staff 

during oversight visits in the United States, in the combat zones 

of Southwest Asia, and across the world. Furthermore, the recommendations in this title represent the committee’s continuing 

commitment to support the dedicated, exceptional Americans who 

serve in the armed forces. The committee recognizes that the active 

duty, national guard, and reserve members serving today are performing superbly, notwithstanding the many stresses of the global 

war on terrorism. The committee trusts that the recommendations 

made here will help to relieve some of that stress and also recognize the significant sacrifices that take place each day in the lives 

of the men and women who serve in uniform, and in the lives of 

the families that support them. 

A major focus of this title involves not only servicemembers who 

have been wounded or injured, but also the surviving family members of those who have died or been seriously injured in service. 

Such focus continues the committee’s initiatives enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163) to improve programs that directly affect the injured, the 

wounded and the survivors. Therefore, the committee recommends 

the following: 

(1) The remains of military personnel who die during combat 

operations or who die of non-combat related injuries in the theater of combat, would be moved by dedicated aircraft, from 

Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, to the military airfield nearest to the servicemember’s place of interment and would be accompanied by military personnel who would render military 

honors at the destination airfield. 

(2) The military services’ physical evaluation board (PEB) 

process would be reformed to address concerns of military 

members, particularly reserve component members, about the 

consistency and timeliness of PEB decisions, the ability of 

members to gain information about PEB procedures, and the 

rationale supporting board decisions. 

(3) The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to provide 

computer/electronic assistive technology, devices, and techVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
311 

nology services to military personnel who have sustained a severe or debilitating illness or injury while serving in support 

of a contingency operation and keep those devices after they 

separate from the military. 

The reserve components constitute another major focus of this 

title. Their roles and responsibilities have changed dramatically 

since the start of the global war on terrorism and the committee 

believes it is necessary to adjust existing authorities and create 

new authorities to better reflect the nation’s continuing reliance on 

the national guard and the reserves. Therefore, the committee recommends: 

(1) New authority to enable the mobilization of members of 

the reserve components to provide assistance in serious natural or manmade disasters. 

(2) An extension from 270 days to 365 days the maximum 

period of mobilization under what is known as the President’s 

Selected Reserve Call-up authority. 

(3) New authority that formally authorizes current practices 

in which full-time national guard and reserve members are 

performing many additional functions beyond their traditional 

support to the reserve components. Such additional functions 

include instructing and training active duty members, Department of Defense civilians and foreign military personnel in the 

United States. 

(4) New authority that would authorize State governors, 

under title 32, United States Code, to mobilize national guard 

forces to support operational missions taken at the request of 

the President or the Secretary of Defense, and to perform 

training operations and missions assigned by the secretaries of 

the Army or Air Force. 

Finally, in this title, the committee makes recommendations to 

improve the quality of the service and the quality of life of 

servicemembers and their families and to recognize that service. 

Those recommendations include the following: 

(1) Supplementary funding, totaling $65.0 million, for local 

educational agencies that are heavily impacted by the attendance of military dependents or that experience significant increases or decreases in the average daily attendance of military dependent students due to military force structure 

changes. 

(2) Permanent authority for the military services, especially 

the Army, to reduce from 24 months to 18 months the minimum time-in-grade required for promotion from 1st lieutenant 

to captain, using an Army example. This authority would assist the military departments in meeting long-term unit and 

operational requirements. 

(3) Improved transition assistance for servicemembers leaving active duty by directing that the Secretary of Defense require attendance at the Department of Labor transition assistance programs of all who had not previously attended. 

(4) Authorization of a Cold War Victory Medal that would be 

issued upon the application of an eligible enlisted member, officer, or warrant officer who served during the Cold War; and 

the authorization of the award of the Purple Heart to members 

of the armed forces who died as prisoners of war in captivity, 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
312 

or who died after captivity due to illness or injury sustained 

while a prisoner of war. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Academy Language Training 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has placed 

great emphasis on improving the strategic language posture of the 

United States. The military academies of the United States are implementing new plans to strengthen their current programs. Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force to report on the current state of language programs 

and the plans for implementing a strategic language development 

program at the United States Military Academy, the United States 

Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy. In consultation with the superintendents of each academy, the secretaries 

should provide data on the number of students participating in language training, the languages in which they are participating, levels of proficiency, and language classes offered. In addition, the superintendents should identify their plans for expanding foreign language programs, provide an update on their current implementation of the language initiatives included in the fiscal year 2007 

budget request, and describe the costs required for the programs. 

The committee directs the Secretaries to submit their plans for 

the expansion of language programs and the resource requirements 

to accomplish them to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

Closure of Article 32 Investigations in Cases of Sexual Assault or 

Domestic Violence 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the procedures used in pretrial investigations under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The purpose of the review is to identify additional criteria and factors for inclusion in the Manual for 

Courts-Martial that would better serve to guide commanders and 

investigating officers, in cases of sexual assault and domestic violence, in determining when, and to what extent, such Article 32 

proceedings should be closed to spectators, the media, and others 

in order to protect witnesses and victims of crime against inappropriate treatment, intimidation, or embarrassment, or from unwarranted publicity or sensationalism resulting from their role in testifying or providing evidence in the investigation. The review shall 

be conducted with the particular interests in mind for victims of 

sexual assault and domestic violence and the unique concerns that 

may be associated with or accompany their testimony in a public 

forum, as well as for all other victims and witnesses who may provide less than complete testimony in a public setting due to embarrassment or timidity. In conducting the review, the Secretary 

should also consider the recommendation made on this matter in 

the June 2005 ‘‘Report of The Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment & Violence at the Military Service Academies’’ that Congress should amend Title 10 of the U.S. Code regarding Article 32 

to explicitly permit commanders to close the hearings to the public. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
313 

The Secretary should also consider, in this review, prior precedent 

regarding the closing of Article 32 proceedings to the public in decisions of the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the Military Departments’

Courts of Criminal Appeals. The committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to present to the House Committee on Armed Services and 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services a report on the results 

of this review and any recommendations for change to the Manual 

for Courts-Martial no later than April 15, 2007. 

Department of the Navy Personal Responsibility and Values: 

Education and Training Program 

The Committee is aware that the Navy’s Personal Responsibility 

and Values: Education and Training (PREVENT) program has enjoyed great success in addressing alcohol and drug abuse issues 

among new recruits and enlisted sailors between the ages of 18–

26. The committee is impressed that the Navy is using the PREVENT program to empower junior members to take responsibility 

for their lives by making positive choices designed to enhance personal and professional effectiveness. Specifically, the committee 

notes that the program gives sailors the tools they need to avoid, 

reduce, or eliminate risky, self-destructive behaviors such as alcohol and substance abuse that adversely impact Navy readiness and 

performance. 

Given the positive outcomes this program has achieved in the 

lives of sailors and its contributions to readiness and mission performance, the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to increase funding for this program to ensure that additional Navy personnel have the opportunity to participate. Additionally, the committee recommends that the Secretary extend the benefits of participation in the PREVENT program to enlisted personnel in the 

Marine Corps. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 

the Navy to study the feasibility of allocating additional funding to 

the PREVENT program and extending eligibility to Marine Corps 

personnel. 

The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings and 

recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 

Educational Opportunities in Interagency Coordination at the 

Military War Colleges 

The committee believes that improving interagency coordination 

is vital to U.S. national security, and that the military war colleges 

should provide educational opportunities in the area of interagency 

coordination. The committee commends the Department on the 

steps it has already taken to incorporate the subject of interagency 

coordination in its professional educational activities but believes 

that opportunities may exist to increase the interagency component 

in those educational activities. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services, by April 1, 2007, a report on the 

steps the military war colleges should take to provide educational 

opportunities in the area of interagency coordination. The report 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
314 

shall address the advisability of creating faculty positions or chairs 

in each war college to allow faculty representation from the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and agencies under the oversight of the Director of 

National Intelligence. The report shall include estimates of the cost 

of implementing the findings of the report. 

Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies 

The Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies (JAMRS) 

program is the Department of Defense’s (DOD) corporate level effort to bolster the effectiveness of the recruiting programs conducted by the military services. Among its principal initiatives is 

a campaign to build advocacy and support among parents, teachers, 

and coaches for service to the nation by ensuring that these key 

influencers of youth have the facts about military service and are 

able to engage in conversations with youth about serving the nation in the military. The committee has received testimony from a 

wide range of senior DOD personnel regarding the challenges recruiters face in convincing youth influencers about the value of 

service to the nation. The committee notes that despite such testimony, the budget request for JAMRS has not increased over the 

last two years, remaining at $7.0 million. The committee believes 

that this funding level is insufficient and urges the Secretary of 

Defense to substantially increase future funding for JAMRS. 

Operation of Army Air Ambulance Detachments 

The committee understands that the Army will discontinue the 

operation of the Army air ambulance detachment at Fort Drum, 

New York, and replace the military capability with a contracted air 

ambulance service to support only the installation needs. Replacing 

the military air ambulance capability with a contracted, on-call civilian service could potentially result in reduced aeromedical evacuation capability and responsiveness for on-post emergencies and accidents. Furthermore, the loss of the military air ambulance unit 

means the end of military support under the Military Assistance to 

Safety and Traffic (MAST) program. As a result, the region surrounding Fort Drum will face a devastating loss of emergency response capability. Providing at least an equal replacement capability, in a cost-effective manner, will be extremely difficult, because of the relative isolation of the installation and the climatic 

challenges of the region. Given the potential negative impact on 

both the installation and the region, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to continue to provide military air ambulance 

support to the Fort Drum installation, as well as to support to the 

region surrounding the installation under the MAST program. To 

evaluate any future decision regarding the continuation of military 

air ambulance support at Fort Drum, the committee also directs 

the Secretary of the Army to provide the committee with the following: 

(1) The plan for stationing air ambulance detachments at 

U.S. military installations and the discreet criteria used to determine that stationing; 

(2) A report on the cost-effectiveness and changes in medical 

response factors at other installations where Army air ambuVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
315 

lance detachments have been replaced by contracted capabilities; and 

(3) A review of the potential contracting out options at Fort 

Drum, to include, an analysis of the feasibility of an umbrella 

contract for aeromedical evacuation that provides not only support to Fort Drum, but also to the region. 

Permanent Identification Cards for Adult Disabled Children 

The committee is concerned by reports that military members 

with permanently disabled dependent children are required to periodically renew identification cards for their children. This process 

is especially cumbersome and demanding for elderly parents of 

adult children who must meet the challenge of the verification 

process repeatedly over the course of many years. The committee 

believes that there is an option to develop a procedure to grant permanent identification cards for adult children without significant 

risk to the integrity of the military identification system. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of providing discretionary authority to the secretaries concerned to grant permanent military identification cards to adult 

children of military members when disabilities can be medically 

validated as permanent and financial support qualification can be 

assessed as being of indefinite duration. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on his 

findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

Personnel Plan for Linguists 

The committee continues to be very concerned about the need to 

develop a comprehensive plan for better management of both officer and enlisted linguists in the armed forces. The committee believes that current personnel programs fail to provide linguists adequate incentives to achieve their full potential in language and cultural skills and sufficient promotion opportunities within the linguist career path. The committee is particularly concerned that enlisted members are denied promotion opportunities to senior noncommissioned officer grades. The committee believes that the military departments should invest sufficient grade structure in the 

services’ career paths for linguists to allow highly skilled members 

to compete for promotion within their linguist specialties without 

feeling that they must either change their specialty to improve 

their promotion opportunity or remain a linguist and sacrifice their 

promotion potential. The committee anxiously awaits the Secretary’s report on the need for a personnel plan for linguists in the 

armed forces, required by section 581 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and 

trusts that it will address the Committee’s concerns about the promotion of linguists. 

Process for Restructuring the Army National Guard 

The Army’s active, reserve, and national guard are integral partners in the sustained success of the ‘‘one’’ Army concept. The committee, therefore, is concerned that force structure changes proVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
316 

posed in December 2005 would have had a profound impact on the 

national guard if developed without the active participation of, or 

consultation with, the Army National Guard. The committee 

strongly believes that any plan to restructure the Army National 

Guard should be achieved through a transparent and inclusive 

process. The National Guard Bureau and the Adjutants General 

should be full partners in the development of Army National Guard 

transformation plans. The committee urges senior Army leadership, the National Guard Bureau, and the Adjutants General to 

confer jointly to develop a process to ensure the Army National 

Guard is properly postured, prepared, and equipped to meet its 

warfighting requirements, as well as its homeland defense and 

emergency response requirements. 

Social Security Numbers on Military Identification Cards 

The committee is aware that many service members are concerned that the inclusion of their social security numbers on military identification cards places them at greater risk of identity 

theft. Although the committee recognizes that a new generation of 

identity cards may eliminate this risk in the future, there would 

seem to be a more urgent need for the Department of Defense to 

develop an alternative that would allow servicemembers to request 

that the social security number be eliminated from their identification cards or another number be substituted for the social security 

number. The committee notes that other State and local governments have responded to the increasing risk of identity theft with 

similar alternative procedures. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of developing an alternative process that would allow servicemembers to immediately request that their military identification cards do not include their 

social security numbers. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on his 

findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

Trafficking in Persons 

The committee has followed with interest the Department of Defense’s (DOD) response to the crime of human trafficking. The 

Committee appreciates the steps that the DOD and various combatant commanders have taken to address human trafficking since 

2002. The Secretary of Defense’s strongly worded memo of September 16, 2004 entitled ‘‘Combating Trafficking in Persons,’’ was 

particularly welcome. Such unequivocal leadership is essential for 

setting standards and creating a culture that deters any sort of 

human trafficking. Further, the committee believes that actions 

must be taken by DOD to implement the zero tolerance policy mandated by the Secretary of Defense. To this end, the committee directs the following: 

(1) The Secretary of Defense is to ensure that combatant 

commanders designate a person on their respective staffs to 

carry out anti-trafficking programs and oversee implementation of OSD anti-trafficking directives; and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
317 

(2) Military criminal investigators and prosecutors be 

trained on how to use existing provisions in the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and the 

Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to identify and prosecute human trafficking cases; 

(3) The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice study 

whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for 

Courts-Martial are adequate to proscribe trafficking in persons 

by military personnel; and 

(4) The Office of the Secretary of Defense shall compile and 

disseminate to combatant commanders best practices to combat 

trafficking, particularly those which have already been used effectively by one or more combatant commander. 

Victim Service Organization Privilege in Cases Arising Under 

Uniform Code of Military Justice 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 

issue of privileged or protected communications made by victims of 

sexual assaults to health care providers and victim advocates. The 

purpose of the review is to identify whether potential changes to 

the Manual for Courts-Martial should be made to extend the privileges that are already included within Section V of the Military 

Rules of Evidence to include heath care providers and victim advocates. 

This review should include: 

(1) Existing privileged or protected communications that 

currently exist in Federal and state law and the Manual for 

Courts-Martial for both victim advocates, which include any 

representative of a victim service organization, and health care 

providers, or a representative of a health care provider, and 

the reasoning behind those privileges; 

(2) Definitions and qualifications of victims advocates and or 

health care providers, as defined above; especially the education and training that is involved in order to become a victim 

advocate or health care provider; and whether those qualifications should be a factor in defining the privilege. 

(3) The nature of the relationship between the victim, victims advocate and health care provider. 

(4) The role and responsibilities of the victim advocate. 

(5) The extent to which the privilege can be claimed by individuals other than the victim, victims advocate and health care 

professionals. 

(6) Whether these individuals are military personnel or civilians and whether there are any state licensing requirements 

for these positions. If there are state licensing requirements or 

if individuals are licensed in a state then the review should include what the state licensing requirements entail and whether or not any state requirements could conflict if privileged 

communication were to be extended to victim advocates and 

health care providers. 

(7) An analysis of the recommendation made on this matter 

in the June 2005 ‘‘Report of The Defense Task Force on Sexual 

Harassment & Violence at the Military Service Academies’’

that Congress should create a statutory privilege protecting 

communications made by victims of sexual assault to health 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
318 

care providers and victim advocates. This recommendation 

stated that the privilege should extend to both medical and 

mental health care providers and to those victim advocates 

designated and trained to perform that duty in a manner prescribed by Department of Defense regulation. 

(8) A review of prior precedent regarding privilege and the 

rights of the accused, weighing the accused rights and the 

rights of the victim in decisions of the United States Supreme 

Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 

and the Military Departments’ Courts of Criminal Appeals. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to present to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services a report on the results of this review and any recommendations for change to the Manual for Courts-Martial no 

later than April 15, 2007. 

Web-based Enhancement to Support Family Readiness Programs 

The committee commends the Department of Defense and the 

military services for their efforts to improve family support programs for both active duty and reserve families. However, the committee is concerned that extended and multiple deployments may 

have an adverse impact on the stability of military families and believes the services should explore efforts to use new technologies to 

further enhance outreach and support to such families. It has been 

shown that the use of volunteer-based family support groups has 

been very effective in helping to build self-sufficient families and 

provide critical support in times of need. The committee understands that the Army is using a new technology called the Virtual 

Family Readiness Group that is proving to be an effective tool for 

family support groups to communicate and collaborate across geographic, temporal and other boundaries such as geography, war 

zones, languages, installations, and deployments. The committee 

urges the other services to explore using similar interactive technology to support their family readiness teams to improve efficiency and create more effective outreach avenues for military families particularly during this period of high deployment tempo. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY

Section 501—Authorized Strength of Navy Reserve Flag Officers 

This section, while retaining the authorized strength of Navy Reserve flag officers at 48, would eliminate existing limitations on the 

distribution and allocation of those flag officers. Present law mandates a numerical boundary between the line and staff corps and 

makes specific flag officer allocations among the staff corps elements. 

Section 502—Standardization of Grade of Senior Dental Officer of 

the Air Force with that of Senior Dental Officer of the Army 

This section would require that the officer serving as the senior 

dental officer in the Air Force be appointed in the grade of major 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
319 

general. This is the same grade to which the officer serving as the 

Chief of the Dental Corps in the Army is appointed. 

Section 503—Management of Chief Warrant Officers 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to retain 

Chief Warrant Officers, W–4, after twice failing to be promoted 

using procedures prescribed by the secretary without a mandatory 

selective continuation board, as required under current law. This 

section would also increase the years of service as a warrant officer 

that would require mandatory retirement from 24 to 30 years of 

service. 

Section 504—Reduction in Time-in-Grade Requirement for Promotion to Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and 

Lieutenant in the Navy 

This section would make permanent the authority to reduce from 

24 months to 18 months the minimum time-in-grade required as an 

0–2 before being eligible for promotion to the grade of 0–3. 

Section 505—Military Status of Officers Serving in Certain 

Intelligence Community Positions 

This section would clarify that general and flag officers assigned 

to senior level positions within the Central Intelligence Agency and 

the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shall not be subject to the supervision or control of the Secretary of Defense and 

shall not exercise supervision or control over Department of Defense personnel. This section would further clarify that the assignment of an officer to such a position would not affect the officer’s 

status, grade, rank, compensation, rights, or benefits and that officer’s military pay and allowances would be reimbursed to the Department of Defense from funds available to the Director, Central 

Intelligence Agency or the Director of National Intelligence, as appropriate. 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT MANAGEMENT

Section 511—Revisions to Reserve Call-up Authority 

This section would extend from 270 days to 365 days the duration of service for members of the Selected Reserve and Individual 

Ready Reserve involuntarily called to active duty to support operational missions. This section would also permit the President to 

use this authority to order reserve component members to active 

duty to provide assistance in serious natural or manmade disasters, accidents or catastrophes that occur in the United States, its 

territories and possessions, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This section would also establish criteria 

that the Secretary of Defense must consider to ensure the fair 

treatment of reserve component personnel before mobilizing them 

under this authority. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
320 

Section 512—Military Retirement Credit for Certain Service by National Guard Members Performed While in a State Duty Status 

Immediately After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 

This section would authorize reserve retirement credit for members of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard who 

were mobilized in a State active duty status in response to the declaration of federal emergencies in the counties of the State of New 

Jersey surrounding New York City following the terrorist attacks 

of September 11, 2001. 

Section 513—Report on Private Sector Promotion and Constructive 

Termination of Members of the Reserve Components Called or 

Ordered to Active Service 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report on 

the post-mobilization effects on the private sector employment of 

members of the reserve components. Thus, this section would require the secretary to provide data, based on information voluntarily provided by reserve component members, not only on postmobilization private sector promotions, but also on the voluntary 

resignations by the reservist because of private sector working conditions the employee found unbearable. The secretary’s report to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services would be due no later than March 1, 

2007. 

SUBTITLE C—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Section 521—Authority to Permit Members Who Participate in the 

Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship Program to Participate in the Health Professions Scholarship Program and Serve 

on Active Duty 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to modify 

agreements entered into by cadets in the Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps who participate in the Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty 

Scholarship Program so that a cadet or former cadet could receive 

assistance under the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship 

Program (HPSP) and serve on active duty as required by the 

HPSP. At present, a cadet who participates in the Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship Program must serve in a reserve 

component troop program unit. 

Section 522—Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Instruction 

Eligibility Expansion 

This section would allow the employment of retired reserve and 

national guard members as Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

(JROTC) instructors. Existing law only allows the employment of 

active duty and retired regular officers and non-commissioned officers as JROTC instructors. This section would also decouple the 

JROTC instructor salaries of retired reserve and national guard 

from active duty pay and military retirement entitlements and 

allow the secretary of the military department concerned to determine their salaries and to reimburse the JROTC host institution by 

an amount determined by the secretary concerned. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
321 

Section 523—Authority for United States Military Academy and 

United States Air Force Academy Permanent Military Professors 

to Assume Command Positions While on Periods of Sabbatical 

This section would authorize the secretaries of the Army and the 

Air Force to assign military officers who are permanent professors 

at the United States Military and Air Force Academies, respectively, to act in a command capacity while on sabbaticals outside 

the academic realm of the academies. 

Section 524—Expansion of Service Academy Exchange Programs 

with Foreign Military Academies 

This section would increase from 24 to 100 the number of cadets 

at the United States Military Academy and the United States Air 

Force Academy, and the number of midshipmen at the United 

States Naval Academy, who may participate in exchange programs 

with foreign military academies. This section would also increase 

from 24 to 100 the number of students from foreign military academies whom may receive instruction at each of the service academies. Furthermore, this section would increase from $120,000 to 

$1.0 million the amount of appropriated funding that each service 

academy could expend in support of the exchange programs and 

would authorize the academies to also use additional funding that 

was provided from other than appropriated sources to support the 

exchange programs. The committee, however, does not intend that 

the additional funding from other than appropriated sources be 

used to fund exchange students in excess of the limit set by this 

section. 

Section 525—Review of Legal Status of Junior ROTC Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review the 

1976 legal opinion issued by the Department of Defense General 

Counsel that determined that Junior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps (JROTC) instructors may be transported to a non-host school 

only to teach students previously enrolled in the JROTC unit at the 

host school, and only when it is impractical to require them to take 

courses at that host school. The purpose of the secretary’s review 

would be to determine whether changes in law since 1976, including the repeal of the statutory limits on the number of JROTC 

units, and local school redistricting, which have split a host school’s 

JROTC students into nearly equal groups, would now allow for the 

instructors from a host school to travel to and instruct JROTC students at another nearby school. This section also would allow a 

host school that is currently providing for the assignment of 

JROTC instructors to another school with 70 or more students the 

authority to continue such support until 180 days following the 

submission of the report by the Secretary of Defense. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
322 

SUBTITLE D—GENERAL SERVICE AUTHORITIES

Section 531—Test of Utility of Test Preparation Guides and Education Programs in Enhancing Recruit Candidate Performance on 

the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and 

Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to administer 

a test program conducted by the secretaries of the military departments to determine the utility of commercially available test preparation guides and education programs to assist recruit candidates 

in achieving improved scores on military recruit qualification tests. 

The Secretary would identify 2,000 recruit candidates to receive 

test preparation assistance and a like number of recruit candidates 

to participate in a control group to allow comparisons of test performance and subsequent duty performance in training and unit 

settings following active duty entry. The Secretary would begin the 

test within nine months following the date of enactment of this Act. 

The test would identify participants over a 1–year period from the 

start of the test and shall assess duty performance for each participant for 18 months following entry on active duty. 

The committee has observed that there are many self-paced, computer assisted, and instructor led options for providing test preparation assistance for recruit qualification tests. The committee is 

interested in exploring the potential that these test preparation 

guides and education programs offer for the military to assist recruit candidates to achieve higher and more accurate aptitude and 

qualification scores. The committee believes that the test program 

proposed in this section would allow the Secretary to determine if 

test preparation assistance can be reliably used to improve the 

process by which recruits are placed in specialties and increase the 

number of youth that qualify for entry into the armed forces. 

Section 532—Nondisclosure of Selection Board Proceedings 

This section would clarify that selection board proceedings regarding promotion, retention, retirement, separation, and other 

personnel actions shall not be disclosed to any person who is not 

a board member and board records shall be immune from legal 

process, not be admitted as evidence, and not used for any judicial 

or administrative proceeding without the consent of the secretary 

concerned. 

Section 533—Report on Extent of Provision of Timely Notice of 

Long-Term Deployments 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report on 

the number of members of the Armed Forces who, since September 

11, 2001, have not received at least 30-days notice prior to a deployment that was scheduled to last 180 days or more. This section 

would require the report be made to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no 

later than March 1, 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
323 

SUBTITLE E—AUTHORITIES RELATING TO GUARD AND RESERVE

DUTY

Section 541—Title 10 Definition of Active Guard and Reserve Duty 

This section would establish a new definition of ‘‘active guard 

and reserve’’ in section 101 of title 10, United States Code, and 

would also clarify the definition of ‘‘active guard and reserve duty’’

in the same section. 

Section 542—Authority for Active Guard and Reserve Duties to Include Support of Operational Missions Assigned to the Reserve 

Components and Instruction and Training of Active-Duty Personnel 

This section would authorize reserve component personnel performing active guard and reserve duty, as well as military technicians (dual status), to also instruct or train active duty members 

of the armed forces, members of the foreign military forces, and Department of Defense contractor personnel and civilian employees. 

This section would limit the instructional or training duty only to 

that conducted in the United States, its possessions, the District of 

Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This section 

would also require that the performance of such instructional and 

training duty be in addition to, not in lieu of, the primary duties 

of personnel on active guard and reserve duty and military technicians (dual status), which is to assist in the organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing and training the reserve components. 

Section 543—Governor’s Authority to Order Members to Active 

Guard and Reserve Duty 

This section would authorize the governor of a State, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, or the commanding general of the District of Columbia, to order members of 

the national guard to perform active guard and reserve duty, under 

title 32, United States Code, to support operations or missions at 

the request of the President or Secretary of Defense, or to support 

training operations and training missions assigned in whole or in 

part by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force. 

Section 544—National Guard Officers Authority to Command 

This section would permit, with Presidential authorization and 

consent of the governor, any national guard officer to retain a State 

commission in the national guard while serving on active duty. 

Thus, the officer would possess a dual status, State and federal, 

that would permit the officer to command forces and mixed component units operating under title 10, United States Code, and under 

title 32, United States Code. This section would provide that the 

Presidential authorization and gubernatorial consent be obtained 

in advance in order to establish command succession in active duty 

and mixed component units. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
324 

Section 545—Expansion of Operations of Civil Support Teams 

This section would expand the types of emergencies to which 

members of the reserve components who are assigned to weapons 

of mass destruction civil support teams might respond. Thus, this 

section would authorize employment of such teams in the United 

States in natural or manmade disasters, or in the intentional or 

unintentional release of nuclear, biological, radiological, or toxic or 

poisonous chemical materials in the United States that results, or 

could result, in the catastrophic loss of life or property. 

SUBTITLE F—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Section 551—Authority for Presentation of Medal of Honor Flag to 

Living Medal of Honor Recipients and to Living Primary Nextof-Kin of Deceased Medal of Honor Recipients 

This section would allow the purchase and presentation of a 

Medal of Honor flag to all living Medal of Honor recipients or, if 

deceased, to their living primary next-of-kin. 

Section 552—Cold War Victory Medal 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to design a 

Cold War Victory Medal and issue it, upon application by a 

servicemember, to those individuals who: 

(1) Performed active duty or inactive duty for training as an 

enlisted member, officer, or warrant officer, during the Cold 

War and completed an initial term of enlistment or obligation; 

or 

(2) If discharged before completion of the initial term of enlistment or obligation, was honorably discharged after completion of not less than 180 days of service on active duty. 

Section 553—Posthumous Award of Purple Heart for Prisoners of 

War Who Die in or Due to Captivity 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to award, 

posthumously, the Purple Heart to a member of the armed forces 

who died while in captivity as a prisoner of war or died due to injury or illness obtained while in captivity as a prisoner of war. If 

a servicemember died prior to the enactment of this Act then the 

secretary concerned would award the Purple Heart, upon receipt of 

an application that is made to the secretary containing such information as the secretary requires, to the appropriate next-of-kin of 

the servicemember. 

Section 554—Advancement on the Retired List of Certain 

Decorated Retired Navy and Marine Corps Officers 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to advance 

to the next higher on the retired list of officers who had been specifically commended for performance of duty in combat during 

World War II. Advancement on the retired list had been promised 

to a number of officers with valor decorations during World War II, 

but officers have been denied the honor because they retired after 

the expiration of the authority in law. This section would allow adVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
325 

vancement on the retired list, but would only be honorary and 

would have no affect on compensation or benefits. 

Section 555—Report on Department of Defense Process for 

Awarding Decorations 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review the 

policy, procedures, and processes of the military departments for 

awarding decorations to members of the Armed Forces. The object 

of the review is to ensure that award recommendations are submitted and processed in a timely fashion and that the same consideration and timeliness that is afforded recommendations for active 

duty personnel is also provided to recommendations for reserve 

component members. This section would require the Secretary of 

Defense, no later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

this act, to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services regarding 

the findings and recommendations, if any, for changes to the procedures and processes of the military departments. 

SUBTITLE G—MATTERS RELATING TO CASUALTIES

Section 561—Criteria for Removal of Member from Temporary 

Disability Retired List 

This section would clarify that a member with less than a 30 percent disability rating may not be removed from the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) and separated prior to the maximum 

TDRL period allowed by law unless the disability is of a permanent 

nature and stable. 

Section 562—Department of Defense Computer/Electronic 

Accommodations Program for Severely Wounded Members 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide 

assistive technology, assistive technology devices, and assistive 

technology services to a member of the armed forces who has sustained a severe or debilitating illness or injury while serving in 

support of a contingency operation. This section would further authorize the Secretary to continue to provide such devices and services for an indefinite period, without regard to whether the person 

being assisted continues to be a member of the armed forces. 

Section 563—Transportation of Remains of Casualties Dying in a 

Theater of Combat Operations 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to transport 

by air, when air transport is appropriate, the remains of military 

servicemembers who died during combat operations or who died of 

non-combat related injuries in the theater of combat, from Dover 

Air Force Base, Delaware, to the military airfield nearest to the 

servicemember’s place of internment or, if the next-of-kin requests 

it, to the commercial airfield nearest the interment location. This 

section would also require that: 

(1) Either military aircraft or aircraft contracted by the military be dedicated to the exclusive mission of moving the remains; 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
326 

(2) Active or reserve component military personnel escort 

the remains during transportation from Dover Air Force Base 

until the remains are delivered to the next-of-kin of the deceased servicemember or a representative of the next-of-kin; 

and 

(3) A proper military escort, made up of, either, members of 

the active or reserve components, are present in sufficient 

number at the arrival airfield to remove the servicemember’s 

remains from the aircraft and to render proper military honors. 

This section would permit one exception to the use of military 

aircraft by authorizing the use of commercial airlines to move the 

servicemember’s remains from Dover to the airport nearest to the 

servicemember’s interment only if requested by the next-of-kin of 

the servicemember. The committee makes these recommendations 

based on a strong belief that the remains of our military men and 

women should be transported with the utmost ceremony, honors, 

and respect. 

Section 564—Annual Budget Display of Funds for POW/MIA 

Activities of Department of Defense 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

Congress, as a part of the Department of Defense justification material that supports the President’s annual budget request, a consolidated budget justification display that includes the prior year 

and future year funding for all programs and activities of the following organizations whose missions involve the accounting for and 

recovery of military personnel of the armed forces who are missing 

in action or prisoners of war: the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing 

Personnel Office (DPMO), the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory 

(AFDIL), and the Air Force’s Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory 

(LSEL). The budget display should include for each of these organizations: 

(1) The amount, by appropriation and functional area, originally requested for the fiscal year of the budget request, with 

the supporting narrative describing the rationale for the requested funding levels; 

(2) A summary of actual or estimated expenditures for the 

two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which the budget 

is being submitted; 

(3) The amounts requested in the budget for the fiscal year 

of the request; 

(4) A detailed explanation of any inconsistencies between 

the amount originally requested by each organization and the 

amount of funds requested by the President’s annual budget; 

and, 

(5) The budget estimates for these organizations for the next 

five years. 

The committee makes these recommendations because it believes 

that the mission to account for our missing servicemembers from 

past conflicts is a critical mission and to effectively perform its 

range of missions DPMO, JPAC, AFDIL, and LSEL must be fully 

resourced. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
327 

SUBTITLE H—ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES FOR

DEFENSE DEPENDENTS EDUCATION

Section 571—Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational 

Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees 

This section would provide $50.0 million for assistance to local 

educational agencies that have military dependent students comprising at least 20 percent of the students in average daily attendance during a year. This section would also provide $15.0 million 

for assistance to local educational agencies that experience significant increases or decreases in the average daily attendance of military dependent students due to military force structure changes, 

the relocation of military forces from one base to another, and from 

base closures and realignments. The committee makes this recommendation in connection with its continuing strong support of 

the need to help local school districts with significant concentrations of military students. 

Section 572—Enrollment in Defense Dependents’ Education System 

of Dependents of Foreign Military Members Assigned to Supreme 

Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enroll 

on a space-required, tuition-free basis a limited number of dependents of foreign military members who are assigned to the Supreme 

Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, in the Department of Defense 

dependents’ education system in Mons, Belgium. 

SUBTITLE I—POSTAL BENEFITS

Section 575–Postal Benefits Program for Members of the Armed 

Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the United States Postal Service, to provide a program 

of postal benefits to military members who are serving in Iraq or 

Afghanistan, or who are hospitalized at a medical facility under the 

jurisdiction of the armed forces as a result of disease or injury incurred while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. The postal benefit 

would be provided using coupons or other forms of evidence indicating a mailing privilege to be used to mail letters, sound and 

video recordings, printed materials, or ground parcels not exceeding 15 pounds in weight at no cost. The section would require that 

the mailing privilege be exercised at a United States post office and 

be addressed to a qualified individual. 

Section 576—Funding 

This section would specify that the Secretary of Defense shall 

provide funding to support the operation of the postal benefit program from funds appropriated for a contingent emergency reserve 

fund or as an emergency supplemental appropriation. This section 

would also require the Secretary to closely coordinate the transfer 

of funding to support the program with the United States Postal 

Service. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
328 

Section 577—Duration 

This section would specify that the Secretary of Defense shall operate the postal benefit program for the one-year period beginning 

on the date on which the Secretary publishes regulations to administer the program. 

SUBTITLE J—OTHER MATTERS

Section 581—Reduction in Department of Defense Accrual 

Contributions to Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund 

This section would reduce the Department of Defense’s accrual 

contributions into the Military Retirement Fund by requiring the 

department to contribute at the lower, more appropriate part-time 

rate for reserve component soldiers who are mobilized or on active 

duty for special work. Under current law, the department must 

make a contribution for such reserve component personnel at the 

higher, full-time rate even though when the reserve component 

personnel retire their reserve retirement annuity would be lower 

than the retirement annuity of an active component member. 

Section 582—Dental Corps of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery 

This section would change the current structure of the Department of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery by eliminating 

the requirement for a separate dental division within the bureau. 

However, this section would also establish the Dental Corps within 

the bureau and provide for the integration of the Dental Corps into 

the operations of the bureau. 

Section 583—Permanent Authority for Presentation of Recognition 

Items for Recruitment and Retention Purposes 

This section would make permanent the authority in section 

2261 of title 10, United States Code, to expend appropriated funds 

to procure recognition items of nominal or modest value for recruitment or retention purposes and to present such items to members 

of the armed forces and to family members of members of the 

armed forces, and other individuals, recognized as providing support that substantially facilitates service in the armed forces. 

Section 584—Report on Feasibility of Establishment of Military 

Entrance Processing Command Station on Guam 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report by June 1, 2007, on the feasibility and cost effectiveness of 

establishing on Guam a military entrance processing station for 

new recruits of the armed forces who are drawn from the western 

Pacific region. The Secretary’s report would be provided to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and to the House Committee on 

Armed Services. 

Section 585—Persons Authorized to Administer Enlistment and 

Appointment Oaths 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to designate 

who is authorized to administer an enlistment or appointment 

oath, and would expand the number of people eligible to administer 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
329 

such oaths when the situation dictates. Sections 502 and 1031 of 

title 10, United States Code, currently permit any commissioned office of any component of the armed forces to administer such oaths. 

By contrast, section 936(b)(6) of title 10 provides that the authority 

to administer oaths includes ‘‘[a]ll other persons designated by regulations of the armed forces or by statute.’’ This change would clarify any apparent contradictions between these sections of law. 

Section 586—Repeal of Requirement for Periodic Department of 

Defense Inspector General Assessments of Voting Assistance 

Compliance at Military Installations 

This section would eliminate the requirement for the Inspector 

General of the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct periodic 

assessments of compliance with voting assistance requirements at 

military installations. The inspectors general of the Army, Navy 

and Air Force already conduct installation visits to assess this compliance; therefore, any visits made by the DOD Inspector General 

would duplicate that effort. This section would not change the requirement that the DOD inspector general provide Congress with 

an annual report consolidating, summarizing and independently 

assessing the results of the reviews by the military service inspectors general. Furthermore, the DOD Inspector General would still 

maintain the statutory authority to conduct installation assessment 

visits throughout the Department to augment those conducted by 

the inspectors general of the military services. 

Section 587—Physical Evaluation Boards 

This section would make the following improvements to Physical 

Evaluation Board (PEB) operations and timeliness and consistency 

of decisions: 

(1) Require the secretaries of the military departments to 

ensure that documents announcing decisions of PEBs convey 

the findings and conclusions of the board in an orderly and 

itemized fashion with specific attention to each issue presented 

by the member in regard to that member’s case. 

(2) Require the Secretary of Defense to publish regulations 

establishing requirements and training standards for Physical 

Evaluation Board liaison officers and to assess the compliance 

of the secretaries of the military departments with those regulations at least once every three years; and 

(3) Require the Secretary of Defense to publish regulations 

establishing standards and guidelines concerning PEB assignment and training of staff, operating procedures, and consistency and timeliness of board decisions and to assess the compliance of the secretaries of the military departments with 

those regulations at least once every three years. 

As the war placed greater demands on the disability evaluation 

system, the committee observed increased complaints from 

servicemembers, particularly reserve component members, about 

the consistency and timeliness of PEB decisions, the ability of 

members to gain information about PEB procedures, and the rationale supporting board decisions. The committee also noted that 

the Government Accountability Office report, Military Disability 

System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
330 

Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members 

(GAO–06–362), March 2006, was critical of the absence of oversight 

management of the PEBs exercised by the Department of Defense. 

The committee believes that the initiatives proposed in this section 

would result in enhanced consistency and timeliness of PEB decisions and improved communication with members being serviced 

by the disability evaluation system. 

Section 588—Department of Labor Transitional Assistance 

Program 

This section would require participation by eligible members of 

the armed forces within the Department of Defense in the transitional assistance program provided by the Secretary of Labor. The 

Secretary of Defense is not required but shall encourage members 

to attend the program if they have previously participated in the 

program or upon discharge from active duty, are returning to an 

employment position or are enrolled in school. 

Section 589—Revision in Government Contributions to MedicareEligible Retiree Health Care Fund 

This section would change the formula by which the government 

makes annual contributions to the Medicare-eligible Uniformed 

Services Retiree Health Care Fund. This fund is used to finance 

the health care provided by the uniformed services to retirees of 

those services who are also eligible to receive health care under 

Medicare. The section would not make any change in the health 

care benefits provided to Medicare-eligible uniformed services retirees. The section, however, would reduce the annual government 

contribution to the fund by changing the formula for calculating 

that contribution, as follows: 

(1) Excluding the cadets and midshipmen at the service 

academies of the armed forces; 

(2) Excluding members of the reserve components who are 

not counted against active component end strength by reason 

of section 115(i) of title 10, United States Code; and 

(3) Basing the calculation on Selected Reserve strength, not 

the strength of the larger Ready Reserve. 

The section would also restate and clarify Congressional intent, 

enacted by section 725 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), by 

prohibiting any funds authorized or appropriated to the Department of Defense from being used to make any payment to the fund. 

Then, as now, the committee intends that the Secretary of the 

Treasury, not the Secretary of Defense, be wholly, completely and 

exclusively responsible for making the annual accrual payments required by Chapter 56 of title 10 United States Code. Therefore, the 

committee also directs that no annual accrual payment required by 

Chapter 56 be charged, credited, or classified in any budget formulation, budget functional classification or scoring of mandatory or 

discretionary spending against the Department of Defense. The 

committee takes this action because budget requests since the enactment of section 725 have not complied with Congressional intent. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
331 

Section 590—Military Chaplains 

This section would establish that chaplains in each of the military services would have the prerogative to pray according to the 

dictates of their own consciences, except as must be limited by military necessity. The section would also clarify that whenever a limitation for military necessity was applied it would be imposed in the 

least restrictive manner feasible. 

Section 591—Report on Personnel Requirements for Airborne 

Assets Identified as Low-Density, High-Demand Airborne Assets 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report, not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, on personnel requirements and shortfalls for airborne assets identified as 

low-density, high-demand airborne assets based on combatant commander requirements to conduct and sustain operations for the 

global war on terrorism, and would include: the number of operations and maintenance crews to meet tasking contemplated to conduct operations for the global war on terrorism; the current numbers of operations and maintenance crews; if applicable, shortages 

of operations and maintenance crews; whether such shortages are 

addressed in the future years defense program; whether endstrength increase are required to meet any such shortages; costs of 

personnel needed to address shortfalls; and if applicable, the number and types of equipment needed to address training shortfalls. 

