" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

110–335 

Calendar No. 732 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 3001]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

MAY 12, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGcongress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1 

42–224 

" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2008

110–335 

Calendar No. 732 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 3001]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

MAY 12, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGcongress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

(110th Congress, 2d Session) 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

MICHAEL V. KOSTIW, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Committee overview ......................................................................................... 2 

Explanation of funding summary .................................................................... 3 

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 15 

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 15 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 15 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 15 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 17 

Stryker Mobile Gun System (sec. 111) .................................................... 42 

Procurement of small arms (sec. 112) ...................................................... 42 

Budget Items—Army ........................................................................................ 43 

Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list .............................. 43 

Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter ........................................................... 44 

Forward-looking infrared radar systems ................................................. 44 

Grenades Army .......................................................................................... 44 

Radford Ammunition Plant upgrades ...................................................... 45 

Bomb line modernization .......................................................................... 45 

Area Common User System Modernization ............................................ 45 

Army Global Command and Control System .......................................... 45 

Information Technology Upgrades ........................................................... 46 

Fido explosives detector ............................................................................ 46 

Land Warrior ............................................................................................. 46 

Combat Arms Training System ................................................................ 46 

Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System ......................... 47 

Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System .................................................. 47 

Laser collective combat advanced training system ................................. 47 

Urban training center instrumentation ................................................... 47 

Operator driving simulators ..................................................................... 47 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 48 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 48 

Authority for advanced procurement and construction of components 

for the Virginia-class submarine program (sec. 131) .......................... 74 

Refueling and complex overhaul of the USS Theodore Roosevelt (sec. 

132) ......................................................................................................... 74 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 74 

E–2D Advanced Hawkeye ......................................................................... 74 

H–53 modifications .................................................................................... 75 

P–3 modifications ...................................................................................... 75 

Common ECM equipment ......................................................................... 75 

Weapons industrial facilities .................................................................... 76 

Grenades Marine Corps ............................................................................ 76 

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement ..................................... 76 

Littoral combat ship .................................................................................. 76 

LPD–17 amphibious transport dock ........................................................ 78 

LHA(R) advance procurement .................................................................. 79 

DDG–51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer modernization program .......... 79 

Submarine training device modifications ................................................ 80 

Man overboard indicators ......................................................................... 81 

Logistics vehicle system replacement ...................................................... 81 

Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program ............................... 81 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 82 

F–22A fighter aircraft (Sec. 151) .............................................................. 99 

Budget Items—Air Force ................................................................................. 99 

Advanced procurement for the F136 engine ........................................... 99 

C–17A engine spares ................................................................................. 100 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

IV 

Title I—Procurement—Continued 

Budget Items—Air Force—Continued 

Tactical intelligence support .................................................................... 100 

Airborne Imaging ...................................................................................... 101 

Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance ............................................................. 102 

National-Tactical SIGINT Initiatives ...................................................... 103 

B–52 bomber .............................................................................................. 104 

Large aircraft infrared countermeasures system ................................... 104 

C–130 Avionics Modernization Program ................................................. 104 

Advanced targeting pod ............................................................................ 105 

Budget request realignments ................................................................... 105 

Improved stores ejection cartridge ........................................................... 106 

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile ...................................................... 106 

Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite ....................................... 106 

Intelligence communication equipment ................................................... 107 

Combat training ranges ............................................................................ 107 

Air Operations Centers ............................................................................. 108 

Subtitle E—Joint and Multiservice Matters .................................................. 108 

Annual long-term plan for the procurement of aircraft for the Navy 

and the Air Force (sec. 171) .................................................................. 108 

Budget Items—Defense-wide ........................................................................... 109 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ..................................................... 118 

Standard Missile–3 interceptors .............................................................. 119 

Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance mission equipment package ........................................................................................................... 120 

Special operations forces combat assault rifle ........................................ 120 

Special operations visual augmentation systems hand-held imager/ 

long-range ............................................................................................... 120 

M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask .................................... 121 

Joint Chemical Agent Detector ................................................................ 121 

Joint Biological Standoff Detection System ............................................ 121 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 121 

Aegis modernization open architecture ................................................... 121 

F/A–18 Hornet and Navy tactical aviation inventory shortfall ............. 123 

Light utility helicopter .............................................................................. 124 

Material handling equipment study ........................................................ 125 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles ........................................... 125 

Mission packages ....................................................................................... 126 

Operational support aircraft for U.S. Africa Command ......................... 126 

Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle ............................................................ 127 

Ship maintenance and material condition .............................................. 127 

Warfighter Information Network–Tactical .............................................. 128 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 129 

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 129 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 131 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 131 

Requirement for plan on overhead nonimaging infrared systems (sec. 

211) ......................................................................................................... 131 

Advanced battery manufacturing and technology roadmap (sec. 212) . 131 

Availability of funds for defense laboratories for research and development of technologies for military missions (sec. 213) ..................... 132 

Assured funding for certain information security and information 

assurance programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 214) ........... 132 

Requirements for certain airborne intelligence collection systems (sec. 

215) ......................................................................................................... 133 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 133 

Review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the 

United States (sec. 231) ........................................................................ 133 

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, construction, 

and deployment of missile defenses in Europe (sec. 232) ................... 134 

Airborne Laser system (sec. 233) ............................................................. 136 

Annual Director of Operational Test and Evaluation characterization 

of operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the 

Ballistic Missile Defense System (sec. 234) ......................................... 136 

Independent assessment of boost-phase missile defense programs 

(sec. 235) ................................................................................................. 137 

Study on space-based interceptor element of ballistic missile defense 

system (sec. 236) .................................................................................... 138 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

V 

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

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 139 

Modification of systems subject to survivability testing by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (sec. 251) .............................. 139 

Biennial reports on joint and service concept development and experimentation (sec. 252) ............................................................................... 139 

Repeal of annual reporting requirement relating to the Technology 

Transition Initiative (sec. 253) ............................................................. 140 

Executive agent for printed circuit board technology (sec. 254) ............ 141 

Report on Department of Defense response to findings and recommendations of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons (sec. 255) ........................................................ 142 

Assessment of standards for mission critical semiconductors procured 

by the Department of Defense (sec. 256) ............................................. 142 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 143 

Army ........................................................................................................... 143 

Army basic research programs .......................................................... 159 

Network science and technology research center ............................ 159 

Army materials research ................................................................... 160 

Advanced Army energy and power technologies ............................. 161 

Army aviation technologies ............................................................... 162 

Sniper detection systems ................................................................... 162 

Army vehicle reliability technologies ................................................ 162 

Unmanned ground vehicle weaponization ....................................... 163 

Standoff explosives detection technologies ....................................... 163 

Soldier positioning technologies ........................................................ 163 

Military engineering technologies ..................................................... 163 

Combat feeding technologies ............................................................. 164 

Army medical research ...................................................................... 164 

Biosensor controller systems ............................................................. 165 

Army medical advanced technology development ........................... 165 

Army aviation advanced technology development ........................... 166 

Army combat vehicle technologies .................................................... 167 

Diverse threat sensor development .................................................. 168 

Army training technologies ............................................................... 168 

Deactivation of military explosives ................................................... 168 

Army missile and rocket technologies .............................................. 168 

Situational awareness technologies .................................................. 168 

Unique item ID data management research .................................... 169 

Advanced electronics integration ...................................................... 169 

Advanced environmental controls ..................................................... 169 

Advanced fuel cell research ............................................................... 169 

Radiation hardening initiative .......................................................... 169 

High-altitude integration testbed ..................................................... 170 

Air and missile defense architecture analysis ................................. 170 

Stryker active protection system ...................................................... 170 

Vibration management enhancement research ............................... 170 

Next-generation combat helmet development .................................. 170 

High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle modernization research .............................................................................................. 171 

Non-Line of Sight-Launch System anti-tamper research ............... 171 

Future Combat System ...................................................................... 171 

Urban training development ............................................................. 172 

Extended range sniper rifle research ............................................... 172 

Army test and target development ................................................... 172 

Javelin modernization ....................................................................... 173 

Global Combat Support System, the Logistics Modernization Program and Product Lifecycle Management Plus ........................... 173 

Army manufacturing technologies .................................................... 174 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 174 

Navy basic research ........................................................................... 188 

Manufacturing engineering training ................................................ 188 

Navy power projection research ........................................................ 189 

Navy force protection research .......................................................... 189 

Situational awareness processing technologies ............................... 190 

Acoustic research and test capabilities ............................................ 190 

Navy electronics research .................................................................. 190 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

VI 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Navy—Continued 

Advanced technologies for power projection .................................... 190 

Force protection advanced technology .............................................. 191 

High-integrity Global Positioning System ....................................... 192 

Ground sensor networks .................................................................... 192 

Shipboard system component development ..................................... 192 

Advanced submarine system development ...................................... 193 

Facilities improvements ..................................................................... 193 

Optical interconnect ........................................................................... 194 

Land attack technology ...................................................................... 194 

Directed energy .................................................................................. 194 

Next-generation cruiser ..................................................................... 195 

Improved towed array handler ......................................................... 196 

Submarine electronic chart updates ................................................. 196 

Next-generation Phalanx ................................................................... 196 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 197 

Combat wound tissue transplantation technologies ........................ 197 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter competitive propulsion system .............. 197 

Navy test and evaluation support .................................................... 197 

Advanced LINAC facility ................................................................... 198 

Navy support of the reliable replacement warhead ........................ 198 

Warfighter enhanced decision making ............................................. 198 

Aviation improvements ...................................................................... 199 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System ... 199 

Digital manufacturing technologies .................................................. 199 

National Shipbuilding Research Program—Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise ......................................................................... 200 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 200 

Air Force basic research programs ................................................... 215 

Air Force materials research ............................................................. 215 

Optical components for air vehicles .................................................. 216 

Air Force training technology ........................................................... 216 

Air Force aerospace propulsion technology ...................................... 216 

Aerospace sensor technologies .......................................................... 216 

Air Force seismic research ................................................................ 217 

Cyber attack mitigation technologies ............................................... 217 

Reconfigurable securing computing .................................................. 217 

Propulsion technologies ..................................................................... 217 

Thin film amorphous solar arrays .................................................... 218 

Integrated targeting devices .............................................................. 218 

Optical interconnect for battlefield communications ....................... 218 

High energy laser weapon systems ................................................... 218 

Global Positioning System III operational control segment ........... 219 

Space situational awareness ............................................................. 219 

Transformational Communications satellite .................................... 219 

Operationally Responsive Space ....................................................... 220 

B–2 radar modernization program ................................................... 221 

Space-based space surveillance block 10 .......................................... 221 

Space-based Infrared Satellite system ............................................. 221 

Third Generation Infrared Surveillance satellite system ............... 222 

F135 engine ........................................................................................ 222 

Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft .......................... 223 

High speed test track ......................................................................... 223 

B–52 bomber ....................................................................................... 223 

Air Operations Centers ...................................................................... 223 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system research and development ............................................................................................. 224 

Weather service research and development ..................................... 224 

C–17 research, development, test, and evaluation .......................... 225 

Expeditionary Combat Support System ........................................... 225 

Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System ............. 225 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 226 

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research .............................................................................................. 244 

In-vitro models for biodefense vaccines ............................................ 244 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

VII 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Defense-wide—Continued 

Superstructural particle evaluation .................................................. 244 

Next-generation over-the-horizon radar ........................................... 244 

Chemical agent fate response planning tool .................................... 245 

Chemical and biological applied research ........................................ 245 

Chemical and biological infrared detector ........................................ 245 

Multivalent Marburg and Ebola vaccine .......................................... 246 

DARPA technology transition ........................................................... 246 

Three-dimensional integrated circuit technologies .......................... 246 

Blast mitigation and protection ........................................................ 246 

Comprehensive National Incident Management System ................ 247 

Special operations technologies ......................................................... 247 

Blast trauma research ....................................................................... 247 

Blackswift ........................................................................................... 247 

Engineered biological detectors ......................................................... 249 

Improved chemical, biological, and radiological filters ................... 249 

Raman chemical identification system ............................................. 249 

Command and control gap filler joint capabilities technology 

demonstration ................................................................................. 249 

High performance manufacturing technologies ............................... 250 

Defense Logistics Agency technology programs ............................... 250 

Superlattice nanotechnology ............................................................. 251 

Special warfare domain awareness technologies ............................. 251 

Weapon of mass destruction exercises ............................................. 251 

Arrow missile defense program ......................................................... 251 

Short-range ballistic missile defense ................................................ 252 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense .............................................. 252 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense ..................................................... 254 

Airborne Laser .................................................................................... 256 

Real-time non-specific viral agent detector ...................................... 257 

Ballistic missile defense sensors ....................................................... 257 

Kinetic Energy Interceptor ................................................................ 258 

Ballistic missile defense reductions .................................................. 259 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ............................................. 259 

Space Tracking and Surveillance System ........................................ 260 

Multiple Kill Vehicles ........................................................................ 261 

Space test-bed ..................................................................................... 262 

Missile Defense Agency funding reduction ...................................... 263 

Corrosion control technologies .......................................................... 263 

Conflict modeling technologies .......................................................... 263 

Prompt global strike .......................................................................... 263 

Net-enabled command and control ................................................... 264 

Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program ......................... 264 

Anti-tamper technologies ................................................................... 265 

Force transformation directorate ...................................................... 265 

Software assurance education and research .................................... 266 

Status of Operational Readiness and Training Systems ................ 266 

Industrial Base Innovation Fund ..................................................... 266 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 267 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense funding .................................................. 267 

Agency relocation ...................................................................................... 267 

Executive helicopter program (VH–71A) ................................................. 268 

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle ................................................................ 270 

Global Positioning System ........................................................................ 271 

Improved commercial imagery integration ............................................. 271 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 273 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 273 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 273 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 305 

Expansion of cooperative agreement authority for management of 

natural resources to include off-installation mitigation (sec. 311) .... 305 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 

in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses 

Lake, Washington (sec. 312) ................................................................. 305 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

VIII 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions—Continued 

Comprehensive program for the eradication of the brown tree snake 

population from military facilities in Guam (sec. 313) ....................... 305 

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

Authority to consider depot-level maintenance and repair using contractor furnished equipment or leased facilities as core logistics 

(sec. 321) ................................................................................................. 305 

Minimum capital investment for certain depots (sec. 322) .................... 306 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 306 

Additional information under annual submissions of information regarding information technology capital assets (sec. 331) ................... 306 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 306 

Mitigation of power outage risks for Department of Defense facilities 

and activities (sec. 341) ......................................................................... 306 

Increased authority to accept financial and other incentives related 

to energy savings and new authority related to energy systems 

(sec. 342) ................................................................................................. 307 

Recovery of improperly disposed of Department of Defense property 

(sec. 343) ................................................................................................. 307 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 308 

Army ........................................................................................................... 308 

Computing services ............................................................................ 308 

Unmanned aircraft systems concept development .......................... 308 

Shipping containers ........................................................................... 309 

Life cycle logistics contracting .......................................................... 309 

Facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization ................. 309 

Second destination transportation .................................................... 309 

Ammunition inspections and warehousing ...................................... 309 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 309 

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances ......................... 309 

Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements ................ 310 

Naval aircraft depot maintenance .................................................... 310 

Damage control management ............................................................ 310 

MK 45 gun depot overhaul ................................................................ 310 

Marine Corps ............................................................................................. 311 

Marine Corps shelters ....................................................................... 311 

Mobile corrosion protection Marine Corps ....................................... 311 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 311 

B–52 flying hours ............................................................................... 311 

F–15 depot maintenance .................................................................... 311 

B–52 depot maintenance ................................................................... 311 

B–2 depot maintenance ..................................................................... 312 

Engine trailer life extension program .............................................. 312 

Land mobile radios ............................................................................. 312 

National Security Space Institute .................................................... 312 

Advanced ultrasonic inspection of aging aircraft structures .......... 312 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 312 

Expanded prisoner of war/missing in action research in North 

Korea ............................................................................................... 312 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency .............................................. 313 

Status of Operational Readiness and Training System .................. 313 

Defense Readiness Reporting System .............................................. 313 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative ....................... 314 

STARBASE Academies ...................................................................... 314 

Army Reserve ............................................................................................ 315 

Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve ...................................... 315 

Army Reserve military technician cost avoidance ........................... 315 

Army National Guard ............................................................................... 315 

Aircraft humidity protection ............................................................. 315 

Expandable Light Air Mobility Shelters .......................................... 315 

Extended Cold Weather Clothing System ........................................ 315 

Rapid Data Management System ..................................................... 315 

Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard ......................... 316 

Weapons Skills Trainer ..................................................................... 316 

Emergency satellite communications ............................................... 316 

Air National Guard ................................................................................... 316 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

IX 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Air National Guard —Continued 

Controlled humidity protection ......................................................... 316 

Crypto-linguist and intelligence officer initiative ............................ 316 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 316 

Assessment of plans for contracting support in combatant command 

operational plans ................................................................................... 316 

Combatant Commander Initiative Fund ................................................. 317 

Commercial satellite communications ..................................................... 318 

Defense Information Systems Agency working capital fund management ........................................................................................................ 318 

Funding for military morale, welfare, and recreation programs ........... 319 

Long-range facilities and construction planning at Army ammunition 

plants and arsenals ............................................................................... 320 

Standards for deployable shelters ............................................................ 320 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 323 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 323 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 323 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 323 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 323 

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

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 324 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 324 

Fiscal year 2009 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 325 

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 325 

Increased end strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of 

the Army National Guard and Army Reserve and military technicians (dual status) of the Army National Guard (sec. 416) ................ 325 

Modification of authorized strengths for Marine Corps Reserve officers on active duty in the grades of major and lieutenant colonel 

to meet new force structure requirements (sec. 417) .......................... 326 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations ............................................... 326 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 326 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 326 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 326 

Military personnel unobligated balances ................................................. 327 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 329 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 329 

Modification of distribution requirements for commissioned officers 

on active duty in general and flag officer grades (sec. 501) ............... 329 

Modification of limitations on authorized strengths of general and 

flag officers on active duty (sec. 502) ................................................... 329 

Clarification of joint duty requirements for promotion to general or 

flag grades (sec. 503) ............................................................................. 330 

Modification of authorities on length of joint duty assignments (sec. 

504) ......................................................................................................... 330 

Technical and conforming amendments relating to modification of 

joint specialty requirements (sec. 505) ................................................. 330 

Eligibility of reserve officers to serve on boards of inquiry for separation of regular officers for substandard performance and other reasons (sec. 506) ........................................................................................ 330 

Modification of authority on Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (sec. 507) .............................................. 331 

Increase in number of permanent professors at the United States 

Air Force Academy (sec. 508) ................................................................ 331 

Service creditable toward retirement for thirty years or more of service of regular warrant officers other than regular Army warrant 

officers (sec. 509) .................................................................................... 331 

Modification of requirements for qualification for issuance of posthumous commissions and warrants (sec. 510) .................................... 331 

Subtitle B—Enlisted Personnel Policy ............................................................ 331 

Increase in maximum period of reenlistment of regular members 

of the armed forces (sec. 521) ............................................................... 331 

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 332 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

X 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued 

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Management—Continued 

Modification of limitations on authorized strengths of reserve general 

and flag officers in active status (sec. 531) .......................................... 332 

Extension to other reserve components of Army authority for deferral 

of mandatory separation of military technicians (dual status) until 

age 60 (sec. 532) ..................................................................................... 332 

Increase in mandatory retirement age for certain Reserve officers 

to age 62 (sec. 533) ................................................................................ 332 

Authority for vacancy promotion of National Guard and Reserve officers ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation 

(sec. 534) ................................................................................................. 332 

Authority for retention of reserve component chaplains and medical 

officers until age 68 (sec. 535) .............................................................. 332 

Modification of authorities on dual duty status of National Guard 

officers (sec. 536) .................................................................................... 333 

Modification of matching fund requirements under National Guard 

Youth Challenge Program (sec. 537) .................................................... 333 

Report on collection of information on civilian skills of members 

of the reserve components of the armed forces (sec. 538) .................. 333 

Subtitle D—Education and Training .............................................................. 333 

Authority to prescribe the authorized strength of the United States 

Naval Academy (sec. 551) ..................................................................... 333 

Tuition for attendance of certain individuals at the United States 

Air Force Institute of Technology (sec. 552) ........................................ 333 

Increase in stipend for baccalaureate students in nursing or other 

health professions under Health Professions Stipend Program (sec. 

553) ......................................................................................................... 334 

Clarification of discharge or release triggering delimiting period for 

use of educational assistance benefit for reserve component members supporting contingency operations and other operations (sec. 

554) ......................................................................................................... 334 

Payment by the service academies of certain expenses associated 

with participation in activities fostering international cooperation 

(sec. 555) ................................................................................................. 334 

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters ................................... 335 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 561) ..................................... 335 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562) ..................... 335 

Transition of military dependent students among local educational 

agencies (sec. 563) .................................................................................. 335 

Subtitle F—Military Family Readiness .......................................................... 335 

Authority for education and training for military spouses pursuing 

portable careers (sec. 571) ..................................................................... 335 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 336 

Department of Defense policy on the prevention of suicides by members of the armed forces (sec. 581) ....................................................... 336 

Relief for losses incurred as a result of certain injustices or errors 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 582) .............................................. 336 

Paternity leave for members of the armed forces (sec. 583) .................. 337 

Enhancement of authorities on participation of members of the 

armed forces in international sports competitions (sec. 584) ............. 337 

Pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance retention of members 

of the armed forces (sec. 585) ............................................................... 337 

Prohibition on interference in independent legal advice by the Legal 

Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (sec. 586) ........ 338 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 338 

Enhancing family support for the National Guard and reserve ............ 338 

Financial literacy ....................................................................................... 339 

Legislative fellows from the Department of Defense ............................. 339 

Premium conversion and flexible spending account options for service 

members ................................................................................................. 340 

Report on implementation of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program ... 340 

Secretary of Defense review of deferment from deployment policy 

following birth of a child ....................................................................... 341 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 343 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XI 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits—Continued 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 343 

Fiscal year 2009 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 343 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 343 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for Reserve 

forces (sec. 611) ...................................................................................... 343 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health 

care professionals (sec. 612) .................................................................. 343 

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers 

(sec. 613) ................................................................................................. 343 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and 

special pays (sec. 614) ........................................................................... 344 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral bonuses (sec. 

615) ......................................................................................................... 344 

Permanent extension of prohibition on charges for meals received 

at military treatment facilities by members receiving continuous 

care (sec. 616) ......................................................................................... 344 

Accession and retention bonuses for the recruitment and retention 

of psychologists for the armed forces (sec. 617) .................................. 344 

Authority for extension of maximum length of service agreements 

for special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of 

active service (sec. 618) ......................................................................... 344 

Incentive pay for members of precommissioning programs pursuing 

foreign language proficiency (sec. 619) ................................................ 345 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 345 

Shipment of family pets during evacuation of personnel (sec. 631) ...... 345 

Special weight allowance for transportation of professional books and 

equipment for spouses (sec. 632) .......................................................... 345 

Travel and transportation allowances for members of the reserve 

components of the armed forces on leave for suspension of training 

(sec. 633) ................................................................................................. 345 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits ............................................ 346 

Presentation of burial flag to the surviving spouse and children of 

members of the armed forces who die in service (sec. 641) ................ 346 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 346 

Separation pay, transitional health care, and transitional commissary 

and exchange benefits for members of the armed forces separated 

under surviving son or daughter policy (sec. 651) .............................. 346 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 346 

Aviation career incentive pay ................................................................... 346 

Travel allowances for family of service members with serious psychiatric conditions .................................................................................. 346 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions ......................................................................... 349 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program ...................................................................... 349 

Calculation of monthly premiums for coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select after 2008 (sec. 701) ......................................................... 349 

Subtitle B—Other Health Care Authorities ................................................... 349 

Enhancement of medical and dental readiness of members of the 

armed forces (sec. 711) .......................................................................... 349 

Additional authority for studies and demonstration projects relating 

to delivery of health and medical care (sec. 712) ................................ 351 

Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for dependents of members assigned to very remote locations outside the continental 

United States (sec. 713) ........................................................................ 351 

Subtitle C—Other Health Care Matters ........................................................ 351 

Repeal of prohibition on conversion of military medical and dental 

positions to civilian medical and dental positions (sec. 721) .............. 351 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 352 

Chiropractic care for members of the armed forces ................................ 352 

Comptroller General study on medical personnel requirements, shortfalls, and actions needed to resolve medical personnel shortages ..... 353 

Mental health and traumatic brain injury .............................................. 354 

Modification of security clearance questionnaire to reduce stigma 

for seeking mental health care ............................................................. 354 

Organ and tissue donor program ............................................................. 355 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 357 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 357 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XII 

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

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs—

Continued 

Inclusion of major subprograms to major defense acquisition programs under acquisition reporting requirements (sec. 801) ............... 357 

Inclusion of certain major information technology investments in acquisition oversight authorities for Major Automated Information 

System programs (sec. 802) .................................................................. 357 

Configuration steering boards for cost control under major defense 

acquisition programs (sec. 803) ............................................................ 357 

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

Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of 

Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 811) ............................ 358 

Contingency contracting corps (sec. 812) ................................................. 359 

Expedited review and validation of urgent requirements documents 

(sec. 813) ................................................................................................. 359 

Incorporation of energy efficiency requirements into key performance 

parameters for fuel consuming systems (sec. 814) .............................. 359 

Subtitle C—Amendments Relating to General Contracting Authorities, 

Procedures, and Limitations ........................................................................ 360 

Multiyear procurement authority for the Department of Defense for 

the purchase of alternative and synthetic fuels (sec. 821) ................. 360 

Modification and extension of pilot program for transition to followon contracts under authority to carry out certain prototype projects 

(sec. 822) ................................................................................................. 361 

Exclusion of certain factors in consideration of cost advantages of 

offers for certain Department of Defense contracts (sec. 823) ........... 361 

Subtitle D—Department of Defense Contractor Matters .............................. 361 

Database for Department of Defense contracting officers and suspension and debarment officials (sec. 831) ................................................ 361 

Ethics safeguards for employees under certain contracts for the performance of acquisition functions closely associated with inherently 

governmental functions (sec. 832) ........................................................ 361 

Information for Department of Defense contractor employees on their 

whistleblower rights (sec. 833) ............................................................. 362 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to Iraq and Afghanistan ................................ 362 

Performance by private security contractors of inherently governmental functions in an area of combat operations (sec. 841) ............. 362 

Additional contractor requirements and responsibilities relating to 

alleged crimes by or against contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 842) ............................................................................... 363 

Clarification and modification of authorities relating to the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 843) ..... 364 

Comprehensive audit of spare parts purchases and depot overhaul 

and maintenance of equipment for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 844) ........................................................................................ 364 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 364 

Expedited hiring authority for the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 

851) ......................................................................................................... 364 

Specification of Secretary of Defense as ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ for 

purposes of licensing of intellectual property for the defense agencies and defense field activities (sec. 852) ........................................... 365 

Repeal of requirements relating to the military system essential item 

breakout list (sec. 853) .......................................................................... 365 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 365 

Contracting officer representatives .......................................................... 365 

Database and after-action reports for multiyear contracts .................... 366 

Past performance information .................................................................. 366 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 369 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 369 

Modification of status of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 

Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs (sec. 901) . 369 

Participation of Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of Defense on Defense Business System Management Committee 

(sec. 902) ................................................................................................. 369 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XIII 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management—Continued 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management—Continued 

Repeal of obsolete limitations on management headquarters personnel (sec. 903) ..................................................................................... 369 

General Counsel to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (sec. 904) ....................................................................................... 369 

Assignment of forces to the United States Northern Command with 

primary mission of management of the consequences of an incident 

in the United States homeland involving a chemical, biological, 

radiological, or nuclear device, or high-yield explosives (sec. 905) .... 370 

Business transformation initiatives for the military departments (sec. 

906) ......................................................................................................... 370 

Subtitle B—Space Matters .............................................................................. 371 

Space posture review (sec. 911) ................................................................ 371 

Subtitle C—Defense Intelligence Matters ...................................................... 371 

Requirement for officers of the armed forces on active duty in certain 

intelligence positions (sec. 921) ............................................................ 371 

Transfer of management of Intelligence Systems Support Office (sec. 

922) ......................................................................................................... 372 

Program on advanced sensor applications (sec. 923) ............................. 372 

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 375 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 375 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 375 

Incorporation into Act of tables in the report of the Committee on 

Armed Services of the Senate (sec. 1002) ............................................ 375 

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal 

year 2009 (sec. 1003) ............................................................................. 376 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 376 

Government rights in designs of Department of Defense vessels, 

boats, craft, and components developed using public funds (sec. 

1011) ....................................................................................................... 376 

Reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy mess operations (sec. 

1012) ....................................................................................................... 376 

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 377 

Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to 

law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities 

(sec. 1021) ............................................................................................... 377 

Two-year extension of authority for use of funds for unified 

counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 

1022) ....................................................................................................... 378 

Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 378 

Procurement by State and local governments of equipment for homeland security and emergency response activities through the Department of Defense (sec. 1031) ........................................................... 378 

Enhancement of the capacity of the United States Government to 

conduct complex operations (sec. 1032) ................................................ 378 

Crediting of admiralty claim receipts for damage to property funded 

from a Department of Defense working capital fund (sec. 1033) ....... 379 

Minimum annual purchase requirements for airlift services from carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1034) ............ 379 

Termination date of base contract for the Navy-Marine Corps 

Intranet (sec. 1035) ................................................................................ 379 

Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel (sec. 

1036) ....................................................................................................... 380 

Notification of Committees on Armed Services with respect to certain 

nonproliferation and proliferation activities (sec. 1037) ..................... 381 

Sense of Congress on nuclear weapons management (sec. 1038) .......... 381 

Sense of Congress on Joint Department of Defense-Federal Aviation 

Administration Executive Committee on Conflict and Dispute Resolution (sec. 1039) .................................................................................... 381 

Sense of Congress on sale of new outsize cargo, strategic lift aircraft 

for civilian use (sec. 1040) ..................................................................... 382 

Subtitle E—Reports .......................................................................................... 383 

Repeal of requirement to submit certain annual reports to Congress 

regarding allied contributions to the common defense (sec. 1051) .... 383 

Report on detention operations in Iraq (sec. 1052) ................................ 383 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XIV 

Title X—General Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle E—Reports—Continued 

Strategic plan to enhance the role of the National Guard and Reserves in the national defense (sec. 1053) ........................................... 383 

Review of nonnuclear prompt global strike concept demonstrations 

(sec. 1054) ............................................................................................... 384 

Review of bandwidth capacity requirements of the Department of 

Defense and the intelligence community (sec. 1055) .......................... 384 

Subtitle F—Wounded Warrior Matters .......................................................... 385 

Modification of utilization of veterans’ presumption of sound condition in establishing eligibility of members of the armed forces 

for retirement for disability (sec. 1061) ............................................... 385 

Inclusion of service members in inpatient status in wounded warrior 

policies and protections (sec. 1062) ...................................................... 385 

Clarification of certain information sharing between the Department 

of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs for wounded warrior purposes (sec. 1063) ........................................................................ 385 

Additional responsibilities for the wounded warrior resource center 

(sec. 1064) ............................................................................................... 385 

Responsibility for the center of excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic brain 

injury to conduct pilot programs on treatment approaches for traumatic brain injury (sec. 1065) ............................................................... 386 

Center of excellence in the mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation 

of traumatic extremity injuries and amputations (sec. 1066) ............ 386 

Three-year extension of Senior Oversight Committee with respect 

to wounded warrior matters (sec. 1067) .............................................. 387 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 387 

Military salute for the flag during the national anthem by members 

of the armed forces not in uniform and by veterans (sec. 1081) ........ 387 

Modification of deadlines for standards required for entry to military 

installations in the United States (sec. 1082) ..................................... 387 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 387 

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate ........ 387 

Fully interoperable electronic health information for the Department 

of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs ................................. 388 

Interagency coordination and participation in post-conflict stability 

and reconstruction operations .............................................................. 388 

National cyber security initiative ............................................................ 389 

Nuclear security ........................................................................................ 391 

Nutrition and dietary care for seriously ill and injured service members ......................................................................................................... 391 

Recovery care coordinators and medical care case managers for seriously wounded and ill service members ............................................... 392 

Refugee crisis in Iraq ................................................................................ 392 

United States Africa Command ............................................................... 393 

Title XI—Civilian Personnel Matters .................................................................... 395 

Department of Defense strategic human capital plans (sec. 1101) ....... 395 

Conditional increase in authorized number of Defense Intelligence 

Senior Executive Service personnel (sec. 1102) ................................... 395 

Enhancement of authorities relating to additional positions under 

the National Security Personnel System (sec. 1103) .......................... 396 

Expedited hiring authority for health care professionals of the Department of Defense (sec. 1104) ........................................................... 396 

Election of insurance coverage by federal civilian employees deployed 

in support of a contingency operation (sec. 1105) ............................... 396 

Permanent extension of Department of Defense voluntary reduction 

in force authority (sec. 1106) ................................................................ 397 

Four-year extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments with respect to Department of Defense employees (sec. 

1107) ....................................................................................................... 397 

Authority to waive limitations on pay for federal civilian employees 

working overseas under areas of United States Central Command 

(sec. 1108) ............................................................................................... 397 

Technical amendment relating to definition of professional accounting 

position for purposes of certification and credentialing standards 

(sec. 1109) ............................................................................................... 398 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XV 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations ................................................... 399 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 399 

Increase in amount available for costs of education and training 

of foreign military forces under Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (sec. 1201) ................................................ 399 

Authority for distribution to certain foreign personnel of education 

and training materials and information technology to enhance military interoperability with the armed forces (sec. 1202) ..................... 399 

Extension and expansion of authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1203) ................................................. 399 

Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build 

the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1204) ............................... 400 

Extension of authority and increased funding for security and stabilization assistance (sec. 1205) ............................................................ 401 

Four-year extension of temporary authority to use acquisition and 

cross-servicing agreements to lend military equipment for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1206) ................................... 401 

Authority for use of funds for non-conventional assisted recovery 

capabilities (sec. 1207) ........................................................................... 402 

Subtitle B—Department of Defense Participation in Bilateral, Multilateral, and Regional Cooperation Programs .................................................. 403 

Availability across fiscal years of funds for military-to-military contacts and comparable activities (sec. 1211) ......................................... 403 

Enhancement of authorities relating to Department of Defense regional centers for security studies (sec. 1212) ..................................... 403 

Payment of personnel expenses for multilateral cooperation programs 

(sec. 1213) ............................................................................................... 403 

Participation of the Department of Defense in multinational military 

centers of excellence (sec. 1214) ........................................................... 403 

Subtitle C—Other Authorities and Limitations ............................................. 404 

Waiver of certain sanctions against North Korea (sec. 1221) ................ 404 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 404 

Extension and modification of updates on report on claims relating 

to the bombing of the Labelle Discotheque (sec. 1231) ....................... 404 

Report on utilization of certain global partnership authorities (sec. 

1232) ....................................................................................................... 405 

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

Union ..................................................................................................................... 407 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds 

(sec. 1301) ............................................................................................... 407 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 407 

Title XIV—Other Authorizations ........................................................................... 409 

Summary and explanation of tables ............................................................... 409 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ..................................................................... 412 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) ............................................................ 412 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) .............................................. 412 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1403) ........................................................ 412 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense (sec. 1404) ......... 412 

Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide (sec. 

1405) ....................................................................................................... 412 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406) ..................................................... 412 

Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings from lower inflation (sec. 1407) ....................................................................................... 412 

Subtitle B—Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................ 413 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1421) ............................................................................................... 413 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 413 

Responsibilities for chemical demilitarization Citizens’ Advisory Commissions in Colorado and Kentucky (sec. 1431) .................................. 413 

Modification of definition of ‘‘Department of Defense Sealift Vessel’’

for purposes of the National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1432) .......... 413 

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

LHA(R) advance procurement and research and development ............. 414 

Traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder initiative .. 414 

Department of Defense Inspector General .............................................. 414 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 415 

Completion of destruction of chemical weapons stockpile ..................... 415 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XVI 

Title XV—Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Operations in Afghanistan .............................................................................................................. 417 

Overview ............................................................................................................ 417 

Explanation of Tables ...................................................................................... 417 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 420 

Army procurement (sec. 1502) .................................................................. 420 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503) .................................. 420 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1504) ........................................................... 420 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1505) ................. 420 

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1506) .................................... 420 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1507) ....................... 420 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1508) .................................................. 420 

Military personnel (sec. 1509) .................................................................. 421 

Working capital funds (sec. 1510) ............................................................ 421 

Other Department of Defense programs (sec. 1511) .............................. 421 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1512) ........................................ 421 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513) ............................... 421 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1514) ...................................................... 421 

Limitation on use of funds (sec. 1515) ..................................................... 421 

Requirement for separate display of budget for Afghanistan (sec. 

1516) ....................................................................................................... 422 

Title XVI—Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Operations in Iraq . 423 

Overview ............................................................................................................ 423 

Explanation of Tables ...................................................................................... 423 

Purpose (sec. 1601) .................................................................................... 426 

Army procurement (sec. 1602) .................................................................. 426 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1603) .................................. 426 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1604) ........................................................... 426 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1605) ................. 426 

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1606) .................................... 427 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1607) ....................... 427 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1608) .................................................. 427 

Military personnel (sec. 1609) .................................................................. 427 

Working capital funds (sec. 1610) ............................................................ 427 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1611) ........................................................ 427 

Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1612) ................................................................ 427 

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1613) ..................................................... 428 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1614) ............................... 428 

Limitation on use of funds (sec. 1615) ..................................................... 428 

Contributions by the Government of Iraq to large-scale infrastructure 

projects, combined operations, and other activities in Iraq (sec. 

1616) ....................................................................................................... 428 

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 429 

Summary and explanation of funding tables ................................................. 429 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 446 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 446 

Effective date (sec. 2003) .......................................................................... 446 

Title XXI—Army ...................................................................................................... 447 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 447 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 447 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 447 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) .................. 448 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ................................. 448 

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

2105) ....................................................................................................... 448 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2006 project (sec. 

2106) ....................................................................................................... 448 

Title XXII—Navy ..................................................................................................... 449 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 449 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 449 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 449 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 450 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 450 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XVII 

Title XXII—Navy—Continued 

Summary—Continued 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2005 project 

inside the United States (sec. 2205) ..................................................... 450 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2007 projects 

inside the United States (sec. 2206) ..................................................... 450 

Title XXIII—Air Force ............................................................................................. 451 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 451 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 451 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 451 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 451 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 451 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 

2305) ....................................................................................................... 452 

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

2306) ....................................................................................................... 452 

Budget Item ...................................................................................................... 452 

Planning and design, Air Force ................................................................ 452 

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies ................................................................................ 453 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 453 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 453 

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 453 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) ................................................. 453 

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2403) .............. 453 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2007 project 

(sec. 2404) ............................................................................................... 454 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2006 project (sec. 

2405) ....................................................................................................... 454 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 454 

Authorized chemical demilitarization program construction and land 

acquisition projects (sec. 2411) ............................................................. 454 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2412) ............................................................... 454 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1997 project 

(sec. 2413) ............................................................................................... 454 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project 

(sec. 2414) ............................................................................................... 455 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 457 

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

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 457 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 457 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 459 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 459 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 459 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 459 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 459 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 459 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 459 

Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) .......... 460 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 

2607) ....................................................................................................... 460 

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

2608) ....................................................................................................... 460 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2008 project 

(sec. 2609) ............................................................................................... 460 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 460 

Planning and design, Army National Guard .......................................... 460 

Planning and design, Air National Guard .............................................. 461 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Planning and design, Air Force Reserve ................................................. 461 

Title XXVII—Base Closure and Realignment Activities ...................................... 463 

Summary and explanation of tables ............................................................... 463 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701) ........................................................................... 472 

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded through 

Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2702) .......... 472 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2703) ........................................................................... 472 

Modification of annual base closure and realignment reporting requirements (sec. 2704) ........................................................................... 472 

Technical corrections regarding authorized cost and scope of work 

variations for military construction and military family housing 

projects related to base closures and realignments (sec. 2705) ......... 472 

Title XXVIII—Military Construction General Provisions .................................... 473 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 473 

Increase in threshold for unspecified minor military construction 

projects (sec. 2801) ................................................................................. 473 

Authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction 

projects outside the United States (sec. 2802) .................................... 473 

Improved oversight and accountability for military housing privatization initiative projects (sec. 2803) ......................................................... 473 

Leasing of military family housing to Secretary of Defense (sec. 

2804) ....................................................................................................... 474 

Cost-benefit analysis of dissolution of Patrick Family Housing LLC 

(sec. 2805) ............................................................................................... 474 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 475 

Participation in conservation banking programs (sec. 2811) ................. 475 

Clarification of congressional reporting requirements for certain real 

property transactions (sec. 2812) .......................................................... 475 

Modification of land management restrictions applicable to Utah national defense lands (sec. 2813) ............................................................ 475 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 476 

Transfer of proceeds from property conveyance, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia (sec. 2821) ................................................. 476 

Subtitle D—Energy Security ........................................................................... 476 

Expansion of authority of the military departments to develop energy 

on military lands (sec. 2831) ................................................................. 476 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 476 

Report on application of force protection and anti-terrorism standards 

to gates and entry points on military installations (sec. 2841) .......... 476 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 477 

Defense Access Roads criteria .................................................................. 477 

Military construction reprogrammings .................................................... 478 

Title XXIX—War-Related Military Construction Authorizations ........................ 481 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 481 

Subtitle A—Fiscal Year 2008 Projects ............................................................ 484 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2901) ....................................................................................................... 484 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2902) ....................................................................................................... 484 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2903) ....................................................................................................... 484 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2008 Army projects 

(sec. 2904) ............................................................................................... 484 

Subtitle B—Fiscal Year 2009 Projects ............................................................ 485 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2911) ....................................................................................................... 485 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2912) ....................................................................................................... 485 

Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes relating to 

Iraq (sec. 2913) ....................................................................................... 485 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
Page

XIX 

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and 

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 487 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 487 

Overview ............................................................................................................ 487 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 510 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 510 

Weapons activities ............................................................................. 510 

Directed stockpile work ..................................................................... 510 

Campaigns .......................................................................................... 510 

Readiness in the technical base ........................................................ 511 

Secure transportation asset ............................................................... 511 

Nuclear weapons incident response .................................................. 511 

Safeguards and security .................................................................... 512 

Facilities and infrastructure ............................................................. 512 

Environmental projects and operations and transformation disposition ............................................................................................ 512 

Stockpile surveillance testing ............................................................ 512 

Construction projects ......................................................................... 513 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs ................................... 513 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development ........ 514 

Nonproliferation and international security .................................... 514 

International nuclear materials and cooperation ............................ 515 

Fissile materials disposition .............................................................. 515 

Naval reactors .................................................................................... 515 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 515 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 515 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 516 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) ............................................. 516 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 516 

Modifications of functions of Administrator for Nuclear Security to 

include elimination of surplus fissile materials usable for nuclear 

weapons (sec. 3111) ............................................................................... 516 

Report on compliance with Design Basis Threat issued by the Department of Energy in 2005 (sec. 3112) ............................................... 516 

Modification of submittal of reports on inadvertent releases of restricted data (sec. 3113) ........................................................................ 517 

Nonproliferation scholarship and fellowship program (sec. 3114) ........ 517 

Review of and reports on Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program (sec. 3115) ........................................................................ 517 

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 519 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 519 

Legislative Requirements ................................................................................ 561 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 561 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 561 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 561 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 561 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 561 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–335 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 

YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

MAY 12, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3001] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2009 for military 

activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, 

and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 

personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, 

and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2009; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2009; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2009. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
2 

Committee overview 

The United States armed forces have been involved in armed 

conflict for more than 6 years—61⁄2 years in Afghanistan and 5 

years in Iraq. Whether fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, delivering 

humanitarian assistance to the victims of natural disasters in Asia 

or Africa, training foreign national forces to combat terrorism in 

their own countries, or assisting State and federal agencies responding to emergencies here at home, the men and women of our 

armed forces, both active and reserve, are serving honorably and 

courageously to promote and defend our Nation’s interests. They do 

so often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their families. 

After more than 6 years of war, our military, particularly our 

ground forces, are severely stressed. The Vice Chief of Staff of the 

Army, General Richard A. Cody, in testimony before the Readiness 

and Management Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services on April 1, 2008 stated, ‘‘Our readiness, quite frankly, is being 

consumed as fast as we can build it’’ and ‘‘I’ve never seen our lack 

of strategic depth be at where it is today.’’ 

Moreover, the requirement for large numbers of forces in Iraq, 

coupled with an insufficient contribution from North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member nations, has left Afghanistan with 

a shortage of combatants and trainers. As the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen noted on April 15, 

2008, ‘‘So until we come down in numbers of brigades in Iraq, the 

brigade-size requirements in Afghanistan just aren’t going to be 

met. That link is very direct.’’ 

To date in this Second Session of the 110th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services has conducted 30 hearings and numerous briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2009 

and related defense matters. In order to provide a framework for 

the consideration of these matters, the committee identified seven 

priorities to guide its work on the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009. These priorities are: 

1. Provide fair compensation and first rate health care, and improve the quality of life of the men and women in the armed forces 

(active duty, National Guard and reserves) and their families. 

2. Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment (especially force protection) and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

3. Seek to reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action 

aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. 

4. Improve the efficiency of Department of Defense programs and 

activities, and apply the savings toward high-priority programs. 

5. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons 

of mass destruction. 

6. Promote the transformation of the armed forces to deal with 

the threats of the 21st century. 

7. Ensure aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s 

programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer 

dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
3 

Explanation of funding summary 

The administration’s budget request for the national defense 

function of the federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was $542.5 billion for the so-called ‘‘base’’ budget, which excludes the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amount includes 

scorekeeping adjustments by the Congressional Budget Office. The 

President has also requested an additional $70.0 billion in emergency defense funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 

combined total requested by the President for the national defense 

budget function was $612.5 billion. 

The following table summarizes both the direct authorizations 

and the equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2009 defense programs. The columns relating to the authorization request 

do not include funding for items that are not within the jurisdiction 

of this committee or that do not require an annual authorization. 

The table also includes the authorization for spending from the 

trust fund of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is outside 

the national defense budget function. 

Funding for all programs in the national defense function is reflected in the columns related to the budget authority request and 

the total budget authority implication of the authorizations in this 

bill. The committee recommends funding for national defense programs totaling $612.5 billion in budget authority, which is consistent with the President’s budget request and with the funding 

levels for national defense in the Concurrent Resolution on the 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (S. Con. Res. 70) adopted by the Senate on March 13, 2008. 

In order to clearly identify the cost of war, funding for operations 

in Afghanistan is contained in title XV of this Act, and funding for 

operations in Iraq is contained in title XVI of this Act. Titles XV 

and XVI authorize funding for personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, health care, working capital funds, and other 

costs normally funded in division A of this Act. Titles XV and XVI 

authorize $69.5 billion for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Title XXIX of this act authorizes an additional $500.0 million for 

war-related military construction, in particular, for additional warrior transition units to care for injured military personnel, whether 

such illness or injury resulted from operations in Iraq or Afghanistan or from other operations. 

In total, this bill authorizes $70.0 billion in war-related funding, 

the same amount requested by the President and approved by the 

Senate in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 

2009. 

In accordance with views and estimates of this committee to the 

Senate Committee on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, the committee bill does not designate any of the funding authorized by this 

Act as emergency spending. The committee continues to believe 

that the expected costs of longstanding operations such as those in 

Iraq and Afghanistan should be included in the budget request and 

should not be treated as emergencies. 

The committee also continues to believe the financial cost of war 

should be as transparent as possible. In an effort to promote and 

enhance such transparency, the committee bill allocates funding to 

operations in Afghanistan and Iraq separately. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
4 

The committee notes that on February 8, 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that, ‘‘I worry that for many Europeans 

the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are confused . . . I think that 

they combine the two . . . Many of them, I think, have a problem 

with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan, and 

do not understand the very different—for them—the very different 

kind of threat.’’ The committee shares this concern, and has included a provision that would require future budget or supplemental requests to allocate funds separately for operations in Afghanistan. The $70.0 billion requested by the President for these operations 

in the budget contains no supporting detail at the service, account, 

or line-item level, nor does it allocate such funding between operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, this $70.0 billion is 

a ‘‘placeholder’’ that does not purport to represent the full cost of 

these operations during fiscal year 2009. While the committee understands that projecting costs of ongoing operations where force 

levels are changing cannot be an exact science, the committee does 

believe that by omitting any supporting details and by not including a realistic estimate of the full year cost of these operations, the 

budget request failed to fully comply with the requirements of section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). 

The committee anticipates a future supplemental request for additional funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and will consider such a request when it becomes available. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
5 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here SR335.001
6 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here SR335.002
7 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here SR335.003
8 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here SR335.004
9 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here SR335.005
10 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here SR335.006
11 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here SR335.007
12 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 here SR335.008
13 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here SR335.009

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(15) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title I of this Act. The tables also display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 

2009 budget request for procurement programs, and indicate those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. 

These tables are incorporated by reference into this Act as provided in section 1002 of this Act. The Department of Defense may 

not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables or, 

if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 

reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 

Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request 

are made without prejudice. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
16 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 SR335.010
17 

Subtitle B—Army Programs 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
18 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 SR335.011
19 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 SR335.012
20 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 SR335.013
21 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 SR335.014
22 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 SR335.015
23 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 SR335.016
24 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 SR335.017
25 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 SR335.018
26 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 SR335.019
27 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 SR335.020
28 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 SR335.021
29 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 SR335.022
30 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 SR335.023
31 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 SR335.024
32 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 SR335.025
33 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 SR335.026
34 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 SR335.027
35 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 SR335.028
36 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 SR335.029
37 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 SR335.030
38 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 SR335.031
39 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 SR335.032
40 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 SR335.033
41 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 SR335.034
42 

Stryker Mobile Gun System (sec. 111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, through the Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation (DOT&E), to ensure that the Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) is subject to testing to confirm the efficacy of any actions taken to mitigate operational effectiveness, suitability, and 

survivability deficiencies identified in Initial Operational Test and 

Evaluation and Live Fire Test and Evaluation. The provision would 

also require the Secretary of the Army to provide quarterly updates 

to the congressional defense committees on the status of the corrective measures and expand section 117(a) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 181) to future fiscal years. 

In January 2007, the Army decided to deploy the Stryker MGS 

with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) that was deploying 

to Iraq. This was done despite the DOT&E’s concern that planned 

operational and live fire ballistic test and evaluation were not complete and were not yet adequate to support a final assessment of 

MGS crew and system survivability, operational effectiveness, and 

operational suitability. 

In response to the Army’s decision, Public Law 110–181 included 

a provision prohibiting the obligation or expenditure of funds for 

the procurement of the Stryker MGS until 30 days after the Secretary of the Army certifies to Congress that the Stryker MGS is 

operationally effective, suitable, and survivable for its anticipated 

deployment missions or until the Secretary of Defense waives the 

limitation on MGS funding by determining that further procurement of the Stryker MGS is in the national security interest of the 

United States. 

In February 2008, DOT&E provided a report to Congress on the 

results of the operational and live fire ballistic test and evaluation 

events. The report confirmed the January 2007 concerns of 

DOT&E’s early fielding report and concluded that the Stryker MGS 

continues to have problems associated with its survivability, operational effectiveness, and operational suitability. More specifically, 

the February 2008 report cited mission equipment package failures, ‘fightability’ shortfalls, and, even more troubling, unique survivability shortfalls that place MGS crews at greater risk than 

crews in other Stryker variants. 

The committee remains troubled by the Army’s decision to deploy 

low-rate initial production models to Iraq, and believes that no 

more Stryker MGS’s should be deployed until the Army takes the 

actions necessary to make the Stryker MGS operationally effective, 

suitable, and survivable. For this reason, the provision recommended by the committee would extend the limitation in section 

117(a) on the procurement of additional Stryker MGS units until 

appropriate action is taken. 

Procurement of small arms (sec. 112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit, within 90 days of enactment of 

this act, a report on the small arms Capabilities Based Assessment 

conducted by the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command. This assessment is overdue. The Army had indicated to the committee 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
43 

that it would complete the small arms Capabilities Based Assessment by August 2007 and failed to do so. Accordingly, the committee recommends withholding authority to obligate more than 75 

percent of the aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated for 

fiscal year 2009 and available for the Guardrail Common Sensor 

until the report has been delivered. 

In the event that the Capabilities Based Assessment identifies 

gaps in current small arms capability that require a new individual 

weapon, the committee recommends that the acquisition of such 

weapons should result from a full and open competition. The committee further recommends that the Secretary of Defense submit a 

report on the feasibility and advisability of conducting a full and 

open competition for carbine-type rifles. 

Budget Items—Army 

Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list 

The Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list for fiscal 

year 2009 addresses Army National Guard equipment shortfalls required to accomplish its dual responsibilities—to the States for crisis response and homeland security and to the nation for the defense of the United States and its interests. The items requested 

such as communications equipment, vehicles, driver vision enhancement equipment, night vision goggles, and water purification 

equipment will significantly enhance the Guard’s ability to respond 

to contingencies at home. 

The committee welcomes this clear and substantial commitment 

on the part of the Army to restore and improve the homeland defense capabilities and readiness of the National Guard. Accordingly, the committee recommends a total increase in Army procurement of $391.2 million for dual-purpose equipment in support of 

National Guard readiness. 

The specific account increases are as follows—the committee recommends an increase of $369.5 million in Other Procurement, 

Army, which includes: $28.8 million for additional night vision devices; $15.0 million for super high frequency terminals; $4.0 million 

for tactical satellite equipment upgrades; $5.9 million for life cycle 

software support; $5.9 million for additional automatic identification systems; $5.9 million for additional transportation coordinator’s automated information for movement system equipment; $5.9 

million for combat service support communications equipment; $1.2 

million for additional water purification systems; $22.8 million for 

commercial off-the-shelf tactical radio equipment; $52.5 million for 

additional driver vision enhancement systems; $5.4 million for additional field feeding systems; $43.1 million for additional heavy 

equipment transporter systems; $300,000 for additional logistics 

automation systems; $1.4 million for medical communication and 

combat casualty care equipment; $4.3 million for additional combat 

medical support equipment; $16.5 million for additional defense advanced Global Positioning System receivers; $2.4 million for additional spares; $1.0 million for additional graders; $3.0 million for 

additional skid steer loaders; $1.0 million for additional scrapers; 

$1.0 million for additional water distributors; $1.0 million for additional engineer mission module water distributors; $2.0 million for 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
44 

additional loaders; $2.0 million for additional tractors; $1.0 million 

for additional cranes; $8.0 million for additional high mobility engineer excavators; $1.0 million for construction equipment; $80.7 million for additional palletized loading systems; and $44.6 million for 

additional tactical electric generators. 

The committee also recommends an increase of $19.6 million in 

Aircraft Procurement, Army, which includes: $11.3 million for additional avionics navigation equipment; $249,000 for avionics support 

equipment; $2.4 million for aircrew integrated systems; $5.5 million for air traffic control equipment; $116,000 for additional avionics and airborne instrumentation equipment; and $2,000 for high 

frequency radio equipment. 

In addition, the committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in weapons and tracked combat vehicles for additional small 

arms. 

Each of the committee’s recommended increases is reflected in 

title I of the Army procurement tables. 

Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter 

The budget request included $358.8 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter 

(ARH). The committee appreciates the operational necessity of replacing the aging OH–58D Kiowa Warrior and replacing combat 

losses from the force structure. The committee has in the past supported the Army’s efforts to get the ARH program on track. However, the committee believes that the Army is pursuing an overly 

ambitious ARH development and fielding program, given performance problems by the contractor. Decisions regarding the acquisition approach and schedule for the ARH program have been delayed by at least half a year, with no change in the procurement 

program. The committee also notes that the Defense Acquisition 

Board will meet in July 2008 to consider another restructuring of 

this program. Such an ambitious program exposes the Army to significant cost, performance, and schedule risk, and may not result 

in fielding this capability to the warfighter any sooner. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 million 

in APA for procurement of ARH. 

Forward-looking infrared radar systems 

The budget request included $10.9 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army for utility helicopter modifications. This funding will 

procure and field a number of safety modifications for the UH–60 

Blackhawk helicopter. The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million for the procurement of additional forward-looking infrared radar systems for the UH–60 Blackhawk helicopters. 

Grenades Army 

The budget request included $71.6 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for grenades. The committee recommends 

an increase of $7.0 million in PAA for the procurement of additional grenades. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
45 

Radford Ammunition Plant upgrades 

The budget request included $187.4 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial facilities. 

The committee is encouraged by the Army’s commitment to its ammunition plants and supports plans to accelerate repair or modernization of these facilities to improve efficiency, safety, and reduce environmental risk. The committee is particularly concerned 

about modernization at Radford Army Ammunition Plant. Radford 

is the sole North American provider for many of the propellants 

and explosives used in munitions. The committee recommends an 

increase of $20.0 million in PAA for production, safety, and environmental upgrades at Radford Army Ammunition Plant. 

Bomb line modernization 

The budget request included $187.4 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial facilities, 

but provided no funds for bomb line modernization at the 

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PAA for bomb line modernization. 

Area Common User System Modernization 

The budget request included $85.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Army for the Warfighter Information Network—Tactical (WIN–T) 

Area Common User System Modernization (ACUS–Mod) program. 

This program is intended to provide ongoing and planned modifications, upgrades, and recapitalization of the Mobile Subscriber 

Equipment (MSE) and Tri-Service Tactical (TRI–TAC) communications systems. 

According to the Army, there are currently 19 units with MSE 

and TRI–TAC equipment and each of these units is currently developing a disposition and turn-in plan for their equipment. However, some limited equipment purchases are required to support 

the single shelter switch, battlefield video teleconference, secure 

tactical fax, and tropo-scatter radio systems currently deployed in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Given the rapidly declining number of units using the equipment 

provided by the ACUS–Mod program, the committee recommends 

a decrease of $42.0 million, leaving more than 50 percent of the 

funding for the limited equipment purchases needed to support deployed equipment. 

Army Global Command and Control System 

The budget request included $33.5 million in Other Procurement, 

Army for the Army Global Command and Control System (GCCS) 

program. The committee recommends a reduction of $4.7 million. 

Given constrained resources and the current fielding schedule for 

GCCS—Army, the committee believes procurement of Net-Enabled 

Command Capability equipment is not required at this time. Additional concerns about the GCCS—Army program are discussed in 

title II of this Act. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
46 

Information Technology Upgrades 

The budget request included $231.3 million in Other Procurement, Army for the Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization program (I3MP). The committee notes that high bandwidth connectivity provides military users with enhanced capabilities for data, voice, and video communications. These capabilities 

enable military organizations to better support deployed forces and 

other Department of Defense activities. The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for hardware enhancements to 

the Defense Information System Network, especially to increase 

network geographic diversity and alternative data pathways. 

Fido explosives detector 

The budget request included $46.8 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for ground standoff mine detection systems, but provided no funds for the Fido explosives detector. The Fido explosives 

detector is deployed and in use by units in Iraq to counter improvised explosive devices and land mines. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OPA for additional Fido explosives detectors. 

Land Warrior 

The budget request did not include any funds in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Land Warrior system. The committee remains concerned that the Army has terminated this program despite significant investment, its promising test results, and its performance in combat. 

Last year the Department of Defense Director of Operational 

Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) assessed Land Warrior during tests 

with the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry, a Stryker unit preparing to 

deploy to Iraq. The Director, in a carefully worded report to this 

committee, determined that the system was ‘‘on track’’ to be operationally effective and suitable, even though it had not completed 

its Initial Operational Test. DOT&E also indicated that the system’s test items could deploy to Iraq with the 4th Battalion, 9th 

Infantry, the Army approved the plan, and the battalion is using 

the system effectively today. 

In testimony to the committee this year, the Army indicated that 

it will move forward with the program based on the test results 

and the feedback from the soldiers of the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry. Additionally, the Army included in its fiscal year 2008 supplemental appropriation request sufficient funding to outfit a brigade 

combat team with Land Warrior equipment. 

The committee is encouraged by the Army’s action and recommends accelerating the procurement of the system to include 

enough equipment to outfit a second brigade combat team preparing to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan. Accordingly, the committee 

recommends an increase of $102.0 million in OPA for additional 

Land Warrior systems. 

Combat Arms Training System 

The budget request included $218.6 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The Army is 

upgrading the Combined Arms Training System (CATS). Funds auVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
47 

thorized would be used to upgrade 1,900 fielded systems and procure additional simulated weapons. The committee recommends an 

increase of $6.0 million in OPA for CATS. 

Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System 

The budget request included $218.6 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but provided no 

funding for the Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System (IGS–VTS). The IGS–VTS is a fully immersive, interactive virtual reality platform that supports soldier vehicle training. The 

committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OPA for the 

IGS–VTS. 

Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System 

The budget request included $3.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the Call for Fire Trainer (CFFT), but included no 

funds for the Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System (JFETS) 

project. JFETS is a next-generation, virtual reality call for fire 

training simulation. The committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million in OPA for JFETS. 

Laser collective combat advanced training system 

The budget request included $218.6 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) for non-system training devices, but 

included no funds for the laser collective combat advanced training 

system. This is a comprehensive laser-based marksmanship training system and is currently in use by units for urban operations, 

reflexive fire training, close-quarters marksmanship, and movement to contact drills. The committee recommends an increase of 

$8.0 million in OPA for the laser collective combat advanced training system. 

Urban training center instrumentation 

The budget request included $218.6 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The committee 

notes that the Army’s readiness and rotation training strategies 

call for units to accomplish more of their mission training and rehearsals at their local training areas and facilities. The Army is 

using several technologies to increase the flexibility and value of 

local training ranges and facilities including the Deployable Range 

Package, the Homestation Instrumentation System, and the Integrated Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain Training System. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.9 million in OPA for 

the instrumentation of a regional urban operations training center. 

Operator driving simulators 

The budget request included $218.6 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. Additional driving simulators would allow deploying soldiers to maximize their 

training time while providing a realistic experience without risk to 

personnel or equipment. The committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million in OPA for operator driving simulators. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
48 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request included a total of $496.3 million for the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), of which 

$306.3 million was for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) attack the network line of operation, 

$88.3 million was for the JIEDDO train the force line of operation, 

and $101.7 million was for the JIEDDO staff and infrastructure 

line of operation. 

The committee recommends a transfer of $496.3 million in the 

JIEDDF to titles XV and XVI of this Act. The committee remains 

supportive of JIEDDO, but believes that JIEDDO’s expenses are 

war-related and should be accounted for in the appropriate war-related accounts in titles XV and XVI of this Act. 

Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) are the weapon of choice for 

terrorist organizations throughout the world because they provide 

high profile, lethal attacks that attract attention, provide propaganda, and expose vulnerabilities. 

The committee understands the Department of Defense is currently reviewing the JIEDDO mandate to determine how best to leverage JIEDDO’s capability to counter a future unknown threat, 

recognizing that the enemy’s current weapon of choice is the IED 

and that this threat will evolve. The committee welcomes this initiative by the Department and expects that the Department will be 

able to develop a more clear path forward for JIEDDO in the fiscal 

year 2010 budget submission. 

JIEDDO has been able to stand up quickly an organization capable of responding to the various IED threats that U.S. forces face 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the committee is concerned that 

JIEDDO’s expanding budget, manpower, and associated responsibilities have surpassed the Department’s ability to adequately 

oversee the activities of JIEDDO in a manner that ensures no duplication of effort and the most effective delivery of equipment and 

capabilities to the warfighter. 

The Government Accountability Office and the Defense Science 

Board have raised similar concerns. If JIEDDO is to continue to 

implement material solutions across all Department components, 

the Department must reevaluate JIEDDO’s authorities and determine whether JIEDDO should be a permanent organization and 

where it should be subordinated. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
49 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 SR335.035
50 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 SR335.036
51 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 SR335.037
52 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 SR335.038
53 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 SR335.039
54 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 SR335.040
55 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 SR335.041
56 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 SR335.042
57 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 SR335.043
58 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 SR335.044
59 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 SR335.045
60 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 SR335.046
61 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 SR335.047
62 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 SR335.048
63 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 SR335.049
64 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 SR335.050
65 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 SR335.051
66 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 SR335.052
67 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 SR335.053
68 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 SR335.054
69 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 SR335.055
70 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 SR335.056
71 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 SR335.057
72 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 SR335.058
73 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 SR335.059
74 

Authority for advanced procurement and construction of 

components for the Virginia-class submarine program 

(sec. 131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

multiyear authority provided in section 121 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). The 

provision would modify section 121 to permit the Secretary of the 

Navy to enter into one or more contracts on the Virginia-class submarine program, for which authorization to enter a multiyear procurement contract was granted under section 121, that could include advance construction activities if he determines that such action would yield greater cost savings or construction efficiencies. 

The Navy believes that having such an option available could 

help achieve greater cost savings and production efficiencies as the 

program increases throughput to a rate of two boats per year in fiscal year 2011. 

Refueling and complex overhaul of the USS Theodore Roosevelt (sec. 132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide a 

one-time exemption to the normal full funding policy to allow for 

contracting of a 3-year incrementally-funded aircraft carrier refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) from the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account. This language would provide the Navy 

with the authority to commence the refueling overhaul in fiscal 

year 2009. The Navy informs the committee that this would help 

level the workload at the shipyard and avoid an overhead increase 

of approximately $50.0 million across the future-years defense program. The Department of Defense has requested that this be a onetime authorization, not one to be extended into future years. 

Budget Items 

E–2D Advanced Hawkeye 

The budget request included $496.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) for three E–2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft. The 

E–2D aircraft will provide improved airborne early warning and 

surveillance capability to support carrier strike groups in naval, 

joint, and coalition operations. In fiscal year 2008, the administration requested—and the Congress authorized and appropriated—

funding for three research and development E–2D aircraft. The 

committee notes that the E–2D program has experienced several 

delays in aircraft production over the past year due to development 

difficulties with the advanced radar. Those delays threaten to postpone the Milestone C decision for low rate initial production, currently scheduled for the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 

2009, which would reduce the need for production effort funded by 

the fiscal year 2009 budget. Accordingly, the committee recommends the Navy decrease their planned procurement of low rate 

initial production of E–2D aircraft in fiscal year 2009 by one aircraft. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $165.5 million in APN 

for the E–2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
75 

H–53 modifications 

The budget request included $56.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) for modifications of H–53 helicopters, of which 

$2.9 million is for the Integrated Mechanical Diagnostics Health 

and Usage Management System (IMDS). Since 2001, the Marines 

have been equipping the fleet of H–53 helicopters with the IMDS. 