Section 592—Entrepreneurial Service Members Empowerment 

Task Force 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, 

to establish a task force to provide timely input and recommendations to both the secretary and the administrator on: 

(1) Measures to improve not only programs designed to address the economic concerns, challenges and opportunities of 

reserve component members; and, 

(2) The coordination among various governmental entities 

whose programs could assist reserve component members with 

those economic concerns, challenges and opportunities. 

This section would authorize the task force to operate until September 30, 2009. 

Section 593—Comptroller General Report on Military 

Conscientious Objectors 

This section would require the Comptroller General to submit to 

Congress, not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, a report concerning members of the Armed Forces who have claimed 

the status as a military conscientious objector between January 1, 

1989 and December 31, 2006. 

Section 594—Commission on the National Guard and Reserves 

This section would amend section 513 of the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 

Law 108–375) to extend the Commission on the National Guard 

and Reserves by six months. This section would also direct the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
332 

commission to study and report to Congress by March 1, 2007, on 

the following additional matters: the advisability and feasibility of 

implementing the provisions of H.R. 5200 of the 109th Congress; 

whether the Chief, National Guard Bureau, should serve in the 

grade of general in his current capacity; and whether the Department of Defense processes for defining the equipment and funding 

necessary for the National Guard to perform its responsibilities, 

under title 10, United States Code, and title 32, United States 

Code, are adequate. 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to believe that successful recruiting and 

retention in a wartime environment is directly dependent on the 

close oversight of compensation and benefit programs to ensure 

that they remain current, flexible, and effective. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends an across-the-board pay raise of 2.7 percent 

and a further adjustment to the military pay table to target increases to mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and warrant officers. The committee also recognizes that some previously 

adopted compensation policies, bonuses, and special pays require 

modification to ensure they remain current and effective and the 

committee has recommended a number of such adjustments. 

The committee remains committed to protecting and enhancing 

military exchange, commissary, and morale, welfare, and recreation 

programs. Accordingly, the committee has included provisions that 

would clarify the primacy of nonappropriated fund activities in providing ancillary support services when government property is 

leased to private parties, specify the allocation of revenue received 

by commissaries for certain products, and require a test of golf 

carts that are accessible to disabled persons. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Elimination of the Survivor Benefit Plan Two-Tier Annuity 

Computation System 

The committee has learned that there may be approximately 137 

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuitants experiencing a reduction in 

their overall compensation as a result of the phased elimination of 

the two-tier annuity computation for surviving spouses enacted in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–136). The committee believes that the reduction in 

overall income may result in those cases where annuitants receive 

full payment of Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs and Supplemental Survivor 

Benefit Program (SSBP) benefits without the dollar for dollar offset 

that is taken from standard SBP payments. The committee notes 

that retirees were charged higher premiums to participate in SSBP 

and specifically counter the reduction in SBP benefits that occurs 

when annuitants arrive at age 62 and social security benefits became available. The committee fears that as the phased elimination 

of the two-tier system progresses, the SSBP payments are being inVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00356 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
333 

crementally replaced by payments from the standard SBP. This 

means that income that has not been subject to the DIC offset is 

being replaced with income that is subject to the offset thus resulting in a loss of income to the annuitant. The committee is troubled 

that the loss of income being experienced by annuitants is potentially an unintended consequence of the process to eliminate the 

two-tier annuity computation system. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study this issue to confirm that 

the problem exists and determine the number of annuitants that 

are losing income, the extent of the income being lost, the cause of 

the income loss, and, if appropriate, the legislative solution. 

The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings and 

recommendations, including any legislative proposals, by March 31, 

2007 to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services. 

Military Decorations and Uniform Accouterments Sold in Military 

Exchange Stores 

The committee strongly believes that all medals associated with 

military decorations and military ribbons, badges, insignia, and 

other uniform accouterments offered to military members in military exchange stores should be manufactured within the United 

States. The committee is aware of concerns that some medals and 

uniform accouterments manufactured outside the United States 

have appeared in exchange and other government procurement 

channels. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the policies and procedures used by the Army Air 

Force Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, 

and Marine Corps exchanges to procure military medals and military ribbons, badges, insignia, and other uniform accouterments to 

determine the extend to which foreign made products are available 

for sale to servicemembers. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on his 

findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

Recoupment of Survivor Benefit Plan Overpayments 

The committee is concerned by reports that many survivors of 

military retirees are experiencing great anxiety, inconvenience, and 

financial hardship as a result of the procedures employed by the 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) when reconciling 

the simultaneous payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and 

Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits. The committee understands that the survivors are normally subjected to an 

automated and impersonal process that provides little opportunity 

for survivors to understand the details of the recoupment process 

that frequently involves thousands of dollars. The survivors are 

also routinely required to pay a large recoupment amount, which 

is typically followed by a refund back to the survivor of SBP premiums that no longer apply because of DIC eligibility. The committee believes that DFAS, in cooperation with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, is capable of providing better customer service, 

that is more sensitive to limiting the financial disruption imposed 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
334 

on survivors. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the problems associated with the current DFAS procedures regarding the simultaneous entitlement to SBP and DIC 

with a view toward improving customer service and minimizing the 

financial disruptions imposed on survivors. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on his 

findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

Second Destination Transportation of Exchange Store Goods 

The committee was disappointed to learn that the Secretary of 

the Army had failed to include funding in the fiscal year 2007 

budget request for second destination transportation of Army and 

Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) goods for resale at overseas 

stores. Although the Secretary has been quick to make the needed 

adjustment to the budget request to fully account for AAFES’ second destination transportation requirements, there remains the obvious conclusion that the Secretary chose to ignore the specific requirement in law requiring the use of appropriated funds to pay for 

second destination transportation expenses (10 U.S.C., 2643). The 

committee concludes that this oversight reflects a lack of commitment within the Army to protecting the quality of life of members 

and families residing overseas. The Secretary should take note that 

the committee does not tolerate such an oversight and that the 

committee is closely monitoring the second destination transportation funding level during fiscal year 2007 and in future budget 

requests. The committee trusts that the Secretary is in a position 

to prevent such oversights in the future. 

Treatment of Dual Military Couples 

The committee recognizes that there are over 90,000 military 

members who are married to other military members and that the 

number of these dual military couples is increasing. However, the 

committee notes that personnel and compensation law and policy 

that have been established over time have not taken into account 

the changing marital demographics of the force. For example, this 

Act includes a provision that would ensure that a surviving dual 

military spouse of a service member who dies while serving on active duty is provided the same continuation of basic allowance for 

housing as other surviving spouses who are not military members. 

This issue raises concerns that there may be other circumstances 

when law or policy disadvantages dual military couples. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review personnel 

and compensation law and policy to ensure that dual military couples are treated equitably and fairly. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on his 

findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

United Service Organizations 

The committee recognizes that the United Service Organization 

(USO) celebrity tours are well known and beloved by our men and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
335 

women in uniform, particularly among those deployed overseas. 

Over the years, the USO has offered thousands of entertainers the 

opportunity to volunteer their time and talents entertaining the 

troops and their families. The committee is aware that the Armed 

Forces Entertainment (AFE) program has limited resources available to support USO celebrity tours to the levels being requested, 

but the committee acknowledges the dedicated effort by AFE to 

support morale and welfare within the worldwide military community. The committee commends the USO for its support for our 

military personnel and their families and in particular for its extraordinary celebrity tour program that provides world class entertainment in collaboration with the AFE to deployed military forces 

across the globe. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2007 

This section would increase basic pay for members of the armed 

forces by 2.7 percent effective January 1, 2007. This raise would 

continue to fulfill Congress’ commitment to enhance pay raises for 

the armed forces and would reduce the gap between military and 

private sector pay increases from 4.5 percent to 4.0 percent. 

Section 602—Targeted Increase in Basic Pay Rates 

This section would target mid-grade and senior noncommissioned 

officers and warrant officers for additional pay raises effective April 

1, 2007. The targeted raises would allow these groups to achieve 

a level of income that is more comparable with their private sector 

peers. 

Section 603—Conforming Change in General and Flag Officer Pay 

Cap to Reflect Increase in Pay Cap for Senior Executive Service 

Personnel 

This section would increase the cap on general and flag officer 

pay levels from Level III to Level II on the Executive Schedule. 

This section would allow general and flag officer pay levels to keep 

pace with Senior Executive Service pay levels. 

Section 604—Availability of Second Basic Allowance for Housing 

for Certain Reserve Component or Retired Members Serving in 

Support of Contingency Operations 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to provide 

a second monthly basic allowance for housing to reserve component 

members without dependents mobilized in support of a contingency 

operation and serving in a duty location that does not allow the 

members to reside at their permanent residence. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
336 

Section 605—Extension of Temporary Continuation of Housing Allowance for Dependents of Members Dying on Active Duty to 

Spouses Who are Also Members 

This section would authorize military members who are surviving spouses of members who die while serving on active duty to 

receive the basic allowance for housing that would be due to the 

deceased member for 365 days in the same way that such an allowance would be paid to surviving spouses who are not military members. 

Section 606—Clarification of Effective Date of Prohibition on 

Compensation for Correspondence Courses 

This section would clarify that the prohibition barring reserve 

component members from receiving compensation for work or study 

performed in a correspondence course is effective September 7, 

1962, and includes members of the national guard while not in federal service. 

Section 607—Payment of Full Premium for Coverage Under 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Program during Service 

in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom 

This section would require the secretary concerned to increase 

the allowance paid to members serving in either Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom to reimburse the cost of 

all levels of coverage under the Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) elected by the members. Section 613 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–

163) required that the Secretaries concerned pay an allowance to 

reimburse the cost of only the first $150,000 of insurance coverage 

elected by the member. 

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Section 611—Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 

Authorities for Reserve Forces 

This section would extend the authority for the Selected Reserve 

reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment 

bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high 

priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 

without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, and the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus for persons with prior service until December 31, 2007. 

Section 612—Extension of Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for 

Health Care Professionals 

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for registered 

nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special 

pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically short 

wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental officers, and the 

accession bonus for pharmacy officers until December 31, 2007. 

This section would also extend the authority for repayment of eduVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
337 

cational loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve until January 1, 2008. 

Section 613—Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities for 

Nuclear Officers 

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for 

nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2007. 

Section 614—Extension of Other Bonus, Special Pay, and 

Separation Pay Authorities 

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer 

retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus 

for active members, the enlistment bonus for active members, the 

retention bonus for members with critical military skills, the accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the military occupational specialty conversion incentive bonus and the transfer between armed forces incentive bonus until December 31, 2007, except for assignment incentive pay which is extended until December 31, 2008. 

Section 615—Expansion of Eligibility of Dental Officers for 

Additional Special Pay 

This section would clarify that dentists may be paid additional 

special pay notwithstanding their participation in internship or 

residency programs. 

Section 616—Increase in Maximum Annual Rate of Special Pay for 

Selected Reserve Health Care Professionals in Critically Short 

Wartime Specialties 

This section would increase the maximum annual rate of special 

pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically short 

wartime specialties from $10,000 to $25,000. 

Section 617—Authority to Provide Lump Sum Payment of Nuclear 

Officer Incentive Pay 

This section would authorize nuclear officer incentive pay to be 

paid as a lump sum or in variable annual amounts in addition to 

payment in equal annual installments. 

Section 618—Increase in Maximum Amount of Nuclear Career 

Accession Bonus 

This section would increase the maximum amount of the nuclear 

career accession bonus from $20,000 to $30,000. 

Section 619—Increase in Maximum Amount of Incentive Bonus for 

Transfer Between Armed Forces 

This section would increase the maximum amount of the incentive bonus for transfer between armed forces from $2,500 to 

$10,000. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
338 

Section 620—Clarification Regarding Members of the Army Eligible 

for Bonus for Referring Other Persons for Enlistment in the Army 

This section would clarify that military retirees, to include a 

member of a reserve component under 60 years of age who, but for 

age, would be eligible for retired pay, are eligible to be paid the referral bonus. 

Section 621—Pilot Program for Recruitment Bonus for Critical 

Health Care Specialties 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a two-year pilot program to offer additional financial recruiting 

incentives under the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship 

and Financial Assistance Program for up to five critical medical 

specialties. The Secretary would be required to submit a mid-term 

and final report on lessons learned from the pilot program to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services. 

Section 622—Enhancement of Temporary Program of Voluntary 

Separation Pay and Benefits 

This section would expand the temporary program of voluntary 

separation pay and benefits authorized in section 643 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163) to remove the bar prohibiting participation of enlisted 

personnel and officers with between 12 and 20 years of service. 

This section would also extend the expiration date of the authority 

from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009. 

Section 623—Additional Authorities and Incentives to Encourage 

Retired Members and Reserve Component Members to Volunteer 

to Serve on Active Duty in High-Demand, Low-Density Assignments 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay a bonus of up to $50,000 to encourage retired members, reservists, 

and former members discharged from the military who possess critical skills to return to active duty to fill shortage manpower requirements in units tasked to provide high-demand, low-density 

military capabilities or to fill other critically manned specialties, as 

designated by the Secretary. This section would also authorize the 

Secretary to develop additional incentives to encourage personnel 

with critical high-demand, low-density skills to return to active 

duty which the Secretary may implement after notifying the Congressional defense subcommittees of the reasons why the proposal 

is needed and waiting 30 days. The authority would expire on December 31, 2010. 

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 631—Authority to Pay Costs Associated with Delivery of 

Motor Vehicle to Storage Location Selected by Member and Subsequent Removal of Vehicle 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay the 

costs for members to deliver and remove privately owned vehicles 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
339 

from storage locations chosen by the member. Such payments 

would not be authorized to exceed the total cost that would have 

been incurred by the government if the government storage location had been used. 

Section 632—Transportation of Additional Motor Vehicle of Members on Change of Permanent Station to or from Nonforeign 

Areas Outside the Continental United States 

This section would authorize members with at least one family 

member eligible to drive to ship two privately owned vehicles during permanent change of station moves to nonforeign duty locations 

located outside the continental United States. Nonforeign duty locations outside the continental United States include Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and other territories and possessions. 

Section 633—Travel and Transportation Allowances for Transportation of Family Members Incident to Illness or Injury of Members 

This section would expand the authority to pay for travel and 

transportation of family members to visit ill or injured members to 

include family members that are also military members. 

SUBTITLE D—RETIRED PAY AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS

Section 641—Military Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiaries Under 

Insurable Interest Coverage 

This section would allow military retirees who participate in the 

Survivor Benefit Plan and elect the insurable interest coverage to 

select a new insurable interest if their beneficiary dies. 

Section 642—Retroactive Payment of Additional Death Gratuity for 

Certain Members Not Previously Covered 

This section would correct a technical error in section 664 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163) that prevented the payment of an additional 

$150,000 death gratuity intended for surviving family members of 

non-combat active duty deaths that occurred during the period 

from May 12, 2005 through August 31, 2005. 

Section 643—Equity in Computation of Disability Retired Pay for 

Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action 

This section would authorize the retired pay for a member of a 

reserve component to be calculated using the member’s total years 

of service in lieu of active duty years of service when the retirement involves a disability that was incurred under circumstances 

that resulted in the award of the Purple Heart. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
340 

SUBTITLE E—COMMISSARY AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITY BENEFITS

Section 651—Treatment of Price Surcharges of Tobacco Products 

and Certain Other Merchandise Sold at Commissary Stores 

This section would clarify that for products that are sold as special exceptions to the standard surcharge of five percent of the revenue above cost of the products shall be applied to the surcharge 

fund as if it were a uniform surcharge product. The products that 

would be handled in this manner include tobacco products and, 

during the ongoing test of the sale of impulse purchase products, 

one-time use cameras, film, and telephone cards. 

Section 652—Limitation on Use of Department of Defense Lease 

Authority to Undermine Commissaries and Exchanges and Other 

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs and Nonappropriated 

Fund Instrumentalities 

This section would bar ancillary services from being provided in 

facilities on property leased by the government to private entities 

if the secretary concerned determines that those ancillary services 

will be provided in direct competition with exchanges, commissaries, and morale, welfare, and recreation activities. This section would make an exception for facilities on leased property that 

is part of a base closure site. 

The committee believes that the military exchanges, commissaries, and morale, welfare and recreation activities have primacy in providing ancillary services and merchandise over the interests of private sector entities leasing government property if the 

facilities on the leased property will directly compete with the exchanges, commissaries, and morale, welfare, and recreation activities. 

Section 653—Use of Nonappropriated Funds to Supplement or Replace Appropriated Funds for Construction of Facilities of Exchange Stores System and Other Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities, Military Lodging, Facilities, and Community Facilities 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to allocate 

nonappropriated funds to augment or replace appropriated funding 

of construction of military exchange, military lodging; morale, welfare, and recreation; and community facilities. This section would 

also require that the Secretary provide notification to the congressional defense committees when allocating nonappropriated funding to support any construction project. 

Section 654—Report on Cost Effectiveness of Purchasing Commercial Insurance for Commissary and Exchange Facilities and Facilities of Other Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs and 

Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study to determine the cost effectiveness of nonappropriated fund 

activities purchasing commercial insurance to protect financial interests in facilities operated by morale, welfare and recreation acVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00364 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
341 

tivities, military exchange stores, and commissary stores. This section would require the Secretary to submit a report on his findings 

and recommendations by July 31, 2007. 

The committee notes that many nonappropriated fund facilities 

destroyed and damaged during the 2005 hurricane season will be 

replaced using appropriated funds. The committee recognizes that 

commercial insurance may be a better option for protecting nonappropriated fund property. However, the committee is concerned 

that more must be understood about the cost effectiveness of purchasing commercial insurance and whether such insurance represents a useful option in all cases or only for the most high risk 

locations. The committee believes that the study proposed in this 

section would provide the needed information. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 661—Repeal of Annual Reporting Requirement Regarding 

Effects of Recruitment and Retention Initiatives 

This section would repeal the requirement in section 1015 of title 

37, United States Code, for the Secretary of Defense to submit an 

annual recruiting and retention report. 

Section 662—Pilot Project Regarding Providing Golf Carts 

Accessible for Disabled Persons at Military Golf Courses 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

test to determine the cost effectiveness, demand, and utility of purchasing golf carts that are accessible to disabled persons. This section would require the Secretary to purchase or acquire from other 

Department of Defense resources a minimum of three golf carts designed to provide access to disabled golfers at a minimum of three 

military golf courses. The three golf courses would be geographically dispersed, but one would be in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. The test would be conducted for a minimum of one 

year. This section would require the Secretary to submit a report 

on his findings and recommendations not later than 180 days after 

the conclusion of the test. 

The committee believes that it is important for military golf 

courses to lead the nation in facilitating the participation of disabled golfers by offering the latest in golf cart technology. However, 

the committee appreciates that more must be understood about the 

cost effectiveness, demand, and utility of purchasing the specialized 

golf carts. The committee believes that the study proposed in this 

section would provide the needed information. 

Section 663—Enhanced Authority to Remit or Cancel Indebtedness 

of Members of the Armed Forces Incurred on Active Duty 

This section would extend the termination date of the temporary 

expanded authority for the secretaries of the military departments 

to remit or cancel indebtedness of military members included in 

section 683 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) from December 31, 2007, to December 31, 2009. This section would also increase the period of 

time following honorable discharge or separation during which the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
342 

secretaries may exercise the expanded authority to remit and cancel indebtedness from one year to five years. 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee is concerned about the capability of the Defense 

Health Program to sustain the long-term quality and accessibility 

of the health care provided to the members of the armed forces and 

their families, along with retirees and their families. In the face of 

the growing cost of health care, the committee recognizes that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) may face significant challenges controlling that cost while providing for the medical readiness and 

force health protection for the men and women in uniform and ensuring health care services to all other beneficiaries. In this context, the committee closely examined the Department of Defense 

proposals to reduce the cost of health care and concluded that the 

plan relies too narrowly on increasing the costs of TRICARE to retirees. The committee believes that a more comprehensive approach 

to sustaining the military health care benefit is required and that 

changes to the military health care benefit require careful, deliberate consideration with a full accounting of the impact across the 

board. Therefore, the committee recommends legislation to require 

a review of DOD plans to reduce the cost of health care and an assessment and recommendations for sustaining the military health 

care services provided to members of the armed forces, retirees, 

and their families. The committee makes these recommendations to 

allow for a period of time to shape a comprehensive approach to address the cost of military health care. 

The committee remains strongly committed to ensuring that 

members of the armed forces, retirees, and their families have access to quality health care. Accordingly, the committee recommends 

legislation to provide coverage for forensic examinations following 

sexual assaults and domestic violence and coverage for anesthesia 

and hospital costs for dental care provided to children and certain 

other beneficiaries. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to conduct a demonstration project to provide over-thecounter medications under the pharmacy benefit program. 

Finally, the committee is steadfast in its view that the Department of Defense and the federal government should not be doubly 

liable for the cost of financial incentives paid by DOD contractors 

to employees to enroll in the TRICARE program and still be at risk 

for the cost of providing health care to TRICARE-eligible employees. As such, the committee recommends legislation that would establish as unallowable the contract costs that result when DOD 

contractors pay or otherwise create financial incentives for 

TRICARE-eligible employees to use the TRICARE or other government-sponsored health care programs in lieu of the contractor-provided health care program. 

In light of the many challenges faced by the military health care 

system, the committee continues to believe that the Defense Health 

Program must be fully funded. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
343 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center 

The committee is aware of an effort by the Department of the 

Navy to establish a comprehensive combat casualty care center at 

the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California, for all military 

personnel. The center would allow wounded servicemembers to continue their rehabilitation closer to their families in the western region of the United States. Currently, there is no regional Department of Defense (DOD) center to support such efforts in the west. 

The center would complement the activities at Walter Reed Army 

Medical Center and Brooke Army Medical Center, enhance efforts 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in providing specialized care to wounded servicemembers, and allow for a seamless 

transition the Department of Veterans Affairs, if necessary. The 

committee urges the Department of Defense to consider funding 

such a center through the DOD–VA Joint Incentive Fund. 

Comptroller General Report on a Unified Medical Command Plan 

The committee notes with great interest the Department of Defense’s (DOD) effort to improve the effectiveness and enhance military medicine through a unified medical command. The Army, 

Navy, and Air Force medical communities have provided superior, 

high-quality health care to our servicemembers, particularly those 

who have been injured or wounded on the front lines of combat. 

However, efforts to improve and streamline care have been hampered by the lack of standardized equipment and processes. The 

committee believes a unified medical command could improve the 

care being provided by the services with significant cost savings. 

The committee understands that the Department has established a 

Joint/Unified Medical Command Working Group to develop recommendations for two specific commands, a single joint/unified 

medical command responsible for all market areas of private sector 

care, and a joint/unified medical command responsible for operational/deployed medicine. The committee is concerned that two 

separate and distinct commands, one for operational medicine and 

one for private sector care, may actually hamper efforts to achieve 

greater efficiencies. As such, the committee directs the Comptroller 

General to conduct a review of the various studies that the Department of Defense and other organizations have undertaken and provide an analysis of the various unified medical command structures 

under consideration by the Department and outside organizations. 

The Comptroller General review shall include the studies undertaken by DOD’s Joint/Unified Medical Command Working Group, 

as well as reviews conducted by the Center for Naval Analysis Corporation and other organizations, such as the Defense Business 

Board. The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a 

report on his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2007. 

Fort Drum Health Care Pilot Program 

The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) established a pilot program 

to test initiatives that build cooperative health care arrangements 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
344 

and agreements between military installations and local regional 

non-military health care systems. As an installation undergoing 

profound growth, Fort Drum, New York, was selected as one of two 

test sites for the pilot program. The committee recommends $0.4 

million for the Fort Drum regional health planning organization 

that has been organized to coordinate the pilot program, as well as 

to help conduct necessary assessments and/or studies. 

Mental Health Programs for Combat Veterans and Their Families 

The committee recognizes the need for programs that assist military veterans who return from Iraq and Afghanistan to effectively 

deal with mental health issues and applauds the efforts of the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration to provide 

mental health programs to combat veterans and their families. The 

committee urges both Departments to expand their current programs to include training programs, services and resources designed by behavioral health personnel with experience in a combat 

theater and focused on addressing combat stress and reintegration 

issues for active and reserve component personnel and their families. 

Screening for Traumatic Brain Injury 

The committee applauds the efforts of the Department of Defense 

to implement a comprehensive policy for assessing the health status of military personnel prior to deploying, upon redeployment 

and again three to six months after returning home. However, the 

committee is aware of Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center 

studies showing that 31 percent of combat injured patients evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan have a traumatic brain injury 

(TBI). According to the studies, many of these injuries result from 

blasts and are not always accompanied by obvious head trauma. 

Formal screening by trained medical personnel is required to identify these injuries and many injuries are never diagnosed. The committee is concerned that servicemembers with undiagnosed and untreated traumatic brain injuries may compromise operational readiness and may experience long-term medical effects from the injury. 

To address this issue, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to modify the pre- and post-deployment assessments and the 

post-deployment reassessment by March 31, 2007, to contain questions that screen for traumatic brain injury. 

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary to develop a 

comprehensive and systematic approach for the identification, 

treatment, disposition and documentation of TBI, including mild to 

moderate TBI, for combat and peace time injuries. The committee 

directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive approach by May 

1, 2007, and to report its actions to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 

TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Program 

The committee is aware that the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy program is an outstanding benefit for members of the armed 

services, retirees and their families. The mail order pharmacy is a 

cost effective and burden free method for beneficiaries to obtain 

medications. However, the committee is concerned that a lack of 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
345 

awareness and understanding of the program may exist among providers who prescribe medication within the facilities of the uniformed services and in the purchased care system. In addition, the 

committee is concerned that prescribing medications for distribution through the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy is time consuming and burdensome for providers. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to implement a 

comprehensive education program on the TRICARE Mail Order 

Pharmacy program that targets providers within the facilities of 

the uniformed services and in the purchased care system. The committee further directs the Secretary to take the necessary steps to 

ensure that the Pharmacy Data Transaction System and the 

Armed Forces Health Technology Application are modified to provide electronic transmission of prescriptions directly to the 

TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy System. The committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to implement these recommendations and 

submit a report on the progress of the implementation to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services by December 31, 2007. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—TRICARE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Section 701—TRICARE Coverage for Forensic Examination 

Following Sexual Assault or Domestic Violence 

This section would provide coverage under the TRICARE program for forensic examinations following sexual assault or domestic 

violence. 

Section 702—Authorization of Anesthesia and Other Costs for 

Dental Care for Children and Certain Other Patients 

This section would provide coverage under the TRICARE program for anesthesia services and institutional costs for dental 

treatment for beneficiaries with developmental, mental or physical 

disabilities and for children under the age of five. 

Section 703—Improvements to Descriptions of Cancer Screening 

This section would update the terminology used in the description of primary and preventive health care screenings authorized 

for female beneficiaries of the military health system. This section 

would authorize screening tests for cervical cancer and breast cancer without prescribing the use of the Papanicolau test or the mammogram. The committee understands that as new medical technology develops, legacy screening methods may become obsolete. 

Section 704—Prohibition on Increases in Certain Health Care 

Costs for Members of the Uniformed Services 

This section would prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) 

from increasing the premium, deductible and copayment for 

TRICARE Prime, the charge for inpatient care for TRICARE 

Standard, and the premium for TRICARE Reserve Select and 

TRICARE Standard for members of the Selected Reserve during 

the period from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007. The committee 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
346 

shares the DOD’s concern about the rise in the cost of military 

health care and the potential for the escalating cost to have a negative impact on the ability of the Department to sustain the benefit 

over the long-term. However, the committee believes that changes 

to the military health care benefit require careful, deliberate consideration with a full accounting of the impact across the board. 

The committee makes these recommendations to allow for a period 

of time to shape a more balanced approach to address the cost of 

military health care. 

Section 705—Services of Mental Health Counselors 

This section would allow mental health counselors, without prior 

physician referral or supervision, to be reimbursed for services provided to TRICARE beneficiaries. This section would also amend 

section 704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337) to allow mental health counselors 

to enter into personal service contracts with the Department of Defense for the purpose of providing mental health services to 

TRICARE beneficiaries. Further, this section would require that 

mental health counselors meet the licensure or certification requirements for ‘‘health care professional’’ established by section 

1094 of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 706—Demonstration Project on Coverage of Selected Overthe-Counter Medications Under the Pharmacy Benefit Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

demonstration project that would authorize the use of over-thecounter medications, in lieu of the equivalent prescription drugs. 

The demonstration program would take place in at least two of the 

three venues (military treatment facilities, TRICARE mail order 

pharmacy and retail pharmacies) where medications are dispensed 

to beneficiaries. At a minimum, the Secretary would be required to 

conduct the demonstration in at least five sites in each of the 

TRICARE regions for each of the two venues selected. The committee urges the Secretary to select the retail pharmacy program 

as one of the two venues in which to conduct the demonstration. 

Section 707—Requirement to Reimburse Certain Travel Expenses 

of Certain Beneficiaries Covered by TRICARE for Life 

This section would allow a beneficiary who receives initial care 

at a military treatment facility prior to attaining the age of 65 to 

receive reimbursement for travel expenses associated with limited 

follow up care at the same facility in which the initial care was received. In addition, the beneficiary must reside over 100 miles from 

the military treatment facility and must be referred to the facility 

by a specialty care provider to be eligible. 

Section 708—Inflation Adjustment of Differential Payments to 

Children’s Hospitals Participating in TRICARE Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

an annual inflationary adjustment for the TRICARE children’s hospital differential payment rate beginning in fiscal year 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
347 

Section 709—Expanded Eligibility of Selected Reserve Members 

Under TRICARE Program 

This section would provide coverage under the TRICARE Standard program to all members of the Selected Reserves and their 

families while in a non-active duty status. Participants would be 

required to pay a premium that would be 28 percent of the total 

amount determined by the Secretary of Defense as being reasonable for the TRICARE coverage. This section would not extend 

TRICARE eligibility to reservists who were also federal employees 

entitled to Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan coverage under 

title 5, United States Code. Further, this section would repeal the 

three tiered cost share TRICARE program for reserves established 

by the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Section 710—Extension to TRICARE of Medicare Prohibition of 

Financial Incentives Not to Enroll in Group Health Plan 

This section would extend to the TRICARE program the same 

rule that currently applies to the Medicare program, making it unlawful for an employer or other entity to offer any financial or 

other incentive for a TRICARE retired beneficiary (military retirees 

and their dependents) not to enroll under a health plan which 

would under law be primary payer to TRICARE. Further, this section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to adopt exceptions 

to the provision that the Secretary deems necessary for implementation of the prohibition. This section would also authorize the Secretary to discontinue the relationship with a contractor for repeated violations of this section. The committee makes this recommendation to address the growing concern that employers are 

shifting the financial responsibility of providing health care benefits to their employees to the federal taxpayers. Such cost shifting, 

left unchecked, would greatly increase government costs. 

SUBTITLE B—STUDIES AND REPORTS

Section 711—Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of 

Military Health Care 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a task force to assess the future of military health care. The task 

force would consist of 14 members appointed by the Secretary and 

would be required to develop recommendations on the actions the 

Department of Defense would have to take to improve and sustain 

the military health system over the long-term. This section would 

require the Secretary to develop a plan based on the recommendations of the task force, and submit the plan to the Senate Committee on Armed Services the House Committee on Armed Services 

not later than six months after receipt of the task force report. 

Section 712—Study and Plan Relating to Chiropractic Health Care 

Services 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

plan for providing chiropractic health care services to all members 

of the uniformed services, as required by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
348 

106–398). In addition, this section would require the Secretary to 

study the cost, feasibility, health benefit and potential cost savings 

of providing chiropractic care for active duty family members, 

members of the reserves and their family members, and retirees 

and their family members. The study would also include the cost 

of providing chiropractic care on a space available basis in those 

medical treatment facilities currently providing chiropractic care. 

The effects of chiropractic care on readiness and the acceleration of 

the return to duty of the members of the armed forces following an 

injury that can be appropriately treated with chiropractic health 

care services would also be included in the study. The Secretary 

shall submit a report, including the plan and the study, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services by March 31, 2007. 

Section 713—Comptroller General Study and Report on Defense 

Health Program 

This section would require the Comptroller General to conduct a 

study of the cost savings projections included by the Department 

of Defense in the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Defense 

Health Program. The study would include an evaluation of the rationale for the Department’s calculation of the cost and the cost increases of the Defense Health program, the amounts paid by beneficiaries for health care, and the estimated savings associated with 

implementation of cost sharing increases. Further, the study would 

include a review of the rates of inflation in governmental and nongovernmental health care programs, as well as other health care 

indexes. The Comptroller General is required to present his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by June 1, 2007. 

Section 714—Transfer of Custody of the Air Force Health Study 

Assets to Medical Follow-up Agency 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to notify and contact participants of the Air Force Health Study (commonly referred to as the Ranch Hand Study) to obtain written consent to transfer their data and biological specimens to the Institute 

of Medicine of the National Academy of Science by September 30, 

2007. The Secretary of the Air Force is required to submit a report 

to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the results of the disposition of the assets and 

must maintain the specimens that were not able to be transferred 

for at least one year following submission of the report. 

Section 715—Study on Allowing Dependents of Activated Members 

of the Reserve Components to Retain Civilian Health Care Coverage 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study on the feasibility of allowing family members of reservists 

who are mobilized to continue health care coverage under a civilian 

health care program. The study would include an assessment of the 

number of family members with special health care needs, who 

would benefit from remaining in a member’s civilian health plan, 

the feasibility of reimbursing the member for the civilian health 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
349 

coverage and a recommendation on the appropriate rate of reimbursement. Further, the study would include the feasibility of allowing family members of mobilized reservists, who do not have access to TRICARE providers, to continue civilian health care coverage. Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Secretary shall 

submit a report on the study to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 721—Costs of Incentive Payments to Employees for 

TRICARE Enrollment Made Unallowable for Contractors 

This section would establish as unallowable the contract costs 

that result when Department of Defense (DOD) contractors pay or 

otherwise create financial incentives for TRICARE-eligible employees to use the TRICARE or other government-sponsored health 

care programs in lieu of the contractor provided health care program. The committee makes this recommendation because it believes that neither the DOD nor the federal government should be 

doubly liable for the cost of financial incentives paid by DOD contractors to employees to enroll in the TRICARE program and still 

be at risk for the cost of providing health care to TRICARE-eligible 

employees. 

Section 722—Requirement For Military Medical Personnel to be 

Trained in Preservation of Remains 

The section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

program requiring each military department to include training in 

the preservation of remains for their health care professionals. The 

committee believes that all medical professionals need to be trained 

in the proper post mortem care in theater in order to ensure that 

the proper preservation of remains is accomplished. The committee 

does not intend for the responsibilities of mortuary affairs to become the responsibility of medical professionals but rather, under 

certain circumstances, for medical professionals to assist in the 

preservation of remains. 

SUBTITLE D—PHARMACY BENEFITS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Section 731—TRICARE Pharmacy Program Cost-Share 

Requirements 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

beneficiary cost sharing requirements for the TRICARE Mail Order 

Pharmacy program that are the same as for generic and formulary 

drugs provided to beneficiaries at military treatment facilities. At 

present, beneficiaries are not charged for generic and formulary 

drugs obtained through the military treatment facilities. Further, 

the section would limit the cost sharing requirements for drugs 

provided through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program to 

amounts not more than $6 for generic drugs, $16 for formulary 

drugs and $22 for non-formulary drugs. The committee makes 

these recommendations in order to provide incentives to beneficiaries to make greater use of the TRICARE Mail Order PharVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
350 

macy Program. The cost sharing schedules established by this section would end December 31, 2007. 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

OVERVIEW 

Simply put, the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition process is broken. The ability of the Department to conduct the large 

scale acquisitions required to ensure our future national security is 

a concern of the committee. The rising costs and lengthening schedules of major defense acquisition programs lead to more expensive 

platforms fielded in fewer numbers. The committee’s concerns extend to all three key components of the Acquisition process including requirements generation, acquisition and contracting, and financial management. 

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System 

(JCIDS) and Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) are not 

operating as envisioned. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (USD(AT&L)) is failing to control 

spiraling costs of major defense acquisition programs. As a result, 

programs to replace key weapons systems are attempting to place 

all necessary and imagined capabilities onto developing platforms. 

The JCIDS/JROC process is under intense pressure to ensure that 

a follow-on system meets all the military departments’ current, future and anticipated needs. Consequently, by relying on one system 

to meet all the necessary requirements, the Department is increasing the costs and development time to field new systems. Ultimately, this process results in low quantities of higher priced systems delivered on a longer schedule. 

The unintended consequence of these pressures is a JCIDS/JROC 

process reflecting a culture of forced cooperation, where the members must approve other military department’s programs in order 

to have their programs approved. The ‘‘jointness’’ required in the 

JROC process creates a culture where each member faces pressure 

to accept the criticality of approving a new system for their sister 

service. The process also encourages military departments to request expensive added capabilities on systems, paid for by other departments in the name of jointness. 

In the wake of a ten-year decrease in the acquisition workforce, 

the Department is facing a critical shortage of certain acquisition 

professionals with technical skills related to systems engineering, 

program management and cost estimation. While Congress has directed this decrease in the acquisition workforce over the past decade, the committee is dissatisfied with the Department’s approach 

to these statutory decreases. Instead of cutting overhead and minimizing bureaucracy related to the acquisition workforce, the Department cut critical resources such as production and systems engineers, opting to outsource these functions to contractors. As a result of these workforce-structure decisions, there is a potential conflict of interest developing between contractors acting as ‘‘lead-system integrators’’ on projects for which they have oversight. In addition, the Department has outsourced too many processes closely related to ‘‘inherently governmental functions,’’ ceding de facto 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
351 

project responsibility and decision-making to industry. The reductions of the past decade were an effort to create a streamline corps 

of acquisition professionals utilizing best practices to obtain the 

best value for all DOD-related acquisitions. Instead, there is a critical shortage of individuals necessary to ensure systems with the 

best technology on the fastest schedule at the most competitive 

price are available to the Department. The committee believes that 

the Department lacks a coherent strategic human capital plan for 

the future of the acquisition workforce. A strategy is necessary to 

define and shape the DOD’s future workforce. One essential focus 

of this strategy should be the continuity of program managers. The 

committee recommends that the tenure of program managers be 

extended to ensure program stability. In addition, the committee 

believes the strategy should focus on the value of systems engineers in ensuring affordability and producability of future systems. 

Furthermore, training programs at the Defense Acquisition University need to expand their focus beyond just the contracting side 

of acquisition. The Department should create training programs 

that will ensure requirements personnel and financial managers 

are adequately trained. The Department should also seek to integrate acquisition and financial management information technology 

systems to ensure interoperability. 

The Deputy Secretary of Defense recently commissioned a comprehensive overview of the acquisition process. The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) consisted of a panel of leading acquisition experts from both the government and industry. 

Their review provided a series of recommendations related to defense acquisition reform. Of note is a recommendation to have the 

JROC presided over by an objective civilian—possibly the 

USD(AT&L). The DAPA report also found the JCIDS/JROC process 

does not adequately prioritize requirements provided by the combatant commanders, whom DAPA believes should have a greater 

say in determining requirements for future programs. Additionally, 

the committee recommends that the Department consider a prompt 

transition to a capabilities based acquisition system where combatant commanders are considered the major stakeholders and the 

military services act primarily as implementers. 

Based on the recommendations of the DAPA report, the committee believes that the model for the future DOD acquisition system should be considered by determining requirements based primarily on capabilities needed by combatant commanders. A revised 

JCIDS/JROC process could objectively validate programs and these 

validated ‘‘joint’’ capability requirements could be executed by the 

military services, which would conduct acquisition and program 

management functions to deliver the combatant commanders identified ‘‘joint’’ capability rather than focusing on service specific solutions. In addition, the Department should further consider ‘‘competing’’ missions among the services. This does not mean that one 

service will only conduct one mission with one platform. Instead, 

the services should compete at the design and concept level to encourage a creative means of accomplishing missions with new and 

innovative solutions. 

Ultimately, the Department must carefully consider its ability to 

cost effectively put metal on targets. Some missions do not require 

cutting-edge technology to accomplish their objectives. The 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
352 

USD(AT&L), in collaboration with the JROC should reemphasize 

the need to focus on ‘‘best value’’ as it relates to accomplishing current and future DOD missions. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Major Defense Acquisition Program Reform 

The committee enacted major reform of the acquisition process 

for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) through two sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163). In particular, section 801 required the 

certification of numerous requirements related to technological maturity, affordability, alternative acquisition strategies and compliance with relevant Department of Defense policies, regulations and 

directives, prior to approval of Milestone B for a MDAP. Section 

802 rewrote the ‘‘Nunn-McCurdy’’ amendment (10 U.S.C. 2433), to 

prevent rebaselining of original baseline estimates for MDAPs. It 

also redefined the thresholds at which Congress requires notification. In particular, section 802 defined a ‘‘significant cost growth 

threshold’’ as programs that exceed 15 percent over the current 

baseline estimate or 30 percent over the original baseline estimate 

and a ‘‘critical cost growth threshold’’ as programs that exceed 25 

percent over the current baseline estimate or 50 percent over the 

original baseline estimate. Notably, after enactment of section 802, 

in the first submission of the Selected Acquisition Report, the Department reported 36 programs in breach of either the ‘‘significant’’

or ‘‘critical’’ cost growth thresholds. The committee directs the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit a consolidated report describing efforts taken to implement major defense acquisition reform, as implemented by sections 801 and 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). The report shall be delivered to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007. 