The systems flying have already provided a significant improvement in aircraft readiness rates and ability to maintain the aircraft 

to support high tempo operations, while simultaneously improving 

the accuracy of the fleet health and material status reporting. The 

replacement for the current CH–53, the CH–53K, is years away 

from achieving initial operational capability, so buying additional 

IMDS kits would still make a significant contribution to the readiness of the fleet. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million 

for the procurement of additional IMDS systems. 

P–3 modifications 

The budget request included $152.7 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) for continuation of the Special Structural Inspection-Kits (SSI–K) program, which replaces fatigue-limited airframe structural components to enable the airframe to fully reach 

its designed service life. 

Analysis that was conducted as part of the ongoing fatigue life 

management program determined that an area of the P–3 wing 

surface not included in the SSI–K program, designated as Zone 5, 

has much worse predicted fatigue than previously estimated. These 

results caused the Navy to ground 39 of 130 mission aircraft in December 2007, and to initiate long-term mitigation efforts to correct 

the critical deficiencies. 

Due to the emergent nature of this P–3 sustainment issue, the 

budget request does not include funding for Zone 5 kit material 

and installation. The Chief of Naval Operations has identified the 

correction of this critical operational and safety of flight issue as 

the Navy’s top unfunded priority. The committee recommends an 

increase of $160.0 million in APN to fund P–3 wing crack repair 

kits. 

Common ECM equipment 

The budget request included $66.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), common electronic countermeasures (ECM) 

equipment, but included no funds to procure upgrades for the AN/ 

AAR–47 missile warning system to incorporate hostile fire indications capability. This system improvement would provide aircrews 

with warning of anti-aircraft artillery, rocket-propelled grenade, or 

small arms fire. This capability would undoubtedly assist Navy and 

Marine Corps aircrews in avoiding or exiting dangerous environments. The committee believes that the Department of the Navy 

should be fielding this capability as a priority for aircraft potentially exposed to such situations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in APN 

to begin fielding the hostile fire indications capability for the AN/ 

AAR–47 missile warning system. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
76 

Weapons industrial facilities 

The budget request included $3.3 million for various activities at 

government-owned, contractor-operated weapons industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to accelerate the facilities restoration program at the Allegany Ballistics 

Laboratory. 

Grenades Marine Corps 

The budget request included $39.0 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps (PANMC) for grenades. The 

committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PANMC for 

the procurement of additional grenades. 

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement 

The budget request included approximately $1.3 billion for advance procurement for the Virginia-class submarine program, in- cluding $596.8 million for economic order quantity (EOQ) procurement of long lead material in conjunction with the current 

multiyear procurement program. 

Congress approved the Navy’s request to enter into a multiyear 

procurement contract in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), and added $588.0 million 

to help accelerate increasing the attack submarine program to a 

rate of two boats per year. At that time, the Navy planned to increase production to a rate of two boats per year in fiscal year 

2012. 

This year, as a part of the fiscal year 2009 request, the Navy 

plans to accelerate that production increase to fiscal year 2011. The 

Navy has also identified that additional EOQ funding in fiscal year 

2009 and additional authority to conduct advance construction activities would help achieve greater cost savings and production efficiencies, and reduce the span time for construction as the program 

increases throughput to a rate of two boats per year in fiscal year 

2011. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase for EOQ fund- ing of $79.0 million. The committee also recommends a provision 

(described elsewhere) that would give the Navy authority to contract for advance construction activities for which authorization to 

enter a multiyear procurement contract was granted under section 

121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181). 

Littoral combat ship 

The budget request included $920.0 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN) for the construction of two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The Navy intends this to be a relatively smaller, 

more affordable vessel that carries modular payloads. The Navy 

concept is that on one day, an LCS might be configured to operate 

as an anti-submarine vessel. However, as mission needs change, it 

could rapidly change the whole mission payload within a day or so, 

and operate in an anti-surface warfare or mine warfare mode. 

Each of the two prime contractor teams had contracts to build 

two ships. The prime contractors have teamed with smaller shipyards in both cases in order to keep LCS costs lower than would 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
77 

be possible in one of the major yards that normally build Navy 

ships. 

The first ship (LCS–1) was scheduled to deliver in late 2006. The 

Navy is now estimating that the first ship will deliver sometime in 

late 2008. The LCS–1 contractor team had barely started on their 

second ship (LCS–3) when the program ran into major cost problems earlier last year. The Navy then issued a stop work order on 

LCS–3 in order to reduce expenditures and limit further cost exposure on the program while it separately re-evaluated program cost 

estimates. 

The Navy entered into negotiations with the LCS–1 team to sign 

up to a fixed price contract on the two ships or face outright cancellation on the second ship. The Navy terminated the contract for 

LCS–3 for the convenience of the government. As a result of that 

termination, the government will take delivery of some sizeable inventory of equipment and material for the cancelled LCS–3. 

The second contractor team had a contract to build two LCS vessels of another design (LCS–2 and LCS–4). The Navy awarded this 

contract almost a year later, so LCS–2 was roughly 1 year behind 

the LCS–1. The Navy went ahead with activities leading to the 

start of construction on LCS–4, despite internal warnings that the 

second contractor would face similar cost and schedule problems as 

those faced by the first contractor. Late last year, the same poor 

performance and fixed priced negotiation scenario also played out 

on the LCS–2 and LCS–4. This led the Navy to also cancel the 

LCS–4, again with the result that the government will take delivery of some sizeable inventory of equipment and material for the 

cancelled LCS–4. 

Section 125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) places a cost ceiling on LCS con- tracts of $460.0 million per ship, a dollar value provided by the 

Navy. Congress also authorized and appropriated one LCS in fiscal 

year 2008. 

The Navy has not awarded the one LCS approved in the fiscal 

year 2008 budget. The Navy’s acquisition strategy, which has been 

extremely fluid, is to award this ship, plus the two ships from the 

fiscal year 2009 program later this calendar year. The Navy’s intent is that the award be a limited competition, with each yard assured of being awarded at least one ship. 

The total funding provided in fiscal year 2007 and prior budgets 

for the six previously authorized Littoral Combat Ships totals 

$1,639.0 million. The Navy has determined that $1,162.0 million of 

these funds is required for construction, test, trials, outfitting, and 

post-delivery of LCS–1 and LCS–2. The remaining $477.0 million 

funding is allocated against the terminated ships, LCS–3 and LCS–

4, including material purchased for those ships prior to termination. Within the remaining funding allocated against the terminated ships, sufficient funding should also be available for LCS 

class design to ensure that the follow-on ships commence production with ‘‘clean,’’ producible drawings and planning products. Presuming the Navy maintains stable design requirements, the availability of clean drawings and planning products should ensure 

healthy learning curve performance in production. This learning 

curve performance, in conjunction with material purchased in prior 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
78 

years (from the terminated ships), should more than offset the effects of one year’s escalation for ships purchased in 2009. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget has resources sufficient to award one 

LCS within the cost cap to either shipyard, when taking into account the inventory of equipment and material available from that 

shipyard’s cancelled ship. The Navy would provide this equipment 

and material to the shipyard that wins the fiscal year 2008 ship 

as government furnished material (GFM). The value of this GFM 

would count against the cost cap. 

Under their plan, the Navy would also award at least one of the 

two ships in the fiscal year 2009 budget to the other shipyard. The 

Navy would likewise provide the GFM from that shipyard’s cancelled ship to offset the cost of that one ship. Similarly, the value 

of this GFM would count against the cost cap on this ship as well. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request, however, would fund both 

ships to the full cost cap and not take the value of this GFM for 

the second cancelled ship into account. This means that the budget 

request of $920.0 million includes more funding than can be placed 

on contract without violating the cost cap, unless the Navy were to 

withhold the GFM for the second shipyard. 

The committee believes that the Navy should apply the GFM to 

both contractors’ vessels as soon as a second ship is purchased from 

either yard. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of 

$123.0 million to take that GFM into account. This will leave sufficient funds in the Navy’s hands to award two ships in fiscal year 

2009, with both ships fully funded to the congressional cost cap of 

$460.0 million. 

LPD–17 amphibious transport dock 

The budget request for fiscal year 2009 included $103.2 million 

to provide for LPD–17 program close out costs, but included no 

funding for the tenth ship of the USS San Antonio (LPD–17) class 

amphibious ship program, LPD–26. 

The Navy’s 2008 report to Congress on the long-range plan for 

construction of naval vessels calls for assuming additional risk in 

the expeditionary warfare force, by reducing expeditionary force 

size, including reducing the LPD–17 class from a total of 12 to nine 

ships. The Navy would instead extend the service of some existing 

vessels as an interim measure, with no real long-term plan to solve 

the problem. 

The committee is concerned that this plan does not provide the 

total number of amphibious ships needed to support the Department of the Navy’s two Marine Expeditionary Brigade lift requirements for forcible entry operations. In testimony before Congress in 

fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Marine Corps leadership 

stated that a class of no less than 10 LPD–17 ships was required 

to meet Marine Corps forcible entry requirements, with acceptable 

risk. The Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps have both identified procurement of LPD–26 in 2009 

as a top unfunded priority for both services. 

The committee is aware that construction for LPD–26 would 

have commenced in fiscal year 2009 under the previous schedule. 

However, with delays in other shipbuilding programs within the 

contractor’s facilities, and with the fact that the contractor has reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
79 

cently had to subcontract significant work on earlier LPD–17s with 

other vendors, it should be possible to procure LPD–26 in fiscal 

year 2010 without incurring significant cost growth or jeopardizing 

industrial base stability. Therefore, the committee recommends: (1) an increase of $170.0 

million for advance procurement; and (2) a transfer of the $103.2 

million from program close out costs to advance procurement. In 

total, including funding provided in fiscal year 2008, the committee 

recommends $323.2 million for advance procurement for LPD–26. 

LHA(R) advance procurement 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) included $348.3 million for advance procurement for the first Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) 

(MPF(F)), based on the design of amphibious assault replacement 

ships. These vessels are designated as the MPF(F) LHA(R). 

The committee does not agree with funding development and procurement for amphibious assault ships within the NDSF and has 

included a provision (described elsewhere) that would clarify what 

programs will be included in the NDSF. 

The Navy and the contractor have recently informed the committee that there will be significant schedule delays and cost increases for the LHD–8 amphibious assault ship. These problems, 

and the continuing struggles to regain and retain staffing and 

achieve productivity levels experienced before the Hurricane 

Katrina disaster, do not bode well for making expected progress on 

the LHA–6 amphibious assault ship, the next large amphibious 

ship to be built by the contractor. LHA–6 is intended to be the 

basis for the design of the MPF(F) LHA(R). 

Based on all these factors, the committee does not believe that 

the Navy can or should apply all of the requested advance procurement funds in the MPF(F) LHA(R) in fiscal year 2009. Therefore, 

the committee recommends a decrease of $170.0 million for MPF(F) 

LHA (R) advance procurement. 

DDG–51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer modernization program 

The budget request included $165.5 million in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) for the DDG–51 modernization program. This 

program upgrades the 62 ships of the DDG–51 class with key technologies to provide improved warfighting capability while reducing 

operating and support cost. This is planned to be a 20-year modernization program that will cost roughly $10.0 billion. 

The Secretary of the Navy’s fiscal year 2008 report to Congress 

on the long-range plan for construction of naval vessels identified 

the requirement to extend the service life of the DDG–51 class to 

40 years in order to meet surface combatant force structure requirements. However, additional planning and funding to accomplish this extended service life is not included in the budget request. 

The committee views the Navy’s plan to operate the DDG–51 

class for a full 40 years to be very high risk, based on recent history of 20–25 year service life for surface combatants. Additional 

fiscal year 2009 DDG–51 modernization procurement funding 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
80 

would support critical planning, engineering, and procurement activities for service life extension alterations. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in OPN for the DDG–51 

modernization program. 

The 2008 Navy report to Congress on DDG modernization indicated that the Navy staff had reviewed a concept that would 

achieve favorable results for each of the program attributes outlined in the report. The Navy report identified using the multi-ship, 

multi-option (MSMO) contracts as the preferred approach for conducting the DDG modernization. The MSMO contracts are contracts for maintenance efforts on Navy ships that are conducted in 

the ships’ homeport area. 

It is not apparent to the committee that the Navy seriously evaluated conducting the modernization program at the shipyards 

where the DDG–51s were built, or a so-called ‘‘building yard’’ approach. Further, upon reviewing the Navy’s basis for determining 

that MSMO contracts would be more suitable for executing the 

DDG modernization program, the committee cannot find that the 

Navy has established measures of effectiveness and appropriate 

cost control mechanisms to maximize the benefits promised by 

MSMO contract maintenance strategies. 

The magnitude of this investment, coupled with the critical need 

for this modernization effort, warrants a more thorough assessment 

of the considerations leading to the Navy’s selection of an acquisition strategy. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a DDG–51 modernization acquisition strategy report to the 

congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2010 budget 

request. The report should include a plan to execute a pilot project 

that would accomplish the full scope of DDG–51 hull, mechanical 

and electrical, and combat system maintenance and modernization 

in a single availability executed at one of the building yards. Such 

plan shall include a detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment of each of the acquisition strategy and availability execution 

considerations addressed by the Navy’s 2008 report on DDG modernization. The report shall also provide a quantitative and qualitative comparison of this building yard plan with the Navy’s plan 

to execute DDG modernization within a MSMO contract framework. The report shall include a plan for strengthening the Navy’s 

MSMO contract strategy by: 

(1) establishing a correlation between MSMO solicitation/ 

award criteria and actual DDG–51 modernization program 

scope of work; 

(2) incorporating performance benchmarks, metrics, and incentives that enable the Navy to measure performance and 

control cost consistent with the discipline required of a major 

defense acquisition program; and 

(3) ensuring viable strategies are available to leverage the 

benefits of competition across the 5-year duration of the solesource, cost-plus MSMO environment. 

Submarine training device modifications 

The budget request included $33.6 million to procure submarine 

training device modifications, but included no funding for fielding 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
81 

any system that would provide commanders and sailors with instant, continuous, and long-term feedback regarding performance. 

The committee is aware that industry has developed standardized 

metrics systems that could be used to assess readiness and training 

proficiency. Such technology would be interfaced with simulators 

and instrumented ranges to automatically measure individual and 

crew performance as thousands of tactical events are performed 

during a single day of training. Having such systems would provide 

rapid, objective feedback to sailors regarding the accuracy and consistency of their tactical assessments and provide frequent and objective assessments to force commanders, so that they can spot 

trends and underperformers before an incident occurs. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million 

to expand the use of performance measurement systems by completing definition of metrics and algorithms and installing hardware and software in training sites. 

Man overboard indicators 

The budget request included $43.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN) for command support equipment, but no funding to 

procure man overboard indicators (MOBI). 

The Navy has tested a one-per-person MOBI transmitter. Additionally, at least two expeditionary strike groups recommended the 

Navy procure MOBI transmitters for each embarked sailor, marine, 

and airman. The committee understands that a large majority of 

ship commanding officers having MOBI systems installed have requested additional MOBI transmitters in order to protect all embarked personnel. In addition, the U.S. Navy Safety Center has 

recommended that each embarked sailor and marine be afforded 

MOBI protection. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.9 million 

for the procurement of additional MOBI systems. 

Logistics vehicle system replacement 

The budget request included $324.6 million in Procurement, Marine Corps for the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR). 

The LVSR will provide the Marine Corps with a replacement vehicle system for the current fleet of LVS’s, which are approaching the 

end of their service life. 

The committee supports the LVSR program, but is concerned the 

Marine Corps’ current plan for procurement is too aggressive given 

the number of engineer change proposals and other manufacturing 

issues that have been discovered during the low-rate initial production process. Further, the committee is concerned that the Marine 

Corps inadequately pursued unit cost reductions from the manufacturer given the 3-year window during which the Marine Corps intends to procure these systems. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in funding for fiscal year 

2009. 

Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program 

The budget request included $6.6 million in Procurement, Marine 

Corps, for Field Medical Equipment, but no funds for the combat 

casualty care equipment upgrade program (CCCEUP), now comVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
82 

pleting its fifth year of operation. The CCCEUP provides lightweight, compact, field medical equipment for the Marine Corps and 

Navy corpsmen delivering combat casualty care. This equipment 

and the medical care it supports are designed specifically to reduce 

preventable combat deaths and speed recovery of the wounded. The committee recommends an increase of $7.9 million for the 

CCCEUP program. 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
83 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here SR335.060
84 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here SR335.061
85 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here SR335.062
86 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here SR335.063
87 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here SR335.064
88 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here SR335.065
89 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here SR335.066
90 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here SR335.067
91 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here SR335.068
92 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here SR335.069
93 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here SR335.070
94 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here SR335.071
95 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here SR335.072
96 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here SR335.073
97 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here SR335.074
98 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here SR335.075
99 

F–22A fighter aircraft (Sec. 151) 

As described elsewhere in this report, the budget request in- cluded $497.0 million for structural repairs to the F–15 that were 

added to the aircraft maintenance budget in case they would be 

needed to correct problems that might have emerged after investigations and inspections following a mishap in November 2007. 

Since that time, the Air Force has determined that these additional 

funds are not necessary for completing the repairs required to: (1) 

correct F–15 structural problems; and (2) return them to flying status. 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide $497.0 million Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for either 

(1) advance procurement for F–22A aircraft in fiscal year 2010; or 

(2) winding down the production line for F–22A aircraft. The next 

President of the United States would have to decide which alternative would be in the best interests of the Nation and submit a 

certification of that decision to the congressional defense committees before any of these funds could be spent. The budget request included $3,054.2 million in APAF for building 20 F–22A aircraft. The budget request did not include funding 

for either: (1) advance procurement to continue F–22A production 

after fiscal year 2009; or (2) funding to support government liability for costs of closing the production line. 

The 20 F–22A aircraft in the fiscal year 2009 budget would complete the currently approved program to buy 183 F–22A aircraft. 

The committee heard conflicting testimony from Department of Defense officials about whether 183 F–22A aircraft are sufficient to 

meet the needs of the Department. The budget request reflects the 

view that 183 aircraft are enough to meet warfighting requirements. The Air Force maintains that it needs to have 381 F–22A 

aircraft to meet warfighting requirements, provide support to 

homeland defense missions, and have sufficient aircraft to provide 

squadrons for 10 Air Expeditionary Forces (AEFs) and, thereby, 

support a peacetime rotation base for the AEFs. 

The committee also heard testimony from the Secretary of Defense, with which the Secretary of the Air Force concurred, that he 

would prefer to leave the question of continuing F–22A production 

after fiscal year 2009 in a neutral position for the next administration. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $497.0 million, for either: (1) advance procurement to continue F–22A production after fiscal year 2009; or (2) funding to support government liability for costs of closing the production line, as decided by the 

next President. 

Budget Items—Air Force 

Advanced procurement for the F136 engine 

The budget request included $136.9 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for advanced procurement for the F–35 

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. In section 213 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–

181), Congress explicitly directed the Department of Defense to (1) 

develop a competitive propulsion system for the JSF aircraft; and 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
100 

(2) continue competition for the propulsion system throughout the 

production phase of the JSF program. 

In order to follow through on that direction and begin competition with the F–135 engine in 2012, the Department of Defense 

must begin funding for long lead items for the F–136 production 

line in 2009. 

Therefore, the committee recommends in increase of $35.0 million in APAF for long lead items for the F–136 engine. 

C–17A engine spares 

The budget request included $367.6 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the C–17A aircraft, including $114.6 million 

for engine spares. The funding stream for engine spares over the 

past 3 years has shown little consistency, going from a level of 

$76.0 million in fiscal year 2007 to zero in fiscal year 2008, and 

$114.6 million this year. 

The committee is aware that the operating forces have lodged 

few complaints over the availability of spares, nor have mission capability or effectiveness rates suffered in recent years. The committee believes that funding to the fiscal year 2007 level should be 

more than adequate, at least until the Air Force can provide adequate supporting documentation of the need for additional spares. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million for C–17 engine spares. 

Tactical intelligence support 

The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) forces operating 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, in cooperation with the intelligence community, have developed sophisticated capabilities to identify, find, 

track, and kill or capture high-value individuals. Whereas traditional force-on-force military campaigns require techniques to find 

and attack large mechanized formations, irregular warfare requires 

these new ‘‘man-hunting’’ capabilities. 

Army and Marine Corps ground forces have requirements similar 

to JSOC’s in their counter-insurgency operations. Over time, some 

of the systems as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures developed by and for JSOC have begun to migrate from JSOC to Army 

and Marine Corps ground forces. This process includes specialized 

support from national intelligence agencies. Also, the Army and 

Marine Corps themselves have acquired innovative capabilities to 

conduct effective counter-insurgency operations. 

For example, the services have deployed ‘‘human terrain teams’’

to enhance their understanding of the local social and cultural environment. Biometric signature and forensic data collection capabilities and effective reach-back to national-level databases and 

processing are more widespread and well-received by tactical elements. More national human intelligence (HUMINT) and signals 

intelligence (SIGINT) databases are for the first time being pushed 

forward to support tactical unit operations with greater speed and 

frequency. Meanwhile, these capabilities are linked with airborne 

and ground-based intelligence capabilities that further enable the 

detection, identification, location, and tracking of high-value targets. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
101 

The committee believes there is an urgent requirement to enhance and increase access to this man-hunting capability to all 

Army and Marine Corps ground forces in harm’s way. Consequently, the committee recommends a series of actions to initiate, 

accelerate, or eliminate bottlenecks that impede fielding of specialpurpose equipment and capabilities, much of them classified. Specific recommendations are outlined below, but full explanations are 

provided only in the classified annex to this report. 

Airborne Imaging 

Requirements for airborne full-motion video (FMV) platforms are 

escalating rapidly as a result of demonstrated operational successes. The Department of Defense (DOD) appears to have responded belatedly and without appropriate focus to this requirement. The committee believes that DOD has focused almost exclusively on trying to accelerate fielding of the Predator, Army Warrior, Reaper, and Shadow unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Despite 

a sustained Air Force effort to surge the Predator system, however, 

UAS likely will be unable to meet operational requirements in the 

near term, for reasons discussed below. 

The committee believes that manned aircraft could be acquired 

and modified rapidly from the commercial sector, which would 

allow DOD to meet operational requirements until the UAS programs can catch up to demand. At that point, commercial contracts 

could be terminated, or the manned aircraft systems could be 

transferred to Iraqi security forces. The committee believes that 

DOD could have chosen to pursue this approach as an expedient 

through war-related supplemental funding. 

The committee notes that the Commander of Special Operations 

Command (SOCOM) has requested that Congress provide funds for 

approximately five 24-hour orbits of primarily manned aircraft in 

the fiscal year 2008 supplemental. This request, while commendable, would satisfy one-quarter to one-third of the immediate requirement. The committee is concerned that DOD has not explained why it is not seeking more of what SOCOM has requested. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to address this 

issue in the next war-related supplemental funding request. 

The major medium- and long-endurance UAS programs cannot 

be adequately accelerated in part because of shortages of operators 

and looming training limitations, as noted in the Conference Report 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181). The Department is now addressing the operator shortage by requesting funds for more training capacity, examining whether rated pilots are required to control these UAS, and 

investigating whether the Air Force needs to establish a career 

field for UAS pilots. The other major training-related problem is 

the lack of capabilities and procedures to operate UAS in the National Airspace (NAS). 

The committee is deeply concerned that DOD is unprepared to 

meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements to operate in the NAS. The committee appreciates that DOD UAS programs are growing larger and faster than anyone anticipated, and 

are being used in unexpected locations and missions. However, the 

major programs have been in the acquisition system for 15 years, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
102 

and many observers, including congressional committees, warned 

DOD repeatedly of the risk of deferring resolution of this challenge. 

The Air Force is operating Global Hawk UAS from Beale Air 

Force Base under Temporary Flight Restrictions. Developmental 

test and acceptance flights for the Army Sky Warrior and the 

Reaper cannot be conducted at night at El Mirage Flight Operations Facility in California. The Army is fielding Shadow UAS systems to many Guard and reserve units across the United States 

that do not have access to restricted airspace for training. 

These problems require prompt and vigorous action. The committee recommends that DOD and the FAA create a joint committee between the DOD and the Federal Aviation Administration 

at the level of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics (USD/AT&L) and the Associate Administrator for Aviation safety. Such a committee could serve as the 

focal point for dispute resolution and policy development. The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to seek an agreement with the Administrator of the FAA to create an executive 

committee to implement the memorandum of agreement signed in 

September 2007 for Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in 

the National Airspace System. 

The committee also recommends funding to accelerate the highest priority UAS airspace integration needs. The committee recommends $31.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), 

RQ–4 Global Hawk (Line 20) and $31.0 million in APAF MQ–1 

Predator (Line 22) for two ground-based radars for Beale Air Force 

Base, and El Mirage Flight Operations facility, respectively, to provide enhanced ground-based collision-avoidance capabilities to mitigate restrictions on terminal flight operations. The committee also 

recommends $10.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, PE 35219F, to accelerate development of critical sense-and-avoid capabilities for Global Hawk and 

the Predator/Sky Warrior UAS. Finally, the committee recommends 

$15.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 64400D8Z, to begin the 

development for the major UAS programs of modeling and simulation tools, and standards, that will provide the foundation for gaining routine UAS access to the national and international airspace. 

Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance 

One objection to buying many more airborne FMV platforms is 

that they are an inefficient means of surveillance. FMV cameras 

have a narrow field-of-view, requiring one platform for every specific target or mission. In areas where the target density permits, 

it would be more efficient to use camera systems that can cover 

large areas. The Army Constant Hawk and Marine Corps Angel 

Fire systems are current examples of wide-area collection systems. 

The DOD leadership requested funds for the Air Force to acquire 

a combined, enhanced system, currently called Wide-Area Airborne 

Surveillance (WAAS), to image a larger area than Constant Hawk 

or Angel Fire, enable night operations, real-time support to ground 

forces, provide a forensic capability, and support many simultaneous targeting and surveillance missions. It could cue and hand 

off targets to FMV platforms for prosecution. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
103 

The committee strongly supports this initiative for many reasons, 

including its potential to reduce the requirement for UAS with 

FMV and to make the latter more effective. However, the WAAS 

system likely will not be available in useful numbers for 2 years 

or more, and therefore cannot serve as a near-term solution for 

U.S. Central Command’s airborne FMV deficiency. 

The Air Force intends to field the WAAS system on the Reaper, 

or MQ–9, UAS. The committee understands that it may require 

less time and cost to field the WAAS system on the Sky Warrior, 

or Predator–1C. The committee is also aware that there are several 

proposals under consideration to field WAAS capabilities on other 

platforms, such as the Shadow UAS. The committee directs the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense to examine these issues and provide 

an assessment and recommendation to the committee by June 15, 

2008 to help inform decisions in conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. 

National-Tactical SIGINT Initiatives 

The National Security Agency (NSA), with Special Operations 

Command and the Army, has developed special capabilities against 

modern signals encountered in Iraq and elsewhere. These capabilities are now engineered for fielding as tactical systems, on ground 

vehicles, and on airborne platforms. NSA and the Army are fielding 

the Triton III system on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) 

vehicles to support maneuver forces. A program called Final e-Curfew provides more advanced area-collection capabilities against the 

same target set from fixed locations. These systems work in conjunction with databases pushed forward to tactical echelons. 

These systems should be fielded rapidly. The committee rec- ommends authorization of $25.0 million above the request in Other 

Procurement, Army, line 74, to accelerate Triton III procurement 

and installation on the MRAP vehicles. The committee understands 

that the Army’s needs for Triton III procurement exceed the 

amount recommended for authorization. The committee urges the 

Army and Office of the Secretary of Defense to include the balance 

of the requirement in the next war-related supplemental spending 

request. The committee also recommends an authorization of $25.0 

million in PE 35885G, NSA’s Tactical Cryptologic Activities, for development and acquisition of Final e-Curfew systems for the Army 

and Marine Corps units in Iraq. 

Special SIGINT capabilities are also more widely available for 

manned and unmanned aircraft deployment. The Air Force is planning to field these capabilities as an adjunct to the Airborne Signals Intelligence Program (ASIP)–2C configuration on the Reaper 

and Predator, and the Army is planning to build similar capabilities, under the Tactical SIGINT Program, for the Sky Warrior/MQ–

1C UAS. The committee is concerned that the Army and the Air 

Force are developing very similar systems to meet similar requirements and concepts of operation. At the same time, the committee 

is concerned that neither service is planning to incorporate certain 

fundamental collection capabilities, as described in the classified 

annex to this report. The committee understands that these advanced capabilities will cost more and will consume a larger portion of the payload of such potential platforms as the Reaper, PredVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
104 

ator, and Sky Warrior, but believes that these tradeoffs must be seriously considered. The committee is also concerned that the Air 

Force’s preferred platform choice is the Reaper even though it will 

be more difficult to collect against the targets of interest from that 

platform’s higher altitude. 

Accordingly, the committee directs that the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence, the USD/AT&L, the Joint Staff, and the Director of 

NSA, to review requirements and determine whether the Army and 

Air Force should pursue a single, joint airborne UAS SIGINT program, and whether this development should include the advanced 

collection capability described in the classified annex to this report. 

The committee requests that the Deputy Secretary report to the 

committee by June 15, 2008 to help inform decisions in conference 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. 

B–52 bomber 

The budget request included $41.7 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force line 26 for the B–52 bomber, of which $32.4 million 

is for combat network communications technology (CONECT) and 

$7.3 million is for advanced weapons integration (AWI). No funds 

were included for the selective availability anti-spoofing module 

(SAASM). The committee recommends an additional $18.1 million 

for the SAASM, $22.8 million for CONECT, and $16.7 million for 

AWI, for a total of $57.6 million. The Air Force failed to include 

adequate funding in the budget request to meet the requirements 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) to maintain 76 B–52 bombers in a common 

configuration and included this funding on the Air Force unfunded 

priorities list. 

Large aircraft infrared countermeasures system 

The budget request included $59.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for procurement of aircraft installation kits for the 

large aircraft infrared countermeasures (LAIRCM) system for various C–130 aircraft. The LAIRCM system provides protection 

against man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) which are 

widely available and have been used by adversaries in Operations 

Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom against both military and 

commercial aircraft. Additional funding for LAIRCM, including 

funding for nonrecurring engineering and kit production for Special 

Operations Command (SOCOM), is included on the Chief of Staff 

of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to accelerate LAIRCM upgrades for C–130 aircraft, in general, and an increase of $2.2 million to accelerate LAIRCM upgrades for SOCOM 

AC–130 and MC–130 aircraft. 

C–130 Avionics Modernization Program 

The budget request included $422.8 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for the C–130 Modifications Program, including $149.1 million for the C–130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). The C–130 AMP effort suffered a Nunn-McCurdy 

breach in February 2007, which caused the Department of Defense 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
105 

to significantly restructure and recertify the program in June 2007. 

While the committee remains supportive of the program, we have 

concerns over the unexplained growth in overhead on the program. The committee recommends a reduction of $25.0 million in APAF 

for the C–130 AMP Modification Program. 

Advanced targeting pod 

The budget request included $521.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 78) for miscellaneous production 

charges, including $49.9 million for the procurement of advanced 

targeting pods (ATPs), also known as precision attack systems. Advanced targeting pods provide targeting capability for use with precision guided munitions on fighter, bomber, and attack aircraft. 

The ATP is currently in use by both the active and reserve components of the Air Force. The Air Force Chief of Staff included $170.0 

million for buying new ATPs and upgrading existing ATPs in his 

unfunded priorities list. 

The Air Force and the contractor team for the Litening ATP program have devised a spiral enhancement kit for existing Litening 

ATPs that will provide: 

(1) a new fourth generation forward looking infrared sensor; 

(2) a new fourth generation charged coupled device (CCD) 

camera that enables targeting acquisition and identification; 

(3) a C-Band video downlink capability which will provide 

exceptional standoff capability outside of most surface-to-air 

threats at twice the distance of the earlier Litening ATPs; and 

(4) a laser spot tracker and a laser target imaging processor 

which yield much improved performance for targeting at long 

ranges using precision weapons. The committee recommends an increase of $27.9 million for the 

procurement of spiral upgrade kits for Litening ATPs. 

Budget request realignments 

The Air Force requested that Congress make several realignments in their budget to correct various errors in their submission 

of the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) documentation. The 

table below reflects these adjustments: 

[insert at the end of budget items for APAF] 

CHANGES TO CORRECT SUBMISSION ERRORS 

(In millions) 

Item Account Line item Amount 

C–130J .......................................................................................................................... APAF 49 ¥$25.0 

C–130J .......................................................................................................................... APAF 6 +$25.0 

JPATS ............................................................................................................................. APAF 12 ¥$5.5 

JPATS ............................................................................................................................. APAF 39 ¥$0.4 

JPATS ............................................................................................................................. APAF 75 ¥$8.8 

JPATS ............................................................................................................................. APAF 63 +$14.7 

(Adjustment to APAF line 63 already reflected in the budget request) 

C–17 ............................................................................................................................. APAF 5 ¥$8.8 

C–17 ............................................................................................................................. APAF 34 +$8.8 

C–21 ............................................................................................................................. APAF 35 ¥$10.2 

T–1 ................................................................................................................................ APAF 40 +$10.2 

C–21 ............................................................................................................................. APAF 70 ¥$19.0 

T–1 ................................................................................................................................ APAF 75 +$19.0 

KC–X ............................................................................................................................. APAF 10 ¥$61.7 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
106 

CHANGES TO CORRECT SUBMISSION ERRORS—Continued 

(In millions) 

Item Account Line item Amount 

KC–X ............................................................................................................................. RDAF 83 +$61.7 

Improved stores ejection cartridge 

The budget request included $150.8 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) for cartridges, but provided no 

funds for improved stores ejection cartridges. Funds provided will 

update the ejection cartridge currently used on numerous aircraft 

platforms by all branches of the military for various payload ejection applications, including, but not limited to, the F–15, F–16, A– 10, and B–52 aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of 

$1.0 million in PAAF for improved stores ejection cartridges. 

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile 

The budget request included $240.3 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF) for the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand off Missile (JASSM). The JASSM program announced a Nunn-McCurdy 

breach in February 2007. Following a review of the program, the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) declined to certify the program, delaying the decision until at least May 2008. As part of the effort leading to recertification, the Air Force has been conducting JASSM flight tests, 

but those tests have drawn concern from the Office of the Director 

of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). According to DOT&E, flight tests 

have not occurred in a predicted way, leading to serious questions 

about configuration control. 

The committee continues to recognize that JASSM was designed 

to meet a needed capability. The Air Force anticipates that it will 

be able to ramp up production once the USD (AT&L) recertifies the 

missile under Nunn-McCurdy rules. The Air Force plan is to increase production from 115 missiles in fiscal year 2008 to 260 missiles in 2009. However, given the questions and concerns over this 

program, the committee believes that such an increase in quantities is unwarranted at this time. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $80.0 million in MPAF for JASSM. 

Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite 

The budget request included $16.5 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force for advanced procurement and launch support for 

the third Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite 

but no funds for the fourth AEHF satellite. The committee recommends an additional $100.0 million for advanced procurement, 

parts obsolescence, test equipment, and spares for the fourth 

AEHF. 

In fiscal year 2008 $125.0 million was appropriated for advanced 

procurement for the fourth AEHF satellite, with direction to fully 

fund the fourth AEHF in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. The 

Milstar satellites, the predecessors to AEHF, have lasted longer 

than expected and the Air Force has determined that it can wait 

until the 2010 budget request to include full funding for the fourth 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
107 

AEHF satellite. As a result, the technical, schedule, and cost risks 

associated with further extending the production break between 

the third and fourth AEHF satellites will further increase the cost 

of the fourth AEHF satellite. 

The committee notes that the Air Force is currently studying 

whether a fifth AEHF satellite might be needed. This study will 

not be completed until June 2008. 

Intelligence communication equipment 

The budget request included $15.4 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF), for intelligence communication equipment, including $6.9 million for the ‘‘Chief of Staff Innovation Program.’’ In 

fiscal year 2008, this program is called ‘‘Eagle Vision.’’ Eagle Vision 

is a family of systems that provide commercial imagery data to 

operational commanders for mission planning, rehearsal, visualization, and intelligence support purposes. Eagle Vision is composed 

of a data acquisition segment (DAS) and a data integration segment (DIS). Funds requested for fiscal year 2009 are to support 

procurement of imagery ingestion capability upgrades as well as 

Eagle Vision DAS and DIS upgrades. These upgrades will provide 

improved processing capability, additional satellite capabilities, and 

baseline upgrades. 

Commercially available synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data at 1 

meter resolution could significantly improve surveillance and 

search and rescue operations, since this data is unclassified, and is 

releasable to State and local responders or, with proper authorization, releasable to foreign governments. The data intensive SAR 

image will require an upgrade to the Eagle Vision communications 

and image archive and processing system not included in the budget request. The committee is aware that such an upgrade to the 

Eagle Vision system is available. Such systems deployed with Air 

National Guard will allow the Eagle Vision systems to respond to 

military contingencies and maritime surveillance, and search and 

rescue operations, or to natural or man-made disasters. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million to begin 

fielding the SAR upgrades for the Eagle Vision system. 

Combat training ranges 

The budget request included $55.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF) for making improvements at combat training 

ranges. These improvements are aimed at increasing the capability 

to support realistic air-to-air, air-to-ground, ground-to-air, and electronic warfare training, along with the ability to record and playback events for aircrew debriefing and analysis. 

The unmanned threat emitter (UMTE) modernization program 

will provide affordable and realistic threats, with sufficient threat 

density, typical of today’s adversarial combat environment. This 

UMTE effort will upgrade performance capabilities and extend the 

service life of existing UMTE range assets by providing fully reactive, programmable, high-fidelity threat simulators, electronic attack receivers, automatic video tracking, and mobility to support 

time-critical targeting exercises. The committee understands that 

the Air Force’s current threat emitters are inadequate to train F/ 

A–22s, Joint Strike Fighters. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
108 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million in OPAF for UMTE. 

Air Operations Centers 

The budget request included $35.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF) line 33 for Air Operations Centers (AOCs), including $29.0 million for fielding additional AOCs, increment 10.1. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $29.0 million in OPAF 

for the fielding of AOCs. 

The Air Force plans to build between 12 to 30 AOCs in the coming years, with five main regional sites, and many more ‘‘tailored’’

sites. The justification for the total number of sites is not clear. The 

recent addition of a requirement for an AOC for the newly created 

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is a case in point. For the foreseeable future, AFRICOM will be headquartered in Germany. U.S. 

European Command already has a fully operational AOC for Europe, which is only partially used. Moreover, the proliferation of 

AOCs has created manning shortages in the AOCs across all regions. While the committee recognizes the value of the AOC that 

is currently fully manned and operated in the U.S. Central Command area of operations, little justification has been made as to 

why each numbered air force requires its own command facility, especially as reach-back command and control continues to rapidly 

evolve. 

Finally, increment 10.1 of the AOCs was not developed as a service oriented architecture, even though that is the future approach 

for command and control within the Department of Defense. The 

committee recommends the Air Force take a pause in fielding increment 10.1 and fundamentally rethink its AOC fielding and operating strategy. 

Subtitle E—Joint and Multiservice Matters 

Annual long-term plan for the procurement of aircraft for 

the Navy and the Air Force (sec. 171) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit an annual long-term plan for procurement of aircraft for the Departments of the Navy and Air 

Force. The provision would require that the plan project procurement, inventories, retirements, and losses for the following 30-year 

period. 

Aircraft that would be covered by the plan would include fighter 

aircraft, attack aircraft, bomber aircraft, strategic lift aircraft, 

intratheater lift aircraft, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, tanker aircraft, and any other major support aircraft 

designated by the Secretary. 

The committee received testimony over the past 2 years about 

shortfalls of fighter/attack aircraft within the Navy and Marine 

Corps projected for the middle of the next decade, and, this year, 

received testimony about shortfalls of fighter aircraft within the 

Air Force projected for the year 2024. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense and Congress need long-term projections so that the two organizations can 

focus attention on potential shortfalls, gaps, or mismatches well beVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
109 

fore the full range of options are foreclosed. This annual report 

should help in that effort. 

Budget Items—Defense-wide 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
110 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here SR335.076
111 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here SR335.077
112 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here SR335.078
113 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here SR335.079
114 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here SR335.080
115 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here SR335.081
116 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here SR335.082
117 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here SR335.083
118 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

The budget request included no funds for procurement of long 

lead items for Fire Units 3 and 4 of the Terminal High Altitude 

Area Defense (THAAD) system. The committee recommends an increase of $140.0 million in a new defense-wide procurement funding line for procurement of long lead items for the interceptors and 

ground equipment for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4. Of this additional amount, $65.0 million would be transferred from research 

and development (R&D) funds requested in PE 63881C for THAAD. 

Section 223(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the Department of 

Defense to request any long lead procurement funding for THAAD 

Fire Units 3 and 4, and for Standard Missile–3 interceptors, in the 

fiscal year 2009 budget request using procurement funds, rather 

than R&D funds. In addition, section 223(c) of that act prohibits 

the use of fiscal year 2009 R&D funds for procurement of long lead 

items for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4. 

THAAD is a high priority near-term missile defense system intended to provide our regional combatant commanders with the capability they need today to protect our forward-deployed forces, allies, and other friendly countries against many hundreds of existing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The budget request 

for THAAD included a planned 1-year delay in the delivery of Fire 

Units 3 and 4, and an 18-month production gap in THAAD interceptors. After congressional objections were raised to this planned 

delay, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) decided it would reallocate $65.0 million of fiscal year 2009 funding for the THAAD system for long lead procurement of interceptors for Fire Unit 3. However, contrary to the law, MDA plans to use R&D funds to procure 

long lead items for Fire Unit 3. 

The committee disagrees with MDA’s plan to use R&D funds for 

procurement of long lead items for Fire Unit 3, because it would 

be contrary to the law and contrary to the intent of Congress in 

requiring the use of procurement funds for such activity. Therefore, 

the committee recommends establishing a new defense-wide procurement funding line for MDA missile defense procurement activities. The committee expects MDA and the Department of Defense 

to comply with the requirements of section 223 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 in executing any long 

lead procurement funding for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4. 

The committee notes that the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) 

study, conducted by the Joint Staff, concluded that the United 

States needs about twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile– 3 interceptors as the number currently planned, to meet just the 

minimum operational requirements of regional combatant commanders to defend our forward-deployed forces, allies, and other 

friendly nations against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles 

that exist today. To meet even these minimum operational requirements, MDA would have to increase substantially its plans and 

budgets for THAAD procurement. The committee expects MDA to 

adjust its plans accordingly. 

The committee is concerned that MDA has not planned or budgeted any funds in fiscal year 2009 for procuring a THAAD radar. 

This would create a gap in THAAD radar production and cause a 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
119 

schedule disconnect between fire unit delivery and radar delivery. 

Therefore, the committee also recommends an increase of $40.0 

million in the new missile defense procurement funding line for 

long lead procurement of the THAAD radar for Fire Unit 3, to 

avoid a production gap and a schedule disconnect. The committee 

urges MDA to synchronize the THAAD fire unit and radar production and delivery schedules. 

Standard Missile–3 interceptors 

The budget request included no procurement funds for long lead 

procurement of Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptors for the 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system. Contrary to the law, 

the budget request included $57.0 million in research and development (R&D) funds in PE 63892C for long lead procurement of SM– 3 Block IA missiles. The committee recommends transferring the 

requested $57.0 million in R&D funds to a new defense-wide procurement funding line for procurement of long lead items for SM– 3 interceptors, consistent with the law. The committee also recommends an increase of $20.0 million in the new Procurement, Defense-wide line for long lead procurement of an additional 15 SM– 3 interceptor missiles. 

Section 223(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the Department of 

Defense to request any long lead procurement funding for SM–3 

interceptors, and THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4, in the fiscal year 

2009 budget request using procurement funds, rather than R&D 

funds. In addition, section 223(c) of that act prohibits the use of fiscal year 2009 R&D funds for procurement of long lead items for 

SM–3 interceptors and THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4. 

The committee is deeply disappointed that the Department of Defense chose not to comply with the requirements of section 223 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), and directs the Director of the Missile Defense 

Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to jointly 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees by no 

later than October 1, 2008, providing a detailed explanation of the 

reasons the Department chose not to comply with the law, and an 

explanation of the Department’s plans to comply with the law. 

The committee notes that the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) 

study, conducted by the Joint Staff, concluded that U.S. combatant 

commanders need about twice as many SM–3 and THAAD interceptors as currently planned to meet just their minimum operational requirements for defending against the many hundreds of 

existing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The committee 

is deeply disappointed that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has 

not planned or budgeted to acquire more than a fraction of the 

SM–3 interceptors needed to meet the warfighters’ minimum operational needs, and that it does not plan to fund additional procurement beyond fiscal year 2010. The committee believes that achieving at least the JCM levels of upper tier interceptors in a timely 

manner should be the highest priority for MDA, and expects the 

Agency to modify its plans and budgets to meet our combatant 

commanders’ current operational needs. In section 223 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
120 

(Public Law 109–364), Congress specified the Aegis BMD system 

and its SM–3 interceptor as a high priority near-term program for 

the Department to focus on. As the JCM study makes clear, the 

Department has failed to do so. 

To address these concerns, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in the new defense-wide procurement funding line for long lead procurement of an additional 15 SM–3 missiles to start to address the need to meet the requirements identified in the JCM analysis. As described elsewhere in this report, the 

committee also recommends increases of $80.0 million for increasing the production rate of the SM–3 missile, reducing schedule risk 

for the SM–3 Block IB missile, and for improving the capability of 

the Aegis BMD system to conduct engagements using offboard sensors, known as ‘‘engage on remote,’’ and to engage missiles in the 

ascent phase of midcourse flight. 

Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance mission equipment package 

The budget request included $54.1 million for Special Operations 

Forces (SOF) Intelligence, but no funding for a classified intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance mission equipment package to 

modify existing classified air assets. This equipment is critical to 

enabling operators to fix, find, and target terrorists. It is also the 

Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command’s fifth highest priority item for funding, in the event that additional funds are 

available for the Special Operations Command. The committee recommends an increase of $13.3 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Intelligence Systems, for a special 

operations forces intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance mission 

equipment package to modify existing classified air assets. 

Special operations forces combat assault rifle 

The budget request included $2.7 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for the special operations forces (SOF) Combat Assault 

Rifle program, which provides the SOF operator a highly reliable, 

accurate, and sustainable family of weapons, to include the MK17 

sniper support rifle, suppressors, the operator tool kit, and spare 

weapons systems to support the MK16 and MK17. However, the 

Commander, Special Operations Command identified a $4.4 million 

shortfall in funding for the MK17 sniper support rifle. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, small arms and weapons, for the Special 

Operations Command. 

Special operations visual augmentation systems hand-held 

imager/long-range 

The budget request included $30.2 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for the special operations forces (SOF) visual augmentation, lasers and sensor systems. However, no funding was included 

for the special operations visual augmentation systems hand-held 

imager/long-range. These relatively new, hand-held imagers are 

thermal imagers that significantly improve the ability of special operators to track targets under conditions where existing technology 

does not allow them to do so. The Commander of the U.S. Special 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
121 

Operations Command has identified a $15.4 million shortfall in 

funding for these hand-held imagers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF visual augmentation, lasers and sensor systems, for the Special Operations Command. 

M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask 

The budget request did not include funding in the Defense-wide, 

Procurement, special operations forces operational enhancements 

account for the M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask 

(JCBPM). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

for M53 JCBPM in this account. 

United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has a validated requirement for 14,601 JCBPMs, but only 58 percent of that 

requirement was procured with available funding from the Joint 

Program Executive Officer-Chemical and Biological Defense. Additional funding for this program would allow the purchase of the remaining 42 percent of the JCBPMs that is required by SOCOM. 

Joint Chemical Agent Detector 

The budget request included $200.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological contamination avoidance, including $38.1 million for procurement of the Joint Chemical 

Agent Detector (JCAD). The committee recommends an increase of 

$10.0 million in PDW for procurement of additional JCAD units. 

The JCAD is an automatic, lightweight chemical agent detector, 

identifier, and warning unit that is significantly more effective, 

smaller, and less expensive than other fielded chemical agent detectors. It is replacing older, less effective systems, including the 

M8 Chemical Agent Alarm system that contains a radioactive 

source. It is important to equip U.S. forces with this greatly improved JCAD system for operational and force protection purposes. 

Joint Biological Standoff Detection System 

The budget request included $199.6 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological defense contamination avoidance, but included no funds for the Joint Biological 

Standoff Detection System (JBSDS). Standoff detection of biological 

warfare agents is the highest priority technology objective in the 

chemical and biological defense program, and also one of the most 

challenging. The JBSDS is the first U.S. standoff early warning biological detection system. It has completed initial operational testing, and is capable of detecting and warning of biological threats 

at distances of several kilometers, before exposure occurs. It is thus 

a good choice for force protection at high threat overseas military 

facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in 

PDW to continue low-rate initial procurement of additional JBSDS 

units, pending a final decision on full-rate production. 

Items of Special Interest 

Aegis modernization open architecture 

The Navy has been on a path to transition surface ship systems 

to an open business model, commonly referred to as Open ArchitecVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
122 

ture (OA), for approximately 6 years. The goal of employing OA 

systems is to bring to bear competition and innovation to achieve 

improved performance and affordability through use of modular designs, allowing public access to design specifications, reusing software code, mandating common interface standards, and achieving 

seamless interoperability between system hardware and software 

applications. 

The committee concurs with the Navy’s determination that OA 

is both a business imperative and a critical enabler for modernizing 

the Surface Navy. However, the Navy’s overall progress in 

transitioning to OA is falling short of expectations in the extent to 

which the Navy is opening up the Aegis combat system for the 

DDG–51 modernization program. The Senate Report accompanying 

S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110 77) directed the Navy to outline its plan and 

progress with implementing OA. The Navy’s OA report provides 

valuable insight regarding the strategy for implementing OA. However, the Navy has not outlined a program plan that ensures alignment between system development schedules, development contracts, Navy budget, program management structure, and the 

Aegis modernization program. 

The committee’s concerns with delays to OA implementation are 

compounded by the revelation this year of significant shortfalls to 

Aegis combat systems engineering funding through the futureyears defense program. 

The committee understands that the Navy intends to continue 

with a sole source contract to develop improvements in the Aegis 

combat system for a 5-year period commencing in fiscal year 2009. 

This decision is driven by schedule pressures. The Navy has assessed that the Aegis combat system is insufficiently ‘‘open’’ to enable competition for Aegis modernization development efforts in the 

time remaining before the first ship installation, scheduled in 2012. 

The decision also reflects the challenges associated with performing 

the tasks necessary to open this complex combat system for competition under prior sole source development contracts. 

The committee is concerned that, absent a rigorous program plan 

that provides for steady, incremental progress at opening the Aegis 

combat system, in lock-step with contracts governing the system 

development, the Navy will continue to fall short of the progress 

required to achieve the objectives for OA. 

Therefore, the committee directs that no greater than 50 percent 

of the amounts authorized for fiscal year 2009 for the surface combatant combat system engineering program (PE 64307N) may be 

obligated under a sole source contract, until 30 days after submission by the Secretary of the Navy of a detailed program plan for 

implementing OA for the Aegis combat system. The program plan 

shall be included in subsequent quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees on Naval Open Architecture, and shall 

include methodology and scheduling for incrementally opening the 

Aegis combat system. The plan must provide for measuring discrete progress toward achieving a full open system commensurate 

with introduction of the 2012 Aegis baseline (formerly referred to 

as ‘‘COTS Refresh 3’’). 

It is the committee’s intent that, following consultation with the 

Navy regarding the details of this plan, the Navy will: (1) establish 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
123 

future benchmarks to govern the transition from sole source to 

competitive development during the period 2010 to 2013; and (2) 

transfer the lessons learned from this initiative to remaining surface ship combat system development programs. 

F/A–18 Hornet and Navy tactical aviation inventory shortfall 

The committee is concerned that the Navy is facing a sizeable 

gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A–18A–D Hornets retire before 

the aircraft carrier variant (F–35C) of the Joint Strike Fighter 

(JSF) is available. Compounding this problem is the higher-thanpredicted use of Hornets in ongoing operations and the challenges 

of meeting Marine Corps/Navy tactical aircraft integration obligations. The committee similarly raised this issue in the committee 

report accompanying S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110–77) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. 

This year, the committee again received testimony from the Navy 

of a projected shortfall in Navy tactical aviation. The Navy has indicated that, under current assumptions, it will experience a shortfall of 69 tactical aircraft in the year 2017, a number that swells 

to 125 when requirements of the United States Marine Corps are 

included. The committee believes that the Navy’s projection of this 

shortfall may be, however, based on a series of questionable assumptions. 

Regardless, the acknowledgement that the Navy will be short, at 

minimum, the equivalent of a full carrier air wing and an additional half of a carrier air wing of aircraft is troubling to the committee. Navy aircraft carriers are among the nation’s most important power projection platforms. With shortfalls as large as the 

Navy is projecting, we could be faced with drastically reducing the 

number of aircraft available on short notice to the combatant commanders, either because we have deployed under-strength air 

wings, or because we did not deploy the carrier at all because of 

these aircraft shortages. 

The committee understands that the Navy is preparing a comprehensive tactical aviation plan to be delivered to the committee 

late summer, 2008. The committee eagerly awaits the results of 

that plan. Last year the committee directed the Congressional 

Budget Office to report on the strike fighter gap, with that report 

due this fall. Finally, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the 

committee has asked for a Department of Defense 30–year aviation 

plan, the first of which is to be delivered with the defense budget 

next February. These three plans should serve to inform the continuing debate over the looming strike fighter shortfall. 

The committee notes the Navy has testified about its confidence 

in the F/A–18E/F Super Hornet and its commitment to a long-term 

mix of Super Hornet aircraft and the future F–35C variant. Navy 

plans indicate that F/A–18–E/F Super Hornets will remain in the 

fleet until at least 2040. While the Navy has programmed the purchase of 89 F/A–18E/F in its future-years defense program (FYDP) 

(40 in fiscal year 2010, 27 in fiscal year 2011, and 22 in fiscal year 

2012), it has not positioned itself to potentially increase its purchase of F/A–18 E/Fs in order to address the projected carrier aircraft shortfall. In the near term, the Navy has no satisfactory alternative to the F/A–18E/F for filling the gap. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
124 

Therefore, the committee believes that a multiyear procurement 

(MYP) of additional F/A–18E/F aircraft may be helpful in closing 

whatever gap in capability is borne out by the plans described 

above. Needless to say, the committee expects that any MYP contract the Navy enters into, including one for this program, will 

fully comply with the requirements of section 2306b of title 10, 

United States Code, as amended by section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

That section lays out a framework that allows the services to decide on which major weapons it seeks to buy under a multiyear 

contract, deliberatively and timely. 

Subject to the outcome of the plans described above, the Navy 

should explore all available options in determining how to address 

the anticipated tactical aircraft shortfall, although options to resolve the Navy tactical aircraft shortfall must be viewed realistically. Projections of the shortfall are already predicated on extending the maximum number of F/A–18A–D fleet aircraft to what virtually all observers have acknowledged is the extreme limit, a level 

of 10,000 total flight hours. Further, the shortfall assumes achieving an initial operational capability for the F–35C in 2015. 

The committee is particularly concerned that a failure to establish the conditions for an MYP on the F/A–18E/F by fiscal year 

2010, should the Navy ultimately decide to purchase additional F/ 

A–18E/F aircraft to address the tactical aircraft shortfall, could 

lead to the loss of ‘‘substantial savings’’ to the government. If the 

Navy were to proceed with annual purchases of F/A–18E/F aircraft 

to close the tactical aircraft shortfall but not position itself to do 

so with an MYP, the taxpayer may be deprived of ‘‘substantial savings,’’ within the meaning of section 2306b of title 10, United 

States Code, as amended. The committee understands that the two 

previous MYP contracts that the Navy executed on this program 

obtained that level of savings—a savings that exceed 10 percent of 

the total costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. The first MYP resulted in an estimated savings of $700.0 

million. The second MYP resulted in an estimated savings of $1.1 

billion. This suggests that the Navy could achieve significant savings on a third MYP. 

The committee remains supportive of the 5th generation F–35, 

Joint Strike Fighter. This provision should in no way be misconstrued as a lack of support for the F–35. In fact, the Department of Defense’s current FYDP funding and quantities for the F–

35C program should not be affected if the Navy decides to pursue 

an F/A–18E/F multiyear contract unless changes to the F–35C program are being made for purposes other than to facilitate purchases of F/A–18E/F aircraft. 

Light utility helicopter 

The committee understands that the Army’s Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) is a commercial off the shelf procurement program 

that will begin fielding to the National Guard in June 2008. The 

committee notes that the Army’s current procurement plan buys 

fewer aircraft per fiscal year in 2009, 2010, and 2011. The committee believes that the LUH program may benefit from an accelerated procurement strategy. The committee, therefore, directs the 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
125 

Secretary of the Army to reevaluate the acquisition strategy for the 

LUH to determine if an accelerated procurement plan could realize 

significant economic order quantity unit cost savings, allow the 

Army to retire aging and more expensive H–1 and H–58 model helicopters, and free up UH–60 Blackhawks for the global war on terror and medium helicopter operations. The Secretary shall provide 

the congressional defense committees with the results of this reevaluation not later than September 30, 2008. 

Material handling equipment study 

The committee understands that the U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) has previously identified significant shortfalls 

in Air Force material handling equipment (MHE) capable of deploying and operating in austere expeditionary environments. In response, Congress increased funding for the Halvorsen Air Cargo 

Loader for a number of years. 

The committee is concerned that ongoing attrition of older MHE 

units, increased Army combat end strength potentially requiring 

increased through put, and procurement of additional strategic and 

theater lift aircraft including the JCA and KC–X tanker with increased cargo capacity may serve to further exacerbate the operational requirements versus availability of MHE. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to conduct a comprehensive analysis of current and future MHE requirements 

across the Air Force, Army, and National Guard, and report to 

Congress on the findings of the study with the budget request for 

fiscal year 2010. 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) included over $17.2 billion for the procurement of more than 15,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP) vehicles. At the beginning of April 2008, according to the 

MRAP Joint Program Office, over 3,500 MRAP vehicles had been 

delivered to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility—

3,368 to Iraq and 154 to Afghanistan. The committee commends 

the Department of Defense and industry for working together to 

deliver rapidly to theater this urgently needed piece of equipment. 

The committee notes that in the coming months and years, the 

Department will need to develop a plan to incorporate these vehicles into the tactical wheeled vehicle fleets of the military services 

and develop a sustainment plan for the eventual transition of these 

vehicles from contractor logistic support to government support. 

Further, the Department must begin to account for the full cost of 

maintaining the different manufacturer variants and to develop as 

many efficiencies as possible. 

The Government Accountability Office has noted that developmental testing of the MRAP continues and that significant engineering change proposals are necessary to address a variety of 

issues. The committee intends to monitor closely how the Department works to incorporate these changes in the coming months, 

and the committee expects that the Department will place a high 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
126 

priority on any force protection and warfighter safety items that 

may be discovered in the ongoing developmental testing. 

The committee also encourages the Department to continue to 

pursue aggressively force protection technologies that will ensure 

that our military forces remain the best equipped in the world. The 

committee continues to monitor a number of ongoing research efforts, including active protection systems, reactive armor, and other 

add-on armor kits for the existing legacy fleet. 

Mission packages 

The Navy has embarked on a program to develop modular 

counter-mine, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare systems, 

referred to as mission packages, to be deployed on the Littoral 

Combat Ship (LCS). The Navy envisions fielding 60 mission packages, which Navy commanders could interchange across the 55-ship 

LCS class as operational requirements dictate. This total system 

capability of the LCS program has been identified by the Chief of 

Naval Operations as a top priority for operations in the littorals. 

The committee similarly views the capability provided by a family 

of LCS mission packages as a key component of the maritime strategy. The committee is, therefore, concerned by the delays to mission package initial operational capability, deployment, and full 

operational capability caused by delays to the LCS construction 

program. 

The Navy has designed the LCS mission packages with 

modularity and with open architecture. Having done this, the Navy 

should be able to deploy this capability on other ship classes. Such 

an expanded concept of operations would provide opportunities to 

employ mission packages more rapidly, and against threats and in 

operational scenarios perhaps not envisioned today. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

evaluate alternatives for employing LCS mission packages on other 

ship classes of the battle force, and to provide a report on his findings to the congressional defense committees with submission of 

the 2010 budget request. The report shall outline the feasibility, 

cost, and impacts associated with integrating mine countermeasures and anti-submarine mission packages on other surface 

combatant and amphibious force ship classes, and provide an assessment of the operational utility afforded by being able to deploy 

mission packages across the broader battle force. 

Operational support aircraft for U.S. Africa Command 

The committee is concerned that the Commander of U.S. Africa 

Command (AFRICOM) lacks the necessary air support to execute 

effectively his mission in a continent comprised of 53 countries, 

spanning a geographic area larger than the United States, China, 

and Western Europe combined. 

The Air Force has requested a C–37B and a C–40 aircraft for 

AFRICOM on its unfunded priorities list. The committee considers 

AFRICOM’s operational airlift capability a high priority. The committee requests that the Air Force support the AFRICOM Combatant Commander’s requirement with existing assets and, in the future, include these items in its regular budget request. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
127 

Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle 

The budget request included $316.6 million in Other Procurement, Army for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). The 

Army originally submitted a budget request $194.5 million higher 

in this PE than what was approved for submission to Congress. Included in this amount was $162.4 million for improvements to the 

Shadow vehicle. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence (USDI) cut this amount due to a misunderstanding 

that the funds were intended to procure many more Shadow units, 

well beyond the approved procurement objective. The funds were in 

fact intended to field a heavy fuel engine, a tactical common data 

link, a laser designator, better cold-weather performance, and improved launch and recovery capabilities for the Shadow UAV. 

The committee believes that these proposed improvements are 

needed not only for better combat performance; all but the laser 

designator are also important for gaining routine access to national 

airspace for training and support to domestic emergencies. The 

committee recommends that the USDI reconsider his position and 

identify resources for reprogramming to initiate these improvements in fiscal year 2009. 

Ship maintenance and material condition 

The Navy has determined that a battle force of no less than 313 

ships, operating within the framework of the Fleet Response Plan 

(FRP), is necessary to meet the requirements of the National Security Strategy. The FRP provides the framework for managing training, maintenance, and material readiness to ensure the Navy’s 

ability to command the seas in major combat operations. Successful 

execution of the FRP relies upon individual unit readiness, which, 

in turn, relies upon the most fundamental ability to self-assess and 

maintain material condition. This is particularly critical as today’s 

280-ship Navy falls well short of the Chief of Naval Operations’ requirement for 313 ships. 

Chapter 633 of title 10, United States Code, establishes the requirement for a Board of Officers, commonly referred to as the 

Board of Inspection and Survey, or INSURV, to examine naval vessels. The committee is concerned that recent INSURV reports have 

found that certain front line ships of the Navy are unfit for combat 

operations. When forward-deployed mine countermeasure ships 

were unable to get underway in 2006, the Navy attacked the material issues to restore these ships to high readiness. However, subsequent reports of serious degradation to amphibious ships, and more 

recently, the determination that two Aegis combatants are ‘‘unfit 

for combat operations,’’ raises concern that there are systemic 

issues associated with organic level maintenance and self-assessment that jeopardize the Navy’s ability to meet its objectives under 

the FRP. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 

2010 budget which addresses ship material condition and readiness. The report shall include underway material inspection findings and trends of the INSURV board during 2003–2008, with an 

analysis of the cause for any downward trends and the actions underway to improve upon these trends. Further, the report shall speVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
128 

cifically address the factors surrounding any ships found to be seriously degraded or unfit for combat operations. The report shall also 

address the Navy’s findings with regard to unit level ability to selfassess and maintain material condition readiness. 

In view of the current emphasis by the Navy to reduce shipboard 

manning, the report shall include the Navy’s plan for maintaining 

material readiness for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which the 

Navy currently intends to deploy for extended durations. To support these extended deployments, the Navy intends to utilize rotating crews, consisting of substantially less than 50 percent of current combatant crew manning levels. The LCS plan shall include 

a description of maintenance requirements, performing organizations, budget requirements, and any consideration by the Navy to 

outsource LCS maintenance. 

Warfighter Information Network–Tactical 

The committee continues to follow closely the test and evaluation 

activities associated with the Warfighter Information Network–Tactical (WIN–T) program. Following a fiscal year 2007 Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach, WIN–T is currently being restructured, and 

will be fielded in four increments. The first increment absorbs the 

former Joint Network Node–Network (JNN–N) program and provides the Army an initial battlefield networking capability down to 

the Army’s battalion level. Follow-on increments will provide the 

Army with greater data capacity and more agile on-the-move capabilities. Increment 3 is intended to provide the Army with full 

interoperability with the Future Combat System (FCS). 

The committee continues to recognize the importance of this program to the Army’s overall modernization efforts. However, the 

committee shares the concerns raised by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) regarding the risk involved 

in pursuing an Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) 

without proper documentation and test resourcing. Now that the 

Army has completed its WIN–T Overarching Acquisition Strategy 

Report with accompanying Increment 1 Annex, the committee believes the Army must complete its WIN–T Increment 1 Test and 

Evaluation Master Plan and IOT&E test plan with certification by 

DOT&E. Further, the committee believes it is critical that the 

Army test systems that are procured under the WIN–T Increment 

1 contract, not equipment procured under the JNN–N contract. Additionally, the committee emphasizes that, for both WIN–T Increment 1 and 2 operational testing, the Army must use field representative units engaged in a full spectrum operations scenario. 

Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, 

Technology, and Logistics and the DOT&E, to report, no later than 

90 days after enactment of this Act, on the Army’s: (1) initial operational test plan, as approved by the DOT&E for WIN–T Increment 

1 as well as Test and Evaluation Master Plans for WIN–T Increments 1,2, and 3; (2) current plans to develop a baseline for WIN–

T Increment 3; (3) timeline and details for a memorandum of 

agreement on requirements stability between FCS and WIN–T program offices; and (4) plans for completing an independent life cycle 

cost estimate for WIN–T Increment 3. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(129) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title II of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2009 budget request for research and development programs, 

and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

These tables are incorporated by reference into this Act as provided in section 1002 of this Act. The Department of Defense may 

not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables or, 

if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 

reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 

Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request 

are made without prejudice. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
130 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here SR335.084
131 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Requirement for plan on overhead nonimaging infrared systems (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Air Force to develop a comprehensive plan to conduct and support research, development, and demonstration of 

technologies that could evolve into the next generation of overhead 

nonimaging systems. The plan would also include an explanation 

of how such systems would be tested, including any flight or onorbit testing as well as how and when the technologies would transition to an acquisition program. In addition, the provision would 

prohibit appropriation of more than 50 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the third generation infrared surveillance program until the plan is submitted to the congressional defense committees. 