Prime Vendor Program 

The committee understands that the overall purpose of the Prime 

Vendor Program is to streamline supply chain management, lower 

overall costs to the government, and improve services to military 

customers by allowing them to buy commercial products directly 

from a list of pre-established commercial distributors. Concerns 

about the prices of products being procured through the Defense 

Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Prime Vendor Program were raised at a 

hearing before the House Committee on Armed Services on November 9, 2005. As a result of this hearing, DLA officials recognized 

the need to improve management oversight and internal controls 

over the program and proposed a series of corrective actions. In 

order to allow time for DLA to implement these actions and ensure 

effective results, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 

review the actions taken by the Department of Defense to improve 

the Prime Vendor Program and submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by March 1, 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
353 

Special Operations Command Requirements 

The committee recognizes that title 10, United States Code, 

grants U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) specific acquisition authority for special operations peculiar equipment, material, supplies and services. The committee is concerned that 

USSOCOM is not fully capable of executing this Department-like 

authority under current Department of Defense policies and practices, which is particularly troubling because of the key role 

USSOCOM plays in current combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the global war on terrorism. The committee strongly 

urges the Secretary of Defense to consider the unique role and authorities of USSOCOM as the Department makes needed reforms 

to its acquisitions and logistics processes, to ensure USSOCOM can 

efficiently, responsively, and effectively execute authorities granted 

in title 10. 

Undefinitized Contract Actions 

Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs), also known as ‘‘unpriced’’ contracts or ‘‘letter’’ contracts, authorize contractors to start work 

and incur costs before reaching a final agreement on terms and 

conditions, including price. The committee recognizes UCAs can be 

helpful to support urgent operational needs, but such contracts are 

not a desirable form of contracting because they place the Department of Defense in an unfavorable negotiating position and do not 

provide incentives to achieve cost controls, since the contractor operates in a cost-plus mode until negotiations are complete. The 

committee directs the Comptroller General to undertake a study to 

determine if the Department is properly using such contracts and 

pricing them on time. At a minimum, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General determine: (1) Why the Department is using 

UCAs; and (2) whether certain sufficient management controls restrict the use of such contracts in urgent situations, ensure limited 

scope modifications and appropriate profits. The committee directs 

the Comptroller General to submit a report on the finding of this 

study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PROVISIONS RELATING TO MAJOR DEFENSE

ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

Section 801—Requirements Management Certification Training 

Program 

This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the Defense Acquisition University, to establish competency requirements 

and a certification training program to improve the ability of civilian and military personnel of the Department of Defense to generate requirements that are added to Major Defense Acquisition 

Programs (MDAPs). This section would require instruction on the 

interdependence and interfaces between the requirements generation system; the planning, programming, budgeting and execution 

system; and the defense acquisition system that collectively conVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
354 

tribute to the outcomes of MDAPs. This section would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to ensure compliance with the training program. 

Section 802—Additional Requirements Relating to Technical Data 

Rights 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

regulations to ensure that a major system developed with federal 

or private funds acquires sufficient technical data to allow competition for contracts required for sustainment of the system. This section would also require any contract for a major system to include 

price and delivery options for acquiring, at any point during the 

lifecycle of the system, major elements of technical data not acquired at the time of initial contract award. The regulations would 

establish a standard for acquiring rights in technical data to enable 

the lowest possible lifecycle cost for the item or process acquired. 

The committee notes, in recent years, acquisition program managers have minimized their purchases of technical data rights for 

new weapons systems. The committee understands that guidance 

issued in the 1990s intentionally sought to reverse the previous 

policy on technical data rights, which may have inappropriately assumed that all rights to technical data should be purchased, even 

in unnecessary situations. This section would require program 

managers to negotiate price options for acquiring additional data 

rights, at the time of award, when the government has maximum 

leverage in negotiations. The committee believes that this balanced 

approach will require program managers to buy those data rights 

necessary to minimize lifecycle cost without requiring the purchase 

of unneeded technical data rights. 

Section 803—Study and Report on Revisions to Selected 

Acquisition Report Requirements 

This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in coordination with the 

service acquisition executives of each military department, to conduct a study on revisions to requirements related to Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs), as set forth in section 2432 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

The SAR provides the committee with a critical tool for providing 

oversight of major defense acquisition programs. The SAR gives the 

committee access to clear and regular information on program 

progress, including information of a classified nature. The committee understands that the elements currently required to be included in the SAR have not been updated for a number of years. 

Some important elements of program progress are not included in 

the current SAR, and in some cases, information which may have 

previously been a good measure of program progress may no longer 

be as relevant to program oversight. 

The committee recognizes that in order for the SAR to be useful 

to both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the committee, it 

should focus on those measures of program progress for major defense acquisition programs that are the most useful for oversight 

across a broad range of programs, without placing an undue reporting burden. One element in the current SAR that is clearly critical 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
355 

to congressional oversight is the unit cost information which provides the basis for reporting of cost growth under the Nunn-McCurdy Act (10 U.S.C. 2433). However, many elements of program 

progress beyond unit cost are essential to both departmental and 

congressional oversight. The committee believes that a revised SAR 

should be based upon the normal, internal-working documents utilized by the program manager on a day-to-day basis and not created exclusively in response to a congressional reporting requirement. The SAR should be a tool that provides both appropriate congressional oversight, validates the health of a program, and demonstrates that the program management techniques being employed are appropriate. DOD’s recommendations shall be submitted 

to the committee by March 1, 2007. 

Section 804—Quarterly Updates on Implementation of Acquisition 

Reform in the Department of Defense 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 

quarterly reports to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services on the implementation of 

plans to reform the defense acquisition system. The updates would 

cover implementation of reforms of the processes for Acquisition, 

including generation of requirements, award of contracts, and financial management. The quarterly updates would include, at a 

minimum, consideration of recommendations made by: 

(1) The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Panel; 

(2) The Defense Science Board Summer Study on Transformation; 

(3) The Center for Strategic and International Studies: Beyond-Goldwater-Nichols Study; 

(4) The Quadrennial Defense Review; and 

(5) The Committee Defense Review of the House Committee 

on Armed Services. 

The first quarterly update would be required no later than 45 

days after the enactment of this Act and the first day of each successive quarter. The requirement would terminate on the first day 

of the quarter in which the Selected Acquisition Reports indicate 

that no new programs have breached either the significant cost 

growth threshold or the critical cost growth threshold. 

The ability of the Department of Defense to analyze and synthesize these reform recommendations into a series of meaningful 

and actionable implementation plans concerns the committee. In 

the past, bureaucratic impediments, changing senior leadership, 

and numerous other factors prevented implementation of major acquisition reform despite comprehensive studies on the subject. In 

particular, the committee notes that the President’s Blue Ribbon 

Commission on Defense (1986), commonly known as the ‘‘Packard 

Commission,’’ recommended numerous reforms to the acquisition 

system that, despite the efforts of Congress and the Department, 

have not been fully realized. Nearly twenty years later, the four 

major acquisition reform studies of 2005 identify the same challenges identified by the ‘‘Packard Commission’’ including rampant 

cost growth, unreliable cost estimates, and requirements relying on 

immature technology increasing overall program cost. The committee is concerned about the ability of the Department to solve 

these decades’ old problems. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
356 

Section 805—Establishment of Defense Challenge Process for Critical Cost Growth Threshold Breaches in Major Defense Acquisition Programs 

This section would amend section 2359b of title 10, United States 

Code, to establish requirements for Defense Acquisition Challenge 

Program proposals (referred to as ‘‘challenge proposals’’) solicited in 

response to a critical cost growth threshold breach for a major defense acquisition program (MDAP). A critical cost growth threshold 

breach occurs when an MDAP has exceeded the critical cost growth 

threshold established by section 2433 of title 10, United States 

Code. This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) to issue a 

solicitation for challenge proposals that may result in near-term 

improvements in affordability for an MDAP that has experienced 

a critical cost growth breach, in addition to the current Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (DACP) annual broad agency announcement and unsolicited proposal processes. The committee believes that challenge proposals for critical cost growth breaches 

warrant expeditious procedures for both preliminary and full review and evaluation. Therefore, this section would require critical 

cost growth breach DACP solicitations to be issued within 14 days 

following the date that the Selected Acquisition Report on the 

MDAP is submitted to Congress, as described in sections 2433(g) 

and 2432(f) of title 10, United States Code. Such a solicitation 

should provide sufficient detail on the cost and schedule variances 

and the design, engineering, manufacturing, and technology integration issues contributing to the MDAP cost growth, to allow responders to prepare responsive proposals for consideration in no 

less than 30 days. This section would require a panel established 

by USD(AT&L) to complete a preliminary evaluation of such challenge proposals within 60 days following the date that the Selected 

Acquisition Report on the MDAP is submitted to Congress. The 

panel would also be required to share the results of its preliminary 

evaluation with the Secretary of Defense to aid in the completion 

of the Secretary’s written certification required by section 

2433(e)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code. 

In the event a critical cost breach challenge proposal is found to 

have merit during the full review and evaluation process, this section would require the MDAP to fund such a challenge proposal following contract award. In the event a critical cost breach challenge 

proposal is found to have merit upon preliminary review, but later 

receives an unfavorable evaluation during full review by the office 

carrying out the MDAP, this section would require the MDAP program manager to provide a narrative explaining the rationale for 

the unfavorable evaluation to the panel that conducted the preliminary evaluation. If the panel does not agree with the MDAP program manager’s rationale, the panel may request that the MDAP 

program manager reconsider. If after further consideration, the 

MDAP program manager still evaluates the challenge proposal unfavorably, the full review and evaluation is complete. Upon the conclusion of full review and evaluation, USD(AT&L) shall provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees detailing the rationale for each unfavorable evaluation and documenting the dissenting opinion of the panel, as applicable. This section would reVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
357 

quire full review and evaluation and the report to the congressional 

defense committees, as necessary, to be completed within 60 days 

following the preliminary evaluation by the panel. 

In addition, this section would amend section 2433 of title 10, 

United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out an additional assessment under the requirements of paragraph 

(e)(2) of such section, to assess the availability of alternative components, subsystems, or systems that may result in near-term improvements in affordability for any MDAP that has exceeded the 

critical cost growth threshold. The Secretary shall carry out this assessment through DACP. 

This section would further amend section 2433 of title 10, United 

States Code, to require the Secretary to include an additional statement in the written certification required by paragraph (e)(2) of 

such section, stating that DACP, having issued a competitive solicitation for critical cost breach challenge proposals and having completed a preliminary review of proposals received, found no promising proposals meriting full review and evaluation. 

Finally, this section would also amend section 2433(g) of title 10, 

United States Code, to require the Secretary to include a description of design, engineering, manufacturing, and technology integration issues in the narrative of significant occurrences contributing 

to critical cost growth, which is a component of the Selected Acquisition Report required in section 2433(e) of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Section 806—Market Research Required for Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs Before Proceeding to Milestone B 

This section would require certification that market research has 

been conducted prior to technology development to reduce duplication of existing technology and products. The committee believes 

that conducting market research before issuing a technology development contract will prevent duplication of existing technology and 

reduce program costs before a major defense acquisition program 

receives Milestone B approval. The committee urges the Department to consider new and creative means of ensuring that appropriate market research is conducted to advance technological development of unique capabilities and eliminate reinvention by using 

proven technologies available in the marketplace. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) may not comply with the requirements of part 10 of the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation related to market research, which 

results in the lack of reasonable inclusion of large and small businesses with cost-effective and superior technologies in defense contracting. The committee is concerned that current DOD acquisition 

practices might limit the use of innovative solutions from both 

large and small businesses and fail to create incentives for DOD 

prime contractors to embrace innovative technologies from large 

and small businesses that are commercially available. Traditional 

cost-reimbursable labor contracts under the cost-plus-fixed-fee or 

cost-plus-award-fee structure may increase the difficulty of offering 

proven capabilities to the Department by inadvertently rewarding 

higher expenditures and reducing incentives to cut costs. The committee notes that cost-plus-percentage-of-cost contracts are prohibVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
358 

ited by statute and encourages the Department to take action to 

ensure that the intent of this prohibition is followed. 

SUBTITLE B—ACQUISITION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

Section 811—Applicability of Statutory Executive Compensation 

Cap Made Prospective 

This section would amend section 808(e)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) 

to clarify that the underlying provision is prospective from the date 

of enactment. Currently, compensation of certain executives in excess of a ‘‘benchmark’’ set by regulations is unallowable. As a result, in General Dynamics Corporation v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 

514 (Fed. Cl. 2000), the court held that application of the statutory 

cap to a contract awarded prior to the enactment section 808(e)(2) 

constituted a breach of contract, and that the U.S. Government was 

liable for breach damages due to the retroactive application of the 

cap. This section would still subject executive compensation to a 

test of reasonableness. 

Section 812—Prohibition on Procurement From Beneficiaries of 

Foreign Subsidies 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract with a foreign person (including a joint venture, 

cooperative organization, partnership or contracting team), who has 

received a subsidy from the government of a foreign country that 

is a member of the World Trade Organization, if the United States 

has requested a consultation with that foreign country on the basis 

that the subsidy is prohibited under the Agreement on Subsidies 

and Countervailing Measures. 

Section 813—Time-Certain Development for Department of Defense 

Information Technology Business Systems 

This section would require that Department of Defense information technology business systems be fielded within five years of the 

system entering the technology development phase of the acquisition process, known as Milestone A approval. The committee is concerned that many large information technology acquisition programs begin with great promise, yet linger in the development 

phase for many years without delivering any useful products to the 

Department. This section would limit the time allowed for development of such systems. 

Section 814—Establishment of Panel on Contracting Integrity 

This section would establish a panel on contracting integrity to 

eliminate areas of vulnerability of the defense contracting system 

to fraud, waste and abuse. The panel would be chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and include the service acquisition executive of each military department, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency, 

the Director of the Defense Contract Management Agency and the 

Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency. This section would 

require the panel to submit an annual report on its activities to the 

congressional defense committees. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
359 

SUBTITLE C—AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING

AUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 821—Extension of Special Temporary Contract Closeout 

Authority 

This section would allow the Department of Defense to maximize 

its efforts to close contracts by extending the authority. Section 804 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136) as amended, permits the Department to close 

contracts entered prior to October 1, 1996, provided the contracts 

are administratively complete and the financial account has an 

unreconciled balance, either positive or negative, that is less than 

$0.1 million. 

Section 822—Limitation on Contracts for the Acquisition of Certain 

Services 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract for covered services if the amount of the contract exceeds 75 percent of the estimated value of the asset required for the provision of services under the contract or exceeds 

$150.0 million in payments over the life of the contract. 

Section 823—Use of Federal Supply Schedules by State and Local 

Governments for Goods and Services for Recovery from Natural 

Disasters, Terrorism, or Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, or Radiological Attack 

This section would provide the Administrator of General Services 

the authority to allow State or local governments to use General 

Services Administration’s (GSA) federal supply schedules for goods 

and services to facilitate recovery from natural disasters, terrorism 

or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. This section 

would build on the successful cooperative purchasing program authorized in section 211 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public 

Law 107–347) which opened GSA’s schedules for information technology for use by State and local governments. 

Section 824—Waivers To Extend Task Order Contracts for 

Advisory and Assistance Services 

This section would amend section 2304b(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, and section 253i(b) of title 41, United States Code, to 

allow the head of an agency to issue a waiver to extend an Advisory and Assistance Services (AAS) contract up to ten years maximum through five one-year options, if he determines in writing 

that the contract provides engineering or technical services of such 

a unique and substantial technical nature that recompetition is 

harmful to the continuity of the program; that recompetition would 

create a large disruption in ongoing support due to prime contract 

recompetition when the Department of Defense has a successfully 

performing prime contractor; and the Department would endure 

program risk during critical program stages due to loss of program 

corporate knowledge of ongoing program activities. 

The committee is concerned about the Department’s growing reliance on AAS contracts. This section would require the Secretary of 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
360 

Defense to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 

2007. The report would include the following information: 

(1) Methods used by the Department to identify a contract 

as an AAS contract; 

(2) Number of AAS contracts awarded by the Department in 

the five years prior to the enactment of this Act; 

(3) Average annual expenditures by the Department for AAS 

contracts; 

(4) Average length of AAS contracts; 

(5) Number of AAS contracts recompeted and awarded to 

the previous award winner; 

(6) Number of AAS contractors who previously qualified as 

a small business but no longer qualify as a small business for 

a recompetition; 

(7) Number of AAS contracts required for a period of greater 

than five years and a justification as to why those services are 

required for greater than five years, including rationale for not 

performing the service inside the Department; 

(8) Percentage of AAS contracts awarded by the Department 

in the five years prior to the enactment of this Act for assistance in the introduction and transfer of engineering and technical knowledge for fielded systems, equipment, and components; and 

(9) Steps taken by the Department to prevent organizational 

conflicts of interest in the use of AAS contracts. 

This waiver authority would be ineffective if the Secretary of Defense fails to issue the required report by April 1, 2007. 

Section 825—Enhanced Access for Small Business 

This section would amend section 9(a) of the Contract Disputes 

Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 608) to provide that the Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals shall provide for expedited disposition of appeals of small 

businesses where the amount in dispute is $150,000 or less. 

Section 826—Procurement Goal for Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

This section would amend section 2323 of title 10, United States 

Code to extend the contract goals for small disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher education to include Hispanic-serving institutions. 

Section 827—Prohibition on Defense Contractors Requiring 

Licenses or Fees for Use of Military Likenesses and Designations 

This section would require that any contract entered into by the 

Department of Defense include a provision prohibiting the contractor from requiring toy and hobby manufacturers, distributors, 

or merchants to obtain licenses from or pay fees to the contractor 

for the use of military likenesses or designations on items provided 

under the contract. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
361 

SUBTITLE D—UNITED STATES DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

PROVISIONS

Section 831—Protection of Strategic Materials Critical to National 

Security 

This section would amend title 10, United States Code, by inserting section 2533b, ‘‘Requirement to buy strategic materials critical 

to national security from American sources; exceptions.’’ This section would prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the procurement of a specialty metal or an item critical to national security, 

as determined by the Strategic Materials Protection Board, unless 

the item is reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States. 

The committee believes this section will build on the strong tradition of section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, known as 

the ‘‘Berry Amendment,’’ while simultaneously addressing certain 

issues related to the procurement of specialty metals. In particular, 

the committee is concerned by claims that confusion exists over the 

applicability of the Berry Amendment to all tiers of the supply 

chain. This section would clarify the original intent of the Berry 

Amendment by noting that the section applies to subcontracts at 

any tier under a prime contract, as well as the prime contract. This 

section would maintain all current exceptions and waivers to the 

current Berry Amendment. The committee notes that application of 

this section would allow foreign governments to purchase only specialty metals or items critical to national security from the United 

States or from their own domestic suppliers. The committee believes that allowing foreign governments to purchase specialty metals from any source not only defeats the intent of the Berry 

Amendment but also creates a grave risk to national security. This 

section would prohibit the practice of delivering non-compliant components to the federal government without charge in order to be 

considered compliant with the Berry Amendment. 

The committee is aware that certain suppliers currently claim 

that they are inadvertently non-compliant with the Berry Amendment as it relates to specialty metals. This section would allow a 

12-month ‘‘get well’’ period for suppliers at all levels of the supply 

chain to become compliant with section 2533b of title 10, United 

States Code. This section would require public notice of non-compliant suppliers on Fedbizoops.gov, a website that allows the commercial venders to seek federal markets for their products, written notification of non-compliance to the supplier and prime contractor, 

and receipt of a compliance plan from the non-compliant supplier 

and prime contractor. This section would allow a waiver for inadvertent non-compliance to be granted only after public posting of 

non-compliance and the opportunity for a challenger to offer the 

federal government the opportunity to substitute the non-compliant 

components with compliant components. This inadvertent non-compliance waiver would require approval from the secretary of the 

military department concerned. 

Section 832—Strategic Materials Protection Board 

This section would establish a Strategic Material Protection 

Board. The board would be established by the Secretary of Defense 

and include the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, TechVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00385 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
362 

nology and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and 

the Secretary of the Air Force. The committee believes that the Department of Defense should create a process to identify items that 

are critical to national security. In particular, the committee notes 

that certain materials, should they be unavailable domestically 

would severely impair our national security. This section would require the board to publish a list of items determined to be critical 

to national security. Additionally, this section would prohibit the 

removal of specialty metals listed in section 2533b of title 10, 

United States Code, from the list of items critical to national security. 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Importance of Placing Foreign Area Officers in Combat Units 

The committee notes the contribution made by Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) to the military services, in terms of their knowledge of 

the language, culture, and personalities of their regions of expertise. While this contribution is routinely limited to strategic levels 

of operations, the committee believes that this contribution proves 

valuable at every level of military operations. To encourage that 

end, the military services should provide sufficient numbers of 

FAOs so that each regional combatant commander can provide at 

least one FAO to each subordinate combat units commanded by a 

two-star general or flag officer. The committee recommends that 

these FAOs be assigned to the policy and plans staff of the subordinate commands to allow the command to benefit from their regional expertise in its exercise of command and control functions. 

Increased Budgetary Confidence Level Implementation in Space 

Acquisition 

Historically, space acquisitions have been budgeted to a 50 percent certainty that the final cost will be at or below the estimate. 

The committee believes that cost estimating at a 50 percent confidence level leaves little management reserve, reduces probability 

of program execution, and increases total program costs by requiring budget and schedule adjustments during execution. Furthermore, the committee believes that budgeting to an 80 percent confidence level mitigates problems caused by inaccurate cost estimating and therefore, encourages the Secretary of Defense to raise 

the required budgetary confidence level of all new and restructured 

space programs from 50 percent to 80 percent. 

National Security Space Management 

The committee recognizes efforts within the national security 

space community to enhance relationships and coordinate activities 

that span acquisition, research and development, and operations in 

order to create more responsive and agile space capabilities to support critical intelligence and defense missions. In particular, the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
363 

committee recognizes the need for the Department of Defense’s Executive Agent for Space, the Director, National Reconnaissance Office, and the Under Secretary of the Air Force to maintain close coordination in oversight and management of space capabilities. 

The committee requests the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Director of National Intelligence, submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by March 1, 2007, describing the 

roles and responsibilities of each of these positions with respect to 

resource and staffing requirements, program development, requirements processes, and acquisition authority. The committee also requests a description of the additional roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the Director, National Reconnaissance Office, as the Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for Intelligence Space 

Technology. 

Report on Developing Expertise in Emerging National Security 

Challenges 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

should consider how best to develop expertise in emerging national 

security challenges and distribute appropriately such knowledge 

throughout the Department, including the military services. For example, the committee notes the role that the Center for the Study 

of Chinese Military Affairs within the National Defense University 

has played in developing knowledge and expertise in a focused area 

of military importance. The committee believes that DOD personnel currently may be benefiting, or may benefit in the future, 

from similar concentration in other key defense and security areas, 

such as stability and support operations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2007, a report that 

identifies key defense and security areas and the capabilities required to educate DOD personnel appropriately. The report shall 

note what capabilities the Department already has in these areas 

and ways in which the Department may develop these capabilities 

as competencies, whether through the development of Centers of 

Excellence, the fusing of existing institutions, integration into the 

professional military education curriculum, or any other steps the 

Secretary may recommend. 

Report on Coordination and Oversight of Military Cultural and 

Linguistic Policies and Training 

The committee believes that the relevance and importance of cultural knowledge, regional expertise, and linguistic capability will 

remain critical to national security for decades to come, in the long 

war and in future wars. The committee commends the Department 

for its initiative in respect to coordinating and setting a direction 

for language skills, and commends the services for the multiple initiatives they have taken in regards to cultural training. 

The committee believes it may be beneficial to synchronize efforts 

in the cultural training and regional expertise fields across the Department by creating an office within the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense that would provide oversight for the Department’s cultural 

and linguistic policies and training. Therefore, the committee diVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00387 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
364 

rects the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services 

by April 1, 2007, a report on the options to provide such oversight, 

to include consideration of the establishment of an office within the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense for that function, and the resources required to create such an office. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Section 901—Standardization of Statutory References to ‘‘National 

Security System’’ within Laws Applicable to Department of Defense 

This section would amend sections 2222, 2223, and 2315 of title 

10, United States Code, to ensure the definition of national security 

systems contained in title 10 is consistent with the definition provided in the Federal Information Security Management Act 

(FISMA) of 2002 (Public Law 107–347). FISMA applies federal government wide and provides a broader definition of national security 

systems than contained in title 10, expanding the term to apply to 

all systems used for classified data, as well as those operated by 

a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of the 

agency. 

Section 902—Correction of Reference to Predecessor of Defense 

Information Systems Agency 

This section would amend section 193 of title 10, United States 

Code, to reflect the current name of the Defense Information Systems Agency. 

Section 903—Addition to Membership of Specified Council 

This section would amend section 179 of title 10, United States 

Code, to include the Commander, United States Strategic Command, on the Nuclear Weapons Council. 

Section 904—Consolidation and Standardization of Authorities Relating to Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security 

Studies 

This section would streamline the management of Department of 

Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies, which to date have 

operated under different authorities. This section would allow the 

Centers to pursue research in addition to communication and exchange of ideas involving U.S. and foreign military officers, civilian 

governmental personnel, and non-governmental personnel. 

This section would allow foreign governments and U.S. federal 

agencies to fund foreign participation in center activities and the 

Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement of costs of activities 

for military officers and civilian defense and security officials from 

developing countries. This section would continue an annual requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the regional centers’ status, objectives, budgets, international participation, and foreign gifts and donations. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
365 

Section 905—Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps 

This section would designate the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change the title 

of its Secretary to Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. This 

provision would formally recognize the responsibility of the Office 

of the Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy and Marine Corps 

and the Marine Corps’ status as an equal partner with the Navy. 

SUBTITLE B—SPACE ACTIVITIES

Section 911—Designation of Successor Organizations for the 

Disestablished Interagency Global Positioning Executive Board 

This section would amend section 2281 of title 10, United States 

Code, to reflect the new organizational structure created by the 

United States Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing 

Policy issued December 8, 2004, and permit continued multi-agency 

funding for this activity. 

Section 912—Extension of Authority for Pilot Program for Provision of Space Surveillance Network Services to Non-United 

States Government Entities 

This section would extend the expiring authority of the Secretary 

of Defense to conduct a pilot program that would allow non-U.S. 

government entities to purchase space surveillance network services from assets owned or controlled by the Department of Defense 

through September 30, 2009. The current authority would expire 

on May 22, 2007. 

Section 913—Operationally Responsive Space 

This section would require establishment of an Operationally Responsive Space Program Office, and would require the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

setting forth a plan for acquisition of capabilities for operationally 

responsive space support to the warfighter. 

SUBTITLE C—CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

Section 921—Transfer to Secretary of the Army of Responsibility 

for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program 

This section would transfer program management responsibility 

for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) to the Secretary of the Army 

by January 1, 2007; would provide for management of the program 

as a part of the Department of the Army organization for management of the chemical weapons demilitarization program as specified in section 1521 of title 50, United States Code; and would require the Secretary of the Army to implement fully the alternative 

technologies previously selected for destruction of lethal chemical 

munitions at Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and Blue Grass 

Army Depot, Kentucky. The transfer of management of the ACWA 

program to the Secretary of the Army would in no way diminish 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
366 

the responsibility of the USD (AT&L) for oversight of the chemical 

weapons demilitarization program, including ACWA, nor the USD 

(AT&L)’s responsibility as defense acquisition executive for the acquisition category 1D program. 

Section 922—Comptroller General Review of Cost-Benefit Analysis 

of Off-Site Versus On-Site Treatment and Disposal of Hydrolysate Derived from Neutralization of VX Nerve Gas at Newport 

Chemical Depot, Indiana 

This section would require the Comptroller General to review 

and report to Congress by December 1, 2006, on the adequacy of 

the cost benefit analysis prepared by the Secretary of the Army 

comparing options to treat and dispose of the hazardous material 

that is a byproduct of the process of neutralizing VX nerve gas 

stored at Newport Chemical Depot, Indiana. This section would 

also prohibit the Secretary from proceeding with any action to 

transport this hazardous material, or hydrolysate, until 60 days 

after the Comptroller General’s report is received by Congress. 

Pending enactment of this section, the committee intends that the 

Secretary of the Army take no action to transport hydrolysate from 

Newport Army Depot until the actions that would be required by 

this section are completed. 

Section 923—Sense of Congress Regarding the Safe and 

Expeditious Disposal of Chemical Weapons 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the process 

used for selecting a site for remote disposal of hazardous material 

remaining after the initial processing of chemical munitions should 

be free from political influence and that a process similar to that 

used for base closure and realignment be considered for adoption. 

SUBTITLE D—INTELLIGENCE-RELATED MATTERS

Section 931—Repeal of Termination of Authority of Secretary of 

Defense to Engage in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection Activities Abroad 

This section would amend section 431(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to repeal the termination of authority for the Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial activities as security for 

intelligence collection activities abroad. 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $926.9 million for drug interdiction 

and counter-drug activities, in addition to $131.9 million, for operational tempo which is included within the operating budgets of the 

military services. The fiscal year 2007 budget is organized to address four broad national priorities: (1) international support; (2) 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
367 

domestic support; (3) intelligence and technology support; and (4) 

demand reduction. 

The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 2007 

Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows: 

FY07 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request .................................... $926,890 

International Support ...................................................................................... $435,919 

Domestic Support ............................................................................................ $205,416 

Intelligence and Technology Support ............................................................. $151,322 

Demand Reduction .......................................................................................... $134,233 

Recommended Decreases 

SOUTHCOM .............................................................................................

NORTHCOM ............................................................................................. $7,000 

PACOM ..................................................................................................... $2,000 

CENTCOM ................................................................................................ $1,000 

Intelligence and Technology .................................................................... $2,000 

Support ...................................................................................................... $4,000 

Recommended Increases 

Southwestern Border Fence .................................................................... $10,000 

Maritime Domain Awareness .................................................................. $6,000 

Recommendation .............................................................................................. $926,890 

Items of Special Interest 

Budget requests 

The fiscal year 2007 drug interdiction and counter-drug activities budget request of $926.9 million covers all counternarcotics resources in the Department of Defense (DOD) with the exception of 

those resources in the operating budget for the military services for 

operational tempo, military personnel, and military construction. 

The committee notes that the services’ budget requests include an additional $131.9 million for operational tempo expenses related to 

counter-drug activities in their respective appropriations. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense to integrate the 

associated operational tempo costs contained in the services’ budgets for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities into DOD’s 

drug interdiction and counter-drug activities budget justification 

material for fiscal year 2008, and thereafter. The committee directs 

that the budget justification material which lists drug resources by 

function shall include the associated operational tempo costs to the 

services in the total budget request by the Department for counterdrug activities. 

Counternarcotics policy for Afghanistan 

The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to use drug interdiction and counternarcotics resources to 

support the global war on terrorism and notes that there are clear 

links between international narcotics trafficking and international 

terrorism. In that regard, the committee supports DOD’s unified 

campaign against narcotics trafficking and activities by organizations designated as terrorist organizations in Colombia and Afghanistan. The committee notes with regards to Afghanistan, the 

Department has responded to requests for support from the Department of State, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the 

Government of the United Kingdom to help the Government of Afghanistan develop the capacity to address the country’s serious and 

growing narcotics problem. The committee believes that the high 

level of DOD support to the Department of State in building law 

enforcement capacity in Afghanistan is the correct approach. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
368 

The committee is concerned that despite the development of an 

interagency implementation plan for U.S. counternarcotics activities in Afghanistan and the surrounding region, the Department is 

being asked to fund and manage activities that are well beyond its 

core mission. The Department must continue to play an important 

role in the international and interagency fight against narcotics in 

Afghanistan, but it must not take on roles in which other countries 

or other agencies of the U.S. Government have core capabilities. 

Intelligence and technology 

The budget request contained $151.3 million for intelligence and 

technology support. 

The committee understands the importance of intelligence and 

technology in the counternarcotics program. Intelligence and technology are used to dismantle narcotics networks and terrorist organizations linked to drug trafficking. The committee notes that the 

authorization of funds for intelligence and technology will result in 

increased development, testing, evaluation, and deployment of technologies that collect and monitor narcotics intelligence on land, sea, 

and in the air. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $147.3 million for intel- ligence and technology, a decrease of $4.0 million. The recommended funding represents a significant increase over the fiscal 

year 2006 authorization. 

Maritime domain awareness 

The budget request contained $2.5 million for research and development of a detection and monitoring domain awareness system. 

This system integrates multiple sensors, databases, and anomaly 

detection tools into a data fusion testbed that provides persistentsituational awareness across domains and operation systems. One 

system under development provides wide-area surveillance, maritime domain awareness, and distributes actionable intelligence concerning potential narcotics trafficking or terrorist threats. This system operations succeeded in a test conducted by Joint Task ForceNorth and will be evaluated during fiscal year 2007 by the Joint 

Interagency Task Force-South and in Colombia. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for this purpose. 

Southwest Border Fence 

The committee is concerned that the southwest border continues 

to be a heavily utilized human and drug smuggling corridor allowing access into U.S. metropolitan areas from Mexico. Since 1990, 

construction and rehabilitation along this prolific drug smuggling 

corridor has resulted in 7.6 miles of double-layer fencing, 59 miles 

of single fencing, and 169.5 miles of road. These advances have reduced drug trafficking into the region and have eliminated the 

smuggling corridor. 

Completing the fence construction project in San Diego, California, will allow counter-drug assets to be redeployed to other 

areas. The committee supports this fence and road-building activity 

in the southwest region. Funds authorized within this Act shall be 

used to complete construction of the 14-Mile Border Infrastructure 

System near San Diego, California; increase the height of existing 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
369 

border vehicle barriers to a minimum of 10 feet; and build an additional 5 miles of primary fencing east of the Otay Mesa port of 

entry. In addition, not less than $3.0 million shall be used to design, plan, deploy and rehabilitate fencing for 15 miles on either 

side of the Laredo, Texas port of entry. Finally, not less than $2.0 

million shall be used to design, plan, deploy and rehabilitate fencing at the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for this purpose. 

U.S. Central Command operations support 

The budget request contained $27.6 million for U.S. Central 

Command (USCENTCOM) and participating nation support for 

USCENTCOM operations. Reductions in support activities are 

planned, in light of other worldwide commitments. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for this purpose. 

U.S. Northern Command operations support 

The budget request contained $15.5 million for U.S. Northern 

Command domestic operations support. Reductions in support activities are planned, in light of other worldwide commitments. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for this purpose. 

U.S. Pacific Command operations support 

The budget request contained $27.2 million for U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) and participating nation support for USPACOM 

operations. Reductions in support activities are planned, in light of 

other worldwide commitments. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 million for this purpose. 

U.S. Southern Command operations support 

The budget request contained $372.7 million for U.S. Southern 

Command (USSOUTHCOM) and participating nation support for 

USSOUTHCOM operations. Reductions in support activities are 

planned, in light of other worldwide commitments. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 million for this purpose. 

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Aircraft Carrier Force Structure 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s legislative 

proposal for fiscal year 2007, included a section that would effectively allow retirement of the conventionally-powered aircraft carrier, USS John F. Kennedy, thereby reducing the carrier force 

structure from 12 to 11 ships. 

The committee believes that the Navy’s decision to reduce the 

number of carriers was not based on mission requirements analysis; rather, the decision was based on fiscal constraints. Section 

126 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163) amended section 5062 of title 10, United 

States Code, to set a minimum carrier force structure of not less 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
370 

than 12 operational aircraft carriers. The committee believes the 

aircraft carrier force structure should be maintained at 12 ships in 

order to meet worldwide commitments. 

However, the committee would like to explore options for maintaining the USS John F. Kennedy in an operational status either 

within or outside the U.S. Navy, to include the possibility of transferring operational control to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 

March 1, 2007, that examines options for maintaining the USS 

John F. Kennedy in an operational status both within and outside 

the U.S. Navy. In examining the NATO option, the Secretary shall 

coordinate an assessment with the NATO Secretary General. The 

report shall include the cost and manning required, statutory restrictions that would preclude transfer of the USS John F. Kennedy 

to organizations or entities outside the U.S. Navy, and a classified 

annex on how the Navy would meet global operational requirements with an aircraft carrier force structure of less than 12 ships. 

‘‘Commercial First’’ Maritime Sealift Policy 

The committee is aware of recent discussions between the U.S. 

Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and the operators of 

U.S. flag vessels concerning the longstanding policy of using commercial vessels to transport military cargo when sufficient resources are available. Under this policy, the Department of Defense 

is required to, at least annually, determine the number of ships it 

needs to own or have under charter to meet its peacetime, contingency and wartime projected requirements. Once this ‘‘fleet’’ is 

sized, ships under charter to the U.S. Government, or governmentowned ships that have been activated to full operating status, shall 

be used to the ‘‘maximum extent practicable’’ when vessel schedules satisfy cargo delivery requirements. Assuring that the multiple components of sealift capacity are fully utilized is a difficult 

balancing act. The United States must retain its commercial capacity and simultaneously act as good stewards of the taxpayer’s dollar when government-controlled carriers have been activated and 

are available. The Secretary of Defense has empowered 

USTRANSCOM to ensure that U.S. troops deployed worldwide 

have the assets they need, when they need them. This is a difficult 

task given the wide range of operational demands placed on U.S. 

armed forces at this point in time. This balancing act is not one 

that lends itself to a legislative solution, nor is one warranted. The 

committee is confident that satisfactory solutions are attainable 

through continuing dialogue. 

Department of Defense Civil Support 

The committee commends the men and women of the U.S. armed 

forces who played an invaluable role in helping the citizens of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi respond to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and saved countless lives. The committee notes, 

however, that there are a number of areas where the Department 

of Defense (DOD) could have improved the execution of military 

support during Hurricane Katrina. The committee further notes 

that both the Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
371 

Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina 

and the White House Report on the Federal Response to Hurricane 

Katrina identify areas where DOD response to Hurricane Katrina 

was lacking, and makes recommendations for improvement. 

The committee is pleased that both reports emphasize the critical 

support provided by the respective National Guards of Alabama, 

Mississippi, and Louisiana in responding to this crisis, as well as 

the support provided by the National Guard Bureau in mobilizing 

assets from guard units around the nation. The committee applauds the national guard’s response to Hurricane Katrina, and believes that the command and control arrangements for national 

guard units during this multi-state emergency worked well and 

should serve as a model for future multi-state responses. In short, 

the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi each commanded the 

national guard effort in their respective states, and commanded the 

various national guard units from across the country who volunteered to serve under previously agreed Emergency Mutual Assistance Compacts. Thus, the committee believes that national guard 

units, operating under the command and control of the governor, 

should not execute multi-state missions, and that regional, multistate coordination of first response efforts remain a Department of 

Homeland Security mission. The committee believes, however, that 

the national guard will continue to be an essential element in any 

response to a domestic emergency that overwhelms first responders. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense to review the findings applicable to the 

Department made in the Final Report of the Select Bipartisan 

Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. The committee also directs the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Homeland Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by April 1, 2007, a report detailing how the Department 

intends to address the issues raised by the Select Committee report 

and the White House report. In particular, the report shall clarify 

U.S. Northern Command’s role in planning and executing support 

to the Department of Homeland Security and national guard units 

operating under title 32, United States Code, status during domestic contingencies. 

Department of Defense Interagency Coordination in the Global War 

on Terrorism 

The committee notes the importance of interagency coordination 

in all matters affecting national security, particularly in the global 

war on terrorism (GWOT), where success depends on the seamless 

application of all elements of national power. The committee is 

aware that the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) is in the 

process of completing the National Implementation Plan, which 

will provide integrated, strategic, operational plans for 

counterterrorism activities within and among agencies. While the 

committee expects that the National Implementation Plan will improve interagency coordination in the GWOT, the committee believes that the NCTC, alone, will not solve problems in interagency 

coordination. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
372 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

advocated improved interagency coordination in its National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR, in particular, identifies a 

number of DOD initiatives aimed at improving interagency coordination. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007, a report on how 

the Department is implementing the 2006 QDR objective of 

strengthening interagency operations. The report shall address how 

the Department is improving and strengthening internal DOD 

mechanisms for GWOT interagency coordination at the strategic, 

operational, and tactical level; and suggest means to address any 

remaining gaps in the interagency planning and execution process. 

Department of Defense Participation in the Committee on Foreign 

Investment in the United States 

The committee believes that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) does not adequately scrutinize 

the effects on national security of mergers, acquisitions and takeovers by foreign persons, which could result in foreign control of 

persons engaged in interstate commerce in the United States. The 

committee notes that recent decisions by CFIUS, such as approving 

attempts by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation to acquire Unocal and Dubai Ports World to acquire operation of six 

U.S. ports, underscores that CFIUS is neither applying sufficient 

analytical rigor to its review process nor providing sufficient weight 

to genuine concerns about the adverse impact of such transactions 

on U.S. national security. The committee urges the President to reform the process to ensure that CFIUS members do not prioritize 

securing foreign investment in the United States ahead of protecting national security. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is a CFIUS 

member and that the Department will often conduct an internal review of transactions as part of a CFIUS review. The committee is 

concerned that the Department may not be adequately scrutinizing 

and taking into consideration all of the national security implications of proposed mergers, acquisitions or takeovers under CFIUS 

review or voicing strongly its concerns to other CFIUS members. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee Armed Services by April 1, 2007, a report explaining 

how the Department evaluates the national security implications of 

mergers, acquisitions or takeovers that are subject to CFIUS review. This report shall also provide examples of how the Department raised national security concerns within the CFIUS structure 

over the last five years, how CFIUS sought assurances to resolve 

such concerns and explain how the Department monitors and enforces these assurances. 

Homeland Security/Defense Management Programs 

The committee notes the efforts of civilian academia to provide 

important educational opportunities in the area of Homeland SecuVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
373 

rity/Defense Management, and supports such efforts, especially 

when executed in cooperation with the Homeland Security/Defense 

Education Consortium and other Department of Defense educational institutions. The committee encourages the Department, 

as well as other federal agencies and civilian institutions, to continue to support these types of programs. 

Improving International Pandemic Preparedness Through Theater 

Security Cooperation Programs 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense was successful in providing rapid humanitarian assistance to Southeast 

Asia following the December 2004, tsunami due, in part, to military 

to military agreements, relationships, and training established 

through U.S. Pacific Command’s Theater Security Cooperation Program. Such pre-existing military agreements, relationships, and 

training could only prove beneficial during other disasters, including regional health epidemics or a global pandemic. The committee 

believes that during foreign military training and joint exercises 

with international partners, the Department should actively seek 

to improve the capabilities of military allies in the areas of surveillance and early warning of infectious disease outbreak and pandemic preparedness, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia. The 

committee encourages the regional combatant commanders to review current efforts and make specific recommendations to the Secretary of Defense for opportunities to expand such efforts in fiscal 

years 2007 and 2008. 

Increasing the Availability of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Assets in the Event of a Catastrophic Natural or Manmade Disaster 

The committee is aware that the federal response to Hurricane 

Katrina was hampered by a lack of situational awareness of postlandfall conditions along the Gulf Coast, as noted in the final report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. The Department of 

Defense possesses unparalleled assets for intelligence collection 

that are used worldwide to coordinate and support military operations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to increase the availability of these Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance assets in the event of a catastrophic natural or manmade disaster for use in damage assessment and the coordination 

of relief efforts. The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense 

to provide a report to the congressional defense committees as to 

the status of this effort by January 31, 2007. 

Joint Training and Certification for Nuclear, Chemical, and 

Biological Defense 

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) envisioned the future force would be organized, trained, equipped, and resourced to 

deal with all aspects of the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction; but the QDR provided no insight into how the Department of Defense will achieve its nuclear, chemical, and biological 

defense training objective. Therefore, the committee directs the AsVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
374 

sistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and 

Biological Defense Programs, in coordination with the Secretary of 

the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force, 

to perform a gap analysis on nuclear, chemical, and biological 

(NCB) defense training, to review NCB defense doctrine across 

each of the military services, and to make recommendations to the 

Secretary of Defense, the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2007, regarding the implementation of joint training, certification, and doctrinal alignment for NCB defense for both the active and reserve 

components. 

National Counter Proliferation Center 

The committee commends the Director of National Intelligence 

for formally establishing the National Counter Proliferation Center 

(NCPC) on November 21, 2005. As a result of testimony received 

during recent Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities 

Subcommittee hearings, the committee believes that it is essential 

that a body within the U.S. Government integrate and coordinate 

all elements of national power to combat weapons of mass destruction. The committee notes that the National Security Intelligence 

Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458) mandates that the NCPC 

address seven missions and objectives. The committee is concerned 

that the NCPC is not, and has no plans to carry out the following 

two missions and objectives: (1) coordinating counter proliferation 

plans and activities of the various departments and agencies of the 

U.S. Government to prevent and halt the proliferation of weapons 

of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials 

and technologies and (2) conducting strategic operational counter 

proliferation planning for the U.S. Government to prevent and halt 

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials and technologies. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the NCPC to 

submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services, and the Senate Select Committee 

on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by February 1, 2007, a report that explains why the 

NCPC has not taken steps to carry out its statutorily mandated 

missions and objectives to coordinate U.S. Government counter proliferation plans and activities and conduct strategic operational 

counter proliferation planning for the U.S. Government. The report 

should indicate whether the NCPC expects the President to waive 

any of the missions and objectives assigned to the NCPC pursuant 

to the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (Public 

Law 108–458). In the event the NCPC will not carry out any or all 

of the seven of the missions and objectives detailed in the National 

Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, (Public Law 108–458) and 

the President will not execute a national security waiver, the report should explain how the President is meeting the requirements 

in section 1022 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 

2004 (Public Law 108–458). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
375 

Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels Carrying 

Department of Defense Cargo 

In section 1017 of this act, the committee includes an interim 

provision to address concerns that vessels engaged in the coastwise 

trades, including the domestic offshore trades, are undergoing repairs and modifications in shipyards located outside the United 

States. In general, vessels engaged in the coastwise trades are limited to those that are U.S. built, U.S. crewed, and U.S. owned. Also, 

a vessel may not be ‘‘rebuilt’’ in a shipyard that is not located in 

the United States. Thus, no vessels built outside the United States 

can enter these trades. Part of the current discussions, center 

around the fact that the Coast Guard issued section 67.177 of title 

46, Code of Federal Regulations that provides guidelines on when 

a vessel is deemed ‘‘rebuilt.’’ In general, this occurs when relevant 

work, which is defined as work performed on its hull or superstructure, constitutes a considerable part of the hull or superstructure or when a major component of the hull or superstructure, 

not built in the United States, is added to a vessel. With regard 

to the former test, percentage limitations have been established in 

section 67.117(b) of title 46, Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically with respect to vessels the hull and superstructure of which 

is constructed of steel, certain thresholds have been established. 

The issue is that a vessel is deemed rebuilt when the relevant work 

constitutes more than ten percent of the vessel’s steelweight prior 

to the work. A vessel may be considered ‘‘rebuilt’’ if the relevant 

work constitutes more than 7.5 percent but not more than ten percent of the vessel’s steelweight prior to the work. The conflict which 

seems to exist is the Coast Guard has one test for when a vessel 

is initially considered to be ‘‘built’’ in the United States for the purposes of engaging in the coastwise trades, and another test for 

when a vessel is deemed ‘‘rebuilt’’ outside the United States, and 

thus losing its right to engage in the coastwise trades. 

The committee is concerned that this apparent dichotomy has resulted in a number of vessels being repaired and modified in foreign shipyards. To resolve this issue, and to be fair to proponents 

and opponents of the practice of repairing and overhauling coastwise eligible vessels in foreign shipyards, the committee intends to 

conduct a hearing or series of hearings in the near-term. The committee recognizes this is a very complicated issue with significant 

policy ramifications, and thus chose to address this issue through 

an interim legislative provision in this Act. Nevertheless, hearings 

will provide the opportunity for all parties to present their views. 

The committee believes that a more detailed and permanent solution is obtainable. 

Report on Strategic Language Skills 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has placed 

great emphasis on improving the strategic language posture of the 

United States. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to identify objectives for developing capabilities in immediate investment languages and stronghold languages, as specified 

on the fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense Strategic Languages 

List, and develop a comprehensive implementation plan as to how 

the Secretary of Defense and the military departments will achieve 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
376 

those objectives. The committee expects that the plan for achieving 

the objectives for strategic languages will be coordinated with and 

will complement the Secretary’s report on the need for a personnel 

plan for linguists in the armed forces required by section 581 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163). 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit these language 

objectives and implementation plan to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 

March 31, 2007. 

Special Operations Command as the Supported Command in the 

Global War on Terrorism 

The committee notes that the 2004 Unified Command Plan made 

U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) the supported, or 

lead, combatant command in the global war on terrorism (GWOT). 

The committee further notes that annex C of the National Military 

Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, published February 1, 

2006, implements USSOCOM’s designation as the supported combatant command for the GWOT by charging SOCOM with planning, synchronizing, and, as directed, executing global operations 

against terrorist networks. The committee finds, however, that 

USSOCOM’s roles and responsibilities as the supported combatant 

command for the GWOT remain ambiguous. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2007, a report that 

clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the Commander, 

USSOCOM in his capacity as the supported combatant commander 

in the GWOT. The report shall: 

(1) Identify a clear chain of command affording the Commander, USSOCOM the authority to more effectively carry out 

his role as the lead Commander for GWOT planning and operations; 

(2) Explain under what circumstances will USSOCOM be directed to exercise command and control of counterterrorism operations; 

(3) Verify whether current USSOCOM acquisition, training 

and manning authorities are sufficient to allow Commander, 

USSOCOM to meet his responsibilities as the supported combatant commander for GWOT; and 

(4) Clarify the command and control relationship between 

the geographic combatant commanders and USSOCOM in 

terms of GWOT planning and operations. 

Status and Implementation of Military Support for Stability, 

Security, Transition, and Reconstruction Operations 

The committee is pleased to note that the Department of Defense 

issued Directive 3000.05, dated November 28, 2005, on ‘‘ Military 

Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction 

(SSTR) Operations.’’ Such operations will remain common critical 

military tasks in the foreseeable future and the Department should 

be fully prepared to execute such tasks. The committee believes 

that the Department should integrate, to the greatest extent posVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00400 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
377 

sible, SSTR-related requirements across its doctrine, training, logistics, organization, materiel, personnel, and facilities (DTLOM–

PF). 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2007, a report on the status 

and plan (including timeline) to implement the Directive across 

DTLOM–PFs. This report shall include, among other relevant 

issues, a special focus on professional military education and training, including but not limited to revisions to Academy and War College curricula, if any; training plans at the service and joint operational levels; the possible creation of SSTR fellowships within the 

Agency for International Development or related organizations (including non-governmental organizations); and any reorganizations 

that will be required to implement the Directive. 

Terrorist Use of the Internet 

The committee is concerned that terrorist organizations, such as 

al Qaeda, are using the internet to carry out strategic and operational objectives. The committee believes that terrorist organizations should not be permitted to exploit the internet, and that the 

Department of Defense should take steps to combat terrorists’ use 

of the internet. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by May 1, 2007, a report that describes how terrorist organizations use the internet, and recommend ways the Department can counter terrorists’ use of the 

internet. The report shall also state how the Department is currently countering terrorist recruiting, training and operations that 

are executed through the internet, and should identify any legal 

challenges the Department may face in trying to combat terrorists’

use of the internet. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—General Transfer Authority 

This section would provide fiscal year 2007 transfer authority to 

the Department of Defense for amounts up to $3.75 billion. 

Section 1002—Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations for 

Fiscal Year 2006 

This section would authorize adjustments in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) 

for the Department of Defense by supplemental appropriations pursuant to such authorization. 

Section 1003—Increase in Fiscal Year 2006 General Transfer 

Authority 

This section would amend section 1001(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
378 

to increase the fiscal year 2006 transfer authority from $3.5 billion 

to $3.75 billion. 

Section 1004—United States Contribution to NATO CommonFunded Budgets in Fiscal Year 2007 

This section would authorize the United States contribution to 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization common-funded budgets for fiscal year 2007, including the use of unexpended balances. 

Section 1005—Report on Budgeting for Fluctuations in Fuel Cost 

Rates 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2007, on the fuel 

costs rate projection used in the annual Department of Defense 

budget. This section would also require the Comptroller General to 

review the report and submit an assessment by March 15, 2007. 

Section 1006—Reduction in Authorizations Due to Savings 

Resulting From Lower-than-Expected Inflation 

The Department of Defense assumed an inflation rate of 2.2 percent in its fiscal year 2007 budget submission. However, according 

to the House Budget Committee’s report (109–402), the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of inflation is 0.4 percentage points 

lower than the President’s request for fiscal year 2007. The savings 

resulting from the lower-than-expected inflation for fiscal year 2007 

is $1,583 million less than the budget request. 

SUBTITLE B—POLICY RELATING TO NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Section 1011—Transfer of Naval Vessels to Foreign Nations Based 

Upon Vessel Class 

This section would allow the transfer of a specified number of 

ships to a particular nation without identification of the specific 

vessel by hull number or ship name. Section 7037 of title 10, 

United States Code, requires legislative approval for the transfer 

to other nations of specific vessels exceeding 3,000 tons or vessels 

that are less than 20-years-old. The legislative approval process 

typically begins two years or more prior to the actual decommissioning of the U.S. Navy vessel and ship transfer. Decommissioning 

plans frequently change as a result of changing operational commitments, material condition, and other factors. Linking a specific 

vessel to a specific country can result in a lost transfer opportunity 

if that vessel’s decommissioning status changes. Additionally, it 

must be replaced by another vessel of the same class as a transfer 

candidate. 

This section would better support the goal of affecting ‘‘hot’’ ship 

transfers. Hot ship transfers reduce the cost of decommissioning 

preparation and lay-up for the U.S. Navy and may support a higher selling price for the ship as an ‘‘excess defense article.’’ For the 

purchaser, a hot ship transfer is advantageous because it eliminates reactivation costs attributed to long post-decommissioning 

lay-up and because the ship transfer can be more quickly and economically realized. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
379 

This section would still require Congress to authorize the release 

of specific naval capabilities and technologies to specific countries, 

but it would provide flexibility to best match available decommissioned ships to customer navies’ requirements. Finally, Congress 

would still be free to designate specific ships to specific countries 

where circumstances dictated. 

Section 1012—Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels in 

Foreign Shipyards 

The committee includes a provision that will clarify those commonwealths and possessions that are to be considered as part of 

the United States for the purposes of naval vessels to include any 

Military Sealift Command vessels that are owned or chartered 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Navy. This section also 

further defines the term emergency voyage repair and extends the 

limitations on overhaul, repair and maintenance of vessels in foreign shipyards. 

Section 1013—Report on Options for Future Lease Arrangement for 

Guam Shipyard 

This section would require the Secretary of Navy to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by December 15, 2006, on the Guam 

Shipyard located in San Rita, Guam. This section would also require the Comptroller General to submit an evaluation of the Secretary of Navy’s report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007. 

Under the statutory authority of section 2304c(3) of title 10, 

United States Code, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302–

3(a)(2)(i), the Navy has been awarding non-competitive contracts to 

Guam Shipyard located in San Rita, Guam since fiscal year 1998 

to maintain the industrial base in support of national strategic objectives. In 1998, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet determined that 

maintaining a private ship repair capability in Guam is a matter 

of national strategic importance for future defense operations in 

the western Pacific. 

In a report to Congress on Repair of Military Sealift Command 

Ships dated May 2004, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet validated the importance of this shipyard. In the fiscal year 2006 Class 

Justification and Approval For Other Than Full and Open Competition, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet again determined that 

maintaining a private ship repair capability as a mobilization base 

facility on Guam is a matter of vital strategic importance for operations in the Western Pacific Area of Responsibility. In support of 

that determination, the Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet submitted a 

letter to the Commander, Military Sealift Command on March 30, 

2005, that stated: 

‘‘Guam is strategically located with respect to those 

Asian countries that border the Pacific-Rim and provides 

an excellent site for logistical support to the Navy’s operating forces in that region. With the U.S. Navy’s continuing focus on the Pacific Area of Responsibility, the 

former U.S. Naval Ship Repair Facility Guam, due to its 

geographically unique location and positive force protection 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
380 

status, is essential to our ability to respond to possible contingencies.’’

Until such time as the Secretary of the Navy prepares the requested report, this section would further require the awarding of 

contracts under the authority of section 2304(c)(3) of title 10, 

United States Code and section 6.302–3(a)(2)(i) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation in an equal to the average amount awarded 

between Fiscal Year 1998 and Fiscal Year 2006. The committee 

supports the Secretary of Navy’s decision to continue to designate 

the Guam Shipyard as critical to maintaining the industrial base 

in support of national strategic objectives, as certified by the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, for each of the past eight fiscal years. 

Section 1014—Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement Program 

This section would establish a program to provide grants and 

loan guarantees to U.S. shipbuilders to make capital investments 

in their shipbuilding processes and facilities to improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality of U.S. ship construction and 

promote the international competitiveness of U.S. shipyards. This 

section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to solicit and approve grant applications from shipbuilding companies to research 

and develop innovative technologies, processes and infrastructure 

to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of naval vessel construction. This section would also authorize the Secretary of the 

Navy to provide loan guarantees to shipyards to purchase and implement a technology, a process or an infrastructure improvement 

that he determines will improve the productivity and cost-effectiveness of naval vessel construction. This section would also require 

the Secretary of the Navy to perform annual assessments of the 

shipbuilding industrial base to determine where and to what extent 

inefficiencies exist and to what extent innovative design and production technologies, processes and infrastructure can be developed 

to alleviate such inefficiencies. This section would also require that 

funding for the National Shipbuilding Research Program be separately identified and set forth in budget justification materials submitted to Congress for that fiscal year in support of that budget. 

Section 1015—Transfer of Operational Control of Certain Patrol 

Coastal Ships to Coast Guard 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into an agreement with the Commandant of the Coast Guard for 

the transfer of operational control of not less than five 179 foot Cyclone class patrol coastal ships for a period extending at least 

through September 30, 2012. 

Section 1016—Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels 

This section would amend section 2401 of title 10, United States 

Code, to prohibit the secretary of a military department from entering into a contract for lease or charter of a vessel for a term of 

more than 24 months, including all options to renew or extend the 

contract, if the hull or superstructure of that vessel was constructed in a foreign shipyard. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
381 

Section 1017—Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels 

Carrying Department of Defense Cargo 

This section would provide that the Secretary of Defense may not 

award any contract for the carriage by vessel of cargo for the Department of Defense, unless the contract includes a requirement 

under which the contractor shall ensure that the overhaul and repair work is done in a shipyard located in the United States or the 

contractor must report any repair work conducted in a shipyard located outside the Unites States. 

Section 1018—Riding Gang Member Documentation Requirement 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from awarding a charter or a contract for carriage of defense cargo unless the 

charter or contract requires that each riding gang member that 

performs any work on the vessel during the effective period of the 

charter or contract holds a merchant mariner’s document issued by 

the U.S. Coast Guard. This section also allows the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations to exempt a riding gang member from 

the above requirement under limited circumstances, and then only 

if a background check is performed. 

SUBTITLE C—COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section 1021—Restatement in Title 10, United States Code, and 

Revision of Department of Defense Authority to Provide Support 

for Counter-Drug Activities of Federal, State, Local, and Foreign 

Law Enforcement Agencies 

This section would codify section 1004 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510), as 

amended by section 1021(a) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107). The current authority, which would expire at the end of fiscal year 2006, enables the 

Department of Defense to assist the counter-drug activities of any 

other department or agency of the federal government or of any 

State, local, or foreign law enforcement agencies. This support includes the maintenance and repair of equipment; transportation of 

personnel; establishment and operation of bases of operation or 

training facilities; counter-drug related training of law enforcement 

personnel; the detection, monitoring, and communication of air and 

sea traffic; construction of roads, fences and installation lighting, 

establishment of command, control, communications, and computer 

networks; provision of linguist and intelligence analysis services; 

and aerial and ground reconnaissance. 

Section 1022—Restatement in Title 10, United States Code, and 

Revision of Department of Defense Authority to Provide Support 

for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain Foreign Governments 

This section would codify and expand section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 

105–85), as amended by section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). The current authority, which would expire at the end of fiscal year 2006, 

enables the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide counter-drug 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
382 

equipment in addition to that provided under section 1004 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public 

Law 101–510), as amended by section 1021(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107), 

to nations in South America and Central Asia, including: Colombia, 

Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, 

Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. 

Additionally, this section would expand the authority to include 

countries that are located in primary narcotics-trafficking routes in 

Central America and Central Asia, including: Panama, Guatemala, 

Belize, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. During calendar 

year 2006, incidents against Afghan security forces by narcotics 

traffickers have increased. Most of these incidents involved small 

arms, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devises. Afghan security forces need to be armed to effectively deal with narcotics traffickers. The Government of Afghanistan raised the issue of security forces obtaining additional arms 

and ammunition support at the recent United States-Afghanistan 

Strategic Partnership meeting held in Washington, DC in March 

2006. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public 

Law 109–13), Congress authorized providing Afghanistan crewserved weapons. Pursuant to this authority, the U.S. Government 

has provided the government of Afghanistan with two DShKMs 

heavy machine guns (.50-caliber). This section would also establish 

the authority to provide crew-served weapons of .50-caliber or less 

to Afghanistan for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. This section would 

also authorize that during fiscal years 2007 and 2008, $20.0 million 

of additional expenditures under this authority should be authorized each fiscal year, for a total of $60.0 million each fiscal year. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to prepare a counter-drug 

plan for the governments to which support will be provided under 

this section. This section would require the Department of Defense 

to submit the annual plans to the congressional defense committees 

and the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Committee on International Relations by December 31st of each year. 

Section 1023—Extension of Authority to Support Unified CounterDrug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia 

This section would extend the continuation of authorities provided in section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, (Public Law 108–375) 

which allow the Department of Defense to support a unified campaign in Colombia against narcotics trafficking and terrorist organizations for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. This section would also extend the limitation on the number of U.S. military and federally 

funded civilian contractor personnel in the Republic of Colombia 

through fiscal year 2008. Section 1021 limited the number of military personnel in Colombia in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to 800 

people and the number of federally funded civilian contractors employed to support Plan Colombia to 600 people. This section would 

extend these authorities for an additional two years to provide support to the consolidation phase of Plan Colombia, the Government 

of Colombia’s long-term blueprint to end the country’s long-running 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
383 

civil war, reduce narcotics trafficking, and promote economic and 

social development. 

Section 1024—Continuation of Reporting Requirement Regarding 

Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign 

Counter-Drug Activities 

This section would extend by one year the requirement for the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report detailing the expenditure 

of funds by the Secretary during fiscal year 2006 in direct and indirect support of the counter-drug activities of foreign governments. 

This requirement was reinstated for fiscal year 2005. The committee notes that the Department of Defense has increased its level 

of counternarcotics assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies 

and militaries in recent years. The committee believes it should 

continue to monitor such expenditures closely. 

Section 1025—Report on Interagency Counternarcotics Plan for 

Afghanistan and South and Central Asian Regions 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 

2007, updating the interagency counternarcotics implementation 

plan for Afghanistan and the South and Central Asian regions. The 

committee notes that the Secretary of Defense failed to submit a 

report on this matter, as directed by the committee, by December 

31, 2005. 

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1031—Revision to Authorities Relating to Commission on 

the Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the United 

States 

This section would extend the assessment horizon of the Commission of the Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the 

United States, as established in section 1051 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), 

from 2008 to 2025. This horizon pertains particularly to the commission’s assessment of the ability of the current nuclear stockpile 

to address the evolving strategic threat environment and the commission’s recommendations on changes to nuclear stockpile and infrastructure required to preserve a nuclear capability commensurate with that threat environment. 

This section would also change the commission’s report date from 

June 30, 2007, to 18 months after commencement of commission 

activities and the commission’s termination date from July 30, 

2007, to 60 days after the report submission. 

Section 1032—Enhancement to Authority to Pay Rewards for 

Assistance in Combating Terrorism 

This section would increase the flexibility and responsiveness of 

the counterterrorism reward program by allowing the combatant 

commanders to delegate approval authority for such rewards, 

which may amount to $50,000 each, to the commander of a command directly subordinate to that combatant commander. Such delegation of authority to a subordinate commander must have the apVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00407 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
384 

proval of the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or an Under Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary. This section would also increase reward authority, which 

the combatant commander may further delegate, from $2,500 to 

$10,000. 

Section 1033—Report on Assessment Process of Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff Relating to Global War on Terrorism 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007, a report on the findings of the semi-annual global war on terrorism (GWOT) assessment process described in the Implementation and Assessment 

Annex (annex R) of the National Military Strategic Plan for the 

War on Terrorism (NMSP–WOT). 

The committee is encouraged by the Joint Chiefs of Staff effort 

to develop and publish a ‘‘NMSP–WOT.’’ The committee believes 

that this document effectively presents the approach the Department of Defense will take in fulfilling its role within the national 

strategy for combating terrorism. The committee notes with interest that the NMSP–WOT sets military priorities for the GWOT, establishes a set of metrics for evaluating progress in the global war 

on terrorism and implements an assessment process. 

Section 1034—Presidential Report on Improving Interagency 

Support for United States 21st Century National Security Missions 

This section would require the President to submit to Congress 

by February 1, 2007, a report that identifies interagency capabilities needed to achieve U.S. national security goals and objectives 

in the 21st century, describing how best to enhance the integration 

of those capabilities with those of the deployed military, and discussing the criteria and considerations used to evaluate progress in 

building and integration such capacity. This section would further 

require the President to make recommendations for improving 

interagency coordination in the form of specific legislative proposals. 

Since 2002, the administration has outlined broad U.S. national 

security goals and objectives through several strategy documents, 

including the March 2006 National Security Strategy, the November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, the February 2003 

National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and the July 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security. The Department of Defense 

(DOD) has complemented these documents with its own defensespecific strategies, such as the 2005 National Defense Strategy and 

the 2004 National Military Strategy. Most recently, the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) laid out DOD’s perspective on ways 

in which to execute these various security and defense strategies. 

In particular, the QDR highlighted the need for improved, robust 

interagency capacity to complement the work done by deployed 

military forces in achieving U.S. national security goals. 

The committee believes it is critical that the President provide 

his view on both the civilian and military capabilities required to 

address 21st century national security challenges and the extent to 

which such federal departments and agencies must integrate these 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
385 

capabilities for optimal effectiveness. Moreover, the committee 

seeks the President’s view on the possible legislative changes that 

might strengthen U.S. national security. Toward this end and recognizing the complexity of the current and emerging national security challenges, the committee urges the President to incorporate 

the inputs of the broadest practicable group of national security 

players into this report, including representatives of domestic departments and agencies that must coordinate in planning and response to national and homeland security challenges. 

Section 1035—Quarterly Reports on 2006 Quadrennial Defense 

Review Report Implementation 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services quarterly reports on the processes and 

procedures to examine the various recommendations of the 2006 

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), implementation plans and 

strategies for each area highlighted by the QDR report, and relevant information about the status of such implementation. Because the national security environment of the 21st century is 

evolving rapidly, these reports would also indicate changes in the 

Secretary’s assessment of the defense strategies or capabilities required since the publication of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report. This section would require that the Secretary submit 

the first report by January 31, 2007, and would terminate the reporting requiring upon publication of the next QDR report or upon 

notification by the Secretary to the armed services committees that 

implementation is complete, whichever comes first. 

The committee recognizes that the latest QDR Report describes 

the complex security challenges facing armed forces in the 21st 

century, clearly indicating that the document reflects a ‘‘snapshot 

in time’’ regarding the Department of Defense’s (DOD) strategy and 

the capabilities required to execute that strategy, and notes that 

the Department is in the process of transformation. The Department devoted significant analytical resources to ensure that the 

QDR process identified various scenarios and described the types 

of capabilities, ranging from weapons platforms to cultural and language skills to combat support and combat service support elements, that are required to prevail in these scenarios and shape 

the international security environment. 

The QDR also reflects the reality that the U.S. Government must 

develop, procure, and employ such capabilities through a long-term 

strategy. The committee understands that the Department has developed several working groups to examine various areas that may 

impact future authorities and funding requests by the Department. 

For example, the committee notes that in the post-September 

11th world, irregular warfare—or conflicts in which enemy combatants are not regular military forces of nation-states—has emerged 

as a primary form of warfare confronting the United States and 

that developing irregular warfare capability is critical to military 

success in the global war on terrorism. The QDR report stipulates 

that while sustaining capabilities to address conventional combat 

operations, the Department must develop and enhance capabilities 

to carry out long-duration operations, unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and staVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00409 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
386 

bilization, and reconstruction operations. In particular, the QDR 

report identifies irregular warfare as an area that will need continuous reassessment and improvement in the coming years and requires the development of a ‘‘roadmap’’ by a working group to address such issues. 

Because implementing the QDR recommendations in irregular 

warfare and other areas will require strong commitment and emphasis from not only the Secretary of Defense and leaders from 

other federal departments and agencies but also from Congress, it 

is critical that the Secretary of Defense maintain robust, timely information flow to the armed services committees, particularly on 

the work of these QDR-related groups. 

Section 1036–Increased Hunting and Fishing Opportunities for 

Members of the Armed Forces, Retired Members, and Disabled 

Veterans 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that service members, military retirees, disabled veterans, and persons assisting disabled veterans are able to utilize Department of 

Defense (DOD) lands that are available for hunting and fishing. 

This section would also require the Secretary to report to Congress 

within 180 days of enactment of this Act on actions necessary to 

increase the availability of DOD lands to such persons for hunting 

and fishing activities. 

Finally, this section would require the Secretary of the Interior 

to cease plans to exterminate deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island, 

California by helicopter and would prohibit the Secretary from exterminating or nearly exterminating the deer and elk on the island. 

Under current plans, all deer and elk will be eliminated from the 

island by 2012. 

Section 1037—Technical and Clerical Amendments 

This section would make a number of technical and clerical 

amendments to existing law of a non-substantive nature. 

Section 1038—Database of Emergency Response Capabilities 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure that 

the Department of Defense maintains a database of emergency response capabilities for domestic disasters. The committee believes 

that a single entity in the Department should be responsible for 

tracking the full range of military disaster response capabilities 

that exist domestically. The committee acknowledges U.S. Northern Command’s role in domestic disaster preparedness and response, and recommends that it be involved in this effort. 

Section 1039—Information on Certain Criminal Investigations and 

Prosecutions 

This section would expand the annual reporting requirement in 

section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) to include a detailed and comprehensive description of any investigation or prosecution, and any resulting judicial or non-judicial punishment or 

other disciplinary action, for any violation of international obligaVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00410 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
387 

tions or laws of the United States regarding the treatment of individuals detained by the U.S. armed forces or by a person providing 

services to the Department of Defense on a contractual basis, if 

such information would not compromise any ongoing criminal or 

administrative investigation or prosecution. 

This section would also include additional information on investigations and prosecutions for any officer nominated for command, 

or nominated for promotion or appointment to a position requiring 

the advice and consent of the Senate, which should be clearly designated as such. The information in connection with nominations 

shall be submitted to the House Committee on Armed Services and 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services on a regular, timely basis 

in advance of any nomination. 

Section 1040—Date for Final Report of EMP Commission 

This section would direct the Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack Commission, established by title 14 of the Floyd D. Spence 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 

Law 106–398), and reestablished by section 1042 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–

163) to move its final report date from June 30, 2007, to 18 months 

after commencement of commission activities. 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Performance Periods Established in Connection with Public-private 

Competitions 

The committee notes that civilian in-house workforces and contractor workforces who win A–76 competitions are treated differently with respect to recompetitions at the end of their performance periods. The committee also notes that OMB Circular A–76 

(revised May 29, 2003), while technically allowing an in-house 

workforce to receive an extension to the performance period, in effect, rarely results in an extension. The committee further notes 

that in contrast, the regulations in the Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding contractor performance periods appear to result in 

frequent extensions to contractor performance periods. The committee believes that this apparent disparity may prejudice civilian 

in-house employees. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Office of Management and Budget, to examine this apparent inequity and report to the congressional defense committees by 

March 1, 2007. The report its findings shall include an analysis 

and comparison of recompetitions conducted since January 1, 2001 

through the date of the enactment of this Act to determine the frequency of in-house extensions and contractor extensions. The report shall also examine the existing regulations governing recompetitions to identify areas of possible disparity between in-house 

and contractor workforces. The committee further directs the Secretary to provide recommendations regarding any inequities between the in-house and contractor workforces disclosed in this examination. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
388 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1101—Increase in Authorized Number of Defense 

Intelligence Senior Executive Service Employees 

This section would increase the authorization for the number of 

Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service employees by 50 in 

fiscal year 2007. 

Section 1102—Authority for Department of Defense to Pay Full 

Replacement Value for Personal Property Claims of Civilians 

This section would amend section 2636a(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to authorize full replacement value coverage for 

household goods of civilian employees of the Department of Defense 

damaged or lost during transportation at government expense. Currently, only members of the armed forces may receive full replacement coverage. This section would resolve an area of disparate 

treatment for civilian employees compared to military personnel. 

Section 1103—Accrual of Annual Leave for Members of the 

Uniformed Services Performing Dual Employment 

This section would amend section 5534a of title 5, United States 

Code, to provide that servicemembers hired by the U.S. Government for a civilian position while on terminal leave from the military would accrue annual leave in the manner specified in section 

6303(a) of title 5, United States Code. Currently, a servicemember 

on terminal leave hired for a federal civilian position receives civil 

service leave and military leave at the same time. This section 

would limit leave accrual of such individuals to that of a military 

retiree. 

Section 1104—Death Gratuity Authorized for Federal Employees 

This section would add a new section in chapter 81 of title 10, 

United States Code, to provide a death gratuity of $0.1 million to 

civilian employees of the U.S. Government in the case of a death 

resulting from wounds, injuries, or illnesses that are incurred in 

the performance of duty in a contingency operation. The gratuity 

would be payable retroactively for deaths after October 7, 2001, in 

the theater of operations of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During this period of time eight civilian employees of the Department of Defense have lost their lives as a direct result of their assignments to Afghanistan and Iraq. This section would provide covered civilians with a death gratuity similar 

to the $.1 million authorized for service members under section 664 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
389 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Addressing the Threat Posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran 

The committee notes that the Islamic Republic of Iran currently 

poses a serious threat to the security of the United States, as well 

as to the peace and stability of the international community by continuing dangerous nuclear activities, including development of uranium enrichment capabilities; violating the human rights of the 

Iranian people; supporting terrorists; calling for the destruction of 

the State of Israel; creating instability in Iraq; and undermining 

the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. 

Given these circumstances, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to provide to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services, by January 31, 2007, 

a classified report encompassing the present period through 2016, 

which describes the Department of Defense’s (DOD) strategy for 

addressing current and foreseeable Iranian threats to U.S. security 

and international security. The report shall describe the range of 

U.S. military options, including possible scenarios in which the use 

of U.S. military force may be appropriate and any limits or obstacles to using such force. The report shall also specifically address 

Iran’s nuclear activities; support for terrorists; influence in the 

Middle East region, particularly Iraq; and any broader destabilizing ambitions of the Iranian regime. 

To supplement this report, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to provide regular, timely briefings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services which include detailed political-military assessments of existing and emerging threats posed by Iran to the security of the 

United States and the peace and stability of the international community, and DOD plans to address such threats. The briefings 

shall include, as appropriate, coordination of the Department with 

the Department of State or other relevant government agencies; alternative intelligence analyses from these agencies; the status of 

negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear activities and involvement in Iraq; and the impact of Iran’s nuclear activities, support 

for terrorists, and influence in Iraq and the Middle East, on the security of the United States and the peace and stability of the international community. 

Finally, in the event the U.S. participates in direct talks with 

Iran on the subject of Iraq, the committee urges the appropriate 

U.S. officials to address in any such talks the need for Iran to stop 

the flow of any Iranian-supplied explosives to Iraq, withdraw any 

presence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iraq, and 

end Iranian financial support to insurgent groups in Iraq. 

International Military Education and Training Programs 

The committee notes that it has received testimony before the 

full committee from the commander of the U.S. Southern Command 

on March 16, 2006 on the value of the U.S. Government’s International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
390 

the unintended consequences of IMET restrictions under the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) (title II of 

Public Law 107–206). The committee also notes that it had previously received testimony before the full committee of the value of 

IMET programs by the commanders of U.S. Southern and European Command on March 9, 2005 and by the commander of the 

U.S. Central Command on March 2, 2005. 

Specifically, the committee perceives that IMET programs create 

opportunities for military-to-military engagement between U.S. 

armed forces and the militaries of developing nations. Such interactions are critical to advancing the understanding of, and respect 

for, civil-military relations; enhancing the understanding of U.S. 

military principles and values; bridging cultural differences; and 

developing important long-term relationships with future military 

and civilian leaders. Generally, such engagement has positively affected U.S. armed forces’ global access and influence and has 

proved helpful in the global war on terrorism. 

The committee notes that ASPA-related restrictions on IMET 

programs have reduced U.S. engagements with countries in ways 

that create opportunities for third-party governments and actors, 

which may not share the democratic principles and values of the 

United States, to exert undue influence in countries subject to 

IMET restrictions in ways that undermine the U.S. national security and broader interests. 

The committee notes that ASPA provides the President with the 

authority to waive IMET restrictions, but the President has not yet 

chosen to exercise this authority. The committee urges the President to use, where appropriate, the waiver authority granted to 

him under ASPA to impede undue influence on U.S. partner nations and improve U.S. strategic relationships. Additionally, the 

committee requests that the President provide the committee with 

legislative proposals for the strengthening of key military-to-military relationships without undermining the importance of article 

98 agreements under ASPA. 

The committee emphasizes that it supports all aspects of ASPA 

that do not involve IMET restrictions, including the restrictions on 

foreign military financing. The committee supports article 98 

agreements, which protect U.S. citizens against prosecution under 

the International Criminal Court. The committee does not believe 

that selectively waiving IMET restrictions under ASPA will undermine the effectiveness of ASPA or diplomatic efforts to secure article 98 agreements and does not intend such result. 

Report on Certain Cooperative Activities Involving the United 

States and India 

The committee emphasizes its support for a robust U.S.-India 

strategic partnership and commends India for its recent efforts to 

bring its national export controls for dual-use and other sensitive 

materials and technologies in line with international standards. 

Given the President’s proposed deepening of U.S.-India nuclear 

cooperation and its possible effect on safeguards that prevent theft 

or other illicit transfer of nuclear materials and technologies, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit, by February 

1, 2007, a report to the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign 

Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Armed Services and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
391 

International Relations of the House of Representatives on the Department’s current and planned cooperative activities to enhance 

India’s export control system and nuclear safeguards and to prevent such theft or transfer. The report should also describe how the 

Department of Energy coordinates these activities with similar efforts of the Departments of Defense and State; provide an assessment of the limits and vulnerabilities in India’s current export control system and other safeguards as they relate to nuclear materials; and identify possible areas for expanded U.S.-India export 

control- or nuclear-related cooperative activities. 

The Secretary of Energy should coordinate this report with the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. To the maximum 

extent possible, the report shall be unclassified, with a classified 

annex if necessary. 

Report on Department of Defense Activities in Support of 

Multinational Peacekeeping Operations in Sudan 

Noting with concern the ongoing crisis in the Darfur region of 

Sudan, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on 

Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and 

the House Committee on International Relations by April 1, 2007, 

a report describing any current or planned Department of Defense 

activities, including those activities involving U.S. military forces, 

in support of peacekeeping missions of United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Sudan. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Section 1201—Logistic Support for Allied Forces Participating in 

Combined Operations 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to use up to $100.0 million of 

funds available to the Department of Defense for operation and 

maintenance in any given fiscal year to provide logistics support, 

supplies, and services to foreign military forces. To receive such 

support, the foreign military forces must be participating in an operation, such as active hostilities, a contingency, or a non-combat 

operation, with U.S. armed forces. Also, the Secretary of Defense 

must determine that the support is essential to the success of the 

combined operation and that without such support, the foreign 

military forces would be unable to participate in the combined operation. Finally, the support provided must be allowable under existing export control laws and regulations. 

Section 1202—Temporary Authority To Use Acquisition and CrossServicing Agreements To Lend Certain Military Equipment to 

Foreign Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for Personnel Protection 

and Survivability 

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to lend certain military equipment, using acquisition and 

cross-servicing agreements, to the military forces of nations particiVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00415 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
392 

pating in combined operations with the U.S. armed forces in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. This section would limit this authority to fiscal 

years 2007 and 2008, limit such equipment to those items marked 

as ‘‘significant military equipment’’ in categories I, II, III, and VII 

on the U.S. Munitions List, allow the provision of such equipment 

for up to one year and only if the U.S. forces participating in that 

combined operation have no unfilled requirements for that equipment, and require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services detailed reports on the exercise of such authority. 

Section 1203—Recodification and Revision to Law Relating to 

Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining Assistance 

This section would recodify in a section of title 10, United States 

Code, the provisions relating to the humanitarian mine action 

(HMA) program. This section would amend the authorities for 

HMA missions so secretaries of the military departments may base 

their decisions on whether the mission offers training value to participating U.S. military units or promotes the strategic interests of 

the United States. The committee notes that restrictions on actual 

physical detection, lifting, or destruction of landmines by U.S. military personnel do not change and there is no restriction on 

servicemembers visiting the physical site of demining activities. 

Section 1204—Enhancements to Regional Defense Combating 

Terrorism Fellowship Program 

This section would amend section 2249c of title 10, United States 

Code, to describe the nature of the Counterterrorism Fellowship 

Program (CTFP) more clearly by changing the program title to the 

Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program and further explaining 

the authorities associated with the program, to allow the Department of Defense to manage the program more effectively and efficiently, and to increase the total amount of funds that may be used 

under this authority in any fiscal year from $20.0 million to $25.0 

million. 

The committee notes that the CTFP successfully engages potential partners in the global war on terrorism by educating and training foreign military officers, ministry of defense officials, and security officials with combating terrorism responsibilities. The committee is aware that before accepting CTFP candidates into the 

program the Department requires that each candidate enters a 

thorough human rights verification background vetting process. 

The committee expects that this policy will remain unchanged. Additionally, where it is not already part of the CTFP, the committee 

encourages the Department to develop and include curricula that 

promote human rights values and respect for democratic principles. 

Section 1205—CAPSTONE Overseas Field Studies Trips to 

People’s Republic of China and Republic of China on Taiwan 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

field studies trips to the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan during the overseas section of the CAPSTONE course for newly-selected flag and general officers. Overseas CAPSTONE trips provide a unique opportunity for the next 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
393 

generation of senior military leadership to familiarize themselves 

with areas of strategic importance. Therefore, this section would require that the Secretary provide one trip per year to China and one 

trip per year to Taiwan. 

Section 1206—Military Educational Exchanges Between Senior 

Officers and Officials of the United States and Taiwan 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

and conduct exchanges of senior defense officials and officers with 

the Republic of China on Taiwan at the level of Deputy Assistant 

Secretary and flag-rank officers or above. The committee notes that 

the United States currently conducts reciprocal visits with senior 

defense officials and military officers from the People’s Republic of 

China. The committee believes that similar programs with Taiwan 

are appropriate. More importantly, the committee believes that 

maintaining a balance of power across the Taiwan Strait is critical 

to ensuring deterrence and preserving peace, security, and stability 

in Asia. China’s National People’s Congress adopted an anti-secession law that essentially authorizes China’s Central Military Commission to use non-peaceful means against Taiwan if the latter declares independence. The committee is concerned that this law, in 

conjunction with an excessive military build-up by China, may signal a weakening of deterrence across the Taiwan Strait. The committee believes that the exchange program, by helping to strengthen Taiwan’s defenses, would help preserve and strengthen deterrence, thereby encouraging China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully. 

SUBTITLE B—NONPROLIFERATION MATTERS AND COUNTRIES OF

CONCERN

Sec 1211—Procurement Restrictions Against Foreign Persons That 

Transfer Certain Defense Articles and Services to the People’s 

Republic of China 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from purchasing goods or services from any entity that knowingly transfers 

an item that is on the United States Munitions List to the People’s 

Republic of China. The committee notes that China’s military modernization has proceeded apace with roughly double-digit increases 

in its defense budget almost every year for the last decade and a 

half. The committee is concerned that China’s military modernization now exceeds its legitimate security needs, is undermining the 

balance of power that has maintained peace and security in the 

Western Pacific for decades, may be undermining deterrence in the 

region, and may be contributing to the increasingly bellicose nature 

of Chinese foreign policy. This section would create disincentives 

for potential arms exports to China by denying sellers access to Department of Defense procurement opportunities and would provide 

incentives for foreign persons to choose not to export arms to China 

in order to maintain their ability to sell goods and services to the 

Department of Defense. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
394 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1221—Execution of the President’s Policy to Make 

Available to Taiwan Diesel Electric Submarines 

This section would establish that it is the policy of the United 

States to make available to Taiwan plans and options for design 

work and construction work on future diesel electric submarines 

under the U.S. foreign military sales process. The availability of 

such work would be consistent with U.S. national disclosure policy 

and subject to U.S. export control laws. 