Advanced battery manufacturing and technology roadmap 

(sec. 212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a detailed roadmap for the development of advanced battery technologies, and a domestic manufacturing base and assured supply chain to meet current and future 

military requirements. The committee notes that the Defense 

Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy has highlighted 

the importance of advanced battery technologies in meeting military vehicle power and portable power requirements. The committee also notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) expends 

significant resources on the procurement of legacy batteries, and 

makes some investments in next-generation battery technologies. 

The committee believes that advanced battery technologies can 

play a key role in improving system performance and reducing operating and system life cycle costs. However, the committee is concerned about the Department’s ability to access reliable, trusted 

sources of advanced battery technologies, especially given the diminishing domestic manufacturing base for these systems. The 

committee believes that the roadmap required by this section will 

serve to better coordinate service and agency efforts in battery 

technologies and directly tie investments to specific capability gaps, 

technological opportunities, and military requirements. The committee directs that the roadmap be developed in cooperation with 

each of the military departments, the defense and automotive industries, academia, and the Department of Energy, to ensure that 

future investments, programs, and plans are well coordinated and 

that technological and manufacturing capabilities serve dual-use 

purposes where applicable and advantageous to the Department. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
132 

Availability of funds for defense laboratories for research 

and development of technologies for military missions 

(sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish mechanisms through which laboratory directors would be able to set aside up to 3 percent of funding available to their laboratories to support defense missions. The 

funds would be available for the purposes of investing in innovative 

in-house research projects, promoting transition of laboratory-developed technologies into operational systems, or for science and 

engineering workforce enhancement activities. The committee believes that the funds to be used under the authority of this provision should be a portion of those that are currently directly appropriated funds; are funds derived from work for other Department 

of Defense organizations, other federal agencies, and non-federal 

organizations; or from other sources of laboratory revenue. 

The committee notes that the Department of Energy laboratories 

have had a similar authority, known as the Laboratory Directed 

Research and Development program. This authority is generally 

viewed as a necessary tool to support innovative research at those 

laboratories and retain and recruit the finest scientific talent, 

which helps ensure that the laboratories remain world class research institutions. Over the years, a number of independent 

groups, including the Defense Science Board, National Research 

Council, and Naval Research Advisory Committee have recommended similar authority for Department of Defense laboratories. The committee feels that this authority, if properly used, 

can help revitalize the defense laboratories and enable them to better support departmental missions and remain technically on par 

with their private sector, international, and other federal peers. 

Assured funding for certain information security and information assurance programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 214) 

The National Security Agency (NSA) and the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Network and Information Integration (ASD/NII) 

have attempted for a number of years to persuade the Office of 

Management and Budget to establish a budget line item for information assurance anticipatory development within the Department 

of Defense (DOD). While these efforts have not been successful, the 

committee believes that the arguments in favor of such a program 

are compelling. 

The information technology (IT) industry is the most vibrant and 

rapidly evolving industry in the world. The Department attempts 

to acquire or make use of these commercial IT advances to achieve 

efficiencies and improved operational effectiveness. However, DOD 

cannot effectively adopt this technology if it cannot be used securely, yet the Department has no appropriate mechanism for 

keeping pace with the march of technology development. 

There is, for example, an outstanding requirement for a very 

high speed Internet Protocol encryption capability, but NSA has almost no resources with which to respond. The executive branch recently had to launch a satellite that lacked encryption for a key 

wideband downlink. The Advanced Extremely High Frequency SatVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
133 

ellite program was delayed because of a belated encryption subsystem development effort. These types of requirements can be anticipated and, with modest funding, security solutions can be developed to match acquisition schedules. 

The committee recommends a provision that would impose a permanent 1 percent tax on the Department’s information systems security program, other information assurance programs, and the 

non-National Intelligence Program-funded cyber security initiative 

to finance this new program. 

The committee directs that the program be executed by NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate unless otherwise specified by the 

ASD/NII. The ASD/NII shall review and approve expenditures 

under this program. The committee urges the administration to vitiate the need for this statute-based funding mechanism by submitting its own budget request for this activity. 

Requirements for certain airborne intelligence collection 

systems (sec. 215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

by October 1, 2012, all intelligence collection aircraft that provide 

data to, or receive tasking from, the joint Distributed Common 

Ground/Surface System (DCGS) be connected to, and able to fully 

operate with, the Network Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) 

network. The provision would provide for waivers on a case-by-case 

basis. The committee stresses that the RIVET JOINT RC–135 signals intelligence system is considered to be connected to the DCGS 

system via its satellite-based reachback capability, and therefore 

would be subject to the requirements of this provision. 

The committee believes that NCCT is an important intelligence 

and targeting capability that has not received adequate resources 

or management attention. Intelligence budget requests are generally based on inputs from the program managers of the collection 

platforms and few of them see that allocating scarce resources to 

connect to the NCCT network is a high priority because doing so 

benefits consumers in general. The operational utility of universal 

NCCT participation for commanders is not reflected in the programming process. The committee urges the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense to impose a joint perspective to NCCT. 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs 

Review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of 

the United States (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the United States, and to report the results of the review to Congress not later than January 31, 2010. 

The provision specifies a number of elements to be considered in 

the review. 

The committee believes it is essential for the next administration 

to conduct a full review of missile defense policy, strategy, and related matters at the outset of its tenure. The previous missile defense policy review was conducted before the United States had deployed any missile defense systems other than the Patriot system. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
134 

In order to expedite the deployment of an initial set of missile defense capabilities, the Missile Defense Agency was created and 

given extraordinary acquisition flexibility and authority, and high 

levels of concurrency were adopted. 

Now that the initial missile defense capabilities have been deployed or are under production, the circumstances warrant a new 

overarching review to guide the next phase of U.S. missile defense 

programs and activities. 

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, construction, and deployment of missile defenses in Europe 

(sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of fiscal year 2009 funds authorized to be appropriated 

in this Act from being obligated or expended for procurement, site 

activation, construction, preparation of equipment for, or deployment of major components of a long-range missile defense system 

in a European country until two conditions have been met: (1) the 

government of the country in which such major components of such 

missile defense system (including interceptors and associated radars) are proposed to be deployed has given final approval (including parliamentary ratification) to any missile defense agreements 

negotiated between such government and the United States Government concerning the proposed deployment of such components 

in such country; and (2) 45 days have elapsed following the receipt 

by Congress of the report required by section 226(c) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 181). 

The provision would also limit the availability of fiscal year 2009 

funds for the acquisition (other than initial long lead procurement) 

or deployment of operational interceptor missiles for the proposed 

long-range missile defense system in Europe until the Secretary of 

Defense certifies to Congress, after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, that the proposed interceptor to be deployed as part of such a missile defense system has 

demonstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, that it has a high probability of accomplishing its mission in 

an operationally effective manner. 

The provision also makes clear that it would not limit continuing 

obligations and expenditures of funds for missile defense, including 

for research and development and for other activities not otherwise 

limited by the provision, including site surveys, studies, analysis, 

and planning and design for the proposed missile defense deployment in Europe. 

The committee notes that the provision would adopt the same 

standard that was enacted in section 226 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) with 

respect to the availability of funds for the proposed deployment of 

a long-range missile defense system in Europe. The provision 

would make clear that if a European host nation provides final approval of a negotiated deployment agreement with the United 

States, it would be able to proceed without waiting for the final approval of another European nation on any missile defense agreements negotiated with the United States. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
135 

The provision would also clarify that initial long-lead procurement of parts for the planned 2-stage interceptors could be acquired. The committee notes that the initial long lead items 

planned for procurement are 100 percent common with both the 2- 

stage and 3-stage Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs). Therefore, 

they could be used for purposes other than being deployed on operational 2-stage GBIs if necessary, including for flight test and 

ground test interceptors for either 3-stage or 2-stage GBIs. As described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends authorizing initial funding for these long lead parts, with the understanding that if there are problems with the 2-stage GBI development program, these long lead parts would be used for other purposes, rather than being wasted or deployed before the 2-stage GBI 

is certified as ready. 

The United States is continuing its negotiations with Poland and 

the Czech Republic on agreements concerning the proposed deployment of 10 GBI missiles in Poland and a midcourse X-band radar 

in the Czech Republic. Although the negotiations with the Czech 

Republic appear to be nearly complete, the negotiations with Poland could still take months to complete, and are conditioned on 

whether the United States meets Poland’s requests for security enhancements. If the negotiations are concluded successfully, it will 

take additional time for the Polish and Czech parliaments to consider ratification of the agreements. Consequently, it remains unclear whether or when any agreements would be finally approved, 

a necessary condition before beginning any proposed construction 

or deployment. 

The committee notes that the proposed 2-stage interceptor intended for deployment in Poland is still being developed, and is not 

scheduled to have its first booster flight test until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009. Given that a number of Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) flight tests have been delayed substantially, 

it is possible that the 2-stage GBI tests will also be delayed. 

In an October 2007 report, the Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation (DOT&E) noted the ‘‘significant differences’’ between 

the proposed GMD deployment with a 2-stage interceptor in Europe and the existing GMD system deployed in the United States 

with a 3-stage GBI. According to the report, ‘‘European defense 

using GMD assets is a completely new mission area for GMD.’’ The 

report provided DOT&E’s initial testing concept for the proposed 

European deployment, which would include three flight tests, two 

of which would be intercept tests. The Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) was originally planning to conduct only two flight tests 

prior to deploying the system, one of which would be an intercept 

test. This planned flight test program would not meet the DOT&E 

minimum test plan concept. It is difficult to envision the certification required of the Secretary of Defense under these circumstances. However, MDA has recently agreed to conduct three 

flight tests, in accordance with the DOT&E test concept. The committee views this as a positive development. 

The committee notes that, in their Bucharest summit declaration 

in April, Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) recognized the substantial contribution of the planned deployment to the protection of NATO allies against long-range misVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
136 

siles, and said they were exploring ways to link the planned capability with NATO missile defense efforts. They also said they would 

develop options for a comprehensive NATO missile defense architecture to provide coverage of the portions of NATO Europe that 

would not be covered by the planned U.S. deployment, in order to 

inform any future political decision by NATO on whether and how 

to provide defensive coverage for the portion of its territory that 

would not be protected against ballistic missiles, including from the 

hundreds of Iranian ballistic missiles that exist today. 

Airborne Laser system (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to review 

and evaluate the testing conducted on the first Airborne Laser 

(ABL) aircraft and to report to the Secretary of Defense and to 

Congress, not later than January 15, 2010, his assessment of the 

operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the ABL 

system. The provision would also limit the availability of funds for 

procurement of a second ABL aircraft until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the assessment of DOT&E, certifies that the 

ABL system has demonstrated, through successful testing and 

operational and cost analysis, a high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable. 

The committee observes that Missile Defense Agency officials indicated in a briefing to staff that the authority to proceed with the 

second ABL aircraft has been granted on the condition that the 

planned 2009 first shoot-down demonstration test is successful, and 

that the budget request included $15.8 million to begin studies and 

analysis on a second ABL aircraft. The committee believes that a 

decision on whether to proceed with a possible second ABL aircraft 

should only be made after much more information is available 

about the likelihood that the system could eventually provide an 

operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable missile 

defense capability. 

As the committee noted last year, the ABL program has many 

unanswered questions about operational effectiveness, suitability, 

survivability, and affordability. The committee believes these questions need to be answered before making a commitment to procure 

a second ABL aircraft. 

Annual Director of Operational Test and Evaluation characterization of operational effectiveness, suitability, and 

survivability of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 

(sec. 234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

annual report by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 

(DOT&E) on the testing of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 

(BMDS) to include a characterization of the operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the BMDS and its elements 

that have been fielded or tested before the end of the previous fiscal year. 

Section 232(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) requires DOT&E to provide an 

annual report to Congress assessing the adequacy and sufficiency 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
137 

of the test program of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) during 

the previous fiscal year. Section 234(b)(2) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) requires DOT&E to submit a report to Congress providing his characterization of the operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the BMDS at the conclusion of testing of each 2-year 

block of the BMDS. However, MDA eliminated the previous 2-year 

block structure and replaced it with functional blocks that respond 

to specific threats. These new blocks have no timelines associated 

with them, thus changing the schedule assumptions of section 

234(b)(2). This provision would retain the requirement for DOT&E 

to report to Congress on the characterization of the BMDS, consistent with the new MDA block structure. 

The committee notes that the DOT&E annual missile defense 

testing report for 2007 included the DOT&E characterization of the 

operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Block 

2006 BMD system and its elements, in fulfillment of the requirements of section 234(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006. In testimony before the committee, Dr. 

Charles McQueary, the DOT&E, stated that he plans to include 

this characterization information in future annual DOT&E reports 

on missile defense testing. 

Independent assessment of boost-phase missile defense programs (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into a contract with the National 

Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent assessment of the 

boost-phase missile defense programs of the United States to consider the extent to which boost-phase missile defense is feasible, 

practical, and affordable, and whether any of the existing boostphase missile defense technology programs of the Department of 

Defense (particularly the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy 

Interceptor) have a high probability of performing a boost-phase 

missile defense mission in an operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable manner. Upon completion of its assessment, 

the National Academy would submit a report on the results of its 

assessment to the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees, along with any recommendations the Academy 

considers appropriate. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense will have 

spent over $5.1 billion since 1996 on the Airborne Laser (ABL) 

technology demonstration program to conduct the first proof of 

principle missile shoot-down demonstration test in 2009, and an 

additional $2.8 billion in the 4-year period starting in fiscal year 

2010. The Congressional Budget Office provided an initial estimate 

that a fleet of seven ABL aircraft could cost as much as $36.0 billion to develop, acquire, and operate. Additionally, the Department 

plans to spend more than $3.6 billion over the 7-year period starting in fiscal year 2007 on technology development for the Kinetic 

Energy Interceptor (KEI) as a possible boost-phase intercept system. Despite these significant past and planned expenditures, there 

is no assurance that either of these systems will work in an operationally effective, practical, or affordable manner. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
138 

As the committee noted last year, the ABL program has a host 

of significant unanswered questions related to whether it could 

work in an operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable manner. For example, the ABL concept is to destroy a missile 

body—not the warhead—while it is boosting. By the time this 

intercept would take place, the missile could have achieved sufficient velocity to travel well outside the border of the nation that 

launched it. Thus, the warhead could continue to fly to an unintended location, including possibly an allied country where U.S. 

forces are deployed, and cause significant damage. Also, for the aircraft to have any possibility of conducting intercepts, it would have 

to be flying at exactly the right place and the right time, out of 

range of air defenses, but within range of a boosting missile. Given 

these constraints, there appear to be practical limits to the ability 

of an ABL system to operate against most nations that possess ballistic missiles. 

In its March 2007 report, ‘‘Defense Acquisitions: Missile Defense 

Acquisition Strategy Generates Results but Delivers Less at a 

Higher Cost,’’ the Government Accountability Office recommended 

an independent evaluation of ABL and KEI ‘‘to inform decisions on 

the future of the two programs.’’ The statement of managers to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) expressed the view that an independent 

review should be conducted of the ABL and KEI programs. 

The committee believes it would be important to have an independent, technically competent review of the feasibility, practicality, and affordability of boost-phase missile defense programs to 

help inform future decisions on missile defense investments. 

Study on space-based interceptor element of ballistic missile 

defense system (sec. 236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into a contract with one or more independent entities to conduct a review of the feasibility and advisability of developing a space-based interceptor element to the ballistic missile defense system. The provision would require that the 

contract be entered into after consultation with the Chairman and 

Ranking members of the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives, and no later than 75 

days after the date this Act is enacted. The committee expects the 

Secretary of Defense to undertake a thorough consultation with the 

Committees on Armed Services in advance of selecting the independent entity or entities to conduct the study. 

The independent entities could be federally funded research and 

development centers, including the Department of Energy National 

Laboratories, recognized scientific and technical organizations such 

as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for 

the Advancement of Science, the American Physical Society, or 

drawn from academia such as JASON. 

The provision would direct the report be provided simultaneously 

to the Committees on Armed Services and to the Secretary of Defense and would permit the Secretary a period of 60 days to submit 

comments or recommendations with respect to the report to the 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
139 

committees. The report and any comments would be submitted in 

an unclassified form but may include a classified annex. 

The provision would authorize $5.0 million from funds available 

to the Missile Defense Agency for the study. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Modification of systems subject to survivability testing by 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (sec. 

251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) can perform adequate and necessary oversight over the live fire, survivability, and lethality testing of critical defense systems. The committee has been concerned about the oversight of testing, and the 

lack of standardized testing for systems fielded to personnel in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, including personnel protective equipment such as 

body armor and helmets. The committee attempted to enhance testing and DOT&E oversight authority over testing of these types of 

systems through statutory changes in section 231 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). Section 231 intended to authorize the DOT&E to 

perform necessary oversight activities over force protection and 

non-lethal weapon systems. 

The committee feels that the ability of the DOT&E to perform 

his intended role to ensure that fielded systems are survivable is 

hindered by lack of statutory authority and limited cooperation by 

the military services. The committee notes that the DOT&E has 

worked effectively in partnership with the services in performing 

testing oversight duties on important rapid development and fielding initiatives like the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) 

vehicle, which have contributed to improving the survivability and 

performance of the systems without unnecessary delay in development or fielding of vital combat systems. 

The committee directs the secretaries of the military departments to ensure that programs designated for survivability oversight by the DOT&E under this authority cooperate fully with testing oversight officials such that all equipment fielded to deployed 

personnel is safe, survivable, and of the highest performance possible. 

Biennial reports on joint and service concept development 

and experimentation (sec. 252) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

existing reporting requirement on joint warfighting experimentation activities. The provision would reduce the reporting requirement from annual to biennial and change the report’s focus to better reflect the current state of concept development and experimentation activities in the Department of Defense, and better highlight 

current and future activities that will enable robust joint 

warfighting capabilities. 

The committee commends United States Joint Forces Command 

(JFCOM) for its extensive efforts in concept development and experimentation. To date, JFCOM activities have explored a number 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
140 

of emerging operational concepts, capabilities, and technologies, including addressing future homeland defense, interagency cooperation, urban operations, and multinational operations scenarios. 

However, it is not clear that JFCOM is placing a high enough priority on experimentation with future concepts and technologies 

that could be operationally employed in a time frame of greater 

than 10 years. The committee is also concerned that the efforts of 

JFCOM in this regard have not had sufficient and wide ranging 

impacts across the organizational and force structures, doctrine, 

and materiel development activities of the Department of Defense. 

The committee also notes that the services continue to pursue their 

own warfighting experimentation and concept development activities, though often in a manner poorly coordinated with joint efforts. 

Therefore, the provision’s reporting requirements include focused 

reporting on ‘‘futures’’ experimentation, an assessment of the return on investments in concept development and experimentation 

activities in terms of specific outcomes and impacts within the Department of Defense, and descriptions of the concept development 

and experimentation activities of the military departments. 

Further, the committee notes that the JFCOM Commander’s activities in joint training, provision of joint forces, and position as 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Supreme Allied 

Commander for Transformation may also serve to motivate recommended changes in the Department’s organizational and force 

structure, doctrine, and materiel development efforts, which should 

also be incorporated into the recommendations included in the report. 

Finally, the committee directs the secretaries of the military departments to support the development of this report through coordination, appropriate resources, and supplying required information in a timely manner. 

Repeal of annual reporting requirement relating to the 

Technology Transition Initiative (sec. 253) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

recurring reporting requirement on the Technology Transition Initiative (TTI). The committee originally proposed this initiative in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) in order to accelerate the transition of technologies from science and technology programs into operational 

use. The initiative was codified in section 242 of the Bob Stump 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 

Law 107–314). 

The committee notes that the TTI is currently successfully 

transitioning roughly 70 percent of its funded projects into operational use. This committee believes that this success is a result of 

the initiative’s flexible funding, cost sharing requirements, and 

joint and service participation in the selection and funding of 

projects. The committee notes that the statute and processes of the 

TTI have contributed to enhancing the links between technology 

developers, requirements generators, and operators, and have successfully enhanced transition efficiency and speed. The committee 

notes that there are now a number of parallel initiatives and programs seeking to accelerate technology transition in the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
141 

ment of Defense, including, but not limited to, the Quick Reaction 

Fund, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, the 

work of the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, many Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency efforts, and the Army Agile Integration 

and Demonstration program. 

The committee notes that some of these programs may be duplicative and others may not be adequately coordinated with partner 

services, agencies, and operational users, but rather are flexible 

funds used solely in the discretion of a single organization. The 

committee notes that the desire for complete flexibility in the use 

of appropriated funds is a necessary but insufficient condition for 

enhancing technology transition, and can lead to problems in ensuring adequate oversight and in coordination between elements of 

the Department. The committee recommends that the Secretary of 

Defense, working through the Technology Transition Council, continue to review these programs and their relative merits and authorities and recommend any necessary consolidation, expansion, 

or changes in statutory authorities, or other changes in regulations 

or execution that would increase their efficiency and effectiveness. 

Executive agent for printed circuit board technology (sec. 

254) 

The committee recommends a provision that would follow the 

recommendations of the National Research Council and a report of 

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel 

Readiness and would require the establishment of an executive 

agent to oversee Department of Defense (DOD) activities related to 

printed circuit board technologies. The committee notes that the 

National Research Council’s Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design studied the issue of DOD access to legacy and future generations of printed circuit board technologies to support defense and other missions. The resulting 2005 report made a series 

of recommendations designed to ensure DOD access to printed circuit board technology and enable the development of new capabilities needed to support emerging requirements. 

In March 2008, a Principal Response Team convened by the 

Navy and Defense Logistics Agency, and consisting of membership 

from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security 

Agency, the military services, and the Departments of State and 

Energy, reported to Congress that ‘‘DOD concurs with comments on 

all NRC recommendations,’’ and identified current and potential actions to address each one. 

The committee notes that printed circuit board technologies are 

critical components of numerous defense systems, and cost the Department roughly $500.0 million annually. There are strong and 

growing concerns related to the development of next-generation capabilities, to preserving assured access to trusted sources of technology due to a diminishing domestic manufacturing base, and 

even to the trustworthiness of existing supplies of printed circuit 

board technology being used for military systems. The committee 

notes that DOD efforts to address these issues have been underfunded and disjointed in the past. The establishment of an executive agent can raise the profile of risk issues related to printed circuit board technological, as well as production and acquisition 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
142 

issues, and help ensure that these concerns are better addressed in 

future budgets, plans, and programs. The committee further notes 

that the March 2008 DOD report recommended a series of possible 

actions for the executive agent to undertake to address a variety 

of issues. The committee directs the executive agent to carefully 

analyze and evaluate these recommendations and act on them as 

appropriate. 

Report on Department of Defense response to findings and 

recommendations of the Defense Science Board Task 

Force on Directed Energy Weapons (sec. 255) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop specific responses to the findings 

and recommendations of the December 2007 Defense Science Board 

(DSB) Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons. The DSB found 

that directed energy offers promise as a ‘‘transformational game 

changer,’’ but that ‘‘years of investment have not resulted in any 

current operational high-energy laser capability.’’ The DSB made a 

series of recommendations broadly aimed at accelerating the operational use of directed energy weapons, including: better defining 

concepts of operations for directed energy weapons; better understanding the relative benefits and disadvantages of directed energy 

systems versus traditional, kinetic systems; and better focusing research and development and science and technology investments on 

high priority potential operational solutions and on resolving specific high priority technical issues. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to coordinate a 

formal response to the DSB findings and recommendations in concert with appropriate technology development, requirements generation, and operational communities. The committee also directs 

that the required analysis address the important issue of assuring 

that the Department of Defense has sufficient testing expertise and 

infrastructure to adequately perform all necessary developmental 

and operational tests on directed energy systems. 

Assessment of standards for mission critical semiconductors 

procured by the Department of Defense (sec. 256) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to perform an assessment of existing and 

emerging technical methods for verifying the trustworthiness of 

semiconductors procured for use in critical defense applications. 

The committee notes that the manufacture of semiconductors has 

continued to migrate to off-shore foundries, particularly to foundries in China. Since the defense semiconductor market comprises 

only 1 percent of the overall global semiconductor market, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) ability to procure high end semiconductor technologies is largely dependent on commercial interests, 

practices, and markets. 

The committee notes that the Department is currently depending 

primarily on a single source for high end semiconductors for defense and intelligence applications through the DOD Trusted 

Foundry program, which was established in 2004. The February 

2005 report by the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip supply stated that the Trusted Foundry ProVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
143 

gram is an interim source of high performance integrated circuits 

(ICs) and was appropriate for addressing the immediate needs for 

trusted sources of IC supply. Since that time, the trend of migration of semiconductor manufacturing overseas has continued, making it more urgent to augment the Trusted Foundry by developing 

a more comprehensive approach for the procurement of trusted 

parts. 

The committee notes that one issue that needs to be addressed 

by the Department through the required assessment is providing 

defense programs assurance of dependable, continuous, long-term 

access to trusted, mission critical semiconductors from both foreign 

and domestic sources for its potentially vulnerable defense systems. 

DOD needs for integrated circuits include high end semiconductors, 

custom Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), and Field 

Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). The committee notes that the 

assurance of trust includes verifying that the semiconductor has 

not been tampered with or modified in any way, and performs only 

the functions expected and required. This also requires assurance 

that the design process, fabrication, packaging, final assembly, and 

test of semiconductors are also free from tampering. 

The recommended provision would require that the Department 

inventory and possibly implement the best methods currently available for assuring trust. The committee recommends that the Department put in place an overall policy and direction, as well as a 

plan for the procurement of semiconductors that assures continuous access and trust to support military requirements. The committee believes the Department also needs to monitor and implement new techniques and approaches as they become available 

through technological advances. 

Finally, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to keep the congressional defense committees informed of the actions taken pursuant to this 

provision. 

Budget Items 

Army 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
144 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here SR335.085
145 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here SR335.086
146 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here SR335.087
147 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here SR335.088
148 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here SR335.089
149 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here SR335.090
150 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here SR335.091
151 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here SR335.092
152 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here SR335.093
153 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here SR335.094
154 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here SR335.095
155 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here SR335.096
156 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here SR335.097
157 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here SR335.098
158 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here SR335.099
159 

Army basic research programs 

The budget request included $177.0 million in PE 61102A for 

Army defense research sciences. The committee commends the 

Army for increasing investments in basic research by over $75.0 

million relative to the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The committee notes that the previous Director of Defense Research and 

Engineering has called for increases in fundamental research of 

$300.0 to $500.0 million per year to support focused efforts in discovery and innovation on crucial problems for national security. 

Consistent with that effort, the committee recommends a series of 

increases to support mission-informed basic research. The committee recommends an increase in PE 61102A of: $3.0 

million for research on advanced energy storage technologies; $1.5 

million for research on drug resistant bacterial infections; $1.5 million for research on understanding and forecasting natural environments to support global military operations; and $1.5 million for 

modeling and simulation studies of organic semiconductor materials and devices. 

The budget request also included $77.0 million in PE 61103A for 

university research initiatives. The committee recommends a number of increases in PE 61103A to support Army mission areas, including: $2.0 million for research on the low temperature performance of military vehicles; $2.0 million for research on 

nanomaterials for lightweight composite systems; $1.2 million for 

research on training and simulation to support urban terrain operating capabilities; $2.5 million for nanoscale biosensor research; 

and $1.5 million for development of nanocomposite technologies for 

wireless energy applications. 

Network science and technology research center 

The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 61104A for the 

establishment of a network science and technology research center. 

The committee commends the Army for its continued commitment 

to investments in basic research, especially in the face of severe 

budget constraints due to the current operations and reset of the 

force. The committee also commends the Army for its new investments in network science and believes that these investments can 

lead to significant enhancements in operational capabilities. 

The committee notes with concern that the current Army plan 

calls for the majority of funding for this effort to go to the establishment of a single research center. The committee believes that 

this approach ironically fails to take advantage of many of the benefits of networked, distributed research efforts. The committee believes that these include the ability to have a multitude of geographically diverse, interdisciplinary researchers working collaboratively on military network research issues, using shared or existing resources to reduce overall cost, and exploiting advances in 

computing, collaboration, and other information technologies to 

make research and technology development efficient and seamless. 

The committee is also concerned that the Army’s pre-selection of 

a site for the center has created a situation in which very few worthy academic institutions can legitimately compete to manage the 

center, thereby severely limiting the Army’s ability to access the 

highest quality network science research across the nation. The 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
160 

committee also notes that the Army’s management strategy for current university affiliated research centers faces some major problems. These include the fact that the centers and their relatively 

large basic research funding levels limit the Army’s ability to reach 

out to a broad spectrum of universities to fund innovative research 

that would supplement investments in the focused centers, as well 

as a lack of planning for the process of terminating the centers, so 

that the Army’s research programs can remain responsive to military needs and scientific opportunity. 

Finally, the committee notes that the National Research Council’s 2007 report entitled ‘‘Strategy for an Army Center for Network 

Science, Technology, and Experimentation’’ concluded that, ‘‘based 

on Army needs, the NSTEC [Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation Center] should be a hybrid operation consisting of 

two or three centralized facilities having interconnectivity to a variety of distributed supporting elements.’’ The current Army proposed plan and budget is not consistent with this recommended hybrid approach. 

Therefore, the committee directs that the network science and 

technology research center be established as a virtual center, with 

the majority of funding going to a networked group of investigators 

selected on the basis of technical merit of proposed research. The 

committee directs that only up to $2.0 million of the $10.0 million 

authorized in PE 61104A for the establishment of a network 

science and technology research center shall be available for the 

purpose of infrastructure and facilities development at the proposed U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland location. 

The remaining funds are to be used for other program purposes, 

primarily the funding of competitive projects to a diverse group of 

single investigators and research teams who will participate in the 

virtual network science center. The committee directs the Secretary 

of the Army to report to the congressional defense committees on 

the status of the virtual center, the use of authorized funding, and 

the methods of selection of industry and academic participants in 

the virtual center, no later than December 31, 2008. 

Army materials research 

The budget request included $27.0 million in PE 62105A for applied research on materials technology. The committee notes that 

the Army’s Vehicle Armor Technology Objective seeks to provide 

comprehensive solutions to threats that will be faced by the Future 

Combat Systems ground vehicles. In support of that objective, the 

committee recommends increases of: $2.0 million for research on 

lightweight composites for combat and tactical vehicle applications 

and $1.7 million for development of materials processing technologies to support production of lightweight armor systems. 

To help reduce life cycle costs of Army ground and aviation assets, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62105A for development of cold spray coating technologies for repair applications. 

The committee notes that one of the major threats currently facing deployed forces is improvised explosive devices (IED). To support efforts to better technically characterize these threats, the 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
161 

committee recommends an additional $475,000 in PE 62105A for 

development of simulations of IED blast effects. 

Finally, in the May 2007 report to Congress on the Defense 

Nanotechnology Research and Development program, the Director 

of Defense Research and Engineering indicated that sustained support was necessary to continue development of novel 

nanotechnology-based systems and devices, and that increased support was needed to further nanomanufacturing efforts. Consistent 

with that report, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 

million for the development of advanced magnetic nanosensor technologies, and an additional $1.5 million for the development of advanced nanomanufacturing capabilities for multifunctional sensors. 

Advanced Army energy and power technologies 

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Energy Security 

highlighted the critical security, cost, and performance issues that 

currently face and will increasingly handicap the Department of 

Defense (DOD) due to its overreliance on costly, sometimes unreliable sources of energy. The DSB study noted that increased investments in research on energy and power technologies were warranted in order to address this issue, stating, ‘‘. . . technologies 

with the potential to make incremental improvements often are not 

significant enough to attract much funding and are disadvantaged 

in their competition for deployment into programs.’’ To support 

Army efforts to address emerging energy and power requirements 

and enable new operational capabilities, the committee makes a series of increases for energy and power research activities. 

The National Research Council’s 2004 report entitled ‘‘Meeting 

the Energy Needs of Future Warriors’’ noted a number of technical 

challenges for battery and fuel cell development and commented 

that ‘‘the challenge is to make them smaller, lighter, cheaper, more 

reliable, and more energy-dense without sacrificing safety.’’ To support the achievement of this technological goal, the committee recommends increases of: $2.0 million in PE 62120A for development 

of hydrogen battery technologies; $2.0 million in PE 62705A for soldier portable fuel cell technologies; and $2.0 million in PE 63734A 

for direct methanol fuel cell development. 

The DSB noted that there are a number of executive order and 

statutory mandates that are driving the Department to improve 

the energy efficiency of its facilities and to utilize alternative fuels 

in its non-tactical alternative fueled vehicles. In order to support 

the development of technologies that could help DOD meet those 

goals, the committee recommends a number of funding increases 

for investments in advanced energy power and technologies for vehicle applications. The committee recommends increases for advanced technology development on combat vehicles of: $6.0 million 

in PE 63005A for the development of military hybrid engines; $3.0 

million for advanced lithium battery technologies; $5.0 million to 

support development of next-generation non-tactical fuel cell vehicle technologies; $2.0 million for the development of nickel metal 

hydride batteries for military vehicles; $10.0 million for an advanced military vehicle battery development and testing initiative; 

$3.0 million for the development of hydraulic hybrid vehicle systems; $4.0 million for development of hybrid blast resistant vehiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
162 

cles; $3.5 million for the demonstration of hydraulic hybrid retrofit 

technologies for legacy Army vehicles; $1.0 million for the development of solid hydrogen storage technologies; $2.0 million for development of integrated power management and control technologies; 

$3.5 million for the development of logistics fuel processors; $5.0 

million for development of electric drive technologies for tactical 

wheeled vehicles; and $12.0 million for Army power and energy research infrastructure and equipment. 

The DSB task force also called for DOD to address critical infrastructure security issues that result from energy use. To help address these infrastructure issues, the committee recommends an 

additional $1.0 million in PE 63734A for the development of fuel 

cell systems to provide power for continuity of operations missions. 

The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program has identified power 

and energy technologies, especially batteries, and continuing work 

to leverage commercial technology development, as a top science 

and technology priority. The committee also recognizes the value of 

dual-use research and technology research and development in the 

area of energy and power systems for vehicles. To support these efforts the committee is recommending a series of increases in applied research on dual-use energy and power vehicle systems. The 

committee recommends increases of: $1.5 million in PE 62601A for 

research on next-generation vehicle design and biofuel technologies; 

$2.0 million for the development of hybrid electric vehicle battery 

technologies for FCS; $4.0 million for development and testing of 

fuel cells for medium and heavy duty vehicles; and $2.0 million for 

advanced lightweight electric drive technologies. Additionally, the 

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62601A 

for research on novel military fuels. 

Army aviation technologies 

The budget request included $17.0 million in PE 62211A for applied research for aviation technology. The committee notes that 

the United States Central Command has identified the development of standoff and persistent observation of the improvised explosive device ‘‘kill chain’’ by advanced sensors using unmanned air 

systems as a high science and technology priority. To support the 

development and maturation of that capability the committee recommends an increase in PE 62211A of $2.5 million for research on 

slowed rotor technologies for unmanned air systems. 

Sniper detection systems 

The budget request included $17.0 million in PE 62308A for advanced concepts and simulation. The committee notes the continued threats that snipers and mortars pose to deployed forces, especially in urban settings. Therefore, the committee recommends an 

increase of $3.0 million for the development of wearable sniper detection systems to aid in localizing sniper fire and mortar launches. 

Army vehicle reliability technologies 

The budget request included $55.2 million in PE 62601A for applied research for combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The 

committee notes that reducing the life cycle costs of weapon systems is an important thrust area for the Department of Defense, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
163 

especially through enhancements in system reliability in harsh operating environments and at high operating tempos. To support the 

development of highly reliable systems, the committee recommends 

increases in PE 62601A of $4.5 million for the development of computer simulation tools for vehicle design and optimization, and $2.0 

million for modeling of ground vehicle reliability and conditionbased maintenance. 

Unmanned ground vehicle weaponization 

The budget request included $30.6 million in PE 62624A for 

weapons and munitions technology. The committee has been supportive of the development of unmanned ground systems to reduce 

casualties and to enable new operational concepts and capabilities. 

The committee notes that the Near Autonomous Unmanned Systems Army Technology Objective is developing robotic technologies 

for future unmanned systems, and working to transition technologies to programs such as Future Combat Systems. To support 

these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million to develop remotely controlled unmanned systems with lethal 

and non-lethal capabilities. 

Standoff explosives detection technologies 

The budget request included $21.8 million in PE 62712A for applied research on countermine systems. The committee notes that 

the standoff detection of explosives is a capability that is of critical 

concern to the Department of Defense as it seeks to combat the use 

of improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 

62712A for the development of standoff explosives detection technologies. 

Soldier positioning technologies 

The budget request included $24.0 million in PE 62782A for command, control, and communications technologies. The committee 

notes that the 2003 National Research Council study entitled 

‘‘Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security’’ found that 

‘‘the current system for gaining situational awareness in an urban 

environment is inadequate,’’ and recommended the development of 

robust technologies to address this capability gap. To support this 

recommendation, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 

million in PE 62782A for research on portable positioning and timing devices for use in urban terrains. 

Military engineering technologies 

The budget request included $52.1 million in PE 62784A for military engineering technologies. The committee notes that the Battle 

Space Terrain Reasoning and Awareness—Battle Command Army 

Technology Objective seeks to provide actionable information relating to terrain, atmospheric, and weather impacts on deployed assets. To support this objective, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for geosciences and atmospheric research. 

The committee notes that the Modular Protective Systems for 

Future Force Assets Army Technology Objective seeks to develop 

systems that enhance the protection and survivability of personnel 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
164 

and systems from conventional and asymmetric threats. To support 

these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 62784A for research on low-cost, high-performance 

nanocomposite panels for enhanced blast and ballistic protection, 

and an increase of $1.5 million in PE 62786A for development of 

ballistic materials for force protection applications. 

The committee notes that deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

other regions of the world are putting on forward operating bases 

infrastructure at unprecedented risk. Strategic, tactical, and resource constraints sometimes restrict the nature and scope of construction for these bases, yet the bases must be hardened for longterm use and asymmetric terrorist and insurgent attack. 

The committee is aware of a number of efforts at service laboratories, small businesses, and universities developing new force protection technologies that can counter current and emerging threats 

to bases. Given the long-term need for enhanced and rapidly 

deployable force protection at bases in volatile operating zones, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a report outlining a plan for addressing deployable force protection infrastructure technology. The report should address current and emerging 

capability gaps, specific research and development goals to be accomplished to address those gaps, funding needs to address the 

gaps and accelerate infrastructure force protection technology deployment, and the value of creating research centers to partner 

with service laboratories on promising research and technology 

areas. The report should be delivered to the committee not later 

than 6 months after the date of enactment of this bill. 

Combat feeding technologies 

The budget request included $21.9 million in PE 62786A for applied research for warfighter technologies. The committee notes 

that reduction in logistics costs is a goal of the Department of Defense and is being pursued through a number of efforts, including 

the use of alternative energy technologies. To support these efforts, 

the committee recommends an additional $1.5 million for the development of energy efficient, high performance mobile kitchen units. 

Army medical research 

The budget request included $75.4 million in PE 62787A for applied research on medical technologies. The committee notes that 

Army medical research and technology protects and treats personnel to sustain combat strength, reduce casualties, and save 

lives. The committee recommends a number of funding increases in 

PE 62787A to support these efforts and to help respond to a variety 

of medical care issues resulting from current operations or to leverage emerging research and technology. 

The Army has a stated technology objective to develop fluid resuscitation to reduce injury and loss of life on the battlefield. In 

support of this, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to support clinical research on dried blood technologies. 

To help military surgeons find new limb-sparing techniques to 

save injured extremities, avoid amputations, and preserve and restore the function of injured extremities, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to continue peer-reviewed reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
165 

search efforts on extremity war injuries. To support the treatment 

of blast injuries, the committee recommends increases of: $3.5 million for traumatic brain injury research; $2.5 million for bio-engineering research to enhance soldier survivability; $2.5 million for 

post traumatic stress disorder research; $5.0 million for modeling 

of blast wave effects; and $1.0 million for research on injury biomechanics. 

The committee notes that Army infectious disease efforts focus 

on medical countermeasures against naturally occurring diseases of 

military importance. To support those research efforts the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on 

treatments for dengue fever. 

Finally, the committee notes that next-generation technologies 

will develop medical technologies and enable human performance 

improvements that could radically transform military operations. 

To support next-generation research efforts in military medical 

technologies the committee recommends increases of: $2.0 million 

for genetics research to enhance soldier survival in extreme environments; $2.0 million for research on nanomaterials to improve biological processes such as targeted drug delivery; and $8.0 million 

to initiate a military photomedicine program that would fund single investigators and research centers to develop optics and 

photonics based technologies to perform combat casualty care missions. 

Biosensor controller systems 

The budget request included $46.8 million in PE 63001A for development of advanced technologies for warfighters. The January 

2008 report to Congress entitled ‘‘Efforts and Programs of the Department of Defense Relating to the Prevention, Mitigation, and 

Treatment of Blast Injuries’’ identified the development of 

diagnostics for traumatic brain injury as a blast injury research 

knowledge gap. To support addressing that gap, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 63001A for the development of biosensor systems to evaluate treatment response in this 

and other disorders, as well as to potentially serve to enhance operator-machine interface technologies. 

Army medical advanced technology development 

The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 63002A for medical advanced technology development. The committee continues to 

recognize the critical need to advance military medical technologies 

to address battlefield injuries. The committee has taken a number 

of steps to advance these efforts, including the establishment of a 

Department of Defense (DOD) initiative to prevent, mitigate, and 

treat blast injuries in section 256 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). To support 

these and similar efforts, as well as to support a number of Army 

technology objectives in medical technologies, the committee recommends a number of increases in medical research investments. 

The committee notes that improvised explosive devices have created a new set of challenges for medical personnel in dealing with 

soft tissue and bone damage. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million for research on the treatment of combat 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
166 

wounds. To help address the treatment of blast injuries, in coordination with the Blast Mitigation Initiative, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the development of technologies to efficiently detect and assess mild traumatic brain injuries, and an increase of $3.0 million for remote vital signs monitoring systems. 

The committee recognizes the continuing need to develop advanced lower limb prostheses for battlefield amputees. The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for the development 

of advanced lower limb prosthesis technologies. 

The committee notes that the Battlefield Treatment of Fractures 

and Soft Tissue Trauma Care Defense Technology Objective includes a specific challenge to improve tissue viability technologies. 

In support of this goal, the committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million for research on novel regenerative medical research to 

treat battlefield injuries. In addition, to support advances in military capabilities to treat combat injuries, the committee recommends increases of: $2.0 million for the development of tracheal 

intubation technologies for use on the battlefield; $2.0 million for 

research on bioelectric interactions to support wound healing capabilities; and $5.0 million to develop advanced combat wound 

dressings. 

The committee notes that the use of information technologies can 

serve to make military medical operations more successful and efficient, and can potentially lead to considerable cost savings through 

the use of commercial technologies. To promote the use of advanced 

information systems and technologies in DOD medical operations, 

the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to support 

modernization of joint medical logistics efforts and an increase of 

$2.0 million for the development of online medical training programs for military personnel. Finally, the committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million 

to support the continuing Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses Research 

Program. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to utilize the authorized funding for this program to undertake research 

on Gulf War illnesses. The committee directs that activities under 

the program should include studies of treatments for the complex 

of symptoms commonly referred to as Gulf War Illness, and identification of objective markers for Gulf War Illness. The committee 

recommends that no studies based on psychiatric illness and psychological stress as the central cause of Gulf War Illness be funded 

under the program. The committee directs that the program be 

conducted using competitive selection and peer review for the identification of research with the highest technical merit and military 

value. Further, the committee directs that this program be coordinated with similar activities in the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and the National Institutes of Health. 

Army aviation advanced technology development 

The budget request included $57.3 million in PE 63003A for advanced technology development on aviation systems. The committee continues to be supportive of efforts to use unmanned systems on the battlefield. To support the development of new capabilities for unmanned systems, the committee recommends an inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
167 

crease of $2.0 million for the development of unmanned systems for 

the precision delivery of supplies to friendly forces. 

The committee notes that the Army’s Network-Enabled Command and Control Technology Objective seeks to develop systems 

that provide network-centric capabilities to the future force. In support of the objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 

million in PE 63003A for technologies to enable rapid tactical integration and fielding of interoperable aviation systems. 

Finally, in support of the Army’s Rotorcraft Survivability Tech- nology Objective the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 

million in PE 63003A for the development of lightweight armor systems to reduce helicopter vulnerabilities to battlefield threats, and 

an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63270A for development of laser 

systems for aircraft missile defense. 

Army combat vehicle technologies 

The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63005A for advanced technology development on combat vehicles. The committee 

notes with concern that this is nearly 20 percent lower than the fiscal year 2008 budget request for this account, despite the fact that: 

current Army operations are heavily dependent on tactical vehicles; 

the Department of Defense is seeking to make ground vehicles 

more survivable against a growing number of battlefield threats, 

including explosively formed penetrators, rocket propelled grenades 

(RPGs), and improvised explosive devices (IEDs); the Army’s primary transformation effort is the Future Combat Systems (FCS) 

program involving a large number of new vehicle technologies; and 

the Department is also seeking to develop and field novel energy 

and power vehicle technologies to reduce costs and improve performance. 

The Vehicle Armor Technology Army Technology Objective seeks 

to provide comprehensive solutions for FCS ground vehicles to address a variety of threats, including mines, RPGs, IEDs, and other 

threats. Consistent with that objective, the committee recommends 

a number of funding increases to enhance vehicle survivability. The 

committee recommends increases of: $2.0 million for the development of composite armored cabs; $2.5 million for development of 

hostile fire detection systems; and $4.0 million for development of 

windshield armor systems. 

The Prognostics and Diagnostics for Operational Readiness and 

Condition Based Maintenance Army Technology Objective has a 

goal to improve near-term and FCS commodity readiness and 

maintainability through improvements in the capability to detect 

and predict equipment health status and performance. In coordination with this objective and as part of efforts to improve the readiness of Army forces, the committee recommends increases of: $5.0 

million to support development of advanced thermal and oil management systems to reduce vehicle life cycle costs; $4.2 million for 

the development of test facilities to evaluate advanced combat vehicle power train designs; $4.0 million to enhance Army capabilities 

for the rapid integration of new technologies onto military vehicles; 

$3.5 million for development of advanced vehicle prognostics systems; and $2.0 million to support ground vehicle fastening and 

joining research. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
168 

Finally, the committee notes that the Army’s future force technology thrust in unmanned systems seeks to enhance the effectiveness of unmanned systems through improved perception, cooperative behaviors, and increased autonomy. In support of those efforts, 

the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to continue 

the unmanned ground vehicle initiative. 

Diverse threat sensor development 

The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63005A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology programs. The committee notes that the Army has a need to develop systems that coordinate unattended, airborne, man-portable, and vehicle-mounted 

sensor inputs to identify and characterize threats in complex terrain, including urban environments. The committee recommends 

an increase of $1.0 million in PE 63005A for development of systems that better combine sensor data to provide enhanced threat 

warning capabilities. 

Army training technologies 

The budget request included $18.9 million in PE 63015A for 

next-generation training and simulation systems. The committee 

notes that the Army’s Institute of Creative Technologies is working 

on the development of a variety of simulations to support the training requirements of the Army. The Army’s advanced simulation 

technology technology thrust area seeks to provide increasingly realistic training and mission rehearsal environments to support 

military missions. In order to support development of advanced 

combat training simulators, the committee recommends increases 

in PE 63015A of $3.5 million for the development of joint fires 

training systems, and $2.0 million for modeling architectures to 

support battle command simulation and training. 

Deactivation of military explosives 

The budget request included $10.6 million in PE 63103A for explosives demilitarization technology. To support continuing efforts 

to develop environmentally sound methods of disposing munitions, 

the committee recommends an increase of $500,000 to support research on the safe deactivation of military explosives. 

Army missile and rocket technologies 

The budget request included $64.0 million in PE 63313A for advanced missile and rocket technologies. The committee notes the 

continuing need for development of advanced high speed, precision 

strike weaponry. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 

million to support studies of long range hypersonic interceptor 

technology, in coordination with the efforts of the Joint Technology 

Office for Hypersonics, previously established by the committee. 

Situational awareness technologies 

The budget request included $39.9 million in PE 63710A for advanced night vision technologies. The Army’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance future force technology thrust area seeks 

to develop persistent and integrated situational awareness capabilities to provide actionable intelligence to support military operVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
169 

ations. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for research on short range electro-optical 

sensor systems to support Future Combat Systems. 

Unique item ID data management research 

The budget request included $600,000 in PE 63024A for the ongoing development of the Army’s unique item identification (UID) research. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

for the continued research and development of an enterprise-wide 

software application to support Army programs that are required 

to comply with unique item mandates. UID research is permitting 

the Army to better manage its logistic activities, including accurate, non-intrusive item identification and data collection and enhanced unit-pack level visibility. 

Advanced electronics integration 

The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for advanced electronics integration. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63305A for advanced electronics integration to advance state-of-the-art weapon system electronics, with 

the goal of reducing the size, weight, and cost of electronic components, while reducing hazardous materials used in such advanced 

electronics. This effort supports Army needs for research, prototyping, testing, and production technologies that have the potential 

to produce more efficient, higher performance, less hazardous and 

lower cost electronics. 

Advanced environmental controls 

The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for advanced environmental control systems. The committee recommends 

an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63305A for the development of 

thermal management control systems that can support sensors and 

electronic systems which operate in the harsh environmental conditions required by missile defense systems. The committee notes 

that advanced environmental controls have applicability to a variety of military systems that operate in harsh environments. 

Advanced fuel cell research 

The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for advanced fuel cell research. The committee recommends an increase 

of $3.5 million in PE 63305A for the development of advanced fuel 

cell technology for applications in Army space and missile defense 

systems. The committee notes that lightweight, reliable, and costeffective power sources are important components of complex weapon systems such as space and missile defense systems. Advanced 

fuel cells would have applicability to a wide variety of military systems. 

Radiation hardening initiative 

The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for radiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
170 

ation hardening integration. The subcommittee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63305A for a radiation hardening initiative to improve understanding of radiation transport and effects, 

modeling and simulation tools, and radiation-hardened design approaches. This activity should be coordinated with the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight Council. 

High-altitude integration testbed 

The budget request included $20.0 million in PE 63308A for 

Army missile defense systems integration (space), but no funds for 

continued development of the high-altitude integration testbed. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63308A 

for the Army’s high-altitude integration testbed to integrate and 

test payloads for high altitude airships and unmanned aerial vehicles for long-loiter missions. Such systems could provide enhanced 

information to military forces. 

Air and missile defense architecture analysis 

The budget request included $116.4 million in PE 63327A for air 

and missile defense engineering, but included no funds for development of an integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) architecture 

analysis program. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 

million in PE 63327A for continued development of an IAMD architecture analysis program to improve the integration and coordination of air and missile defense capabilities into a coherent system 

of systems to defend against aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic 

missiles. The Army has been selected as the lead service for joint 

IAMD. This effort would support the Army’s lead role, and its development of an IAMD Battle Command System. 

Stryker active protection system 

The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63653A for Advanced Tank Armament System (ATAS), but provided no funds for 

development of a Stryker active protection system. The committee 

recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 63653A for the 

Stryker active protection system. 

Vibration management enhancement research 

The budget request included $71.6 million in PE 64201A to develop hardware and software improvements for the Army’s aviation 

system. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to 

continue research and development of advanced diagnostic tools to 

measure vibration in the aircraft and develop possible mitigation 

measures. This research utilizes an embedded condition-based 

maintenance system developed to detect mechanical faults in transmissions, gearboxes, main and tail rotors, and the entire power 

train. 

Next-generation combat helmet development 

The budget request included $42.4 million in PE 64601A for infantry support weapons, but no funds were provided for next-generation combat helmet development. Funds provided would support 

the development of a next-generation combat helmet that is safer 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
171 

and significantly lighter. The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million in PE 64601A for combat helmet development. 

High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle modernization research 

The budget request included no funding in PE 64642A for advanced technology development for the Army’s legacy light tactical 

wheeled vehicles, including technology enhancements and modernization activities for the High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled 

Vehicle (HMMWV) in the areas of survivability, mobility, and energy and power. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

64642A for the HMMWV program manager to continue efforts to 

develop, test, and integrate advanced technologies into the 

HMMWV. Previous technology integration activities have included 

improved cooling systems, seats and seat belt enhancements, gunner restraints, vehicle intercom systems, and fire suppression systems. 

Non-Line of Sight-Launch System anti-tamper research 

The budget request included $200.1 million in Research and Development, Army for the Non-Line of Sight-Launch System (NLOS– LS). The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

64646A to continue funding anti-tamper research. Anti-tamper protection of weapon systems is a growing concern in U.S. national security planning. In September 2007, the Defense Science Board 

issued a report entitled ‘‘Mission Impact of Foreign Influence on 

Department of Defense Software’’ that found that given the military’s increasing dependence on software-based programs, ‘‘current 

systems designs, assurance methodologies, acquisition procedures, 

and knowledge of adversarial capabilities and intentions are inadequate to the magnitude of the threat.’’ In January 2008, the Government Accountability Office reported that military program managers lack clear guidance on what information they need to protect 

and are challenged in selecting anti-tamper solutions because they 

do not have the tools needed to determine how much protection is 

required. This additional funding will complete ongoing NLOS–LS 

anti-tamper development activities, including significant test and 

validation by Red Teams and government agencies. 

Future Combat System 

The budget request included $3.6 billion for the Future Combat 

System (FCS) program, the Army’s comprehensive force modernization program. The committee remains committed to the modernization of the Army and is hopeful that the FCS program will provide, 

as promised, an appropriate and affordable combination of advanced technologies to support operational concepts that will ensure future success across the spectrum of conflict. The ambitiousness, complexity, and risk associated with FCS have resulted in 

many challenges over the years that the Army must continue to 

overcome. 

Therefore, the committee agrees that this program merits careful, even special oversight. Recognizing this, Congress directed in 

section 211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
172 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) submit an annual report on the program’s 

progress. Moreover, in section 214 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), 

Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct a milestone 

review following FCS’s preliminary design review, now scheduled 

for April 2009. Consequently, fiscal year 2009, as the GAO notes 

in its March 2008 annual report, is a critical year for this program. 

The GAO’s March 2008 annual review of the FCS program noted 

that it will be difficult for the Army to demonstrate firm requirements and technical maturity in time for its preliminary design 

and Secretary of Defense reviews next year. Consistent with other 

GAO reports, the committee believes that instability in funding 

could make that challenge more difficult. The committee remains 

convinced that FCS merits support and stable funding, and therefore recommends full funding for FCS as requested by the Army. 

Urban training development 

The budget request included $35.4 million in PE 64715A for engineering development of non-system training devices. The committee recognizes the importance of training concepts and systems 

for joint military operations in urban terrain and culture to increase unit effectiveness at reduced operating costs. The committee 

recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 64715A for development of systems for joint military operations in urban terrain and 

cultural training. 

Extended range sniper rifle research 

The budget request included $52.1 million in PE 64802A for 

weapons and munitions—system demonstration and development. 

This program element funds multiple efforts for engineering development of weapons and munitions systems. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for extended range sniper rifle 

research. 

Army test and target development 

The budget request included $13.5 million in PE 64258A for target simulator development. The committee continues to support 

Department of Defense (DOD) investments in targets and test and 

evaluation infrastructure and capabilities, which serve to enhance 

force readiness, improve systems capabilities, and reduce life cycle 

costs. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

64258A to support development of advanced fixed-wing aerial targets to support warfighters facing current and future air defense 

threats. 

The budget request included $74.6 million in PE 65602A for technical test instrumentation and targets. The committee recommends 

an increase of $3.0 million for enhancements in laser and modeling 

systems to support testing of chemical and biological defense systems. 

The budget request included $2.8 million in PE 65605A for the 

DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility (HELSTF). The committee 

is concerned that this level of support will not preserve all of the 

critical laser test functions that DOD requires, including the MisVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
173 

sile Defense Agency. Further, the lack of funding will force a 

‘‘mothballing’’ of test facilities and lead to a loss of technical expertise and huge startup costs when the facility is needed for potential 

use by the range of advanced high power laser systems under development. The committee also notes that the required analyses 

and reports on high energy laser testing from the fiscal year 2008 

authorization reports have yet to be delivered. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE 65605A to 

support the operations of HELSTF. 

Javelin modernization 

The budget request included $1.5 million in PE 23802A for other 

missile product improvement programs, but provided no funds for 

the modernization of the Javelin anti-armor missile. Funds provided would initiate a Javelin modernization program that would 

increase the missile’s effective range to beyond line-of-sight. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 23802A 

for Javelin modernization development. 

Global Combat Support System, the Logistics Modernization 

Program and Product Lifecycle Management Plus 

The budget request included $104.9 million in PE 33141A for the Global Combat Support System (GCSS), $82.0 million in Operation 

and Maintenance, Army (OMA), for the Logistics Modernization 

Program (LMP), and $42.4 million in PE 33141A for Product 

Lifecycle Management Plus (PLM+). 

In July 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) re- ported that the Army would be investing approximately $5.0 billion 

over the next several years to develop and implement their Enterprise Resource Programs (ERP). The GAO noted that this significant investment was being made without the benefit of a comprehensive business enterprise architecture, concept of operations, 

and effective portfolio management. For example, the three logistics systems, GCSS, LMP, and PLM+, utilize separate financial 

systems and different versions of SAP software, making future consolidation extremely complex. In addition, as the Army itself reports, prior to 2006 the Army’s functional approach to governance 

led to development of completely disparate ERPs. In a November 

21, 2007 Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, John Young, seemingly validates 

the GAO conclusions, stating that additional work was necessary 

in synchronizing the separate components of the Army’s enterprise 

resource planning strategy. While the committee expects the three 

logistics ERP efforts—GCSS, LMP, and PLM+—to continue development and fielding, synergies should be explored and realized. On 

March 14, 2008 Secretary Young signed ADMs for two Army ERPs, 

General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) and GCSS, 

mandating one such efficiency by directing the integration on the 

previously separate financial subset of GCSS with GFEBS. Further 

efficiencies should be explored across the Army’s logistics ERPs. 

The committee recommends decreases of $30.0 million in PE 

33141A for GCSS, $20.0 million for LMP from OMA, and $10.0 million in PE 33141A for PLM+. While the committee has historically 

been supportive of the Department of Defense’s business systems 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
174 

modernization efforts, it is concerned by the Army’s functionally ‘‘stovepiped’’ approach to its ERP systems. 

Army manufacturing technologies 

The budget request included $69.1 million in PE 78045A for development of manufacturing technologies. The committee continues 

to support increasing funding for manufacturing research and technology to support the preservation of the defense industrial base 

and reduce costs of weapons systems. To enhance Army manufacturing research efforts, the committee recommends increases in PE 

78045A of: $2.5 million for advanced nanotechnology manufacturing research; $3.5 million for castings research to improve performance and lower the cost of weapons systems; $3.0 million for 

research to improve machine tool accuracy and performance; and 

$2.0 million for manufacturing process improvements to reduce 

costs of body armor plates. 

Navy 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
175 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here SR335.100
176 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here SR335.101
177 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here SR335.102
178 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here SR335.103
179 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here SR335.104
180 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here SR335.105
181 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here SR335.106
182 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here SR335.107
183 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here SR335.108
184 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here SR335.109
185 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here SR335.110
186 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here SR335.111
187 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here SR335.112
188 

Navy basic research 

The budget request included $103.7 million in PE 61103N for 

university research initiatives. The committee notes that the 2007 

Marine Corps Science and Technology (S&T) Strategic Plan lists 

the development of advanced robotic systems for ground combat in 

order to ‘‘take humans out of direct involvement in hazardous and 

exceptionally arduous missions’’ as a technology objective. In support of achieving that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for research on automated robotic technologies for landmine detection. 

The 2007 Naval S&T Strategic Plan identifies a specific technology objective of adapting defense systems to the environment, 

especially with respect to space environmental effects. To help address this concern, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 

million in PE 61103N for research on novel radiation hardened 

microelectronics. 

The budget request included $407.3 million in PE 61153N for defense research sciences programs. The committee recommends an 

increase of $1.5 million in PE 61153N for research on quantum 

computing and quantum mechanics that can support efforts to enhance Navy sensor and communications systems. The 2004 National Research Council study entitled ‘‘Advanced Energetic Materials’’ characterized the U.S. effort on research and development of 

energetic materials as ‘‘suboptimal,’’ but stated that the materials 

are ‘‘a key component of the nation’s defense strategies.’’ To help 

address this identified gap, the committee recommends an increase 

of $1.5 million in PE 61153N for basic research on energetic materials. 

To support efforts to enhance math and science education nationally and develop the next generation of clearable scientists and engineers to work on national security issues, the committee recommends an additional $1.5 million in PE 61153N for science and 

technology educational outreach efforts. 

Manufacturing engineering training 

The budget request included $407.3 million in PE 61153N for defense research sciences. The committee notes that National Science 

and Technology Council’s March 2008 report entitled ‘‘Manufacturing the Future: Federal Priorities for Manufacturing R&D’’

highlighted the role that federal investments could play in enhancing the domestic manufacturing base through improvements in 

workforce training and education. The report cited a 2005 National 

Association of Manufacturers skills gap survey of more than 800 

manufacturing businesses, which found that 81 percent were experiencing ‘‘severe’’ (13 percent) or ‘‘moderate’’ (68 percent) shortages 

of skilled workers overall, and 90 percent reported shortages of 

skilled production employees. These shortages lead to deficiencies 

in the defense industrial base and therefore weaken the Department of Defense production and supply chain. To help address this 

issue, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

61153N for manufacturing engineering educational outreach programs. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
189 

Navy power projection research 

The budget request included $79.9 million in PE 62114N for applied research on power projection technologies. The committee 

notes that the 2007 Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed 

Energy Weapons noted that science and technology (S&T) funding 

for laser weapons should be focused on concentrated development 

of free electron lasers for ship defense. In support of that recommendation, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for high power free electron laser development. To support the 

Naval S&T Strategic Plan objective of developing energy storage 

technologies, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million 

in PE 62114N for the development of fuel cells for unmanned aerial 

vehicle applications. Finally, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for research on advanced electron sources for 

use in next-generation radar systems. 

Navy force protection research 

The budget request included $131.3 million in PE 62123N for applied research on force protection technologies. The 2007 Naval 

S&T [science and technology] Strategic Plan identifies the development of advanced materials in platform construction to support the 

production of more survivable platforms as a key technology objective. In support of that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for composite materials research for high 

speed craft, and an increase of $2.0 million for research to reduce 

the structural weight and improve signature characteristics of special operations combatant craft through the use of lightweight composite materials. 

The Naval S&T Strategic Plan also has a technology objective of 

enhancing homeland and port defense monitoring. In support of 

this effort, the committee recommends an additional $3.5 million in 

PE 62123N for development of deployable, under hull inspection 

technologies. Consistent with the Navy’s High Energy and Pulse 

Power Technology Objective, which seeks to develop energy storage 

power system architectures and pulsed power control systems, the 

committee recommends an additional $3.0 million to develop energy delivery technologies for advanced naval weapons systems. 

In support of Office of Naval Research efforts to improve towed 

sonar array reliability and enhance situational awareness, the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for modeling and 

simulation efforts on towed sonar array system reliability. In support of Navy objectives to reduce the cost of high-resolution infrared focal plane arrays for missile seekers and other applications, 

and in conjunction with ongoing related Army and Missile Defense 

Agency efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for infrared materials research. 

Finally, consistent with Navy efforts to identify new coating technologies for military equipment, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 62123N for development of novel surface coatings to improve performance and reliability of defense systems. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
190 

Situational awareness processing technologies 

The budget request included $36.5 million in PE 62131M for applied research on Marine Corps landing force technologies. The 

committee notes that one of the Marine Corps’ science and technology objectives is the development of ‘‘improved situational 

awareness for warfighters at all echelons.’’ Consistent with that objective, the committee recommends an additional $4.5 million for 

applied research on the distribution of tactical information to individual warfighters. 

Acoustic research and test capabilities 

The budget request included $93.9 million in PE 62236N for applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies. The committee notes that the 2007 Strategic Plan for DOD (Department of 

Defense) T&E (Test and Evaluation) Resources stated that ‘‘improved acoustic and radio frequency (RF) signature measurement 

capability is necessary to adequately conduct T&E on new hull 

forms.’’ In support of the development of that capability, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 62236N for 

upgrades to Navy acoustic research and test equipment. 

Navy electronics research 

The budget request included $54.8 million in PE 62271N for 

radio frequency systems applied research. The committee notes 

that next-generation Navy radars, communications, and electronic 

warfare systems will all depend on advanced high power microelectronics. The Navy’s Power and Energy Science and Technology 

Focus Area includes the specific objective of developing new materials to increase the efficiency and power density of Navy systems. 

To complement these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for research on advanced semiconductor radio 

frequency power technologies. 

Advanced technologies for power projection 

The budget request included $60.4 million in PE 63114N for advanced technologies for power projection. The committee notes that 

the capability to support detection, tracking, and identification of 

mobile targets, including to support maritime interdiction and land 

attack of high value targets, is a high priority based on several 

fleet and combatant commands assessments of current operational 

capability gaps. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

and Office of Naval Research science and technology programs are 

currently supporting these science and technology development efforts with planned transitions in fiscal year 2012. To accelerate the 

development and reduce the risk of these efforts, the committee 

recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE 63114N for development of mobile target tracking and identification technologies. 

The committee notes that the Naval Expeditionary Command 

recommendations to the Office of Naval Research for high priority 

capability gaps to be addressed with science and technology investments included ‘‘fires detections and engagement systems for incoming direct and indirect fires.’’ To support efforts to address that 

gap, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
191 

63114N for the development of watercraft active protection systems. 

Force protection advanced technology 

The budget request included $55.1 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology. This program addresses applied research associated with providing force protection capability 

for all naval platforms. 

The budget request included no funding for continuing the development of wide band gap semiconductor substrate materials. These 

materials offer capability for higher power and higher frequency 

operation in high temperature environments across a broad spectrum of applications. The committee recommends an increase of 

$2.0 million for the continued development of wide band gap semiconductor substrate material. 

The budget request included no funding for any initiative to leverage rapidly developing ongoing advances in hydrogen-powered 

fuel cell vehicle technology to enable revolutionary changes in the 

Department of the Navy non-tactical vehicle fleet. Fuel cells powered by hydrogen could totally change the present dependence on 

petroleum as the logistics fuel and could offer the ability to run 

systems silently and with significantly reduced thermal signatures 

for missions requiring low probability of detection. In previous 

years, the Department of the Navy conducted several short-term 

demonstrations of hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for an expanded 

demonstration of fuel cell vehicles, to include an extended vehicle 

range refueling capability enhancement to include testing that 

could establish the basis for a potential full qualification of a hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle for fleet operations. 