The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 30 days 

after enactment of this Act, a report on the Department of the 

Navy’s efforts to execute the President’s policy to sell diesel electric 

submarines to Taiwan, including ongoing and planned activities to 

make Taiwanese officials aware of foreign military sales options. 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for Cooperative Threat Reduction contained 

$372.1 million for fiscal year 2007, representing a decrease of $43.4 

million from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2006, exclusive 

of any supplemental funds authorized for fiscal year 2006. This request included increases for strategic offensive arms elimination, 

nuclear weapons storage security, and nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia, as well as biological threat reduction efforts in states of the former Soviet Union. The request also included a decrease for weapons of mass destruction proliferation 

prevention in the states of the former Soviet Union and a $65.8 

million decrease for chemical weapons destruction in Russia, reflecting the upcoming completion of the construction of a chemical 

weapons destruction facility. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Programs and Funds 

This section would define the programs and funds that are Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds as those authorized 

to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act and specify that Cooperative Threat Reduction funds shall remain available for obligation for three fiscal years. 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations 

This section would authorize $372.1 million for the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction program. This section would authorize specific 

amounts for each Cooperative Threat Reduction program element 

and would require notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2007 funds for 

purposes other than those specifically authorized. This section 

would also provide limited authority to obligate amounts for a CoVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00418 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
395 

operative Threat Reduction program element in excess of the 

amount specifically authorized for that purpose. 

Section 1303—Temporary Authority to Waive Limitation on 

Funding for Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia 

This section would extend, until the completion of the facility, 

the President’s authority to waive restrictions established in section 1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2000 (Public Law 106–65) for continuing the construction of a 

chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch’ye, Russia. The 

President’s current authority expires at the end of calendar year 

2006. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 

submit to Congress a notification that specifies the date of completion of the facility, not later than 30 days after completion. 

Section 1304—National Academy of Sciences Study 

This section would authorize a study by the National Academy 

of Sciences to analyze lessons learned, past and present challenges, 

and possible options in effectively managing and facilitating threat 

reduction and nonproliferation projects under the Department of 

Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit, by December 31, 2007, a report on this study to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. The report would review and evaluate project management, interagency interaction, public outreach and community involvement, cooperation of Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union, legal frameworks, transparency, adequacy of funding 

from the United States and any Cooperative Threat Reduction program partner, and interaction with threat reduction and nonproliferation projects of Global Partnership countries. 

TITLE XIV—HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 

TRANSFER 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Sections 1401–1403—Homeland Defense Technology Transfer 

These sections would authorize the Secretary of Defense to create 

a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve 

the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for 

identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, 

State, and local first responders. The consortium would assist the 

Secretary in fulfilling the Department’s technology transfer responsibilities required by section 1401 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
396 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED 

COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM 

AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM 

OVERVIEW 

The committee recommends authorization of $50.0 billion in 

funds to be appropriated available upon enactment of this Act to 

support the defense activities principally associated with Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and the Operation Enduring Freedom. 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS 

The following table summarizes authorizations included in the 

bill for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
397 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 407 HR452.164
398 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 408 HR452.165
399 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 409 HR452.166
400 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 410 HR452.167
401 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 411 HR452.168
402 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 412 HR452.169
403 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 413 HR452.170
404 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Budget Realignment 

The committee recommends a realignment of $1.5 billion from 

the budget request for programs and projects relating to the global 

war on terrorism. As a result, this would ensure that funding relating to the global war on terrorism is accurately consolidated as well 

as facilitate proper execution of the funds during fiscal year 2007. 

Procurement 

For procurement, the committee recommends including continued 

support of the force protection needs of units deployed and engaged 

in the global war on terrorism. Included in the force protection recommendation is funding for up-armored high mobility multipurpose 

wheeled vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicle recapitalization and modernization programs for the most heavily used vehicles in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, night vision 

devices and improvised explosive device jammers. In addition, the 

committee recognizes the need to replenish critical small-arms and 

ammunition procurement programs, including funding for the M16 

rifle, M240 medium machine gun, and M4 carbine modifications, 

and .50 caliber cartridges, 120mm tank ammunition canister, and 

155mm high explosive projectiles. 

Improvised electronic devices countermeasures 

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of electronic jamming devices for defeating the radio-initiated improvised 

explosive devices (IEDs) used against U.S. and Coalition forces in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF). 

The committee continues to strongly support force protection efforts to defeat radio-initiated IEDs. The committee notes these devices continue to be the primary cause of casualties among U.S. 

armed forces in OIF and OEF. The committee believes there are 

weaknesses in the capability provided by current electronic IED 

jamming devices. 

The committee is aware of recent tests of a new, man-portable 

jammer that is based on proven technology and exhibits high success against the evolving radio-controlled IED threat. The committee is also aware of recent tests of a third generation vehiclemounted jammer that also exhibits high success against this same 

threat. The committee strongly believes that the Department of Defense should procure electronic countermeasures that are based on 

a proven technology and that can rapidly enter into production. 

The committee notes that Section 811 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) established a rapid acquisition authority for the Secretary of Defense to 

use in combat emergencies and further notes this authority was 

used to acquire IED jammers for dismounted military personnel in 

OIF. The committee also assisted with expediting the production of 

these man-portable jammers for deployment to OIF. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $69.0 million in Title XV to procure and deploy 10,000 of the successfully 

tested man-portable jammers referenced in this report. In addition, 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
405 

the committee also recommends an additional $40.7 million in Title 

XV to procure and deploy 460 of the successfully tested vehicleborn jamming devices also referenced in this report. Further, the 

committee encourages the Secretary to continue to use the rapid 

acquisition authority to expedite procurement and deployment of 

these critical IED countermeasures. 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system utilization 

The committee is deeply concerned that U.S. Central Command 

(USCENTCOM) is underutilizing the capabilities of the joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) by assigning it a 

number one mission priority of serving as a communications relay 

platform for military road convoys. 

The committee understands that the Air Force defines the mission of the JSTARS as a joint platform designed to enhance battle 

management by providing air and land component commanders 

with near real-time, wide-area surveillance and targeting information on moving and stationary ground targets, slow moving rotary 

and fixed wing aircraft, rotating antennas, and theater missile defense targets of interest. The committee ascertained during recent 

congressional delegation oversight visits to Iraq that the JSTARS 

platform is not optimally employed as a communications relay platform. Consequently, the committee believes this adversely impacts 

the ability of the combined forces air component commander to 

wholly support Army and Marine Corps ground component commanders’ requests for ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capability using the JSTARS platform. The committee understands the 

vital importance of having effective communications between military road convoys with limited radio line-of-sight capability, and 

command and control facilities. However, the committee strongly 

believes that other aircraft platforms are properly equipped to perform this communication relay mission, and that routinely assigning a high demand/low density platform for a task well outside of 

its principally designed purpose does not optimize the utilization of 

JSTARS. 

Further, the committee recognizes that the JSTARS platform can 

make significant contributions to the mission effectiveness of 

ground component commanders. However, the committee is troubled that no formal process exists to analyze or assess JSTARS 

post-mission intelligence data. Conversely, the committee notes 

that post-mission intelligence data gathered by similar, high-value 

reconnaissance platforms such as the U–2, RC–135 and EP–3 is 

analyzed through a formal process, contributing significantly to 

mission effectiveness and combat capability. 

Lastly, the committee is aware that a JSTARS mission-crew 

shortfall exists at the unit level and significantly limits the 

JSTARS ability to perform at surge-rate operational tempos for extended periods of time. The committee is troubled by the inability 

of the Air National Guard and the active Air Force to fill 24 authorized combat coded crews for this high demand/low density asset 

causing a significant capability gap in providing additional GMTI 

capability to the combatant commander. The committee recognizes 

that without fully manning 24 combat coded mission crews, 

JSTARS is unable to provide the necessary increase of JSTARS capability to USCENTCOM. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
406 

Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Commander, 

USCENTCOM, to reassess the prioritization of missions assigned 

to the JSTARS platform, and directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to implement formal procedures to analyze JSTARS post-mission 

intelligence data to more effectively support the warfighter at all 

levels. Additionally, the committee authorizes the Air National 

Guard an increase of 85 active guard and reserve (AGR) positions 

in title IV of this Act, and authorizes $6.7 million for military personnel and $0.4 million for operation and maintenance in title XV 

of this Act to support the AGR personnel increase. Finally, the 

committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 

program the required funding in the Air Force Future Years Defense Program to convert the remaining 107 part-time positions to 

active guard and reserve positions. 

Manned tactical persistent surveillance aircraft 

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of inexpensive manned, aerial, persistent surveillance platforms for use in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF). 

The committee recognizes there is a critical tactical mission requirement in OIF and OEF for additional manned, aerial, persistent surveillance platforms to combat asymmetric threats such 

as improvised explosives devices (IED). The committee understands 

IEDs continue to be the primary cause of casualties for U.S. armed 

forces in OIF and OEF. The committee is aware that current surveillance platforms deployed in OIF and OEF are used almost exclusively for intelligence gathering missions rather than direct support of tactical operations such as interdiction of IED emplacement 

and convoy security. 

The committee strongly encourages that manned, aerial, persistent surveillance platforms be rapidly procured for use by 

ground commanders in OIF and OEF. The committee believes that 

if these platforms are employed in tactical operations, such as conducting persistent road surveillance missions, then these platforms 

could prevent the emplacement of IEDs and counter other threats 

faced by U.S. armed forces on the roads in Iraq. The committee expects these platforms to be configured and staffed so that they can 

be rapidly deployed and easily maintained without placing additional, unnecessary logistic burdens on U.S. armed forces. The committee also expects these platforms to be equipped for day and 

night surveillance and for simple, direct communication with 

ground- and air-based quick reaction forces. 

The committee expects the United States Central Command 

(CENTCOM) to take responsibility for assigning these additional 

tactical surveillance assets to U.S. military units based on regional 

threat levels within CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. Since these 

platforms would be considered tactical assets, the committee expects that they would be controlled at the brigade and lower levels. 

The committee recommends $100.0 million in Title XV for the 

rapid procurement of no less than ten manned, aerial, persistent 

surveillance platforms for tactical operations in OIF and OEF. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
407 

Operation and Maintenance 

The military departments and defense agencies need operation 

and maintenance funds to pay for food, fuel, spare parts, maintenance, transportation, camp, post, and base expenses associated 

with Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Without additional funding at the start of fiscal year 

2007, the military departments will be forced to use third quarter 

and fourth quarter funds in the initial months of fiscal year 2007 

to pay for OIF and OEF costs. The committee recommends including costs associated with stateside installations for increased mobilizations and demobilizations due to OIF and OEF. 

Military Personnel 

Over the past four years, the committee has recommended increases in the active component manpower to sustain the full range 

of capabilities required of the mission assigned to the armed forces. 

The committee recommends funding a cumulative active component 

increase of 30,400 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps 

over and above the budget request. The committee also recommends including the costs associated with Operation Noble 

Eagle, as well as recruitment and retention initiatives. 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 

U–2 aircraft sensor development 

The budget request contained no funding in PE 35202F for the 

U–2 aircraft sensor development. 

The committee is surprised by the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) decision to accelerate the retirement of the U–2 aircraft. 

The committee notes that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review 

(QDR) highlights the DOD’s needs for expanded intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, some of which are 

currently provided by the U–2 aircraft and its sensor suite. The 

committee is concerned with the retirement of an ISR asset such 

as the U–2 before replacement ISR assets are brought on-line. The 

committee understands that the U.S. Strategic Command and the 

Department of the Air Force are currently reviewing ISR needs and 

whether continued U–2 service is required to meet the needs of the 

combatant commanders. 

The committee disagrees with the decision to retire the U–2 aircraft and includes a section in title I of this Act preventing retirement of the U–2 in fiscal year 2007 and allowing retirement in future years only upon certification to Congress that the U–2 ISR capability is no longer required as an intelligence asset to mitigate 

any ISR gaps identified in the 2006 QDR. The committee recommends an additional $7.0 million in PE 

35202F for U–2 aircraft sensor development. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1501—Purpose 

This section would establish this title and make emergency authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act 

for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts otherwise 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
408 

authorized in this Act, to provide for additional costs due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 1502—Army Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $3,773.8 million for 

Army procurement. 

Section 1503—Navy and Marine Corps Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $955.4 million for 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement. 

Section 1504—Air Force Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $296.9 million for Air 

Force procurement. 

Section 1505—Defense—Wide Activities Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $140.2 million for Defense-Wide Activities procurement. 

Section 1506—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

This section would authorize an additional $37.5 million for Defense-Wide Activities research, development, test and evaluation. 

Section 1507—Operation and Maintenance 

This section would authorize an additional $31,983.3 million for 

operations and maintenance programs. 

Section 1508—Defense Health Program 

This section would authorize an additional $950.2 million to the 

Defense Health Program for operations and maintenance. 

SECTION 1509—CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

This section would authorize an additional $2,500.0 billion to the 

Department of Defense for classified programs. 

Section 1510—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize an additional $9,362.8 million for 

military personnel. 

Section 1511—Treatment as Additional Authorizations 

This section would authorize an additional $50.0 billion for emergency contingency operations related to Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Section 1512—Transfer Authority 

This section would provide transfer authority of $3.0 billion to 

the Department of Defense for the authorizations contained in this 

title. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
409 

Section 1513—Availability of Funds 

This section would require the funds provided in this title to be 

made available for obligation by the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2007. 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

PURPOSE 

Division B provides military construction, family housing, and related authorities in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2007. As recommended by the committee, Division B would 

authorize appropriations in the amount of $16,689,423,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2007. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING 

OVERVIEW 

The Department of Defense (DOD) requested $6,796,940,000 for military construction, $5,817,443,000 for base realignment and closure (BRAC) activities, and $4,084,040,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends authorization of 

$7,085,898,000 for military construction, $5,817,443,000 for BRAC 

activities, and $4,055,553,000 for family housing in fiscal year 

2007. In addition, the committee anticipates rescissions of 

$260,471,000. Taking these rescissions into account, the committee’s recommendations are consistent with a total budget authority level of $16,689,423,000 for military construction, BRAC, and family housing in fiscal year 2007. 

The Department’s fiscal year 2007 request for military construction, family housing, and BRAC activities was, once again, a disappointing one. While the total request appears to be a significant 

increase over the fiscal year 2006 level, in reality, nearly the entire 

increase is the result of budget increases required for BRAC and 

chemical weapons demilitarization. After removing BRAC funds 

from the request, the non-BRAC request is approximately the same 

as the amount contained in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). 

The committee continues to believe that DOD budget requests for 

military construction and family housing are inadequate to support 

military readiness and quality of life requirements. For this reason, 

the committee has once again reallocated funds within the requested funding levels to provide for additional military construction projects that are necessary for military training, operations, or 

to improve living or working conditions for military personnel. 

A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B 

for fiscal year 2007 follows: 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
410 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 420 HR452.171
411 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 421 HR452.172
412 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 422 HR452.173
413 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 423 HR452.174
414 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 424 HR452.175
415 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 425 HR452.176
416 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 426 HR452.177
417 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 427 HR452.178
418 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 428 HR452.179
419 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 429 HR452.180
420 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 430 HR452.181
421 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 431 HR452.182
422 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 432 HR452.183
423 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 433 HR452.184
424 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 434 HR452.185
425 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 435 HR452.186
426 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 436 HR452.187
427 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 437 HR452.188
428 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 438 HR452.189
429 

Section 2001–Short Title 

This section would cite division B of this Act as the ‘‘Joel Hefley 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $2,059,762,000 for Army military 

construction and $1,271,820,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2007. The committee recommends authorization of $2,135,598,000 

for military construction and $1,253,448,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2007. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

The committee has recommended reduction or elimination of 

funding for several projects contained within the budget request for 

Army military construction and family housing. These reductions 

include: 

(1) $1,644,000 from the funding amount requested for a barracks complex at Fort Richardson, Alaska. This project, as requested, includes funds for demolition of facilities at installations other than Fort Richardson. While the committee appreciates the Department of Defense’s efforts to offset construction 

with demolition during recapitalization, the committee believes 

that demolition should not be included within a military construction project request unless it is necessary to support construction of that project. 

(2) $31,000,000 for the purchase of temporary administrative buildings at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The Department of the 

Army leased these facilities in January 2003 for up to five 

years in order to house Army Materiel Command (AMC). However, AMC will soon be moved to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 

as a result of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions. While the Department has asserted that Fort Belvoir 

currently has a deficit of administrative space, the committee 

is not convinced that expending $31,000,000 to purchase temporary facilities which have only 20 years remaining in their 

anticipated lifespan is an effective use of funds. If the Department has a validated requirement for additional administrative 

space that is not related to BRAC 2005 moves, the committee 

urges the Secretary of the Army to request in future budgets 

funding for construction of permanent facilities. 

(3) $27,000,000 for construction of a museum support center 

at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The committee notes that the National Museum of the Marine Corps (NMMC) is scheduled to 

open in Quantico, Virginia in the fall of 2006. According to the 

Navy’s Future Years Defense Program, the NMMC will also require museum support facilities. Given the close proximity of 

Fort Belvoir to Quantico, the committee believes that a joint 

facility to support both the NMMC and the National Museum 

of the United States Army could yield significant efficiencies 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
430 

over separate facilities, while enhancing efforts to preserve, 

conserve, and restore historic artifacts. As such, the committee 

urges the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Army 

to consider joint construction of a single museum support facility in a future year. 

Future Year Programming 

The committee is concerned that changes to military construction 

budget projections resulted in the removal of several important 

projects from the Army’s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), 

including a special operations free fall simulator at Yuma Proving 

Grounds, Arizona and a community dining facility at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. The committee believes that these projects are 

critical to enhancing training, reducing costs, and improving quality of life. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 

to include the free fall simulator and the community dining facility 

in the next FYDP. 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $365,000—Special Operations Free Fall Simulator, Yuma 

Proving Grounds, Arizona 

(2) $243,000—Community Dining Facility, Dugway Proving 

Grounds, Utah 

(3) $1,260,000—Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, National Ground Intelligence Center, Virginia 

Safety-Critical Projects 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to ensure 

that construction projects that are necessary to eliminate safety 

hazards to personnel receive priority funding in the Future Years 

Defense Program (FYDP). As such, the committee urges the Secretary of the Army to accelerate projects, such as the programmed 

effort to address safety hazards at the Advanced Training Support 

Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia, within the next FYDP. 

Unspecified Minor Construction 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army complete 

planning and design activities for the following project: 

(1) $930,000—Combat Pistol Qualification Course, Fort 

Benning, Georgia 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction 

projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
431 

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2102—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2007. 

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2007. 

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Army’s budget for fiscal year 2007. This section would also provide an overall limit on the amount the Army 

may spend on military construction projects. 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,162,038,000 for Navy military construction and $814,197,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2007. The committee recommends authorization of $1,219,871,000 

for military construction and $818,082,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2007. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

The committee is troubled by the January 10, 2006, guidance 

from the Office of Management and Budget to cease use of incremental funding of military construction projects except for the purposes of base realignment and closure activities and projects that 

have ‘‘major national security impacts.’’

Due to the implementation of this guidance during the fiscal year 

2007 budget process, Department of Defense components were 

forced to cut a number of important projects from the fiscal year 

2007 program. As a result, several construction projects that are 

critical to military readiness, important to the effective conduct of 

military operations, or necessary to enhance quality of life have 

been indefinitely deferred. In at least one such case, incremental 

execution would likely be the more efficient means of funding and 

constructing the project. 

The committee notes that the Department has a record of effective management while utilizing incremental funding for military 

construction projects. As such, the committee recommends ‘‘re-incrementing’’ two projects contained in the budget request, including 

recapitalization of hangar 5 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 

Washington. While this would result in a funding reduction in fiscal year 2007 of $31,153,000, the committee recommends full authorization for the project of $57,653,000 and expects the Secretary 

of the Navy to execute the project under proven incremental funding practices. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
432 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy complete planning 

and design activities for the following project: (1) $945,000—Full Scale Electric Drive Test Facility, Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Shipyard Systems Engineering Station, Pennsylvania 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Navy 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 intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2202—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2007. 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2007. Within amounts authorized by 

this section, the committee recommends an increase of $3,700,000 

for a project to install air conditioning at housing units at Vista Del 

Sol, 29 Palms, California. 

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2007. This section would also provide an overall limit on the amount the Navy 

may spend on military construction projects. 

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005 Projects 

This section would amend section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public Law 108–136), as amended, and the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (division B of Public Law 108– 375), as amended, to consolidate authority for construction of an 

outlying landing field. 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,156,148,000 for Air Force mili- tary construction and $1,938,209,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2007. The committee recommends authorization of 

$1,233,673,000 for military construction and $1,924,209,000 for 

family housing for fiscal year 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
433 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $2,070,000—Information Technology Complex, Phase 1, 

Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio 

(2) $1,026,000—Pararescue Jumper/Combat Rescue Officer 

Rescue and Recovery Training Center, Kirtland AFB, New 

Mexico 

(3) $1,935,000—Software Support Facility, Robins AFB, 

Georgia 

(4) $1,530,000—Logistics Readiness Center, Mountain Home 

AFB, Idaho 

(5) $1,071,000—Fire Station, Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Air Force construction 

projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2302—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 

2007. 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2007. 

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Air Force’s budget for fiscal year 2007. This 

section would also provide an overall limit on the amount the Air 

Force may spend on military construction projects. 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,339,191,000 for defense agency 

military construction (including chemical weapon demilitarization 

construction) and $59,814,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2007. In addition, the budget request contained $191,220,000 for 

activities related to prior base realignment and closure (BRAC) acVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00457 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
434 

tivities and $5,626,223,000 for activities related to the 2005 round 

of BRAC. 

The committee recommends authorization of $1,283,099,000 for 

military construction and $59,814,000 for family housing for defense agencies for fiscal year 2007. In addition, the committee recommends authorization of $191,220,000 for prior BRAC round activities and $5,626,223,000 for BRAC 2005 activities. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

As noted in title XXII, the committee is troubled by the January 

10, 2006, guidance from the Office of Management and Budget to 

cease use of incremental funding of military construction projects 

except for the purposes of base realignment and closure activities 

and projects that have ‘‘major national security impacts.’’

In light of the Department of Defense’s proven record of effective 

management while utilizing incremental funding for military construction projects, the committee recommends ‘‘re-incrementing’’

the project to replace a clinic at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. 

While this results in a funding reduction in fiscal year 2007 of 

$41,400,000, the committee recommends full authorization for the 

project of $92,000,000 and expects the Secretary of Defense to execute the project under proven incremental funding practices. 

The committee also recommends a reduction of $20,000,000 for 

increment 2 of the Regional Security Operations Center at Fort 

Gordon, Georgia. While the committee supports the requirement 

for this facility and recommends full authorization for the project, 

the National Security Agency does not anticipate obligating the 

nearly $50,000,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2006 until fall of 

2006, at the earliest. Due to the large amount of unexpended funds 

available for this project, the committee believes it unlikely that all 

funds requested for fiscal year 2007 would be expended. 

Fuel Storage at Naval Base Point Loma, California 

As noted in title III, the committee is concerned about the fuel 

tank leakage at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) Fuel 

Storage Point (DFSP) at Naval Base Point Loma, California. Although DESC has a military construction project in the fiscal year 

2008 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to replace existing 

bulk storage infrastructure with modern tanks and support equipment, the committee notes that the Department of Defense has a 

history of annually deferring projects within the FYDP due to 

budgetary pressures. The committee believes the construction 

project to address the fuel leakage at Naval Base Point Loma to 

be of utmost importance and urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the project remains programmed for fiscal year 2008. 

Missile Defense Agency Construction Activities 

The reduction of $7,592,000 for a Missile Defense Agency project 

at Kwajalein Atoll is without prejudice, and the committee expects 

the agency to execute this project through use of the authority provided in section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
435 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized defense agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2402—Family Housing 

This section would authorize construction and planning and design of family housing units for defense agency activities for fiscal 

year 2007. 

Section 2403—Energy Conservation Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out energy conservation projects. 

Section 2404—Authorized Base Closure and Realignment Activities 

Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 

2005 

This section would authorize the amount for base realignment 

and closure (BRAC) activities and projects for fiscal year 2007. This 

section would also amend the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109–163) to authorize the amount for BRAC activities and projects for fiscal year 

2006. 

Section 2405—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies 

This section would authorize specific amounts for each line item 

contained in the defense agencies’ budgets for fiscal year 2007. This 

section would also provide an overall limit on the amount the defense agencies may spend on military construction projects. 

Section 2406—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2006 Projects 

This section would amend the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109–163) 

to increase the authorization level for regional security operations 

centers in Augusta, Georgia and Kunia, Hawaii and for an operations and technology building in Menwith Hill, United Kingdom. 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $220,985,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) for 

fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends authorization of 

$200,985,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2007. This reduction reflects 

correction of a programming error contained in the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
436 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make 

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 

Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount 

specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act and the amount 

of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously 

financed by the United States. 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO 

This section would authorize $200,985,000 as the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 

Program. 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $858,816,000 for military construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 2007 of 

$1,019,672,000 to be distributed as follows: 

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $518,403,000 

Air National Guard ................................................................................ $212,788,000 

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... $169,487,000 

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ $55,158,000 

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. $56,836,000 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design, Air National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $502,000—Replace Pararescue Complex, Gabreski Air 

National Guard Base, New York 

(2) $1,000,000—Wing Operations and Training Complex, 

McEntire Joint Reserve Base, South Carolina 

(3) $1,000,000—Squadron Operations Facility/Relocate Main 

Gate, McGhee-Tyson Air National Guard Base, Tennessee 

(4) $801,000—Information Warfare Aggressor Squadron Facility, McCord Air Force Base, Washington 

Planning and Design, Army National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $1,031,000—Combined Support Maintenance Shop, 

Camp Smith, New York 

(2) $749,000—Add/Alt Readiness Center, Salem, Oregon 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
437 

Planning and Design, Air Reserve 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $1,008,000—Joint Deployment Processing Facility, 

March Air Reserve Base, California 

(2) $1,134,000—C–17 and C–5 Squadron Operations and 

Training Facility, Travis AFB, California 

Planning and Design, Army Reserve 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following project: 

(1) $252,000—Combat Support Training Center Range Control Facility, Camp Parks, California 

(2) $2,414,000—Syracuse Armed Forces Reserve Center/ 

OMS/AMSA/Unheated Storage, Mattydale, New York 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION 

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects 

This section would authorize appropriations for military construction for the guard and reserve by service component for fiscal 

year 2007. The state list contained in this report is intended to be 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required 

to be Specified by Law 

This section would provide that authorizations for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family 

housing projects and facilities, contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will expire on October 1, 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 which appropriated funds have been obligated 

before October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2010, whichever 

is later. 

Section 2702—Effective Date 

This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, 

XXV, and XXVI of this Act shall take effect on October 1, 2006, or 

upon enactment of this Act, whichever is later. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
438 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Energy Savings and Renewable Energy Opportunities at Joint 

Bases 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007, a report 

on the potential use of energy conservation measures and renewable energy systems at joint military bases. The report should include energy savings and renewable energy opportunities in the 

areas of facility infrastructure, energy supply and transmission systems, and vehicles. The committee believes that the Department of 

Defense’s 12 joint bases present new opportunities for energy savings and expects that this report will explore such opportunities 

and outline a plan of action for exploiting energy conservation and 

renewable energy options at such locations. 

Remediation of Property at the Former Fort Ord, California 

Fort Ord was closed as part of the 1991 Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) round. A March 22, 1995 Memorandum of Understanding between the Army and the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) supported the transfer of approximately 7,500 acres of land 

from the Army to BLM. Despite entreaties from Congress to expedite plans for remediation of the property and the passage of more 

than 11 years since the agreement, no definitive protocols or 

timeline for remediation of the property have been completed. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to engage the BLM on this matter submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2006, with a plan for 

achieving clean up of the BLM lands at the former Fort Ord. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Increase in Maximum Annual Amount Authorized 

To Be Obligated for Emergency Military Construction 

This section would amend section 2803 of title 10, United States 

Code, to increase from $45,000,000 to $60,000,000 the maximum 

amount of funds the Secretary of Defense may annually obligate 

using emergency construction authorities. 

Section 2802—Applicability of Local Comparability of Room Pattern and Floor Area Requirements to Construction, Acquisition, 

and Improvement to Military Unaccompanied Housing 

This section would amend section 2826 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require that floor space in unaccompanied housing be built 

to standards consistent with local private construction. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
439 

Section 2803—Authority To Use Proceeds From Sale of Military 

Family Housing To Support Military Housing Privatization Initiative 

This section would amend section 2831 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the transfer of proceeds from the handling and 

disposal of family housing units into the Department of Defense 

Family Housing Improvement Fund, which is used to support military family housing privatization activities. Current law provides 

for the transfer of such proceeds to the military family housing 

management account. 

Section 2804—Repeal of Special Requirement for Military 

Construction Contracts on Guam 

This section would repeal section 2864 of title 10, United States 

Code, which places special limitations on military construction contracts on Guam. 

Section 2805—Congressional Notification of Cancellation Ceiling 

for Department of Defense Energy Savings Performance Contracts 

This section would amend section 2865 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require a notice and wait period for the Secretary of Defense before the award of an energy savings performance contract 

that contains a cancellation ceiling in excess of $7,000,000. 

Section 2806—Expansion of Authority To Convey Property at 

Military Installations To Support Military Construction 

This section would amend section 2869 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military departments to 

exchange excess property for construction projects, land, housing, 

or to support agreements to limit encroachments under section 

2684a of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 2807—Pilot Projects for Acquisition or Construction of 

Military Unaccompanied Housing 

This section would amend section 2881a of title 10, United States 

Code, to reduce notification and wait periods required before the 

Secretary of the Navy may enter into a contract for the privatization of unaccompanied housing using the authorities provided by 

section 2881a. The section would also extend from September 30, 

2007 to September 30, 2011, the expiration of the pilot authority 

provided by section 2881a of title 10, United States Code and increase the number of pilot projects authorized from three to six. 

Section 2808—Consideration of Alternative and More Efficient 

Uses for General Officer and Flag Officer Quarters in Excess of 

6,000 Square Feet 

This section would amend section 2831 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to identify and consider 

alternative uses for general and flag officer housing units that exceed 6,000 square feet. The committee notes that such large housing units have extraordinary operations, maintenance, and utility 

costs, and believes that many such large facilities would be more 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
440 

efficiently utilized for alternative purposes, such as administrative 

facilities. 

Section 2809—Repeal of Temporary Minor Military Construction 

Program 

This section would repeal section 2810 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public 

Law 109–163), which provides for temporary authority to expend 

minor construction funds at increased limits for construction of 

child development centers. 

Section 2810—One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority To Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction 

Projects Outside the United States 

This section would extend through 2007 the authority provided 

by section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), which permits the Secretary 

of Defense to utilize operation and maintenance funds to construct 

facilities necessary for temporary operational requirements related 

to a declaration of war, national emergency, or contingency. 

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2821—Consolidation of Department of Defense Authorities 

Regarding Granting of Easements for Rights-of-Way 

This section would consolidate provisions in chapter 159 of title 

10, United States Code, which govern the granting of easements for 

rights-of-way by the Department of Defense and make several technical corrections. This section would make no substantive change 

to the law. 

Section 2822—Authority To Grant Restrictive Easements in 

Connection With Land Conveyances 

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to grant restrictive easements when disposing of certain 

properties. Such easements would allow for greater protection of 

historic properties. 

Section 2823—Maximum Term of Leases for Structures and Real 

Property Relating to Structures in Foreign Countries Needed for 

Purposes Other Than Family Housing 

This section would amend section 2675 of title 10, United States 

Code, to increase from 5 to 10 years the maximum length of lease 

term the secretary of a military department may enter into for nonhousing structures and real properties located in foreign countries. 

Section 2824—Consolidation of Laws Relating to Transfer of Department of Defense Real Property Within the Department and 

to Other Federal Agencies 

This section would consolidate provisions in title 10, United 

States Code, which govern the transfer of real property within the 

Department of Defense and to other federal agencies. This section 

would make no substantive change to the law. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
441 

Section 2825—Congressional Notice Requirements in Advance of 

Acquisition of Land by Condemnation for Military Purposes 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, when acquiring land for military purposes, 

should make every effort to do so by purchases from willing sellers, 

and that the use of condemnation, eminent domain, or seizure procedures should only be employed as a matter of last resort in cases 

of compelling national security requirements. This section would 

also amend section 2663 of title 10, United States Code, to require 

a notice and wait period before the Secretary of Defense may begin 

condemnation, eminent domain, or seizure procedures to acquire 

property. 

SUBTITLE C—BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT

Section 2831—Treatment of Lease Proceeds from Military Installations Approved for Closure or Realignment After January 1, 2005 

This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States 

Code, to ensure that lease proceeds received at a military installation closed or realigned by a base closure law are deposited into the 

appropriate base closure and realignment account. 

SUBTITLE D—LAND CONVEYANCES

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, 

Hawaii 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to dispose 

of approximately 499 acres at the former Naval Air Station Barbers 

Point, Hawaii, that are subject to the Ford Island Master Development Agreement, by September 30, 2008. 

In addition, the committee is aware that the Navy continues to 

retain additional property at NAS Barbers Point that was directed 

for disposal by the 1993 and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure 

rounds. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to return 

this property to productive use by September 30, 2008, as well. 

Section 2842—Modification of Land Acquisition Authority, 

Perquimans County, North Carolina 

This section would amend section 2846 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public 

Law 107–107), as amended, to increase the acreage authorized for 

acquisition. 

Section 2843—Land Conveyance, Radford Army Ammunition Plant, 

Pulaski County, Virginia 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey 

approximately 85 acres at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant in 

Pulaski County, Virginia to the Virginia Department of Veterans’

Services for the purposes of establishing a veterans’ cemetery. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
442 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2851—Availability of Community Planning Assistance Relating to Encroachment of Civilian Communities on Military Facilities Used for Training by the Armed Forces 

This section would amend section 2391 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the use of grants for the purposes of addressing 

encroachment of state-owned and operated national guard facilities 

that are subject to significant training use by the armed forces. 

Section 2852—Prohibitions Against Making Certain Military 

Airfields or Facilities Available for Use by Civil Aircraft 

This section would prohibit the regular use of property at, or conveyance of property for, the civil aviation purposes at Marine Corps 

Air Station and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Marine Corps 

Air Station Miramar, and Naval Air Station North Island, California. 

Section 2853—Naming Housing Facility at Fort Carson, Colorado, 

in Honor of Joel Hefley, a Member of the House of Representatives 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to designate one of the military family housing areas or facilities constructed for Fort Carson, Colorado, using housing privatization authorities provided by subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, 

United States Code in honor of Representative Joel Hefley. 

Section 2854—Naming Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center at 

Rock Island, Illinois, in Honor of Lane Evans, a Member of the 

House of Representatives 

This section would designate the Navy and Marine Corps reserve 

center at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois as the ‘‘Lane Evans Navy 

and Marine Corps Reserve Center.’’

Section 2855—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 

This section would designate the new laboratory building at the Air 

Force Rome Research Site, Rome, New York as the ‘‘Sherwood L. 

Boehlert Engineering Center.’’

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $15.8 billion for atomic energy defense activities and energy supply of the Department of Energy for 

fiscal year 2007. Of this amount, $9.3 billion is for the programs 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
443 

of the National Nuclear Security Administration, $6.5 billion is for 

environmental and other defense activities, and $6.0 million is for 

energy supply. The committee recommends $15.8 billion, the 

amount of the request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
444 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 453 HR452.190
445 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 454 HR452.191
446 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 455 HR452.192
447 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 456 HR452.193
448 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 457 HR452.194
449 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 458 HR452.195
450 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 459 HR452.196
451 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 460 HR452.197
452 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 461 HR452.198
453 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 462 HR452.199
454 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 463 HR452.200
455 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 464 HR452.201
456 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 465 HR452.202
457 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 466 HR452.203
458 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 467 HR452.204
459 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Overview 

The budget request contained $9.3 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2007. The committee 

recommends $9.3 billion, a decrease of $50.0 million. 

Weapons Activities 

The budget request contained $6,407.9 million for Weapons Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The committee recommends $6,467.9 million, an increase of $60.0 million. 

Directed Stockpile Work 

The budget request contained $1,410.3 million for Directed 

Stockpile Work. The committee recommends $1,410.3 million, the 

amount of the budget request. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead 

The budget request contained $27.7 million within Directed 

Stockpile Work for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The committee notes that section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) 

established the objectives of the RRW program and established requirements for both an interim report, which the committee has received, and a final report, which is due by March 1, 2007. 

The committee notes that elsewhere in this title, the committee 

directs the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a plan for the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex. The vision for this plan will necessarily be influenced by the 

specific design and production capability requirements deemed essential for supporting the RRW program. The committee therefore 

urges the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense to ensure complete transparency between the RRW Project Officer’s 

Group and those National Nuclear Security Administration and Department of Defense personnel working on the nuclear weapons 

complex transformation plan. 

The committee recommends $27.7 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the amount of the budget request. 

Responsive Infrastructure 

The budget request contained $15.4 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) responsive infrastructure. 

The committee fully supports the development of the responsive 

infrastructure and in section 3111 of this title requires the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan for 

the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex to Congress. 

The committee encourages NNSA to establish an Office of Transformation within Defense Programs to plan and execute actions to 

achieve the responsive infrastructure goal. 

The committee recommends $15.4 million, the amount of the 

budget request, for responsive infrastructure, and authorizes the 

Administrator of the NNSA to use up to $15.4 million of the funds 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
460 

authorized to establish an Office of Transformation. Should the Administrator elect to establish an Office of Transformation, the Administrator shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 

report stating the specific charter for this new office within 60 days 

after the establishment of such office. 

Study of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty Methodology 

Section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) established the objectives for the 

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The RRW program 

is intended to increase the reliability, safety and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile. One of the key objectives of the program 

is to further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of underground nuclear weapons testing. This objective is carried out by 

using designs that are consistent with basic design parameters employed in those nuclear weapons which have undergone testing or 

by otherwise using components that are well understood or certifiable without the need to resume underground testing. 

According to documents accompanying the fiscal year 2007 Department of Energy budget request, the RRW program will rely 

upon the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) campaigns to assess whether the RRW can be certified without underground nuclear testing. A critical analytic tool employed by the national laboratories in making this determination is the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) methodology. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that the QMU 

methodology, while conceptually well-accepted, is still in its early 

stages and requires maturation and further refinement. 

The committee understands the importance of the QMU methodology in establishing a scientific basis for assessing whether the 

RRW will be able to be certified without underground nuclear testing. Given the importance of the RRW program and the need to reduce the likelihood of having to conduct an underground nuclear 

test in order to certify this warhead, the committee believes that 

an independent review of the NNSA laboratory utilization of QMU 

methodology is required to gain confidence that the RRW program 

objectives can be achieved. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the National Academy of 

Sciences to conduct an independent assessment of the QMU methodology employed by the national laboratories and whether this 

methodology can be used to certify an RRW without underground 

nuclear testing. The Academy shall ensure that the panel chartered 

to conduct this review has among its members the following: 

(1) Former weapons designers; 

(2) Individuals well-versed in the underlying science associated with nuclear weapons, including the physics associated 

with weapon primaries and secondaries; and 

(3) Individuals familiar with the application of QMU principles, including probabilistic risk assessment methods, in industries such as the nuclear power industry. 

Of the amounts made available to the Department of Energy for 

weapons activities, $2.0 million shall be available for carrying out 

this study. The Academy report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
461 

Transformation Plan for the Nuclear Weapons Complex 

The committee notes that the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review set 

forth the requirements for a responsive infrastructure within the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons complex. Through multiple hearings and briefings before the subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the committee has been informed of 

initiatives that would modernize the Nuclear Weapons Complex to 

achieve the desired responsive infrastructure capability while consolidating and disposing of special nuclear material. The committee 

also notes that section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) established objectives for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, an initiative 

that has the potential to enhance the safety, security and reliability 

of the nuclear stockpile, while setting the requirements for the capabilities of the responsive infrastructure. 

The committee includes a provision (section 3111) that would require the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to transform the nuclear weapons complex so as to 

achieve a responsive infrastructure. This plan shall be submitted 

to Congress by February 1, 2007, and shall meet certain objectives. 

With respect to eliminating duplication of production capability 

except as necessary to ensure the safety, reliability and security of 

the stockpile, the committee intends the transformation plan to 

look at all production functions including but not limited to primary, secondary and non-nuclear production elements. The committee intends that the national security mission continue as the 

primary mission for the national security laboratories. Other laboratory work (such as work conducted for the Offices of Science or 

Energy Research within the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security or for the Intelligence Community) 

should be conducted so as to maintain the primary mission of supporting the nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee encourages 

the Secretary of Energy in the formulation of this transformation 

plan to take a long-term strategic view of the desired optimal mix 

of NNSA primary mission work and other laboratory work to ensure a responsive capability into the future. With respect to both 

the production plants and the national security laboratories, the 

committee expects the transformation plan to consider how best to 

maintain the requisite human capital expertise while transforming 

to a more efficient complex. 

The committee establishes as an objective the elimination of category I and II special nuclear materials from the national security 

laboratories by 2010. This objective does not preclude the retention 

of category I and II special nuclear materials at a national security 

laboratory, if the transformation plan for the nuclear weapons complex envisions a pit production capability at a national security laboratory. 

Based on testimony before the subcommittee on Strategic Forces, 

the committee is aware of NNSA plans to purchase more non-nuclear weapons components from commercial suppliers in the future. 

While the committee supports those business practices that will 

lead to a more efficient enterprise, the committee also has some 

concerns for the security and cost implications of further 

outsourcing and expects the transformation plan to specifically address these concerns. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
462 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 

reviewing the military requirements for the W–80 warhead and is 

considering deferring the planned life extension program (LEP). 

The committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration, working with the Nuclear Weapons Council, to prepare a plan for redirecting the human resources and facilities currently required for the W–80 LEP to the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and complex transformation. This 

plan shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees by 

February 1, 2007. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign 

The budget request contained $451.2 million for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, including 

$111.4 million for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) construction 

and $143.4 million for the NIF demonstration campaign. 

The committee fully supports the NIF program’s goal of beginning the initial ignition campaign in 2010 with a series of integrated experiments that would culminate in full energy experiments in 2011. The committee believes that full funding of NIF 

construction and demonstration programs is essential in order to 

achieve ignition in 2010. Furthermore, the committee believes that 

additional investments in ignition target design and testing will enhance project success. 

The committee recommends $461.2 million for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, an increase of 

$10.0 million to support enhanced target production and characterization capabilities and for tests on the Omega and Z facilities. 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities 

The budget request contained $1,685.8 million for Readiness in 

Technical Base and Facilities. 

The committee is encouraged by the progress made in the reduction of deferred maintenance backlogs in the defense nuclear complex. In section 3111, the committee requires the Department of 

Energy and Department of Defense to submit a transformation 

plan for the nuclear weapons complex to achieve the responsive infrastructure envisioned by the Nuclear Posture Review. Recognizing that this plan may provide for modernization of the Pantex 

and the Y–12 production plants in Texas and Tennessee, respectively, the committee also recognizes that both facilities need additional infrastructure support as soon as possible. 

The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million for plant 

infrastructure repair and equipment replacement at Pantex, to be 

executed in a manner consistent with the priorities of both the 10 

year site comprehensive plan and the transformation plan required 

by this title. 

The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million for the 

Y–12 complex, to include: $2.0 million for material recycle and recovery to process materials generated in the Directed Stockpile 

Work accelerated dismantlement program, and $15.0 million for 

plant infrastructure repair and equipment replacement consistent 

with the priorities of both the 10 year site comprehensive plan and 

the transformation plan required by this title. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
463 

The committee fully supports the efforts of the Administrator of 

the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to reduce 

safeguards and security costs throughout the complex by consolidating nuclear material storage and by accelerating certain construction projects that will permit even further consolidation of nuclear materials. The transformation plan for the nuclear weapons 

complex, required by section 3111, should assist NNSA senior managers in ensuring that any maintenance or upgrades to existing facilities or construction of new facilities will be consistent with both 

the 10 year site comprehensive plans and the transformation plan’s 

vision for the complex of the future. 

The committee is also aware of design changes to the Highly Enriched Uranium Material Facility (HEUMF) at Y–12 required by 

revisions to the design basis threat policy and resulting from construction problems with this new facility. The committee recognizes 

the importance of the HEUMF project in achieving material consolidation objectives at the Y–12 complex. However, the committee 

is disappointed with the extent of the problems that have surfaced 

with a relatively simple project. Should additional funds be required to move forward with the HEUMF facility in fiscal year 

2007, the Secretary of Energy shall submit a reprogramming request to the congressional defense committees. The committee recommends $1,719.8 million, an increase of 

$34.0 million for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. 

Safeguards and Security 

The budget request contained $721.4 million for safeguards and 

security. 

The committee continues to be deeply concerned with safeguards 

and security practices and the costs associated with complying with 

design basis threat (DBT) requirements throughout the complex. 

As evidenced by section 3113 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), the committee believes that the Department of Energy (DOE) must employ a risk 

based approach in decision-making associated with DBT compliance. The committee notes with approval the decision by the Department to waive compliance with certain aspects of the DBT at 

the Y–12 plant in Tennessee pending completion of the Highly Enriched Uranium Material Facility. 

The committee is aware that the Department has discussed shifting accounting for security costs from direct to indirect costs. The 

committee believes that only the use of direct cost accounting for 

security costs provides the necessary transparency into what it 

takes to comply with DOE’s DBT policy. Accordingly, the committee directs that until directed otherwise by Congress, the Department shall continue to employ direct cost accounting for all security costs. 

The committee supports the efforts of the Administrator of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to enhance security practices through consolidation of nuclear material at individual sites 

and throughout the complex. The committee notes that the nuclear 

weapons complex transformation plan required in section 3111 

should help the Department focus its attention on innovative ways 

to reduce safeguards and security costs through the consolidation 

of nuclear material. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
464 

The committee recommends $737.4 million, an increase of $16.0 

million, to include an additional $8.0 million for Pantex, and an additional $8.0 million for Y–12 to be used at both sites for unfunded 

safeguards and security requirements consistent with site safeguards and security priority plans. 

Test Readiness 

The budget request contained $14.8 million within the Science 

Campaign for test readiness. 

Section 3113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) mandated an 18 month readiness 

posture for the resumption of underground nuclear weapons testing 

by the United States. While the committee has no indication of the 

need to resume underground nuclear testing in the near future, it 

does believe that maintaining the 18 month readiness posture as 

directed by Congress is important to national security. The committee notes that funding shortfalls have precluded the Department of Energy from achieving the 18 month readiness posture as 

required by law. 

Accordingly, the committee supports full funding of the test readiness capability. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

The budget request contained $1,726.2 million for defense nuclear nonproliferation programs. 

The committee fully supports the goals of the Department of Energy’s nuclear nonproliferation programs but remains concerned 

with uncosted, uncommitted balances in several of the nonproliferation accounts due to the delays and problems in resolving 

government to government agreements for critical projects. The 

committee shifts funds within the nonproliferation account into 

programs that have experienced greater success or that are viewed 

as more executable based on the above concerns noted with government to government agreements. The committee authorizes $1,616.2 million, a decrease of $110.0 

million. 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative 

The budget request contained $106.8 million for the Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). 

The committee supports the goals of this program, especially 

those activities conducted outside the United States. 

The committee recommends $126.8 million, an increase of $20.0 

million as follows: $5.0 million for international radiological threat 

reduction and $15.0 million to be used exclusively for other GTRI 

activities outside the United States. 

International Materials Protection and Cooperation 

The budget request contained $413.2 million for International 

Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (MPC&A), including 

$40.1 million for the Second Line of Defense Megaports program. 

The committee fully supports the program’s emphasis on national programs and sustainability as the way ahead in ensuring 

that the progress which has been made in the area of upgrades to 

nuclear warhead and nuclear material security are sustained by 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
465 

parent countries into the future. The committee also supports the 

National Nuclear Security Administration’s efforts in pursuing cooperation with international partners interested in participating in 

the Megaports initiative. The committee recommends $433.2 million, an increase of $20.0 

million, to include $5.0 million for material consolidation and conversion and $15.0 million for the Second Line of Defense Megaports 

program. 

Megaports Program 

In recognition of the Memorandum of Understanding implemented in April 2005 to formalize the ongoing partnership between 

the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection, the NNSA Megaports initiative 

is directed to continue to closely coordinate its efforts to install nuclear detection monitors at foreign ports with the Department of 

Homeland Security’s Container Security Initiative. Such coordination shall continue to include, but not be limited to, joint outreach 

missions and port assessments, the completion of joint agreements 

with host governments where mutual program interests exist, and 

on-the-ground collaboration in the ports where the two programs 

are currently operational. 

Radiation Detection Technology 

The committee is concerned with the potential for redundant research and development efforts in radiation detection technology, 

and notes the concerns of the Department of Energy Inspector General February 2006 audit report entitled ‘‘Nuclear Detection Devices,’’ namely that there is a lack of coordination between the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security 

over accountability for such research efforts. The committee encourages the National Nuclear Security Administration to work closely 

with the Department of Homeland Security’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office in order to ensure there is no duplication of technology research efforts, but rather a collaborative, complementary 

approach to research in areas of common interest. 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility 

The budget request contained $603.3 million for fissile materials 

disposition, including $289.5 million for construction of the U.S. 

Mixed Oxide (MOX) facility and $34.7 million for Russian surplus 

fissile materials disposition. 

The committee supports in principle the goals of the September 

2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons grade plutonium as MOX 

fuel in both the U.S. and Russia on roughly parallel paths. For the 

past two years, the MOX project has been on hold pending resolution of a liability agreement between the United States and the 

Russian Federation. The National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) cut $250.0 million in funding for the MOX program due to the liability impasse. However, 

last summer the substantive issues associated with this liability 

agreement were resolved, pending formal approval between governments. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
466 

In a new development arising out of U.S.-Russian negotiations on 

the plutonium disposition program in February 2006, it appears 

that Russian interest in the original MOX program may have fundamentally changed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of State report as of March 2006, 

that Russia no longer prefers to use light water (VVER–1000) reactors unless the U.S. and the international community bear the full 

cost of this approach, estimated at $2.7 billion. Rather, it appears 

the Russians would like to explore a new two-pillar approach to the 

MOX program, consisting of limited disposition in an existing BN– 600 reactor (disposition in such a reactor was part of the originally 

envisioned program), and eventually larger-scale disposition in a 

BN–800 fast reactor. The estimated cost of completing the BN–800 

fast reactor by 2012 is $1.6 billion, yet it is unclear exactly how 

this project would be funded in terms of Russian expectations for 

international assistance. The U.S. has not supported the fast reactor (breeder) design due to proliferation concerns, and the BN–800 

reactor has never been a method for Russian plutonium disposition 

in the program of record. Thus, the committee has reservations 

about Russian intentions to proceed with the program as originally 

envisioned. 

On a separate note, in December 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) Inspector General (IG) issued a report on ‘‘The Status 

of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility,’’ which strongly criticized management of the U.S. MOX project, citing significant cost 

overruns and project management weaknesses. According to the 

IG, the July 2005 design and construction cost estimate for the 

U.S. MOX facility exceeded the 2002 estimate by $2.5 billion. The 

report points to NNSA efforts to improve MOX facility management; however, the IG concludes that ‘‘additional enhancements to 

the project are needed.’’ In addition to the concerns noted above regarding Russian intentions to comply with the 2000 Plutonium 

Management and Disposition Agreement, the committee is concerned about the ability of the U.S. MOX facility to move ahead at 

a reasonable pace and cost. 

In spite of the concerns noted above, the committee believes that 

continued storage of weapons grade plutonium at the Savannah 

River Site, South Carolina, and elsewhere throughout the country 

at Department of Energy facilities, involves significant security 

risks and substantial costs for appropriate safeguards. Based on 

preliminary discussions with the Department of Energy, the committee is operating under the assumption that the Savannah River 

Site MOX project is a cost-effective and efficient method for the 

United States to dispose of a significant portion of its plutonium inventory as part of a broader plutonium disposition plan that the 

committee directs the Department to provide elsewhere in this 

title. Accordingly, the committee believes that moving forward expeditiously with construction and operation of the U.S. MOX facility will significantly reduce the costs and risks associated with 

managing domestic weapons-grade plutonium. 

Proceeding with construction and operation of the U.S. MOX facility will also underline the United States commitment to fulfilling 

its obligations under both the 2000 Plutonium Management and 

Disposition Agreement, and under Article VI of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. The committee does not waver from its historVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00490 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
467 

ical support for the goals of the 2000 Plutonium Management and 

Disposition Agreement, including support for international contributions towards the Russian plutonium disposition program. 

While generally pleased with the progress on DOE programs 

with the Russian Federation to cooperatively reduce the nuclear 

threat, the committee is concerned that the current lack of Russian 

support for funding either a MOX project or other plutonium disposition program, consistent with the 2000 Agreement, may significantly lessen the willingness of other countries to provide funding. 

The committee firmly believes that the Russian Federation should 

immediately take positive steps to establish meaningful Russian 

funding for the construction of a Russian MOX facility or other 

Russian plutonium disposition facility to meet its obligations under 

the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. 

Committee support for the Russian fissile materials disposition program is contingent upon taking such steps. 

Based on the lack of certainty over Russia’s commitment to funding its domestic plutonium disposition program under the current 

agreement, the committee recommends no funds for the Russian 

Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, a reduction of $34.7 

million. Of those funds available from prior fiscal years for the 

Russian Surplus Fissile Material Disposition program, no more 

than $10.0 million shall be available for expenditure until 30 days 

after the Secretary of Energy has certified to the congressional defense committees that Russia and the United States have reached 

agreement on a plan for a plutonium disposition program in Russia 

that is consistent with the intent of the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. The committee also observes that 

an April 25, 2006, reprogramming notification from the Department of Energy identified $229.0 million in total obligation authority for the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program 

available as a funding source for the elimination of weapons grade 

plutonium production program in Russia due to delays in proceeding with the Russian MOX program. Thus, the committee 

notes that there already are adequate funds for the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program in the event that the 

Russian Federation comes forward with a renewed commitment for 

Russian financing of a plutonium disposition program consistent 

with the 2000 Agreement. The committee recommends $174.2 million for construction of the 

U.S. MOX facility, a reduction of $115.3 million. Furthermore, no 

more than $50.0 million of the funds authorized in fiscal year 2007 

for the U.S. MOX construction project shall be available until 30 

days after the Secretary of Energy certifies to the congressional defense committees the following: 

(1) Given the sunk costs to date for the U.S. MOX project 

and an evaluation of other alternatives for plutonium disposition, proceeding with the U.S. MOX project is the most effective means, from both a cost and technical perspective, for 

managing and disposing of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium; and 

(2) The Department has developed a corrective action plan 

for addressing the issues raised by the Inspector General concerning the management of the U.S. MOX project. 

Should the Secretary make the above certification that the MOX 

method of plutonium disposition is the most effective, and should 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
468 

the Department therefore require additional funds in fiscal year 

2007 to keep construction of the U.S. MOX facility on track, the 

Secretary shall submit a reprogramming request to the congressional defense committees. 

Along with the above certifications, the Secretary shall submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2007, 

providing a detailed plan to include estimated cost and schedule information for management, consolidation and disposition of all 

weapons-grade plutonium held by the Department of Energy. This 

report may be combined with the March 1, 2007, report on ‘‘offspec’’ plutonium required elsewhere in this title. The committee recommends $453.3 million, a decrease of $150.0 

million for Fissile Materials Disposition. 

Transfer Authority To Fund New or Emerging Activities Outside the 

United States Under the Global Threat Reduction Initiative 

The committee fully supports the goals of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative program to identify, secure and remove or dispose of high-risk, vulnerable and radioactive materials around the 

world that pose a potential threat to the United States and the 

international community. The committee also notes that while the 

total costs to secure nuclear materials in a given location may not 

be significant, that the existing budget process for defense nuclear 

nonproliferation, and in particular for the Global Threat Reduction 

Initiative, may not be flexible or responsive enough to allow the 

Department of Energy to take advantage of newly emerging or 

newly identified opportunities to seize nuclear material. The committee believes that making available reasonable funding from 

uncosted, uncommitted accounts within defense nuclear nonproliferation but outside of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative 

program may allow the Department to quickly seize and safeguard 

nuclear material in a responsive manner. 

Therefore, the committee authorizes the Secretary of Energy, 

from within uncosted, uncommitted balances in defense nuclear 

nonproliferation accounts in fiscal year 2007, to fund new or emerging activities outside the United States under the Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative that are not otherwise authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2007. This action does not require a reprogramming request but does require the Secretary, within 15 

days of the transfer of such funds, to notify the congressional defense committees of the circumstances surrounding and the justification for each such transfer. Such authority shall be limited to 

transfers from the uncosted, uncommitted balances of nonproliferation accounts outside the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. In addition, such transfers shall not exceed a total of $10.0 million or 

10 percent of the uncosted, uncommitted account program balance 

for each occurrence, and only one transfer can be made from any 

one program. The total amount of such transfers shall not exceed 

$30.0 million in fiscal year 2007. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $6,496.2 million for environmental 

and other defense activities. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
469 

The committee recommends $6,546.2 million, an increase of 

$50.0 million. 

Disposition of Plutonium Unsuitable for Conversion to Mixed Oxide 

Fuel 

Since 1990 over four tons of plutonium were transported from 

Rocky Flats, Colorado to storage at the Savannah River Site in 

Aiken, South Carolina to expedite closure of the Rocky Flats site. 

A significant percentage of this material is unlikely to be suitable 

for conversion to Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel through the Department 

of Energy’s plutonium disposition program. In addition, at least 

four tons of plutonium are stored at Hanford, Washington that will 

not meet the acceptance specifications for conversion to MOX fuel. 

In 1997, the Department’s Fissile Materials Disposition office 

down selected a ceramic immobilization technology for disposition 

of these ‘‘off-spec’’ materials. While this program was cancelled, the 

committee is concerned that the Department’s efforts to dispose of 

these ‘‘off-spec’’ materials are not receiving sufficient attention and 

are not taking into account the significant work already invested 

in evaluating options for disposing of these materials. As a result, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report 

to the congressional defense committees stating the Department’s 

plans for the disposition of all surplus plutonium within the Department’s inventory that is not suitable for conversion to mixed 

oxide fuel. This report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2007, and shall include a review of 

the Department’s prior plan, as well as a proposed method for disposition and a program plan including a schedule and the estimated cost for implementing the plan. 

Hanford Defense Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

The budget request contained $690.0 million for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (Waste Treatment Plant) in Hanford, Washington. It is the largest and most complex nuclear design 

and construction project in the nation, and is critically important 

for successful cleanup of the Department of Energy Hanford site. 

The committee is concerned about rising costs and resolution of 

technical challenges associated with the design and construction of 

the Waste Treatment Plant. In order to address these concerns, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163) requested two reports from the Army Corps of Engineers, one documenting the cost validation of the estimated cost to 

complete the project based on both the constrained and unconstrained funding scenarios, and the second report evaluating the 

baseline ground motion criteria. In addition, industry oversight 

teams were assembled in 2005 to provide critical independent assessments of the design, cost and schedule estimates for the 

project. The committee understands that the Department will consider the recommendations of these studies and will develop a revised cost and schedule baseline. Once the Department has determined a path forward, the committee intends to carefully review 

the revised plans for the Waste Treatment Plant. 

The committee is concerned with the Department’s management 

of the Waste Treatment Plant project. Recent investigations have 

identified failures of management within the Department including 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
470 

contracting deficiencies, incomplete reporting, insufficient communication between Department of Energy Headquarters and the Office of River Protection, and the lack of ability to provide clear direction to the contractor. 

The committee notes that in testimony before the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Water Appropriations of the House of Representatives in April 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

recommended the Department discontinue using a fast-track, design-build approach to completing the Waste Treatment Plant and 

instead consider the feasibility of completing at least 90 percent of 

the facility design or facility component design before restarting 

construction. The committee strongly urges the Department to 

evaluate whether implementing this GAO recommendation might 

provide for a more disciplined and cost-effective way forward given 

the significant design problems experienced to date. 

The committee is aware that in fiscal year 2007 the Department 

intends to employ a contractor to serve as the project management 

agent. The committee is supportive of the Department’s efforts to 

correct management deficiencies and increase oversight; however, 

the committee is concerned about the potential transfer of project 

management and accountability to an outside entity. The committee holds the Department accountable for successful management of the Waste Treatment Plant project. 

The committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) has experience in evaluating the design of large nuclear 

projects and that NRC technical experts, who in the near future 

may be reviewing license applications for new commercial nuclear 

power plants, could benefit from having the opportunity to be exposed to the technical discussions and design reviews at the Waste 

Treatment Plant project. The committee encourages the Department to invite technical representatives from the NRC to observe 

the on-site federal office technical and design review activities at 

the Waste Treatment Plant. This step, however, does not insert the 

NRC into any regulatory or project management role for the Waste 

Treatment Project. 

The committee recommends $690.0 million, the amount of the 

budget request. None of the funds authorized shall be available for 

the employment of a contractor to serve as the project management 

agent. 

Savannah River Site Defense Environmental Cleanup 

The budget request contained $1,084.4 million for defense environmental cleanup at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy may 

not have fully funded its legal and regulatory commitments within 

the budget request for defense environmental cleanup at the Savannah River Site for fiscal year 2007. The committee is concerned 

that without sufficient funding the Department may be unable to 

meet its legal and regulatory obligations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901–6992), the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (26 U.S.C. 4611–4682), and the Federal Facility Agreement between the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control. The committee recognizes the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
471 

need for additional funds to be applied by the Department towards 

environmental management, and for complying with the Federal 

Facility Agreement, the RCRA, and the CERCLA. The committee 

is aware that additional measures may be needed by the Department to meet legal and regulatory obligations, such as workforce 

restructuring or other adjustments, and the committee fully expects the Department to make any such adjustments. The committee recommends $1,114.4 million for environmental 

management activities at the Savannah River Site, an increase of 

$30.0 million for regulatory compliance as noted above. 

Tank Waste Cleanup Research and Development Program 

The budget request contained no funds for research and development in support of Department of Energy efforts to clean up radioactive waste stored in tanks at sites such as Hanford, Savannah 

River, and the Idaho National Laboratory. 

The committee directs the Department to develop a research and 

development program to support tank waste cleanup activities consistent with recommendations made in a National Research Council report entitled ‘‘Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-site 

Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites,’’ published April 4, 

2006. The research and development program would be a collaborative effort focused on development and deployment of needed innovative technologies for tank waste retrieval, treatment, closure 

and disposal. The program would aim to improve current technologies or develop new technologies deployable within 10 years in 

consideration of the timeline and milestones of DOE tank waste 

cleanup activities. The committee encourages competition for selection for research and development projects. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for research and development in support of the Department’s tank waste 

cleanup activities. 

Yucca Mountain 

The budget request contained $388.1 million for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, including $345.7 million for the Yucca Mountain 

project. 

The committee fully supports the need for a permanent deep geologic repository for high level radioactive waste. The committee recommends $388.1 million for Defense Nuclear 

Waste Disposal, the amount of the budget request. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration 

This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2007, including funds for 

weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, 

naval reactor programs, and the Office of the Administrator. 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup 

This section would authorize funds for defense environmental 

cleanup activities for fiscal year 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
472 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities 

This section would authorize funds for other defense activities for 

fiscal year 2007. 

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear waste disposal for fiscal year 2007. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3111—Plan for Transformation of National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nuclear Weapons Complex 

This section would require the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to transform the nuclear weapons complex so as to achieve a responsive infrastructure by 2030. 

This section would also establish objectives for the plan and require 

a report to Congress. 

Section 3112—Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure 

Recapitalization Program 

This section would extend the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program from 2011 to 2013. 

Section 3113—Utilization of Contributions to Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to receive 

international funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. 

Section 3114—Utilization of Contributions to Second Line of 

Defense Program. 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to receive 

international funding for the Second Line of Defense Program 

Section 3115—Two-Year Extension of Authority for Appointment of 

Certain Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Personnel 

This section would extend the authority for appointment of certain scientific, engineering and technical personnel. 

Section 3116—National Academy of Sciences Study of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty Methodology for Assessing and 

Certifying the Safety and Reliability of the Nuclear Stockpile 

This section would require the National Academy of Sciences to 

conduct a study of the quantification of margins and uncertainty 

methodology used for assessing and certifying the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
473 

Section 3117—Consolidation of Counterintelligence Programs of 

Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration 

This section would consolidate the counterintelligence programs 

of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security 

Administration under the Department of Energy. 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $22.3 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2007. The committee 

recommends $22.3 million, the amount of the budget request. 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Role of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

The committee relies heavily on the technical expertise of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (the Board) to ensure that appropriate nuclear safety features are incorporated in the design 

and construction of defense nuclear facilities. Consistent with their 

oversight role, recent recommendations made by the Board have 

had significant impacts on fundamental engineering design aspects 

of two nuclear waste treatment facilities, the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant at the Hanford Site and the Salt Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site. The committee is also 

aware of the Board’s recently expressed concern with aspects of the 

design of the proposed Bulk Vitrification Demonstration System at 

the Hanford Site. 

According to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1989 (PL 100–456), the Board is authorized to make recommendations but the Board has no authority to direct action by 

the Department of Energy. Furthermore, an action of the Board or 

a failure to act may not delay or prevent the Secretary of Energy 

from carrying out the construction of a defense nuclear facility. The 

committee encourages the Board’s involvement in the earliest possible stages of project conception, including identification of design 

requirements, to enable early identification of potential safety 

issues and to avoid incurring unnecessary costs and schedule slips. 

The committee expects full cooperation with the Board from the 

Secretary, the Department of Energy, contractors, and any other 

involved parties to ensure that the Board is able to serve in its advisory capacity. The committee also encourages the Board, in addition to identification of problems, to take a constructive role in the 

problem-solving process by quickly evaluating proposed corrective 

actions by the Department or project contractors. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3201—Authorization 

This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
474 

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Sale of Strategic and Critical Materials 

The National Defense Stockpile (NDS) operates under authority 

of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 

98, et seq.). The Act mandates the maintenance of a stockpile of 

strategic and critical materials to decrease, and preclude, when 

possible, dependence upon foreign sources for supplies in times of 

national emergency. The Defense National Stockpile Center, a field 

activity of the Defense Logistics Agency, conducts the sale of strategic and critical materials in the NDS. Over 95 percent of the materials currently in the NDS have been determined to be in excess 

to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) needs and are now being 

disposed. In the committee report (H. Rept. 109–89) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the 

committee noted concern with the increasing reliance on foreign 

sources of supply, particularly with respect to titanium, for defense 

programs. In addition, the report directed the Secretary of Defense 

to review DOD’s current policy to dispose of material and determine whether the NDS should be re-configured to adapt to current 

world market conditions to ensure future availability of materials 

required for defense needs. The committee notes that this report 

was not delivered and again urges the Secretary to submit the report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 

Funds 

This section would authorize $52.1 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2007. This 

section would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after Congress receives notification. 

Section 3302—Revision of Limitations to Required Receipt Objectives for Previously Authorized Disposals from National Defense 

Stockpiles 

This section would authorize revisions on limitations in asset 

sales contained in section 3303 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201) as amended by 

section 3402(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), and section 3304(c) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107– 107). 

This section would also authorize revisions on limitations in 

asset sales contained in section 3305(a)(5) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as 

amended by section 3305 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107). 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
475 

This section would further authorize revisions on limitations in 

asset sales contained in section 3303(a) of the Strom Thurmond 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public 

Law 105–261), as amended by section 3302 of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375), and section 3302(a) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize $18.8 million for fiscal year 2007 for 

the operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves. 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Fuel Assistance Payments to State and Regional Maritime 

Academies 

Section 3502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006, (Public Law 109–163) required the Secretary of Transportation to make payments on an graduated basis to the six state 

maritime academies for fuel costs for the operation of the academies’ training vessels. Section 3502 specifically required the Secretary to make a payment to each school this upcoming fiscal year 

in an amount of $0.2 million. This is an increase of $0.1 million 

from the amount provided for fiscal year 2006. While there may not 

be a specific appropriation for this expenditure in the upcoming fiscal year, the Secretary has the authority to make these payments. 

The committee expects the Secretary to make these payments to 

maritime academies, in the maximum amount provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, (Public Law 

109–163), as soon as the applicable appropriations act is signed 

into law. For an agency like the Maritime Administration, with a 

budget exceeding several hundred million dollars, a payment of 

this magnitude should not be resisted. With fuel costs at or near 

an all time high, payments by the Maritime Administration to 

these six schools, located in Massachusetts, Maine, New York, 

Texas, Michigan, and California, are critical to the continued ability of these schools to operate. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007 

This section would authorize a total of $164.4 million for fiscal 

year 2007, an increase of $19.5 million above the budget request. 

Of the funds authorized, $25.7 million would be for the disposal of 

obsolete vessels. Within the funds included for operation and training programs, the committee recommends $19.5 million to provide 

for the establishment and reimbursement of non-emergency repairs 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
476 

under the provisions of section 3517 of the Maritime Security Act 

of 2003 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note), as amended by section 3503 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163). 

Section 3502—Limitation on Transfer of Maritime Security Fleet 

Operating Agreements 

This section would amend section 53105(e) of the Maritime Security Act of 2003 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note) to prohibit the transfer of 

an operating agreement to a person that is not a citizen of the 

United States as that term is used in section 2 of the Shipping Act, 

1916 (46 App. U.S.C. 802), unless the Secretary of Defense determines that there is no citizen under that section, who is interested 

in obtaining the operating agreement for a vessel that is otherwise 

eligible to be included in the maritime security program. 

Section 3503—Applicability of Certain Maritime Administration 

Vessels of Limitations on Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of 

Vessels in Foreign Shipyards 

This section would require that certain U.S. Maritime Administration vessels activated in support of Department of Defense missions (including any vessel assigned by the Secretary of Transportation to the Ready Reserve Force that is owned or acquired by the 

United States) be subject to section 7310 of title 10, United States 

Code. Specifically, this section would designate those homeports 

that are considered part of the United States, define the term 

emergency voyage repair and strengthen the limitations on overhaul, repair and maintenance of vessels in foreign shipyards. 

Section 3504—Vessel Transfer Authority 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to 

transfer any vessels that are in the National Defense Reserve Fleet 

to another federal agency. This section would restore the authority 

of Department of Transportation to transfer vessels to the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. This 

authority was lost when the Coast Guard was transferred to the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

Section 3505—United States Merchant Marine Academy 

Graduates: Alternate Service Requirements 

This section would exempt graduates of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, who serve on active duty in the armed forces for the 

five years following graduation, from certain commitment agreement requirements which were entered into upon admission. This 

section would provide that graduates who serve on active duty for 

five years need not to fulfill the reserve requirement or the requirement to maintain a Coast Guard license for six years. This section 

would not exempt graduates from any reserve obligations imposed 

upon them by the armed forces branch in which they serve on active duty. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
477 

Section 3506—United States Merchant Marine Academy 

Graduates: Service Obligation Performance Reporting Requirement 

This section would allow the Department of Defense, the United 

States Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration to verify to the Maritime Administration that academy graduates have in fact remained on active duty or continued 

in a ready reserve status for the amount of their obligation, which 

is currently six years. This section would also allow these respective agencies to identify graduates that are not in full compliance 

with their obligations. This section would thus allow the Maritime 

Administration to pursue an action to recover tuition for noncompliance with the reserve duty section. 

Section 3507—Temporary Authority to Transfer Obsolete 

Combatant Vessels to Navy for Disposal 

This section would require the Secretary of Transportation to 

transfer no fewer than six combatant vessels in the nonretention 

fleet of the Maritime Administration for disposal by scrapping to 

the Secretary of the Navy during fiscal year 2007. This section is 

intended to accelerate the disposal of vessels by using the Navy 

Disposal Program, which has substantial experience in disposing of 

obsolete vessels in an environmentally sound manner. 

Section 3508—Temporary Requirement to Maintain Ready Reserve 

Force 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to submit to Congress by 

March 1, 2007 a report describing a five-year plan for maintaining 

the capability of the Ready Reserve Force of the National Defense 

Reserve Fleet necessary to support Department of Defense wartime 

mission and support to civil authorities. This section would also require the Secretary of Transportation to maintain 58 vessels in the 

Ready Reserve Force of the National Defense Reserve Fleet until 

45 days after the date the report is required. 

DEPARTMENTAL DATA 

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance 

with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below: 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, DC, April 3, 2006. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2007. 

Included in this year’s bill are a number of proposals that arose 

from the Quadrennial Defense Review Report delivered to the ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00501 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
478 

gress in February 2006: Logistic Support of Allied Forces for Combines Operations; Protection of Information Regarding Weapons of 

Mass Destruction; Change to Acquisition and Cross-Servicing 

Agreements Definition to Allow Loan of Significant Military Equipment; Amendments to Presidential Reserve Call-Up Authority; 

Threshold for Medical Facility Projects; Expansion of Operations of 

Civil Support Teams; Indexing TRICARE Program Cost Sharing 

Amounts; Establishment of a Health Savings Account Choice Pilot 

Program for Department of Defense Retirees and Their Families 

Not Eligible for Medicare. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose a few additional legislative initiatives for inclusion in the same bill. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

DANIEL J. DELL’ORTO, 

Acting General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As Stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, April 3, 2006. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2007. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

DANIEL J. DELL’ORTO, Acting General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As Stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, April 13, 2006. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
479 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

DANIEL J. DELL’ORTO, Acting General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As Stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, April 27, 2006. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2007. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM J. HAYNES II, 

General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As Stated. 

COMMITTEE POSITION 

On May 3, 2006 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 

being present, approved H.R. 5122, as amended, by a vote of 60–

1. 

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 

Washington, DC, May 1, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 5122, the Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007. This legislation contains subject matter within 

the jurisdiction of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 

However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this important 

legislation, the Committee waives consideration of the bill. 

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence takes this action only with the understanding that the Committee’s jurisdicVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00503 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
480 

tional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. I also want to confirm our mutual agreement 

that the transfer of the Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence of the National Nuclear Security Administration in no way 

impairs or affects the Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence’s jurisdiction over intelligence activities of National Intelligence Program components of the Department of Energy, including those carried out by this office. 

The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to 

any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your 

support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your 

including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 5122 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

PETER HOEKSTRA, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 1, 2006. 

Hon. PETER HOEKSTRA, 

Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has 

valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 

legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of 

the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, May 3, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: H.R. 5122, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,’’ contains provisions that implicate the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Judiciary. However, in recognition of the desire to expedite consideration of this 

legislation, the Committee hereby waives consideration of the bill. 

The Committee on Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5122, the Committee does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter conVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:22 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00504 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
481 

tained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also reserves 

the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on 

this legislation and requests your support if a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your inclusion of this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 5122 on the House 

Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 3, 2006. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 

that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, May 3, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: I understand that the Committee on 

Armed Services is considering adding language to the fiscal year 

2007 Department of Defense Authorization Act which would affect 

the management of elk and deer in the Channel Islands National 

Park, as well as the park ecosystem. This national park is a popular designation for recreation, including hunting for disabled veterans. 

Like you, I strongly support recreational activities for disabled 

veterans and other Americans on our public lands. While your proposed language may raise issues regarding ecosystem health, recreational access and private property rights, I will not delay House 

consideration of the 2007 Department of Defense authorization bill 

in a time of war by requesting a referral. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD W. POMBO, 

Chairman. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
482 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC, May 4, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: Congratulations on your successful 

mark-up of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007. You should be commended for your leadership in 

marshaling this important legislation through your committee. 

I have reviewed the provisions that are within the jurisdiction of 

the Committee on Resources, including the pay raises for uniformed services as it relates to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps. 

Because of the longstanding history of this provision, I will not 

seek a sequential referral of H.R. 5122 based on their inclusion in 

the bill. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on these provisions, should a conference on 

H.R. 5122 or a similar measure become necessary. 

Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and your 

staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 5122 enacted soon. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 4, 2006. 

Hon. RICHARD W. POMBO, 

Chairman, Committee on Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letters regarding H.R. 

5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

I agree that the Committee on Resources has valid jurisdictional 

claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am 

most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in 

the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 

foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Resources is not 

waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
483 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC, May 4, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 5122, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007.’’ I appreciate you working with me in your development of H.R 5122, particularly with respect to Section 911, Designation of Successor Organization for the Disestablished Interagency Global Positioning Executive Board. 

The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R. 

5122 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over Section 911 

and other provisions of the bill, I agree not to request a sequential 

referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forgo a 

sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and 

of your response will be included in the Committee report and in 

the Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House 

Floor. 

The Science Committee also expects that you will support our request to be conferees on any provision over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this legislation. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 4, 2006. 

Hon. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

I agree that the Committee on Science has valid jurisdictional 

claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am 

most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in 

the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 

foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science is not 

waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
484 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC, May 4, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5122 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to 

request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee 

Report and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the House. 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also asks 

that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over 

which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

DON YOUNG, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 4, 2006. 

Hon. DON YOUNG, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 

of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 

Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
485 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, Washington, DC, May 4, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: I am writing to confirm our mutual 

understanding with regard to the consideration of H.R. 5122, the 

‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.’’ Thank 

you for working with me in your development of this bill specifically: Sec. 571—Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees; and Sec. 

572—Enrollment in Defense Dependents’ Education System of Dependents of Foreign and Civilian Members Assigned to Supreme 

Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE). 

As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce. While I do not intend 

to seek sequential referral of H.R. 5122, the Committee does hold 

an interest in preserving its future jurisdiction with respect to 

issue raised in the aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional 

prerogatives should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We 

would expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions 

should a conference with the Senate arise. 

Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of 

letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 5122. If you have any 

questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. 

I thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD P. MCKEON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 4, 2006. 

Hon. HOWARD P. MCKEON, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce has 

valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 

legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of 

the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
486 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC, May 5, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: I am writing to you concerning the bill 

H.R. 5122, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall 

within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on International 

Relations. 

In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to 

waive this Committee’s right to sequential referral. I do so with the 

understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on International Relations does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which 

fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you to urge the 

Speaker to name Members of this Committee to any conference 

committee which is named to consider any such provisions. 

Please place this letter into the Committee report on H.R. 5122 

and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the 

measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit 

in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

HENRY J. HYDE, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 5, 2006. 

Hon. HENRY J. HYDE, 

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

I agree that the Committee on International Relations has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request 

such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 

bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 

on International Relations is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 

this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report 

on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
487 

FISCAL DATA 

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2006 and each of the 

following five fiscal years. The results of such efforts are reflected 

in the committee cost estimate, which is included in this report 

pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of 

Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional 

Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE MANDATORY COST ESTIMATE

May 5, 2006. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed table showing a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, as approved by the 

Committee on Armed Services on May 3, 2006. CBO’s complete cost 

estimate for H.R. 5122, including the discretionary costs of the bill, 

will be provided shortly. 

H.R. 5122 would affect direct spending for several defense programs, such as death gratuity benefits, the TRICARE pharmacy 

program, the acquisition of military facilities, and the sale of assets 

from the National Defense Stockpile. Enacting the bill also would 

affect federal revenues, beginning in 2010. 

Based on the legislative language for H.R. 5122 that was provided to CBO on May 5, 2006, CBO estimates that enacting this 

bill would increase direct spending by $12 million in 2007, reduce 

direct spending by $10 million over the 2007–2011 period, and increase direct spending by $1 million over the 2007–2016 period. We 

estimate that enacting the bill would reduce revenues by $3 million 

over the 2010–2011 period and by $21 million over the 2010–2016 

period. For the purposes of this estimate, we assume that H.R. 

5122 will be enacted early in fiscal year 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
488 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be happy to 

provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen, who can 

be reached at 226–2840. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
489 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 497 HR452.205
490 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE 

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with the mandatory estimate as contained in the report of the Congressional 

Budget Office. 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS 

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings 

and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant 

to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are reflected in the body of this report. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new 

spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase 

or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, 

authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation 

are addressed in the estimate prepared by the committee under 

clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

With respect to clause 3(2) of rule XII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, this legislation would address several general 

and outcome-related performance goals and objectives. The general 

goal and objective of this legislation is to improve the quality of life 

for America’s most valuable assets—our military personnel and 

their families, prioritizes authorizations for immediate equipment 

needs to support troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, provides 

for military readiness and the modernization of the armed forces. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the quality 

of life for military personnel and their families, the objective of this 

legislation is to: 

(1) Provide a 2.7 percent across-the-board pay raise for our 

men and women in uniform. The raise would decrease the gap 

between military and private sector pay from 4.5 to 4 percent; 

(2) Address manpower needs with an increase of 30,000 personnel in the Army and 5,000 in the Marine Corps in 2007. 

This would bring the Army end strength to 512,400 and the 

Marine Corps to 180,000. The legislation also supports an end 

strength of 350,000 personnel for the Army National Guard 

and increases the full-time support personnel by nearly 2,300. 

(3) Completes the transition to TRICARE for members of the 

Selected Reserves. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of prioritizes authorizations for immediate equipment needs to support troops fighting in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, the objective of this legislation is to: 

(1) $50 billion in emergency supplemental authorization for 

operation and maintenance, military personnel, and procurement in support of troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan including funding for force protection requirements such advanced body armor; and armored vehicles; 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
491 

(2) Provide more than $200 million for a new take back the 

roads initiative, which consists of $109.7 million for new radio 

signal jamming devices to prevent the radio initiation of roadside bombs and $100 million for manned persistent surveillance aircraft to patrol road segments. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of military readiness, 

the objective of this legislation is to: 

(1) Fully fund operation and maintenance costs for the military services, including ship operations, depot maintenance, 

flying hours, prepositioned stocks, and other training requirements, as the Global War on Terrorism enters its fifth year. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of modernization and 

the eventual transformation of the armed forces, the objective of 

this legislation is to: 

(1) Provide priority for meeting the requirements of the current force in reset, recapitalization, and modernization while 

advancing the need to transform the armed forces to be an effective fighting force for tomorrow. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT 

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3 (d)(1) of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES 

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal 

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the 

bill provides no federal intergovernmental mandates. 

RECORD VOTES 

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken with 

respect to the committee’s consideration of H.R. 5122. The record 

of these votes is attached to this report. 

The committee ordered H.R. 5122 reported to the House with a 

favorable recommendation by a vote of 61–1, a quorum being 

present. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
492 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 500 HR452.206
493 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 501 HR452.207
494 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 502 HR452.208
495 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 503 HR452.209
496 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 504 HR452.210
497 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 505 HR452.211
498 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS 

REPORTED 

The committee intends to take steps to make available the analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as required by 

clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
(499) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

While we are supportive of H.R. 5122 and some of its significant 

efforts to help our men and women in uniform, we also are disappointed that the majority on the committee chose not to support 

an amendment by Mr. Skelton that would have reduced the pharmacy cost shares for our military personnel and their families from 

those proposed in the mark. While the pharmacy proposal included 

in the mark was a good faith effort to ensure a robust prescription 

benefit for military families, the rejected amendment would have 

retained the current, lower pharmacy cost shares. 

As it currently stands, military beneficiaries who purchase their 

drugs through a retail pharmacy currently pay $3 for generic drugs 

and $9 for brand name pharmaceuticals. The mark would raise 

those prices to $6 and $16, respectively. While this may not sound 

like much to most people, for a junior enlisted family who is living 

on a limited income, the proposed increase may be distressing. 