The budget request included no funding for development of a 

lithium battery technology that could replace one of the three generators normally in operation or reserve aboard all large Navy 

ships. If lithium battery technology could be scaled up to a capacity 

of roughly 2.5 megawatts, such a battery would replace one of the 

three ship service generators normally in operation or in reserve 

aboard all surface combatants. Such a battery system could provide 

a lower cost, higher quality source of electrical power that would 

replace redundant back-up power sources dedicated to subsystems 

throughout the ship. The battery would also eliminate the possibility of a ship experiencing a catastrophic loss of power (‘‘going 

dark’’) due to a cascading failure of generators and an inability to 

restart the main engines following a loss of main power. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to enable the development of such lithium battery technology. 

The budget request included no funding for development of a 

combined mishap reduction system. The committee is aware that 

the private sector has developed web-based information management systems that enable managers at all levels in an organization 

to prevent avoidable accidents among their personnel. These systems identify high-risk practices, procedures, conditions, and attitudes before accidents occur and provide paths to mitigate them. 

The Department of Defense has long collected data about the 

causes of accidents after they occur. Using this information alone, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
192 

however, has proven insufficient for reducing accident rates below 

recent historical levels. The committee recommends an increase of 

$2.0 million to enable the development of a combined mishap reduction system. 

The budget request included no funding for an integrated vehicle 

health monitoring program. Such a program could determine the 

value of adopting commercial automotive standards as a baseline 

for a set of open standards as part of an open system vehicle electronics architecture. This program could also achieve reductions in 

the demand for space, weight, power, and cooling, as well as reduce 

the time and cost needed to develop new vehicle applications. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million to enable the development of a prototype of an integrated health monitoring system 

for proof-of-concept evaluation and demonstration. The committee recommends a total authorization of $76.6 million 

in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology. 

High-integrity Global Positioning System 

The budget request included $104.6 million for common picture 

advanced technology in PE 63235N, Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation, Navy, including $61.2 million for high-integrity 

Global Positioning System (GPS). The committee recommends no 

funds for high-integrity GPS. 

Ground sensor networks 

The budget request included $100.8 million in PE 63640M for 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations. The committee 

notes that small arms fire accounts for a large number of coalition 

casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that a number of services 

and defense agencies are pursuing technological solutions to meet 

urgent needs of deployed forces. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the development 

of ground sensor networks that can detect and locate hostile fire. 

Shipboard system component development 

The budget request included $4.0 million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development, but included no funding for 

high temperature superconductor alternating current (HTS–AC) 

synchronous marine propulsion motor development or for developing a permanent magnet hybrid propulsion system for the DDG–

51 Aegis destroyer. 

The Navy has been developing and testing a 36.5 megawatt prototype HTS–AC synchronous propulsion motor. Funds are required 

to complete preliminary design and risk reduction of the tactical 

motor in order to initiate detailed design and fabrication of the 

motor in 2010. HTS propulsion motors could support current and 

future Navy needs, either as an upgrade to the DDG–1000, or for 

the CG(X) next-generation cruiser. Successful development of the 

HTS motor will allow much greater flexibility in regards to space 

and weight considerations on Navy warships. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million to continue development and 

testing of the HTS–AC synchronous marine propulsion motor. 

The budget request included no funding for continued development and testing of the permanent magnet motor (PMM). Congress 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
193 

has provided funding for several fiscal years to mature the PMM 

technology for main propulsion motor applications. The team developing this system has developed a plan to design and build a smaller PMM that would support a hybrid electric drive system for 

DDG–51 Aegis destroyers. The contractor claims that such a system installed on a DDG–51 would pay back the investment in approximately 3 years, based only on fuel savings of approximately 

13,000 barrels of fuel per ship per year. The committee recommends an increase of $7.6 million to design and build a hybrid 

electric drive system based on PMM technology. 

The committee recommends a total authorization of $17.1 million 

in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development. 

Advanced submarine system development 

The budget request included $141.7 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development. The design and development efforts in these programs are to evaluate a broad range of 

system and technology alternatives to directly support and enhance 

the mission capability of current submarines and future submarine 

concepts. 

The budget request included no funding to begin studies that 

would lead to developing a replacement for the Ohio class strategic 

missile submarine program which was designed in the 1970s. The 

Navy has begun studies under a program called the Undersea 

Launch Missile Study (ULMS). The efforts within ULMS will involve exploring new technologies, conceptual design of ship configurations, supporting ship systems, consideration of strategic payloads, and development of other payloads. 

However, there appears to be insufficient work to maintain the 

skill set among submarine designers until the Navy would otherwise start designing a replacement for the Ohio class. A previous 

report by the RAND Corporation evaluating the submarine design 

industrial base concluded that it would be less expensive to sustain 

some number of workers in excess of those needed to meet the residual design demands during such a gap. One means of achieving 

this goal would be to begin the more extensive design activities earlier than the Navy would otherwise start them to support a specific 

date to start building the next class. The committee believes that 

the Navy should continue that effort in fiscal year 2009 and recommends an increase of $15.0 million for that purpose. 

Facilities improvements 

The budget request included $4.1 million in PE 63725N, but included no funding for a program to develop a hydrokinetic power 

generator. This technology uses the phenomenon of vortex-induced 

vibrations to extract useful kinetic energy from ocean and other 

water currents. Researchers claim that it is highly scalable and 

could produce energy over a wide range of current speeds, starting 

as low as 1 knot. This energy extraction technology is non-obtrusive, environmentally compatible, and modular. Such generating 

systems could be very useful for supporting various Navy power 

needs, including coastal naval bases, instrumentation stations, battery recharging, off-shore stations, and ships not under way. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
194 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to support development and testing of this power generation approach. 

Optical interconnect 

The budget request included $2.8 million in PE 63739N for Navy 

logistics productivity initiatives, but included no funding to develop 

low cost, high quality fiber optic interconnect technology for military aerospace application. The Department of Defense continues to 

demand increasing data processing, communication, and system 

control capabilities. The next-generation data and communication 

management systems needed for weapons systems will depend 

upon tightly integrated optical fiber solutions, also known as optical interconnect. This solution optimizes space utilization while 

achieving high bandwidth, decreased weight, immunity to electromagnetic interference, resistance to corrosion, and improved safety 

and security. The Navy has requirements for next-generation optical interconnect technology for several aircraft platform systems, 

and anticipates that this technology could be applied to Navy vessels as well. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

to develop this important technology. 

Land attack technology 

The budget request included $40.0 million in PE 63795N for land attack technology, including $38.8 million for the naval surface fire 

support development activity. Most of the funding within this activity would have been applied to development of the extended range 

guided munition (ERGM). 

Based on continuing development problems, and capped by recent test failures, the Navy decided to terminate the ERGM program after submitting the fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

The committee strongly supports making improvements in naval 

surface fire support capability. However, the Navy cannot usefully 

spend all of the funds requested in this program until it decides on 

a path forward. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million 

in land attack technology. The remaining funds should be sufficient 

to support Navy efforts to mature other technologies and develop 

a new plan for meeting surface fire support requirements. 

Directed energy 

The budget request included $108.6 million PE 62114N and PE 

63114N for directed energy and continued development of an electromagnetic rail gun. No funding was requested in PE 63925N, directed energy and electric weapons systems. Neither was there any 

funding included for a laser weapons system (LAWS), which is a 

top research and development priority on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list, or for the Guillotine program. 

LAWS is under development as a rapid prototype to serve as an adjunct laser weapon for the Navy’s Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) 

to counter rockets, artillery, mortar, and unmanned aerial vehicles 

for ship and expeditionary base defense. Additional funding would 

accelerate development by 2 years. Guillotine would provide commanders with a non-lethal capability to disrupt threats and terrorist operations. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
195 

The committee agrees with the Navy’s objectives, outlined in 

Joint Vision 2020, to develop directed energy weapons that provide 

unique capability against emerging asymmetric threats. The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million in PE 63925N in 

support of LAWS and Guillotine development and related directed 

energy and laser weapon systems research and development, including high power free electron and high brightness electron laser 

technology. 

Next-generation cruiser 

The budget request included $172.1 million in PE 64300N and 

$140.4 million in PE 64501N for development efforts in support of 

a next-generation cruiser, CG(X). CG(X) is planned to be the replacement for the CG–47 class cruiser, with primary missions including air and missile defense. The Navy’s long-range shipbuilding 

plan proposes to procure the first ship of the CG(X) program in 

2011. 

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) required that the Navy include 

nuclear power in its Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the CG(X) 

propulsion system. 

Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) further requires that CG(X) be nuclear powered, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification that inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system is not in 

the national interest. The statement of managers accompanying 

that act directed the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report with 

the budget request for fiscal year 2009 providing information regarding CG(X) design, cost, schedule, industrial base considerations, and risk assessment; that would reflect the results of the 

CG(X) AoA and provide evidence that the Navy is on schedule for 

procuring the first ship of the class in 2011. 

The Secretary of the Navy has delayed submission of the CG(X) 

report because the CG(X) AoA, which was scheduled to be complete 

by third quarter fiscal year 2007, remains under review by the 

Navy. Fundamental considerations regarding the cruiser’s requirements, characteristics, technology readiness levels, and affordability continue to be studied, making it likely that milestone A, 

which was targeted for September 2007, will slip into 2009. By all 

measures, there is no reasonable path for the next-generation 

cruiser to meet the current schedule for milestone B and award of 

a ship construction contract in 2011. 

Pending completion of the AoA, determination of radar requirements, ship characteristics, propulsion system, and an executable 

program schedule, and in view of the delay to program major milestones, the activities planned for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 cannot 

be executed per the schedule reflected in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$87.2 million in PE 64300N and a decrease of $33.6 million in PE 

64501N. These recommended decreases would maintain the cruiser 

development activities at the same level as was funded in fiscal 

year 2008. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
196 

Improved towed array handler 

The budget request included $143.5 million in PE 64503N for 

SSN–688 and Trident submarine modernization, but included no 

funding for developing or testing improved handling gear for submarine towed arrays. One continuing problem area involves the 

mechanisms for deployment of the towed array from the submarine’s hull. The current system attempts to ‘‘push’’ the flexible 

array out of the submarine using multiple rollers which often results in damage to array elements and deployment failure. A new 

system that ‘‘pulls’’ the array out could reduce the number of rollers which are the source of array damage and allow for other improvements and increased reliability. The committee recommends an increase of $4.1 million to complete further development of the new handling system and testing 

of a prototype to demonstrate improved thin-line towed array system reliability from better array handlers. 

Submarine electronic chart updates 

The budget request included $143.5 million in PE 64558N, but 

included no funding for a program to update electronic charts for 

submarines. 

Navy instructions mandate the use of electronic chart display 

products across the Navy. This requirement was conceived in 

stand-alone, display workstation applications, which no longer represent the state-of-the-practice of net-ready, web-service environments. The committee is aware that the Navy conducted a Small 

Business Innovative Research effort that focused on the demonstration of net-ready, web-service updates of electronic charts for submarines. Funding is needed to: 

(1) enhance the current voyage management system/enhanced control display unit capabilities on the attack submarines; 

(2) establish an interim chart update repository ashore to 

support the Navy until formal transition to National 

Geospatial-Intelligence Agency production; 

(3) develop and evaluate potential bandwidth reduction options for vector data products, and establish related certification requirements and procedures; 

(4) demonstrate navigation task reduction through automated chart updates by data consumers; and 

(5) complete operational testing of developed services and 

web clients for release to the fleet. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million to support these activities. 

Next-generation Phalanx 

The budget request included $36.2 million in PE 64756N for ship 

self-defense (hard kill), but included no funding for next-generation 

Phalanx. The Phalanx weapon system is the Navy’s principal closein weapon system for ship self-defense, and has proven to be extremely adaptive for performance against emerging air and surface 

target sets. The continually evolving nature of the threat, unique 

challenges posed by operations in the littorals, increased emphasis 

on single ship probability of raid annihilation, and fact of life techVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
197 

nology obsolescence require continued development effort to sustain 

the superior performance of this critical ship self-defense system. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million in PE 

64756N for the continued development of the next-generation Phalanx. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system 

The budget request included $57.6 million for ship self-defense soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including $3.0 million 

for various development activities related to the NULKA anti-ship 

missile decoy system. 

The Navy has identified a series of development activities associated with the NULKA system that are required to understand and 

deal with emerging threats: 

(1) an improved payload that would provide radio frequency 

coverage of more than one band of the spectrum to deal with 

anti-ship missiles; 

(2) better countermeasures techniques for advanced anti-ship 

cruise missiles with advanced seekers; 

(3) an improved guidance and propulsion system to allow 

more precise positioning of the decoy during operations; 

(4) increased duty cycle; and 

(5) additional systems engineering and software support. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for the 

NULKA development program to continue these efforts. 

Combat wound tissue transplantation technologies 

The budget request included $7.8 million in PE 64771N for medical development. The committee notes the continuing and growing 

need for combat casualty care technologies including tissue and 

organ replacement and transplantation. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 64771N for composite 

tissue transplantation research. 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter competitive propulsion system 

The budget request included $1,532.7 million in PE 64800N and 

$1,524.0 million in PE 64800F for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter 

(JSF) program. In section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), Congress explicitly directed the Department of Defense to (1) develop a competitive propulsion system for the JSF aircraft; and (2) continue 

competition for the propulsion system throughout the production 

phase of the JSF program. 

The committee is disappointed that the administration chose to 

ignore the law by failing to fund the competitive propulsion system. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $215.0 million in PE 64800N and $215.0 million in PE 64800F for development of the F–35 JSF competitive propulsion system. 

Navy test and evaluation support 

The budget request included $356.3 million in PE 65864N for 

test and evaluation support. The committee commends the Navy 

for the growth in this line, and urges the Navy to continue to sustain and modernize test capabilities to support current and emergVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
198 

ing service and joint requirements. However, the committee is concerned that test and evaluation accounts are often used to deposit 

discretionary funds that are then transferred for use for other purposes. The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million in PE 

65864N for the activities described in budget presentations as 

‘‘PBD P19—COTF Balancing.’’ The committee was later informed 

that the Office of the Secretary of Defense transferred the funds to 

the Navy without sufficient explanation, so the amount was placed 

into a test and evaluation account for the purposes of the budget 

request until clarification was received. The committee has not received any clarification for the purpose of the funds and feels that 

this is insufficient justification for the request. 

Advanced LINAC facility 

The budget request included $80.1 million in PE 11221N, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), but included no funding for the Crane linear accelerator facility (LINAC). 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the 

LINAC to simulate the high radiation environment in space. The 

committee directs the Navy to develop and use these additional 

funds in conjunction with the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics 

Oversight Council. 

Navy support of the reliable replacement warhead 

The budget request included $23.3 million in PE 11221N Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN) for 

support to the reliable replacement warhead (RRW). The committee 

recommends no funds for Navy support to phase 3 RRW activities 

and a reduction of $23.3 million. This effort anticipated that the 

National Nuclear Security Administration would be moving to the 

phase 3 of the RRW study process in 2009. No funds were provided 

for RRW phase 2A in fiscal year 2008, as a result funding for phase 

3 is premature. 

Warfighter enhanced decision making 

The budget request included $26.7 million in PE 24163N for fleet 

communications, but included no funding for a warfighter enhanced 

decision making and mobile networking applications initiative 

(WEDM). 

Two years ago, Congress directed the Navy to establish a laboratory to address information technology (IT) challenges facing local 

and regional commands. The laboratory’s focus on emerging technologies offers a unique opportunity to develop and test a joint 

operational proof-of-concept WEDM. This initiative would be aimed 

at fielding leading edge applications that could shorten the operational ‘‘kill chain’’ and enhance information flow to the warfighter. 

WEDM would also provide an opportunity for the academic community to work with the Department of Defense to develop and rapidly deploy training curricula for emerging technologies. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to establish the WEDM pilot program to provide modeling and simulation, 

lab testing, live testing, and training on equipment prior to shore 

site acquisition to ensure that the C4I systems programmed for inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
199 

stallation on Navy ships are compatible with shore facilities and 

are of appropriate capacity to support fleet deployments worldwide. 

Aviation improvements 

The budget request included $122.9 million in PE 25633N for 

aviation improvements, but no funds to develop next-generation 

automated test systems (ATS) instrumentation for aircraft avionics 

or to develop rapid repair structural adhesives for aircraft applications. 

Current ATS are large and numerous. The Navy finds it difficult 

to keep the commercial hardware used in test equipment modernized on a schedule similar to advanced and evolving aircraft avionics. The Navy specifically, and the Department of Defense broadly, require technology that is easily upgradeable and flexible to conduct complex tests on a variety of fielded systems. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to develop new 

technology for ATS to reduce the size and increase the versatility 

of test equipment through software upgrades. 

The Navy has been pursuing efforts to develop structural adhesives that cure in the presence of ultraviolet light, reducing required maintenance equipment while retaining required strength. 

This would permit rapid repair of structures, such as damaged 

military aircraft and radomes. Present technology only supports either room temperature curing for several days or high pressure 

and temperature cycles in autoclaves. Developing adhesives that 

cure rapidly, store at room temperature, last on the shelf for a 

year, and are environmentally safe would have great benefits to 

Navy logistics. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $1.0 million to develop structural adhesives that exhibit these 

properties. The committee recommends a total authorization of $126.9 million in PE 25633N for aviation improvements. 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System 

The budget request included $480.1 million in PE 35205N for the 

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System 

(BAMS UAS). The BAMS UAS program development contract, 

which the Navy had expected to award in October 2007, was delayed until late April 2008. As a result, development activities 

originally planned for fiscal year 2008 will inevitably move to fiscal 

year 2009. For example, an updated BAMS UAS program schedule 

indicates that system engineering activities such as the system 

functional review have slipped to fiscal year 2009. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $48.2 million in PE 35205N for BAMS UAS to reflect this delay. 

Digital manufacturing technologies 

The budget request included $56.7 million in PE 78011N for 

Navy manufacturing technology programs. The committee notes 

that the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the Defense Science Board have both identified significant shortfalls in 

manufacturing research and development funding in the Department of Defense. To help address these shortfalls and strengthen 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
200 

the defense industrial base, the committee recommends an increase 

of $1.7 million in PE 78011N for the development of advanced direct digital manufacturing technologies to support the rapid prototyping of defense materiel. 

National Shipbuilding Research Program—Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise 

The budget request included no funding in PE 78730N for maritime technology. The National Shipbuilding Research Program— Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP–ASE) is a collaborative 

effort between the Navy and industry which has yielded significant 

productivity improvements for Navy ship construction and repair. 

Under this program the Navy provides funding that is matched 

and exceeded by industry investment. Using this approach, the 

Navy has achieved a high return on investment by providing nearterm savings and avoiding significant future costs. The committee 

believes that continuation of the NSRP–ASE effort is a vital element of the overarching objective of improving the affordability of 

naval warship construction and maintaining a healthy, innovative 

shipbuilding industrial base. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 

78730N for the NSRP–ASE. 

Air Force 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
201 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 here SR335.113
202 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 here SR335.114
203 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 here SR335.115
204 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 here SR335.116
205 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 here SR335.117
206 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 here SR335.118
207 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 here SR335.119
208 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 here SR335.120
209 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 here SR335.121
210 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 here SR335.122
211 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 here SR335.123
212 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 here SR335.124
213 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 here SR335.125
214 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 here SR335.126
215 

Air Force basic research programs 

The budget request included $125.9 million in PE 61103F for 

university research initiatives. The committee commends the Air 

Force for increasing its investments in basic research in the fiscal 

year 2009 budget request. This is consistent with the National Research Council’s 2005 report entitled ‘‘Assessment of Department of 

Defense Basic Research,’’ which recommended that ‘‘the Department of Defense should redress the imbalance between its current 

basic research allocation, which has declined critically over the past 

decade, and its need to better support the expanded areas of technology, the need for increased unfettered basic research, and the 

support of new researchers.’’

Consistent with the need to fund more basic research efforts in 

areas of technological interest to the Air Force, the committee recommends increases in PE 61103F of: $2.0 million for research on 

advanced hypersonic technology designs; $2.0 million for information security research; $1.6 million for research on reducing military decision making cycle times; and $2.5 million for research on 

diamond substrates for microelectronics. 

Air Force materials research 

The budget request included $117.1 million in PE 62102F for applied research on materials. The committee notes that the National 

Research Council’s 2005 report on ‘‘High Performance Structural 

Fibers for Advanced Polymer Matrix Composites’’ highlighted the 

need for the Department of Defense to reduce costs and improve its 

understanding of the manufacture and properties of advanced carbon fibers. Consistent with those recommendations, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 62102F for research 

on advanced carbon fiber materials for Air Force applications. The 

committee notes that the Naval Studies Board’s 2007 report on 

‘‘Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) Capability’’ noted that 

‘‘the boost glide and high-speed cruise missile concepts as CPGS options require advanced technologies, especially in the areas of thermal protection and management . . .’’ The committee recommends 

an increase of $2.5 million for the development of thermal protection systems for global strike hypersonic vehicles. 

The Director of Defense Research and Engineering’s 2007 Strategic Plan identified advanced materials as an enabling technology 

for a number of desired military capabilities, including protection 

against improvised explosive devices and air dominance. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62102F for 

development of fire and blast resistant materials for force protection missions. 

Finally, the committee notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory strategy has a strategic goal to ‘‘accurately diagnose the current state and predict the future state of aerospace systems’’ by 

2015. To support that effort, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for development of health monitoring sensors 

of aerospace components. 

The budget request included $41.9 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials technology development for weapons systems. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to develop 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
216 

and transition metals and process technologies for fielded and future Air Force systems. 

Optical components for air vehicles 

The budget request included $122.9 million in PE 62201F for applied research on aerospace vehicle technologies. The committee 

notes that the National Research Council’s 2006 study on ‘‘Future 

Air Force Needs for Survivability’’ noted the need to reduce electronic emission signatures on aircraft. The committee recommends 

an additional $1.5 million in PE 62201F for research on optical 

components to replace electrical components for use in onboard aircraft communications systems. 

Air Force training technology 

The budget request included $82.1 million in PE 62202F for applied research on human effectiveness. The committee notes that in 

a 2007 memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, the Director of 

Defense Research and Engineering highlighted the need to significantly increase investments in research on adaptive, interactive 

full immersion training. To enhance Air Force and joint training 

capabilities, the committee recommends increases in PE 62202F of 

$2.0 million for advanced satellite operator training systems development and $2.5 million for development of immersive tools for enhancing theater air-to-ground command and control coordination 

modeling and simulation. 

Air Force aerospace propulsion technology 

The budget request included $218.0 million in PE 62203F for applied research on aerospace propulsion. The 2006 National Research Council report entitled ‘‘A Review of United States Air Force 

and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs’’ concluded 

that Air Force investments in propulsion science and technology 

need ‘‘. . . to be increased if technical gaps are to be filled.’’ The 

report focused on a variety of space, tactical air, and engine technology gaps that need to be addressed. 

To enhance Air Force propulsion technology efforts, the committee recommends an increase in 62203F of $2.0 million for development of high temperature, corrosion resistant bearings for advanced propulsion systems. 

The committee continues to support Department of Defense efforts to develop technologies to support time-critical strike missions. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

62203F for robust scramjet research activities leading to flight 

tests and demonstration of an alternate engine to support the Air 

Force X–51 testbed program. 

Aerospace sensor technologies 

The budget request included $109.0 million in PE 62204F for applied research on aerospace sensors. The committee notes that the 

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) science and technology 

(S&T) strategy highlights the need for development of ‘‘novel data 

mining and advanced relevance assessment technologies’’ to support establishment of ‘‘universal situational awareness.’’ To help 

address this need, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
217 

million for research on enhancing information quality to support 

persistent surveillance missions. 

The AFRL S&T strategy has set a strategic goal of demonstrating ‘‘layered and flexible sensing architecture that respond 

to the Commander’s intent’’ by identifying and precisely locating 

high value difficult targets by 2015. To support the development of 

this architecture, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 

million in PE 62204F for development of wideband system components to support electronic intelligence systems. 

Air Force seismic research 

The budget request included $117.5 million in PE 62601F Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force for space 

technologies including $6.8 for seismic technologies to support national requirements for monitoring nuclear explosions. The committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million to improve operational seismic capability. 

Cyber attack mitigation technologies 

The budget request included $109.5 million in PE 62702F for applied research on command, control, and communications technologies. The September 2007 Defense Science Board study entitled 

‘‘Mission Impact of Foreign Influence on DOD Software’’ highlighted the need for ‘‘programs to advance the state-of-the-art in 

vulnerability detection and mitigation in software and hardware.’’ In support of this finding, the committee recommends an increase 

of $2.5 million for the development of systems to detect and defeat 

malicious software on military networks and information systems. 

Reconfigurable securing computing 

The budget request included $56.9 million in PE 63203F for development of advanced aerospace sensors. The Air Force and Department of Defense have set cybersecurity as a high technology 

priority. To support these efforts at the tactical level and reduce 

the costs for the development of security systems, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million to develop reconfigurable 

secure computing technologies for advanced sensor systems. 

Propulsion technologies 

The budget request included $170.9 million in PE 63216F for 

aerospace and propulsion and power technology development. The 

Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy recommended investing ‘‘in energy efficient and alternative energy 

technologies to a level commensurate with their operational and financial value.’’ The committee believes that the development of alternative sources of fuel for Air Force missions could result in huge 

cost savings for the Department of Defense, and therefore recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63216F for research on 

assured aerospace fuels to assess alternative fuels from sources 

such as coal, biomass, and shale, while minimizing environmental 

impact. 

The committee continues to support development of hypersonic 

technologies to enable high speed, precision strike capabilities. The 

committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE 63216F for 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
218 

development of supersonic and hypersonic cruise missile engine 

technologies, as part of the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine 

Engine (VAATE) High Speed Turbine Engine Demonstrator 

(HiSTED) program. 

Thin film amorphous solar arrays 

The budget request included $81.0 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for thin film amorphous solar arrays for 

space systems. Fiscal year 2009 will be the last year of this successful research and development program of advanced solar arrays 

for space systems using thin film amorphous substrate. These solar 

arrays are 10 times cheaper, three to five times lighter, and significantly more efficient than current solar arrays. After the successful 

demonstration flight on the Tac-Sat2 satellite, the committee believes that the Air Force should work with industry to explore future opportunities to transition these solar arrays to future Tac-Sat 

satellites or other satellite programs of record. Fiscal year 2009 

funds would be used to finish the analysis of the experimental and 

demonstration data and complete the project. 

Integrated targeting devices 

The budget request included $11.8 million in PE 63601F for development of conventional weapons technology. The Air Force Research Laboratory science and technology strategy states that ‘‘an 

important aspect of universal situational awareness is the advancement of sensor technologies.’’ In order to support the development 

of enhanced sensor technologies to support improving precision 

strike capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 

million for lightweight, targeting device development to integrate 

multiple sensor types. 

Optical interconnect for battlefield communications 

The budget request included $30.1 million in PE 63789F for advanced development of command, control, communications, and intelligence technologies. The Director of Defense Research and 

Engineering’s 2007 strategic plan highlights networks and communications, including technologies to address airborne networks, as 

an enabling technology that should receive the highest level of corporate attention and coordination. To support these efforts the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for development of 

optical interconnects to support data communications onboard unmanned aircraft systems and satellites. 

High energy laser weapon systems 

The budget request included $4.0 million in PE 63924F for the 

high energy laser advanced technology program managed by the 

high energy laser joint technology office. The committee notes that 

the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons recommended that ‘‘the Director of Defense Research and Engineering should give high priority to science and technology activities addressing high power solid state laser development and accompanying beam quality and beam control development.’’ To support this effort, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 milVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
219 

lion in PE 63924F for optimization of solid state laser technologies 

and acceleration of the transition of operational systems to 

warfighters. 

Global Positioning System III operational control segment 

The budget request included $734.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) for the Global Positioning System III (GPS III) in three separate budget lines: 

$420.3 million for the GPS III space segment; $3.0 million for the 

GPS III operational control segment; and $304.4 million for the 

backwards compatibility for the operational control segment. Previously all three GPS activities were in a single GPS III program 

element. While the committee recognizes some value in separating 

the ground and space segments, the committee believes that separating the ground segment into two different budget lines needlessly removes program management flexibility. 

The committee recommends combining RDTEAF line 37 with line 

36 into a single budget line and program element, PE 63423F, for 

the GPS III operational control segment. 

If the continued separation of the space and operational control 

segments introduces additional cost or management difficulty into 

the GPS III program, the committee would support recombining 

both segments into a single program element. 

Space situational awareness 

The budget request included $76.8 million in PE 63438F for 

space control technology. The committee recommends an increase 

of $5.0 million to utilize Missile Defense Agency X-band and UHFband sensors for additional space object tracking to improve space 

situational awareness. 

Transformational Communications satellite 

The budget request included $843.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) for the Transformational Communications satellite (TSAT). This amount is 

$384.8 million less than was projected for TSAT just last year. The 

committee recommends an increase of $350.0 million for TSAT. 

The Air Force and the Department of Defense (DOD) reduced the 

TSAT program by $3.6 billion over the future-years defense program (FYDP), delaying the first launch of TSAT until fiscal year 

2018 or beyond, a delay of 4 years. The committee is very disappointed in the decision to delay TSAT. For the last several years 

the Air Force and the DOD executive agent for space have asserted 

that TSAT is one of its highest priorities for the Department and 

the core of the protected satellite communications architecture. 

TSAT would provide protected, high data rate, wideband communications with many times the capability of the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) and the Wideband Global System 

(WGS) that it will replace. The significantly enhanced capabilities 

provided by TSAT are required to support a broad range of modernization programs, including the Army Future Combat System 

and the many existing and future unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 

programs. In addition, TSAT will provide a networking capability 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
220 

based on Internet protocols that will substantially increase the 

number of users and the way information is shared. 

The TSAT program started with an overly aggressive schedule, 

significant technical risks, and significant cost uncertainty, but 

with substantial management attention the technical and other 

risks are being addressed. The key technologies for TSAT are all 

at a technical readiness level 6 and the independent program assessment found that TSAT is ready to move to the preliminary design phase. 

Nevertheless, the Department has initiated a review to revalidate the TSAT program requirements as part of a military satellite 

communications investment strategy study. The committee is concerned that some of the options being discussed as part of the 

study will, if adopted, further delay delivery of the TSAT capabilities to the broad user community, waste money in the long run, 

and generate a significant communications gap in the future. Many 

of the options under consideration will so reduce the capability of 

TSAT that the committee questions why such a substantially 

downgraded TSAT is worth the effort, time, and expense. TSAT as 

originally envisioned would dramatically increase data throughput 

and, through the introduction of an Internet protocol approach, 

fundamentally change the way in which satellite communications 

are utilized. 

The committee recognizes the critical need for the full scope 

TSAT, but will not support TSAT under the circumstances as currently presented to the committee by the Air Force and DOD. At 

this juncture the committee would support funding for TSAT only 

if the Air Force and DOD return TSAT to a meaningful technology 

and schedule path. This is a difficult decision given the superb 

management of the program by the TSAT program office. 

Once again the committee questions the senior level Air Force 

commitment to being a space force. 

Operationally Responsive Space 

The budget request included $110.0 million in PE 64857F for 

Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). The committee recommends 

an increase of $10.0 million for increased work on approaches to 

standardized bus designs with common interfaces, additional satellite launches to support both technology demonstrations and 

operational concepts, and additional launch capabilities including a 

resource study to look at block buys for launch vehicles. 

The committee commends the work of the ORS office since it was 

formally established last year, and appreciates the effort required 

to establish a multi-service, multi-agency, functioning program office. To support the multi-service, multi-agency nature of the office 

the committee supports the concept of rotational directors and deputy directors. 

The committee urges the ORS office to continue to maintain a 

balanced program including launch, bus development, sensor development, and developing fully integrated satellites. In addition, the 

launch of the Tac-Sat2 satellite demonstrated that many issues remain to be resolved in the development of operational concepts for 

the Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT). 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
221 

B–2 radar modernization program 

The budget request included $351.4 million in PE64240F for the 

B–2 bomber, including $83.1 million for radar modernization. The 

committee recommends a transfer of $18.5 million from PE6420F 

to Aircraft Procurement, Air Force line 24 to facilitate the management of the radar modernization program. 

Space-based space surveillance block 10 

The budget request included $210.5 million for space situational 

awareness systems in PE 64425F including $210.5 million for 

space-based space surveillance block 10 (SBSS 10). SBSS 10 is a 

spacecraft to improve deep space situational awareness by finding, 

fixing, and tracking space objects that is scheduled to launch in 

early 2009. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million 

for SBSS 10 to allow for timely development of training materials, 

technical orders, and a simulation environment to train Air Force 

SBSS 10 operators, thereby reducing the time between launch and 

transition to Air Force operations. 

Space-based Infrared Satellite system 

The budget request included $529.8 million in PE 64441F for the 

Space-based Infrared Satellite system (SBIRS). The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for SBIRS operations and 

training. 

The SBIRS program is suffering from the same problem that is 

becoming increasingly apparent in several space systems—a disconnect between the ground and space segments. Because of the 

technical, cost, and schedule issues that have surrounded the 

SBIRS space segment, the Air Force has had to divert funds slated 

for ground related activities to the space segment for at least the 

last 3 years. As a result, the ground activities associated with 

SBIRS have been underfunded. The committee notes that for both 

fiscal years 2008 and 2009 funding for the ground segment has appeared on the Chief of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. 

Now that the first HEO sensor is on orbit, with excellent initial 

performance, and the second HEO sensor is close behind, the lack 

of ground funding is a growing problem. The unfunded requirement 

in fiscal year 2009 is $71.2 million and includes funding for such 

basic items as the wideband data transmission requirements needed for the payload on-orbit test station to exploit and utilize the capabilities of the new HEO sensors, and crew training. Also included 

on the unfunded list is completing the hardware and software to 

allow the mission control station and the backup station to control, 

track, task, and process the data from both the legacy and the 

SBIRS systems. Moreover, on the current schedule the backup station will be certified for full operations before the main mission station. 

The committee also notes that the Air Force has now decided not 

to include the Space and Atmospheric Burst Reporting System 

(SABRS), part of the U.S. nuclear detonation system, as part of the 

payload on the SBIRS–GEO 3 satellite. The committee directs the 

Air Force to either reinstate the SABRS on the SBIRS–GEO 3 satellite or find an equally capable alternative host and report its deciVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
222 

sion to the congressional defense committee no later than August 

30, 2008. 

Third Generation Infrared Surveillance satellite system 

The budget request included $149.1 million in PE 64443F for the 

Third Generation Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS) satellite system. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million. 

3GIRS is a technology development program to develop the next 

generation of infrared early warning satellite. The committee supports further development and on orbit testing of new technologies 

to support the follow-on to the Space Based Infrared Satellite system (SBIRS). The last SBIRS GEO satellite will probably launch 

in fiscal year 2016 depending on the final decision as to the full 

size of the SBIRS GEO constellation. In its budget justification material for 3GIRS, the Air Force plans to freeze the technology for 

the follow-on to SBIRS and make a decision to proceed to build an 

operational satellite at the end of fiscal 2010 even though the first 

launch of the follow-on would not be until 2019. The committee is 

concerned that the Air Force plan would prematurely lock in a 

technology without completing needed sensor development and 

without fully understanding the performance of the two approaches 

currently funded. The committee notes that there is a third unfunded option as well. As a result, the committee urges the Air 

Force to complete development of the focal plane arrays and to consider short-term on orbit demonstrations of both approaches. The 

committee encourages utilizing the Operationally Response Space 

Office to explore opportunities to conduct on orbit experiments. 

F135 engine 

The budget request included $1,524.0 million in PE 64800F for 

the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Over the past 2 

years, Congress has added $820.0 million to continue funding of 

the F136 engine, a competitive propulsion source, to ensure there 

is fair and full competition for the propulsion system of the JSF. 

The Department of Defense froze the technology baseline of the 

F135 engine several years ago when the JSF and the engine began 

system development and demonstration (SDD). To ensure that both 

engines incorporate the best configuration and most recent technology available, the Department should invest in and direct a program for the F135 and F136 engine programs that would drive 

technology insertion and provide potential customers with the best 

performing, most efficient engines possible. For example, the committee believes that the potential application of new composite materials in the F135 engine program could result in life cycle cost 

savings. Because no funds were set aside for the F136 engine in 

the administration’s budget request, elsewhere in this report the 

committee has recommended an increase of $430.0 million for the 

development of the F–136 engine. 

In order to maintain a level playing field, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 64800F for F135 engine technology development. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
223 

Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft 

The budget request included $305.1 million in PE 65277F for development of the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft 

(CSAR–X) and $15.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 

(APAF) for advanced procurement for CSAR–X. The Air Force anticipated awarding the development contract for the CSAR–X in 

the spring of 2008, but the award has been delayed until the first 

quarter of fiscal year 2009 due to successful protests by losing 

offerors, development of additional data about the program, as well 

as the offerors’ schedules. 

On April 11, 2008, the Air Force released Amendment 6 to the 

Request for Proposal for the CSAR–X. Amendment 6 modifies the 

development funding required in fiscal year 2009, lowering the 

amount, according to the Air Force, to $265.1 million. These delays 

and the new program profile associated with Amendment 6 also remove the need for programming any advance procurement funds in 

fiscal year 2009. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in PE 65277F for CSAR–X and a reduction of $15.0 million in 

APAF for CSAR–X advance procurement. 

High speed test track 

The budget request included $61.8 million in PE 64759F for 

major test and evaluation investments. The committee continues to 

be concerned about the Air Force’s downsizing of its test and evaluation infrastructure and workforce. The committee believes that a 

shortsighted reduction in Air Force testing capabilities will inevitably increase technical risk, life cycle costs, and potentially reduce 

operational performance of future Air Force acquisition programs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to support 

development of high speed test track technology for use on testing 

of critical missile, propulsion, and sensor subsystems. 

B–52 bomber 

The budget request included $38.7 million in PE 11113F for B– 52 squadrons, including $35.2 million for combat network communications technology (CONECT). The committee recommends an 

additional $9.5 million for CONECT. The Air Force failed to include adequate funding in the budget request to meet the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) to maintain 76 B–52 bombers in a common configuration and included this funding on the Air Force unfunded priorities list. 

Air Operations Centers 

The budget request included $118.8 million in PE 27410F for Air Operations Centers, including $40.4 million for integration and development of Air Operation Centers (AOCs), increment 10.2. The 

Air Force has not finished fielding increment 10.1 of the AOCs, yet 

has launched into development of increment 10.2. Increment 10.2 

will rely, in part, on the Defense Information Systems Agency’s 

Net-enabled Command and Control (NECC). However, both the Director of Defense Research and Engineering’s technology readiness 

assessment and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
224 

ongoing oversight of the NECC program have raised concerns regarding technical risk, aggressive and optimistic scheduling, and 

unclear testing and deployment strategies. 

Until technical risk, testing, and program schedule issues are addressed in a coordinated and joint fashion for both NECC and 

AOCs, the committee believes that continuing development of 

AOCs, increment 10.2 would be premature. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.4 million in PE 27410F for 

the development of AOCs, increment 10.2. 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system research and 

development 

The budget request included $97.6 million in PE 27581F for research and development projects for the E–8 joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS). 

The E–10 aircraft was supposed to be a test bed for the multiplatform radar technology insertion program (MP–RTIP). The Air 

Force intends to field this MP–RTIP sensor suite on a number of 

air vehicles, including the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle 

(UAV). 

Last year, the Air Force decided to cancel the E–10 program. 

However, the Air Force realized that canceling testing and development of the large MP–RTIP would leave a void in its capability to 

defend the U.S. homeland as well as U.S. and coalition forces 

against cruise missile attacks. The JSTARS (E–8) was the original 

platform designated for MP–RTIP. That makes the current JSTAR 

aircraft a prime candidate as the Air Force investigates a path forward. The Air Force could transfer the radar back to JSTARS with 

minimal risk. Installation of MP–RTIP could provide nearly the 

same capability as the E–10 while saving scarce defense dollars. 

The committee believes that the Air Force should pursue another 

path, whether that would be the E–8 JSTARS or some other platform, and field the better capability than can be achieved with the 

Global Hawk. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$98.0 million in PE 27581F for maturing the MP–RTIP sensor 

suite. 

Weather service research and development 

The budget request included $47.3 million in PE 35111F for research and development projects for the Air Force weather weapon 

system (AFWWS), but included no funding to develop software toolkits for operations risk management (STORM) upgrades for the 

system. 

AFWWS and its warfighter application are charged with providing regional and tactical weather observations and forecasts to 

Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems used by commanders, planners, and operators throughout the world. The Air 

Force needs to upgrade AFWWS to provide commanders and mission planners with a better appreciation of the uncertainty of 

weather forecasts and observations. Such an upgrade should enable 

them to better determine the risk of ongoing and planned operations. The AFWWS is currently capable of calculating the needed 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
225 

uncertainty but is unable to provide computer-to-computer transfer 

of such information. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million 

to upgrade the AFWWS and integrate all vital information (terrain, 

weather, risk assessment) into one visual display. 

C–17 research, development, test, and evaluation 

The budget request included $236.0 million in PE 41130F for C– 17 research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), including 

$150.8 million for performance improvement development and testing. The funding for performance improvement development and 

testing represents a 50 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 

amount. 

The committee believes that the Air Force should continue to 

seek improvements in existing weapons systems, and therefore is 

not recommending elimination of all funding. However, given the 

superb performance and operation of the C–17 fleet over the past 

several years, the committee sees no justification for increased 

RDT&E funding for C–17s at this time. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $48.0 million in PE 41130F for C–17 performance improvement development 

and testing. 

Expeditionary Combat Support System 

The budget request included $189.7 million in PE 78610F for the 

Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS). The committee is 

encouraged by the recent progress ECSS has made towards achieving Milestone B certification in the fall of this year. Also encouraging is the Air Force strategy briefed to the committee for better 

coordination and integration of ECSS with another information 

technology initiative, the Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS). However, significant concerns remain. 

Current plans show that over the next 3 years the Air Force has 

underfunded the ECSS by over $500.0 million. Additionally, the 

committee has learned that the program office is significantly 

understaffed. While the committee has been given assurances that 

the funding concerns will be reconciled in future years, the current 

schedule of concurrently developing and fielding Release 1 and Release 2 appears high risk. Until the Air Force fully funds the ECCS 

and provides sufficient manning, the current schedule appears 

overly optimistic. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease 

of $50.0 million in PE 78610F for ECSS, Release 2. 

Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System 

The budget request included $27.3 million in PE 91538F for the 

research, development, test, and evaluation activities related to the 

Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS). 

The committee has historically been supportive of the Department 

of Defense’s business systems modernization efforts, but is concerned by the Air Force’s functionally ‘‘stovepiped’’ approach to its 

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) financial systems. Current Air 

Force strategy designates DEAMS as the Air Force financial system of record for working capital fund accounting, requiring the 

Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) financial transVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
226 

action to be provided to DEAMS. Current strategy increases the 

number of interfaces between DEAMS and ECSS, increases longterm costs, and greatly complicates the Air Force movement to a 

fully integrated information technology environment. 

The committee notes that the Air Force has recognized the weaknesses of the current ‘‘stovepiped’’ strategy and, under a proposed 

new strategy, plans to migrate working capital fund financials to 

ECSS. Supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Business Transformation Agency, this proposal will provide the foundation for the Air Force’s evolution to a single enterprise resource 

program. Under the new strategy, the committee believes that the 

development funding requested for DEAMS is excess to need. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million for DEAMS. The committee directs that the Air Force preserve 

funding for testing activities related to DEAMS when allocating the 

reduction. 

Defense-wide 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
227 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 SR335.127
228 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 SR335.128
229 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 SR335.129
230 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 SR335.130
231 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 SR335.131
232 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 SR335.132
233 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 SR335.133
234 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297 SR335.134
235 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 298 SR335.135
236 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 299 SR335.136
237 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 300 SR335.137
238 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 301 SR335.138
239 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 302 SR335.139
240 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 303 SR335.140
241 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 304 SR335.141
242 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 305 SR335.142
243 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 306 SR335.143
244 

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 

Research 

The budget request included $2.8 million in PE 61114D8Z for the 

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

(DEPSCoR). The committee notes that this program was funded at 

$16.9 million in fiscal year 2008 and, according to military service 

program managers, has funded meritorious basic research programs that have contributed to defense capabilities. The program 

is currently undergoing a congressionally directed independent assessment that will serve to improve the management and execution 

of the program. The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million for the DEPSCoR program. 

In-vitro models for biodefense vaccines 

The budget request included $53.2 million in PE 61384BP for 

chemical and biological defense basic research, but no funds for development of lung models to improve vaccines. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 61384BP for development of an in-vitro lung model to support biodefense vaccines 

against aerosolized pathogens. The committee notes that there is 

insufficient understanding of the interaction between human lung 

immune cells and aerosolized biological agents. In order to design 

effective vaccines against such threats, it would be important to 

improve this understanding. 

Superstructural particle evaluation 

The budget request included $53.2 million in PE 61384BP for 

chemical and biological defense basic research. This basic research 

improves the understanding of the scientific processes for protection against chemical and biological agents. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 61384BP to continue efforts in superstructural particle evaluation and characterization 

with targeted reaction analysis. This program shows potential as 

an enabling technology for other efforts in the chemical and biological defense area. 

Next-generation over-the-horizon radar 

The budget request included $31.3 million for the Lincoln Laboratory Research Program in PE 62234D8Z, but no funds for nextgeneration over-the-horizon radar development (OTHR). The budget request did include $1.0 million in PE 63648D8Z to begin a Joint 

Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) of a next-generation 

OTHR. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is expected 

to contribute funds to this JCTD in fiscal year 2009 as well. 

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has validated a Joint 

Capabilities Document for homeland air and cruise missile defense 

of North America, which documents significant surveillance gaps in 

the approaches to the United States. The OTHR JCTD is intended 

to address these vulnerabilities. U.S. Northern Command and 

North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORTHCOM/ 

NORAD), the sponsors of the JCTD, submitted a high-priority requirement to augment funding for the OTHR JCTD to conduct 

technology risk reduction activities. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
245 

This JCTD will capitalize on the large investment of the Australian Ministry of Defense in OTHR technology. The risk-reduction initiative would procure a copy of a brass board next-generation radar design developed by Australia. This brass board would 

be used to develop and test technology to enhance performance. 

The committee believes that this project merits support and applauds the joint efforts of the Department of Defense and DHS to 

find innovative solutions for securing U.S. airspace. The committee 

recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 62234D8Z, and $1.9 

million in Other Procurement, Air Force, line 24, General Information Technology, for OTHR JCTD risk reduction. 

Chemical agent fate response planning tool 

The budget request included $203.7 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funds to develop analytic tools to plan appropriate responses to 

chemical exposures. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 

million in PE 62384BP to develop an appropriate response planning tool that uses the chemical agent fate database and supports 

consequence management and operations effects assessments. Such 

a response planning tool would fulfill a requirement of the Joint 

Operational Effects Federation. 

The committee notes that the chemical agent fate program is a 

joint service program that focuses on the acquisition and use of 

chemical warfare agent persistence data to improve the ability of 

U.S. forces to protect themselves and their equipment while operating in a chemically contaminated environment. It also has applications to domestic consequence management planning and response. 

Chemical and biological applied research 

The budget request included $203.7 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research. The committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62384BP to develop 

advanced processes for the production of molecular therapeutics 

against botulism, with the goal of advancing to Phase I clinical 

studies. The committee notes that there is no vaccine approved and 

licensed by the Food and Drug Administration against the botulism 

toxin, and therapeutic approaches may hold significant potential. 

The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 

PE 62384BP for rapid response countermeasures for chemical and 

biological threats. This effort is intended to provide a low-cost sensor that can be widely distributed and networked to provide early 

warning capabilities. This effort would address issues related to 

sensitivity, selectivity, miniaturization, manufacturability, and lowcost production. The committee notes that progress in these areas 

would permit a significant improvement in chemical and biological 

sensors. 

Chemical and biological infrared detector 

The budget request included $203.7 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funds to develop miniaturized infrared detection technology. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62384BP 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
246 

to continue development and miniaturization of an advanced infrared detection system for chemical and biological agents. The objective is to demonstrate a functional prototype that operates at high 

speed and sensitivity with minimal false alarm rates. This technology may provide an end product with significantly lower 

logistical burden than other technologies. 

Multivalent Marburg and Ebola vaccine 

The budget request included $203.7 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funds to advance Marburg/Ebola vaccine candidates into clinical 

trials. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in 

PE 62384BP to help move candidate vaccines against Marburg and 

Ebola viruses into Phase I clinical trials, including clinical lot production for human injection, human safety trials, and human dose 

escalation studies. The Department of Defense is currently evaluating five different vaccine technologies for Marburg and Ebola, 

and this additional funding would permit progress toward selecting 

the most promising candidate for advanced development. 

DARPA technology transition 

The budget request included $371.5 million in PE 62702E, $107.9 million in PE 63286E, and $287.0 million in PE 63287E for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) science and 

technology projects. The committee recommends reductions of $4.5 

million in PE 62702E for laser guided bullet research; $3.0 million 

in PE 63286E for the A160 program; and $10.0 million in PE 

63287E for the Integrated Sensor is Structure program. The committee is concerned that these programs do not have clearly delineated transition paths in place, or programmed funding in place, so 

that they will be adopted by any service program of record or 

science and technology activity. 

The committee commends DARPA’s efforts to invest in high risk, 

high payoff technologies, but believes that scarce science and technology resources should be used in a manner well coordinated between the science and technology executives of the military services 

and DARPA. 

Three-dimensional integrated circuit technologies 

The budget request included $211.5 million in PE 62716E for applied research in electronics technology. To support efforts to miniaturize defense technologies, the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for research on three-dimensional integrated circuits for use in sensors and other defense applications. 

Blast mitigation and protection 

The budget request included $211.1 million in PE 62718BR for 

technologies to defeat weapons of mass destruction. The committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62718BR for blast 

mitigation and protection analysis and software development to improve the Vulnerability Assessment and Protection Option analytic 

tool used by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to predict the 

effects of explosive blasts on buildings, and to design protection and 

mitigation options for military facilities. Given the threat of terrorVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
247 

ists using high explosives, this analytic capability is an important 

component of force protection assessment and planning. 

Comprehensive National Incident Management System 

The budget request included $211.1 million in PE 62718BR for 

technologies to defeat weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The 

committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62718BR 

for the Comprehensive National Incident Management System 

being developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to improve national capabilities to analyze potential catastrophic events 

such as pandemic influenza and terrorist attacks using WMD. This 

technology has the potential to significantly improve the ability of 

the Department of Defense and U.S. Northern Command to analyze, model, and plan for such catastrophic events, including the 

ability to provide support to civil authorities for consequence management of such events. 

Special operations technologies 

The budget request included $23.1 million in PE 116401BB for 

special operations technology development. The committee notes 

that the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has 

highlighted ‘‘tagging, tracking, and locating’’ as a key technology 

challenge. To support development of tracking technologies, the 

committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 

1160401BB for the development of multi-sensor data fusion systems to enhance detection and discrimination of targets hidden in 

foliage. The budget request included $2.5 million in PE 1160407BB for 

special operations forces medical technology development. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for the development 

of portable devices to diagnose traumatic brain injuries. 

Blast trauma research 

The budget request included $80.0 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

technology support for combating terrorism. To help address issues 

of traumatic brain injuries suffered by military personnel, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for development of 

threshold blast-induced traumatic brain injury data that will provide safe weapons operations guidelines, safe standoff distances for 

the use of explosions in combat training and operations, and inform 

engineering design considerations of force protection equipment. 

The committee directs that this work be performed in coordination 

with the activities of the Department of Defense Blast Injury Research Program Coordinating Office. 

Blackswift 

The budget request included $70.0 million in PE 63287E and 

$50.0 million in PE 35206F for the Blackswift Test Bed. The 

Blackswift program seeks to develop ‘‘an extended duration 

hypersonic test bed which will allow for the study of tactics for a 

hypersonic airplane.’’ The committee recommends a reduction of 

$40.0 million from PE 63287E for the Blackswift program. The 

committee directs the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA), Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE), 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
248 

the Air Force, the Prompt Global Strike Office, and the newly established Joint Technology Office for Hypersonics to review the 

program to ensure that it is focused on addressing the highest priority hypersonics technological gaps in order to operationally field 

hypersonic capabilities in the future. The committee recommends 

that the remaining $30.0 million requested for Blackswift in PE 

63287E be used to continue the program. 

The committee notes that the 2006 National Research Council report, ‘‘Future Air Force Needs for Survivability’’, states: 

Hypersonic missiles with ranges comparable to those of 

current missiles could increase targeting timeliness and 

flexibility and thus increase operational utility in the 2018 

time frame. It is not clear, however, whether a hypersonic 

cruise aircraft (other than a missile) designed for longrange flight and recovery offers unique capability and 

operational utility. Furthermore, it is unlikely that such 

an air-breathing hypersonic platform, other than a missile, 

will be available in the near term. 

The committee notes that although it is widely agreed that the 

best opportunity for near-term transition of hypersonics technology 

will be in cruise missile or conventional strike systems, especially 

to support time critical and prompt global strike missions, sufficient resources for research, development, or testing of the systems 

has never been focused, coordinated, or sustained within the Department of Defense. Examples of these programs include the 

DARPA Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV–2), the Air 

Force’s X–51 program and the now terminated HyFly and Revolutionary Approach to Time Critical Long-Range Strike Project 

(RATTLRS) programs. The committee feels that these programs 

have all suffered from a lack of investment in addressing fundamental technical issues and insufficient resources for required 

flight test and demonstration activities. 

The committee further notes that many fundamental research 

and technology challenges related to hypersonics flight were identified by both the DDRE National Aerospace Initiative and the 2004 

National Research Council’s ‘‘Evaluation of the National Aerospace 

Initiative,’’ including air-breathing propulsion and flight test, materials, thermal protection systems, structures, integrated vehicle design and multidisciplinary optimization, and integrated ground 

testing and numerical simulation/analysis remain insufficiently 

funded. In addition, there is still no set of approved requirements 

for any hypersonic missile or aircraft. 

Finally, the committee notes that the Blackswift program has 

been projected to cost at least $800.0 million, with DARPA and the 

Air Force sharing the cost according to a recent memorandum of 

understanding. Given the severe constraints on the Air Force budget, especially in science and technology and test and evaluation, the 

committee is not convinced that the Air Force will be able to provide the resources necessary to keep this ambitious program on 

schedule or on budget, especially since it is not tied to any specific 

requirement. The committee notes that one of the drivers of the 

technical program is the need to have the aircraft perform typical 

aircraft maneuvers, such as an aileron roll, although it is not clear 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
249 

why that will necessarily enhance the program’s probability of 

transition into formal acquisition. The committee also directs that 

the Air Force and DARPA work to ensure that the flight test program is consistent with the projected goals of the program. Further, the Air Force (AF) budget request included $50.0 million in PE 35206F to ‘‘provide a temporary repository for AF funds 

supporting DARPA Blackswift unmanned, hypersonic ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] and strike vehicle.’’ The 

committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for this effort. 

The committee directs that the remaining funding be invested in 

addressing the highest priority technological challenges to meet Air 

Force needs in hypersonics technology. 

Engineered biological detectors 

The budget request included $337.9 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced technology development, 

but included no funds to develop engineered biological warfare 

agent detectors. The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 

million in PE 63384BP for development of a prototype biological 

sensor for assessment and testing as a spiral upgrade of current 

generation systems. Effective detection of biological warfare agents 

is the key to contamination avoidance and force protection in a biologically contaminated area. 

Improved chemical, biological, and radiological filters 

The budget request included $337.9 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced technology development, 

but included no funds for developing improved chemical, biological, 

and radiological (CBR) filtration capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63384BP for design, engineering, and prototyping of CBR filters. Improved filters would 

fill a requirement for enhanced collective protection capability 

against a wide spectrum of threat agents. Such filters would be 

multi-use and multi-platform configurable, for use in buildings, 

ships, and shelters. 

Raman chemical identification system 

The budget request included $337.9 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced technology development, 

but included no funds to develop a miniaturized Raman chemical 

agent identification system. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63384BP for development of a handheld chemical agent identification system that is smaller and more 

reliable than existing systems, in order to improve the ability of 

U.S. forces to rapidly identify unknown chemical agents and substances for force protection purposes. 

Command and control gap filler joint capabilities technology demonstration 

The budget request included $206.3 million in PE 63648D8Z, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for Joint 

Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD). While $4.0 million 

of these funds will be allocated for the command and control for 

North American surveillance gap filler JCTD, U.S. Northern ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
250 

mand (NORTHCOM) testified that the JCTD is underfunded by 

$22.8 million. This JCTD is the number one unfunded priority for 

NORTHCOM. 

As identified in the National Strategy for Aviation Security, the 

National Strategy for Maritime Security, and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council-validated Homeland Air and Cruise Missile Defense of North America Joint Capabilities Document, there 

are significant airspace surveillance deficiencies and gaps—7 years 

after September 11, 2001. 

The gap filler JCTD will remedy many of these deficiencies by integrating feeds from all the disparate surveillance systems operated by government departments and agencies, including classified 

systems, and sustain development of new technology for extending 

air surveillance based on the utilization of ambient radio waves 

from such sources as television and radio station broadcasts. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $26.8 million for 

this gap filler JCTD, $22.8 million above the requested amount. 

High performance manufacturing technologies 

The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63680D8Z for 

the manufacturing science and technology program. The committee 

recommends an increase of $10.0 million for efforts on the development of high performance manufacturing technologies as authorized by title II, subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). The committee directs that the funding be used for development of test beds and 

prototypes of advanced manufacturing technologies, diffusion of advanced manufacturing processes throughout the industrial base, 

and the development of technology roadmaps to ensure that the 

Department of Defense can access required manufacturing and 

technology capabilities in critical defense technologies. 

Defense Logistics Agency technology programs 

The budget request included $19.4 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics research and development and technology demonstrations. Following the recommendation of the Defense Science 

Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy, the committee recommends a series of investments designed to address defense energy requirements using lower cost, reliable, alternative fuel 

sources. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for 

research on advanced biofuels to support military operations, $10.0 

million to continue efforts to develop advanced vehicle fuel cell 

technologies and demonstrate the use of hydrogen technologies for 

defense operations, and $3.0 million for the development of 

deployable microgrid systems that can utilize a variety of energy 

sources to produce installation and vehicle power. 

The committee notes that the National Research Council Committee on Manufacturing Trends in Printed Circuit Technology recommended that the Department of Defense ‘‘should ensure access 

to new printed circuit board (PrCB) technology by expanding its 

role in fostering new PrCB design and manufacturing technology.’’

DOD recently concurred with the recommendations of that report, 

but has yet to make any significant changes in investment level in 

this area. In support of that recommendation, the committee recVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
251 

ommends an increase of $2.0 million for the development of emerging critical interconnect and printed circuit board technology. 

Superlattice nanotechnology 

The budget request included no funding in PE 63720S for microelectronics technology development and support. The committee 

notes that the 2007 report on the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program states a goal ‘‘to utilize breakthroughs in nanotechnology to provide revolutionary devices and 

systems to advance warfighter capabilities and battle systems capabilities.’’ Consistent with that goal, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63720S for research on superlattice nanotechnology to develop high power, high temperature devices for defense applications. 

Special warfare domain awareness technologies 

The budget request included $113.9 million in PE 63826D8Z for 

quick reaction special projects. The committee notes that the 2007 

Naval Science and Technology (S&T) Strategic Plan’s asymmetric 

and irregular warfare focus area has a specific objective of enhancing riverine surveillance capabilities through development of ‘‘common and persistent’’ maritime pictures. To support this objective, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63826D8Z for development of augmented reality systems to support 

special warfare situational awareness needs. 

Weapon of mass destruction exercises 

The budget request included $114.9 million in PE 63828D8Z for 

joint experimentation programs. The committee notes that the 

United States Joint Forces Command’s joint experimentation program funds concept development and experimentation efforts and 

leads the development, exploration, and assessment of new joint 

concepts, organizational structures, and emerging technologies. A 

focus of committee attention this year has been the threat of domestic use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by terrorist 

groups, and the capabilities of the Department of Defense to participate in actions to detect and defeat or mitigate the effects of 

such an event. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $1.5 million in PE 63828D8Z to support experimentation activities related to the potential use of WMD against critical domestic 

infrastructure, and directs that such activities involve the participation of other appropriate Federal, local and State entities so as 

to better inform planning and coordination efforts. 

Arrow missile defense program 

The budget request included approximately $1.0 billion for terminal defense programs in PE 63881C, of which $74.3 million is for 

the U.S.-Israeli cooperative program of development and procurement for the Israeli Arrow missile defense system. The Arrow 

Weapon System provides Israel defense against regional ballistic 

missiles, including against Iran’s Shahab–3 missile. Israel is interested in an upper-tier follow-on to its Arrow system in order to provide more capable protection against missiles with possible weapons of mass destruction warheads. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
252 

There are several options under consideration for an upper-tier 

follow-on to the Arrow system. One would be to develop a new 

Israeli Arrow–3 interceptor, which would also require the development of a new long-range radar for the system to be effective. 

Other options include the possibility of using existing U.S. missile 

defense technologies, such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system or a land-based version of the Standard 

Missile–3 interceptor, which is used by the Aegis Ballistic Missile 

Defense (BMD) system, to provide highly effective upper-tier defense for Israel. The committee believes that developing a new 

Israeli interceptor missile and long-range radar would be very expensive and would duplicate existing U.S. capabilities. Therefore, 

the committee encourages the full consideration of U.S. systems as 

potentially the most effective and cost-effective approach to providing an upper-tier missile defense capability for Israel. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 

63881C for the Missile Defense Agency to fully evaluate the potential of existing U.S. missile defense systems and technologies—particularly a land-based version of the Standard Missile–3 interceptor 

used in conjunction with a THAAD radar—to provide an operationally effective, timely, and cost-effective upper-tier missile defense 

capability for Israel. Such an option would be fully interoperable 

with deployed U.S. missile defense systems, which could reinforce 

and support the Israeli upper-tier system. 

Short-range ballistic missile defense 

The budget request included approximately $1.0 billion for ter- minal defense programs in PE 63881C, of which $44.9 million is for 

cooperative U.S.-Israeli development of a short-range ballistic missile defense system called the David’s Sling Weapon System. This 

system is being developed in response to short-range missile and 

rocket attacks against Israel from Lebanon. The United States is 

sharing the development of the system in order to ensure that it 

is compatible with U.S. missile defense systems, and to provide an 

option for the U.S. military to procure the system in the future if 

needed. The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million in 

PE 63881C to accelerate the development of the David’s Sling 

Weapon System in order to permit timely fielding of the system. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

The budget request included approximately $1.0 billion for terminal defense programs in PE 63881C, of which $864.9 million is 

for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program. 

The committee recommends a transfer of $65.0 million from the 

budget request, and an increase of $75.0 million, to a new defensewide procurement line for long lead procurement of interceptors 

and ground equipment for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4. This would 

permit awarding the long lead contract for both Fire Units 3 and 

4 together, and would lead to a more efficient and economical production plan. It would also permit a production rate of three interceptors per month, which would reduce the cost of each interceptor 

while delivering the capability sooner than the current plan. 

The committee is deeply disappointed that the budget request for 

the THAAD system would delay the delivery of interceptors for 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
253 

Fire Units 3 and 4 by a year and cause a production gap of 18 

months. This delay would be wholly inconsistent with the need to 

provide our regional combatant commanders with the near-term effective defenses they need to defend our forward-deployed military 

forces, allies, and friends against the many hundreds of short- and 

medium-range ballistic missiles that exist today. As specified in 

section 223 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the THAAD system is 

a high priority near-term system, and the committee believes that 

delaying its production for budget reasons is unacceptable. 

The committee notes that after the budget was submitted and 

congressional objections were raised to the planned delay, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) acknowledged that the delay would be 

unacceptable and indicated that it plans to change the allocation 

of fiscal year 2009 funding within the funds requested for THAAD, 

and to use an inflation adjustment, to provide $65.0 million for 

long lead procurement of interceptors for Fire Unit 3, to avoid the 

delay and the production gap. The committee believes MDA should 

not have planned for the delay and the production gap in the first 

place. 

A number of new requirements were placed on the THAAD program by the Army, including requirements to meet new insensitive 

munitions standards, and to use a 5-ton truck instead of a HighMobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) for the fire control vehicle. Given the extraordinary acquisition authority and 

flexibility granted to the MDA, the committee is disappointed that 

MDA did not budget the funds from lower priority programs outside of THAAD to meet these new requirements while keeping the 

THAAD production schedule on track. 

Furthermore, the committee is disappointed that MDA is only 

planning and budgeting to procure four THAAD Fire Units and 96 

THAAD interceptors. As the Commander of the Joint Force Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense told the committee 

in April 2007, the Joint Capabilities Mix study, conducted by the 

Joint Staff in association with the combatant commands and the 

military departments, concluded that the United States needs 

about twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile–3 interceptors 

as the number currently planned, just to meet the minimum inventory needs of the combatant commanders to provide protection 

against existing short- and medium-range missile threats. That 

minimum number does not include the normally required spare, reserve, and reload missiles. 

The committee observes that the United Arab Emirates has expressed an interest in purchasing three THAAD fire units and 144 

THAAD interceptors for defense of its territory, which is about the 

size of Maine. Their purchase would be 50 percent larger than the 

number of interceptors currently planned by MDA for all U.S. 

forces, and would include twice as many interceptors per fire unit 

as MDA is currently planning for U.S. forces. 

The committee believes that MDA’s current plan for THAAD acquisition is wholly inadequate and needs to be changed to meet the 

current needs of our combatant commanders. The committee believes that MDA should focus on meeting at least these minimum 

inventory upper-tier requirements as its highest acquisition priVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
254 

ority, and directs MDA to report to the congressional defense committees by no later than December 1, 2008 on its plans to meet the 

inventory requirements identified in the Joint Capabilities Mix 

study. 

Additionally, the committee notes that section 223(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181) required the Department of Defense to request any long 

lead procurement for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4 in the fiscal year 

2009 budget request using procurement funds, rather than research and development (R&D) funds. In addition, section 223(c) of 

that act prohibits the use of fiscal year 2009 R&D funds for procurement of long lead items for Fire Units 3 and 4. Therefore, the 

committee recommends that all $140.0 million in long lead procurement funds for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4 be provided in a new 

defense-wide procurement line, as described elsewhere in this report and displayed in the funding tables in this report. 