Take for example a family with several children. Often times, when 

one child gets sick, so do the others. So imagine a military family 

that has to go to the pharmacy and pick up several prescriptions. 

It does not take long before that increased $16 co-pay becomes a 

significant dent in that family’s monthly income. 

In addition, the current proposal unfairly penalizes those who 

will not be able to get their drugs through mail order. For example, 

if a child is suffering from an acute infection and needs antibiotics, 

that child’s parents are not going to wait days for the medicine to 

arrive through mail order. It is neither practical nor realistic. 

We find it difficult to understand why such a burden would be 

placed on our military families during a time of war. Military families already face uncertainty and stress from having a loved one deployed. Given the high tempo of deployments, with the attendant 

financial burdens, we must do everything we can to support military families. The increasing drug costs of drugs should not be an 

additional worry. As we know too well, we recruit an individual, we 

retain a family. 

We should not be placing the burden of higher health care costs 

within the Department of Defense upon the backs of our military 

personnel and their families. It is premature to increase the pharmacy cost shares until we have had an opportunity to review the 

entire spectrum of health care costs and develop a comprehensive 

plan to address the growing health care costs of the Department. 

We are disappointed that the majority failed to recognize these concerns and to adopt the Skelton amendment. 

We are also disappointed that the committee failed to adopt the 

Israel amendment to perfect Section 590 which addresses a military chaplain’s prerogative to ‘‘pray according to the dictates of the 

chaplain’s own conscience, except as must be limited by military 

necessity. . .’’ Mr. Israel’s amendment sought to clarify that chapVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00523 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
500 

lains ‘‘shall demonstrate sensitivity, respect and tolerance for all 

faiths present on each occasion at which prayers are offered’’. We 

believe this language should have been accepted. 

The underlying provision shifts the emphasis from the rights and 

needs of the service member to those of the chaplain. Military 

chaplains occupy a unique role in the Armed Forces. As commissioned officers they are representatives of the government and thus 

must not be perceived to violate the ‘‘establishment’’ clause of the 

Constitution, nor impinge on the free exercise of religion by members of the Armed Forces. Military chaplains must often minister 

to those of their own faith, but are also called upon to the support 

the activities of service members and their families who come from 

many diverse religious beliefs and backgrounds. 

We must recognize the context of this provision. The military 

services, and in particular the Air Force Academy, have recently 

encountered problems with respect to religious tolerance. The documented problem was not the restriction of the chaplains’ ability to 

practice their faith, but the belief by cadets of the lack of sensitivity, respect and tolerance of other faiths by fellow cadets, chaplains, and senior officers. As a result the Air Force reviewed its 

policies and practices and reemphasized the purpose of the chaplaincy and the issue of command responsibility. 

This is why the chaplaincy programs are commanders’ programs. 

Commanders have a responsibility to provide comprehensive religious support to all individuals. This command responsibility models positive, ethical leadership and provides an example of this nation’s rich heritage of strength through diversity. 

This is a critical moment in our history. We should be cautious 

in proceeding to legislate in this area. We must recognize the reason for the existence of the military chaplaincy and the religious 

diversity of our military personnel who are currently engaged in 

fighting overseas to establish and preserve democracy and tolerance. The majority should not only be protecting the rights of chaplains to pray according to their conscience. They should also be promoting efforts to ensure respect and tolerance for the very people 

chaplains have taken an oath to serve—our service members. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
501 

We are concerned that the committee is sending the wrong signals to our men and women in uniform who have volunteered to 

serve their nation. Our responsibility is to ensure that we support 

them every step of the way. 

IKE SKELTON. STEVE ISRAEL. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER. ADAM SMITH. G.K. BUTTERFIELD. LORETTA SANCHEZ. SILVESTRE REYES. 

JOHN SPRATT. 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS. 

MARK UDALL. 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE. 

MARTY MEEHAN. JIM LANGEVIN. 

SUSAN DAVIS. 

VIC SNYDER. TIM RYAN. RICK LARSEN. JIM MARSHALL. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
(502) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JEFF MILLER OF FLORIDA 

I strongly support Chairman Hunter’s language concerning the 

Active Carrier Force Structure and look forward to the Secretary 

of Defense’s report, due March 1, 2007. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 set a minimum carrier force 

structure of not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers and any 

possible changes to the law need to be carefully considered. Furthermore, it is important that the Secretary of the Defense and the 

Navy fully explain the potential national security impact of reducing the carrier force to 11 operational aircraft in the classified 

annex directed by Chairman Hunter. 

The Chairman’s mark also includes language desiring the Secretary of Defense to explore options for maintaining the USS John 

F. Kennedy either within or outside the U.S. Navy. Exploring these 

possibilities is important and I strongly encourage the Secretary of 

Defense and the U.S. Navy to include in their report to the defense 

committees a section addressing the possibility of the USS John F. 

Kennedy being maintained in a reduced operating status as a permanent naval aviation training platform. 

JEFF MILLER. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
(503) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REP. JIM MARSHALL 

I submit additional views on two issues, the Committee’s decision 

to remove the current restraints upon the ability of the Air Force 

to retire C–5A transport aircraft and the Air Force effort to centralize personnel services as it affects the large civilian work centers (‘‘LCCs’’ which include Wright-Patterson, Robins, Tinker, Hill 

and Bolling Air Force Bases). 

The Committee’s bill removes the current prohibition upon retirement of C–5A aircraft. By this action, the Committee does not 

intend to recommend or encourage the retirement of C–5As. The 

Air Force’s 2001 C–5 upgrades Report to Congress, which included 

the Institute for Defense Analysis’s C–5 Modernization Study, 

clearly shows that modernizing the entire C–5 fleet is an essential 

component of any cost-effective strategy to meet future airlift 

needs. With modernization, the availability and capability statistics 

for C–5A and B aircraft should fall within five percentage points 

of the newer C–17 platform. 

The Committee’s bill requires a minimum airlift fleet of 299. By 

this action, the Committee indicates its belief that the recently 

published Air Mobility Study (AMS) underestimated future airlift 

needs. The AMS totals assume certain specifically listed future contingencies. These won’t all come true. In addition, the AMS recommends additional studies be conducted, including a review of 

intra-theatre use of the C–17. Yet another study is not needed to 

conclude the obvious: Central Command’s intra-theatre use of the 

C–17 far exceeds the levels assumed in the AMS. The 299 figure 

set in the Committee bill is truly a minimum. That figure will increase in future years. More C–17s are needed. 

Pursuant to a 1993 DoD directive, the Air Force has sought, with 

varying levels of enthusiasm, to centralize personnel services in 

one location, largely removing them from the on-site control of the 

base commander. Unlike most AF instillations, the success of the 

mission at its large civilian work centers (Wright-Patterson, Robins, Tinker, Hill and Bolling AFBs, the ‘‘LCCs’’) depends upon a 

complicated civilian workforce numbering in the tens of thousands 

with hundreds of job classifications. So AF rightly delayed removing major personnel functions from the LCCs, centralizing only 

those personnel services that might easily be provided by email or 

telephone (e.g. some IT support, responding to routine employee inquiries about benefits, etc.). 

Aware that Air Force was balking, DoD sought to use the recent 

BRAC process to advance total centralization of the Air Force personnel functions. But the BRAC Commissioners rejected DoD’s proposed BRAC language on this subject. Instead, for the LCCs, the 

Commissioners directed that each LCC ‘‘retain sufficient positions 

and personnel to perform the personnel management advisory services, the non-transactional functions, necessary to support . . . the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
504 

civilian workforce.’’ For each LCC, the Commissioners directed that 

only the ‘‘transactional functions of the Civilian Personnel Office’’

would be moved to Randolph AFB, the currently planned site for 

centralization. 

There exists uncertainty within the Air Force concerning the 

proper interpretation of the BRAC Commissioners’ directive with 

regard to these five AFBs. By focusing upon the terms ‘‘transactional’’ and ‘‘non-transactional,’’ I, along with Mr. Cole (OK), Mr. 

Bishop (UT), and Mr. Turner (OH) proposed an amendment to 

guide the Air Force as it complies with the BRAC language. As 

such, our amendment furthered the BRAC Commissioners’ goal of 

assuring that these five AFBs ‘‘retain sufficient positions and personnel to perform the personnel management advisory services 

. . . necessary to support . . . the civilian workforce,’’ a goal that 

is vitally important to mission performance at each LCC. 

We withdrew our proposed amendment after receiving assurances from the Air Force staff that no substantial reorganization 

would be implemented before the 2008 authorization bill process 

and that the Air staff would work with us, AFMC and the LCC 

Commanders to assure that any reorganization will improve the 

cost/quality bottom line at the LCCs. This understanding is evidenced by an email exchange May 1–3, 2006, between myself and 

the Honorable Michael Dominguez, Assistant Secretary of the Air 

Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Copies of these e-mails 

are available from the committee’s records or my office. What follows is the first e-mail. 

Honorable MICHAEL DOMINGUEZ, 

Asst. Sec. AF for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. 

MR. SECRETARY: Thanks so much for the time you gave me by 

telephone Friday afternoon. I am very much in agreement with 

your summary of how the Air Force should proceed with CPO reorganization for the large civilian work centers (‘‘LCC’s’’). Your suggested policy directive is both timely and needed. And it will be 

very well received by AFMC military and civilian leadership if it 

heads things in the direction you summarized, assuming I got your 

thoughts straight. 

What follows is what I understood you to say. Please correct me 

if I am mistaken. 

(1) This reorganization is intended to improve, not diminish, 

the quality of personnel management services for the LCC’s. 

(2) To further this intent, AFPC will agree with AFMC, its 

customer, concerning verifiable service delivery standards to be 

met by AFPC. 

(3) Before removing additional AFMC personnel functions or 

slots, AFPC will demonstrate by its actual performance rendered to others that it can and will meet the agreed upon service delivery standards to the satisfaction of AFMC. 

As you know, I met this morning in my office with LTG Brady 

and Mr. Blanchard. I appreciate the time they gave me as well, 

and I am providing them with a copy of this email for their review 

and comment. We discussed the above three points along with a 

host of other things. I understood LTG Brady to say the above 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
505 

three steps were ‘‘quite reasonable,’’ again assuming I have fairly 

summarized them. 

I frankly think point one is easy to say but will be difficult to 

deliver. So items (2) and (3) are very critical. Obviously the LCC’s 

must cooperate in setting fair and reasonable standards and in 

evaluating AFPC performance. They cannot be permitted to use the 

agreement contemplated in (2) or the evaluation in (3) to simply 

undermine all attempts at change. Overcoming the natural tendency of LCC bureaucracies to defend their existence and resist 

change will take leadership from their Commanders with, perhaps, 

COS guidance. 

That very inertia and resistance to change, however, is why item 

(3) is essential. The LCC’s should not be used for personnel management experiments. Once LCC slots and functions are moved, 

they are unlikely to be recovered even if AFPC is falling short of 

the agreed upon performance standards. AFPC is no exception to 

the rule that bureaucracies defend themselves with the benefit of 

inertia. 

Like you, for several reasons, I and my Congressional colleagues 

prefer to avoid imposing legislative language to mandate what 

should simply be internal policy for the Air Force. If my above-described understanding of your intention is correct, then I will recommend to my colleagues that we hold off on any legislation while 

we see how this develops over the next year. 

So, could you let me know as soon as possible (preferably today) 

whether you think my brief summary here is an accurate description of how the Air Force will proceed? I think it helpful for me to 

also share this with Gen. Carlson so he can follow (and join if he 

chooses) our discussion. 

Very truly yours, 

JIM MARSHALL. 

Secretary Dominguez responded by an e-mail saying, ‘‘Thank you 

for your email. I think you have captured our discussion quite accurately. I would like to elaborate somewhat, if I might.’’ In his elaboration concerning item #2, Secretary Dominguez included a couple 

of ‘‘elaborating’’ sentences that prompted this e-mail reply from me. 

MR. SECRETARY: One good turn deserves another. May I ‘‘elaborate’’ on two sentences of your elaboration regarding item (2)? 

Those sentences are: These, of necessity, will be Air Force-wide 

service level agreements—the same for every command and every 

Airman everywhere. It would be an unreasonable burden on AFPC, 

and unacceptable to AF Commanders, to have different product 

quality standards at different Air Bases. You and I discussed these 

sentences by telephone this afternoon. In part, I draw my comments from our conversation. 

Missions and activities have different levels of value and importance. Some are critical. Some are not. For example, a brief interruption of IT service for one activity (landing aircraft?) might cause 

grave problems while elimination of IT service altogether for another (scheduling lawn service?) might be no big deal. Besides such 

differences in criticality, the cost or practicality of delivering services will vary for different missions and activities. I mostly ate cVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00529 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
506 

rations as an infantryman in the bush in Vietnam while those in 

the rear had cafeteria food. I understood why. Feeding me and my 

fellow grunts was probably a more critical service. (We thought so.) 

But the cafeteria service standard wasn’t practical or cost effective. 

(So we just grumbled and dissed REM*s.) 

So as we discussed, you and AFPC intend that service levels 

meet or exceed the needs of the individual installations and missions being supported. It is laudable but typically impractical and 

wasteful to try to accomplish this by providing the highest level of 

service for all. But if there is to be just one level of service provided 

AF wide to all commanders and bases, then it must be the highest 

level or AFPC will have failed those installations and missions 

with the most sensitive or critical needs. So AFPCs service delivery 

targets will have to vary among installations and missions. There 

is no other practical, cost effective alternative. AF Commanders 

worthy of the title both accept and understand that. In all walks 

of life—business, government, education, even pastoring—uniform 

provision of services is the exception, not the rule. 

By postponing centralization of the Civilian Personnel Offices of 

the AF large civilian work centers (‘‘LCCs’’—Bolling, Hill, Robins, 

Tinker and Wright Pat), AF has already treated them differently 

from other commands. The BRAC Commissioners also singled out 

the LCCs for special treatment, and their policy directive is now 

the law of the land. 

My concern is that AFPC has not sufficiently internalized that 

fact. The LCCs are different. Their missions are civilian driven. 

Productivity of their civilian workforce is critical. The BRAC Commissioners have made that clear. I appreciate your sensible approach to the task of reorganizing, streamlining and improving AF 

personnel management services. The LCCs will have to be given 

special treatment, as they already have, in this process. 

I also appreciate your observation that the LCC Commanders organize their workforce to assure the best cost for a quality product 

and that AFPC can and will do nothing to upset this since doing 

so would cause POM reverberations and budget challenges 

throughout the AF. But LCC Commanders can only demonstrate 

direct quantitative connections to productivity for a few of the personnel functions that, in part or whole, might be proposed for centralization. Speed filling vacancies is one of these. For others, 

frankly, it is a judgment call to what extent the particular personnel function affects productivity. 

On these judgment calls, I believe AF should defer to the LCC 

Commanders. They are equally interested in the bottom line and 

do not have a dog in the fight over what is the appropriate personnel service delivery concept. Cost for quality is their bottom line 

just as it is AFPCs and the AF. Although others may have greater 

experience specifically with personnel delivery systems, the LCC 

Commanders have identical cost for quality motivations and a better perspective for how to get this done at the LCCs. They should 

be treated like the traditional corporate customer in a large conglomerate—offered, but not compelled to accept, different ideas for 

how to improve their cost/quality bottom line. 

Enough said about all that. I appreciate your final observation 

that only the COS, SecAF or some higher authority could force the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
507 

AFMC Commander to accept a given AFPC proposal for service delivery to the LCCs. 

Very truly yours, 

JIM MARSHALL. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
(508) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSWOMAN CATHY 

MCMORRIS 

Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank you and 

Ranking Member Skelton for your hard work in crafting H.R. 5122, 

the FY 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. We can be proud 

of this bill that reinforces the strong commitment we have made 

to our troops. This bill also proposes critical expansions to 

TRICARE pharmacy plans while still maintaining fiscal responsibility. 

Providing quality and affordable health care for our service men 

and women is a crucial element of the task that we have as a Committee and a Congress in return for the sacrifice of all who served 

our country. I know that members of this committee join me in the 

continued fight to protect programs like TRICARE. H.R. 5122 

strengthened TRICARE by zeroing out generic and formulary prescriptions for participants in the TRICARE pharmacy mail-order 

program. The Committee also maintains its commitment to serving 

our military personnel by adding $735 million to restore DoD cuts 

to the Defense Health Program. 

The Chairman’s mark also demonstrates unwavering support of 

our men and women actively serving our country around the world. 

It is important that we provide our troops with state-of-the-art 

equipment and technology to enable them to win the war on terror. 

We have increased by $930 million our investment in rapid production of enhanced body armor including Small Arms Protective Inserts that have guarded the lives of numerous soldiers and Marines 

from IED blasts. The bill also adds $635.5 million for the purchase 

of up-armor Humvees to equip our troops to meet new threats. 

As the National Guard has been called on to play an unprecedented role in the Global War on Terror, we have responded by giving the Guard greater resources. This bill supports the decision by 

the Army Secretary and Chief of Staff to request an Army National 

Guard end strength of 350,000. In addition, H.R. 5122 would increase Army National Guard full-time support personnel by nearly 

2,300. To support the additional manpower, H.R. 5122 would increase Army National Guard funding by $471 million. 

On April 21, 2004, the 92nd Air Refueling Wing, from Fairchild 

Air Force Base in Eastern Washington, delivered the one billionth 

gallon of fuel in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Colonel Scott Hanson 

and 130 fellow airmen from Fairchild will be returning from a fourmonth deployment later this month, and we will be glad to have 

them back. 

I applaud the Committee for moving forward with the process of 

replacing the aging KC–135 fleet by allowing the conditional retirement of 29 E models, many of which this Committee learned earlier this year, have been grounded for safety reasons. Thanks to the 

air supremacy made possible by these gas stations in the sky, our 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
509 

country has not lost an Army ground soldier to enemy aircraft 

since 1953. This will allow continued transformation of our military 

to meet new challenges that threaten our country with the tools 

they need. 

The task of the Chairman has not been an easy one, working 

within an ever-decreasing top-line and balancing many indispensable priorities. I thank the Chairman for his efforts and express 

my strong support for this bill. 

CATHY MCMORRIS. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
(510) 

DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA A. 

MCKINNEY 

President Theodore Roosevelt said, ‘‘To announce that there must 

be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the 

president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but 

is morally treasonable to the American public.’’

As I have in the past, I raise my voice to dissent to the annual 

Defense Authorization Acts that are proposed by this House Armed 

Services Committee, in this case for FY07. War never truly creates 

peace, but always leads to more war. This endless cycle of violence 

wastes human potential, makes a priority of funding military expansion, weapons and wars over the increasingly critical needs created by lack of education, illness, poverty, and the endangered environment. 

As we enter a fourth year of war in Iraq, and a fifth year in Afghanistan, and with projections from the Vice President of ‘‘a war 

that won’t end in our lifetime,’’ our military budget continues to 

grow to unprecedented levels along with the deficits it is creating. 

We now have a larger and more lethal military force, and a more 

expanded intelligence budget and consolidation than we did at the 

height of the Cold War, when we faced the perceived threat of a 

continent armed with nuclear weapons and said to desire expansion across the globe into many countries and regions. That threat 

has ended, but the threat of unconsolidated and ill-equipped terrorist groups has been used to expand the funding of huge corporate contracts for weapons and war while denying the human 

suffering and needs that face us. The solution of the latter has 

more potential to make us safe and secure and to spread democracy 

and good will to the world than any budget this Committee has approved or even considered in recent years. According to Pentagon figures, we are spending $9 billion a 

month to wage the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. That comes to 

$300 million a day, $12.5 million an hour, over $200,000 a minute, 

and $3,500 a second. 

Can you imagine the effect on our country and the world if we had begun a program after 9/11 to grant $200,000 each minute 

until the present to a worthy community need or program, simple 

technology and medical assistance in communities abroad, local alternative energy technology, environmental protection, countering 

poverty one city at a time, or encouraging cross-cultural communication and travel around the globe? 

And at the same time it would have de-funded the tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as thousands of 

U.S. soldiers whose lives are already lost to these wars, stopped the 

destruction of infrastructure and environment in those countries 

where depleted uranium weapons alone continue to cause high levels of birth deformations and make our own troops ill. Funding 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
511 

would have been cut for repressive regimes that carry out regular 

violations of human rights abuses and support paramilitary activity and for privatized forces that brutalize and kill any popular dissent against corporate agendas or government excess. 

In my district outside Atlanta, Georgia, the median family paid $2,000 in federal taxes, and $570 went to the military budget and 

war. That means 29 cents out of every dollar. This reflects a 70% 

increase in military costs since 2000, and a 20% rise in its share 

of the tax dollar. Just think what that amount would mean to each 

family in my district annually, or to social programs that could assist them at the federal level. 

And the coffers of those who profit from war would not contain 

the windfall they have gotten from flawed weapon systems and unaccountable contract management. They would not have been used 

to create programs of pre-emptive strike and intervention that have 

soured our relations with long-time international allies and the 

United Nations. Most importantly, these funds would not have 

been spent making us thousands of new enemies in countries 

where the majority were our friends, and whose outpouring of sympathy after the 9/11 attacks has been squandered. Just imagine. 

The wars and military operations we are funding through this 

Defense Authorization Act are based on a simple Use of Force authorization passed by this Congress in October of 2001, which was 

to have been linked to the provisions of the War Powers Act of 

1973. However, no regular review of that authorization has taken 

place, and it has been cited by the President to justify pre-emptive 

war, creation of a dual legal system and military tribunals, imprisoned ‘‘enemy combatants,’’ without due process rights, abandonment of the Geneva Accords and UN principles relating to war, extralegal secret renditions and prisons abroad, torture and illegal 

methods of interrogation, expanded secrecy and attacks on civil liberties at home. 

The funds authorized by this bill apparently also cover an expanding number of covert wars abroad, with the secret but increasing use of Special Operations Command teams sent into 20 countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America on missions that do not even seek approval by the U.S. Ambassador in 

those countries. The SOC budget has increased by 60% since 2003, 

to $8 billion, using 13,000 special forces to carry out 100-page operation plans developed over the last three years to fight those they 

identify as terrorists abroad under military regional commands. 

These include post-attack plans if terrorists strike within the U.S. 

again, when the military will ‘‘take the gloves off.’’

Domestically, the role and use of the military have been changing as well. The increased use in the last decade of reserve troops 

abroad not only created severe financial hardships for their family 

members, but also left communities in Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas short on state National Guard troops 

to respond to hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Militarization of the society as a whole is increasing, invading privacy with Pentagon surveillance and recruiter access to personal records of students. 

There are repeated calls to abandon the principle of Posse Comitatus, the bright line between police and military functions. During the recent panic over the possibility of the Asian Bird Flu beVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00535 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
512 

coming a human pandemic, President Bush began to call for use 

of U.S. military forces to set up and enforce quarantines and establish martial law in response. Privatized security forces, paid for by 

the Pentagon have not only built bases and been used in combat 

zones abroad, but Blackwater and DynCorp provided ‘‘security’’ in 

Louisiana after Katrina during crisis conditions, and Halliburton is 

being paid to build containment centers for large numbers of immigrants under FEMA’s End Game plan for a national round-up of 

undocumented workers. 

While this $512.9 billion bill may have enjoyed broad support in 

the Committee, the policy it implements faces eroding support 

around the country and the world. Current news reports find that 

62% of survey respondents in this country disapprove of Bush’s approach to the war on Iraq and that 15% believe that the U.S. is 

very likely to have success in Iraq; whatever success is supposed 

to look like. The majority sentiment among the people of the 

United States and a growing sentiment inside this Congress want 

to end these wars on Iraq and Afghanistan and bring the troops 

home. To date, over one million reserve and National Guard forces 

have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in these wars, and the majority have passed the maximum involuntary service limit of two 

years, yet the war is not scheduled to end before 2009 at the end 

of the President’s period in office. I supported Rep. Murtha’s bill to 

redeploy US forces outside Iraq, and the unopposed amendment offered to the Supplemental funding by Barbara Lee that no funds 

be expended on the building of permanent bases in Iraq, and would 

have made those amendments to this bill save that other Committees of the House may require sequential referrals. 

High-ranking retired officers from several branches are now beginning to speak out about the flawed assumptions and prosecution 

of this war by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and have 

called for his resignation. 

It is time for these wars to end and for alternative military budgets that reduce the waste and wasted spending on flawed weapons 

systems to be produced by this Committee. Sadly, the flawed 

spending contained in this bill has marked Pentagon spending 

since its inception, but more so in this administration than ever before. Our current military budget is larger than the budgets of 

every other major country in the world combined, both allies and 

perceived enemies. Our obsolete nuclear arsenal and other weapons 

systems are maintained and defended while new systems with no 

legitimate utility are designed and promoted each year. Sadly, this 

Committee approves them. 

This Committee consistently fails to address the pressing and 

simple issues of those it claims to represent and to serve, the 

American people and our people in uniform. Unchecked fraudulent 

recruitment, failed retention, violation of rights and regulations, 

stop-loss policies and over-rotation, lack of adequate protection for 

combat troops, protection of rights of conscience, diminished medical care for troops and their families, decreases in veterans benefits, environmental damage done by the manufacture, storage and 

use of military weapons, falsified benefits and bonuses, and privatization of functions all remain inadequately addressed by the passage of this bill, and in some cases they are worsened. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
513 

This is a military that relies on economic conscription or a Poverty Draft to fill its ranks, and the primary focus of recruiters is 

in poor communities of color. The new White House press secretary, Tony Snow, recently broadcast his opinion that those who 

‘‘have committed themselves to a view that blacks are constantly 

victims, have succeeded in creating in the United States the most 

dangerous thing that we’ve encountered in our lifetime; which is an 

underclass that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.’’ For those who 

blame Black people and the poor for their own problems, pushing 

them into the military and war is no solution, either. 

Despite the attachment of psychiatric support teams on the field 

to every combat unit, nearly 30% of veterans of current wars will 

suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and many will bring 

the violence of war home. Rep. Murtha said recently that would 

mean 50,000 PTSD veteran cases, with a VA not yet equipped to 

handle the physical wounds. While some 2,400 official combat 

deaths are listed from the war on Iraq to date, 8,500 are also 

wounded physically or psychologically severely enough that they 

cannot return to battle. Suicides are on the rise, and there is not 

adequate counseling or support available for the transition back to 

civilian life. In a recent development, wounded soldiers are also 

fighting off bill collectors and veterans are having their credit ratings ruined by military pay errors. 

A new GI Bill to provide comparable college funding for young 

people who have served in AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, or other national civilian service programs has been proposed to reward and 

encourage such service. The current promise of Montgomery GI Bill 

college funding to veterans is in reality a misleading one, since 

many are disqualified on separation, only 35% of those eligible actually use the matching funds, and only 15% of those who do actually graduate from college. The current amounts promised pay for 

only 54% of the tuition at a community college, not a full university 

education. Other benefits promised to veterans in exchange for 

service are being cut as well. 

In recent polls on the ground, a majority of troops said they did 

not approve of the war or the way it is being handled. Growing 

numbers are going absent and veterans are speaking out in increasing numbers on their return home, in opposition to continued 

US involvement. As they did in Vietnam, these soldiers may force 

us once again to choose between a willing military force and a bad 

war. Retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director 

for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said ‘‘I now regret that I did not more 

openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country 

whose actions were peripheral . . . they knew the plan was flawed, 

saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war.’’

We are fighting with a military designed, not for defense, but for 

empire—with a military still focused on the Cold War model of 

combat and with the intent to create global military dominance. We 

are fighting with a military now exhausted by the policy and method of combat in these wars, led by those who have never fought in 

them. 

My votes for a peaceful world last year included votes for ending 

the war in Iraq, withdrawing American troops, and upholding 

America’s commitment to human rights. I voted against using forVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00537 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
514 

eign aid as a blackmail to get U.N. votes, using preemptive military strikes against any country, supplying weapons to Colombia, 

putting weapons in space, funding the Iraq war, and any use of torture by the United States. 

ALTERNATIVE BUDGETS AND WEAPON SYSTEMS

Eliminate pork and waste 

There is a pressure within each state and district to maintain lucrative military contracts because they create a certain level of employment in the community and bring in commercial activity and 

taxes. However, it has long been known that military contracting 

is not labor intensive and that the same funds put into the civilian 

sector would create many more jobs. Because of this pressure and 

a good deal of lobbying, certain projects that are wasteful are voted 

for anyway and alternatives are not explored. In the end, an economy built on the existence and continuation of war is counter-productive to both peace and real security and prosperity. 

Eliminating these wasteful contracts, especially around weapons 

production and equipment, would potentially save $5 billion tax 

dollars. 

I challenge and want to stop the practice of raiding the Operations and Maintenance budget of the DoD to fund pork projects 

annually, which potentially hurts troops in the field. We can eliminate waste and inefficiency and save $5–9 billion. 

I have seen a proposal to commission an independent study and 

establish a Defense Savings Caucus in Congress to consider alternative budgets and report to appropriate committees in advance of 

authorization or allocation of defense budget funds annually. These 

alternatives would cut waste and pork, support real security and 

defense, cut deficits and restore critical funds to social support programs. 

Decommission Cold War Weapons 

A first step would be to de-fund or reduce excessive and outdated 

Cold War era weapons systems or unworkable weapon systems like 

these: 

a. Missile Defense Weapons—$10 Billion; 

b. Virginia Class Submarines—$4 Billion/year; 

c. Nuclear Warheads—reduce to 1,000; 

d. F–22 A Raptor—$23.5 billion/100 planes; 

e. Tilt Rotor V–22 Osprey $28 billion; 

f. DD(X) Destroyers; 

g. F–35 Joint Strike Fighter; 

h. C–1307 Cargo planes; 

i. Future Combat Systems; 

j. Research & Development; and 

k. Force Structure and size. 

Proposed by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and Center for 

Defense Information. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
515 

Unified Security Budget 

A Unified Security Budget for FY 07 suggests: One of neo-conservatism’s leading theorists, Francis Fukuyama, has now declared 

that his movement’s problem lies principally with its over-militarized approach to achieving its foreign policy ends. He writes of the 

enormous ‘‘structural imbalance’’ in global power derived from U.S. ‘‘defense spending nearly equal to that of the rest of the world combined.’’ The principal solution, in his view: ‘‘we need to demilitarize 

what we have been calling the global war on terrorism and shift 

to other types of policy instruments.’’ This report shows how this can be done. It identifies nearly $62 

billion in cuts to the regular defense budget, mostly to weapons 

systems that have scant relevance to the threats we face, and 

therefore can be eliminated or scaled back with no sacrifice to our 

security. The war in Iraq is funded by supplemental appropriations. And it identifies $52 billion to be added to the budgets for 

the tools of defense and prevention. This shift would partially demilitarize our national security strategy by turning the current sixto-one military-to-non-military balance into a better balance of 

three to one. That is, it would double the proportional amount our 

government devotes to its non-military security tools. It would 

bring our spending more in line with the rhetoric of the president’s 

own national security strategy. 

Key finding: The recent flare-up of concern over foreign management of U.S. ports creates an opening for the real issues of port security to be given the attention they deserve. Though the Central 

Intelligence Agency (CIA) has concluded that weapons of mass destruction are most likely to enter the United States by sea, we will 

spend four times more deploying a missile defense system that has 

failed most of its tests than we will spend on port security. 

Key finding: Hurricane Katrina displayed how under-prepared 

the United States is for protecting critical domestic infrastructure 

and mitigating the effects of a catastrophic event. Yet remarkably, 

the administration’s budget decreases funds to cities and states for 

critical infrastructure protection and first responders by 26 percent. 

Key finding: The Sept. 11 commission concluded that ‘‘preventing 

terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must 

be elevated above all other problems of national security.’’ The 

Bush administration’s budget for threat reduction and non- proliferation, at approximately $1.3 billion, falls far short of this 

standard. 

Key finding: One benchmark for improvement cited in last year’s 

version of this report has been met. The administration’s budget request funds the account for Diplomatic and Consular Affairs slightly higher than its account for Foreign Military Financing. However, 

total foreign military assistance—more than $8 billion—outstrips 

the combined totals for diplomatic affairs and Embassy security, 

construction and maintenance, at $6.2 billion. 

Key finding: Favoring its own programs over collective approaches that coordinate the work of international donors, the administration has cut its contribution to the Global Fund for AIDS, 

Tuberculosis and Malaria, while increasing funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Yet the Global 

Fund delivers assistance to eight times as many countries, includVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00539 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
516 

ing those with the fastest rising infection rates. PEPFAR also prohibits the use of generic drugs, which means that fewer people will 

be treated, at higher cost. 

This proposal comes from the Center for Defense Information, 

Foreign Policy in Focus, Security Policy Working Group and a 

broader Task Force that includes other organizations addressing alternatives to war and massive military funding. 

A Realistic Defense—Korb Report 

The Korb Report—A Realistic Defense by Lawrence Korb, a 

former Asst. Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, 

Installations and Logistics, proposes a budget that would reduce 

spending in FY07 by $60 billion by the following: 

Reduce the nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads—$14 billion; 

Eliminate unworkable missile defenses; continue research—$8 

billion; 

Terminate or cut back on Cold War weapons systems, F–22A 

Raptor, Virginia Class Submarine, DD/X Destroyers, V–22 Tilt 

Rotor Ospreys, C–130J Cargo Transports—$28 billion; 

Reduce excess forces structure in Navy and Air Force—5 billion; 

and 

Cut waste using new model for current warfare—$5 billion. 

Overview: These cuts will make our forces stronger, divert funds 

back to personnel who need them, cut pork, waste and outdated or 

unworkable weapons that make the US weaker. Is cutting the defense budget in wartime a paradox? Right now the costs of the 

wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not coming from the overall defense budget but from $400 billion in supplemental funding to date, 

including $100 billion in 2005 and $115 billion in 2006. Despite the 

war on terror, the Department of Homeland Security budget is $43 

billion, which is only 2% of the defense budget. $111 billion of the 

regular budgets pay for 1.4 million active duty and 800,000 reservists, with all mobilizations of those troops paid by the supplemental 

funding. $154 billion goes to Operation and Maintenance and civilian employee costs. $24 billion to the Department of Energy to 

maintain 10,000 nuclear warheads, $174 billion is spent on new 

weapons, research and development, and facilities and bases. 

The proposed FY07 budget is $483 billion and $3 trillion projected over five years. This is more than all the other military 

budgets of the world combined. It is an increase of $20 billion over 

FY06 levels and $150 billion over Clinton era budgets. In addition, 

our allies are spending a total of $300 billion on their military 

forces. Russia and China combined are spending $100 billion, and 

all other rogue states or perceived enemies are spending a total of 

$50 billion. 

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Recruitment, privacy rights and discharges 

Joint statement to HASC July 19, 2005.—‘‘To make matters 

worse there are now confirmed reports of recruiters lying, forging 

reports, and threatening jail time in order to sign new recruits this 

past May. Army recruiters in Colorado were caught on audio and 

video tape advising a potential recruit on how to go about getting 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
517 

a fake high school diploma, as well as where to purchase a special 

concoction to drink in order to pass the drug test. Another Army 

recruiter in Texas was also recorded leaving a message for a potential recruit threatening them with an arrest warrant and jail time 

if they didn’t show up for a scheduled meeting with a recruiter. 

These high-profile cases of recruiter misconduct have forced the 

Army to cease recruiting operations nationwide on May 20, and reinforce the high standards in honesty and integrity the Army holds 

for it’s recruiters. One report released by the New York Times 

showed 480 cases of recruiter misconduct that have been investigated in the Army in 2005. Of those 480 cases, 90 have been substantiated, 98 recruiters have been punished, and eight recruiters 

have been relieved of duty. Recruiters are reportedly feeling the 

strain as well, often working long hours with little rest and poor 

results. The recruiting environment, recruiters say, has been especially hard ever since the ‘‘war on terror’’ began. Since October 

2002, 37 Army recruiters have gone AWOL, many have requested 

other assignments and one had even applied for a conscientious objector discharge.’’ ‘‘Rough Road for Recruiters’’, The Objector, CCCO, 2005.—I continually receive complaints from parents that their children are 

being targeted for recruitment to the armed forces by recruiters. 

These high school children are being visited at their homes by recruiters. This is wrong. 

In addition, I remember litigation concluded by this Administration against the Greatest Generation veterans saying that recruiters back then didn’t have the authority to offer health care for life, 

but the offers were made and recruits joined, believing that they 

would have health care for life. The courts ruled against the veterans. This amendment addresses misconduct on the part of military recruiters who are under pressure to meet quotas. 

Residents of my district in Georgia have been calling a national 

GI Rights 800 hotline number for help when they realize they have 

been wrongly or fraudulently enlisted or given false promises by a 

recruiter. 

This early enlistment program of 16 and 17 year old children accounts for more than 90% of all recruits, after graduation from 

high school. 

Minors who reached the age of 18 before complaining, or anyone 

who failed to make a timely claim within 180 days was said to 

have ‘‘constructively enlisted’’ despite recruiter misconduct. 

There have also been press reports of disciplinary actions taken 

against a string of recruiters involved in raping their prospective 

enlistees. Army Times reports a 40% increase in the reported assaults in 2005, over 2,300 incidents. 

The number of recruiters punished or demoted for these violations has been far less than those reassigned for failing to meet 

their quotas. 

In this Committee I failed to secure passage of an amendment 

that would have required an impartial witness to be present when 

the enlistment agreement is signed. Within the 180 days of entering duty, any enlistee who could make a convincing case of recruiter impropriety could have the contract revoked without punishment or any characterization as a discharge. The Secretary of 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
518 

the branch would review the claim, and if there were insufficient 

evidence in rebuttal from the recruiter, the recruit would be released and provided transportation to the member’s home of record 

or point of enlistment. 

My suggested grounds for revoking an enlistment contract are 

simple, clear and fair: 

No witness or no copy of a full contract; 

Coercion, threats or intimidation to enlist or keep a recruit in the 

Delayed Entry Program; 

A recruiter misrepresents benefits, educational funds, bonuses, 

assignments, or the likelihood of being exposed to combat or regaining custody of any children while in; 

A recruiter interferes with criminal justice proceedings, fines or 

convictions, or enlists anyone pending legal charges, fines, confinement, or on probation or parole; 

A recruiter omits, conceals or falsifies any disqualifying condition 

or creates false documents. 

Under this amendment, all recruits would have been given notice 

of their rights under these rules to revoke any defective enlistment 

contract. The Secretary of Defense would provide annual statistical 

reports to Congress on the number and type of recruitment improprieties and the rates of disciplinary action or prosecutions begun 

and their final dispositions. 

This revision would have gone a long way towards ending the 

damaging practices of recruiter misrepresentation and creating the 

conditions for a truly voluntary military that keeps its promises to 

enlisted members and does not recruit those who clearly do not 

qualify for duty. 

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND/NO CHILD LEFT UN-RECRUITED

Student privacy 

This Authorization also failed to protect the privacy of students 

in secondary schools under provisions of the No Child Left Behind 

Act that allow military recruiters to request phone and address 

contact lists from schools, but allows parents and students to 

refuse release. It should have required that parents or student’s 

opt-in and request release to recruiters and assumed that privacy 

is protected otherwise. Rep. Honda on which I am a co-sponsor has 

introduced a bill to this effect. (Language of HR 551 in Appendix) 

Recruiter campus access 

Since the recent Supreme Court decision [Rumsfeld v FAIR] and 

current laws require that speech forums be set up as equal access 

for military recruiters to all colleges, universities and high schools 

that accept federal funding, that forum requires another point of 

view. 

This Authorization should have provided equal access for information about realities of military life and service, statistical information on treatment and discharge of women and people of color, 

combat experiences, stories from veterans and military family 

members, and alternative ways to fund college, learn job skills, apprentice or attend trade school and other alternatives to enlistVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 07, 2006 Jkt 027368 PO 00000 Frm 00542 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR452.XXX HR452

ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
519 

ment. This would have required equal or the same access for alternative information, as recruiters will now have. 

Authority to administer oaths of enlistment 

There is a section of this Authorization that needs some clarification as to its purpose. Sec. 551 concerns the military enlistment 

oath and who may administer it. It specifically amends Section 502 

and Section 1031 of title 10, United States Code by striking ‘This 

oath may be taken before any commissioned officer of any armed 

force.’ And inserting ‘This oath may be taken before the President 

of the United States of America, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer or other person designated under 

regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.’ Since there is a regulated process for taking enlistment oaths at 

special processing centers or as a result of commissioning as an officer, it is not clear why officials at the level of the President, Vice 

President and Secretary of Defense would be involved in such procedures, or why any ‘‘other person’’ than a commissioned officer 

would be designated to administer such an oath. 

Is this a response to a perceived emergency in which such a select group of people would be forced to administer such oaths? Does 

it set up a process or capability of administering such oaths outside 

the regulated military process or procedures, or in secret? 

Clarity on this should be provided to Congress before such a provision is voted on and signed into law. 

CO study and Sgt. Kevin Benderman.—Sgt. Kevin Benderman is 

a man of principle who is being punished for standing up for his 

beliefs. Sgt. Benderman served in the first Gulf War therein learning the reality of war by taking part in it. He saw things that disturbed his conscience, things he never wanted to see or be a part 

of again. 

Sgt. Benderman re-enlisted and served his country honorably in 

Afghanistan, when the United States entered combat and Iraq, he 

realized he had to make a decision. He searched his own conscience 

and talked to his family, and decided to file for discharge as a conscientious objector. Sgt. Benderman knew that he could no longer 

be part of a military at war. 

He followed the legal procedures in filing his claim of conscience, 

but the unit officers responsible for processing that claim did not. 

A chaplain refused to make time for his interview, which is required before he can be evaluated. Once his command was alerted 

to his intention to be discharged he faced hostility, but he continued to perform his duties professionally and well. The delay in 

hearing his claim lasted until he had been reassigned to a unit 

ready to deploy to Iraq, and due to conflicting orders he missed the 

unit movement while he worked on his discharge claim. 