Finally, the committee is concerned that MDA has not planned 

or budgeted any funds in fiscal year 2009 for procuring a THAAD 

radar. This would create a gap in THAAD radar production and 

cause a schedule disconnect between fire unit delivery and radar 

delivery. Therefore, the committee also recommends an increase of 

$40.0 million in the new missile defense procurement funding line 

for long lead procurement of the THAAD radar for Fire Unit 3, to 

avoid a production gap and a schedule disconnect. The committee 

urges MDA to synchronize the THAAD fire unit and radar production and delivery schedules. 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

The budget request included $2.1 billion in PE 63882C for the 

ballistic missile defense midcourse element, which is the source of 

funds for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system deployed in Alaska and California, and for the proposed deployment 

of the GMD system in Europe. 

The budget request included $19.2 million for long lead procurement of operational 2-stage Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) intended for European deployment, ‘‘pending successfully meeting the 

criteria described in Section 226 of the FY08 National Defense Authorization Report [sic].’’ Section 226 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) prohibits 

the use of fiscal year 2008 funds to acquire or deploy the planned 

operational European 2-stage GBIs until the Secretary of Defense, 

after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation (DOT&E), certifies that the system has a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner. The committee recommends a similar provision for fiscal year 2009, as described elsewhere in this report. 

The committee notes that the proposed 2-stage interceptor intended for deployment in Poland is still being designed and developed, and is not scheduled to have its first booster flight test until 

the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, and the first planned intercept test in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. Given that a 

number of GMD flight tests have been delayed substantially, it is 

possible that these 2-stage GBI tests will also be delayed. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
255 

In an October 2007 report, DOT&E noted the ‘‘significant differences’’ between the proposed GMD deployment with a 2-stage interceptor in Europe and the existing GMD system deployed in the 

United States with a 3-stage GBI. According to the report, ‘‘European defense using GMD assets is a completely new mission area 

for GMD.’’ The report provided DOT&E’s initial testing concept for 

the proposed European deployment, which would include three 

flight tests, two of which would be intercept tests. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) originally planned to conduct only two flight 

tests prior to deploying the system, one of which would be an intercept test. This planned flight test program would not meet the 

DOT&E minimum test plan concept. It is difficult to envision the 

certification required of the Secretary of Defense under these circumstances. However, MDA has recently agreed to conduct three 

flight tests, in accordance with the DOT&E test concept. The committee views this as a positive development. 

The committee notes that the long lead items planned for pro- curement with the $19.2 million are 100 percent common with both 

the 2-stage and 3-stage GBIs. Therefore, they could be used for 

purposes other than being deployed on operational 2-stage GBIs if 

necessary, including for flight test and ground test interceptors for 

either 3-stage or 2-stage GBIs. Consequently, the committee recommends authorizing the requested $19.2 million, with the understanding that if there are problems with the 2-stage GBI development program, these long lead assets would be used for other purposes, rather than being wasted or deployed before the 2-stage GBI 

is certified as ready. 

The committee notes that MDA has changed its GMD test plans 

to accelerate the testing of the 2-stage GBI intended for European 

deployment. As part of this change, MDA merged the objectives of 

two previously planned tests (FTG–06 and FTG–07) into one test 

(FTG–06), so that the next test could be the first Booster 

Verification Test (BVT–01) of the 2-stage GBI. Consequently, the 

target originally planned and budgeted for FTG–07 is no longer 

needed for that test, since that test’s objectives are being merged 

into FTG–06. The committee directs MDA to inform Congress of 

any significant changes in its test and target plans on a timely 

basis. 

The committee notes that the political process toward negotiation 

and ratification of agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic 

on the proposed deployment of a missile defense system on their 

territory will take additional time to resolve itself, possibly through 

fiscal year 2008. This additional time may delay the ability of MDA 

to obligate or expend fiscal year 2008 funds into fiscal year 2009, 

which would presumably delay its ability to obligate and expend 

fiscal year 2009 funds. The committee is concerned that MDA will 

have difficulty executing funds requested for fiscal year 2009 for 

the proposed European deployment. 

For example, Congress appropriated $28.0 million in fiscal year 

2008 for site activation activities, but those funds cannot be obligated or expended until the governments of Poland and the Czech 

Republic give final approval to the proposed deployments on their 

respective territories. This raises concerns that the funds requested 

in fiscal year 2009 for site activation will be premature or 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
256 

unexecutable. The committee directs MDA to keep the congressional defense committees informed regularly of the plans and 

schedule for executing funds for the proposed European deployment, and of any delays in the planned execution of funds. 

Airborne Laser 

The budget request included $421.2 million in PE 63883C for the 

Airborne Laser (ABL) technology demonstration program. The committee notes that the budget request for ABL included $15.8 million for planning and analysis related to a possible second ABL aircraft. Since the first planned proof of principle shoot-down demonstration test is not scheduled until the fourth quarter of fiscal 

year 2009, and since even a successful test will not provide answers to the many questions about whether the ABL technology 

could be made into an effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable 

weapon system, the committee believes it is inappropriate to provide any funds in fiscal year 2009 related to a potential second 

ABL aircraft. 

Any decision on whether to proceed with a possible second ABL 

aircraft should only be made after much more information is available about the likelihood that the system could eventually provide 

a militarily useful, operationally effective, and affordable missile 

defense capability, when balanced against other missile defense 

programs, capabilities, and needs, and also balanced against other 

Department of Defense priorities and needs. As described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a provision that 

would limit the availability of funds for procurement of a second 

ABL aircraft until the Secretary of Defense certifies that it has a 

high probability of accomplishing its mission in an operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable manner. 

The Government Accountability Office has noted that the ABL 

program has a history of significant cost increases and schedule 

delays. When the program was originally proposed in 1996 it was 

estimated that the technology demonstration program would cost 

$1.0 billion and be completed in 2001. However, after numerous 

cost and schedule delays, it is now estimated that the technology 

demonstration program will cost more than $5.1 billion and be 

completed in 2010, a 500 percent cost growth and 9–year delay. In 

2007, because of integration issues and technical challenges, the 

program increased its costs by $253.0 million and added a year to 

the program schedule. 

As the committee noted last year, the ABL program remains a 

far-term, high risk technology development and demonstration program. If the technology could be made to work in a militarily useful 

and operationally effective manner, it would not produce an operational capability before 2018. The committee believes there are 

higher priorities for missile defense funds, particularly the nearterm capabilities currently needed by our combatant commanders 

to defend our forward-deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations against many existing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction in PE 63883C 

of $15.8 million, the funds requested for work related to a second 

ABL aircraft, and a reduction of $30.0 million for work not related 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
257 

to maintaining the schedule for the planned proof of principle 

shoot-down demonstration test in 2009. 

Real-time non-specific viral agent detector 

The budget request included $51.3 million in PE 63884BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced component development 

and prototypes, but included no funds for development of a mobile 

non-specific viral agent detector. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63884BP for development of a mobile 

real-time non-specific viral agent detector that would improve current detection capabilities. The committee notes that this effort 

could provide a significant upgrade to the Joint Biological Agent 

Identification and Diagnostic System (JBAIDS). This technology, 

which would add the capability to detect infectious diseases, would 

be useful both for forward-deployed forces and for potential domestic consequence management missions. 

Ballistic missile defense sensors 

The budget request included $1.1 billion in PE 63884C for radars 

and other sensors for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), 

including sensors for different missile defense elements. 

The committee notes that there is no funding requested in fiscal 

year 2009 to begin production of the THAAD radar for Fire Unit 

3, designated AN/TPY #8, and is concerned that this would result 

in a production gap and a schedule disconnect with Fire Unit 3. 

The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in a new 

defense-wide missile defense procurement funding line for long lead 

procurement of AN/TPY #8 for THAAD Fire Unit 3, as described 

elsewhere in this report. 

The committee is concerned that the consolidation of all sensor 

work in one program element may have the unintended consequence of reducing focus on and responsiveness to the needs of 

the individual elements for the timely production of sensors for the 

element weapon systems, such as THAAD radars to accompany 

THAAD fire units. The committee expects the Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) to ensure that funding and production of radars for 

THAAD will be synchronized with the production schedules for 

their associated fire units. 

The committee notes that the budget request included $26.5 million for the site activation and deployment of a forward-based Xband radar, designated AN/TPY–2 #3, to an undecided location, 

and $18.0 million for overseas site security for this radar. Since the 

MDA has not decided where to deploy such a radar, has not begun 

negotiations with any foreign nation for such a deployment, and 

there is no agreement with any foreign nation to deploy such a 

radar on its soil, the committee believes this funding is premature. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $26.5 million 

in PE 63884C for costs related to site activation and deployment 

of AN/TPY–2 #3 radar to an undecided foreign location, and a reduction of $18.0 million for overseas site security of AN/TPY–2 #3. 

The budget request included $20.3 million to operationalize the 

External Sensors Lab boost-phase capabilities. Since there are no 

boost-phase missile defense systems within a decade of deployment, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
258 

the committee believes this funding is premature. The committee 

recommends a reduction of $20.3 million in PE 63884C. 

The committee is aware of a proposal to enhance the BMDS sensor system by deploying additional shipboard radars to increase the 

coverage and availability of mobile radar networks, while potentially producing significant cost savings. This mobile sensor enhancement concept is worth evaluating to determine if it would 

provide a significant improvement to the capability of an integrated 

BMDS. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in 

PE 63884C for the MDA and the Navy to evaluate this concept and 

determine whether it merits further development. 

Kinetic Energy Interceptor 

The budget request included $386.8 million in PE 63886C for the 

Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program. This is $172.8 million 

more than requested in the fiscal year 2008 budget request for 

KEI, $46.7 million more than appropriated, and a very large sum 

of funds for a program at such an early stage of development. The 

committee notes that the KEI program was originally conceived as 

a boost-phase risk reduction alternative to the Airborne Laser 

(ABL) program because of the high risks associated with the ABL 

technology development effort. 

However, the KEI program is no longer considered primarily a 

boost-phase program; it is being managed as a technology development program for a mid-course follow-on to the Ground-based 

Interceptors (GBIs) being deployed as part of the Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. The GBIs are scheduled to be 

deployed through 2013, and will have many years of useful operational life following deployment, so there is no urgent need to develop a follow-on now to a system that will not complete its deployment for another 5 years. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request for KEI focused on developing the technology for a high-performance silo-based interceptor, 

rather than as a mobile system, with a flight test in 2008. That 

flight test has now been delayed until 2009 because of technology 

problems with the development program. 

The budget request for KEI represents another significant 

change in direction and a significant increase in program funding 

at a time when the program has lost focus and direction, and when 

the long-range midcourse defense capability is being addressed by 

the GMD system with its GBI interceptors. The committee is concerned that this level of funding is more than can be effectively executed during fiscal year 2009. The committee believes there are 

higher priority needs in the missile defense program, such as nearterm defenses against existing short- and medium-range missiles, 

and that the KEI program can and should take more time to develop technologies that may be useful in the decades to come when 

the GBIs reach the end of their useful operational life, if there is 

not another capability that is more suitable. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $45.0 million to PE 63886C for 

the Kinetic Energy Interceptor development program. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
259 

Ballistic missile defense reductions 

The budget request included $432.3 million in PE 63890C for the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Systems Core program; and $288.3 

million in PE 63891C for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Special 

Programs. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million 

in PE 63890C for BMD Systems Core; and a decrease of $100.0 

million in PE 63891C for MDA Special Programs to partially offset 

the additional funding needed for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program and its Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptor, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program, and other high priority near-term missile defense programs 

described elsewhere in this report. The committee notes that the 

proposed funding reductions are for projects that are of lower priority than the near-term capabilities provided by the Aegis BMD, 

SM–3, and THAAD programs, which meet the needs of combatant 

commanders to defend our forward-deployed forces, allies, and 

other friendly nations against the existing threat of many hundreds 

of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The Joint Capabilities Mix study concluded that we need about twice as many 

THAAD and SM–3 interceptors as currently planned just to meet 

the minimum operational requirements of our regional combatant 

commanders. 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) 

The budget request included $1.2 billion in PE 63892C for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program, including $57.0 

million for long lead procurement of Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) 

Block IA interceptor missiles. The committee notes that the Aegis 

BMD system with its SM–3 interceptor is the only midcourse defense system currently being deployed to provide defense against 

short- and medium-range ballistic missile threats to our forwarddeployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations. The Aegis BMD 

system has had an impressive record of successful tests against 

short- and medium-range targets, including a multi-mission test 

against a ballistic missile and an air-breathing threat, and a multiple target intercept against two ballistic missile targets. 

The SM–3 missile is being developed to have increasing capability with each successive version, from Block IA, to Block IB, to 

the Block IIA version being developed jointly with Japan. The 

Aegis BMD system and its SM–3 interceptor have the potential to 

provide a significant measure of defensive capability in various regions of the world, and to increase its capability to conduct intercepts based on radar tracks from offboard sensors, known as ‘‘engage on remote,’’ and to engage missiles early in their midcourse 

flight, including in the ascent phase. 

The committee notes that the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) 

study, conducted by the Joint Staff, concluded that U.S. combatant 

commanders need about twice as many SM–3 and THAAD interceptors as currently planned to meet just their minimum operational requirements for defending against the many hundreds of 

existing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The committee 

is deeply disappointed that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has 

not planned or budgeted to acquire more than a fraction of the 

SM–3 interceptors needed to meet the warfighters’ minimum operVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
260 

ational needs. The committee believes that achieving at least the 

JCM levels of upper tier interceptors in a timely manner should be 

the highest priority for MDA, and expects the Agency to modify its 

plans and budgets to meet our combatant commanders’ current 

operational needs. In section 223 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), 

Congress specified the Aegis BMD system and its SM–3 interceptor 

as a high priority near-term program for the Department of Defense to focus on. As the JCM study makes clear, the Department 

has failed to do so. 

Section 223(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) requires that any long lead or 

advance procurement for SM–3 Block IA missiles in the fiscal year 

2009 budget be requested in procurement funds, rather than in research and development (R&D) funds. Section 223(c) of that act 

prohibits the use of fiscal year 2009 R&D funds for procurement of 

long lead items for SM–3 Block IA missiles. The Department chose 

not to comply with the law, and requested R&D funds for procuring 

long lead items for the SM–3 missiles. This is not acceptable. The 

committee notes that the Department is obliged to comply with the 

law, and expects the Department to do so. 

To be consistent with the law, and to correct the Department’s 

failure to comply with the law, the committee recommends that all 

long lead funds for SM–3 missiles be authorized and appropriated 

in a new defense-wide procurement line described elsewhere in this 

report. Accordingly, the committee recommends a transfer of $57.0 

million from PE 63892C to the new procurement line for long lead 

procurement of SM–3 Block IA missiles. The committee also recommends an increase of $20.0 million in that new procurement line 

for the procurement of long lead items for an additional 15 SM–3 

interceptors, to begin the process of increasing the inventory of 

SM–3 missiles toward the JCM levels. The committee notes that 

MDA does not plan any procurement of SM–3 Block IB missiles 

after fiscal year 2010, which is inconsistent with the JCM study 

conclusions concerning the need for about twice as many SM–3 and 

THAAD missiles as are currently planned. The committee expects 

MDA to modify its plans and budgets for the fiscal year 2010 budget submission to address the inventory levels indicated by the JCM 

study. 

To address these numerous concerns, the committee recommends 

an increase of $80.0 million in PE 63892C for the following 

projects: $20.0 million for facilitizing an increase in SM–3 production capacity to four missiles per month; $20.0 million to reduce 

schedule risk for the Block IB missile; and $40.0 million for accelerated development of enhanced Aegis BMD capability for ‘‘engage on 

remote’’ and ascent-phase engagement. 

Space Tracking and Surveillance System 

The budget request included $242.4 million in PE 63893C for the 

Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS). The committee 

notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has again changed 

the approach to the STSS program for fiscal year 2009, but the program is out of phase with the schedule of related events. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
261 

The committee notes that the launch of the two STSS demonstration prototype satellites has been delayed until November 2008. 

MDA plans to gather on-orbit data from these demonstration satellites through 2010. These data will be necessary to determine further changes in design of the objective follow-on STSS satellites. 

The committee is concerned that MDA plans to issue a Request for 

Proposals for the objective follow-on satellites in August of 2008, 

several months before the demonstration satellites are launched, 

and well before actual orbital data are available to help determine 

the final design parameters of the follow-on satellites. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that MDA and the Air Force 

are just beginning to obtain actual on-orbit data from the initial 

Space-based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites, and the results appear both promising and important for understanding what our 

current capabilities are and what our future requirements will be 

for the STSS system. Before MDA finalizes its design for the follow-on STSS satellites, the committee believes it should work closely with the Air Force to fully evaluate the data available from the 

SBIRS system, and evaluate the data provided by the two STSS 

demonstration satellites. Only then will MDA be in a position to 

determine the final design for the STSS system. The STSS program 

schedule is ahead of need, and ahead of the data it will need to determine the final requirements and design for the objective STSS 

satellites. 

Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 

million in PE 63893C, to allow more time to evaluate on-orbit data 

from SBIRS and from the two STSS demonstration satellites before 

proceeding with the final design of the objective STSS satellites. 

The committee also urges MDA to coordinate with the Air Force 

to use the SBIRS ground stations for STSS residual operational capability and for the STSS objective system. 

Multiple Kill Vehicles 

The budget request included $354.5 million in PE 63894C for the 

Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program. This is nearly a three-fold 

increase from the fiscal year 2007 funding level, and an increase 

of nearly $125.0 million from the fiscal year 2008 funding level, 

which represents large budget growth in the MKV program. 

The committee notes that the MKV program is at an early development stage, with the preliminary design review not expected 

until the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 and the first substantive 

knowledge point not expected until mid–2011. The committee is 

concerned that the program cannot effectively execute the large 

amount of funding requested for a program at such an early stage 

of development. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease 

of $50.0 million in PE 63894C. 

The committee believes that, although the MKV program is pursuing a laudable technical goal, there are higher priorities for current missile defense funds, including providing our regional combatant commanders with near-term capabilities to defend our forward-deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations against the 

many hundreds of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles that 

exist today. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
262 

The committee also notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 

plans to fund two contractor teams with competing technology approaches, but does not plan to have a competitive selection of the 

best technology in the future. Although MDA is pursuing development of MKV technologies for long-range midcourse defense interceptors and for the Standard Missile–3 Block II interceptor, keeping two contractor teams for the indefinite future is both expensive 

and possibly unnecessary. The committee urges MDA to consider a 

competitive selection process to determine which of the two contractor teams has the best technology, and to select that team as 

the only team to fund in the future. 

The committee is also concerned that the consolidation of all kinetic kill vehicle technology development in one office may have the 

unintended effect of removing continued focus on developing or improving existing and planned unitary kinetic kill vehicles, such as 

the unitary kill vehicle planned for the Standard Missile–3 Block 

IIA missile being developed jointly by the United States and Japan. 

As the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has reported, 

there are still no validated or accredited models and simulations 

available to provide confidence in the performance of the 

Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle deployed on the Ground-Based Interceptors of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. It is essential to fully demonstrate and improve the capability of this system, 

which will likely be deployed for at least 20 years. 

The committee urges MDA to consider whether it needs to take 

mitigating actions to ensure that the unitary kill vehicle programs 

have sufficient focus and resources, particularly in the event that 

the MKV efforts do not yield effective or affordable results. 

Space test-bed 

The budget request included $29.7 million in PE 63895C for Ballistic Missile Defense System space programs, of which $10.0 million is for a ‘‘space test-bed.’’ The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63895C, the entire amount requested 

for the space test-bed. 

As the committee noted last year, the proposed space test-bed is 

intended to be the initial step toward deploying space-based interceptors. There is no need or justification to deploy space-based 

interceptors, and therefore no justification to create the proposed 

space test-bed. The committee notes that Congress denied all funding requested for the proposed space test-bed in fiscal year 2008. 

There are, however, numerous real missile threats in existence 

today for which near-term missile defense capabilities are needed. 

The Joint Capabilities Mix study has concluded that there is a 

need for about twice as many Standard Missile–3 and Terminal 

High Altitude Area Defense interceptors just to meet the minimum 

operational requirements of the regional combatant commanders 

against the hundreds and hundreds of short- and medium-range 

ballistic missiles that currently can target our forward-deployed 

forces, allies, and other friendly nations. As Congress made clear 

in section 223 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the committee believes it is a high priority to fund these near-term effective systems 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
263 

that meet current combatant commander needs against existing 

threats. 

Missile Defense Agency funding reduction 

The budget request included $9.3 billion for the Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) in research, development, test, and evaluation 

funds. The committee recommends an undistributed reduction of 

$268.7 million in MDA funding. 

Corrosion control technologies 

The budget request included $5.1 million in PE 64016D8Z for the 

Department of Defense Corrosion Program. The committee notes 

that corrosion damage to Department of Defense (DOD) assets has 

been estimated to lead to a $20.0 billion annual cost to the Department. The committee supports the research efforts of the DOD Corrosion Program, which seeks to develop and demonstrate new technologies to mitigate the effects of corrosion. To support these efforts 

the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for research 

on the use of polymer materials and coatings to enhance corrosion 

prevention and mitigation. The committee also recommends an increase of $3.5 million to develop comprehensive technical, maintenance, and training systems to reduce asset life cycle costs related 

to corrosion damage. 

Conflict modeling technologies 

The budget request included $6.0 million in PE 64670D8Z for 

human, social, and cultural behavioral research and engineering. 

The committee supports enhancing Department of Defense capabilities to model and anticipate future conflicts and better understand political-social systems and their interactions. The committee 

recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 64670D8Z to continue conflict modeling, planning, and outcomes experimentation 

activities. 

Prompt global strike 

The budget request included $117.6 million in PE 64165D8Z for 

prompt global strike. The committee recommends an increase of 

$30.0 million in PE 64165D8Z and $45.0 million for the advanced 

hypersonic boost glide vehicle. 

The budget request for prompt global strike included $40.0 million for the alternative re-entry system/warhead engineering and 

delivery vehicle options/development, which would support work on 

various aspects of a biconic re-entry vehicle for use as a possible 

prompt global strike option. The committee believes that work on 

the biconic vehicle is premature and therefore recommends that no 

funds be made available for the manufacture of the biconic vehicle. 

Work on technologies to support prompt global strike systems generally, such as command destruct, fuze development, and similar 

generally applicable technologies, however, should continue. The 

committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) hypersonic glide vehicle HTV–2 is scheduled for 

testing in fiscal year 2009, and that if these tests are successful, 

there would be no need for the biconic vehicle. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
264 

The committee recommends that of the funds that were included 

in the budget request for the biconic vehicle, approximately $15.0 

million shall be available for the advanced hypersonic boost glide 

vehicle in addition to the $30.0 million for a total of $45.0 million. 

The committee notes that funding for the advanced hypersonic 

boost glide vehicle was previously included in PE63305A. The committee believes that all prompt global strike activities, with the exception of the DARPA funded work on HTV–2, which will terminate at the end of fiscal year 2009, should be consolidated in one 

budget account. 

Net-enabled command and control 

The budget request included $147.3 million in PE 33158K for the 

Joint Command and Control Program for Net-enabled command 

and control, as well as $8.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide 

(PDW) Line 21 and $35.7 million in Operation and Maintenance, 

Defense-wide (OMDW) Line 120 for the same program. This is out 

of a total investment of $227.4 million for the program and nearly 

$675.0 million between fiscal years 2007 and 2010 to develop and 

begin to field the program. The committee recommends decreases 

of $90.0 million in PE 33158K, $25.0 million from OMDW, and $7.9 

million from PDW. 

The committee notes that both the Director of Defense Research 

and Engineering’s (DDRE) technology readiness assessment and 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s ongoing oversight 

of the Network enabled command and control (NECC) program 

have raised issues regarding technical risk, aggressive and overly 

optimistic scheduling, and unclear testing and deployment strategies. The DDRE assessment noted a lack of definition of the program as to requirements or agreement on program definition with 

stakeholders. The committee understands that these and other 

NECC program issues could lead to a delay in the Milestone B decision approval for the program. 

In addition, the committee notes that the services are currently 

developing information systems under the Global Command and 

Control System Family of Systems (GCCS–FOS), which are 

planned for eventual integration into a single NECC architecture. 

The committee is not aware of any service that has a well articulated and coordinated transition strategy and deployment and integration schedule for this complex system of systems. Finally, the 

committee notes that GCCS–FOS technologies have not yet been 

fully fielded, nor will users and testers have significant operational 

experience with the newest versions of the GCCS–FOS for a number of years. Since NECC is designed to be the follow-on program 

for the GCCS–FOS, the committee recommends a reduction in its 

funding growth until technical risk, testing, and program schedule 

issues are addressed in a coordinated and joint fashion amongst all 

stakeholders, and a set of operational lessons learned and capability gaps from GCCS–FOS deployments is developed and analyzed. 

Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program 

The budget request included $133.9 million in PE 64940D8Z for 

the Central Test and Evaluation (T&E) Investment Program manVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
265 

aged by the Test Resource Management Center, originally established by the committee in section 231 of the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–

314). The 2007 Strategic Plan for DOD T&E Resources noted that 

‘‘outdated threat missile fly-out models reduced the effectiveness of 

both active and passive countermeasures testing.’’ To help address 

this shortfall, the committee recommends an additional $5.0 million for development of surface-to-air missile hardware simulators. 

The strategic plan also commented that ‘‘the expanded computing 

capability being deployed in the upcoming C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] systems will need to be replicated at the (test) 

ranges by upgrading existing or acquisition of new hardware and 

software systems.’’ Consistent with addressing that need, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for development of 

range network enterprise systems to support distributed testing. 

Anti-tamper technologies 

The budget request included $2.2 million in PE 65790D8Z for 

Small Business Innovation Research program activities. The committee notes that the 2007 Defense Science Board study, ‘‘Mission 

Impact of Foreign Influence on DOD [Department of Defense] Software,’’ found that ‘‘software deployed across the DOD continues to 

contain numerous vulnerabilities and weak information security 

design characteristics.’’ To address these weaknesses the committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development of 

anti-tamper software systems. 

Force transformation directorate 

The budget request included $20.7 million in PE 65799D8Z for 

the force transformation directorate. The committee recommends a 

reduction of $15.0 million from this account, and directs that the 

remaining requested funds be used to transition programs to other 

activities within the Department of Defense. The committee notes 

that the disestablishment of the Office of Force Transformation 

(OFT) has diminished the role that this program plays in driving 

transformative defense technologies and operational concepts. The 

committee acknowledges that OFT has made significant contributions to the development of active protection systems and operationally responsive space capabilities, but feels that the Department of Defense needs to reconsider the totality of programs that 

all seemed to be aimed at a common, laudable purpose of driving 

force transformation. 

The committee believes that the efforts of the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency, United States Joint Forces Command, 

and the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration program, 

among others, can be coordinated to serve the role that was intended for the research and development programs of OFT at its 

inception. The committee notes that all these efforts are under the 

oversight or direct control of the Director of Defense Research and 

Engineering (DDRE), and so directs the DDRE to strongly consider 

merging force transformation program activities with these other 

efforts. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
266 

Software assurance education and research 

The budget request included $394.1 million in PE 33140G for the 

Information Systems Security Program, but no funds for the development and integration of secure software design practices in curricula of higher education institutions that teach computer science 

and software engineering. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for this 

purpose at one of the institutions designated as a National Center 

of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education by the 

National Security Agency. 

Status of Operational Readiness and Training Systems 

The budget request included $36.4 million in PE 33150K for the 

Global Command and Control System (GCCS). The committee 

notes that this program includes funding to continue the development, testing, and fielding of the legacy Status of Operational 

Readiness and Training Systems (SORTS) that is currently being 

replaced by the Department of Defense’s objective system, the Defense Readiness Reporting System. The committee recommends a 

decrease of $2.0 million in PE 33150K for SORTS. 

Industrial Base Innovation Fund 

The budget request included $20.5 million in PE 78011S for industrial preparedness programs. The committee notes that the 

2006 Defense Science Board Task Force on the Manufacturing 

Technology Program called for increased investment in manufacturing research and technology over a 5-year period to a level of 

‘‘one percent of the RDT&E budget,’’ to align the Department of Defense with the level of manufacturing technology investments in 

the early 1980s. The committee notes that for the fiscal year 2009 

budget request this would be $796.0 million. The actual Manufacturing Technology (Mantech) budget request is only $198.0 million. 

The committee further notes that the Director of Defense Research and Engineering called for an increase in funding for ‘‘manufacturing science technology’’ in the range of $50.0 to $70.0 million per year. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2009 

Mantech budget request is only an increase of $4.6 million over the 

fiscal year 2008 budget request and a decrease of $80.4 million relative to fiscal year 2008 appropriated levels. 

The committee notes that investing in innovation in the defense 

industrial base can only serve to help address many of the issues 

facing the Department of Defense. For example, the committee believes that the development of innovative manufacturing capabilities can lead to lower cost, more efficient production of defense systems, potentially lead to spin-off commercial technologies that can 

support national manufacturing and industrial base needs, and address critical manufacturing assured supply chain issues that limit 

the Department’s capability to acquire critical defense equipment 

and technologies, such as body armor, production of advanced aerospace materials, and electronic components. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 78011S to continue the Industrial Base Innovation 

Fund. The committee directs that the funds be executed jointly 

with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
267 

to ensure that critical shortfalls in the defense industrial base are 

addressed. The committee directs that the highest priority on investments be made in areas that support accelerating the surge 

production of items likely to be required in near-term military operations and in areas to preserve or expand diminishing critical defense industrial base. 

Items of Special Interest 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense funding 

The committee notes that the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 

(BMD) system was used in February for a one-time mission to 

intercept and destroy a decaying U.S. satellite before it re-entered 

the earth’s atmosphere. This mission, which cost more than $90.0 

million, used considerable Aegis BMD assets and funding. The committee is concerned that the Aegis BMD program will not be fully 

reimbursed for its expenses in preparing for, testing for, and conducting the mission, as well as for restoring the system’s components to their normal missile defense configuration, and replacing 

the Standard Missile–3 interceptor used for the mission. If the 

Aegis BMD program is not reimbursed for these expenses, it would 

not be able to perform some $90.0 million worth of planned and 

budgeted activities that have been approved by Congress. This 

would not be acceptable. 

The committee directs the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and 

the Department of Defense to ensure that the Aegis BMD program 

is fully reimbursed for all expenses related to the one-time satellite 

intercept mission, so that all previously planned, funded, and approved Aegis BMD work will proceed without delay. The committee 

directs MDA to report to the congressional defense committees by 

no later than October 1, 2008 on the status of the full reimbursement of the Aegis BMD program. 

Agency relocation 

The budget request included $28.0 million in PE 65897E for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) relocation 

costs, and another $45.0 million is programmed for this purpose in 

fiscal year 2010. The committee believes that the request and budget plan have not yet been adequately justified and directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a report on the plan for DARPA’s relocation, as described below. The committee notes that current plans 

for the relocation call for the Department of Defense (DOD) to lease 

a new facility for DARPA and to provide funding for the building’s 

outfitting to meet mandated force protection requirements. 

The plans also call for the Department to provide funding for 

other DARPA requirements, including facilities to handle classified 

information, specialized heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) equipment, and specialized information technology requirements. The committee is unclear as to whether the Department 

will be responsible for restoring the building’s specialized modifications at the end of DARPA’s new lease to the satisfaction of the 

building owner and what that cost will be to the government. 

The committee is unclear as to the rationale and cost implications for selecting a commercial lease requiring extensive upgrades 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
268 

over government facilities, which government facilities were evaluated as alternatives to leasing, what cost-benefit analyses were performed, and what criteria were used to finally select an option. The 

committee understands that the DARPA leasing plan has been approved through the General Services Administration and by the 

relevant congressional committees of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the 

committee notes that upon expiration of its current lease in 2010, 

DARPA could potentially be relocated onto other existing government property, which may more cost-effectively meet force protection, classified facility, and information technology requirements 

and therefore save valuable resources. 

The committee notes that research agencies like DARPA need to 

be able to attract the finest technical talent to perform their critical 

mission for DOD. The committee notes that DARPA has had some 

difficulty attracting appropriate talent, despite special personnel 

flexibilities available to the organization, and has plans to use commercial executive search firms to enhance recruiting efforts. The 

committee understands that an agency’s location plays a role in its 

ability to attract talent, and further notes that some organizations 

with similar hiring challenges, like the Office of Naval Research 

and Air Force Office of Scientific Research are located in commercially developed areas, while others, such as the Naval Research 

Laboratory, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Army’s Night Vision Laboratory are not. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees detailing the justification for the agency relocation plans and requested funding, no later 

than September 1, 2008. The report shall include a cost-benefit 

analysis comparing the leasing of commercial property and upgrading those facilities to meet DARPA requirements to alternative options; describe which government properties, buildings, and facilities were evaluated as alternatives to commercial leasing; detail 

the costs that will be incurred to the government to restore the 

building to the lessor’s requirements at the end of the lease; describe the criteria that were finally used to select an option; and 

include certifications that to perform its mission efficiently, DARPA 

must maintain a headquarters in the Washington, DC region, that 

no commercial or government facilities currently exist within that 

region to meet DARPA’s unique requirements, and that the selected plan for relocation represents the best value for the Department. 

Executive helicopter program (VH–71A) 

The budget request included $1,047.8 million in PE 64273N for 

continued development of the executive helicopter, VH–71A. The 

VH–71A program is intended to provide the replacement helicopter 

for transportation of the President and Vice President of the 

United States, heads of state, and other dignitaries. The administration established challenging performance requirements and an 

aggressive fielding schedule for the program, reflecting an elevated 

level of urgency to field this new capability for post–9/11 operations. In an effort to manage programmatic risk and meet the 

stressing demands for this new capability, the program adopted an 

incremental fielding strategy for the 23 aircraft to be placed in 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
269 

service. The first portion of the program, called Increment One, 

would deliver five aircraft, with four of these aircraft used to provide an initial limited capability to fulfill immediate presidential 

transport requirements. The second portion of the program, called 

Increment Two, would deliver 19 aircraft to complete all of the 

presidential support requirements. 

The committee is aware that the VH–71A program has encountered significant challenges associated with modifying the selected 

commercial aircraft to meet the cost and schedule requirements for 

Increment One. As a result, the Navy plans for only limited employment for Increment One aircraft due to expectations that service life of these helicopters will be limited. 

The Navy has found that Increment Two, which was originally 

planned for concurrent development with Increment One, is beyond 

the reach of the cost, technical, and schedule baseline established 

for the program. Faced with this realization, the Department of Defense has restructured the program with a focus on validating requirements, establishing realistic cost and schedule estimates, 

eliminating concurrency, and developing a new baseline for future 

budget requirements. 

Recognizing that the fiscal year 2008 budget would have been inadequate to support concurrent efforts on both Increment One and 

Increment Two, the Department issued a ‘‘stop work’’ order on Increment Two. Although the program continues to refine an independent cost assessment in support of future budget decisions, initial estimates point toward a cost overrun of at least 70 percent. 

This level is well in excess of the percentages that would trigger 

a breach of the Nunn-McCurdy limits for major acquisition programs. 

While it is evident that the VH–71A program will require a 

Nunn-McCurdy certification in order to proceed with Increment 

Two, the Department has apparently chosen to wait until submission of the annual Selected Acquisition Report to initiate the certification process. This delay appears to be based on a technical interpretation that, since the government has stopped all work on Increment Two and has neither finalized cost assessments nor revised the program’s baseline to reflect the cost growth, it is premature to declare that thresholds have been breached. Under this 

scenario, the Navy would potentially receive fiscal year 2009 funding and be in a position to sign a contract modification for Increment Two prior to declaring a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Subsequent 

to signing such a contract, they would then declare a Nunn-McCurdy breach and, thereby, trigger the certification process that this 

provision of law requires. 

The committee realizes that the administration has spent significant time conducting senior level analysis and review of this critical program’s requirements, cost, and schedule, in conjunction 

with the ongoing restructure and deliberations on the fiscal year 

2010 budget. However, the committee is concerned that program 

cost and schedule may be further impacted by potential delays associated with meeting the requirements for Nunn-McCurdy certification, and encourages the Department to initiate proceedings in 

accordance with section 2433 of title 10, United States Code. The 

committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force did not wait 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
270 

until either the Air Force had signed a contract or had received additional funds before declaring a Nunn-McCurdy breach on the C– 5 reliability enhancement and re-engining program. 

Because of all these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a VH–71A report to the congressional 

defense committees outlining VH–71A program: 

(1) performance requirements; 

(2) revised cost estimates; 

(3) causes for cost growth; 

(4) detailed breakout of cost growth related to under-estimated 

requirements; and 

(5) actions being implemented to reduce and control development and production costs. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to identify alternatives for extending the service life of Increment One aircraft 

and increasing their utility in the effort to provide greater return 

on this investment. 

The committee directs that, of the amounts authorized for fiscal 

year 2009 for VH–71A Executive Helicopter Development (PE 

64273N), the Secretary may obligate no funding for Increment Two 

efforts until: (1) the Defense Department completes VH–71A unit 

cost reporting requirements as prescribed by section 2433 of title 

10, United States Code; and (2) the Secretary of the Navy submits 

the VH–71A report described above to the congressional defense 

committees. 

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle 

Military threats to amphibious operations have forced the Navy 

and Marine Corps to develop a concept of operations, referred to as 

Operational Maneuver from the Sea, for launching an amphibious 

assault from over the horizon. The Navy and Marine Corps are 

fielding the full capability required to launch amphibious assaults 

from 25 miles at sea—with one critical exception: the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). Designed to rapidly transport marines ashore and maneuver to inland objectives, the EFV is the 

missing component of the Marine Corps’ amphibious assault triad, 

which also includes the Landing Craft Air Cushion and the MV–

22 Osprey. 

Under current plans, the EFV will not achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) until 2015 and Full Operational Capability 

(FOC) until 2025—about 35 years after the EFV program entered 

development. Without the EFV, amphibious assault operations 

would require the Navy to bring amphibious ships and escorts close 

to shore to disembark the aged Advanced Amphibious Vehicles, exposing the ships and the marines to anti-access threats. The committee is very concerned that the EFV program plan places the Marine Corps’ primary mission capability—amphibious operations—at 

risk for an unacceptably long duration. 

The committee understands that the EFV program has experienced serious developmental delays and cost growth, which have 

added years to the schedule. The program is emerging from a critical Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, and the restructured program has 

added 4 years of further development prior to a full-rate production 

decision. The program’s cost challenges, however, are compounded 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
271 

by the protracted production schedule planned for the vehicle. The 

Marine Corps projects that its budget will permit a production rate 

limited to 55 vehicles per year once full-rate production begins in 

2016. This low rate of production will delay full fielding while discarding potential cost benefits afforded by more economic rates of 

procurement. 

The committee believes that greater priority must be given to 

achieving EFV Full Operational Capability within the Department 

of Defense’s equation for balancing requirements with developmental risk and budget constraints. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to evaluate cost and risk for alternatives that would improve upon current EFV Initial Operational 

Capability projections, and accelerate Full Operational Capability 

to meet the 2020 threat baseline. The Secretary shall report the results of this evaluation to the congressional defense committees 

with submission of the fiscal year 2010 budget request. The report 

shall include an assessment of total program cost, annual budget 

requirements, and technical risk for the accelerated program, and 

compare these results with the program of record. Additionally, the 

report shall provide an assessment of the operational impact and 

risk to amphibious assault capabilities associated with delaying 

FOC to 2025. 

Global Positioning System 

The committee is concerned that the space, ground control, and 

user equipment segments of the Global Positioning Satellite system 

(GPS) program are not well synchronized. The committee notes 

that the ground control needed to utilize the M-code on the GPS 

IIR satellites will not be fully available until after the last of the 

GPS IIR satellites is launched and the user equipment will not be 

fully fielded until after the first of the M-code GPS IIR satellites 

reaches the end of its useful life. The first M-code GPS IIR satellite 

was launched in September 2005. The M-code is a special code to 

allow military users to continue using GPS signals in an area of 

operation while jamming other signals. 

Looking ahead to the GPS III satellites, the committee notes that 

the possibility for a similar disconnect among space, ground control, and user equipment is significant. The Air Force reduced anticipated funding in the early years and the GPS schedule is compressed with very little margin. Moreover, the contract award is 

late, with the space segment originally scheduled for award in 

2007. The committee is concerned that adequate management attention be paid to the GPS program to minimize additional risks 

to the program. 

Improved commercial imagery integration 

The committee notes that the government is investing substantial funds in the commercial imagery industry to meet important 

operational requirements of the combatant commands and the intelligence community. However, the tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination (TPED) systems for commercial imagery 

and imagery collected by government-owned assets are not integrated, which causes commercial imagery resources to be underutilized and other inefficiencies. The government needs to be able 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
272 

to task commercial imagery collection against specific areas without revealing that fact to the world, to be able to share commercial 

imagery within the national security community freely, and to routinely and automatically task commercial satellites when they are 

the logical choice to satisfy a requirement. These needs will become 

critical if the administration and Congress decide to shift a larger 

proportion of imagery collection requirements to the commercial 

sector. 

Accordingly, the committee directs that, as feasible within available funding, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and the 

National Reconnaissance Office complete the tasking prototype effort, including an integrated constellation optimization tool; integrate commercial imagery data streams into the existing national 

dissemination network; and begin systems engineering and development to enable SECRET-level operations within the commercialdata provider facilities and networks. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(273) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title III of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2009 budget request for operation and maintenance programs, 

and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

These tables are incorporated by reference into this Act as provided in section 1002 of this Act. The Department of Defense may 

not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables or, 

if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a 

reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 

Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request 

are made without prejudice. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
274 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here SR335.144
275 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here SR335.145
276 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here SR335.146
277 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here SR335.147
278 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 351 here SR335.148
279 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 352 here SR335.149
280 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here SR335.150
281 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here SR335.151
282 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here SR335.152
283 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here SR335.153
284 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here SR335.154
285 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here SR335.155
286 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here SR335.156
287 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here SR335.157
288 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here SR335.158
289 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here SR335.159
290 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here SR335.160
291 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here SR335.161
292 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here SR335.162
293 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here SR335.163
294 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here SR335.164
295 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here SR335.165
296 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here SR335.166
297 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here SR335.167
298 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here SR335.168
299 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here SR335.169
300 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here SR335.170
301 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here SR335.171
302 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here SR335.172
303 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here SR335.173
304 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here SR335.174
305 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions 

Expansion of cooperative agreement authority for management of natural resources to include off-installation 

mitigation (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

secretaries of the military departments to enter cooperative agreements for the management of natural resources outside of Department of Defense installations, if the cooperative agreements benefit 

the Department by relieving or eliminating current or anticipated 

restrictions on military activities. 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

certain costs in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield 

Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental Protection 

Agency for certain costs incurred in connection with Moses Lake 

Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington. 

Comprehensive program for the eradication of the brown 

tree snake population from military facilities in Guam 

(sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Department of Defense to establish a comprehensive program to control and, to the extent practicable, eradicate the brown tree snake 

(Boiga irregularis) population from military facilities in Guam and 

prevent their spread to other areas. 

The committee is concerned about the ecological and economic 

risks posed by the inadvertent introduction of the brown tree snake 

from Guam to other areas in the Pacific region and the United 

States. Force stationing changes in the Pacific planned by the Department over the next several years will significantly increase the 

number of department facilities and activities on Guam, resulting 

in an equally significant increase in military traffic to and from the 

island. The Department has the responsibility to control and, to the 

maximum extent practicable, ensure that its facilities and activities 

do not contribute to the spread of the brown tree snake to other 

areas. 

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot issues 

Authority to consider depot-level maintenance and repair 

using contractor furnished equipment or leased facilities as core logistics (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

military departments to count workload performed by Government 

employees using contractor furnished equipment, or in facilities 

leased to the Government, as sustaining a core logistics capability 

under section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, if that work is 

being performed pursuant to a public-private partnership as defined by section 2474 of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 2474 encourages private sector investment at Centers of 

Industrial and Technical Excellence. This private sector investment 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
306 

may include facilities or equipment. This proposed change would 

authorize partnered workloads performed by Government employees using contractor-furnished equipment or leased facilities to be 

counted as core. 

Minimum capital investment for certain depots (sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 332 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to require the Department of Defense to report the separate levels of capital investment 

for Navy and Marine Corps depots. The committee also recommends the addition of the following Army arsenals to the list of 

covered depots: 

Watervliet Arsenal, New York 

Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois 

Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Additional information under annual submissions of information regarding information technology capital assets 

(sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would synchronize 

the information the Department of Defense provides to both Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding 

major Department of Defense information technology (IT) investments. The committee believes that the change recommended in 

this provision will make the IT budget justification documents 

more usable to Congress and the public, and increase the transparency of the Department’s IT programs. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Mitigation of power outage risks for Department of Defense 

facilities and activities (sec. 341) 

The February 2008 report of the Defense Science Board Task 

Force on DOD Energy Strategy found that, ‘‘critical national security and homeland defense missions are at an unacceptably high 

risk of extended outage from failure of the [commercial electricity] 

grid and other crucial national infrastructure.’’ The task force recommended that the Department of Defense take several actions to 

assess and reduce risk to critical missions at fixed installations and 

activities from the loss of commercial power. 

The Department is in the process of evaluating the task force report and is developing a comprehensive energy strategy. However, 

the committee is concerned that, despite numerous vulnerability 

studies, the extent of technical and operational risks to specific 

critical missions are not adequately assessed, or plans for their 

mitigation programmed. This incomplete assessment coupled with 

the trend over the last several years to place more defense installations onto the commercial power grid suggests that Department infrastructure energy plans may not be synchronized with an up-todate technical and operational risk evaluation. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
307 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would 

direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive technical and operational risk assessment for mission critical Department installations, facilities, and activities; to develop integrated 

prioritized plans to eliminate or mitigate risks; and to establish 

goals to mitigate or eliminate the greatest and most urgent risks. 

The committee further recommends that the Secretary provide the 

defense committees an annual report on the Department’s integrated prioritized plans and progress on efforts to mitigate or eliminate risks to mission critical installations, facilities, and activities. 

Increased authority to accept financial and other incentives 

related to energy savings and new authority related to 

energy systems (sec. 342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

authority of the Secretary of Defense to accept financial and other 

incentives related to energy savings and energy systems. The provision would authorize the acceptance of such incentives in connection with the construction of an energy system using solar energy 

or other renewable forms of energy. 

Recovery of improperly disposed of Department of Defense 

property (sec. 343) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

sale or other disposition of military or Department of Defense 

(DOD) property except in accordance with statutes and regulations 

governing such property. If property is disposed of in violation of 

this prohibition, the person holding the property would have no 

right or title to, or interest in, the property, and the property would 

be subject to seizure by appropriate law enforcement officials. 

Under the provision, the appropriate federal district court would 

have jurisdiction to determine whether property was improperly 

disposed of and is subject to seizure. 

The DOD has informed the committee that the absence of a comprehensive statute has complicated law enforcement efforts to recover military and DOD property that has been misappropriated or 

that was the subject of unauthorized disposition by members of the 

armed forces, DOD civilians, contractors, and others. For example, 

the DOD reports that ceramic plate inserts for body armor, night 

vision goggles, and munitions list items that were reported as lost 

or misplaced by Navy personnel have later been found for sale on 

the Internet. Recently published reports indicate that military 

equipment offered for sale on the Internet also includes infrared 

patches used to identify U.S. troops on the battlefield, as well as 

spare parts for Chinook helicopters and F–14 fighters. In one case, 

there was even an attempt to sell a Navy airplane over the Internet. 

The provision recommended by the committee would address this 

problem by establishing a comprehensive statutory approach to the 

improper disposal of military and DOD property and facilitating 

the recovery of such property regardless of to whom it was furnished and who was responsible for its improper disposal. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
308 

Budget Items 

Army 

Computing services 

The committee recommends a total reduction of $200.0 million 

from service and defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts 

that support the procurement and delivery of computing services. 

The reductions include a $50.0 million decrease each from Army, 

Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide accounts. The committee does 

not intend for these reductions to be assessed against Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) computing services activities. 

The committee directs the services to aggressively explore increased opportunities to utilize DISA computing services and eliminate redundant, wasteful service-specific computing services activities. 

The committee notes that consolidation of computing services activities, such as reductions in numbers of computing centers, data 

storage systems, and electronic file servers, has saved the Department of Defense an estimated $200.0 million or more annually 

since 1990, according to DISA. Further, a June 2007 independent 

assessment of DISA’s computing services noted that they ‘‘. . . provided world-class computing services that enable the DOD community to better execute their missions,’’ and compared DISA’s services favorably to general government, federal, and workload peers. 

The assessment also recommended continuing assessment of organizational staffing, structure, and realignment, as well as continued maturation of data center processes. Finally, the committee 

notes that uncoordinated, Department-wide deployment of servers, 

mainframes, data warehouses, web sites, and other computing 

services has resulted in inefficiencies, underutilization of computing infrastructure, and interoperability difficulties. 

The committee recommends that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration initiate independent, comparative benchmarking studies of computing services 

across the Department of Defense to inform and accelerate the consolidation of the provision of computing services to increase efficiency, improve services, and reduce costs. 

Unmanned aircraft systems concept development 

The budget request included $1.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) for aviation assets, but provided no funds for 

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) concept development. The committee supports the efforts of the Army’s Aviation Warfighting Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama to develop current and future UAS 

concepts that will meet joint and Army operational objectives. The 

committee expects that the Army’s UAS concept development will 

be consistent with the Department of Defense’s roles and missions 

review, as required by section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). This increase is not intended to prejudice or influence that report. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMA for UAS 

concept development. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
309 

Shipping containers 

The budget request included $204.5 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA) for strategic mobility, but provided no 

funds for shipping containers. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in OMA for the purchase of shipping containers. 

Life cycle logistics contracting 

The budget request included $7.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) for base operations support. These funds include the cost of providing logistics support to Army forces operating around the world. The committee is aware of the Army’s challenges in contracting for base operation services, including shelter, 

utilities, food, water, and sanitization, to meet the logistics needs 

of forward deployed forces. The committee recommends an increase 

of $21.6 million in OMA for the Army Contracting Agency to improve its life cycle acquisition planning, solicitation, and negotiation activities. 

Facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization 

The budget request included $2.1 billion for facilities 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization for the Army. The 

committee recommends an increase of $7.8 million for restoration 

or modernization of barracks. 

Second destination transportation 

The budget request included $552.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA) for service-wide and second destination 

transportation. These funds support the cost of line haul, overocean, and inland transportation for worldwide movement of Army 

supplies and equipment to and from depots, between commands, 

and to overseas commands by civilian and military air and surface 

modes. Additional funds allow the Army to redistribute more equipment and supplies to correct unit shortages and increase readiness. 

The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in OMA 

for second destination transportation. 

Ammunition inspections and warehousing 

The budget request included $450.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA) for ammunition management. These 

funds support the management of operations within the life cycle 

of conventional ammunition, including procurement administration, 

storage, distribution, maintenance, and demilitarization. Additional 

funds allow the Army to reduce backlogs in ammunition inspections and re-warehousing efforts. The committee recommends an 

increase of $25.0 million in OMA for ammunition management. 

Navy 

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances 

The committee notes that the challenges associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan create a difficult fiscal management 

situation, especially for the Army and Marine Corps. However, the 

Department of Defense continues to under-execute its Operation 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
310 

and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations for the active and reserve 

components. According to the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), the Department of Defense had $247.3 million in average 

yearly unobligated balances for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. The 

military departments had $1.1 billion in average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. 

The committee recalls that 3 years ago the Department began to 

reduce the O&M portion of its annual funding request and futureyears defense program before submission to Congress based, in 

part, on the GAO analysis of unobligated balances. The Department also underfunds important maintenance and activities in its 

annual request in anticipation of supplemental appropriations. 

Whether made available in annual or supplemental appropriations, 

the Department and services must ensure that taxpayer dollars are 

appropriately managed to provide the best possible readiness for 

the force and avoid the expiration of obligating authority. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $212.4 million to the 

Department’s O&M accounts, as follows: Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $70.0 million; Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 

$72.0 million; and Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, $70.4 

million. 

Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements 

Analysis performed by the Government Accountability Office 

based on the services’ civilian personnel end strength data as of 

February 2008, projects that the Department of Defense civilian 

personnel costs are overstated for fiscal year 2009 by $565.3 million. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $65.8 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, and a decrease of $131.7 

million in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force for overstatement 

of civilian personnel pay. 

Naval aircraft depot maintenance 

The budget request included $34.9 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy but only $1.1 billion for aircraft depot maintenance. The Navy identified a shortage of resources for aircraft 

depot maintenance for fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy for aircraft depot maintenance. 

Damage control management 

The budget request included $3.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for mission and other ship operations, but 

provided no funds for the development and installation of an improved damage control inventory management and stowage system 

for amphibious ships. The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million in OMN for development of a damage control management system for amphibious ships. 

MK 45 gun depot overhaul 

The budget request included $478.1 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for weapons maintenance, but provided 

no funds for MK 45 5’’ gun depot overhauls. The committee recVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00332 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
311 

ommends an increase of $9.0 million in OMN for MK 45 depot 

overhauls. 

Marine Corps 

Marine Corps shelters 

The budget request included $759.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but 

provided no funds for the Family of Shelters and Tents (FST). The 

committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in OMMC for 

FST. 

Mobile corrosion protection Marine Corps 

The budget request included $502.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for field logistics activities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.6 million in OMMC 

for mobile corrosion protection and abatement. 

Air Force 

B–52 flying hours 

The budget request included $2.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for flying hours. The committee recommends an increase of $47.9 million in OMAF for B–52 squadron 

flying hours. The Air Force failed to include adequate funding in 

the budget request to meet the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

to maintain 76 B–52 bombers in a common configuration and included this funding on the Air Force unfunded priorities list. 

F–15 depot maintenance 

The budget request included $35.9 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force of which $2.7 billion is for aircraft depot 

maintenance. The Air Force depot maintenance request includes 

$497.0 million for F–15 repairs related to a structural problem 

identified in an aircraft mishap in November 2007. After inspections of the F–15 fleet the number of aircraft requiring major repair was not as anticipated, therefore funds requested for fiscal 

year 2009 exceed the requirement. The committee recommends a 

reduction of $497.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Air 

Force for F–15 depot maintenance. 

B–52 depot maintenance 

The budget request included $2.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance Air Force (OMAF) for depot maintenance. The committee 

recommends an increase of $48.0 million in OMAF for B–52 aircraft depot maintenance. The Air Force failed to include adequate 

funding in the budget request to meet the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181) to maintain 76 B–52 bombers in a common configuration 

and included this funding on the Air Force unfunded priorities list. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
312 

B–2 depot maintenance 

The budget request included $35.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) of which $2.7 billion is for aircraft 

depot maintenance. The committee notes that B–2 Bomber scheduled workload for fiscal year 2009 will be less due to the loss of 

an aircraft in a flight mishap on Guam in February 2008. The committee recommends a reduction of $2.0 million in OMAF. 

Engine trailer life extension program 

The budget request included $2.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for depot maintenance, but provided no 

funds for engine trailer life extension. The committee recommends 

an increase of $3.0 million in OMAF to begin the re-manufacturing 

and refurbishing of Air Force engine trailers. 

Land mobile radios 

The budget request included $2.4 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for air operations base support, but provided no funds for land mobile radios. Upgrades to the radio system used at Nellis Test and Training Range are necessary to comply with required federal communication standards. The committee 

recommends an increase of $2.1 million in OMAF for land mobile 

radios. 

National Security Space Institute 

The budget request included $19.5 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for the National Security Space 

Institute (NSSI). The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 

million for the NSSI. The NSSI, which is operated by the Air Force, 

is the space education and professional development center for the 

Department of Defense. The additional funding will allow the NSSI 

to continue to reinstate one advanced course, sustain one advanced 

course, and establish distance learning programs. This program is 

on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. 

Advanced ultrasonic inspection of aging aircraft structures 

The budget request included $917.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for logistics operations, but included no funds for advanced ultrasonic inspection of aging aircraft. Ultrasonic inspection of the Air Force’s aging fleet would provide a non-destructive means to determine the structural condition 

of aircraft, saving time and money. The committee recommends an 

increase of $1.0 million in OMAF for advanced ultrasonic inspection techniques. 

Defense-wide 

Expanded prisoner of war/missing in action research in 

North Korea 

The budget request did not include funding to cover the costs associated with resumption of recovery operations in North Korea for 

the remains of prisoners of war/missing in action (POW/MIA) personnel. The committee recommends an increase of $13.7 million for 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
313 

The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy recently reported to 

Congress on the organization, management, and budgeting of the 

Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC). In that report, he 

stated that ‘‘JPAC is funded to meet its current mission, excluding 

operations in North Korea, if those should be resumed at some 

point.’’ The committee notes that cooperation with North Korea to recover the remains of U.S. POW/MIAs was suspended by the United 

States in 2005. The committee views this program as an important 

humanitarian effort that should proceed. Since time is a factor for 

the families of the POW/MIAs, the committee urges the Department of Defense to begin talks with the North Korean military regarding how to resume recovery operations at the earliest possible 

time. 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request included $880.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Of this amount, $500.0 million was requested for 

the Global Train and Equip program to build the security capacity 

of foreign forces to meet urgent or emerging threats. Section 1206 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163), as amended by section 1206 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364), authorizes the Global Train and Equip pro- gram at a level of $300.0 million through September 30, 2008. The 

Global Train and Equip program is reauthorized under this Act 

through fiscal year 2011 at a level of $400.0 million in each fiscal 

year. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 

million to OMDW for the Global Train and Equip program. 

Status of Operational Readiness and Training System 

The budget request included $89.2 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Global Command and 

Control System (GCCS). The committee is aware that this program 

includes funds to continue to support fielding and upgrades of the 

legacy Status of Operational Readiness and Training Systems 

(SORTS) that is currently being replaced by the Department of Defense’s objective system, the Defense Readiness and Reporting System. The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in 

OMDW for SORTS. 

Defense Readiness Reporting System 

The budget request included $4.9 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide for the Defense Readiness Reporting System 

(DRRS). The committee recommends an increase of $16.2 million 

for the acceleration of the development and deployment of DRRS. 

The committee is aware of the challenges associated with the accurate, reliable, and timely measurement and reporting of the readiness of military forces. The current readiness reporting system, 

Global Status of Resources and Training System (GSORTS), is inadequate to meet the demands of the force rotation strategy that 

supports operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. 

The Department of Defense (DOD), Joint Staff, and U.S. Joint 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
314 

Forces Command lack the visibility of deployed and non-deployed 

forces’ capabilities and readiness required to manage global military commitments. 

In June 2002, DOD issued a directive establishing the DRRS, a 

capabilities-based, adaptive, near-term readiness reporting system. 

The directive requires all components to align their readiness reporting processes with DRRS. Since then, we understand DOD and 

the services have taken a number of steps but that DRRS is not 

yet fully operational and aligned with the services’ reporting processes. As a result, DOD’s most recent quarterly readiness report to 

Congress contains both DRRS and GSORTS data. 

The committee supports the Department’s development of DRRS 

as an important management modernization and replacement for 

GSORTS. However, the committee is concerned that the Department has yet to successfully plan, organize, resource, and execute 

tests and full deployment for DRRS’s within the Global Command 

and Control System. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees 

a report not later than March 1, 2009 on its plan to accelerate the 

full deployment of DRRS and retire GSORTS. The committee also 

directs that the Government Accountability Office evaluate the 

DRRS program, DOD’s plan, and identify factors affecting DOD’s 

ability to fully develop and implement DRRS and retire GSORTS. 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 

The budget request included $39.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). The committee is encouraged that this is $10.0 million more than requested in fiscal year 

2008. 

The committee believes that the military departments should 

continue to pursue voluntary agreements with other public and private entities as authorized under section 2684a of title 10, United 

States Code, to prevent the development or use of property that 

would be incompatible with the mission of an installation, and preserve habitat that is compatible with environmental requirements 

that might otherwise result in current or anticipated environmental restrictions on military bases. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 

OMDW for the REPI and directs that the military departments 

give priority to projects that benefit critical mission training sites 

that have the greatest potential to prevent or reduce encroachment 

through the creation of a compatible use buffer zone. 

STARBASE Academies 

The budget request included $108.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for Civil Military Programs, 

but did not provide sufficient funds to sustain the operations of the 

60 existing STARBASE Academies. The committee recommends an 

increase of $5.2 million in OMDW for STARBASE. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
315 

Army Reserve 

Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve 

The budget request included $87.5 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) for land forces systems readiness. The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in 

OMAR for mobile corrosion protection and abatement. 

Army Reserve military technician cost avoidance 

The budget request included $2.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR). Operation and maintenance accounts ordinarily fund military technician pay and benefits as civilian pay. When mobilized and serving on active duty, however, this 

compensation is paid by military personnel appropriations. Based 

on an analysis of the services’ actual military technician mobilization data, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects 

that the Army Reserve could realize $14.9 million in cost avoidance 

in fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends a decrease of $4.5 

million in OMAR for military technician cost avoidance. 

Army National Guard 

Aircraft humidity protection 

The budget request included $905.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for maneuver 

units, but provided no funds for aircraft humidity protection. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the readiness and safety of military equipment can be severely degraded by 

corrosion. The most cost-effective means of combating corrosion is 

prevention. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in OMARNG for aircraft controlled humidity protection. 

Expandable Light Air Mobility Shelters 

The budget request included $905.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for maneuver 

units but provided no funds for Expandable Light Air Mobility 

Shelters (ELAMS). The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 

million in OMARNG for the procurement of ELAMS. 

Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 

The budget request included $316.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for force readiness 

operations support, but included no funds for the Extended Cold 

Weather Clothing System (ECWCS). The committee recommends 

an increase of $1.0 million in OMARNG for ECWCS. 

Rapid Data Management System 

The budget request included $316.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for force readiness 

operations support, but provided no funds for the Rapid Data Management System (RDMS). RDMS is an integrated data collection 

and management system that allows first responders to gather 

data during field operations. It was successfully tested and used by 

the Marine Corps during Exercise COBRA GOLD 2007, and is curVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
316 

rently used by the American Red Cross. The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in OMARNG for RDMS. 

Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard 

The budget request included $120.2 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces systems readiness activities. The committee recommends an increase 

of $4.8 million in OMARNG for mobile corrosion protection and 

abatement. 

Weapons Skills Trainer 

The budget request included $316.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for force readiness 

operations support, but included no funds for the Weapons Skills 

Trainer (WST). The committee notes the high mobilization rates of 

members of the National Guard. Individual and unit weapons 

training are enhanced by the availability of a multilevel weapons 

simulator such as the WST. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in OMARNG for the Weapons Skills Trainer. 

Emergency satellite communications 

The budget request included $120.2 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces systems readiness. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 

million in OMARNG for additional authorized Joint Incident Scene 

Communication Capability packages required for disaster response. 

Air National Guard 

Controlled humidity protection 

The budget request included $3.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for air operations, but provided no funds for controlled humidity protection. The Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the readiness and safety of military equipment can be severely degraded by corrosion. 

The Department of Defense spends billions of dollars annually to 

address corrosion damage that could be avoided with increased prevention and mitigation technology such as controlled humidity protection. The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million in 

OMANG for controlled humidity protection. 

Crypto-linguist and intelligence officer initiative 

The budget request did not include sufficient funding for airborne crypto-linguists to conduct training and related activities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $750,000 for Operation 

and Maintenance, Air National Guard for airborne crypto-linguists. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment of plans for contracting support in combatant 

command operational plans 

The committee notes the inadequacy of initial planning and execution related to contracting support for contingency operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. Assumptions with respect to the scope and 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
317 

duration of post-conflict stability operations made by the Department of Defense left military planners with little justification to 

provide for more robust reconstruction and civil-military logistics 

and the contracting support necessary for efficient and effective 

execution. 

The committee believes that contingency plans must have comprehensive, detailed, and realistic contracting support plans that 

meet the operational requirements of the force before, during, and 

after combat operations. The Department appears to be applying 

the lessons of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom 

and notes the recent publication of Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff 

Manual 3133.03C (CJCSM 3133.03C) providing planning guidance 

that requires combatant commanders to include contracting support plans in their contingency operations plans. 

The committee directs that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) conduct an assessment of the implementation of the directives contained in CJCSM 3133.03C. In conducting this assessment 

the GAO shall also evaluate the contracting support plans for those 

combatant command operations plans as reported in the Quarterly 

Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC) as required by section 482 

of title 10, United States Code. The GAO should base its assessment of contracting support plans on the requirements of CJCSM 

3133.03C but shall also include an evaluation of each plan’s assumptions, comprehensiveness, feasibility, adequacy of executable 

detail, resources required and available, contracting related operational risk at each phase of the plan, and any other aspect of contracting support planning useful to this review. The GAO shall provide this assessment to the congressional defense committees not 

later than September 30, 2009. 

Combatant Commander Initiative Fund 

The budget request included $75.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (CCIF). The committee notes that this fund 

is intended to make small amounts of monies available promptly 

to combatant commanders to enable them to meet unexpected contingencies and take advantage of opportunities that arise but that 

are not amenable to the time-consuming reprogramming process. 

The statement of managers accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101–

189) directs that these funds ‘‘may only be used for activities for 

which funding is not available in a timely fashion under existing 

authorizations and appropriations.’’ The committee urges the Department of Defense to preserve the flexibility of this fund, consistent with the intent of Congress, by refraining from programming these funds at the beginning of the fiscal year. 

Funding for the CCIF reflects an increase of $50.0 million over 

the fiscal year 2008 level for this fund. The committee believes that 

priority in the use of this $50.0 million in additional funding 

should be given to enabling geographic combatant commanders to 

respond to unanticipated emergencies in their respective areas of 

responsibility by providing urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance, particularly in foreign countries where U.S. 

armed forces are engaged in a contingency operation. The authority 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
318 

to use the CCIF to provide urgent and unanticipated humanitarian 

relief and reconstruction assistance is under the authority added to 

section 166a(b)(6) of title 10, United States Code, by section 902 of 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). 

The committee notes that the statement of managers accompanying Public Law 109–364 urged the Department to develop 

guidance for the use of the additional authority provided by section 

902 of that act to ensure that the authority could be used quickly 

and without bureaucratic delay under urgent circumstances. That 

statement of managers also urged that such guidance include procedures for coordinating with the relevant Department of State 

country team as a precondition for providing assistance under this 

authority. The committee is unaware of the Department having developed such guidance and again urges the Department to do so, 

consistent with the statement of managers’ recommendations. 

The committee also notes that the additional authority provided 

under section 902 is not intended for use in Afghanistan or Iraq 

so long as Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) authority is available for use in those countries. 

The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

after consultation with the combatant commanders, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House 

of Representatives by October 31, 2009, providing a detailed description of the activities funded by the CCIF during fiscal year 

2009, and an assessment of the benefits derived from those activities. 

Commercial satellite communications 

The committee notes that approximately 80 percent of the Department of Defense satellite communications capacity is currently 

provided by commercially operated satellites. These services are 

purchased on an as-needed basis, predominately with funds made 

available through supplemental appropriations acts or other shortterm funding. While the percentages have varied, the Department 

of Defense estimates that as much as 50 percent of satellite communications capabilities in the long-term could be provided using 

commercially operated satellites. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review the Defense Department commercial 

satellite communications requirements and determine the most efficient and reliable way to acquire commercial satellite communications capabilities. This review should include the most appropriate 

funding approach for sustained and surge requirements and opportunities to involve the commercial satellite industry in planning to 

ensure the capability will be available when and where it is needed. 

Defense Information Systems Agency working capital fund 

management 

The committee notes that section 321 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) gave 

the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) greater flexibility 

to utilize working capital funds (WCF) in small modernization 

projects for its systems. Congress noted that the rate of technoVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00340 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
319 

logical advances in information systems represents a major challenge to DISA as it attempts to keep pace with commercial technology and provide better service to its defense customers. The authority provided was intended to help address those challenges, by 

enabling DISA to use flexible WCF funds to make investments that 

would replace outdated, unsupported software and hardware systems, and other equipment to maintain network performance and 

functionality. 

The committee notes that there are no mechanisms currently 

available within the DISA WCF to raise capital in order to make 

the investments permitted under the authority granted last year. 

Further, unlike other WCF activities, DISA utilizes funding from 

direct appropriations for technology refreshment and modernization 

purposes. The committee notes that dependence on the direct authorization and appropriation of funds for systems operated and 

maintained using WCFs is inconsistent with the WCF concept 

itself. The committee further notes that requiring DISA to build 

technology refreshment into the Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) customer rate structure, similar to the mechanisms 

other working capital funds use, could increase usage costs for the 

DISA customer base. 

The committee recognizes the contradiction between the new authority and current DISA WCF practices and operations. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Director of DISA to report to the congressional defense committees no later than April 1, 2009 on planned 

mechanisms to continue to invest in timely, flexible, technology refreshment and modernization on its systems; an analysis of the 

current DISN rate structure and customer billing mechanisms and 

their adequacy for providing sufficient funding for technology refreshment needs; and any suggested changes to WCF authorities or 

DISN rate structures and mechanisms that may be necessary to 

provide warfighters with the most current, highest performance information systems possible. 

Funding for military morale, welfare, and recreation programs 

The availability of appropriated funds for military morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs is a continuing concern to the 

committee. As the committee learned from hearing testimony given 

this year, many military family organizations share this concern. 

Programs funded through MWR programs, such as child care and 

youth programs, libraries, and fitness centers, have always been an 

important and critical benefit for our military families. Now, in 

light of the multiple and lengthy deployments many military families have been facing over the past few years, the programs provided through these funds are more important than ever. These 

types of programs and benefits are also vital retention tools. While 

funds for MWR have increased slightly over the past few years, the 

committee believes that each of the military departments should 

consider increasing the amount of funds that support MWR programs, in order to ensure the best quality of life possible for our 

military families. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
320 

Long-range facilities and construction planning at Army 

ammunition plants and arsenals 

The committee notes the absence of long-range planning for the 

recapitalization and modernization of Army ammunition plants and 

arsenals nationwide. In many cases, these ammunition plants and 

arsenals, operating in facilities that have not been upgraded in decades, serve as the sole producer of critical components that are absolutely essential to the mission of the Department of the Army. 

The committee further notes that other Department of Defense industrial operations such as depots have developed comprehensive 

long-range modernization plans that benefit from a mandatory 

level of recapitalization funding each year required by Congress. 

These long-range plans are essential to ensure that Department of 

the Army industrial operations can meet current and future mission requirements with effective, efficient systems and equipment 

that are safe, secure, and comply with environmental regulations. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army develop a comprehensive long-range plan for each ammunition plant and arsenal. 

Long-range plans should establish a detailed investment strategy 

and priorities to: correct unsafe, hazardous, or environmentally 

harmful working conditions; upgrade deteriorated facilities to an 

adequate condition; modernize equipment and manufacturing processes to industry standards; and incorporate investments in new 

technology that will improve efficiencies in production. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to the 

defense committees no later than 180 days after bill enactment and 

annually thereafter with the budget request for a period of 5 years 

detailing the following: 

(1) the investment master plan for each ammunition plant and 

arsenal; 

(2) the status of the implementation of such plans to date at each 

plant and arsenal; and, 

(3) the amount contained in the budget request that is proposed 

to be applied to the investment strategy for each ammunition plant 

or arsenal. 

Standards for deployable shelters 

The committee recognizes the need for maximum interoperability 

among the services and with civilian organizations for certain types 

of equipment that support both contingency military operations 

and homeland defense missions. Deployable expeditionary facilities, 

such as shelters and tents used for housing, medical care, and 

other combat service support functions should meet minimum safety standards and be fully interoperable for joint operations, peacekeeping efforts, refugee support, and homeland defense missions. 

In certain cases the military services have developed standards, 

such as the U.S. Air Force Operational Requirements Document 

(ORD) CAF 316–92–II/IIIB, to ensure that shelters and tents meet 

consistent, interoperable safety and security standards. The committee is concerned that all the military services may not have a 

consistent standard to guide acquisition of these critical equipment 

items. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
321 

than May 1, 2009, assessing whether the Department of Defense 

criteria, requirements, and acquisition policies for the acquisition of 

deployable shelters acquired for troop housing, medical care, and 

other combat service support functions meet adequate structural, 

environmental, and security standards, and that, to the maximum 

extent practicable, such standards will facilitate optimal interoperability between the military and civil support functions. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(323) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2009, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2008 

authorization 2009 request 

2009 

recommendation 

Army ........................................................................................................................ 525,400 532,400 532,400 

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 329,098 325,300 325,300 

Marine Corps ........................................................................................................... 189,000 194,000 194,000 

Air Force .................................................................................................................. 329,563 316,600 316,771 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) authorized active-duty end strength for the 

Army at 525,400 and for the Marine Corps at 189,000. Additional 

authority was provided in section 403 of that act to increase activeduty end strength for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 by up to 22,000 

for the Army and 13,000 for the Marine Corps above the fiscal year 

2008 authorized levels of 525,400 and 189,000, respectively. 

The committee supports the Army and Marine Corps efforts to 

increase their active-duty end strength and commends the Army 

for its efforts to achieve an active-duty end strength of 547,400 by 

2010 rather than 2012 as originally planned. The wars in Iraq and 

Afghanistan have severely stressed the nation’s ground forces. In 

the past year, the Army extended troop rotations to 15 months, 

with only 12 months dwell time between deployments. With the ongoing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the growth in the 

Army and Marine Corps is clearly necessary to assist in alleviating 

the burden of multiple lengthy deployments. The committee recommends an active-duty end strength for fiscal year 2009 for the 

Army and Marine Corps of 532,400 and 194,000, respectively. 

The committee recommends an additional 171 active-duty personnel for the Air Force above the budget request to support the 

operation and maintenance of 76 B–52 aircraft. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2009, as shown below: 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
324 

Fiscal year 

2008 

authorization 2009 request 

2009 

recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 351,300 352,600 352,600 

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

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 67,800 66,700 66,700 

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

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 106,700 106,700 106,756 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 67,500 67,400 67,400 

The Coast Guard Reserve ....................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

The authorizations contained in this section include an increase 

of 56 personnel for the Air National Guard. The committee believes 

these additional personnel should be used to enhance essential 

training and readiness missions. 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

Reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2009, as shown 

below: 

Fiscal year 

2008 

authorization 2009 request 

2009 

recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 29,204 29,950 29,950 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 15,870 16,170 16,170 

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 11,579 11,099 11,099 

The Marine Corps Reserve ...................................................................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 13,936 14,337 14,360 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 2,721 2,733 2,733 

The committee recommends increases of 746 in the Army National Guard, 300 in the Army Reserve, 401 in the Air National 

Guard, and 35 in the Air Force Reserve over levels approved for fiscal year 2008. The committee supports increases in full-time support manning consistent with requested levels to increase readiness 

in the reserve components. The authorizations contained in this 

section include an increase of 23 personnel for the Air National 

Guard. The committee believes these additional personnel should 

be used to enhance essential training and readiness missions. 

The committee also recommends a decrease from the fiscal year 

2008 level of 480 in the Navy Reserve, consistent with reductions 

in both active Navy and Navy Reserve end strength. The committee recommends an end strength for the Marine Corps Reserve 

equal to the fiscal year 2008 level, consistent with the budget request. 

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

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize end 

strengths for military technicians (dual status) for fiscal year 2009, 

as shown below: 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
325 

Fiscal year 

2008 

authorization 2009 request 

2009 

recommendation 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 8,249 8,395 8,395 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 26,502 27,210 27,210 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 9,909 10,003 10,003 

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 22,553 22,452 22,459 

The authorizations contained in this section include an increase 

of 7 personnel for the Air National Guard. The committee believes 

these additional personnel should be used to enhance essential 

training and readiness missions. 

Fiscal year 2009 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2009, as 

shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2008 authorization 2009 request 

2009 recommenda- tion 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 595 595 595 

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 350 350 350 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 90 90 90 

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, as of September 30, 2009, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2008 

authorization 2009 request 

2009 

recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 

The Marine Corps Reserve ...................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 14,000 14,000 14,000 

Increased end strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve and 

military technicians (dual status) of the Army National 

Guard (sec. 416) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) end strength for the 

Army National Guard and Army Reserve, and additional end 

strength for Army National Guard military technicians (dual status). The provision would also require that this additional end 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
326 

strength be funded out of funds appropriated for fiscal year 2009 

by titles XV or XVI of this Act. 

The committee notes that full-time support for Army reserve 

component soldiers and units, including AGR personnel and military technicians, is critical to the readiness of the reserve components. The Department of the Army has continued to increase the 

number of personnel assigned to provide full-time support to its reserve components and seeks a fiscal year 2013 end state of 32,060 

AGR personnel in the National Guard, 16,261 AGR personnel in 

the Army Reserve, 28,380 military technicians (dual status) in the 

National Guard, and 8,395 military technicians (dual status) in the 

Army Reserve. This provision would authorize the Department to 

accelerate attainment of these levels by the end of fiscal year 2009. 

The committee expects the Department to update a 1999 manpower study that evaluates the number of AGR and military technician personnel required to achieve adequate full-time support to 

its reserve components in light of the increased operational use of 

the reserve components since that study’s completion, and to include discussion of this requirement in its evaluation of the recommendations of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. 

Modification of authorized strengths for Marine Corps Reserve officers on active duty in the grades of major and 

lieutenant colonel to meet new force structure requirements (sec. 417) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12011 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the limit on 

the number of Marine Corps majors and lieutenant colonels authorized to serve on full-time reserve component duty at the end of any 

fiscal year. 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

amounts authorized to be appropriated for military personnel accounts of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009. 

Budget Items 

Military personnel funding changes 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for military personnel 

programs in section 421 of this Act includes the following changes 

from the budget request: (1) an increase of $316.0 million to increase the pay raise for military personnel by an additional 0.5 percentage point; (2) an increase of $12.5 million for increased activeduty Air Force end strength levels; (3) an increase of $3.3 million 

to reflect increased Air National Guard end strength levels; and (4) 

a reduction of $1.1 billion to reflect anticipated unobligated balances, which is described in more detail elsewhere in this report. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
327 

Military personnel unobligated balances 

The Department of Defense has consistently underexecuted its 

military personnel funding since fiscal year 1995 for active and reserve members. The Government Accountability Office estimates 

the average potential unexpended balances for fiscal year 2009, 

based on the most recent data from recent years, to be $1.1 billion. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $1.1 billion to the military personnel accounts to reflect these anticipated unobligated 

balances. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(329) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Modification of distribution requirements for commissioned 

officers on active duty in general and flag officer grades 

(sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 525 of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 16.3 percent to 16.4 percent the percentage of general and flag officers in 

a military service that may be appointed above the grade of major 

general or rear admiral, and to exclude from this limitation those 

reserve general or flag officers on active duty under a call or order 

to active duty specifying a period of active duty of not longer than 

3 years. 

Modification of limitations on authorized strengths of general and flag officers on active duty (sec. 502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 526 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to designate up to 324 general and flag officer positions 

as joint duty assignments that would be excluded from the limitation on the number of general and flag officers in each service and 

would specify the minimum number of officers required to serve in 

these positions for each service. The provision would realign the 

number of general and flag officers authorized to serve on active 

duty in the Army from 302 to 222 officers; in the Navy from 216 

to 159 officers; in the Air Force from 279 to 206 officers; and in the 

Marine Corps from 80 to 59 officers. The provision would also repeal section 721 of title 10, United States Code, which limits the 

number of general and flag officers authorized to serve in positions 

outside their own service. 

The provision would also establish goals for the number of general officers and flag officers in the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and the military services who serve in acquisition positions and 

who have significant contracting experience. The October 31, 2007, 

report of the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations (the ‘‘Gansler Commission’’) 

attributed contracting failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, in significant part, to the Army’s lack of general officers in the contracting 

field. The report states: 

The Army’s difficulty in adjusting to the singular problems of Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan is in large part due 

to the fact that there are no Generals assigned to contracting responsibilities. This is a decade-old blight: the 

cutbacks began in 1991, and no general officers have held 

an Army contracting position since 1998. In a military enVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
330 

vironment (especially in an expeditionary environment), 

the number and level of the Generals associated with a 

discipline reflects its importance. A General is held accountable for his or her leadership. Today, the Secretary of 

the Army cannot replace a General and obtain a new start 

for Army contracting—the Army has no Generals doing 

contracting. 

The findings of the Gansler Commission are symptomatic of a 

broader decline in the number of acquisition and contracting positions across the Department of Defense. In fiscal year 2000, 104 

general officers—roughly 12 percent of all general officers in 

DOD—served in acquisition positions. By fiscal year 2007, DOD 

had only 73 general officers serving in such positions—despite the 

fact that DOD’s acquisition spending had almost doubled in the interim. 

Without increasing the number of general officers serving in 

these positions, DOD is unlikely to reverse the ongoing decline in 

its acquisition workforce and revitalize its acquisition and contracting practices. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense, 

the secretaries of the military departments, and the chiefs of staff 

to significantly increase the number of general officers serving in 

acquisition and contracting positions in the near future. 

Clarification of joint duty requirements for promotion to 

general or flag grades (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 619a of title 10, United States Code, to provide that with certain exceptions, an officer must be designated as a joint qualified 

officer, rather than a joint specialty officer, in accordance with section 661 of title 10, United States Code, before being eligible for 

promotion to general or flag officer. 

Modification of authorities on length of joint duty assignments (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 664 of title 10, United States Code, to align prescribed joint 

duty assignment lengths with the joint qualification system implemented pursuant to section 516 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), 

to take into account multiple joint experiences in satisfying joint 

duty assignment requirements. 

Technical and conforming amendments relating to modification of joint specialty requirements (sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and conforming amendments to sections 663, 665, and 667 of 

title 10, United States Code, to replace references to joint specialty 

officers with officers designated as joint qualified officers. 

Eligibility of reserve officers to serve on boards of inquiry 

for separation of regular officers for substandard performance and other reasons (sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1187 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize reserve offiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
331 

cers to serve as members of boards of inquiry convened to consider 

whether regular officers should be retained on active duty. This implements a recommendation of the Commission on the National 

Guard and Reserves regarding elimination of policies which unnecessarily distinguish reserve component personnel from their activeduty counterparts and thereby impede full integration. 

Modification of authority on Staff Judge Advocate to the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps (sec. 507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 5046 and 525 of title 10, United States Code, to require that 

an officer, while serving as the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, shall serve in the grade of major 

general. The provision would also exclude an officer serving in this 

grade and position from the limitation on the authorized number 

of officers serving in grades above brigadier general in the Marine 

Corps. 

Increase in number of permanent professors at the United 

States Air Force Academy (sec. 508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9331 of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 21 to 25 

the number of permanent professors at the Air Force Academy. 

Service creditable toward retirement for thirty years or 

more of service of regular warrant officers other than 

regular Army warrant officers (sec. 509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1305 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the retirement of a regular warrant officer of the Navy, Marine Corps, and 

Coast Guard 60 days after the date on which the officer completes 

30 years of active service. 

Modification of requirements for qualification for issuance 

of posthumous commissions and warrants (sec. 510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1521 and 1522 of title 10, United States Code, to replace the 

condition for a posthumous commission or warrant that the death 

be in the line of duty with a requirement for a certification by the 

secretary concerned that, at the time of death, the member was 

qualified for appointment to the next higher grade. 

Subtitle B—Enlisted Personnel Policy 

Increase in maximum period of reenlistment of regular 

members of the armed forces (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 505(d) of title 10, United States Code, and section 308(a) of 

title 37, United States Code, to increase from 6 to 8 years the maximum period of reenlistment of regular members of the armed 

forces. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
332 

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Management 

Modification of limitations on authorized strengths of reserve general and flag officers in active status (sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12004 of title 10, United States Code, to exclude from the limitations on the numbers of reserve general and flag officers in an 

active status those reserve general and flag officers serving in joint 

duty assignments. The number of reserve general and flag officers 

excluded could not exceed 20 percent of the number of authorized 

flag and general officers authorized for the service concerned. 

Extension to other reserve components of Army authority 

for deferral of mandatory separation of military technicians (dual status) until age 60 (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10216(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the Air Force to implement personnel policies that would 

allow a military technician (dual status) who continues to meet the 

requirements for dual status to continue to serve until the technician reaches age 60 and attains eligibility for an unreduced annuity. Currently, this requirement applies only to the Secretary of the 

Army. 

Increase in mandatory retirement age for certain Reserve 

officers to age 62 (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 12647 and 14702 of title 10, United States Code, to increase 

the mandatory retirement age from age 60 to age 62 for commissioned officers assigned to the Selective Service System or as property and fiscal officers; Army National Guard officers assigned to 

a headquarters or headquarters detachment of a State; and reserve 

officers of the Army or Air Force who are required to maintain 

membership in a Selected Reserve unit or organization as a condition of continued employment as a National Guard or reserve technician. 

Authority for vacancy promotion of National Guard and Reserve officers ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14317 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the promotion of reserve component officers who are recommended for promotion to fill a position vacancy under section 14315 of title 10, 

United States Code, and who are ordered to active duty in support 

of a contingency operation. 

Authority for retention of reserve component chaplains and 

medical officers until age 68 (sec. 535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14703(b) of title 10, United States Code, and section 324(a) of 

title 32, United States Code, to authorize reserve component chaplains and medical officers to be retained in an active status until 

the date on which the officer becomes 68 years of age. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
333 

Modification of authorities on dual duty status of National 

Guard officers (sec. 536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 325 of title 32, United States Code, to authorize all National 

Guard officers, not just those in command of National Guard units, 

to retain their state status while serving on active duty when authorized by the President and with the consent of the Governor or 

the commanding general of the District of Columbia National 

Guard as applicable. The provision would also allow the consent or 

authorization to be given in advance for the purpose of establishing 

the succession of command of a unit. 

Modification of matching fund requirements under National 

Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 537) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 509(d) of title 32, United States Code, to clarify that the limitation on assistance provided by the Department of Defense to a 

State National Guard Youth Challenge Program may not be construed as a limitation on the amount of assistance that may be provided by other sources. 

Report on collection of information on civilian skills of 

members of the reserve components of the armed forces 

(sec. 538) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report by March 1, 2009, on the 

feasibility, uses, and cost effectiveness of collecting information 

about skills, qualifications, and professional certifications possessed 

by members of the reserve components. 

The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves recommended that the Department of Defense develop a standardized 

system for developing and maintaining a ‘‘civilian skills database’’ that is consistent with standardized database formats, such as that 

used by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to allow worldwide 

interoperability. The committee believes that collection of this information should be considered for inclusion in the Reserve Components Common Personnel Data System pursuant to Department of 

Defense Instruction 7730.54, dated March 31, 2008. 

Subtitle D—Education and Training 

Authority to prescribe the authorized strength of the United 

States Naval Academy (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 6954 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that the authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen at the United 

States Naval Academy is 4,400 midshipmen or such lower number 

as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy. 

Tuition for attendance of certain individuals at the United 

States Air Force Institute of Technology (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9314(c) of title 10, United States Code, to require the United 

States Air Force Institute of Technology to charge tuition for inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
334 

struction of civilians from the military departments, other components of the Department of Defense, and other federal agencies, 

and to use these funds to defray the costs of such instruction. 

Increase in stipend for baccalaureate students in nursing or 

other health professions under Health Professions Stipend Program (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 16201 of title 10, United States Code, to equate the authority 

for the stipend paid to baccalaureate students in nursing or other 

health professions under the Health Professions Stipend Program 

for health care professionals in reserve components to the amount 

of the stipend paid to participants in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program under section 2121(d) of title 10, 

United States Code. 

Clarification of discharge or release triggering delimiting 

period for use of educational assistance benefit for reserve component members supporting contingency operations and other operations (sec. 554) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 16164 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that only service members who separate under honorable conditions are eligible 

to use the educational benefits in chapter 1607 of title 10, United 

States Code, for a period of 10 years after separation. The provision 

aligns eligibility under this section with the eligibility requirements for the post-separation use of educational benefits under 

chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code. 

Payment by the service academies of certain expenses associated with participation in activities fostering international cooperation (sec. 555) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 101 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the superintendents of the United States Military Academy, the United 

States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy, 

in the interest of international cooperation, to pay certain expenses 

of officers, students, and representatives of foreign countries visiting the service academy concerned. 

The provision would also authorize payment of per diem at a rate 

lower than the rate authorized by the Joint Federal Travel Regulations to United States Military Academy cadets, United States Air 

Force Academy cadets, or United States Naval Academy midshipmen who travel or study abroad in a program to enhance language skills or cultural understanding. The service academies’ language and cultural immersion programs generally include cadets 

and midshipmen staying with families or living in university dormitories with some meals provided. This provision would authorize 

the academies to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for missed meals and incidentals under these circumstances. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
335 

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the armed 

forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 

(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance 

program to local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The committee also recommends authorization of $10.0 million in OMDW, for assistance 

to local educational agencies with significant changes in enrollment 

of military and civilian school-aged dependent children due to base 

closures, force structure changes, or force relocations. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities under section 

8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in section 363 of 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for continuation of the Department of Defense’s assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents with severe disabilities. 

Transition of military dependent students among local educational agencies (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 574(d) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), to require the Secretary 

of Defense to work collaboratively with the Secretary of Education 

in any efforts to ease the transition of military dependent students 

between Department of Defense dependent schools, schools of local 

educational agencies, and other schools. This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use funds of the Department of 

Defense Education Activity for this purpose. 

Subtitle F—Military Family Readiness 

Authority for education and training for military spouses 

pursuing portable careers (sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1784 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to carry out programs to provide training and education 

to spouses of members of the armed forces on active duty who are 

pursuing portable careers. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
336 

Subtitle G—Other Matters 

Department of Defense policy on the prevention of suicides 

by members of the armed forces (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy designed to 

prevent suicide by members of the armed forces. The policy would 

ensure that investigations, analyses, and appropriate data collection occur across the military departments on the causes and factors surrounding suicides by members of the armed forces, and that 

information from those studies contributes to the development of 

effective strategies to educate members of the armed forces in preventing suicides and suicide attempts. The committee believes that 

uniform data collection by the military services will facilitate analysis of events in the aggregate for trends and patterns that may 

lead to improved strategies to prevent suicides and suicide attempts. 

The committee is particularly concerned about the increase in 

the rate of suicide within the United States Army from 2004 

through 2007, which is higher than historic Army rates. Active 

Army suicide rates have doubled from 9.8 per 100,000 in 2001 to 

19.7 per 100,000 in 2007. Suicide attempts resulting in medical 

evacuation or hospitalization have also increased from 263 in 2004 

to 948 in 2006. A general officer steering committee appointed to 

address the rise in suicides in the Army has reaffirmed and expanded the Army’s suicide prevention strategies. 

To take advantage of any new developments in suicide prevention, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to initiate a 

review of the Army’s suicide prevention program. This review shall 

include participation by non-Department of Defense and non-Department of Veterans Affairs experts on suicide prevention. The 

Secretary shall report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and House of Representatives no later than September 1, 

2008 on the results of this review. The report shall include the 

findings and recommendations of the review and a description of 

any changes or modifications to the Army suicide prevention program made as a result of the review. 

Relief for losses incurred as a result of certain injustices or 

errors of the Department of Defense (sec. 582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 127e to title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments 

to provide relief to a member or former member of the armed forces 

who, in the determination of the secretary concerned, has suffered 

imprisonment pursuant to a court-martial conviction as a result of 

an injustice or error on the part of the Department of Defense or 

any of its employees acting in their official capacity. The relief provided may include the payment of moneys, including interest, from 

funds available for emergency and extraordinary expenses under 

section 127 of title 10, United States Code. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
337 

Paternity leave for members of the armed forces (sec. 583) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize up to 21 days 

of leave for a male service member whose spouse gives birth to a 

child. The leave would be in addition to any other leave to which 

the service member is entitled. 

Enhancement of authorities on participation of members of 

the armed forces in international sports competitions 

(sec. 584) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 717 of title 10, United States Code, to include the Military 

World Games as an international sports competition in which 

members of the armed forces may be authorized to participate. The 

provision would increase the maximum amounts from $3.0 million 

to $6.0 million that the Secretary of Defense may apportion among 

the military departments, and from $100,000 to $200,000 for the 

Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security, that may be 

spent during each successive 4-year period beginning on October 1, 

2008, for participation in certain international sports competitions. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than October 1, 2009, a report setting 

forth a comprehensive plan for participation in and planning for 

hosting of international sports activities, competitions, and events. 

The committee believes that participation by military members 

in and Department of Defense support of international sports competitions is important and should be funded through appropriated 

funds rather than non-appropriated sources needed for morale, welfare, and recreation activities. The events sponsored by the International Military Sports Council (CISM) such as the Military World 

Games, in particular, also serve as security cooperation activities 

that foster military-to-military contact and promote Western values. The Department, however, must comprehensively set forth its 

plan for funding and supporting the various international sports 

competitions in which service members participate. 

Pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance retention of 

members of the armed forces (sec. 585) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

secretaries of the military departments to conduct pilot programs 

to evaluate the need for more flexibility in career patterns of a limited number of active-duty officers and enlisted members. Under 

the pilot programs, selected service members would leave active 

duty for a period of up to 3 years, and then return to active duty 

in the same grade and years of service that they held at the time 

they were inactivated. Time spent while inactivated would not 

count toward retirement eligibility, computation of retired pay, or 

years of service. The authority to conduct pilot programs under this 

authority would commence January 1, 2009 and end December 31, 

2014. The provision would require the secretaries of the military 

departments to submit interim reports in 2010 and 2012. The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a final report no 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
338 

later than March 1, 2015 evaluating all the pilot programs conducted under this authority. 

Prohibition on interference in independent legal advice by 

the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff (sec. 586) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 156(d) of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit any officer 

or employee of the Department of Defense from interfering with the 

ability of the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff to give independent legal advice to the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff and to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Items of Special Interest 

Enhancing family support for the National Guard and reserve 

The committee commends the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments for the increased priority for 

family support programs presented in testimony in review of the 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2009. In particular, the 

Army would devote $1.5 billion for family support programs in fiscal year 2009, with the goal of better meeting family needs for child 

care, youth programs, and community recreation. 

The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of support 

for family members of the National Guard and reserve, especially 

for the families of the nearly 500,000 members who have deployed. 

The final report of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves (January 2008) correctly focused on identifying the needs 

and gaps in service to reserve component family members. 

The committee applauds the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

implement the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program authorized in 

section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) in all States during fiscal year 

2009. The committee believes that the Department should increase 

efforts to publicize the Military OneSource program, a valuable but 

under-utilized resource which can help overcome the challenge of 

geographic isolation for families of the National Guard and reserve. 

The committee also urges the Secretary to promote partnerships 

among the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs and State 

and local community mental health programs in order to increase 

access for Guard and reserve members and their families to quality 

mental health services. 

The committee notes that for fiscal year 2009, as in previous 

years, the Department continues to rely on supplemental appropriations for a significant portion of the funding of critical family 

support programs, including counseling and child care. The committee reiterates its belief that family support programs are enduring requirements for the all volunteer force, and its expectation 

that family support programs will be fully integrated into the Department’s annual budget process and future-years defense plan. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
339 

Financial literacy 

The committee recognizes that our nation’s military personnel 

and their families can face financial challenges as a result of the 

demands of service, including deployments overseas. To add to this, 

service members and their families have been the target of aggressive predatory lending practices. 

Recent press reports have highlighted the fact that financial 

readiness is increasingly becoming an issue for many military families. In addition, military families themselves have identified increased financial education and literacy as a need. 

The committee believes that early education on fiscal responsibility may help younger generations of military family members 

avoid financial stress. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense Education Activity to develop a comprehensive, research-based financial literacy curriculum for grades kindergarten through 12. 

Legislative fellows from the Department of Defense 

The Secretary of Defense has recently directed an increase in the 

number of legislative fellows from 26 to 100 by 2009 and extended 

offers for their assignment to the members assigned to 14 congressional committees. This sudden growth in the number of legislative 

fellows must be implemented in a manner that takes into account 

the needs of the Department of Defense and the professional development needs of each officer selected. The committee notes that, 

while a legislative fellowship can be a valuable experience, officer 

availability for professional development opportunities outside the 

Department is already severely compressed to meet a growing list 

of institutional requirements and for rotational forces in all services. In the case of fellows, this is compounded by the requirement 

for follow-on utilization assignments as required by controlling Department of Defense regulations. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to perform a critical review of how the legislative fellowship program is organized, 

resourced, managed, and controlled within the Department of Defense and the military departments. The Secretary should articulate with greater clarity the institutional and professional development goals and objectives of the legislative fellows program. The 

Secretary should also establish how the program will be evaluated 

in meeting these goals and objectives. Given competing demands on 

officer manpower, the Secretary should establish a coherent policy 

to ensure that the officers selected for a legislative fellowship opportunity are career-oriented officers whose experience as a fellow 

will be utilized appropriately in their future military assignments. 

The Secretary’s review should specify the numbers of fellows by 

military department who will be assigned each year, and the billets 

and positions in the Department of Defense and military departments for which a legislative fellowship assignment is a prerequisite or provides essential professional development. Additionally, the review shall provide a plan setting forth the criteria for 

selection, assignment, pre-fellowship training, monitoring and evaluation of performance, and post-fellowship assignments. The review should discuss the methods that will be used to ensure that 

officers who are assigned as legislative fellows will be assigned to 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
340 

utilization tours that are fully consistent with their competitive 

categories and career progression requirements. The Secretary 

shall report the results of this review to the congressional defense 

committees not later than May 1, 2009. 

Premium conversion and flexible spending account options 

for service members 

The Senate report accompanying S. 1042 (S. Rept. 109–69) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 contained 

a requirement directing the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 

congressional defense committees a plan to evaluate and implement premium conversion and flexible spending account programs 

for uniformed service members. On May 15, 2007, the Department 

of Defense (DOD) submitted its report, concluding that ‘‘DOD must 

determine how PC/FSA benefit programs under a cafeteria plan 

might work best for each component, and whether, when, and how 

to offer those programs.’’ The report recognized that there were no 

statutory barriers to implementation of these programs, but failed 

to commit to providing these programs to service members. Premium conversion and flexible spending account programs remain 

unavailable to service members, though they are available to federal employees, and are widely available in the civilian sector. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2008 detailing the 

Department’s plan to implement these programs for both activeduty and Selected Reserve members, or explaining the Department’s decision not to offer these programs in spite of the advantages they offer. 

The committee continues to believe that active-duty members 

and Selected Reserve members should be able to use premium conversion to pay dental insurance premiums, and Selected Reserve 

personnel should be able to use it to pay TRICARE Reserve Select 

premiums. The committee also continues to believe that active-duty 

and Selected Reserve members should have access to flexible 

spending account options that allow them to pay for out-of-pocket 

medical and dental expenses, dependent care expenses, and child 

care services. 

Report on implementation of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 

Program 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by October 1, 2008, a status report on the implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. The report shall 

include a description, by State, of accomplishments for fiscal year 

2008, and those planned for fiscal year 2009. The report shall also 

include an identification of current and future resource requirements, including personnel, necessary to implement and execute 

the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, as well as a plan for full 

implementation and oversight of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 

Program in all States. 

The committee expects that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, serving as Executive Agent, will ensure 

that the program is carried out based on uniform program requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
341 

ments throughout the United States, and in a manner that equitably serves both National Guard and reserve personnel as required by section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public law 110–181). 

Secretary of Defense review of deferment from deployment 

policy following birth of a child 

Current Department of Defense (DOD) policy governing military 

personnel assignments requires that for a minimum of 4 months 

after the birth of a child, ‘‘a military mother shall be deferred from 

assignment to a dependent-restricted overseas tour or an unaccompanied overseas tour when concurrent travel is denied’’ (Department of Defense Instruction 1315.18). The secretary of the military 

department, however, may extend the deferment based on force 

readiness needs. Army and Air Force policies provide for the minimum 4-month deferment from deployment. The Marine Corps currently defers deployment for 6 months, and the Navy for 1 year. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of policies concerning deferment from deployment of service 

members following the birth of a child. The review shall include an 

assessment of the impact of service policies on military readiness, 

including recruitment and retention of female service members, 

and the desirability of a uniform policy for all military services. 

The review shall take into account such factors as differing conditions during deployment and the manpower requirements of each 

service, the medical and psychological readiness of military members to deploy, policies regarding family care plans, and policies responding to personal hardship following childbirth, such as a newborn with special medical treatment needs. 

In conducting the review, the Secretary shall consult with public 

and private sector experts, such as the U.S. Health Resources and 

Services Administration, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the 

American Academy of Family Physicians, to ensure that Department of Defense assignment policies for female service members 

following childbirth are informed by the most current scientific and 

clinical expertise regarding the well-being of new mothers and infants. 

The committee directs the Secretary to report to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

on the results of this review by May 1, 2009. The report shall describe changes to DOD or service policies as a result of the review. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(343) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2009 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise for members of the uniformed services of 3.9 percent, 0.5 

percent above the pay raise recommended in the budget request, to 

become effective on January 1, 2009. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

Reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus; 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus; the special 

pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high priority units; 

the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service; the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service; and the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus 

for persons with prior service. 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus; the repayment of education loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve; the accession bonus for 

registered nurses; incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists; special pay for Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short 

wartime specialties; the accession bonus for dental officers; the accession bonus for pharmacy officers; the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties; and the accession bonus for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 

specialties. 

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active service; the nuclear career accession bonus; and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
344 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays (sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus; assignment incentive pay; the reenlistment bonus for active members; the enlistment bonus; the accession bonus for new officers in 

critical skills; the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage; the accession bonus for 

officer candidates; the retention bonus for members with critical 

military skills or assigned to high priority units; and income replacement for reserve members experiencing extended and frequent 

mobilizations. 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral bonuses (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the health professions referral bonus and 

the Army referral bonus under sections 1030 and 3252 of title 10, 

United States Code, respectively. 

Permanent extension of prohibition on charges for meals received at military treatment facilities by members receiving continuous care (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 402 of title 37, United States Code, to make permanent the 

prohibition on charges for meals received at military treatment facilities by members receiving continuous care. 

Accession and retention bonuses for the recruitment and retention of psychologists for the armed forces (sec. 617) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 301f to title 37, United States Code, authorizing a 

multiyear retention bonus for uniformed psychologists in the maximum amount of $25,000 per year for up to 4 years. The provision 

would also add a new section 302m to title 37, United States Code, 

authorizing an accession bonus for uniformed psychologists of up to 

$400,000 for an active-duty commitment of at least 4 years. 

The Report of the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental 

Health found that the number of active-duty psychologists is insufficient and likely to decrease further without substantial intervention. According to the report, data from post-deployment health reassessments show that 38 percent of soldiers and 31 percent of marines report psychological problems. These bonuses, in conjunction 

with existing benefits, are intended to help overcome critical shortages in the number of uniformed psychologists. 

Authority for extension of maximum length of service agreements for special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active service (sec. 618) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 312 of title 37, United States Code, to eliminate the 3, 4, and 

5 year options currently in law, and require only that the period 

of continuation be at least 3 years with the objective of providing 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
345 

more flexibility in administering the nuclear officer continuation 

pay. 

Incentive pay for members of precommissioning programs 

pursuing foreign language proficiency (sec. 619) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a new 

section 316a of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay incentive pay to an individual pursuing 

foreign language proficiency while enrolled in the Senior Reserve 

Officers’ Training Corps or the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders 

Class. The individual must participate in an approved language immersion program, study abroad, or academic course that involves 

instruction in a foreign language of strategic interest to the Department of Defense. The incentive pay may not exceed $3,000 per year 

per individual. The provision would also require the Secretary of 

Defense to report to the Office of Management and Budget and the 

congressional defense committees by January 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, on the payment of incentive pay under this section. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Shipment of family pets during evacuation of personnel 

(sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 406 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize transportation, including the payment of shipment and quarantine costs, of 

two household pets in cases of evacuation from a permanent station 

located in a foreign area. 

Special weight allowance for transportation of professional 

books and equipment for spouses (sec. 632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 406 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize a special 

weight allowance of up to an additional 500 pounds for professional 

books and equipment belonging to the spouses of service members 

ordered to make a change of permanent station. The provision 

would take effect October 1, 2009. 

Travel and transportation allowances for members of the reserve components of the armed forces on leave for suspension of training (sec. 633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 411k to title 37, United States Code, to authorize travel and 

transportation allowances for service members on active duty for 

more than 30 days to travel from a temporary duty station back 

to their permanent duty station and back again during times when 

training is suspended at the temporary duty station for a period of 

5 days or more. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
346 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits 

Presentation of burial flag to the surviving spouse and children of members of the armed forces who die in service 

(sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1482 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the presentation of a burial flag to the surviving spouse of a deceased service 

member when the surviving spouse is not otherwise entitled to a 

flag as the person designated to direct the disposition of the remains. The provision would also authorize the presentation of a 

burial flag to each child of a deceased service member. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Separation pay, transitional health care, and transitional 

commissary and exchange benefits for members of the 

armed forces separated under surviving son or daughter 

policy (sec. 651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide service members separated under the Department of Defense surviving 

son or daughter policy with separation pay under section 1174 of 

title 10, United States Code; transitional health care under section 

1145 of title 10, United States Code; and transitional commissary 

and exchange benefits under section 1146 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Items of Special Interest 

Aviation career incentive pay 

The committee has received reports of officers qualified for aviation service missing their ‘‘gate’’ thresholds for continued eligibility 

for receipt of aviation career incentive pay (ACIP) due to non-flying 

assignments, including ‘‘in lieu of’’ or individual augmentee assignments in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary 

of the Navy to review their ACIP programs, their assignment of officers qualified for aviation service to non-flying duty assignments, 

and the effect of these assignments on these officers’ continued eligibility for ACIP. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air 

Force and the Secretary of the Navy to report to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

by March 1, 2009 on the results of this review. 

Travel allowances for family of service members with serious psychiatric conditions 

The committee notes that section 411h of title 37, United States 

Code, authorizes the secretaries of the military departments to pay 

travel and transportation allowances for family members of service 

members who are seriously injured, seriously ill, or in a situation 

of imminent death when the attending physician or surgeon and 

the commander or head of the military medical facility concerned 

determine that the family’s presence may contribute to the service 

member’s health and welfare. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
347 

The committee strongly believes that service members who suffer 

from serious psychiatric conditions meet the seriously injured or seriously ill threshold under section 411h of title 37, United States 

Code, and that family members of such service members should be 

eligible for travel and transportation allowances in accordance with 

that section. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by June 1, 2008 on 

the Department of Defense policies regarding the eligibility of family members of such service members to receive travel and transportation allowances under that section. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(349) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program 

Calculation of monthly premiums for coverage under 

TRICARE Reserve Select after 2008 (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to base the actuarial calculation of the 

amount of monthly premiums paid by members of the Selected Reserve for health care coverage under the TRICARE Reserve Select 

(TRS) program on the reported costs of providing benefits. For 

2009, the premium amount would be based on the reported program costs for 2006 and 2007. For each year after 2009, the premium amount would be based on the actual cost of providing benefits during calendar years preceding that year. 

The committee is concerned that, according to a Government Accountability Office review of the Department of Defense’s cost of 

implementing the TRS program for members of the Guard and reserve required by the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), ‘‘The premium for 

individual coverage under tier 1 was 72 percent higher than the average cost per plan of providing benefits through the program. 

Similarly, the premium for family coverage under tier 1 was 45 

percent higher than the average cost per plan of providing benefits.’’

The provision reflects the Comptroller General’s recommendation 

that the Department should stop basing TRS premium adjustments 

only on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program’s Blue 

Cross and Blue Shield plan, and use instead the reported costs of 

providing benefits when adjusting premiums in the future. 

The committee is also concerned that learning how to use 

TRICARE is difficult for newly eligible beneficiaries, especially 

those in the reserve components. The committee agrees with the 

recommendation in the January 2008 report of the Commission on 

the National Guard and Reserves that information materials about 

TRICARE need to be redesigned, in both print and electronic format, to be more user-friendly, especially for first time users. The 

committee directs that the Secretary of Defense report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by February 1, 2009 on programs and plans to achieve 

such improvements during fiscal year 2009. 

Subtitle B—Other Health Care Authorities 

Enhancement of medical and dental readiness of members 

of the armed forces (sec. 711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074a(d)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to require the secVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
350 

retary of each military department to provide to members of the 

Selected Reserve who are assigned to units scheduled for deployment within 75 days after mobilization annual medical screenings, 

a full physical examination for members who are over the age of 

40 every 2 years, and annual dental screenings and dental care required to ensure that a member meets the dental standards required for deployment. These services are to be provided at no cost 

to the member. The provision would also authorize the secretaries 

concerned to provide the same services to other members of the Selected Reserve and to a member of the Individual Ready Reserve 

with a deployment responsibility, if those services are necessary to 

ensure that members meet applicable standards of medical and 

dental readiness. 

The committee notes that section 1074a(f) of title 10, United 

States Code, authorizes the secretaries of the military departments 

to provide any medical and dental screening and care necessary to 

meet applicable medical and dental standards for deployment to 

members of the Ready Reserve who have been notified that they 

will be called or ordered to active duty for a period of more than 

30 days. The provision would clarify that operation and maintenance funds available to the reserve components may be used to 

achieve these goals. 

The provision would also amend section 1076a(e) of title 10, 

United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive, 

in whole or in part, during a time of national emergency, the requirement for members of the Selected Reserve enrolled in the 

TRICARE dental insurance program to pay copayments for restorative care necessary to meet dental readiness standards, in order to 

facilitate readiness of a unit or individual scheduled for deployment. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by March 1, 2009 on the policies and procedures to ensure medical and dental readiness of members of the armed forces, 

including a description of the manner in which each military department applies such standards with respect to performance evaluation and promotion. 

The committee believes that the medical and dental readiness of 

the reserve components must be strengthened in order to support 

their increasing operational roles. Of particular concern is the lack 

of dental readiness of the reserve components. According to the Department of Defense, in the first quarter of 2008, 57 percent of the 

Army National Guard and 50 percent of the Army Reserve members were dental class III or IV, and thus would not meet 

deployability standards, compared with 10 percent of the Navy Reserve, 11 percent of the Air National Guard, 15 percent of the Air 

Force Reserve, 22 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve, and 26 percent of the Coast Guard Reserve. 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has 

established an expanded Reserve Health Readiness Program to 

help meet these needs, but believes that more needs to be done. 

The provision is intended to clarify the committee’s intent that 

funds available to the reserve components for operation and maintenance may be used for the purpose of improving medical readiness, and to underscore the committee’s belief that individuals and 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
351 

commanders should be held accountable for meeting all applicable 

medical and dental readiness standards. 

Additional authority for studies and demonstration projects 

relating to delivery of health and medical care (sec. 712) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1092(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct additional studies and demonstrations 

relating to the delivery of health and medical care, which may include: 

(1) projects to provide awards and incentives to TRICARE 

covered service members and beneficiaries who obtain certain 

health promotion and disease prevention health care services; 

(2) projects to provide awards and incentives to individual 

health care professionals to encourage improved quality and effectiveness of health care services; 

(3) projects to improve the medical and dental readiness of 

the reserve components; and 

(4) projects to improve the continuity of health care services 

for family members of mobilized members of the reserve components, including payment of a stipend for continuation of employer-provided health coverage. 

Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for dependents 

of members assigned to very remote locations outside 

the continental United States (sec. 713) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1040(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay travel expenses for a dependent of a service member assigned to a very remote location outside the continental United States who requires or elects anesthesia services for 

childbirth to a location in the United States. 

Under current law, payment of travel expenses is authorized for 

required medical attention that is not available in the locality in 

order to travel to the nearest medical facility in which adequate 

medical care is available. The provision would clarify that anesthesia services for childbirth should be included in the scope of required medical attention. 

Subtitle C—Other Health Care Matters 

Repeal of prohibition on conversion of military medical and 

dental positions to civilian medical and dental positions 

(sec. 721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal subsection (a) of section 721 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), which prohibits the 

military departments from converting any military medical or dental position to a civilian medical or dental position through September 30, 2012. The provision would also restore subsections (a) 

and (b) of section 742 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), which 

require certification by the secretary of a military department that 

any planned conversion will not increase the cost or decrease the 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
352 

quality of care or access to military health care, and requires a review by the Comptroller General of these certifications. 

The Department of Defense has informed the committee that the 

prohibition ‘‘. . . has created chaos in planned personnel actions in 

FY 2008, essentially guaranteeing a detrimental impact on medical 

staffing levels and access to care . . .’’ The provision recommended 

by the committee would repeal this prohibition. 

However, the committee continues to believe that the military 

departments did not adequately address the certification requirements contained in section 742 of Public Law 109–364 when it was 

in effect. The committee remains concerned that planned conversions may increase costs, decrease access to care, decrease quality 

of care, or negatively impact recruitment and retention of military 

personnel. Therefore, the provision would restore this certification 

requirement. 

In planning any future conversions of military medical or dental 

positions to civilian medical or dental positions, the committee expects the military departments to fully assess all aspects of the 

conversions, including those concerns listed above. The committee 

also expects the departments to supply these certifications to the 

committee in accordance with applicable deadlines. 

The language in subsection (b) of section 721 of Public Law 110– 181 requiring the military departments to restore any positions 

converted between October 1, 2004, and September 30, 2008 that 

have not yet been filled by a civilian back to military positions remains in effect. 

Items of Special Interest 

Chiropractic care for members of the armed forces 

Section 702 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) required the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to provide chiropractic 

health care services and benefits for all members of the armed 

forces on active duty. Although all active-duty service members are 

eligible for this benefit, services are available only at designated 

military treatment facilities: 17 medical facilities in the Army, 13 

in the Navy, and 19 in the Air Force. Services are not available to 

members who are deployed or assigned to any overseas location 

other than Alaska and Hawaii. 

The committee is concerned that the extreme physical demands 

of military service resulting from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, compounded by injuries which have 

been incurred, may have increased the requirement for chiropractic 

services for service members, including those assigned to overseas 

locations. A September 2005 report by the Comptroller General 

found that although the Department of Defense had implemented 

the chiropractic benefit, the Department had not monitored whether the benefit meets current or future demand from active-duty 

personnel. 

In response to the increased physical demands on our service 

members, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to reassess the requirement for chiropractic services 

for members on active duty. The committee directs that the study 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
353 

should include, but not be limited to, surveys of service members, 

unit commanders, and medical treatment facility personnel, and a 

review of injury data for active-duty service members since 2001. 

In particular, the surveys and assessment shall include the needs 

of members assigned to units outside of the continental United 

States. The Secretary shall report the results of the study to congressional defense committees by June 1, 2009. 

Comptroller General study on medical personnel requirements, shortfalls, and actions needed to resolve medical 

personnel shortages 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense continues to experience significant shortfalls in physician, dentist, 

nurse, and other allied health specialties. With the demand for 

military medical care rising, due to ongoing contingency operations, 

restructuring of forces, and the planned growth of the Army and 

Marine Corps, medical shortfalls must be resolved. Military and civilian health care professionals are needed to support contingency 

operations, and provide medical training, research, and care for 

military families, retirees, and their families. 

A report by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 

in May 2007, ‘‘Department of Defense Military Medical Recruiting 

and Retention,’’ confirmed that significant shortfalls exist throughout the military medical departments, and committed to working 

with the military departments to identify funding for accession bonuses and special pay and incentive authorities enhanced in the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364). The report also described the initiation 

of a human capital management plan for the military health system. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181), Congress enhanced authorities for the 

hiring of civilian health care professionals by utilizing compensation authorities available to the Department of Veterans Affairs 

under title 38, United States Code. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a 

study of the medical and dental personnel requirements of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, including their reserve components, in order to meet their medical mission in support of contingency operations, deliver high quality health care to 

eligible beneficiaries, and support necessary training and research. 

The Comptroller General shall evaluate medical workforce planning efforts throughout the Department of Defense to determine 

those medical specialty areas that have experienced the largest 

gaps between identified needs and fill rates; challenges that hinder 

the achievement of medical personnel goals, both military and civilian; and the plans of each military department and the Department of Defense to resolve medical personnel shortfalls. 

The Comptroller General shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2009 containing the results 

of the study and such recommendations as the Comptroller General 

deems appropriate. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
354 

Mental health and traumatic brain injury 

The committee applauds the work of Army medical department 

behavioral health researchers who continue their study of the mental health needs of soldiers and marines in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Like the Mental Health 

Advisory Team (MHAT) studies which have preceded it, the MHAT 

V, conducted in October and November 2007, brought to light important findings about the mental health needs of deployed forces, 

in particular the high risk factors associated with multiple and 

lengthy deployments. Soldiers reported significant barriers in access to mental health care, including an insufficient number of behavioral health providers. Several studies, including the June 2007 

report of the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health, 

‘‘An Achievable Vision,’’ have called for more effective behavioral 

health treatment and care for service members and their families 

across a broad continuum of care, including prevention, intervention, and treatment. Though psychological injuries are not new to 

warfare, most experts believe that the need for behavioral health 

services in the future will increase, especially as research reveals 

more about clinical approaches to mental health conditions and 

traumatic brain injury. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends provisions 

which would improve incentives to recruit and retain mental health 

providers in the military, as well as streamline the hiring of civilian behavioral health providers. The committee urges the Secretary 

of Defense to work with the military departments to identify funding needed to take full advantage of improved recruiting and retention incentives to increase the supply of behavioral health professionals who support members of the armed forces and their families. 

Modification of security clearance questionnaire to reduce 

stigma for seeking mental health care 

The Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health reported in June 2007 that the stigma associated with seeking mental health care in the military ‘‘represents a critical failure of the 

community that prevents service members and their families from 

getting the help they need when they need it most. Further, stigma 

is of particular concern in the military because of the degree to 

which military members may bear responsibility for lives beyond 

their own.’’ The Task Force identified concerns by service members 

that self-identification relating to mental health care would impede 

their careers or efforts to obtain a security clearance and recommended that the Department of Defense ‘‘work to clarify those 

mental health conditions that must be reported because they are 

indicative of defects in judgment, reliability, or emotional stability 

that are potentially disqualifying or raise significant security concerns.’’

The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for revising 

the Department of Defense Standard Form 86 (SF86) questionnaire 

for national security positions regarding mental and emotional 

health to implement the recommendation of the Task Force. In a 

memorandum dated April 18, 2008, the Secretary of Defense informed all Department of Defense components that the Department 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
355 

had ‘‘successfully advocated a revision to Question 21 on the SF86 

regarding mental and emotional health,’’ and directed the following 

revised question 21 be used until the Office of Personnel and Management publishes an updated SF86: 

Mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason 

to revoke or deny a clearance. 

In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health 

care professional regarding an emotional or mental health 

condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition? 

Answer ‘No’ if the counseling was for any of the following 

reasons and was not court-ordered: 

• Strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or 

• Strictly related to adjustments from service in a 

military combat environment. 

The committee also commends the Under Secretaries of Defense 

for Intelligence and Personnel and Readiness for their affirmation 

in a memorandum to all individuals completing the SF86 that 

‘‘Seeking professional care for these mental health issues should 

not be perceived to jeopardize an individual’s security clearance. 

On the contrary, failure to seek care actually increases the likelihood that psychological distress could escalate to a more serious 

mental condition, which could preclude an individual from performing sensitive duties.’’

By advocating and achieving this long overdue change, the Secretaries have fulfilled the responsibilities that all leaders bear to reduce the stigma associated with seeking mental health care. 

Organ and tissue donor program 

The committee is pleased that it is Department of Defense (DOD) 

policy to encourage all DOD beneficiaries to donate organs and tissue. Information about organ and tissue donation is provided to officer candidates during initial training and to new recruits after 

completion of basic training and before arrival at their first duty 

station. All members of the armed forces have recurring opportunities to elect to be organ or tissue donors while serving and upon 

retirement from military service. The committee recommends that 

the Department continue efforts to encourage military personnel 

and their families to become organ donors. 

The military health system participates in the National Organ 

Procurement and Transportation Network to facilitate and coordinate the donation of organs and tissues, the recovery of donated organs and tissues, and the matching of donors and recipients. All inpatient military treatment facilities are required to maintain a 

Memorandum of Understanding, in coordination with military 

transplant centers and local organ procurement organizations, to 

provide organ and tissue procurement services. 

DOD regulations require that an individual’s election to be an 

organ or tissue donor be recorded in medical information systems, 

personnel data systems, and on the individual’s DOD-issued identification card. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, no later than March 1, 2009, on the feaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
356 

sibility of including an individual’s election to be an organ or tissue 

donor on his or her military identification tags. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(357) 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Inclusion of major subprograms to major defense acquisition programs under acquisition reporting requirements 

(sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to designate as major subprograms of a major 

defense acquisition program (MDAP) two or more categories of end 

items to be delivered under the MDAP that differ significantly from 

each other in form and function. If the Secretary chooses to designate major subprograms under this provision, program acquisition unit costs and procurement unit costs would be reported to 

Congress for each of the major subprograms, rather than for the 

MDAP as a whole. Other key information would be reported to 

Congress both for the MDAP as a whole and for each of the major 

subprograms. 

The underlying assumption for unit cost reporting is that the 

quantity of items to be provided is relatively uniform in terms of 

cost and functionality. The committee recognizes that such uniformity may not be present in the case of a ‘‘system of systems,’’

such as the Future Combat Systems and the Ballistic Missile Defense System, which includes multiple end items that differ significantly from each other in form and function. The provision recommended by the committee would authorize the Secretary to 

break the MDAP into major subprograms only in such cases, to ensure the rational and consistent reporting of unit costs. The committee notes that this authority does not apply to multiple variants 

of a single system. 

Inclusion of certain major information technology investments in acquisition oversight authorities for Major 

Automated Information System programs (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 144A of title 10, United States Code, to require the Department 

of Defense to extend reporting requirements for information technology acquisitions to cover both Major Automated Information 

System (MAIS) programs and other major information technology 

investments. Under current law, these reporting requirements 

apply only to MAIS programs. 

Configuration steering boards for cost control under major 

defense acquisition programs (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

secretaries of the military departments to establish configuration 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
358 

steering boards (CSBs) to control costs on major defense acquisition 

programs. CSBs would be responsible for reviewing any proposed 

changes to program requirements or system configuration that 

could have the potential to adversely impact program cost or schedule and for recommending changes that have the potential to improve program cost or schedule in a manner consistent with program objectives. The committee expects any CSB decisions with regard to program requirements pursuant to subsection (c)(2) of this 

provision to be signed personally by the Chairman of the CSB. 

In its March 2008 report on selected weapon programs, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that changes in program requirements often have a significant adverse impact on cost 

and schedule. According to GAO: 

Unsettled requirements in acquisition programs can create significant turbulence. Sixty-three percent of the programs we received data from had requirement changes 

after system development began. These programs encountered cost increases of 72 percent, while costs grew by 11 

percent among those programs that did not change requirements. 

On July 30, 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics directed the secretaries of the military 

departments to address this problem by establishing CSBs to control requirements. The Under Secretary’s memorandum states that: 

The CSBs will review all requirements changes and any 

significant technical configuration changes which have the 

potential to result in cost and schedule impacts to the program. Such changes will generally be rejected, deferring 

them to future blocks or increments. Changes may not be 

approved unless funds are identified and schedule impacts 

are mitigated. 

The committee understands that the implementation of CSBs by 

the military departments has been uneven. By institutionalizing 

the CSB process, the provision recommended by the committee 

would ensure that CSBs become an effective mechanism for cost 

control on major defense acquisition programs. 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 

811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct 

joint reviews with the inspectors general of certain non-defense 

agencies to determine whether procurements conducted by the nondefense agencies on behalf of DOD have been conducted in compliance with defense procurement requirements. 

Section 802 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), section 811 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163), section 817 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
359 

and section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) contained similar requirements for joint audits. 

The provision recommended by the committee would modify requirements adopted in previous years by: (1) Deleting the requirement for follow-up audits of contracts awarded through the Department of the Treasury and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and (2) adding a new requirement for joint audits of 

contracts awarded through the Department of Commerce and the 

Department of Energy. 

Contingency contracting corps (sec. 812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a contingency contracting corps to 

ensure that the Department of Defense has the capability, when 

needed, to support contingency contracting actions in a deployed 

environment. 

Expedited review and validation of urgent requirements 

documents (sec. 813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

military departments to ensure that urgent requirements documents developed by operational field commanders are presented to 

appropriate authorities for review and validation not later than 60 

days after the documents are submitted. 

Over the last several years, operational commanders in Iraq have 

identified urgent operational needs for mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs), non-lethal laser dazzlers, and other critical equipment. The committee is aware of allegations that requests 

for some of these items not only went unmet, but were not even 

presented to senior officials responsible for validating the requests 

for periods in excess of a year. While the military services must 

continue to have the flexibility to balance competing needs and determine what equipment to acquire, urgent operational needs identified by commanders in the field should at a minimum receive a 

speedy review and response by responsible officials. 

Incorporation of energy efficiency requirements into key 

performance parameters for fuel consuming systems 

(sec. 814) 

The February 2008 report of the Defense Science Board Task 

Force on DOD Energy Strategy found that the Department of Defense had taken limited action on recommendations from a similar 

Defense Science Board energy study in 2001 with respect to energy 

efficiency and investments in weapons systems. The task force concluded that the Department ‘‘systematically underestimates’’ the 

full cost of fuel in the life cycle costs of weapons systems and that 

the Department fails to value or emphasize the benefits of fuel efficiency in its requirements, budgeting, or acquisition processes. The 

task force argues that demand-side remedies provide the greatest 

opportunity to reduce cost and operational risk in fuel consumption 

and availability. 

The committee notes that the Department is in the early stages 

of considering changes to the acquisition process with respect to enVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
360 

ergy related requirements and the calculation and consideration of 

the fully burdened cost of fuel for current and future systems. The 

task force, however, recommended that the Department accelerate 

the implementation of new standards, or key performance parameters, for energy efficiency in the research, development, and acquisition of future weapons systems. For example, designs for the 

manned ground combat vehicles of the Army’s Future Combat System will use hybrid electric drive with the potential for significant 

operational risk reduction and fuel costs savings. 

The committee believes that the Department should respond aggressively to the task force’s recommendations for emphasizing energy efficiency in the modification of current or development of future fuel consuming systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to develop acquisition policies, regulations, and directives, and a plan for their implementation, that would require program managers to incorporate 

energy efficiency requirements into the key performance parameters for military systems. The committee further recommends that 

the Under Secretary provide the defense committees a report on 

the Department’s implementation plans and accomplishments with 

its future budget submissions. 

Subtitle C—Amendments Relating to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Multiyear procurement authority for the Department of Defense for the purchase of alternative and synthetic fuels 

(sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

head of a defense agency to enter into multiyear contracts, for a period of up to 10 years, for the purchase of alternative or synthetic 

fuels. Such a contract would be authorized only if: (1) the agency 

head determines, on the basis of a business case analysis, that the 

proposed contract is economical and cost-effective; and (2) the contract specifies that the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuels to be provided 

under the contract are not greater than such emissions from conventional petroleum-based fuels that are used in the same application. The Secretary of Defense would be required to prescribe regulations providing specific standards for determinations to be made 

by agency heads. 

The committee notes that: (1) the cost-effectiveness requirements 

recommended by the committee are comparable to those applicable 

to multiyear contracts for major weapon systems; and (2) the 

greenhouse gas requirement recommended by the committee is 

identical to the standard in section 526 of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140). Representatives of 

both the Department of Defense and private sector companies seeking to develop alternative and synthetic fuel resources have stated 

that technology is available to meet the greenhouse gas requirements. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
361 

Modification and extension of pilot program for transition 

to follow-on contracts under authority to carry out certain prototype projects (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 4 

years the authority granted in section 847 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) for 

the Department of Defense to carry out a pilot program for the 

transition of non-traditional defense contractors from prototype 

transactions to follow-on contracts. The provision would also ensure 

that the transition authority may be used for technologies developed under research projects carried out pursuant to section 2371 

of title 10, United States Code. 

Exclusion of certain factors in consideration of cost advantages of offers for certain Department of Defense contracts (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that a company seeking a 

DOD contract does not receive a competitive advantage as a result 

of a proposal that reduces costs through the use of overseas subsidiaries or other similar corporate structures that enable it to 

avoid the payment of taxes to the Federal or State government for 

or on behalf of employees of the company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of the company). 

The committee understands that this provision would apply to efforts to avoid the payment of federal social security and medicare 

taxes, and State unemployment taxes, for or on behalf of employees. It would not apply to other taxes, such as corporate taxes, 

which are not paid for or on behalf of employees. 

Subtitle D—Department of Defense Contractor Matters 

Database for Department of Defense contracting officers 

and suspension and debarment officials (sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish and maintain a database of information regarding 

the integrity and contract performance of Department of Defense 

(DOD) contractors for use by DOD acquisition officials in making 

responsibility determinations, past performance evaluations, and 

other contract decisions. 

Ethics safeguards for employees under certain contracts for 

the performance of acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions (sec. 832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

each Department of Defense (DOD) contract (or task or delivery 

order) in excess of $500,000 that calls for the performance of acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental 

functions include a contract clause addressing potential personal 

conflicts of interests of contractor employees who will be responsible for the performance of such functions. 

The required contract clause would require covered contractors to 

prohibit employees from conducting work for DOD with respect to 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
362 

a program, company, contractor, or other matter in which the employees have a financial interest; obtain and review financial disclosure statements from employees; prohibit employees from accepting 

gifts from companies affected by work that they are performing for 

DOD; prohibit employees from using non-public government information for personal gain; take appropriate steps to enforce these 

requirements; and promptly report any violations to the appropriate contracting officer. 

The provision requires DOD to develop an appropriate definition 

of the term ‘‘financial interest’’ that is similar to the definition in 

statutes and regulations applicable to federal employees. The committee expects the implementing regulations to encompass both direct and indirect financial interests, as well as both actual and apparent conflicts of interest. 

In March 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

issued a report entitled ‘‘Additional Personal Conflict of Interest 

Safeguards Needed for Certain DOD Contractor Employees.’’ GAO 

determined that contractor employees often work alongside DOD 

employees and perform critical acquisition tasks, such as the development of contract requirements, advising or assisting on source 

selection, and making award-fee determinations. 

Yet, DOD lacks a Department-wide policy requiring safeguards 

against personal conflicts of interest by such contractor employees. 

GAO recommended that DOD institute such safeguards and reported that this recommendation was supported by DOD oversight 

officials, officials of the Office of Government Ethics, members of 

an expert panel on contracting, and many program managers. The 

provision recommended by the committee would require DOD to 

implement the GAO recommendation. 

Information for Department of Defense contractor employees on their whistleblower rights (sec. 833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that contractor employees are informed of their whistleblower rights and protections under section 

2409 of title 10, United States Code. 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to Iraq and Afghanistan 

Performance by private security contractors of inherently 

governmental functions in an area of combat operations 

(sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to revise the regulations issued pursuant to 

section 862 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to ensure that private security 

contractors are not authorized to perform inherently governmental 

functions in an area of combat operations. 

‘‘Inherently governmental functions’’ are defined in Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A–76 and in the Federal Acquisition Regulation to include those functions that are ‘‘so intimately 

related to the public interest as to mandate performance by government personnel.’’ Such functions include activities that ‘‘significantly affect the life, liberty, and property of private persons.’’


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
363 

Paragraph E2.1.4 of Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 

1100.22 provides that security provided for the protection of people 

and property in uncontrolled or unpredictable high threat areas 

outside the United States entails a wide range of capabilities, some 

of which are inherently governmental and others of which may be 

provided by contractors. In particular, paragraph E2.1.4.1.4 states: 

Security operations that involve more than a response to 

hostile attacks typically entail substantial discretion and 

are inherently governmental. For example, security operations that are performed in highly hazardous public areas 

where the risks are uncertain, could require deadly force 

that is more likely to be initiated by U.S. forces than occur 

in self defense. Security operations that require immediate 

decisions on the appropriate course of action or the acceptable level of risk typically require substantial discretion 

and are inherently governmental particularly when the 

outcome could significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private persons or international relations. Such operations typically require on-the-spot judgments on the appropriate level of force, acceptable level of collateral damage, and whether the target is ‘friend or foe.’ They also require protocols on the use of force that permit discretion 

for ‘preemptive’ attacks. Such high risk operations require 

military training and discipline . . . and are designated for 

military performance. 

Despite this guidance, it appears that private security contractors in Iraq have frequently engaged in activities that ‘‘are performed in highly hazardous public areas where risks are uncertain,’’ ‘‘could require deadly force that is more likely to be initiated 

by U.S. forces than occur in self defense,’’ ‘‘require immediate decisions on the appropriate course of action or the acceptable level of 

risk,’’ and ‘‘require on-the-spot judgments on the appropriate level 

of force, acceptable level of collateral damage, and whether the target is ‘friend or foe.’ ’’

The provision recommended by the committee would address 

these problems by codifying the standards in DOD Instruction 

1100.22, making these standards uniformly applicable to all private 

security contractors operating in an area of combat operations, and 

requiring contracting agencies to put appropriate mechanisms in 

place to ensure compliance with these standards. 

Additional contractor requirements and responsibilities relating to alleged crimes by or against contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) to require the development of mechanisms to ensure that: (1) contractors are required to report alleged 

crimes by or against their employees in Iraq and Afghanistan to 

appropriate investigative authorities; and (2) contractor employees 

receive appropriate victim and witness assistance in connection 

with such alleged crimes. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
364 

Over the last several months, a number of contractor employees 

who were victims of rape or sexual assault in Iraq have publicly 

alleged that they received little or no help from either contractor 

or government officials. Several of these women testified before 

congressional committees that they were ‘‘ignored or disciplined’’ by 

company officials to whom they reported the alleged assaults, and 

that they were actively discouraged from reporting anything to the 

government. 