Over the long months of waiting for a hearing, Sgt. Benderman 

began to speak out more publicly about his feelings regarding war 

and the conditions in his unit and the military. These statements 

were used to question his claim’s sincerity. Instead of being properly evaluated according to regulations and rules by impartial officers, Sgt. Benderman was harassed and then denied his claim. Instead of being honorably discharged and having his Constitutionally protected beliefs respected, Sgt. Benderman was given 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
520 

multiple charges and sent to the Army prison at Ft. Lewis, Washington where he is serving an 18 month sentence. 

Our country owes more than this to Sgt. Benderman for his combat and for his continued honorable service. We owe more than 

that to his conscience and to that sacred principle that led President John F. Kennedy to say that he ‘‘longed for the day when the 

conscientious objector will hold the same status in society that the 

warrior does today.’’ We owe more than that to those who serve our 

country and inform our conscience and theirs in the crucible of war. 

We owe more than this to the veterans who have returned from 

wars only to realize they have violated the deepest parts of themselves without knowing it at the time. 

I introduced a successful amendment to this Authorization Act to 

commission a Government Accountability Office study from 1989 to 

the present on the treatment of military conscientious objectors, in 

order to determine the total number of all applications (even if not 

acted on), number of discharges or reassignments to non-combatant 

duty, processing of claims, average time for consideration, assignment to non-combatant duty while claims are pending, reasons for 

approval or disapproval, effect of Stop Loss provisions in first Gulf 

war and since, and pre-war statistical comparisons. 

This amendment was offered with Sergeant Kevin Benderman, 

and his wife Monica, in mind. I offer this amendment for him and 

the millions of others who might be similarly situated if the Vice 

President is right and the American people experience war for the 

next generation. 

This 180-day study will reveal the total number of applications 

for re-assignment or discharge as a conscientious objector filed in 

each of the military branches, by active and reserve forces, since 

January 1, 1989 through December 31, 2006. 

Ours is a country of laws and beliefs, and we have a Constitution 

that separates religious beliefs and the rule of law and government. 

Every major religious faith recognizes the primacy of conscience in 

relation to war. 

Conscience is not cowardice; conscience is clarity. I hope this 

study will give us the needed information to institute a sound policy regarding rights of conscience in the military. (Amendment 1 in 

appendix) 

UCMJ 

We have an outmoded system of military law and justice. Other 

industrialized nations allow military unionization and have abandoned internal military judicial systems and courts during peacetime. Our biased system results in conviction rates at courts-martial of over 90%. Everyone involved in the trial is a member of the 

military and judicial, witness, jury and defense independence is 

compromised. 

This Authorization should have adopted the long-ignored findings 

of the influential Cox Commission relating to the UCMJ or should 

have abandoned it in favor of civilian courts for all but battlefield 

offenses or crimes in a distant theater of war where no other option 

is available. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
521 

COX COMMISSION REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE—MAY

2001 

These are the primary recommendations of the Cox Commission: 

A. Modify the pretrial role of the convening authority in both selecting court-martial members and making other pre-trial legal decisions that best rest within the purview of a sitting military judge. 

B. Increase the independence, availability and responsibilities of 

military judges. 

C. Implement additional protections in death penalty cases. 

These proposals, however, do not exhaust the need for reform 

within the military justice system. Additional matters worthy of 

further consideration include: 

A. STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATES

The impression that staff judge advocates (SJAs) possess too 

much authority over the court-martial process is nearly as damaging to perceptions of military justice as the over-involvement of 

convening authorities at trial. The broad authority granted some 

staff judge advocates creates a number of unwanted, contradictory 

images of courts-martial: that over-zealous prosecutors can pursue 

charges at will and are rewarded for aggressive prosecution, that 

convening authorities routinely disregard the legal advice of their 

SJAs in order to pursue unwarranted or even vindictive prosecutions, and that lawyers, rather than line officers, control the military justice apparatus. Staff judge advocates, which act as counsel 

to commanding officers and not as independent authorities, should 

not exert influence once charges are preferred, should work out 

plea bargains only upon approval of the convening authority, and 

deserve a clear picture of what their responsibilities are. 

B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES

The Commission’s focus is on military criminal justice, but we 

would be remiss in ignoring the impression of unfairness created 

by the growing use of administrative discharge action in lieu of 

court-martial. While the services must be afforded considerable 

latitude to manage their personnel, there is no denying that administrative action, from non-judicial punishment to administrative 

withdrawal of qualifications, certifications, and promotion opportunities, can have a devastating effect on an individual’s enlistment 

or career. 

The misuse, or the perception of misuse, of these administrative 

processes subverts the fundamental protections of the UCMJ, destroying the notion of fundamental fairness that is so critical to a 

professional military force. The Commission recognizes that an aggrieved service member may seek administrative redress at either 

the appropriate military administrative appeal board or in federal 

court, but in most instances these processes cannot make these individuals whole. Rarely can service members be returned to normal 

career tracks once they have been unfairly administratively sanctioned and fallen behind their career peer groups. Thus, the Commission recommends an overall review of the military disciplinary 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
522 

system should consider, and, where necessary, reform, the administrative disciplinary and sanctioning process. 

Three aspects of the current system in particular concern the 

Commission: 

First, the manner in which discharges are characterized is a relic 

of the past and should be updated to reflect contemporary realities. 

Second, the current system encourages disparate treatment of 

service members. 

Finally, the current system does not provide ready access to the 

federal courts or other appellate review. Consideration should be 

given to providing for military appellate review of administrative 

discharges. 

C. FERES DOCTRINE

The Commission believes that a study of this doctrine is warranted. An examination of the claims that have been barred by the 

doctrine, and a comparison of service members’ rights to those of 

other citizens, could reform military legal doctrine in light of 

present day realities and modern tort practice. Revisiting the Feres 

Doctrine would also signal to service members that the United 

States government is committed to promoting fairness and justice 

in resolving military personnel matters. 

D. SENTENCING

The Commission believes the sentencing process at court-martial 

deserves further review. Suggestions for reform have ranged from 

the use of sentencing guidelines to making military judges responsible for all sentencing. An anomaly of the court-martial sentencing 

process is that a military accused may request to be sentenced by 

military judge alone only if he or she elects to be tried without 

court members. The Commission urges Congress to authorize a 

military accused to permit the military judge to pass on a sentence 

even if a trial has proceeded before court members. Further, the 

Commission recommends that serious consideration and study be 

given to making military judges responsible for all sentencing in all 

cases, and to granting military judges the authority to suspend all 

or part of a court-martial sentence. 

E. INSTRUCTION ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

The armed forces’ current management of conscientious objectors 

is hindered by inadequate trial instructions and administrative 

shortcomings, both of which the Commission believes should be addressed. Protecting the rights of conscientious objectors is a particular concern at court-martial, where an individual who has professed principled opposition to military service is judged by persons 

who have embraced that very service. Military judges should issue 

clear instructions explaining the legal status and responsibilities of 

a service member who has made a claim of conscientious objection 

but is awaiting a decision on his or her status. The services should 

also study ways to coordinate better the criminal and administrative processes in these cases, particularly when criminal charges 

are brought against a service member whose discharge for conscientious objection is pending. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
523 

F. JURISDICTION OF THE MILITARY APPELLATE COURTS

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to limit the authority of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

in Clinton v. Goldsmith, the Commission believes that further 

study to clarify the jurisdiction of appellate courts should be undertaken. However, if the authority of military judges were enhanced 

as suggested above in III.B., the question of appellate jurisdiction 

would begin to resolve itself, since military appeals courts clearly 

possess authority under the UCMJ to review the rulings of military 

judges at trial. 

G. PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURES

The Commission received a number of suggestions concerning 

improvements to the actual trial process. For example, many submissions suggested that the Article 32 officer should be either a 

military judge or a field grade judge advocate with enhanced powers to issue subpoenas, and to make binding recommendations to 

dismiss charges where no probable cause was found. Others recommended increasing the number of peremptory challenges for 

both the government and the defense, permitting lawyer voir dire, 

granting military judges contempt power over both military personnel and civilians during trial, and allowing witnesses to be 

sworn by either military judges or clerks. The Commission takes no 

position regarding these suggestions, but believes that like many of 

the other issues presented, these comments are worthy of further 

study and full consideration. 

Sexual harassment, victim rights 

‘‘As if these revelations aren’t enough to impact recruiting numbers, perhaps we should consider the conduct of recruiters. It’s no 

secret that sexual assault, rape and violence against women in the 

military is rampant and out of control; but did you know it’s also 

a problem for military recruiters and potential recruits? A string of 

sexual assaults of potential recruits by their military recruiters has 

received absolutely no major media coverage, and no ties have been 

made between the sexual assaults and the falling recruiting numbers. Stretching from July 2003 to March 2005 there have been five 

major cases that have caught our attention: 

—July 2003: an Army recruiter based in Moreno Valley, CA 

was sentenced to 16 months in prison for statutory rape of a 

17-year-old female recruit. 

—January 2004: a Marine recruiter based in Baltimore, MD 

was convicted of fondling a teenage recruit and was sentenced 

to probation and ordered to seek counseling. 

—May 2004: a Marine recruiter based in Blooming Grove, 

NY was charged with six counts of rape, the recruit was only 

16 years old. 

—June 2004: a Marine recruiter based in Riverside, CA was 

sentenced to five years in prison for raping a 17-year-old high 

school student. —November 2004: an Army recruiter based in Riverside, CA 

was charged with four felony counts of having sex with and 

providing alcohol to two 17-year-old girls. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
524 

—March 2005: a National Guard recruiter based in 

Castleton, IN faces 31 charges stemming from alleged sexual 

assaults on seven potential female recruits. 

In each of these cases the victims claimed to have met their recruiter in their high schools, and in almost all of the cases claimed 

the assaults took place either in the recruiting office or in the recruiter’s vehicles! It is this type of activity coupled with other factors such as the high rate of female soldiers getting killed or 

wounded in Iraq, and women being placed in combat positions in 

direct violation of DoD policy that have contributed to a sharp decline in female recruits. This decline is most notable in the Army 

where in 2001 women made up 21% of new recruits but this year 

is accounting for a low 17%.’’ ‘‘Rough Road for Recruiters’’, The Objector, CCCO, 2005.—The 

crimes and persistence of sexual harassment and rape seems only 

to be exaggerated in the U.S. military from recruitment to enlistment and in the military Academies as well. Despite a hostile reporting environment, limited accesses to counseling, confidentiality, 

medical support or protection, the reported levels are still considerably higher than those in the civilian world. 

Despite reassurances by Under Secretary for Defense David Chu 

recently to the HASC about measures being taken to create a ‘‘robust sexual assault prevention and response program,’’ current reports from the Military Academies, the press and statistics only 

show the problem increasing. 

The lack of command authority to take these charges and crimes 

seriously and their failure to investigate, isolate and charge the 

perpetrators sends exactly the wrong message in regard to prevention or ‘‘zero tolerance’’ of these crimes. Until that practice changes, 

women will continue to be at risk and retention and recruitment 

will be affected, not to mention advancement. 

This Authorization, despite limited language about the issue, 

failed to substantially expand the rights and protection of victims 

of sexual harassment and abuse in the military and in military 

families or by veterans. A much more comprehensive approach, 

similar to those in place in civilian rape crisis facilities and law enforcement procedures, must be adopted as military policy. 

These proposals came from Miles Foundation and legislation proposed by Rep. Louise Slaughter. 

Cost of TRICARE and drugs 

I recognize the hard work of my colleagues and of the Committee 

staff and their sincere efforts to oversee the Pentagon in order to 

provide for the common defense. In fact, there are some provisions 

in this mark-up which I can support. The Subcommittee plan for 

a 2.7% across-the-board military pay raise—compared to the 2.2% 

proposed by President Bush, which I believe is a very good step towards supporting our soldiers who have their lives on the line 

every day. Also the TRICARE program did not receive fee increases, which will be a relief to our military veterans. H.R. 5122 

forbids the Department of Defense from raising the fees of 

TRICARE prime, standard and TRICARE reserve select at least 

until December 31, 2007. Postponing what now looks to be an evitable increase in the cost of healthcare costs for veterans will give 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
525 

the Comptroller General and Congressional Budget Office along 

with other agencies more time to address the issue of sustaining 

military healthcare over the long term. The bill also includes a $735 million increase to the Defense 

Health Program (DHP) to reinstate funding in anticipation of future cost share increases. 

It includes coverage for anesthesia and hospital costs for dental 

care for the young, mentally and physically challenged beneficiaries. It retains the coverage for forensic examinations following 

sexual assaults and domestic violence. 

Although this authorization retained some very beneficial programs for our veterans, one area of vital importance, the cost of 

prescription drugs was omitted. Rep. Skelton introduced an amendment to keep the military beneficiary drug costs at present levels 

of $3.00 for generic and $9.00 for brand drugs. This measure was 

soundly beaten with the majority using the rationale that the 

measure would take funds away from the war budget. Now, the 

price of drugs will rise to $6.00 and $16.00 respectively, which will 

have a devastating effect on lower grades of enlisted men and 

women who are on a very limited budget. 

Plan Colombia and Afro-Colombians 

The United States presently commits over $700 million per year 

to Plan Colombia. As in Iraq, the United States needs an exit strategy from the conflict in Colombia before the level of commitment 

increases further. 

Plan Colombia is supposed to be a counter-narcotics program. 

But on Good Friday, the Office of National Drug Control Policy at 

the White House issued a memo in which they conceded that as 

much coca is being planted in Colombia as before Plan Colombia 

began, perhaps more, and that across the Andes the coca crop is 

the highest it has been since 2001. Plan Colombia has failed and 

is failing. Today Colombia has the world’s highest rate of murder 

and kidnapping, and rather than dousing the fire, Plan Colombia 

is fanning the flames of violence. 

U.S. fumigation of the fields of poor farmers continues to result 

in the destruction of the health and environment of residents, and 

the displacement of thousands in the midst of a vicious civil war 

that has already displaced hundreds of thousands of Colombians. 

According to the U.S. State Department, a disproportionate number of internally displaced people are Afro-Colombian. The 10 million Afro-Colombians in Colombia make up nearly a quarter of Colombia’s 44 million citizens. These Colombians already face legal 

and economic inequalities that have persisted since the abolition of 

slavery in that country. 

Afro-Colombians have the lowest per capita incomes, with 80% 

living below the poverty line in a country where 27 percent of the 

population must survive on an income of less than $2 per day. 

They are concentrated in Uraba ́, stretching along the border of 

Panama between the Pacific and the Caribbean, and including the 

states of Choco ́ and Antioquia. 

Choco ́ has the lowest level of social services in Colombia, and the 

population is 85% Afro-Colombian. Afro-Colombians have the highest rates of illiteracy, infant mortality, and diseases, many of those 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
526 

diseases being preventable. They are the forgotten people of Colombia. Plan Colombia’s billions of dollars is making life worse for 

them, not better. 

Since 1996, 111 Afro-Colombians and mestizos have been murdered or ‘‘disappeared’’ in Uraba ́. In response to the violence, AfroColombian communities have set up three Humanitarian Zones, 

which are recognized by the Inter-American Human Rights Court 

of the OAS as legitimate mechanisms of self-protection. But 

paramilitaries working closely with Colombia’s 17th brigade and 

large agri-businesses intent on laying claim to Afro-Colombian 

lands, which were not legally recognized until 1993, are attempting 

to systematically displace residents in Uraba ́ so that they can set 

up palm oil plantations and livestock operations. Since January 

2005, a quarter million Colombians have been forcibly displaced. 

Why is the United States of America supporting these violations of 

property and human rights? 

The people of Uraba ́ region have been victims of massacres and 

other large-scale abuses, but these abuses are not restricted to that 

region: 

On May 2, 2002, in the town of Bojaya ́, 119 Afro-Colombian civilians were killed by a makeshift bomb thrown by FARC guerrillas 

during a clash with paramilitary groups with ties to the government. 

In August 2004 an economic blockade in the Choco ́ region by 

armed groups led to the displacement of over 1,200 Afro-Colombians. USAID reports that in all, an estimated 2.5 million Colombians are currently displaced. According to Michael Deal, the director of the USAID mission in Colombia: ‘‘The displaced Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities are truly one of the hemisphere’s 

least recognized tragedies.’’ In February of 2005, a group of armed men who identified themselves as members of the Colombian military abducted peace leader 

Luis Eduardo Guerra and his family, including his 11-year-old son 

in San Jose ́ de Apartado ́ in Antioquia, a village set up specifically 

as a peace community, where over 160 killings have taken place 

since 1997. Their dismembered bodies, eight in all, were found in 

graves days later, among them two-year-old Santiago Tuberquia 

Munoz, age 2, and Bellanyra Areiza Guzma ́n, age 17. 

The massacre at San Jose ́ de Apartado ́ led to a suspension of 

U.S. military aid to Colombia for seven months. Yet abuses continue, including the indiscriminate use of explosives and gunfire in 

communities, aerial bombardment of villages by the Colombian Air 

Force, resulting in thousands evacuating, and aerial strafing of civilians using stealth airplanes and Blackhawk helicopters. On October 24, 2005 the body of Orlando Valencia, an Afro-Colombian 

standing for election as a legal representative for Choco ́, was found 

dead. 

In 2001, union leaders and members of the groups 

SINTRAEMCALI, which had been conducting a campaign against 

corruption and privatization of the Cali Municipal Corporation 

(EMCALI), were accused of subversion and consistently harassed, 

threatened and even killed by police, military forces and private security groups with alleged links to paramilitary groups. Former 

SINTAEMCALI President, Colombian Congressman Alexander 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
527 

Lopez Maya of Bogota ́, received a hand written death threat letter 

on October 27th, 2004. Berenice Celeyta Alayo ́n, one of four Colombian recipients of the 1998 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights 

Award, received threats and heard sounds of automatic weaponry 

on her cellular phone. They informed Colombia’s Attorney General, 

and a raid took place on August 25th, 2004 at the residence of Lt. 

Col. Juilan Villate Leal, of the Third Brigade. The raid revealed 

that the Colombian Army had provided detailed information about 

Ms. Celeyta and Rep. Maya and over 175 other names. This evidence directly implicated Lt. Col. Villate in a campaign known as 

‘‘Operation Dragon’’ to target and assassinate union leaders, 

human rights workers and members of the opposition. 

The United States has directly funded Colombia’s intelligence 

agency, the Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS), for 

cooperative programs with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) 

and the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the United States. The 

DAS reports directly to the Colombian Presidency. Recent charges 

have been brought against former DAS Director Jorge Noguera for 

assisting and calling off investigations of paramilitaries and drug 

traffickers. Noguera is reported to have worked actively with paramilitary leaders to guarantee victories for paramilitary candidates 

in Northern Colombia. The DAS also gave lists of union leaders, 

opposition leaders, activists and academics to paramilitaries. Rather than being investigated, Noguera was sent to a post as Consul 

in Italy. 

In late April, the body of Jaime Gomez, Chief of Staff for Senator 

Piedad Cordoba, was found by some children. Mr. Gomez had been 

captured and tortured by paramilitary groups in Colombia for 34 

days before his murder. His flesh was burnt off with acid and all 

that remained of him was a skeleton. Dental records confirmed the 

identity of the skeleton. The skull had been broken or cleaved, suggesting brutal torture. Also found dead in the same week was Miss 

Liliana Gaviria, sister to the former Colombia President and Organization of American States chief Cesar Gaviria. Senator Cordoba 

was in Washington during the week of May 1–5, 2006, and was announced during session when Rep. McKinney introduced an amendment to end Plan Colombia on May 3rd. The amendment failed. 

Steps are being taken to try and ensure Sen. Cordoba’s safety. 

U.S. involvement in Colombia today readily resembles Vietnam 

in the early 1960s; it could easily escalate. 

Colombia’s elite are unwilling to commit their own sons and 

daughters or their own financial resources to this war, relying upon 

shady paramilitary groups, soldiers recruited from Colombia’s 

underclass and funding from Uncle Sam. Are we ready to commit 

large numbers of young Americans to die in a war with no progress 

toward peace being made on the ground, in a war where it is the 

poor and the innocent who suffer, as the army, the military and the 

rebels commit human rights abuses with impunity? Where does it 

end? 

U.S. aid to Colombia should be refocused toward the promotion 

of human rights and upholding law. We need to strengthen the 

courts. We should be providing humanitarian assistance and economic development, not promoting military conflict in a country 

caught in the cycle of violence. The U.S. Embassy in Colombia and 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
528 

the U.S. State Department should demand a full and impartial investigation of all DAS officials. The U.S. Embassy in Colombia and 

the State Department should monitor the performance of DAS officials, as well as plans announced by the Colombian government to 

ensure that the DAS is not working at the behest of special interests. USAID should work with the Ministry of Interior to ensure 

that confidential information regarding threatened individuals 

under State protection will not be shared with other agencies. The 

U.S. State Department should demand that the Colombian government move to immediately disband all paramilitary groups, to put 

an end to the human rights abuses they carry out with impunity. 

Posse Comitatus 

This Authorization should also have reaffirmed the principle of 

Posse Comitatus for military forces, police and contracted security 

or combat forces. This Constitutional principle creates a bright line 

between military and police functions. 

A call to reconfirm it was made in 2003 as part of the Homeland 

Security legislation. It is a practice and policy that protects the 

Constitution military members are sworn to protect, as well as the 

rights of the American people. 

In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has continued to make widespread and unnecessary 

changes in laws and administrative powers that undermine the 

most basic Constitutional principles and protected rights of citizens 

in a democracy. 

Recently, both President Bush and Senator Mark Warner (VA) 

have renewed calls to undermine or reverse the Posse Comitatus 

Act of 1867, which re-established the Constitutional principle and 

practice of separating military and police functions in a democracy. 

The experience of the founding fathers with the British model that 

combined the functions was enough to cause them to set that division sharply in administrative powers and civilian command of the 

military. 

The principles began to be eroded in the period following the end 

of the Civil War, and the effective occupation of areas of the south 

by federal troops who were holding military tribunals, carrying out 

executions of citizens and usurping local police and judicial control. 

Their excesses came to the attention of the post-war Congress and 

they passed the Posse Comitatus Act to forbid the military being 

used to enforce laws. 

Further erosion followed the end of the Vietnam War, when police departments were increasingly militarized in training and 

equipment as well as employing a large number of returning war 

veterans. SWAT teams were created, a clearly militarized police 

function, getting training on military bases with advanced weapons. 

When President George H.W. Bush came into office in the 1980s, 

his programs made increased use of military troops and equipment 

in the war against drugs, supporting police and collecting intelligence in regard to civilian crimes. Joint Military Task Forces 

were created that combined DoD, FBI, SWAT, ATF and local police 

in sieges at Wounded Knee, Waco, Texas and against MOVE in 

Philadelphia, using tanks and military explosives. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
529 

President Bush has ample authority under provisions of existing 

laws on disaster response to mobilize and command any and all 

federal assets, including military forces. State directed National 

Guard units have always worked in conjunction with federal troops 

without being put under federal control themselves. Both National 

Guard and regular military forces are authorized under federal and 

state laws to use force to protect lives, property and public safety 

during a declared emergency. Police functions have been wisely left 

to local police and state National Guard forces, except when the situation was so dire they could not function. 

The U.S. Naval Institute reports that failing to yet establish a 

Department of Homeland Security safe port program that would 

identify port workers, the administration is renewing powers to the 

Coast Guard dating back to the 1950s, which were used to screen 

unionized dock workers and to weed out ‘‘Communists.’’ There 

were, according to union organizations and accepted history, many 

abuses of this power. This ruling holds the potential for more abuse 

and yet another violation of the Posse Comitatus principle. 

Congress must renew their commitment to the Posse Comitatus 

Act and support the principle of separation of military and police 

functions, and the existing laws regarding federalization of resources during emergencies, as they did in 2003. Bush did not need 

those authorities to move troops and federal assets into New Orleans and the Gulf States in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and he 

does not need them for other public health emergencies. Existing 

law is sufficient, and the Congress needs to investigate the New 

Orleans response by FEMA and government troops, as well as examine and reject the Bush administration’s claims that they need 

more power than the Constitution envisions or allows. 

I have introduced a concurrent resolution in this regard. 

Tamiflu, Avian Bird Flu, and Secretary Rumsfeld 

‘‘Gilead is fortunate to have had Don Rumsfeld,’’ said Michael L. 

Riordan, M.D., ‘‘who founded Gilead in 1987 and [had] served as 

Chairman since 1993,’’ . . . ‘‘and we are very pleased that he has 

accepted the Chairmanship. . . . He has played an important role 

in helping to build and steer the company. His broad experience in 

leadership positions in both industry and government will serve us 

well as Gilead continues to build its commercial presence.’’

Rumsfeld served as Gilead’s Chairman of the Board until January 22, 2001. Upon his departure, John C. Martin, Ph.D., Gilead’s 

President and CEO, said ‘‘Don Rumsfeld’s insight and contributions 

over the last twelve years have been invaluable as Gilead has 

evolved from a promising biotech company into the worldwide biopharmaceutical corporation it is today.’’

G.D. Searle/Pfizer Inc. 

‘‘A December 28, 2000 CBS News report on Rumsfeld stated that 

he was not only serving as chairman of the board of directors of 

Gilead Sciences, but was also serving ‘‘as a member of the boards 

of directors of ABB (Asea Brown Boveri) Ltd., Tribune Company 

and RAND Corporation’’; was ‘‘currently chairman of the Salomon 

Smith Barney International Advisory Board’’; served as a member 

of the board of directors of Amylin Pharmaceuticals (1991–1996); 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
530 

chairman and chief executive officer of General Instrument Corporation (October 1990 to August 1993); and ‘‘served as a senior advisor to William Blair & Co., an investment banking firm’’ (1985–

1990).’’

‘‘As a director for Gulfstream Aerospace, his stock in the company reportedly was valued at $11 million when the company was 

acquired by defense contractor General Dynamics in 1999. But 

Rumsfeld scrupulously avoided any direct dealings with defense 

companies, either serving on boards or purchasing stock, a decision 

that helped to avoid the appearance of impropriety when he was 

asked to lead the Defense Department again.’’

Open secrets 

This Authorization also failed to rescind future purchases of the 

drug Tamiflu or related products in anticipation of a human pandemic caused by the Asian Bird Flu virus. Since the potential of 

such a pandemic is low, and a natural extract of the Black Elderberry plant is fully effective in countering the virus, this would be 

a sensible policy. 

In 2005, the Defense Supply Center created a contract with 

Gilead/Roche for $68 million to purchase 2.4 million capsules of 

Tamiflu in anticipation of its use to curb a potential pandemic 

among humans of the Avian Bird Flu virus A (H5N1). In addition, 

an apparently separate contract for $58 million was made with 

Roche Laboratories in New Jersey for all four branches for 

Oseltamivir Phosphate Capsules (Tamiflu) to the Defense Supply 

Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

There were plans reported in Fortune to expand to hundreds of 

billions of dollars in purchases. 

The flu strain, which is killing large numbers of birds across species, is slightly zoonetic, in other words it can potentially pass from 

birds to humans who handle them. However, virologists quoted in 

the New York Times reveal that many experts feel the possibility 

of the virus mutating into a form that will pass easily from human 

to human and create a pandemic is low, and the fear of hundreds 

of millions of deaths is exaggerated. 

Millions of chickens have reportedly been infected in Asia, where 

many people live with the birds, and only 200 people have been infected. To date, there have been just over 100 deaths from the virus 

in the last five-year period and no indication it is spreading between humans. Not all infections are fatal, and no one has gotten 

the virus from another human, even during infection. 

At least one medical expert at the National Center for Food Protection and Defense within the Department of Homeland Security, 

Dr. Michael Osterholm believes that antiviral drugs will only have 

a minimal effect during a pandemic. ‘‘What we don’t know is if 

Tamiflu will work,’’ he was quoted as saying by Fox News. Like 

other antiviral approaches to the immune system, they often spark 

mutations in viruses that create resistance to the cure. Nature reported last October that virus samples taken from a Vietnamese 

woman were resistant to Tamiflu following massive use of the drug 

in that region. The New England Journal of Medicine makes the 

same point, reporting that four out of eight human victims died 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
531 

while taking Tamiflu. The Lancet notes the resistance of this typeA influenza virus to Tamiflu and researchers call it ‘‘alarming’’. 

In addition to that, Tamiflu has known negative side effects listed by Roche, the manufacturer. Their consumer literature warns 

against use by pregnant women, those planning to get pregnant, or 

breastfeeding, as well as children less than one year of age. Those 

with kidney disease, heart disease, respiratory or any serious 

health condition are also told to get a professional opinion. There 

have been some anaphylactic responses as well. Studies by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency suggest symptoms can include hallucinations and delusions, and may have caused abnormal 

behavior and suicide leaps by two Vietnamese teens that took the 

drug. 

There are simple and inexpensive natural products that have 

proven effective in clinical trials and in use in killing the H5N1 

virus at a 99% level. No-Germs is a British over the counter hand 

spray that disinfects and easily stops the spread of the virus. 

Skinvisible is patenting a clorhexadine hand sanitizer that is similarly deadly to the virus. Another natural product that has been 

proven for years to work against a wide range of influenza strains 

is an extract of the black elderberry plant known as Sambucol. In 

clinical tests reported in Israel and England, it promises to be effective at destroying H5N1 in cell cultures. 

Finally, the purchase and stockpiling of Tamiflu, which is ineffective and may have already mutated a resistant strain of the virus, 

creates profit and high stock dividends. Gilead Science, a company 

whose board includes Governor Pete Wilson, former Secretary of 

State George Schultz and until his appointment as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who is still a blind investor benefiting 

from the windfall to Gilead stocks. 

I proposed an amendment, which did not pass, to the Committee 

calling for a sense of Congress that no further funds should be appropriated by the Department of Defense for the purchase or stockpiling of Tamiflu or any related product. 

GAO Study on privatization of security 

I introduced an amendment to the Committee that also failed to 

create provisions for a study relating to military contracting by private or corporate security forces or private armies, in order to insure Congressional and legal oversight, legal restrictions and restraints, limits to use of force, proper rules of engagement, assessment of competitive costs, violations of Posse Comitatus, limits on 

domestic use of such forces, and legal jurisdiction under UCMJ and 

accountability. 

Huge corporations like Halliburton and their subsidiary Kellogg, 

Brown & Root, Bechtel and DynCorp, MPRI, and private firms like 

Blackwater and SAIC, have been making headlines since 9/11 by 

contracting at high cost, low transparency and limited accountability for security and other functions more traditionally carried 

out by military and police forces both in combat zones and here at 

home. Often the contracts are no-bid affairs due to ‘‘emergencies’’

and cost overruns, overcharges or loss of excessive unaccounted 

amounts of funding are acknowledged, but lead to no punishment 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
532 

or breach of contract. In fact, there is evidence of profitable kickbacks and a pattern of continuing lucrative future contracts. 

These firms have provided help for sale in response to conflicts 

and natural disasters, including building and preparing military 

base areas in advance of troops, putting out oil fires, creating infrastructure and carrying out security functions during combat in Afghanistan, Kosovo, the Balkans, Liberia, Colombia, the Philippines, 

and now New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana. This trend has 

included handing over the rebuilding of Iraq and other areas to 

these firms as well as meals, cleaning, maintenance, repair and 

other functions for the troops. Have they become too essential to 

criticize? 

In addition, their employees often operate from a different set of 

expectations, rules and norms of behavior than are adhered to by 

the people in uniform trained to work with certain restrictions and 

under Constitutional and international restraints. These differences range from an unwillingness to go into harms way, as well 

as endangerment of our troops or lack of adequate support. Lacking 

clear chains of command and rules of engagement, these firms have 

participated in activities that violate laws, codes of conduct and 

limits on behavior. At the very least they have created or supported 

actions that damage the environment and the social order in other 

countries and affect their human rights. 

My failed amendment required a study, completed in 180 days by 

the Comptroller General’s office of the results and consequences, 

the costs and contradictions of privatization in the area of security 

so far. It required an assessment of financial transparency, competitive bidding, discrimination in contracts or hiring, adequate 

training and background checks of employees, and a comparison to 

the recruiting, hiring and training process of those who worked in 

proximity to them. 

It sought to determine if clear lines of authority and command 

under the Department of Defense for all the employees involved 

were set out and whether employees were adequately trained in 

the use of force, lethal weapons and rules of engagement that apply 

to regular forces. It would have explored whether or not these contractors followed the Constitution, the Geneva Accords and human 

rights principles established by the United Nations. 

My changes would also have determined if these contracting entities have been held accountable for any violations, paid any fines 

or if employees have suffered any reduction in pay, reassignment 

or termination of employment or faced legal prosecutions of any 

kind. It would also have examined comparable costs for the same 

functions performed by our own armed forces and police, excessive 

gaps in pay or benefits, the long-term health risks of such work, 

and compare the training, qualification and performance of government and private agencies and employees. 

It would have established a rule that in future contract bidding 

no contractor who is found to have violated the rules of any federal 

contract will be allowed to be granted additional contracts for a period of 5 years. 

This would have gone a long way to making these huge corporations accountable and responsible to the people who pay to hire 

them, set standards and rules for their behavior, set up clear 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
533 

chains of command, and require transparency, reporting and consequences to their violations or actions. 

Nigeria 

This Authorization also failed to address limits on U.S. intervention abroad on behalf of U.S. corporate investments and infrastructure relating to their control of key resources, excessive profits and 

environmental damage. Nigeria has been a prime example of these 

abuses by the oil corporations, and they supported a brutal government repression against local people who organized around those 

issues for change and accountability. 

Armed conflict in the Niger Delta has reportedly stalled plans 

that U.S. military officials have to deploy American Marines to the 

region, and Pentagon sources confirmed that officials are reviewing 

an agreement with Nigeria that would have U.S. Marines protect 

oil facilities in Nigeria because of the growing battle between Nigerian armed forces and insurgents. 

Current deployments abroad, reduced enlistment and retention, 

and depleting equipment and resources reportedly tax U.S. military 

forces already, and the sovereignty of both countries should be respected by opposing the introduction of any U.S. troops or armed 

forces into Nigeria. 

Homeland Security Wire revealed recently that an Israeli firm, 

Aeronautics, is being contracted by the government or the corporations to guard oil company infrastructure. 

This Authorization should have indicated that Congress opposes 

current plans to introduce U.S. Marines or other forces into Nigeria 

to protect oil reserves, or for other purposes. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The United States currently has over 5,500 deployed nuclear 

weapons and 4,200 more in storage, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Each of those weapons is capable 

of killing over a million people. Fifteen years after the end of the 

Cold War, the Bush administration is proposing to build yet another generation of new nuclear weapons, the Reliable Replacement 

Warhead, or RRW. 

The RRW will require the construction of a new nuclear bomb 

plant, called the Consolidated Plutonium Center. That new bomb 

plant would produce 125 to 200 plutonium ‘‘pits’’ a year for new nuclear warheads. One of the sites being considered for this new, 

multi-billion dollar bomb plant is the Savannah River Site on the 

South Carolina-Georgia border, not far from my Congressional district. Instead of building new nuclear weapons, we should be dismantling these Cold War relics. As the chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Rep. David Hobson 

(R–Ohio), recently said in the Washington Post, ‘‘There is not much 

dismantlement going on . . . The Defense Department never wants 

to get rid of anything.’’ We are in the ridiculous situation of paying 

to maintain one nuclear weapon system, the W84 warhead that 

was built for the Air Force ground-based cruise missile, even 

though there is no longer a missile on which it can be delivered. 

The Energy Department authorization for nuclear weapons work 

is over $6.4 billion for FY 2007. That spending level is 1.5 times 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
534 

that spent on nuclear weapons during the Cold War, even adjusted 

for inflation. At that time, the U.S. was building thousands of nuclear weapons a year. 

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Instead of spending billions of dollars on Cold War nuclear systems, we should be addressing current, real world threats. During 

the first presidential debate in 2004, President Bush stated: ‘‘. . . 

the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network.’’ Yet we are seriously 

under-funding our nuclear nonproliferation programs. Hundreds of 

tons on nuclear weapons materials are stored at inadequately security facilities in Russia and perhaps 20 other countries. A small 

amount of nuclear weapons material could be fashioned into crude 

nuclear weapons that would destroy downtown New York or Atlanta, killing hundreds of thousands of people and costing billions 

of dollars. A nuclear detonation in any U.S. city would cause devastation that would make the 9/11 attack and the Katrina hurricane 

pale in comparison. 

We should be aggressively funding those nonproliferation programs that secure and destroy nuclear weapons and materials. One 

such program is the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The Bush 

administration requested $107 million and the House Armed Services Committee did increase that amount by another $50 million. 

However, we should be funding that program at least at $500 million a year. That would improve our real security. 

Closing 

Congressman John Murtha said that before we go to war, ‘‘there 

should be a threat to national security, we should use overwhelming force, and we should have an exit strategy. All three of 

these principles were violated in the case of Iraq. I was unable to 

support our committee’s report back to the Floor of the House, for 

many of the reasons listed above, and expect to oppose this bill on 

the Floor as well. The reasons for my opposition to this bill are too 

numerous to list here in the short time allowed for the filing of the 

dissent. They would include the massive social program cuts in 

areas such as health and education to pay for an unnecessary war 

and to pad some of this administration’s top officials and friends. 

It also would include environmental clean-up at the nuclear weapons complex, the unattended toxic dumps scattered on bases across 

the nation, the military stance on abortion, gay and lesbian rights 

and discrimination, war powers, using bases to house Katrina survivors, no more permanent bases in Iraq, alternate fuel and on and 

on. 

And until this Congress has demonstrated that we are ready to 

exhibit leadership for global peace, I will continue to vote against 

the so-called National Defense Authorization Act and encourage my 

colleagues to do the same. 

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTS
535 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 540 HR452.212
536 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 541 HR452.213
537 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 542 HR452.214
538 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 543 HR452.215
539 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 544 HR452.216
540 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 545 HR452.217
541 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 546 HR452.218
542 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 547 HR452.219
543 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 548 HR452.220
544 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 549 HR452.221
545 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 550 HR452.222
546 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 551 HR452.223
547 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 552 HR452.224
548 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 553 HR452.225
549 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 554 HR452.226
550 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 555 HR452.227
551 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 556 HR452.228
552 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 557 HR452.229
553 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 558 HR452.230
554 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 559 HR452.231
555 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 560 HR452.232
556 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 561 HR452.233
557 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 562 HR452.234
558 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 563 HR452.235
559 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 564 HR452.236
560 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 565 HR452.237
561 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 566 HR452.238
562 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 567 HR452.239
563 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 568 HR452.240
564 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 569 HR452.241
565 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 570 HR452.242
566 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 571 HR452.243
567 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 572 HR452.244
568 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 573 HR452.245
569 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 574 HR452.246
570 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 575 HR452.247
571 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 576 HR452.248
572 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 577 HR452.249
573 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 578 HR452.250
574 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 579 HR452.251
575 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 580 HR452.252
576 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 581 HR452.253
577 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 582 HR452.254
578 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 583 HR452.255
579 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 584 HR452.256
580 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 585 HR452.257
581 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 586 HR452.258
582 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 587 HR452.259
583 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 588 HR452.260
584 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 589 HR452.261
585 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 590 HR452.262
586 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 591 HR452.263
587 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 592 HR452.264
588 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 593 HR452.265
589 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 594 HR452.266
590 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 595 HR452.267
591 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 596 HR452.268
592 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 597 HR452.269
593 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 598 HR452.270
594 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 599 HR452.271
595 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 600 HR452.272
596 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 601 HR452.273
597 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 602 HR452.274
598 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 603 HR452.275
599 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 604 HR452.276
600 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 605 HR452.277
601 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 606 HR452.278
602 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 607 HR452.279
603 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 608 HR452.280
604 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 609 HR452.281
605 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 610 HR452.282
606 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 611 HR452.283
607 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 612 HR452.284
608 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 613 HR452.285
609 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 614 HR452.286
610 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 615 HR452.287
611 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 616 HR452.288
612 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 617 HR452.289
613 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 618 HR452.290
614 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 619 HR452.291
615 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 620 HR452.292
616 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 621 HR452.293
617 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 622 HR452.294
618 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 623 HR452.295
619 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 624 HR452.296
620 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 625 HR452.297
621 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 626 HR452.298
622 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 627 HR452.299
623 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 628 HR452.300
624 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 629 HR452.301
625 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 630 HR452.302
626 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 631 HR452.303
627 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 632 HR452.304
628 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 633 HR452.305
629 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 634 HR452.306
630 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 635 HR452.307
631 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 636 HR452.308
632 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 637 HR452.309
633 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 638 HR452.310
634 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 639 HR452.311
635 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 640 HR452.312
636 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 641 HR452.313
637 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 642 HR452.314
638 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 643 HR452.315
639 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 644 HR452.316
640 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 645 HR452.317
641 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 646 HR452.318
642 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 647 HR452.319
643 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 648 HR452.320
644 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 649 HR452.321
645 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 650 HR452.322
646 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 651 HR452.323
647 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 652 HR452.324
648 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 653 HR452.325
649 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 654 HR452.326
650 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 655 HR452.327
651 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 656 HR452.328
652 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 657 HR452.329
653 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 658 HR452.330
654 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 659 HR452.331
655 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 660 HR452.332
656 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 661 HR452.333
657 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 662 HR452.334
658 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 663 HR452.335
659 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 664 HR452.336
660 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 665 HR452.337
661 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 666 HR452.338
662 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 667 HR452.339
663 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 668 HR452.340
664 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 669 HR452.341
665 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 670 HR452.342
666 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 671 HR452.343
667 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 672 HR452.344
668 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 673 HR452.345
669 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 674 HR452.346
670 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 675 HR452.347
671 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 676 HR452.348
672 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 677 HR452.349
673 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 678 HR452.350
674 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 679 HR452.351
675 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 680 HR452.352
676 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 681 HR452.353
677 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 682 HR452.354
678 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 683 HR452.355
679 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 684 HR452.356
680 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 685 HR452.357
681 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 686 HR452.358
682 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 687 HR452.359
683 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 688 HR452.360
684 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 689 HR452.361
685 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 690 HR452.362
686 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 691 HR452.363
687 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 692 HR452.364
688 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 693 HR452.365