In one case, a woman working for a defense contractor reported 

that she was gang-raped by a co-worker and a soldier at a U.S. 

base in Iraq. Her supervisors, she testified, tried to discourage her 

from reporting the assault. Rather than supporting her, the woman’s employer submitted her to extensive questioning, then required her to sign an inaccurate statement of facts before allowing 

her to move between bases. 

In another case, a woman working in Iraq for the same contractor reported that she was sexually assaulted by a male co-worker who was never charged. 

The provision recommended by the committee is intended to ensure that contractor employees who are the victims of similar assaults in the future are not deprived of their legal rights, and receive the help that they need and the investigative assistance that 

they deserve. 

Clarification and modification of authorities relating to the 

Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

co-chairmen of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq 

and Afghanistan established pursuant to section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181) to exercise waiver authority under section 8344(i)(1) or 

section 8468(f)(1) of title 5, United States Code, to ensure that federal retirees serving as members or staff of the Commission may 

be paid for their work on behalf of the Commission without forfeiting retired pay. 

Comprehensive audit of spare parts purchases and depot 

overhaul and maintenance of equipment for operations 

in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Army Audit Agency, the Naval Audit Service, and the Air Force 

Audit Agency to conduct comprehensive audits of spare parts purchases and depot overhaul and maintenance of equipment for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Expedited hiring authority for the defense acquisition 

workforce (sec. 851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to designate any category of acquisition positions within the Department of Defense as shortage category positions. A shortage category designation would enable the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00386 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
365 

ment of Defense to use direct hiring authority, substantially shortening the period of time required to fill the positions. 

Section 853 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) extended direct hiring authority 

for acquisition positions in all federal agencies other than the Department of Defense. The provision recommended by the committee 

would provide the same authority, for the same period, to the Department of Defense. 

Specification of Secretary of Defense as ‘‘secretary concerned’’ for purposes of licensing of intellectual property for the defense agencies and defense field activities 

(sec. 852) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the Secretary of Defense is the ‘‘secretary concerned’’ for the purpose of licensing intellectual property for the defense agencies and 

defense field activities pursuant to section 2260 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Repeal of requirements relating to the military system essential item breakout list (sec. 853) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136), which requires the Secretary of Defense to 

submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees 

listing essential items, assemblies, and components of military systems and identifying where they are produced. The committee has 

been unable to identify a purpose for this reporting requirement. 

Items of Special Interest 

Contracting officer representatives 

The committee notes that Department of Defense (DOD) employees serving as contracting officer representatives (CORs) play a 

critical role in the acquisition process both inside and outside the 

United States. According to the October 31, 2007, report of the 

Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations, Army CORs in Iraq and Afghanistan have 

not received the training that they need. The report states: 

CORs represent the ‘‘last tactical mile’’ of expeditionary 

contracting. However, CORs are assigned * * * as an 

‘‘extra duty,’’ requiring no experience. A COR is often a 

young Soldier who does not have any experience as a COR. 

* * * Although being a COR would ideally be a career-enhancing duty, the COR assignment is often used to send 

a young Soldier to the other side of the base when a commander does not want to have to deal with the person. Additionally, little, if any training is provided. To further 

compound matters, generally all COR training is geared 

for a low-operations, low-risk tempo, so it is barely adequate. Despite this, there are still too few CORs. Moreover, 

COR turnover is high, frequently leaving many gaps in 

contract coverage. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
366 

As a result of these failures, the Commission found, there are 

often ‘‘no resources trained to monitor and ensure that the contractor is performing and providing the services needed by the 

warfighter.’’ In some cases, the Army had difficulty knowing whether a contractor had performed at all. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives by no later than September 30, 2008, on the steps 

that the Department is taking to ensure that it can field an adequate number of appropriately trained CORs to monitor the performance of contracts both inside and outside the United States. 

Database and after-action reports for multiyear contracts 

In March 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

issued a report on multiyear procurements by the Department of 

Defense (DOD). The GAO report recommended that DOD: (1) implement a central database to track multiyear procurements for 

major weapon systems; and (2) conduct after-action assessments at 

the conclusion of such multiyear procurements to determine their 

effectiveness in achieving predicted benefits while managing associated risks. The GAO report recommended that after-action assessments address any major deviations between the costs and savings 

predicted and the costs and savings actually achieved. 

DOD concurred with GAO’s recommendations and has started to 

implement both the database and the after-action assessments. The 

committee expects the Department to complete the implementation 

of both recommendations in a timely manner and to use the database and the after-action assessments to inform decisions on future 

multiyear procurements. 

Past performance information 

For more than a decade, the Federal Acquisition Regulation has 

required contracting officials to consider information on the past 

performance of offerors when making contract award decisions. The 

committee continues to believe that past contract performance can 

be an important indicator of the likelihood that an offeror will successfully perform a similar contract in the future. 

In several recent contract award decisions, however, it appears 

that the past performance information considered by contracting officials may have been seriously flawed. For example, the winning 

bidder on a recent Army ammunition contract valued at more than 

$300.0 million received top ratings for its past performance, even 

though the company was managed by a 22-year-old and had never 

previously performed a contract valued at more than $20.0 million. 

Similarly, the winning bidder on a recent Air Force communications contract was given top ratings for past performance, even 

though it was a new company that had never previously performed 

any similar work. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review methods used by the Department of Defense to collect, standardize, access, and evaluate 

past performance information and to report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 

no later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act on 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
367 

steps that the Department plans to take to improve the use of such 

information. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(369) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management 

Modification of status of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense 

Programs (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 142 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense is equivalent to an assistant secretary of defense. 

The committee notes that this important position has been vacant 

for over 18 months. 

Participation of Deputy Chief Management Officer of the 

Department of Defense on Defense Business System 

Management Committee (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make the 

Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense 

the Vice Chairman of the Defense Business System Management 

Committee. This is a conforming change to section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), which established the position of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, and would ensure that the statutory reporting 

chain for the Business Transformation Agency is consistent with 

the reporting chain for the Director of that Agency. 

Repeal of obsolete limitations on management headquarters 

personnel (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal caps 

on the number of personnel employed in headquarters activities of 

the military departments and defense agencies, as requested by the 

Department of Defense. 

Section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) repealed the Department-wide 

limitation on the number of personnel in headquarters activities. 

However, limitations on the number of personnel in headquarters 

activities of the military departments and defense agencies continue to impede the Department’s ability to meet new demands and 

expanded requirements in the most cost-effective manner possible. 

General Counsel to the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense (sec. 904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for a 

General Counsel to the Department of Defense Inspector General 

who would serve at the discretion of the Inspector General, report 

exclusively to the Inspector General, and be independent of the OfVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
370 

fice of General Counsel of the Department of Defense. The committee understands that the Inspectors General of other federal 

agencies have general counsels who report only to them. The availability of such independent legal advice is critical to the successful 

performance of the Inspector General’s function of carrying out 

independent audits and investigations to identify problems and deficiencies in the programs and operations of the Department. 

Assignment of forces to the United States Northern Command with primary mission of management of the consequences of an incident in the United States homeland 

involving a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear 

device, or high-yield explosives (sec. 905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that: (1) the Department of Defense should make 

every effort to help protect the Nation from the threat of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive 

(CBRNE) attack; (2) efforts to establish forces to manage the consequences of CBRNE incidents should receive the highest level of 

attention within the Department; and (3) the additional forces 

needed for CBRNE consequence management should be identified, 

trained, equipped, and assigned to U.S. Northern Command as 

soon as possible. The provision would also require the Secretary of 

Defense to submit three reports to the congressional defense committees describing the progress made toward assigning such forces 

to U.S. Northern Command. The provision specifies a number of 

elements to be included in the reports. 

The committee notes that the Department has directed that a 

full-time, dedicated CBRNE consequence management force be 

trained and equipped by the end of fiscal year 2008, and that two 

additional such forces are to be established by the end of the next 

2 fiscal years. The Department has begun the process of establishing these CBRNE consequence management forces, which will 

be assigned to U.S. Northern Command. 

The committee observes that the Commission on the National 

Guard and the Reserves and the Government Accountability Office 

have been critical of the capacity of the Department to respond to 

domestic CBRNE incidents. The committee believes that establishing the CBRNE consequence management forces under U.S. 

Northern Command is an essential step in enhancing the ability of 

the Nation to respond to such incidents. 

Business transformation initiatives for the military departments (sec. 906) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

military department to carry out a business transformation initiative and to establish an Office of Business Transformation (OBT) 

to assist in that effort. 

Over the last 4 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

demonstrated a commitment to business systems modernization by 

establishing a Defense System Management Committee, a Business 

Transformation Agency, and a new federated architecture for DOD 

business systems. However, the military departments have not yet 

followed DOD’s lead in establishing new governance structures to 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
371 

address business transformation; have not yet developed comprehensive enterprise architectures and transition plans consistent 

with statutory requirements; and continue to rely upon stovepiped 

structures to implement piecemeal reforms. 

The committee expects the new OBTs to lead cross-domain governance of business transformation efforts and to ensure that business solutions optimize the military department’s business operations as a whole rather than the operations of separate functional 

elements of the department. OBTs should be staffed with functional and technical experts who are able to establish working level 

relationships with the functional elements and ensure that their 

needs are addressed within a comprehensive end-to-end business 

architecture. The provision recommended by the committee would 

authorize the Directors of Business Transformation to direct specific actions by such functional elements when necessary to carry 

out a business transformation initiative. 

Subtitle B—Space Matters 

Space posture review (sec. 911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Director of National 

Intelligence, to conduct a comprehensive review of the space posture of the United States. The review would cover a 10-year period 

beginning February 1, 2009. The Secretary would be required to 

submit the report no later than December 1, 2009. 

The committee is concerned that most military space capabilities 

are being modernized simultaneously. Almost all of these modernization programs have exceeded their schedule and cost estimates, some significantly. The growth in and demands on the space 

budget are occurring at a time when Air Force Space Command is 

trying to improve space situational awareness capabilities, and the 

space community in general is concerned about possible threats to 

space systems. The review in the recommended provision would 

emphasize the increased focus on space awareness and control activities. In completing the review the committee directs the Secretary and the Director to look at the comparative funding levels 

for both space situational awareness and satellite protection programs and the satellite modernization programs. 

The provision would also direct a review of the export control regime with respect to space systems and technologies. 

Subtitle C—Defense Intelligence Matters 

Requirement for officers of the armed forces on active duty 

in certain intelligence positions (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, effective October 1, 2008, that the principal deputy to the senior service 

intelligence officer be a commissioned officer of the armed forces on 

active duty. 

Each of the military services assigns a senior active duty military 

officer of flag or general officer rank to serve as the senior intelligence adviser to the Chief of Staff or Chief of Naval Operations. 

However, the services are not consistent in assigning military offiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00393 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
372 

cers as the deputy to the senior service intelligence officers, with 

uneven results. This provision would correct that situation. 

Transfer of management of Intelligence Systems Support Office (sec. 922) 

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 

a provision that would transfer management of the Intelligence 

Systems Support Office and other projects and activities currently 

conducted by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSDI) to other components of the Department of Defense. This provision would ensure consistent application of OUSDI 

policy regarding OUSDI execution of development, acquisition, and 

operational support programs. 

Program on advanced sensor applications (sec. 923) 

The committee is troubled that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) has not complied with section 215 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). Section 215 directed that the Department transfer funds within 60 

days of enactment to the Advanced Sensor Applications Program 

(ASAP), a deadline reached on March 28, 2008, without any action 

by the Department. 

The committee is cautiously optimistic that DOD is gaining an 

understanding of the facts about the ASAP and its importance. 

With that understanding, DOD appears to be moving towards compliance with congressional direction for sustaining funding for the 

ASAP for fiscal year 2008 and to identify funding for fiscal year 

2009. 

However, without official notification of action to comply with 

section 215, the committee must act to preserve its interest in this 

matter. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that 

would establish the ASAP within the Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

The committee remains concerned that the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Intelligence (USDI) intends to transfer the program to 

elements of the Navy that have attempted strenuously to terminate 

the program, and to sever the existing partnership with an ally. 

The USDI’s position has been that it is inappropriate for the USDI 

to oversee the execution of a program involving scientific and engineering assessment of intelligence data, and that the Navy should 

have total responsibility for this activity. 

The committee has two fundamental problems with USDI’s position. The first is that transferring total program responsibility to 

the Navy is inconsistent with the mandate Congress established for 

the ASAP long ago and has maintained consistently since. 

This mandate is for the Department to conduct a scientific and 

engineering assessment of potential anti-submarine warfare (ASW) 

threats that is parallel to, but independent of, the Submarine Security Program run by the Navy. To ensure independence, Congress 

has always insisted that this effort be sponsored by an Office of the 

Secretary of Defense organization, even while supporting execution 

by Navy elements with an ASW mission. Transferring the program 

entirely to the Navy subjects the program to pressures arising from 

various institutional biases. Also, despite long experience with its 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
373 

own submarine security program, which like the ASAP is neither 

an intelligence nor an acquisition program, the Navy’s Office of 

Naval Intelligence and acquisition community appear determined 

to put the ASAP program into one category or the other. 

The second problem is that the USDI sponsors and executes, albeit through an Air Force program element, a large number of 

operational support activities and research and development (R&D) 

programs. Indeed, USDI has long maintained a significant budget 

for R&D that it uses to delve into diverse topics it deems to be of 

special interest. If there is no place for the ASAP in USDI, then 

USDI should not be conducting these other activities either. 

The budget request included no funds in PE 63714D8Z for the ASAP. The committee recommends an authorization of $20.0 million for ASAP. The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 

million to the request for the Intelligence Systems Support Office 

(ISSO) (PE 11815F), and a reduction of $10.0 million from the request in Air Force Operation and Maintenance funds for the Threat 

Financing program executed by ISSO. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(375) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in division A 

of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with 

normal reprogramming procedures. This is the amount contained 

in the administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget request. Transfers 

of funds between military personnel authorizations would not be 

counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

Incorporation into Act of tables in the report of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate (sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would incorporate 

the funding tables in this report into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and make the items in each such 

funding table binding on agency heads, subject to reprogramming 

in accordance with established procedures. 

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, 

the provision would also require that decisions by agency heads to 

commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of such funding tables be based on authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, and 

merit-based decisionmaking in accordance with the requirements of 

sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code. Under 

these provisions, the presumption in favor of competitive, meritbased awards may be overcome only by a provision of law that specifically refers to section 2304 or section 2374, identifies the particular non-Federal Government entity involved, and states that 

award to the entity is required notwithstanding the policy favoring 

merit-based selection. 

On January 29, 2008, the President signed Executive Order 

13457, which states that agency decisions to commit, obligate, or 

expend funds may not be ‘‘based on language in any report of a 

committee of Congress, joint explanatory statement of a committee 

of conference of the Congress, statement of managers concerning a 

bill in the Congress, or any other non-statutory statement or indication of views of the Congress, or a House, committee, Member, 

officer, or staff thereof.’’ The consistent practice of the Committee on Armed Services has 

been to include broad categorical authorizations in bill language— such as $10.0 billion for Army research, development, test, and 

evaluation or $25.0 billion for Air Force research, development, 

test, and evaluation—while specifying the particular programs for 

which this money is authorized in funding tables in the committee 

report accompanying the bill. These tables are placed before the 

committee in mark-up, are subject to amendment by the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
376 

mittee, and are approved by the committee when the bill is reported to the floor. It is, and has been, the intent of the committee 

that these funding decisions are binding upon the executive branch. 

The provision recommended by the committee would ensure the 

force and effect of funding decisions made by the committee by incorporating the funding tables reflecting those decisions into the 

bill. 

The committee notes that the table included in the bill in compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate—which 

discloses information on members requesting funding items, suggested recipients, and suggested locations of performance—is not a 

funding table, is not binding on the executive branch, and is not 

incorporated into the bill by this provision. 

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal year 2009 (sec. 1003) 

The resolution of ratification for the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary, and the 

Czech Republic contained a provision (section 3(2)(c)(ii)) requiring 

a specific authorization for U.S. payments to the common-funded 

budgets of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for each 

fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 1999, in which U.S. payments 

exceed the fiscal year 1998 total. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the U.S. contribution to NATO common-funded budgets for fiscal year 2009, including the use of unexpended balances from prior years. 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Government rights in designs of Department of Defense vessels, boats, craft, and components developed using public funds (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would affirm that 

the government’s rights in the designs of vessels, boats, craft, and 

components developed for the Department of Defense (DOD) using 

public funds in whole or in part are governed exclusively by the requirements of section 2320 of title 10, United States Code or, in 

certain cases, the agreement pursuant to which the development 

was undertaken. 

Section 2320 provides that: (1) in the case of items developed by 

a contractor or subcontractor exclusively with government funds, 

the government has unlimited technical data rights; and (2) in the 

case of items developed with mixed government and private funding, rights in technical data are determined by negotiation and 

generally include government-purpose rights. The continued application of section 2320 and the DOD implementing regulations 

should ensure that DOD is not required to purchase the same data 

rights more than once. 

Reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy mess operations (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to fund from agency operating accounts the 

cost of meals on United States naval and naval auxiliary vessels 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
377 

for non-military personnel. For the purposes of this provision, this 

includes nongovernmental organization (NGO) and host and partner nation participants in civil-military operations and foreign national patients treated during the conduct of civil-military operations, as well as their escorts. 

Recent humanitarian relief missions executed by the USNS 

MERCY and other vessels have successfully fostered a positive 

image of America worldwide. Project Hope and other NGOs, host 

and partner nations, joint services, and U.S. Government agencies 

participated in these missions, providing medical services including 

the treatment of foreign national patients onboard and ashore. 

These participants have been required to pay for their meals. There 

is no specific statutory authority to waive such meal payment or 

to use general operation and maintenance appropriated funds to 

pay for official visitor/guest messing. 

As a result of the success of these missions, the Department of 

the Navy plans future deployments that will include the conduct of 

civil-military operations, including delivery of medical, dental, veterinary, and engineering services to underserved populations in 

Southeast Asia, Africa, and other places. The Department of the 

Navy has determined that the participation of NGOs and host and 

partner nations is vital to the successful execution of these important missions, that their contribution far outweighs the cost of 

messing, and that it is not in the government’s best interests to assess these participants and patients messing costs. To the extent 

future official visitor/guest messing costs are anticipated, an alternative to emergency or extraordinary expense funding—which has 

been covering these costs to date—would be appropriate. 

The Department of Defense has informed the committee that the 

Department of the Navy estimates the fiscal year 2009 cost of these 

operations at about $700,000. 

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities 

Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism activities (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend authority for joint task forces to use counterdrug funds to support law 

enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorist activities. 

The committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Counternarcotics Affairs to provide an annual briefing about 

the use of this authority to the committee. 

The committee notes that if the Department of Defense (DOD) or 

the law enforcement agencies do not have sufficient funds for 

counterterrorist activities, funding should be sought for those purposes. The base budget for DOD counterdrug activities has remained constant over about the last decade, and while the committee supports using funds to address counterdrug and 

counterterrorist threats simultaneously, the committee urges DOD 

to be mindful of counterdrug priorities. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
378 

Two-year extension of authority for use of funds for unified 

counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 2 

years the authority to use counterdrug funds to support the Government of Colombia’s unified campaign against narcotics cultivation and trafficking, and against terrorist organizations involved in 

such drug trafficking activities. 

The committee has provided funding since fiscal year 2000 to 

support Colombia’s effort to defeat the narco-terrorists threatening 

the Colombian state and stability in the region. The Colombian 

Government has moved from Plan Colombia to Plan Patriota, the 

military campaign to retake control of all municipalities in Colombia, to the current third phase, Plan Consolidacion. This plan, 

which should stretch to the end of 2009, aims to establish governance and ensure that military gains are irreversible. Meanwhile, 

the military campaign to defeat the narco-terrorists continues, 

along with the demobilization of the paramilitaries. President 

Uribe’s administration, with U.S. help, is also making efforts to improve human rights, and create employment opportunities for the 

over 30,000 demobilized paramilitaries. 

The committee applauds the military progress that Colombian 

forces, with U.S. assistance, have achieved and encourages the Colombian Government to continue to increase its emphasis on socioeconomic reform and development, human rights, and to further 

improve military professionalization and proficiency. 

Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Procurement by State and local governments of equipment 

for homeland security and emergency response activities through the Department of Defense (sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

categories of equipment that may be purchased through the Department of Defense (DOD) by State and local governments to include consequence management equipment for homeland security 

and emergency response activities, as requested by DOD. 

Enhancement of the capacity of the United States Government to conduct complex operations (sec. 1032) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a Center for Complex Operations. 

This center would facilitate the activities of a consortium made up 

of education and training institutions from across the U.S. Government. These activities, including conferences, seminars, and other 

information exchanges, would allow the center to identify topics of 

importance for the leadership of the U.S. Government and the complex operations community. The objective would be to enhance the 

training and education of military personnel and their civilian 

counterparts across different agencies, and to increase unity of effort in complex operations. The provision would define complex operations as stability, security, transition and reconstruction operations; counterinsurgency operations; and irregular warfare. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
379 

The committee notes that such a center does currently exist. Express authorization for the center would allow for the center to be 

funded collectively by the Departments of Defense and State, U.S. 

Agency for International Development, and other departments and 

agencies, rather than having to rely on discrete partner funding for 

each activity. This would facilitate greater interagency cooperation 

and allow for smooth execution of activities. This legislation would 

also allow the center to receive funding from other agencies, states, 

or other foreign and domestic entities. 

Crediting of admiralty claim receipts for damage to property funded from a Department of Defense working capital fund (sec. 1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

payments received by the United States in settlement of an admiralty claim for damage or loss to property that is operated and 

maintained using monies from a Department of Defense working 

capital fund account would be credited to the working capital fund 

which was used to operate and maintain the damaged or lost property. 

Minimum annual purchase requirements for airlift services 

from carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air 

Fleet (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to guarantee higher minimum levels of business than are currently authorized by law to United States air carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). This provision was included in the set of provisions in the authorization request of the Department of Defense. 

Section 356 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the Secretary of Defense 

to provide for an independent assessment of the viability of the 

CRAF program. Section 356 required a report on a number of 

issues. This direction asked for the assessment to make specific 

recommendations for improving the CRAF program, including assessing potential incentives for increasing participation in the 

CRAF program. One potential method for increasing participation 

specifically identified was the option of establishing a minimum annual purchase amount during peacetime. Although the report was 

supposed to be delivered to the congressional defense committees 

by April 1, 2008, the Department has indicated that this report will 

not be ready until later this year. 

In anticipation that the report could recommend establishing 

minimum annual purchase amounts during peacetime, the committee believes that the legislative option for doing so this year 

should remain open. 

Termination date of base contract for the Navy-Marine 

Corps Intranet (sec. 1035) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Navy flexibility in extending the termination date of the current 

Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) contract by 1 month. The 

Navy is currently finalizing requirements and developing an acquiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00401 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
380 

sition strategy for the Next Generation Enterprise Network 

(NGEN), a program that will provide computing services and infrastructure to significant portions of the Navy and Marine Corps 

upon termination of the current NMCI program. The committee 

has some concern about the compressed nature of the NGEN selection process and schedule and the lack of direct engagement with 

industry on requirements, technical issues, and acquisition strategy 

and expects these to be addressed over the coming months. 

The committee believes that providing authority to extend the 

current NMCI contract will enable the Navy to be better able to 

run a full, fair, and open selection process that results in the best 

value for the government and meets Navy requirements. The committee believes the extension will also smooth the transition of provision of services under the current NMCI program and the NGEN 

program. Finally, the extension will enable the Navy to better adjust activities to reflect the potential of a late appropriation in fiscal year 2011 that could cause disruption of services to Navy and 

Marine Corps personnel and organizations. 

Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel (sec. 1036) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

the interrogation of detainees during or in the aftermath of hostilities is an inherently governmental function that cannot be 

transferred to private sector contractors. The provision would become effective 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

to provide the Department of Defense (DOD) time to comply. 

DOD guidance documents in effect through 2005 provided that 

‘‘How enemy prisoners of war (POWs), terrorists, and criminals are 

treated when captured, in transit, confined, and interrogated during or in the aftermath of hostilities entails the discretionary exercise of government authority’’ and ‘‘cannot be transferred to the private sector.’’ In 2006, however, this guidance was revised to expressly authorize the use of contractors to perform interrogations. 

According to reports of investigations conducted by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and Major General George R. Fay, contract 

interrogators are alleged to have participated in some of the abuses 

at Abu Ghraib prison 4 years ago. At that time, the Acting Secretary of the Army testified that the Army was planning ‘‘to build 

additional force structure so that operational and theater level intelligence functions will be performed in-house in the future.’’ Four 

years later, the Department of Defense still has almost 100 contractor employees conducting interrogations of detainees. 

The interrogation of detainees during or in the aftermath of hostilities entails the exercise of substantial discretion in applying government authority and is likely to have a significant impact on the 

life and liberty of the individuals questioned. The committee concludes that the conduct of such interrogations is an inherently governmental function that should be performed exclusively by military or civilian employees of the Department. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
381 

Notification of Committees on Armed Services with respect 

to certain nonproliferation and proliferation activities 

(sec. 1037) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Departments of Defense, Energy, State, and Commerce, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to keep the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives fully and 

currently informed with respect to their activities to prevent the 

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the Director of 

National Intelligence to keep the committees currently informed 

with respect to the current activities of foreign nations that are of 

significance from the proliferation standpoint. 

Sense of Congress on nuclear weapons management (sec. 

1038) 

The committee recommends a provision that would set forth the 

sense of Congress finding that the unauthorized transfer of nuclear 

weapons from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, to Barksdale 

Air Force Base, Louisiana, in August 2007; the unauthorized transfer of classified intercontinental ballistic missile parts, discovered 

in March 2008; and a lack of training and staffing for nuclear matters, demonstrate a lack of attention by the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to nuclear issues in general. In addition, the provision 

would set forth the sense of Congress that safety and security of 

nuclear weapons and related equipment should be a high priority 

for the United States; that the President should take steps to nominate an individual to fill the position of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense 

Programs; and that the Secretary of Defense should establish a 

senior position in the DOD Office of Policy at an assistant secretarial or deputy under secretarial level with responsibility for nuclear policy issues. 

The three reviews of the nuclear weapons transfer incident concluded that attention to nuclear matters has substantially eroded 

over the last decade. This erosion in turn, has led to inattention 

to nuclear procedures and policies. The three review teams made 

over 100 recommendations to address the many problems. The 

committee will be watching closely how DOD and the Air Force implement these recommendations. 

Sense of Congress on Joint Department of Defense-Federal 

Aviation Administration Executive Committee on Conflict and Dispute Resolution (sec. 1039) 

As discussed at length elsewhere in this report, there is an urgent need for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) to work more effectively together to 

resolve problems and issues that impede DOD unmanned aerial 

systems (UAS) from operating in the National Airspace (NAS). 

DOD and the FAA signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) in 

September 2007 creating a working relationship to address technical, procedural, and policy issues regarding UAS access to the 

NAS. The FAA has created an Unmanned Aircraft Program Office 

and the DOD has created a UAS Task Force and UAS Senior 

Steering Group. These steps, while important, have not produced 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
382 

the rate of progress necessary to sustain and grow vital UAS support to the combatant commands. It is the committee’s judgment 

that national security could be adversely affected without more vigorous efforts. 

The committee believes that a formal DOD-FAA committee 

should be established at a senior level to ensure progress by the 

military services and the FAA in meeting their obligations under 

the MOA, to resolve disputes, and to make the agreements necessary for DOD to carry out its plans to field very large numbers 

of UAS and utilize them effectively. 

More broadly, senior DOD and FAA officials agree that there are 

multiple, important issues that require higher-level and sustained 

policy attention. One example is the ongoing discussions over feefor-service aerial refueling. The committee is encouraged by recent 

efforts to resolve conflicts over type ratings for aerial refueling aircraft, but much work remains to be done. A senior-level body for 

conflict resolution could pave the way for more streamlined, safetyconscious interactions and more effective national policy development. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should 

seek an agreement with the Administrator of the FAA to establish 

a Joint Executive Committee at the level of the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AAAS) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD/AT&L). Such 

a Committee could serve as the focal point for dispute resolution 

and policy development, and a mechanism for identifying solutions 

to a range of mutual issues. 

Sense of Congress on sale of new outsize cargo, strategic lift 

aircraft for civilian use (sec. 1040) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should: 

(1) review the benefits and feasibility of pursuing a commercial-military cargo initiative for the C–17 aircraft and determine whether such an initiative is in the national interest; and 

(2) if the Secretary determines that such an initiative is in 

the national interest, take appropriate actions to coordinate 

with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to achieve the 

type certification for such aircraft required by section 21.27 of 

title 14, Code 12 of Federal Regulations. 

The FAA has informed the committee that no fewer than six 

commercial operators have expressed interest in procuring a commercial variant of the C–17 aircraft. According to officials within 

the FAA, the FAA cannot initiate a type certification review that 

would be required to allow C–17 commercial operations on its own 

initiative. Some other government entity, such as the Department 

of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Congress, 

etc., would have to decide that it would be in the national interest 

and so inform the FAA before it could begin such a review. This 

provision would encourage the Secretary of Defense to decide 

whether it would be in the national interest. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
383 

Subtitle E—Reports 

Repeal of requirement to submit certain annual reports to 

Congress regarding allied contributions to the common 

defense (sec. 1051) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal certain 

annual reporting requirements relating to the contributions of 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members to the common defense. The committee believes these reporting requirements 

are outdated, and impose an unnecessary burden on the executive 

branch. The committee notes that relevant information on allied 

contributions is provided in a number of annual reports to Congress, such as those on the NATO Prague Capabilities Commitment and the NATO Response Force agreements, and other 

sources. 

Report on detention operations in Iraq (sec. 1052) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on detention operations at theater internment facilities and reintegration centers in Iraq since January 1, 2007. The 

report would require detailed information on changes in detention 

policies and procedures intended to incorporate counterinsurgency 

doctrine into detention operations and programs to prepare detainees for reintegration upon their release. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to assess thoroughly the impact of the revised detention and reintegration policies and procedures in Iraq. The committee believes that the revised U.S. detention policies and procedures implemented in Iraq 

since 2007 could provide valuable lessons for U.S. detention practices elsewhere. The committee strongly encourages the Department to integrate these lessons into Department directives, joint 

doctrine, exercises, and training for detention and interrogation operations. 

Strategic plan to enhance the role of the National Guard 

and Reserves in the national defense (sec. 1053) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic plan to enhance the role 

of the National Guard and reserves in the national defense, including the transition of the reserve components of the armed forces 

from a strategic force to an operational force. The provision would 

require the Secretary to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the plan not later than July 1, 2009. 

The Report of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves is a comprehensive evaluation of the reserve components of 

the armed forces that recognizes that legislative and policy changes 

have not kept pace with the changes in the use of the National 

Guard and reserves. This report contains 95 recommendations that 

must be evaluated and considered for implementation. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic plan 

that considers the role of the National Guard and reserves that 

takes into account the findings and recommendations of this ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00405 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
384 

mission; the findings and recommendations of the report of the 

Center for Strategic and International Studies on ‘‘The Future of 

the National Guard and Reserves’’; S. 2760 of the 110th Congress, 

the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2008; and current policies of the Department of Defense. 

The committee greatly appreciates the contributions of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves and the Center for 

Strategic and International Studies that lead to a greater understanding of the issues involved in the increased use of the reserve 

components. The committee intends to ensure that the issues 

raised are fully considered and acted on as appropriate, taking into 

account the primacy of the Department of Defense’s combat responsibilities. 

Review of nonnuclear prompt global strike concept demonstrations (sec. 1054) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to conduct a review of the prompt global strike technologies that 

will be demonstrated beginning in fiscal year 2010. The report 

would set forth the cost of the demonstration, identify any legal, 

treaty, or policy related issues that might be associated with the 

concept demonstrated or the demonstration itself, and whether and 

to what extent there is a possibility that the concept or the demonstration itself could be confused with a nuclear weapons system. 

In addition, the report would set forth a description of the types of 

targets against which the concept demonstrated might be used. The 

report would be submitted to the congressional defense committees 

no later than 30 days after the date on which the budget is submitted. 

Review of bandwidth capacity requirements of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community (sec. 

1055) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to 

conduct a joint review of the current and future bandwidth capacity 

requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the intelligence community over the next 10 years. The review would also 

include a discussion of any mitigation concepts, including operational or technical options that might be used to address bandwidth capacity shortfalls. Not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Director would be required to submit a report setting forth the results of the review to 

the congressional defense committees and the intelligence committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Secretary 

and the Director should include and fully address in the review all 

means by which bandwidth is provided, including ground, aerial, 

and satellite options. 

The provision would also direct the Secretary and the Director to 

establish a formal process, for each major defense acquisition or 

major system acquisition program, to ensure during the Milestone 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
385 

B or key decision point B phase of the acquisition process, that the 

bandwidth requirements of each such system can be met. 

The committee is concerned that there is a disconnect between 

the bandwidth requirements of major systems such as unmanned 

aerial vehicles and other intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance systems, and the Army Future Combat System, and the 

ground and space systems required to meet those requirements. 

Subtitle F—Wounded Warrior Matters 

Modification of utilization of veterans’ presumption of 

sound condition in establishing eligibility of members of 

the armed forces for retirement for disability (sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1201 and 1203 of title 10, United States Code, to adopt the 

same presumption of sound condition used by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs in accordance with section 1111 of title 38, United 

States Code, that a disability is incurred while on active duty if the 

disability was not noted at the time of a member’s entrance on active duty unless clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates 

that the disability existed before the member’s entrance on active 

duty and was not aggravated by active military service. 

Inclusion of service members in inpatient status in wounded warrior policies and protections (sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1602(7) of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–

181)) to include inpatient service members in the definition of a 

‘‘recovering service member’’ for purposes of policies and protections 

for wounded warriors. 

Clarification of certain information sharing between the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 

for wounded warrior purposes (sec. 1063) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1614(b)(11) of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181)) to require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to implement a process for transferring medical 

records of a recovering service member from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs when the transfer is 

authorized by regulations implementing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. 

Additional responsibilities for the wounded warrior resource center (sec. 1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1616(a) of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–

181)), to require the Secretary of Defense to provide referrals for 

legal assistance where appropriate to wounded warriors, their families, and primary caregivers. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
386 

The committee has been made aware of certain cases where family or legal guardians of incapacitated wounded warriors were in 

need of legal assistance to help with future financial and estate 

planning and other needs on behalf of the service member. The 

committee believes that the wounded warrior center established by 

section 1616 should be a comprehensive resource not only for 

wounded warriors, but for their families and caregivers as well. 

Therefore, the committee directs that referral information be made 

available where appropriate upon request. The committee notes 

that the intent of this provision is not to create a new entitlement 

for legal assistance. 

Responsibility for the center of excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation 

of traumatic brain injury to conduct pilot programs on 

treatment approaches for traumatic brain injury (sec. 

1065) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1621(c) of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–

181)) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct pilot programs to promote or assess the efficacy of treatment approaches for 

all forms of traumatic brain injury, to include mild traumatic brain 

injury. 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense and 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have numerous efforts underway to conduct research on effective clinical approaches to mitigating the consequences of traumatic brain injury, including potential pharmacological approaches. One such potential candidate is 

the drug progesterone, for which according to the Department of 

Defense (DOD), future studies are planned by NIH. The committee 

encourages the Department to continue research efforts on potential clinical drug candidates to treat traumatic brain injury under 

the auspices of the DOD Center of Excellence in the Prevention, 

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Traumatic Brain Injury, to include participation, as appropriate, in clinical trials conducted by the National Institutes of Health. 

Center of excellence in the mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic extremity injuries and amputations (sec. 1066) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly establish a center of excellence in the mitigation, treatment, and 

rehabilitation of traumatic extremity injuries and amputations, as 

well as a comprehensive plan and strategy for how the center 

should approach these issues. The provision would also require the 

Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to jointly submit to 

Congress annual reports on the activities of the center. 

The committee believes there is a need for targeted medical research to help military surgeons find new limb-sparing techniques 

to save injured extremities, avoid amputations, and preserve and 

restore the function of injured extremities. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
387 

Three-year extension of Senior Oversight Committee with 

respect to wounded warrior matters (sec. 1067) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly take actions to continue the operations of the Senior Oversight 

Committee established to address concerns related to the treatment 

of wounded, ill, and injured members of the armed forces and veterans until September 30, 2011. 

Subtitle G—Other Matters 

Military salute for the flag during the national anthem by 

members of the armed forces not in uniform and by veterans (sec. 1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 301 of title 36, United States Code, to authorize members of 

the armed forces and veterans to render a military salute in the 

same manner as members of the armed forces in uniform during 

a rendition of the national anthem. 

Modification of deadlines for standards required for entry 

to military installations in the United States (sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1069 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) to extend deadlines established for the 

development and implementation of standards for access to military installations in the United States. The Department of Defense 

has informed the committee that it is unable to develop and implement the required standards in the time provided. 

Items of Special Interest 

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate 

In accordance with the requirements of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, this report includes a table listing additional funding for items requested by Senators, along with the intended recipient and intended location of performance for those 

spending items. The information in this table will be posted on the 

website of the Committee on Armed Services after the committee 

votes to report the bill. 

In addition, the committee has requested that each member requesting additional funding for items in this bill provide a certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator’s immediate family 

has a pecuniary interest in the item, as required by Rule XLIV of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee has received the 

requested certification from each Senator requesting funding for 

items that is provided in this bill. These certifications will also be 

posted on the website of the Committee on Armed Services after 

the committee votes to report the bill. 

By including a table of requested funding items in the report and 

posting Member certifications relative to such funding items on the 

committee website, the committee takes no position as to which of 

these items, if any, meet the definition of a congressionally directed 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
388 

spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit in Rule 

XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee directs 

the Department of Defense to use all applicable competitive, meritbased procedures in the award of any new contract, grant, or other 

agreement entered into with funds authorized to be appropriated 

by this bill. No provision in the bill or report shall be construed to 

direct funds to any particular location or entity unless the provision expressly so provides. 

Fully interoperable electronic health information for the 

Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 

The committee notes that 5 years have passed since the May 

2003 recommendation of the President’s Task Force to Improve 

Health Care Delivery for Our Nation’s Veterans that the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

should ‘‘develop and deploy by fiscal year 2005 electronic medical 

records that are interoperable, bidirectional and standards-based.’’ According to a report of the Comptroller General dated April 30, 

2008, although some progress has been made, the goal to develop 

interoperable electronic medical records has been only partially 

achieved. 

In July 2007, the President’s Commission on Care for America’s 

Returning Wounded Warriors found that the Departments had continued to develop independent, stand-alone systems, and recommended that DOD and VA move rapidly to make all essential 

health information available to clinicians, working toward a ‘‘fully 

interoperable information system that will meet the long-term administrative and clinical needs of all military personnel over time.’’ Section 1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

year 2008 (Public Law 108–181) required the establishment of a 

joint DOD and VA Program Office to ‘‘develop and implement electronic health record systems or capabilities that allow for full interoperability of personal health care information’’ between the DOD 

and VA by September 30, 2009. 

The committee is concerned that the Departments are moving too 

slowly in the development of milestones and plans needed to 

achieve this important statutory requirement, and that initial 

plans for the Joint Program Office characterized its role as ‘‘management oversight’’ rather than the directive, accountable entity intended by Congress. The committee intends to closely scrutinize 

the Departments’ progress and application of resources toward 

achievement of the long overdue goal of fully interoperable electronic health information for the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Interagency coordination and participation in post-conflict 

stability and reconstruction operations 

Recent and ongoing experience in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to highlight the need for effective interagency coordination 

and participation in post-conflict stability and reconstruction operations. The committee remains concerned that the civilian agencies 

of the U.S. Government do not have all of the resources and authorities, or the institutional cultures, necessary to be able to deVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00410 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
389 

ploy personnel and expertise to situations such as those we are currently facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. While this challenge has received much needed attention in recent years, and while improvements have been made, it is clear that making and sustaining the 

needed institutional changes will be a years-long process. In the 

meantime, Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Iraq and Afghanistan remain understaffed. The civilian agencies of government have not been able to recruit sufficient personnel to fill PRT 

requirements. While the Department of Defense (DOD) has deployed personnel to fill the gaps, DOD has struggled to recruit personnel with the appropriate skills for those positions. In addition, 

DOD funds are being used for urgent humanitarian and reconstruction assistance because the agencies normally responsible for 

those functions—the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development—are underfunded and lack authorities 

that allow for sufficient flexibility to respond to urgent, unanticipated requirements. 

The committee notes the many studies on these matters that 

have been completed or are currently underway in think tanks and 

nongovernmental organizations, including a report on the national 

security interagency system that was required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), 

which is to be provided to Congress and the President by September 1, 2008. The committee further notes that many new authorities have been provided to DOD in the area of foreign military 

assistance precisely to provide near-term solutions to systemic 

problems that demand longer-term and thoroughly considered solutions. It is clear that the next administration will have to grapple 

with these challenges. The committee looks forward to reviewing 

any proposals that emerge over the coming year and to working 

with other committees of Congress and the executive branch to 

help ensure that our national security and civilian agencies of government are well configured, resourced, and institutionally inclined 

to work together so that the U.S. Government can effectively promote its interests and accomplish its objectives when conducting 

post-conflict stability and reconstruction operations. 

National cyber security initiative 

The committee applauds the administration for developing a serious, major initiative to begin to close the vulnerabilities in the government’s information networks and the nation’s critical infrastructure. The committee believes that the administration’s actions provide a foundation on which the next president can build. 

However, the committee has multiple, significant issues with the 

administration’s specific proposals and with the overall approach to 

gaining congressional support for the initiative. 

A chief concern is that virtually everything about the initiative 

is highly classified, and most of the information that is not classified is categorized as ‘‘For Official Use Only.’’ These restrictions 

preclude public education, awareness, and debate about the policy 

and legal issues, real or imagined, that the initiative poses in the 

areas of privacy and civil liberties. Without such debate and awareness in such important and sensitive areas, it is likely that the initiative will make slow or modest progress. The committee strongly 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
390 

urges the administration to reconsider the necessity and wisdom of 

the blanket, indiscriminate classification levels established for the 

initiative. 

The administration itself is starting a serious effort as part of the 

initiative to develop an information warfare deterrence strategy 

and declaratory doctrine, much as the superpowers did during the 

Cold War for nuclear conflict. It is difficult to conceive how the 

United States could promulgate a meaningful deterrence doctrine 

if every aspect of our capabilities and operational concepts is classified. In the era of superpower nuclear competition, while neither 

side disclosed weapons designs, everyone understood the effects of 

nuclear weapons, how they would be delivered, and the circumstances under which they would be used. Indeed, deterrence 

was not possible without letting friends and adversaries alike know 

what capabilities we possessed and the price that adversaries 

would pay in a real conflict. Some analogous level of disclosure is 

necessary in the cyber domain. 

The committee also shares the view of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that major elements of the cyber initiative 

request should be scaled back because policy and legal reviews are 

not complete, and because the technology is not mature. Indeed, 

the administration is asking for substantial funds under the cyber 

initiative for fielding capabilities based on ongoing programs that 

remain in the prototype, or concept development, phase of the acquisition process. These elements of the cyber initiative, in other 

words, could not gain approval within the executive branch if held 

to standards enforced on normal acquisition programs. The committee’s view is that disciplined acquisition processes and practices 

must be applied to the government-wide cyber initiative as much 

as to the ongoing development programs upon which the initiative 

is based. 

The committee also concludes that some major elements of the 

cyber initiative are not solely or even primarily intended to support 

the cyber security mission. Instead, it would be more accurate to 

say that some of the projects support foreign intelligence collection 

and analysis generally rather than the cyber security mission particularly. If these elements were properly defined, the President’s 

cyber security initiative would be seen as substantially more modest than it now appears. That is not to say that the proposed 

projects are not worthwhile, but rather that what will be achieved 

for the more than $17.0 billion planned by the administration to secure the government’s networks is less than what might be expected. 

Finally, the committee concludes that, for all its ambitions, the 

cyber initiative sidesteps some of the most important issues that 

must be addressed to develop the means to defend the country. 

These tough issues include the establishment of clear command 

chains, definition of roles and missions for the various agencies and 

departments, and engagement of the private sector. 

Additional information on the cyber initiative is contained in the 

classified annex to this report. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
391 

Nuclear security 

In the wake of the Labor Day weekend unauthorized transfer of 

nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, to 

Barksdale, Louisiana, discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report, the Air Force included a long list of nuclear security related 

items on the unfunded priorities list of the Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force. The long list totals approximately $122.0 million and ranges 

from $30,000 to operate security cameras that have already been 

installed, to building roads. Many of these items have significant 

out-year costs as well. The committee is aware that there are needed security enhancements but has declined to include additional 

funds for any of the items on the list. The committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to develop a rational plan to fund needed 

nuclear security enhancements and to submit that plan to the congress with the fiscal year 2010 budget. The committee expects that 

the funding to support the plan will be included in the Air Force 

fiscal year 2010 budget request. 

Nutrition and dietary care for seriously ill and injured service members 

The committee believes that dietary care of seriously ill and injured service members is an important element of quality care. Appropriate dietary and nutritional care reduces the risk of illness, 

mitigates the physical effects of extended periods of recovery, and 

leads to improved health outcomes for ill and injured soldiers. The 

committee is concerned that although dietary care is carefully controlled for hospital inpatients, access to such services for those in 

an outpatient status, including service members in warrior recovery or transition units, is hampered by limited dietary personnel 

resources, and reliance on referrals by medical and non-medical 

personnel of service members for dietary and nutritional care. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the service secretaries, to conduct a review of the adequacy of 

dietary and nutritional services to seriously ill and injured service 

members. The review shall include: 

(1) an assessment of the requirements for military and civilian dieticians, based on the full range of service member needs, 

from common dietary challenges to the unique needs of patients recovering from burn or blast injuries, in both inpatient 

and outpatient settings; 

(2) analysis of current staffing capabilities of the military departments for providing dietary and nutrition services; 

(3) identification of any gaps in such staffing; 

(4) analysis of training of medical and non-medical case managers to identify service members in need of treatment for dietary and nutritional problems; 

(5) an assessment of the adequacy of screening for dietary 

and nutritional needs for recovering service members; and 

(6) analysis of referral procedures for service members in an 

outpatient status. 

The Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this review 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives by March 1, 2009. The report shall also include 

a plan for appropriate improvements in training and referral proceVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00413 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
392 

dures for case managers, unit commanders, and health care personnel, and such other recommendations and actions as the Secretary deems appropriate for improving the availability of dietary 

and nutritional services for seriously ill and injured soldiers, in 

particular those in an outpatient status. 

The committee reiterates its expectation that the Secretary shall 

ensure that any health care service required by an active-duty 

service member shall be provided where and when it is needed 

under the supplemental health and dental care programs, regardless of any policy concerning access or benefits in effect for the 

TRICARE program. 

Recovery care coordinators and medical care case managers 

for seriously wounded and ill service members 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs have begun to hire recovery care coordinators and medical care managers to improve assistance in care 

and transition of wounded and ill service members and veterans. 

The committee is concerned that the training and hiring of these 

personnel is not proceeding as rapidly as needed, and as a result, 

care management needs, especially of those who were wounded 

early in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, are not being met. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense, in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs, to explore opportunities to establish partnerships among Department of Defense and 

Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities, as well as with 

public and private sector universities, to assist in training medical 

care case management personnel needed to support America’s returning wounded and ill service members. One example of an existing partnership which can be built upon to provide such training 

is in Augusta, Georgia, with the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, the Charlie Norwood Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Medical College of Georgia School of Nursing. Such model partnerships can be a means of 

identifying best practices in both care and care management for 

our wounded warriors, and may provide a foundation for improved 

care and training efforts where needed elsewhere. 

Refugee crisis in Iraq 

The committee continues to monitor closely the ongoing refugee 

crisis in Iraq, a crisis resulting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR), there are approximately 2.8 million Iraqis displaced internally—1.5 million of them after the Samarra bombings in February 2006, and two million more in neighboring states, particularly Jordan and Syria. 

The committee notes that the continuing ethno-sectarian violence 

across Iraq is forcing thousands more to leave their homes every 

month. However, the committee notes that recent reports from 

UNHCR indicate that new displacement is continuing at a slower 

pace than in previous years. The slowdown is due to a number of 

factors including closed borders in the region and in provinces 

where internally displaced persons (IDPs) are not allowed to enter 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
393 

their territories. Other factors include the presence of more homogenous communities, districts, and neighborhoods; exhaustion of resources for many families; and a decrease in violence. Despite these 

improvements, given the U.S. role and stake in the conflict, the 

committee believes the United States must continue to play a significant role in addressing the plight of displaced Iraqis, particularly those highly vulnerable religious minorities. 

In recent years, the National Defense Authorization Act has included legislation to permit the Department of Defense to assist 

those Iraqis who have helped the United States to sustain and 

manage its presence. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), the committee included a 

provision expanding the Iraqi special immigrant visa program. The 

committee has noted that the special immigrant status provisions 

for certain Iraqis are first and foremost intended to help those 

Iraqis who have provided faithful and valuable service to the 

United States Government. The provisions are meant to help and 

reward those Iraqi workers for their assistance to the U.S. Government. Under the special immigrant program, applicants are required to prove that they have experienced or are experiencing an 

ongoing serious threat as a result of their employment by the U.S. 

Government. 

There is strong evidence that Iraqis who have assisted the 

United States have experienced ongoing serious threats because of 

their service to the United States. Many have been killed, or have 

had family members killed. Others have been threatened. The committee expects that, absent unusual circumstances, Iraqis who have 

assisted the United States mission in Iraq will meet this statutory 

standard. 

United States Africa Command 

The committee supports the Department of Defense (DOD) decision to stand up a new United States Combatant Command for the 

continent of Africa, known as AFRICOM. The committee recognizes 

the increasing strategic significance of Africa and that Africa will 

continue to pose one of the greatest potential instability challenges 

in the world. The large ungoverned areas in Africa, HIV/AIDS epidemic, corruption, weak governance, and poverty that exist 

throughout the continent are challenges that affect nearly every 

country in Africa. 

The DOD has referred to AFRICOM as the new model for combatant commands as AFRICOM would have all the roles and responsibilities of a traditional geographic combatant command, including the ability to lead military operations, but would also include a broader ‘‘soft power’’ mandate to establish and maintain a 

stable security environment. AFRICOM will include a larger civilian component than other combatant commands. It will incorporate 

personnel from a variety of U.S. Government agencies outside of 

the Department of Defense. This new interagency model will require a significant amount of support from non-DOD departments 

and agencies of the U.S. Government. 

While the committee supports DOD’s decision to create a combatant command that relies more heavily on a whole government approach, the committee is concerned that the other departments and 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
394 

agencies of government are not adequately resourced to support 

this model. It is the committee’s understanding that AFRICOM is 

already encountering some difficulties in staffing portions of the 

command. 

The committee is also concerned about staffing in various United 

States embassies in Africa. AFRICOM has proposed placing liaison 

officers in each United States Embassy on the continent of Africa 

so that AFRICOM can find ways to support the ongoing bilateral 

activities of the country team. Of the 47 U.S. embassies on the African continent, there are 23 with a U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) Mission Director and, in many cases, Foreign Service officers are being asked to serve simultaneously as political, economic, and public diplomacy officers. Given these current 

staffing challenges, the committee recognizes the need for USAID 

and the Department of State to be funded adequately. If funded 

adequately, other government departments and agencies will be 

able to leverage more fully the capacity of AFRICOM to assist our 

African partners to professionalize their respective militaries and 

assist in the delivery of humanitarian and disaster relief. 

The committee is also monitoring closely the progress of the African Contingency Operation Training Assistance program, the African component of the Global Peace Operations Initiative. This program is training African peacekeepers for the five African Unionsponsored regional standby brigades. The success of the program is 

critical to enabling African countries to develop the security apparatus needed to respond to crises across the continent. The committee expects AFRICOM to play a more significant role in this 

program once it reaches full operational capability at the beginning 

of the next fiscal year. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(395) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Department of Defense strategic human capital plans (sec. 

1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would codify the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual strategic human capital plan to shape and improve the civilian employee workforce of the Department of Defense (DOD). 

Section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) required DOD to develop a strategic human capital plan by no later than March 2007. On November 6, 2007, more than 8 months after the statutory deadline, DOD 

submitted a plan in response to this requirement. However, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the plan did 

not meet the legislative requirements. According to GAO: 

the plan does not address the majority—six of eight—of 

the congressional reporting requirements. For example, 

the plan does not include an assessment of current mission-critical competencies, future critical skills and competencies needed, gaps between the current and future 

needs, or specific recruiting and retention goals, even 

though these elements are required by the 2006 act. DOD 

officials acknowledged that the plan they submitted to the 

committees is incomplete. 

DOD’s civilian employee workforce is one of the cornerstones of 

the Department’s national security mission. The Department’s continued failure to conduct adequate planning for this workforce 

could undermine its ability to perform some aspects of this critical 

mission. 

Conditional increase in authorized number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

increase in the number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive 

Service (DISES) personnel, provided that the rate of increase in 

such personnel does not exceed the rate of increase in the number 

of Senior Executive Service (SES) personnel in the Department of 

Defense (DOD) as a whole and that the increase is allocated to 

components of the intelligence community most in needed of additional DISES personnel. 

This is the fourth consecutive year in which the Department has 

requested an increase in the authorized number of DISES personnel. In Senate Report 110–77, accompanying S. 1547, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the committee stated that it would be premature to approve this request 

until the Department: (1) provides a strategic plan for the entire 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
396 

DOD SES workforce, as required by section 1102 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364); (2) presents a comprehensive proposal that addresses the need for SES across the entire Department, rather than 

addressing the needs of a single community; and (3) justifies the 

proposed allocation of DISES billets within the intelligence community. 

These conditions remain relevant and the Department has not 

yet met them. Rather than deferring the increase for another year, 

however, the provision recommended by the committee would make 

the requested increase contingent upon the Department adopting a 

more comprehensive approach that is consistent with the conditions established in last year’s committee report. 

Enhancement of authorities relating to additional positions 

under the National Security Personnel System (sec. 

1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

authority of the Department of Defense (DOD) to utilize streamlined hiring practices under the National Security Personnel System. 

Over the last 7 years, the workload of the Department has grown 

dramatically as a result of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. During that time, the contractor workforce of the Department has more than doubled—from less than 750,000 in 2000 

to more than 1.5 million in 2007—while the number of civilian employees of the Department has remained virtually unchanged at 

just under 700,000. 

The committee concludes that the Department needs expedited 

hiring authority to bring the DOD civilian employee workforce back 

in line with the critical responsibilities for which it is responsible. 

Expedited hiring authority for health care professionals of 

the Department of Defense (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize, for 

purposes of sections 3304, 5333, and 5753 of title 5, United States 

Code, the Secretary of Defense to designate any category of health 

care position within the Department of Defense as a shortage category position, if he determines that there is a severe shortage of 

candidates or a critical hiring need for such a position. This authority would terminate on September 30, 2012. 

Election of insurance coverage by federal civilian employees 

deployed in support of a contingency operation (sec. 

1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8702(c) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize federal civilian employees deployed in support of a contingency operation 

and Department of Defense employees designated as emergency essential to elect to receive automatic life insurance coverage upon 

notification of deployment or designation. 

This provision would also amend sections 8714a(b) and 8714b(b) 

of title 5, United States Code, to authorize such civilian employees 

to elect optional life insurance or additional optional life insurance, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
397 

respectively, within 60 days after the employee’s date of notification of deployment or designation. 

This provision responds to a recommendation by the Commission 

on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary 

Operations in its October 31, 2007 report entitled, ‘‘Urgent Reform 

Required: Army Expeditionary Contracting.’’ It would offer additional options for life insurance to federal civilian employees deployed in support of contingency operations, and provide them with 

both the benefits and peace of mind that their service deserves. 

Permanent extension of Department of Defense voluntary 

reduction in force authority (sec. 1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3502(f) of title 5, United States Code, to make permanent the 

authority to substitute the voluntary separation of an employee for 

the separation of another employee who would otherwise be separated due to a reduction in force. 

Four-year extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments with respect to Department of Defense 

employees (sec. 1107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United States Code, to extend until the 

end of fiscal year 2014 the authority of the Secretary of Defense or 

the secretaries of the military departments to pay an employee the 

total amount of severance pay in one lump sum. 

Authority to waive limitations on pay for federal civilian 

employees working overseas under areas of United 

States Central Command (sec. 1108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

head of an executive agency to waive limitations on the aggregate 

of basic and premium pay, and on allowances, differentials, bonuses, awards, and similar cash payments payable during calendar 

year 2009 to an employee who performs work in an overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of the Commander, United 

States Central Command in support of a contingency operation or 

an operation in response to a declared emergency. 

The total amount payable may not exceed the total annual compensation payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 

3, United States Code. The provision would also authorize any 

amount over the cap to be paid to the employee in a lump sum at 

the beginning of calendar year 2010. 

Under current law, the head of an executive agency may waive 

limitations on the aggregate of basic and premium pay payable 

during calendar year 2008 up to $212,100, and there is no provision allowing for the rollover of any pay that exceeds this cap. 

Although not limited to Army contracting personnel, the provision responds to a recommendation by the Commission on Army 

Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations 

in its October 31, 2007 report entitled ‘‘Urgent Reform Required: 

Army Expeditionary Contracting,’’ aimed at providing improved incentives for longer tours for high quality civilian contracting personnel deployed in support of contingency operations. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
398 

Technical amendment relating to definition of professional 

accounting position for purposes of certification and 

credentialing standards (sec. 1109) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1599d(e) of title 10, United States Code, to update the definition of a ‘‘professional accounting position.’’

Current law refers only to the General Schedule pay plan in reference to the Department of Defense’s professional accounting positions. During the Department’s transition to the National Security 

Personnel System, the definition should be updated to reflect not 

only the General Schedule pay plan but also this alternative personnel system with new position classification. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(399) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Increase in amount available for costs of education and 

training of foreign military forces under Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (sec. 

1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2249c(b) of title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

amount of funds available for the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program up to $35.0 million. 

The committee notes that this ‘‘parallel’’ program to the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, authorized under title 22, United States Code, would now be funded at 

about one-third the size of the $90.5 million requested for IMET for 

fiscal year 2009. The committee urges the President to address the 

requirements met by the title 10 authority by providing additional 

funding to the Department of State programs, so that the agency 

traditionally authorized to set policy and programs for foreign military education and training is properly funded to do so. 

Authority for distribution to certain foreign personnel of 

education and training materials and information technology to enhance military interoperability with the 

armed forces (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to provide electronically-distributed education and training 

materials to the military and civilian personnel of friendly foreign 

governments to enhance interoperability between the armed forces 

and military forces of friendly foreign nations. This provision would 

make permanent the authority provided under section 1207 of the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364), which expires on September 30, 2008. 

Extension and expansion of authority for support of special 

operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1208(a) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), to increase the 

amount the Secretary of Defense may expend during any fiscal 

year to $35.0 million, and to extend the authority to fiscal year 

2011. 

This provision would also amend the original language to clarify 

the intent of the provision, including changing the title of section 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
400 

1208 from ‘‘Support of military operations to combat terrorism’’ to ‘‘Support of special operations to combat terrorism.’’

Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build the capacity of foreign military forces 

(sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 

modify the authority under section 1206 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), as 

amended by section 1206 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), for the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to build the capacity of foreign military forces to conduct 

counterterrorism operations or to support military or stability operations in which U.S. armed forces are participating. 

The provision would expand the types of security forces eligible 

to be trained and equipped under section 1206 authority to include 

coast guard, border protection, and other security forces whose primary mission is counterterrorism operations. The committee notes 

that the restrictions on the training of police or other law enforcement forces, codified in section 2420 of title 22, United States Code, 

would apply to activities under this authority. 

The provision would increase the limitation on funding for build- ing the capacity of foreign forces from $300.0 million to $400.0 million per fiscal year and would provide that funds available for one 

fiscal year may be used for programs that begin in that fiscal year 

but end in the next fiscal year. The provision also would extend the 

section 1206 authority for 3 years through September 30, 2011. 

The train and equip authority under section 1206 was initiated 

as a pilot program to address urgent and emerging needs for building the capacity of foreign military forces, particularly those of developing or other countries that otherwise would be unable to build 

this capacity on their own. This authority is not intended to duplicate or substitute for other foreign assistance authorities, nor is it 

intended to sustain train and equip programs over multiple years. 

In extending this authority for an additional 3-year period, the 

committee emphasizes the need for train and equip programs to be 

executed consistent with the legislative intent of the section 1206 

authority. 

Specifically, the committee is concerned that funds under this authority are being used for programs, particularly in countries 

where the terrorist threat is currently low, that primarily serve to 

build counter-narcotics capabilities. While recognizing a degree of 

overlap between counterterrorism and counter-narcotics capabilities, the committee urges the Department of Defense to fund programs to build counter-narcotics capabilities using funds and authorities intended to support counter-narcotics activities, and, if appropriate, seek any necessary modifications to existing counter-narcotics authorities to support these activities. 

The committee also recognizes that urgent U.S. national security 

priorities and compelling terrorist threats vary from one geographic 

combatant command to another. The committee therefore expects 

that programs and funding under section 1206 authority will not 

be equitably distributed among the geographic combatant comVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00422 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
401 

mands. For example, the committee notes that many countries in 

what will be the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility are 

vulnerable to terrorist activity and have limited resources to address these threats. Therefore, the committee views the need for 

section 1206 assistance in that geographic command to be particularly compelling. 

Extension of authority and increased funding for security 

and stabilization assistance (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 

enhance the authority for security and stabilization assistance provided under section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), as amended by section 

1210 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181). Under that section, the Secretary of 

Defense is authorized to provide the Secretary of State services, defense articles, or funding to support Department of State programs 

for reconstruction, security, or stabilization assistance. 

The provision recommended by the committee would extend the 

authority of section 1207 for 3 years until September 30, 2011, and 

increase the total value of all services, defense articles, and funds 

that may be provided or transferred under this section in a fiscal 

year to $200.0 million. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has 

inappropriately restricted the uses for which services or funds may 

be provided to the Department of State under section 1207 security 

and stabilization assistance authority. The Secretary of Defense 

stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the 

House of Representatives on April 15, 2008 that section 1207 authority is primarily for bringing civilian expertise to operate alongside or in place of our armed forces. The committee is concerned 

that this is too narrow an interpretation of the original administration rationale for, and the legislative intent of, section 1207 authority, which is intended to enable the Secretary of Defense to support 

the provision by the Secretary of State of reconstruction, security, 

or stabilization assistance to a foreign country. This could include, 

for instance, providing early civilian resources to avert a crisis that 

could otherwise subsequently require U.S. military forces to assist 

or intervene. The committee encourages the Department of Defense 

to improve its coordination with the Department of State, and its 

consultation with the relevant committees of Congress, in formulating and implementing programs under the section 1207 authority. 

Four-year extension of temporary authority to use acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend military 

equipment for personnel protection and survivability 

(sec. 1206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority provided under section 1202 of the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–

364), as amended by section 1252 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–181), to loan or lease certain 

items for personnel protection or survivability to the military forces 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
402 

of foreign nations participating in combined operations with the 

United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, or as part of a peacekeeping 

operation under the United Nations Charter or other international 

agreement. 

The committee notes that the authority of section 1202 of the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act allows certain 

significant military equipment to be treated as if it were logistical 

support, supplies, and services under Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements. This authority provides a temporary solution for 

meeting the urgent personnel protection needs of foreign military 

forces operating in combination with U.S. armed forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other coalition peacekeeping operations under an international mandate. The 

committee notes the Department of Defense’s interest in making 

this authority permanent and to extend it to other coalition operations, including peace operations and stability operations. The 

committee is concerned about making the treatment of significant 

military equipment in this manner permanent, and about extending this temporary authority to other kinds of operations where the 

requirement for coalition partners to have such equipment is less 

exigent. The committee urges the Department to consider alternatives to using Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements for 

these purposes, as such agreements are not intended for the loan 

or lease of significant military equipment. 

Authority for use of funds for non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

commander of a combatant command, with the concurrence of the 

relevant chief of mission, to expend funds in fiscal years 2009 and 

2010 to establish, develop, and maintain non-conventional assisted 

recovery (NAR) capabilities in a foreign country if the commander 

determines that expenditure of such funds for that purpose is necessary in connection with support of NAR efforts in that foreign 

country. NAR is defined as recovery of isolated personnel in enemyheld, hostile, or uncertain areas using indigenous/surrogate personnel. NAR is used when conventional methods of personnel recovery are unavailable to, or unsuitable for, the combatant commander. The total amount of funds expended in each fiscal year 

may not exceed $20.0 million. 

The Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense 

committees in writing within 48 hours of the use of such authority. 

Not later than 30 days after the close of each fiscal year this provision is in effect, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report describing the support provided, including the amount of funds expended, a description of the 

recipient of the support, and the assistance provided by the recipient. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
403 

Subtitle B—Department of Defense Participation in 

Bilateral, Multilateral, and Regional Cooperation Programs 

Availability across fiscal years of funds for military-to-military contacts and comparable activities (sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 168(e) of title 10, United States Code, by making funds available for programs or activities under this section that begin in a 

fiscal year and end in the following fiscal year. 

Enhancement of authorities relating to Department of Defense regional centers for security studies (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 184(f) of title 10, United States Code, to make funds available 

for programs and activities that begin in a fiscal year and end in 

the following fiscal year, effective October 1, 2008. 

As a pilot program, the committee would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement costs for nongovernmental and international organization personnel participating in 

regional center activities during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. In 

order to do so, the Secretary of Defense must determine that attendance of such personnel without reimbursement is in the national security interests of the United States. The amount that may 

be waived may not exceed $1.0 million. 

The annual report submitted by the Secretary of Defense for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 would include information on the attendance of personnel of nongovernmental and international organizations who participate in activities of the regional centers during the 

preceding fiscal year, including information on costs incurred by 

the United States for the participation of personnel of nongovernmental and international organizations. 

Payment of personnel expenses for multilateral cooperation 

programs (sec. 1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1051 of title 10, United States Code, by expanding authority 

for bilateral and regional programs to cover multilateral programs, 

and to permit funding to be available for programs that begin in 

one fiscal year and end in another. 

Participation of the Department of Defense in multinational 

military centers of excellence (sec. 1214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give permanent authority to the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of 

the Secretary of State, to authorize Department of Defense civilian 

and military personnel to participate in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) multinational military centers of excellence. 

This authority was previously provided for fiscal year 2007 under 

section 1205 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), and extended 

through fiscal year 2008 under section 1204 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) remains interested in expanding this authority beyond NATO-accredVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
404 

ited multinational military centers of excellence. The committee believes that the NATO-accredited multinational military centers of 

excellence offer recognized expertise and experience that supports 

alliance transformation. Participation in these NATO centers benefits DOD military and civilian personnel, and NATO capabilities 

overall, by providing opportunities to enhance education and training, improve interoperability and capabilities, assist in doctrine development, and/or test and validate concepts through experimentation. The committee has yet to be convinced that expanding the 

authority under this section to unspecified or currently non-existent non-NATO centers of excellence would offer comparable benefits to the United States. The committee further notes that with respect to centers of excellence focused on training international 

peacekeepers, the Global Peace Operations Initiative provides the 

appropriate legal authority for U.S. participation in the training of 

foreign nation peacekeepers, and separate DOD authority for the 

same purpose is neither necessary nor desirable. 

Subtitle C—Other Authorities and Limitations 

Waiver of certain sanctions against North Korea (sec. 1221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

President with limited authority to waive, with respect to North 

Korea, the application of sanctions under 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa–1(b)). The President would be 

required to notify Congress 15 days in advance of exercising such 

waiver authority. In addition, the provision would require the 

President to submit an annual report listing all the waivers granted during the preceding year and describe in detail the progress 

being made by North Korea in implementing of the commitments 

included in the Joint Statement of September 19, 2005 to abandon 

all nuclear weapons, existing nuclear programs, and all other programs associated with the elimination of the ability of North Korea 

to develop, deploy, transfer, or maintain weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems. 

The committee notes that waiver authority is necessary to enable 

the Departments of Energy and Defense to carry out work needed 

to implement the Joint Statement. 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Extension and modification of updates on report on claims 

relating to the bombing of the Labelle Discotheque (sec. 

1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a 

quarterly report on the status of negotiations between the Government of Libya and United States claimants in connection with the 

bombing of the Labelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany, that occurred in April 1986. The reporting requirement is an extension of 

section 1225 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and section 1261 in 

the NDAA for FY 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

On April 5, 1986, Libya directed its agents to execute a terrorist 

attack in West Berlin for the sole purpose of killing as many AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00426 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
405 

ican military personnel as possible. The Labelle Discotheque was 

known to be frequented by large numbers of U.S. military personnel. The bombing of the discotheque occurred at a time when 

260 people, including U.S. military personnel, were present. When 

the bomb detonated, two U.S. soldiers were killed and over 90 U.S. 

soldiers were severely injured. 

In 2002, the American Labelle victims and the families of deceased soldiers filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia. Since that time, the Government of 

Libya has settled the claims of the German victims of the LaBelle 

bombing and the claims of the victims of the Libyan bombing of 

Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. 

Since the beginning of 2008, Libya has shown renewed interest 

in negotiations with a number of claimant groups, including the 

Labelle claimants. The committee continues to monitor closely the 

details surrounding the cases of Labelle claimants and the other 

major claims against the Government of Libya and hopes this matter will be brought to a close in short order. 

Report on utilization of certain global partnership authorities (sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to submit by December 31, 2010, a report on the implementation of certain Building Global Partnership authorities from the 

date of enactment of this Act until September 30, 2010. The Building Global Partnership authorities covered by the report would consist of the authority for building the capacity of foreign military 

forces under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), as amended; the 

authority for security and stabilization assistance under section 

1207 of Public Law 109–163, as amended; and the authority to provide urgent and unanticipated civic assistance under the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund under section 166a(b)(6) of title 10, 

United States Code, as amended by section 902 of the John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (109–364). 

The committee notes that security cooperation, stabilization assistance, and humanitarian relief in response to unanticipated 

emergencies are critical foreign policy tools for advancing U.S. national security interests worldwide. The implementation of certain 

of the Building Global Partnership authorities covered by this report has benefited from close cooperation between the Department 

of Defense and the Department of State. The committee encourages 

these departments to continue to pursue an interagency approach 

in the formulation and execution of projects under these authorities. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(407) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET 

UNION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 

and funds (sec. 1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as 

authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$434.1 million, an increase of $20.0 million above the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This 

provision would also authorize specific amounts for each CTR program element, require notification to Congress 15 days before the 

Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2009 funds, 

and require notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary 

of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2009 funds in excess 

of the specific amount authorized for each CTR program element. 

The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for new 

activities in states outside of the former Soviet Union, $9.0 million 

for nuclear weapons storage security in Russia for additional automated inventory control management systems, and $1.0 million for 

additional expenses associated with the Russian chemical weapons 

destruction activities. 

The committee continues to believe that one of the highest priorities of the CTR program is destroying Russian chemical weapons 

munitions at the destruction facility in Shchuch’ye, Russia. The 

CTR program has entered into an arrangement with the Russian 

Government that assigns responsibility to Russia to complete the 

U.S. funded destruction facility and begin operations. Timely startup and safe operation of the facility is essential and continues to 

be a matter of concern to the committee. As a result, the committee 

directs the Secretary to notify the congressional defense committees 

immediately if there is any delay or other problem in the startup 

of either the Russian funded destruction facility or the U.S. funded 

destruction facility. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(409) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of tables 

This title contains funding authorizations for working capital and 

revolving funds, the Defense Health Program, the destruction of 

chemical munitions, drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, 

the Department of Defense Inspector General, and other programs 

which contain elements of more than one type of traditional funding account (such as procurement or operation and maintenance) 

inside a single account. 

This title also reflects savings from lower inflation that affect 

multiple accounts and titles within this Act, legislative proposals 

regarding the national defense stockpile, and authorizes trust fund 

expenditures for the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is outside the national defense budget function. 

The following table provides the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title XIV of this Act. The table also 

displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2009 budget request for these programs, and indicates those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. This table is incorporated by reference into 

this Act as provided in section 1002 of this Act. The Department 

of Defense may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in 

the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set 

forth in budget justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to 

the budget request are made without prejudice. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
410 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 501 SR335.175
411 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 502 SR335.176
412 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize fiscal year 2009 funds for Defense Working Capital Funds. 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize fiscal year 2009 funds for the National Defense Sealift Fund. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize fiscal year 2009 funds for the Defense Health Program. 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense (sec. 

1404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funds for fiscal year 2009 for the destruction of chemical agents 

and munitions, including funds for procurement; research, development, test, and evaluation; and operation and maintenance. The 

provision would authorize $1.5 billion, the amount requested by the 

Department of Defense. 

Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide 

(sec. 1405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities of the 

Department of Defense. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize fiscal year 2009 funds for the Defense Inspector General. 

Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings from 

lower inflation (sec. 1407) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 

amounts authorized in division A of this Act by $1.0 billion to bring 

the inflation assumptions applicable to purchases by the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009 in line with the economic assumptions previously adopted by the Senate. 

The Office of Management and Budget assumed an inflation rate 

of 2.0 percent in its fiscal year 2009 budget submission. However, 

the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of inflation for 2009 is 

1.7 percent, or 0.3 percentage points lower than the administration’s estimate. The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (S. Con. Res. 70) adopted by the Senate on March 13, 

2008, was based on the economic assumptions of the Congressional 

Budget Office. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
413 

Subtitle B—Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$63.0 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2009 from the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation and 

maintenance of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Responsibilities for chemical demilitarization Citizens’ Advisory Commissions in Colorado and Kentucky (sec. 

1431) 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer responsibility for the chemical demilitarization Citizens’ Advisory 

Commissions in Colorado and Kentucky from the Secretary of the 

Army to the Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons 

Alternatives (ACWA). This would be consistent with the overall responsibility of the ACWA Program Manager for other aspects of the 

ACWA program and facilities. 

The provision would also establish requirements to ensure that 

the newly transferred Citizens’ Advisory Commissions would work 

in an effective manner. 

The committee notes that each chemical demilitarization facility 

has a Citizens’ Advisory Commission to serve as a mechanism for 

input and communication between the affected States, local communities, and the Federal Government. The chemical destruction 

facilities at Pueblo, Colorado and Blue Grass, Kentucky are the 

only two ACWA sites, and are managed by the ACWA Program 

Manager, rather than by the Secretary of the Army. Despite this 

separate management structure for the ACWA sites, the Citizens’

Advisory Commissions for Colorado and Kentucky have been managed by the Secretary of the Army. This provision would correct 

this disparity. 

Modification of definition of ‘‘Department of Defense Sealift 

Vessel’’ for purposes of the National Defense Sealift 

Fund (sec. 1432) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the intent of Congress on what vessels the Navy should acquire and 

manage within the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF). 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request included $68.7 million within 

the NDSF for various research and development activities, including $41.8 million for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) 

(MPF(F)). This amount included $5.4 million for research and development on amphibious assault replacement ships which are to 

be assigned to the MPF(F), designated MPF(F) LHA(R). The NDSF 

request also included $348.3 million for advance procurement for 

the first MPF(F) LHA(R). 

The committee does not agree with funding development and procurement for amphibious assault ships within the NDSF. This ship 

type was specifically not included within the scope of sealift vessels 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
414 

eligible for NDSF, defined within section 2218 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Budget Items 

LHA(R) advance procurement and research and development 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request included $68.7 million within 

the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for various research and 

development activities, including $41.8 million for the Maritime 

Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF(F)). This amount included $5.4 

million for research and development on amphibious assault replacement ships which are to be assigned to the MPF(F), designated MPF(F) LHA(R). The NDSF request also included $348.3 

million for advance procurement for the first MPF(F) LHA(R). 

The committee does not agree with funding development and procurement for amphibious assault ships within the NDSF. This ship 

type was specifically not included within the scope of sealift vessels 

eligible for NDSF, defined within section 2218 of title 10, United 

States Code. The committee has included a provision (described 

elsewhere) that would clarify the intent of Congress on what vessels should be acquired and managed within the NDSF. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.4 million 

in PE 48042N, and a corresponding increase of $5.4 million in PE 

64567N for MPF(F) LHA(R) ship contract design; and a decrease 

of $348.3 million in PE 48042N, and an adjustment in Shipbuilding 

and Conversion, Navy (SCN), line 16, for LHA(R) advance procurement. 

Traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder 

initiative 

The budget request included $38.1 million in PE 63115HP for 

medical development. The committee notes that dealing with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 

are among the highest priority medical research challenges facing 

the Department of Defense. In order to support continued efforts 

to develop diagnoses and treatments for TBI and PTSD, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 63115HP for 

TBI and PTSD research initiatives, including support of efforts to 

develop processes, procedures, and the application of technologies 

to gather baseline information on military personnel during precombat deployment and post-combat diagnosis of TBI and PTSD. 

Department of Defense Inspector General 

The budget request included $246.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG). The committee is concerned that funding levels for 

independent audit and investigative functions should keep pace 

with the demand for these services. Therefore, the committee recommends a total increase of $26.0 million in OMDW for the OIG, 

of which $24.0 million is for operation and maintenance and $2.0 

million is for procurement. 

The OIG audits, investigates, inspects, and evaluates the programs and operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), and 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
415 

recommends policies and process improvements that promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in DOD programs and 

operations. The committee notes the dramatic growth in the number and cost of Department contracts for operations, procurement, 

research, and construction within the United States and around 

the world. The committee understands that the OIG plans to conduct 83 audits related to military operations and Department of 

Defense contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next few 

years. The increase recommended by the committee should enable 

the OIG to conduct oversight related to the global war on terror, 

contract management and acquisitions, and support audits to identify potential waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Item of Special Interest 

Completion of destruction of chemical weapons stockpile 

The committee remains disappointed in the notification from the 

Secretary of Defense on April 10, 2006, that the United States does 

not expect to meet its obligation under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile by the extended deadline of April 29, 2012. 

The committee notes the commitment of the Secretary in the 

April 10, 2006 notification to ‘‘continue working diligently to minimize the time to complete destruction without sacrificing safety 

and security,’’ and ‘‘to continue requesting resources needed to complete destruction as close to April 29, 2012 as practicable.’’

The committee continues to urge the Department of Defense to 

fulfill this commitment by taking all necessary and appropriate 

steps to dispose of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile by the 2012 

Chemical Weapons Convention deadline, or as soon thereafter as 

possible, and to request the funding needed in future budget requests to accelerate the chemical weapons stockpile destruction 

schedule to meet the United States’ legal obligations under the 

Convention. 

In order to meet the destruction deadline under the Convention 

at all or most of its chemical demilitarization facilities, the Department must consider options for accelerated destruction and increased funding levels for the program. 

Section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) included a requirement for the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress semiannual reports on 

implementation by the United States of its chemical weapons destruction obligations under the CWC, including a description of the 

options for accelerating such destruction and the funding required 

for each option. Section 8119 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–116), included 

a similar reporting requirement and mandated that the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile must be destroyed no later than December 

31, 2017. 

The committee will continue to monitor closely the Department’s 

compliance with the Convention’s destruction deadline, as well as 

the destruction deadline established in section 8119 of Public Law 

110–116. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(417) 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN 

Overview 

The President’s budget requested $70.0 billion in emergency 

funding in the national defense budget function for operations in 

Afghanistan and Iraq. The request did not allocate specific funding 

to either operation, nor to any specific budget titles, accounts, or 

programs. The committee bill separates funding for these operations. This title authorizes $19.9 billion in funding for operations 

in Afghanistan. Title XVI authorizes funding for operations in Iraq. 

Funding authorized in this title is for the incremental costs of operations in Afghanistan. As described later in this report, any such 

funds not designated by Congress for a specific program may not 

be obligated until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense transmits 

to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the 

proposed allocation of such funds at the line-item level. 

Explanation of tables 

The summary table that follows describes the funding authorized 

in this bill for operations in Afghanistan. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
418 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 510 SR335.177
419 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 511 SR335.178
420 

Purpose (sec. 1501) 

This section states the purpose of this title, which is to authorize 

additional appropriations for operations in Afghanistan for fiscal 

year 2009. 

This title authorizes funding for military personnel, operation 

and maintenance, procurement, research and development, working capital funds, health care, and other programs normally authorized in division A of this Act. Additional war-related authorizations for military construction programs are contained in title XXIX 

of this Act. 

Army procurement (sec. 1502) 

This section would authorize an additional $1.8 billion for fiscal 

year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Army. 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503) 

This section would authorize an additional $387.5 million for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Navy and 

the Marine Corps. 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1504) 

This section would authorize an additional $575.0 million for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Air Force. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1505) 

The budget request included a total of $496.3 million for the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), of which 

$306.3 million was for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) attack the network line of operation, 

$88.3 million was for the JIEDDO train the force line of operation, 

and $101.7 million was for the JIEDDO staff and infrastructure 

line of operation. The committee recommends a transfer of $496.3 million in the 

JIEDDF to titles XV and XVI of this Act. The committee believes 

that JIEDDO’s expenses are war-related and should be accounted 

for in the appropriate war-related accounts in titles XV and XVI of 

this Act. Therefore, the committee recommends increases of $750.0 

million for all of JIEDDO’s activities in support of operations in Afghanistan. 

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1506) 

This section would authorize an additional $62.5 million for fiscal 

year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the defense agencies and the United States Special Operations Command, plus an 

additional $100.0 million for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP) vehicles. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1507) 

This section would authorize an additional $60.0 million for fiscal 

year 2009 war-related research and development expenses. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1508) 

This section would authorize an additional $11.8 billion for fiscal 

year 2009 war-related operation and maintenance expenses of the 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
421 

military services, the defense agencies, and the United States Special Operations Command. 

Military personnel (sec. 1509) 

This section would authorize an additional $750.0 million for fiscal year 2009 war-related military personnel expenses of the active 

and reserve components, including mobilization costs for reserve 

and National Guard forces. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1510) 

This section would authorize an additional $250.0 million for the 

fiscal year 2009 war-related working capital fund expenses of the 

Department of Defense. 

Other Department of Defense programs (sec. 1511) 

This section would authorize additional funding for fiscal year 

2009 war-related expenses of the Defense Health Program and for 

counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan. 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

additional $3.0 billion for the fiscal year 2009 war-related expenses 

of the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. The provision would also 

specify the authorized use of these funds, authorize the transfer of 

funds from this account to other accounts of the Department of Defense, provide for prior notice to Congress before obligation of these 

funds, and require quarterly reports on the specific use of these 

funds. 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513) 

This section would provide that the amounts authorized for warrelated purposes in this title are in addition to the amounts otherwise authorized in this Act for the base budget. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1514) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of up to $3.0 billion of war-related funding authorizations 

in this title among the accounts in this title and title XVI. This 

special transfer authority is in addition to the general transfer authority contained in section 1001 of this Act, but the same reprogramming procedures applicable to transfers under section 1001 

would also apply to transfers under this section. No more than 

$300.0 million could be transferred to the Iraq Security Forces 

Fund under this authority. 

Limitation on use of funds (sec. 1515) 

The President did not allocate any of the funding in his budget 

request for Iraq and Afghanistan to specific programs. This section 

would provide that any funding in this title not designated by Congress for a specific program could not be obligated until 15 days 

after the Secretary of Defense transmits to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the proposed allocation of 

such funds at the line-item level. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
422 

Requirement for separate display of budget for Afghanistan 

(sec. 1516) 

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to identify 

separately the funding requested for operations in Afghanistan in 

any future annual or supplemental budget request. 

The committee notes that on February 8, 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that, ‘‘I worry that for many Europeans 

the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are confused * * * I think 

that they combine the two * * * Many of them, I think, have a 

problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan, and do not understand the very different—for them—the very 

different kind of threat.’’ The committee shares this concern, and 

believes this provision would help address this public perception 

problem. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(423) 

TITLE XVI—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATIONS IN IRAQ 

Overview 

The President’s budget requested $70.0 billion in emergency 

funding in the national defense budget function for operations in 

Afghanistan and Iraq. The request did not allocate specific funding 

to either operation, nor to any specific budget titles, accounts, or 

programs. The committee bill separates funding for these operations. This title authorizes $49.6 billion in funding for operations 

in Iraq. Funding for operations in Afghanistan is authorized in title 

XV. 

Funding authorized in this title is for the incremental costs of operations in Iraq. As described later in this report, any such funds 

not designated by Congress for a specific program may not be obligated until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense transmits to the 

congressional defense committees a report setting forth the proposed allocation of such funds at the line-item level. 

Explanation of tables 

The summary table that follows describes the funding authorized 

in this bill for operations in Iraq. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
424 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 517 SR335.179
425 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 518 SR335.180
426 

Purpose (sec. 1601) 

This section states the purpose of this title, which is to authorize 

additional appropriations for operations in Iraq for fiscal year 2009. 

This title authorizes funding for military personnel, operation 

and maintenance, procurement, research and development, working capital funds, health care, and other programs normally authorized in division A of this Act. Additional war-related authorizations for military construction programs are contained in title XXIX 

of this Act. 

Army procurement (sec. 1602) 

This section would authorize an additional $5.5 billion for fiscal 

year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Army. 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1603) 

This section would authorize an additional $1.2 billion for fiscal 

year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Navy and the 

Marine Corps. 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1604) 

This section would authorize an additional $925.0 million for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Air Force. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1605) 

The budget request included a total of $496.3 million for the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), of which 

$306.3 million was for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) attack the network line of operation, 

$88.3 million was for the JIEDDO train the force line of operation, 

and $101.7 million was for the JIEDDO staff and infrastructure 

line of operation. 

The committee recommends a transfer of $496.3 million in the 

JIEDDF to titles XV and XVI of this Act. The committee believes 

that JIEDDO’s expenses are war-related and should be accounted 

for in the appropriate war-related accounts in titles XV and XVI of 

this Act. Therefore, the committee recommends increases of approximately $2.3 million for all of JIEDDO’s activities in support 

of operations in Iraq. 

Further, the committee directs that JIEDDO provide $5.0 million 

for the Marine Corps to continue research and development on the 

breeding and training of dogs for the Improvised Explosive Device 

(IED) mission and other missions in support of infantry operations, 

and $5.0 million for the Army’s Maneuver Support Command to 

field an IED dog capability in cooperation with the Marine Corps. 

The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory has developed a very 

innovative program to train dogs to work off-leash to detect IED 

and explosive caches. In contrast to other attempts to use dogs for 

this mission, the Marine Corps was able to find a breed that can 

stay on task for the length of patrols, even in extreme heat, and 

that can be trained to operate effectively with minimally trained 

handlers. These dogs have been deployed to Iraq and have performed superbly. The Marine Corps believes that these dogs have 

saved lives and enhanced the effectiveness of supported units. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
427 

The committee believes that the Army could benefit from a similar program and understands that the Army’s Maneuver Support 

Command at Fort Leonard Wood is interested in working with the 

Marine Corps. 

In addition, the committee directs that JIEDDO fund at a level 

of not less than $60.0 million the ongoing efforts of the Irregular 

Warfare Support (IWS) office under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict. The IWS program leverages ongoing research efforts of the United States Special Operations Command, the military departments, defense agencies, and other federal agencies to analyze, modify, design, and 

demonstrate enduring technical and operational capabilities for irregular warfare. IWS projects include developing capabilities to attack adversaries’ organizations, their infrastructure and sanctuaries, financing, support operations, the motivations of their 

members, and their propaganda. The IWS also utilizes multi-disciplinary approaches that combine intelligence, operations, and 

technology. 

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1606) 

This section would authorize an additional $187.5 million for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the defense 

agencies and the United States Special Operations Command, plus 

an additional $500.0 million for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP) vehicles. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1607) 

This section would authorize an additional $140.0 million for fiscal year 2009 war-related research and development expenses. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1608) 

This section would authorize an additional $35.2 billion for fiscal 

year 2009 war-related operation and maintenance expenses of the 

military services, the defense agencies, and the United States Special Operations Command. 

Military personnel (sec. 1609) 

This section would authorize an additional $2.3 billion for fiscal 

year 2009 war-related military personnel expenses of the active 

and reserve components, including mobilization costs for reserve 

and National Guard forces. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1610) 

This section would authorize an additional $750.0 million for the 

fiscal year 2009 war-related working capital fund expenses of the 

Department of Defense. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1611) 

This section would authorize additional funding for fiscal year 

2009 war-related expenses of the Defense Health Program. 

Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

additional $150.0 million for the fiscal year 2009 war-related exVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00449 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
428 

penses of the Iraq Freedom Fund. The provision would also authorize the transfer of funds from this account to other accounts of the 

Department of Defense and require prior notice to Congress before 

obligation of these funds. 

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an additional $200.0 million for the fiscal year 2009 war-related expenses of the Iraq Security Forces Fund. The provision would also 

specify the authorized use of these funds, authorize the transfer of 

funds from this account to other accounts of the Department of Defense, provide for prior notice to Congress before obligation of these 

funds, and require quarterly reports on the specific use of these 

funds. 

The amount authorized for this program would be dramatically 

reduced from the fiscal year 2008 level in light of the ability of the 

Iraqi Government to finance its own security forces given the significant increases in Iraqi oil revenues and the large balances of 

unspent Iraqi funds. Funding authorized for this program is intended only for areas where the United States is in a position to 

make a unique contribution to Iraqi security, particularly in the 

area of training. No funds are authorized for expenditure on infrastructure programs for the Iraqi security forces for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee believes the Iraqi Government is well able to afford 

to finance its own infrastructure needs at this point. 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1614) 

This section would provide that the amounts authorized for warrelated purposes in this title are in addition to the amounts otherwise authorized in this Act for the base budget. 

Limitation on use of funds (sec. 1615) 

The President did not allocate any of the funding in his budget 

request for Iraq and Afghanistan to specific programs. This section 

would provide that any funding in this title not designated by Congress for a specific program could not be obligated until 15 days 

after the Secretary of Defense transmits to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the proposed allocation of 

such funds at the line-item level. 

Contributions by the Government of Iraq to large-scale infrastructure projects, combined operations, and other 

activities in Iraq (sec. 1616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds authorized by this Act to pay for any large-scale infrastructure project commenced after the date of enactment of this 

Act. The provision would also require the United States Government to begin negotiating an agreement with the Government of 

Iraq to share the costs of combined operations between the Government of Iraq and Multinational Forces Iraq. The provision would 

further require that the United States Government act to ensure 

that Iraqi funds are used to pay the costs of training, equipping, 

and sustaining the Iraqi Security Forces and the costs associated 

with the Sons of Iraq. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(429) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense. It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military family 

housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, environmental cleanup, and other activities required to 

implement the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The following tables provide the project-level authorizations for 

the military construction funding authorized in division B of this 

Act, other than the war-related projects authorized in title XXIX, 

and summarize that funding by account. Funding for base closure 

projects is summarized in the table that follows, and is explained 

in additional detail in the table included in title XXVII of this report. These tables are incorporated by reference into this Act as 

provided in section 1002 of this Act. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget requested $24.4 billion for military 

construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $11.7 billion 

was requested for military construction, $3.2 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $9.5 for base closure 

activities, including $9.1 billion to implement the results of the 

2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. 

Excluding the war-related projects in title XXIX, the committee 

recommends authorization of appropriations for military construction and housing programs totaling $24.8 billion. The total amount 

authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continuing 

commitment to invest in the recapitalization of Department of Defense facilities and infrastructure. The committee recommends an 

increase of $596.6 million for additional construction projects, and 

a reduction of $191.6 million in unjustified or lower priority 

projects, for a net increase of $405.0 million to the amount requested for military construction and family housing. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
430 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 525 SR335.181
431 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 526 SR335.182
432 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 527 SR335.183
433 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 528 SR335.184
434 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 529 SR335.185
435 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 530 SR335.186
436 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 531 SR335.187
437 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 532 SR335.188
438 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 533 SR335.189
439 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 534 SR335.190
440 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 535 SR335.191
441 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 536 SR335.192
442 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 537 SR335.193
443 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 538 SR335.194
444 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 539 SR335.195
445 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 540 SR335.196
446 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009. 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure 

program, as October 1, 2011, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2012, 

whichever is later. 

Effective date (sec. 2003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX of this 

Act take effect on October 1, 2008 or the date of enactment of this 

Act, whichever is later. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(447) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$4.6 billion for military construction and $1.4 billion for family 

housing for the Army for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$4.6 billion for military construction and $1.4 billion for family 

housing for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee has eliminated the military construction funding 

proposed for a commissary at Fort Riley, Kansas, which is inconsistent with the longstanding practice of not using military construction funding for revenue-generating non-appropriated fund 

projects. 

The committee has fully authorized the construction of a command and battle center at Weisbaden, Germany, but has reduced 

the fiscal year 2009 funding for this project by $42.6 million. This 

reduction is made without prejudice. The committee expects the 

Army to request the balance of the funding needed to complete this 

project in the fiscal year 2010 budget request. 

The committee has fully funded the Army’s request for $125.0 

million to begin construction of a family housing complex at Camp 

Humphreys in the Republic of Korea. The committee understands 

the Army is pursuing leasing options with the private sector as an 

alternative way to meet this requirement. 

Should this alternative approach show sufficient promise and 

maturity before the conference report on this legislation is enacted, 

the committee is open to alternative uses of these construction 

funds, if such alternative uses would more quickly and effectively 

fulfill the requirement for accompanied housing in Korea. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Army for fiscal year 2009. It would also authorize funds for 

facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
448 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2009 to improve existing Army family housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2009 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Army. The State list contained in this report is the binding list of 

the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 

projects (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Army fiscal year 2005 military construction projects until October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of an 

act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2010, 

whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the Department of Defense. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2006 

project (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for an Army fiscal year 2006 military construction 

project at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, until October 1, 2009, or the 

date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. This extension was requested by the Department of Defense. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(449) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $3.1 billion for military construction and $758.9 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $3.1 billion for military construction and $758.9 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee has deleted funding for a classified project for 

which adequate justification was not provided. 

The committee has also deleted the funding requested for an aircraft maintenance hangar in Djibouti. The committee values the relationship between the United States and the Government of 

Djibouti, and supports the defensive and offensive operational objectives of Combined Joint Task Force—Horn of Africa (CJTF– HOA) currently operating at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti. However, 

the committee reiterates two concerns expressed by the conferees 

in the statement of managers to accompany the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). First, 

the United States still lacks a long-term lease for our facilities in 

Djibouti, thus calling into question the wisdom of making long-term 

investments at this time. The committee believes such improved 

lease terms can be achieved. 

Second, a coherent strategy of basing and operations for the new 

U.S. Africa Command remains a work in progress. The committee 

believes such a strategy should be in place to provide a strategic 

context for investment plans in Djibouti or other nations in Africa. 

While the commander of U.S. Africa Command has stated that 

CJTF–HOA will have an ‘‘enduring’’ presence in Djibouti, the President has stated that it is not our intent to have military bases in 

Africa. The committee believes plans for the U.S. Africa Command 

require clarification before Congress funds construction of enduring 

facilities in Africa. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Navy for fiscal year 2009. It would also authorize funds for 

facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
450 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2009 to improve existing Navy family housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. This provision 

would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for 

military construction and family housing projects for the activeduty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The State list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2005 project inside the United States (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (division B of Public Law 108–375) to increase the 

project authorization for a strategic weapons facility at Bangor, 

Washington, by $16.7 million. This increase was requested by the 

Department of Defense. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2007 projects inside the United States (sec. 2206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (division B of Public Law 109–364) to increase the authorization for a project at Suitland, Maryland by $8.3 million and 

the authorization for a project at Whidbey Island, Washington by 

$2.8 million. These increases were requested by the Department of 

Defense. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(451) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $934.9 million for military construction and $995.3 million for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2009. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1.1 billion for military construction and $995.3 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee has deleted funding for a close air support parking apron project in Qatar. The committee notes that the Department of Defense is now requesting that this project be funded using 

fiscal year 2008 supplemental funds. 

The committee is concerned that the very low levels of funding 

contained in the fiscal year 2009 future years defense program for 

the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard do not represent 

adequate investment levels in the facilities of the reserve components of the Air Force. The committee urges the Air Force to allocate more funding to modernizing its reserve component facilities 

than the levels projected in this year’s plan. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Air Force for fiscal year 2009. It would also authorize funds 

for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2009 to improve existing Air Force family 

housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. This provision would also provide 

an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Air Force. The State list contained in this report is the binding list 

of the specific projects authorized at each location. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
452 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 

projects (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2006 military construction projects until October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2010, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the 

Department of Defense. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 

projects (sec. 2306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2005 military construction projects until October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2010, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the 

Department of Defense. 

Budget Item 

Planning and design, Air Force 

The committee directs that the amount of $1.8 million, added to 

the authorization of appropriations for planning and design for the 

Air Force be used to complete the design of a logistics readiness 

center at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, and that $810,000 

added to this same account be used to complete the design of a missile service complex at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(453) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.8 billion for military construction for the defense agencies, 

$134.3 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and $54.6 

million for family housing for the defense agencies, the Family 

Housing Improvement Fund, and the Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1.8 billion for military construction, $144.3 million for chemical 

demilitarization construction, and $54.6 million for the three family 

housing programs for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee bill would authorize the construction of a European-based missile defense system, including an interceptor site in 

Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic, subject to the conditions of section 232 of this Act that would restrict the obligation 

of funds for this system until agreements are ratified by the host 

nations. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense may be relying too heavily on the prime contractor to carry 

out all the major phases of this system, from requirements definition to construction to operation of the system. The committee 

urges the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics to carefully review the acquisition process being used 

for this program, and to ensure the Department of Defense complies with the requirements of section 2851 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Finally, the committee has eliminated the funding requested for 

a transportable missile defense radar. The committee found the 

justification for this request inadequate. 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations 

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. 

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
454 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the defense agencies. The State list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2007 project (sec. 2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (division B of Public Law 109–364) to increase the construction authorization for a project at Fort Detrick, Maryland by 

$133.0 million. This increase was requested by the Department of 

Defense. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2006 

project (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for a fiscal year 2006 military construction project for 

the Defense Logistics Agency until October 1, 2009, or the date of 

enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. This extension was requested 

by the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations 

Authorized chemical demilitarization program construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the chemical demilitarization program for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization 

construction, defense-wide (sec. 2412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the chemical demilitarization projects authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. This provision 

would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for 

chemical demilitarization military construction projects. The State 

list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

1997 project (sec. 2413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104–201) to increase the construction authorization for the chemical demilitarization program 

at the Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado, by $223.0 million. This increase was requested by the Department of Defense. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
455 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2000 project (sec. 2414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–65) to increase the construction authorization for the chemical demilitarization program 

at the Bluegrass Army Depot, Kentucky, by $201.7 million. This increase was requested by the Department of Defense. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(457) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 

SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriation of $240.9 million for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2009. The 

committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $240.9 

million for this program. The committee notes that a significant 

portion of the NATO Security Investment Program is currently devoted to support of the NATO mission in Afghanistan, and expects 

that a significant portion of the funding for fiscal year 2009 would 

be used to continue those efforts. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program in an 

amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in 

section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the 

United States for construction previously financed by the United 

States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $240.9 million for the United States’ contribution to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2009. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(459) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $931.7 million for military construction in fiscal year 2009 

for National Guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends a total of $1.2 billion for military construction for the reserve components. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the State list table included in this report. 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-bylocation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2009. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location 

basis. 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are 

listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
460 

Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The State list contained 

in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 

at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 

projects (sec. 2607) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Guard and reserve fiscal year 2006 military construction projects until October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the Department of Defense. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2005 

project (sec. 2608) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for an Army National Guard fiscal year 2005 military construction project in California until October 1, 2009, or the 

date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. This extension was requested by the Department of Defense. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2008 project (sec. 2609) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (division B of Public Law 110–181) to increase the authorization for a project for the Army National Guard at North 

Kingstown, Rhode Island, by $5.0 million. This increase is necessary because of unforeseen increases in the cost of this project 

subsequent to the initial project authorization. The authorization of 

additional appropriations for this fiscal year 2008 project is included in the amount in section 2606(1) of this Act, and this additional funding is reflected in the table of fiscal year 2009 military 

construction authorizations in division B of the report accompanying this Act. 

Budget Items 

Planning and design, Army National Guard 

The committee directs that the amount of $2.0 million, added to 

the authorization of appropriations for planning and design for the 

Army National Guard, be used to complete the design of a field 

maintenance shop in Las Vegas, Nevada; that $204,000 added to 

this account be used to complete the design of an infantry platoon 

battle course at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas; and that $682,000 added 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
461 

to this account be used to complete the design of a readiness center 

at The Dalles, Oregon. 

Planning and design, Air National Guard 

The committee directs that the amount of $1.1 million, added to 

the authorization of appropriations for planning and design for the 

Air National Guard, be used to complete the design of a combat 

communications training complex at Springfield-Beckley Air National Guard Base, Ohio, and that $850,000 added to this account 

be used to complete the design of an apron and taxiway for the C– 5 aircraft at Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport/Shepherd 

Field in Martinsburg, West Virginia. 

Planning and design, Air Force Reserve 

The committee directs that the amount of $900,000 added to the 

authorization of appropriations for planning and design for the Air 

Force Reserve be used to complete the design of phase 2 of the joint 

services lodging facility at the Youngstown Air Reserve Station, 

Ohio. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(463) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT 

ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $393.4 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. The committee has authorized the amount requested for these activities in section 2701 of 

this Act. 

In addition, the budget requested an authorization of appropriations of $9.1 billion for implementation of the 2005 BRAC round. 

Section 2703 of this Act would authorize the full $9.1 billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2009. Included in the 

$9.1 billion requested for BRAC is an authorization of appropriations for $7.2 billion in military construction projects that would be 

initiated in fiscal year 2009. The total of new full project authorizations, and increases in the total authorized cost of three previously 

authorized medical center projects, is $7.0 billion. Section 2702 of 

this Act provides the authorization for these projects. 

The following table provides the specific amount authorized for 

each BRAC military construction project as well as the amount authorized for appropriations for all BRAC activities, including military construction, environmental costs, relocation and other operation and maintenance costs, permanent change of station costs for 

military personnel, and other BRAC costs. This table is incorporated by reference into this Act as provided in section 1002 of 

this Act. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
464 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 557 SR335.197
465 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 558 SR335.198
466 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 559 SR335.199
467 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 560 SR335.200
468 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 561 SR335.201
469 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 562 SR335.202
470 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 563 SR335.203
471 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 564 SR335.204
472 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 

1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. 

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded 

through Department of Defense base closure account 

2005 (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for fiscal year 2009 that are required 

to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. The table included in this title of the report 

lists the specific amounts authorized at each location. 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal year 2009 

that are required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. This provision would also 

provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for BRAC military construction projects. The State list contained in this report is 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of annual base closure and realignment reporting requirements (sec. 2704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

reporting requirements for ongoing base closure actions to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) round by terminating the reporting requirements for actions regarding realigned bases with the report submitted with the 

budget request for fiscal year 2014, and for closing bases with the 

report submitted with the budget request for fiscal year 2016. The 

base closure round implementation period ends in September 2011. 

The committee believes the sunset dates proposed in this provision 

will provide adequate time to document the closure and realignment actions of the 2005 BRAC round. 

Technical corrections regarding authorized cost and scope 

of work variations for military construction and military family housing projects related to base closures and 

realignments (sec. 2705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make two 

technical corrections to section 2705 of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public Law 

110–181). These technical corrections reflect the original intent of 

the conferees. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(473) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL 

PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Increase in threshold for unspecified minor military construction projects (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2805(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by raising the cost 

ceiling of a construction project authorized by this section from $2.0 

million to $3.0 million. This provision would also eliminate the separate threshold for projects intended solely to correct deficiencies 

that are life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening. 

The committee believes this unified threshold for unspecified minor 

construction projects will provide both greater flexibility and greater efficiency for the Department of Defense. 

Authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects outside the United States (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would further 

amend section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), as amended, to extend for 

1 additional year, through the end of fiscal year 2009, the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of Defense to use funds 

appropriated for operation and maintenance to carry out construction projects intended to satisfy certain operational requirements in 

support of a declaration of war, national emergency, or other contingency. 

The provision would also modify current law to allow the Department of Defense to use this authority to construct temporary facilities in support of contingency operations at locations in Afghanistan where the United States expects to have an enduring presence. The provision would also extend from 30 to 45 days the time 

for the Department of Defense to transmit the quarterly reports on 

the use of this authority. 

Improved oversight and accountability for military housing 

privatization initiative projects (sec. 2803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require enhanced oversight of, and reporting on, housing privatization 

projects. The provision would require greater interaction among the 

government and private entities involved in these projects, establish minimum bonding levels, specify procedures to be used in the 

case of significant schedule or performance deficiencies, ensure that 

the Department of Defense maintains a database of entities that 

achieve unsatisfactory performance ratings on such projects, and 

require the Department to identify and establish regulations to imVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00495 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
474 

plement best practices for monitoring the progress and performance 

of housing privatization projects. 

The committee has long supported, and continues to support, the 

military housing privatization program. The committee is disappointed that privatization projects at Air Force installations in 

Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, and Massachusetts failed to meet 

schedule and other performance standards. However, the committee notes that the problems with these projects, all of which involved a single developer, do not and should not overshadow the 

enormous successes achieved by the military housing privatization 

initiative across the United States and across all the military departments over the past decade. 

Intrinsic to the very idea of privatization is a more ‘‘hands off’’

approach by Congress and, to a lesser degree, by the Department 

of Defense, than is normally the case with acquisition or construction programs. The committee seeks to find an appropriate balance 

that will enhance oversight of this program and reduce the chance 

of the damaging failure of these projects being repeated, while still 

preserving the essential structure and benefits of the existing privatization program. 

Leasing of military family housing to Secretary of Defense 

(sec. 2804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to live in, and lease, a military family housing 

unit in the National Capital Region, and would prescribe the rental 

rate for such quarters. 

The Department of Defense requested this provision in the belief 

that housing the Secretary of Defense in established quarters on a 

secure military installation is far more cost-effective than installing, maintaining, and protecting sensitive Department of Defense 

equipment, along with secure information facilities and security 

and detection systems, in private residences. The Department also 

believes that housing the Secretary on a military installation would 

substantially reduce the logistics burden, disruptions to the public, 

and costs associated with protecting the Secretary, and would provide the Secretary with quarters that are properly equipped for executive security and communications. The committee agrees with 

the Department’s rationale. 

Cost-benefit analysis of dissolution of Patrick Family Housing LLC (sec. 2805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense 

committees a cost-benefit analysis regarding the dissolution of the 

Patrick Family Housing LLC created in connection with the privatization of military family housing at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, and would prohibit the Secretary from dissolving that entity 

until this analysis has been submitted. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
475 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Participation in conservation banking programs (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense to participate in conservation mitigation 

bank programs. This authority would generally operate under the 

same terms and conditions as the existing wetlands mitigation 

bank authority contained in section 2694b of title 10, United States 

Code. 

The committee believes this additional authority has the potential to enhance training and testing both for forces as they are currently stationed as well as for installations, such as those on 

Guam, where additional forces may be stationed, which will in turn 

increase the need for local training to accommodate the increased 

population at such installations. 

Clarification of congressional reporting requirements for 

certain real property transactions (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2662 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the requirement 

for the Secretaries of the military departments to notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives and to wait a specified period before entering into real property transactions listed in section 2662 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

The notice and wait requirement applies to six listed real property transactions, and provides for limited exceptions. Subsection 

(c) states that section 2662 does not apply to ‘‘river and harbor 

projects or flood control projects, or to leases of Government-owned 

real property for agricultural or grazing purposes or to any real 

property acquisition specifically authorized in a Military Construction Authorization Act.’’ This section would clarify and expand the current exception for ‘‘river and harbor projects or flood control projects’’ to cover ‘‘Army 

civil works water resource development projects.’’ This is consistent 

with an informal understanding that section 2662 applies only to 

military real property transactions. The Army civil works mission, 

however, now includes more than just river and harbor or flood 

control projects. This amendment would recognize the intended 

scope of section 2662 and specifically exclude all Army civil works 

water resource development projects from the notice and wait requirements. 

Modification of land management restrictions applicable to 

Utah national defense lands (sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would sunset a reporting requirement and associated restriction contained in section 

2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2000 (Public Law 106–65). This provision of current law restricts 

the actions of the Department of the Interior until the Secretary 

of Defense submitted a report. The Department of Defense has 

failed, in over 7 years, to submit this report, and has not given the 

committee any indication that the report will ever be submitted. 

The committee does not believe it is sound public policy for one 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
476 

government agency to restrict the actions of another agency indefinitely simply through inaction. The committee believes these restrictions should be terminated not later than the end of fiscal year 

2013, which is the date contained in the legislation on this matter 

adopted by the Senate in 2007. 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances 

Transfer of proceeds from property conveyance, Marine 

Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia (sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer the proceeds from the sale of the 

Boyett Village Housing Complex at the Marine Corps Logistics 

Base Albany, Georgia, into the Family Housing Improvement Fund 

(FHIF) for carrying out military family housing privatization activities. This housing is surplus to long-term Marine Corps family 

housing requirements. 

Absent special authority, the proceeds from the disposal of family 

housing property must be transferred to the Defense Military Family Housing Management Account under section 2831 of title 10, 

United States Code. Those proceeds would then be used to carry 

out operations and maintenance activities associated with government-owned military family housing. Because of the extensive privatization of military family housing property already achieved, 

these funds are not needed in the operations and maintenance account. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to give first priority for the use of these proceeds to remedying the problems at the 

Air Force housing privatization projects in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Massachusetts. 

Subtitle D—Energy Security 

Expansion of authority of the military departments to develop energy on military lands (sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

authority of the military departments to develop energy resources 

on military lands. Section 2917 of title 10, United States Code currently authorizes such development in the case of geothermal energy resources. The provision recommended by the committee 

would expand this authority to include other renewable energy resources, such as solar energy. 

The committee notes that this provision would have the effect of 

expanding the authority of the Department of Defense to enter into 

long-term contracts for geothermal energy under section 2922a of 

title 10, United States Code, to other renewable energy resources 

developed on military lands. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Report on application of force protection and anti-terrorism 

standards to gates and entry points on military installations (sec. 2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense comVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00498 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
477 

mittees a report, not later than February 1, 2009, on the implementation of Department of Defense anti-terrorism/force protection 

(AT/FP) standards for main gates or entry points of military installations. 

The committee recognizes the importance of anti-terrorism and 

force protection (AT/FP) measures for Department of Defense installations and facilities. The continued need for attention to this 

issue is emphasized by the recent bombing of an Army recruiting 

station located in New York City, New York. The committee is concerned that adequate funding has not been requested to construct 

permanent facilities and equipment to ensure compliance with AT/ 

FP standards. Timely execution of these requirements is necessary 

to protect the safety and welfare of service members and their families. The committee expects the Department of Defense to include, 

in conjunction with this report, funding in the fiscal year 2010 

budget and future-years defense program to ensure that main gates 

and entry points at military installations comply with AT/FP 

standards. 

Items of Special Interest 

Defense Access Roads criteria 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has the responsibility to determine whether proposed improvements to roads serving military 

installations may be eligible for financing through the Defense Access Roads (DAR) program. Section 210 of title 23, United States 

Code, authorizes DOD to pay a fair share of the cost of public road 

improvements necessary to mitigate an unusual impact of a defense activity if the Secretary of Defense determines the requirement to be important to national defense. An unusual impact includes the establishment of a new military installation, a significant increase in assigned personnel at an existing military installation, the relocation of an access gate, compensation for a closure of 

a public road caused by military activities, transport of heavy 

equipment over a public road, or a temporary surge of military activity creating intolerable congestion. 

The committee is concerned that the current DAR eligibility criteria contained in the Federal-aid Policy Guide of the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) do not consider the full range of 

transportation impacts or requirements. The committee is aware 

that the criteria currently do not account for safety and security 

concerns for local roads, even though certain DAR projects have 

been carried out in the past 5 years in order to correct significant 

deficiencies threatening the safety of military personnel. 

In addition, the decisions of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment process, relocations of forces from overseas, and 

growth in the size of the Army and Marine Corps have led to a substantial increase in the number of personnel on certain military installations over a period of just a few years. Yet the staggered nature of these basing decisions make it difficult to show that any one 

decision meets the strict criterion of at least doubling local traffic, 

or easily determine the appropriate scope of cumulative impacts. 

As a result, valid transportation requirements may not be considered eligible due to a strict interpretation of the Adoubling@ criVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00499 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
478 

terion, despite a significant expansion of the installation’s population. 

The committee notes that the Transportation Research Board, 

which serves as an independent adviser to the President, Congress, 

and federal agencies on scientific and technical questions, has published a Highway Capacity Manual, which contains state-of-the-art 

techniques for estimating road capacity and determining levels of 

service for transportation facilities and modes. These techniques 

have been adopted by the Federal Highway Administration as a 

basis for assessment of road requirements based on current congestion and saturation levels for traffic flows on public roads. 

The DAR criteria were developed to assess the relative impact of 

military activities on public roads. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense, working with the Secretary of Transportation, to review the current DAR eligibility requirements and to 

submit a report to Congress, not later than September 30, 2008, 

that includes the following: 

(1) a description of the current DAR criteria, including the 

statutory, regulatory, or policy basis for each of them; 

(2) the procedures in place to assist installation commanders 

in understanding the DAR criteria and submitting requests for 

DAR projects; 

(3) an assessment of whether each DAR project carried out 

in the past 10 years has specifically met the current criteria; 

(4) an analysis of whether a separate military construction 

account for DAR projects is in the best interest of the Department; 

(5) a review of the best practices and techniques used by the 

FHWA to assess road capacity requirements, and whether 

these techniques and measurement tools would be appropriate 

for assessing eligibility for DAR projects; and 

(6) any recommendations for changes in the criteria. 

Military construction reprogrammings 

Military construction projects are authorized on an installationby-installation basis in statute in annual military construction authorization acts. The statement of managers in the conference reports that accompany those acts provides a binding ‘‘State list’’ that 

describes each specific project at each installation. Annual military 

construction appropriations conference reports provide similar 

binding lists of the construction projects for which appropriations 

are being made available. These projects are not specified individually in the statutory language of annual appropriations acts. 

Section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, allows for variation 

in the cost or scope of such projects above certain limits. With respect to the authorization for such projects, changes to the authorized amounts are made on a notice-and-wait basis following the notices provided pursuant to section 2853. With respect to the appropriations for such projects, the transfers are made not on a noticeand-wait basis, but on a prior approval basis, as directed in the 

statement of managers of annual military construction appropriations acts. 

Since military construction projects require both an authorization 

and an appropriation, the committee believes the procedures for 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
479 

changing the congressionally approved funding for such projects 

should be consistent among the committees, and consistent with established practices for the reprogramming of other defense funds. 

Beginning with fiscal year 2009 projects, the committee directs 

the Department of Defense to submit proposed transfers of funds 

between military construction projects to the Committee on Armed 

Services of the United States Senate on the same prior approval 

basis as these reprogrammings are submitted to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(481) 

TITLE XXIX—WAR-RELATED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary 

In March 2008, the Department of Defense made an informal request to the congressional defense committees to add new projects 

for fiscal year 2008, both inside the United States as well as in the 

U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, and to cancel some 

projects which were authorized in title XXIX of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public Law 110–181). 

The provisions in subtitle A of this Act relating to fiscal year 

2008 authorize $355.2 million in additional construction projects 

requested by the Department of Defense, and cancel the authorizations for $105.7 million of previously authorized projects in Iraq. 

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2009 included 

$70.0 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration has not yet provided any detailed allocation of how those 

funds will be used. However, the committee understands that there 

are fiscal year 2009 military construction requirements related to 

these operations, specifically, for additional warrior transition unit 

facilities for wounded warriors. The committee recommends an additional $500.0 million in fiscal year 2009 war-related construction 

funding, within the overall total of $70.0 billion for war-related activities in this Act, for such purposes. 

The following table describes the specific project adjustments for 

fiscal year 2008. No specific projects have been identified at this 

time for fiscal year 2009. These tables are incorporated by reference into this Act as provided in section 1002 of this Act. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
482 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 577 SR335.205
483 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 578 SR335.206
484 

Subtitle A—Fiscal Year 2008 Projects 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$162.1 million in additional war-related military construction 

projects for the Army for fiscal year 2008. These authorizations are 

in addition to the projects and amounts authorized in title XXIX of 

the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(division B of Public Law 110–181). 

The additional funding would construct 15 additional child development centers at installations in the United States. 

These projects were requested by the Department of Defense. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$94.7 million in additional war-related military construction 

projects for the Navy for fiscal year 2008. These authorizations are 

in addition to the projects and amounts authorized in title XXIX of 

the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(division B of Public Law 110–181). 

The majority of this additional funding is for counter-improvised 

explosive device (IED) battle courses at various Navy and Marine 

Corps locations in the United States. The balance of the funding, 

$28.3 million, would construct child development centers at Camp 

Lejeuene, North Carolina and in San Diego, California. 

These projects were requested by the Department of Defense. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$98.4 million in additional war-related military construction 

projects for the Air Force for fiscal year 2008. These authorizations 

are in addition to the projects and amounts authorized in title 

XXIX of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (division B of Public Law 110–181). 

Of this additional funding, $60.4 million would accelerate a close 

air support project at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar that was originally requested in the fiscal year 2009 budget into the fiscal year 

2008 budget. There is also an additional $36.6 million to construct 

child development centers at three Air Force installations in the 

United States. 

These projects were requested by the Department of Defense. 

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2008 Army 

projects (sec. 2904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

project authorizations for $105.7 million of Army construction 

projects in Iraq that were authorized in title XXIX of the Military 

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of 

Public Law 110–181). 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
485 

The Department of Defense has accomplished one of these 

projects using another authority, and has advised the committee 

that the remainder of these projects are no longer required. 

Subtitle B—Fiscal Year 2009 Projects 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$450.0 million in war-related military construction projects for the 

Army for fiscal year 2009. The committee understands the Army 

has identified a substantial requirement for additional warrior 

transition unit facilities, primarily barracks, for fiscal year 2009. 

This provision would provide additional funding for such facilities. 

The funding would be available 14 days after the Secretary of Defense submits a report to Congress with a description and justification of the specific projects to be funded. 

The committee is disappointed that the Army has not included 

these projects in the fiscal year 2009 budget request, nor did the 

Chief of Staff of the Army highlight them as one of his unfunded 

Army priorities. The committee believes facilities to care for 

wounded warriors should be a top priority of the Army and the Department of Defense and funding for such facilities should have 

been included in the budget request. The committee intends to 

build on the progress made in last year’s Wounded Warrior Act, 

and has included these funds in anticipation of the Army identifying such requirements as a fiscal year 2009 supplemental request. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2912) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$50.0 million in war-related military construction projects for the 

Navy for fiscal year 2009. This provision would provide additional 

funding for warrior transition unit facilities, primarily barracks. 

The funding would be available 14 days after the Secretary of Defense submits a report to Congress with a description and justification of the specific projects to be funded. 

The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that 

the Department of the Navy is providing all the facilities needed 

for the care and recovery of wounded marines or sailors. The committee believes facilities to care for wounded warriors should be a 

top priority of the Department of Defense, and expects the Secretary of the Navy to promptly identify any facility requirements 

pursuant to this authorization. 

Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes relating to Iraq (sec. 2913) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

prohibition enacted in section 1222 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to fiscal year 

2009. This provision would prohibit the use of funds appropriated 

pursuant to authorizations in this Act to establish any installation 

or base intended to provide for the permanent stationing of United 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
486 

States forces in Iraq, or to exercise control over the oil resources 

of Iraq. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(487) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2009, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry 

out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act 

(Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in four categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); (2) 

defense environmental cleanup; (3) other defense activities; and (4) 

defense nuclear waste disposal. The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the Department totaled $16.0 billion, a 

5.6 percent increase above the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level. 

Of the total amount suggested: 

(1) $9.1 billion is for NNSA, of which 

(a) $6.6 is for weapons activities; 

(b) $1.2 is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; 

(c) $828.1 million is for naval reactors; and 

(d) $404.1 million is for the Office of the Administrator; 

(2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; 

(3) $1.3 billion is for other defense activities; and 

(4) $247.4 million is for defense nuclear waste disposal. 

The budget request also included $7.6 million within energy supply. 

The committee recommends $16.0 billion for atomic energy defense activities, the amount of the budget request. 

Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: 

(1) $9.6 billion for NNSA, of which 

(a) $6.6 billion is for weapons activities, a decrease of $7.4 

million below the budget request; 

(b) $1.8 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, an increase of $552.0 million above the budget request; 

(c) $828.1 million is for naval reactors, the amount of the 

budget request; and 

(c) $404.1 million is for the Office of the Administrator, the 

amount of the budget request; 

(2) $5.3 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities, the 

amount of the budget request; 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
488 

(3) $826.5 million for other defense activities, a decrease of 

$487.0 million below the budget request; and 

(4) $197.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease 

of $50.0 million below the budget request. 

The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a reduction of $7.6 million. 

The following table summarizes the budget request and the authorizations: 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
489 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here SR335.207
490 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here SR335.208
491 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here SR335.209
492 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here SR335.210
493 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here SR335.211
494 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here SR335.212
495 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here SR335.213
496 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here SR335.214
497 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here SR335.215
498 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here SR335.216
499 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here SR335.217
500 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here SR335.218
501 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here SR335.219
502 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here SR335.220
503 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here SR335.221
504 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here SR335.222
505 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here SR335.223
506 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here SR335.224
507 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here SR335.225
508 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here SR335.226
509 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here SR335.227
510 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a total of $9.6 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 

2009 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to carry out 

programs necessary to national security, an increase of $544.6 million above the budget request. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $6.6 billion for weapons activities, a decrease of $7.4 million below the budget request. The committee 

authorizes the following activities: $1.6 billion for directed stockpile 

work; $1.6 billion for campaigns; $1.7 billion for readiness in the 

technical base and facilities; $221.1 million for the secure transportation asset; $221.9 million for nuclear weapons incident response; 

$40.6 million for environmental projects and operations; $77.4 million for transformation disposition; $899.8 million for safeguards 

and security; and $233.8 million for facilities and infrastructure recapitalization. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $1.6 billion for directed stockpile work, a decrease of $26.0 million below the amount of the budget 

request. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to support planned life extension programs and the 

reliable replacement warhead. This account also includes fabrication and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies, 

weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and support equipment. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $18.0 million in the 

W76 life extension program as a result of schedule delays. In addition, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in 

weapons dismantlement and disposition for additional studies for 

the device assembly facility (DAF) and a decrease of $20.0 million 

in pit manufacturing. The committee believes that the DAF is 

under-utilized and that the efforts begun last year to expand the 

current missions at the DAF should be continued. The committee 

notes that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

has restructured funding for pit manufacturing into two new 

project lines for fiscal year 2009. There appears to be substantial 

overlap in the activities in the two new project lines. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $1.6 billion for campaigns, a decrease of $27.6 million below the amount of the budget request. 

The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving 

the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and 

the weapons production plants. Each campaign is focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the nuclear stockpile without 

underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts from the scientific underpinning of the Department of Energy’s annual certifiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00532 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
511 

cation that the stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable with nuclear weapons testing. The reduction in the tritium readiness campaign takes into account a large carryover balance resulting in contracting delays. 

Readiness in the technical base 

The committee recommends $1.7 million for readiness in the 

technical base, a decrease of $50.0 million below the budget request. This account funds facilities and infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex and includes construction funding for new 

facilities. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million in the 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement project (CMRR), 

Project 04–D–125, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a result of uncertainty in the design of the CMRR. As the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) noted, replacing the existing 

facility is essential but the CMRR has significant unresolved issues 

for which there is no clear resolution. The CMRR is one of two 

projects with which the DNFSB have the most significant unresolved safety issues. These issues are associated with the project’s 

safety-related systems. Until such time as the safety basis documents are completed, the outstanding issues cannot be resolved. 

CMRR will be a category I facility supporting pit operations in 

building PF–4 and has a preliminary cost estimate of $2.6 billion. 

The committee continues to support reconstitution of the pit manufacturing capability in PF–4 but urges that all safety issues with 

CMRR be resolved as soon as possible. If there is any change in 

the planned mission at CMRR, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Energy to notify the congressional defense committees. 

The committee has included an offset of $8.0 million for prior 

year balances in weapons activities and directs that this offset be 

applied to the Ion Beam Laboratory Refurbishment at Sandia National Laboratory, Project 08–D–806. These funds are available as 

result of the completion of the Microelectronics Facility at Sandia 

National Laboratory. 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $221.1 million for the secure transportation asset (STA), the amount of the budget request. The secure transportation asset is responsible for the transportation of 

nuclear weapons, weapons materials, and components, and other 

materials requiring safe and secure transport. The committee directs the STA to include in its budget submittal for fiscal year 2010 

a break out of the lease expenses for each leased facility and the 

expenses for each minor construction project. In addition, the committee reminds STA of its obligation to fully notify Congress of all 

third-party financing arrangements in advance of executing any 

leases. 

Nuclear weapons incident response 

The committee recommends $221.9 million for nuclear weapons 

incident response, the amount of the budget request. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
512 

Safeguards and security 

The committee recommends $899.8 million for safeguards and se- curity, an increase of $40.0 million above the budget request. The 

committee recommends additional funds to continue to address 

training and equipment issues and to meet the 2005 design basis 

threat. 

Facilities and Infrastructure 

The committee recommends $223.8 million for the facilities and 

infrastructure program (FIRP), an increase of $64.2 million above 

the amount of the budget request, to meet urgent maintenance requirements across the NNSA complex. FIRP was established to address the backlog of deferred maintenance at NNSA facilities. 

While the FIRP has been successful, the committee is concerned 

that as the FIRP comes to a close, routine maintenance of facilities, 

and utilities and infrastructure upgrades, such as electrical system 

and road improvement, will once again be deferred to address programmatic demands. As a result, the committee recommends that 

the NNSA establish a separate facilities management function reporting to the Administrator or the Principal Administrator. This 

function should be devoted exclusively to managing and maintaining facilities so that both new and existing facilities, including 

those that have been built recently, and that are planned, do not 

fall into disrepair. 

Environmental projects and operations and transformation 

disposition 

The committee recommends $40.6 million for environmental 

projects and $77.4 million for transformation, the amount of the 

budget request. Transformation is a new account in fiscal year 

2009 dedicated to disposition of excess facilities through demolition, 

sale, or transfer. Some facilities will be stabilized and transferred 

to the Office of Environmental Management. The committee directs 

the NNSA to work closely with the Office of Environmental Management (EM) to ensure that the work funded in both budget lines 

is fully coordinated with EM. The committee notes that the increase in environmental projects and the new transformation disposition activity represents a substantial increase in funding for 

these activities in NNSA. 

Stockpile surveillance testing 

In 2001 the Department of Energy (DOE) Inspector General (IG) 

reported that the DOE was behind schedule in conducting stockpile 

surveillance tests. These surveillance tests are supposed to be conducted on a routine basis to support the annual requirement to certify that the nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and 

reliable. In response to the 2001 report, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) committed to take steps to return the 

stockpile surveillance tests to the planned schedule. In October 

2006, the DOE IG office conducted a follow-up review of the commitments made in 2001 and whether NNSA had resolved the surveillance testing backlog. Again, the IG found that although NNSA 

had made progress, significant backlogs existed in the surveillance 

tests. In response, NNSA committed to fully resolve the backlog in 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
513 

surveillance testing by the end of 2007. The committee directs the 

DOE IG to review the status of stockpile surveillance tests to determine whether the backlog in surveillance continues, and if it still 

exists, the extent of the backlog. 

Construction projects 

The committee is increasingly concerned that the Department of 

Energy (DOE) is moving away from funding construction projects 

with funds authorized and appropriated for line item construction 

projects and seeking non-traditional approaches to construction 

funding. These non-traditional projects may, in the long-term, be 

more expensive than traditional line item construction projects, 

and may introduce new security risks and other management complications at DOE sites. In addition, the committee is concerned 

that efforts to secure non-traditional funding may be because the 

projects in question do not meet programmatic requirements or fill 

programmatic needs. If the Secretary of Energy determines that 

there is a need for a new facility or building to meet programmatic 

requirements and activities, the committee urges the Secretary to 

include requests for traditional line item construction projects to 

meet such programmatic requirements. 

The committee is aware of anecdotal complaints about the construction planning and decision process, and urges the DOE to address issues that arise from management of the process or to bring 

to the committee’s attention any issues that are founded in statutory requirements. 

The committee recognizes that the many multiple disciplinary activities at the DOE laboratories and facilities support both direct 

DOE activities as well as activities that assist broader United 

States Government activities, and encourage DOE to take these responsibilities into consideration in determining requirements for 

new buildings and facilities. 

As the DOE moves forward to recapitalize manufacturing and 

continues to improve science, engineering, research, and other capabilities, while downsizing the overall footprint of the complex, it 

must ensure sound, transparent financial planning and execution. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs 

The committee recommends $1.8 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program, an increase of $552.0 million above the 

budget request for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has management and oversight responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). 

The committee recommends funding for these programs as follows: $286.9 million for nonproliferation and verification research 

and development, an increase of $25.0 million; $120.5 million for 

nonproliferation and international security, a decrease of $20.0 million; $479.7 million for international nuclear materials production 

and cooperation, an increase of $50.0 million; $141.3 million for 

elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production, the amount of 

the budget request; $538.8 million for fissile materials disposition 

which includes a transfer of $487.0 million from another program 

office in the DOE and an increase of $10.0 million; and $219.6 milVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00535 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
514 

lion for the global threat reduction initiative, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for nonproliferation and verification research and development, for increased forensics capabilities, international safeguards technologies, nuclear detonation systems, seismic monitoring, and proliferation detection technologies. The committee continues to be 

concerned about the continued ability of the United States to effectively monitor and detect clandestine nuclear weapons development 

activity and to attribute nuclear weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices. Recent collaborative interagency efforts are encouraging but the committee urges the many 

federal agencies to exercise this developing interagency process for 

detection and attribution, including the role that the DOE and its 

laboratories play in the nuclear forensics portion of this process. 

The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act, it has included 

a provision that would establish a scholarship and fellowship program for nuclear nonproliferation activities. A recently released 

study by the American Association for the Advancement of Science 

and the American Physical Society, which discusses nuclear 

forensics, highlights the work that needs to be done to develop the 

global, technical, and operational cooperation needed in the event 

that a terrorist successfully detonates a nuclear weapon or device 

or uses a radiological dispersal device. 

Nonproliferation and international security 

The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million, including 

a reduction of $5.0 million for Global Initiatives for Proliferation 

Prevention (GIPP), and a reduction of $15.0 million for support to 

the Global Nuclear Energy program (GNEP). The committee believes that the GIPP has helped to ensure that former nuclear, 

chemical, and biological weapons scientists in the former Soviet 

Union (FSU) were gainfully employed during a period of transition. 

Today, Russia and some of the other FSU countries are enjoying 

economic growth and, as the Government Accountability Office has 

noted, may no longer need the assistance provided under the GIPP 

program. On the other hand, some of the FSU countries have not 

been as fortunate. For these and for additional countries, such as 

Iraq and possibly North Korea, new partnership opportunities 

might be useful. Elsewhere in this Act the committee recommends 

a provision calling for a review of the GIPP program. This review 

will afford NNSA the opportunity to re-baseline the GIPP program, 

reviewing the need for and goals of the program. 

The committee also notes that some of the work in nonproliferation and international security is in direct support of the GNEP. 

The committee takes no view on the GNEP as it is not a program 

funded as part of the Atomic Energy Defense activities, but believes that the nonproliferation programs should not directly support specific future energy technologies. As a result the committee 

recommends a decrease of $15.0 million. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
515 

International nuclear materials and cooperation 

The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in international nuclear materials and cooperation to verifiably disable and 

dismantle the North Korean nuclear program. Elsewhere in this 

Act the committee recommends a provision that would enable the 

NNSA to support the Department of State in North Korean 

denuclearization activities. 

Fissile materials disposition 

The committee recommends a transfer of $487.0 million from nuclear energy, other defense activities to the NNSA for the mixed 

oxide fuel (MOX) facility. The NNSA is mandated to carry out nonproliferation activities. The Unites States and Russia have made 

considerable progress in formulating a new plan for each country 

to disposition 34 metric tons of excess weapons grade plutonium. 

As a result the committee continues to support the fissile materials 

disposition program as an important part of the overall nuclear 

nonproliferation program. The committee recognizes that the 

NNSA will have additional amounts of excess plutonium to disposition and expects the NNSA to continue to use this approximately 

$12.0 billion complex of facilities to disposition plutonium well into 

the future. 

The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for the 

Russian fissile materials disposition program to continue the joint 

gas reactor technology demonstration program. The gas reactor is 

a more efficient burner of excess plutonium than conventional reactors. The committee notes that the Russian Government and the 

United States jointly fund this effort and that Russian Government 

support for the program will exceed the U.S. contribution. 

Naval reactors 

The committee recommends $793.6 million for naval reactors, the 

amount of the budget request. The committee directs the Office of 

Naval Reactors to review carefully options for using low enriched 

uranium fuel in new or modified reactor plants for surface ships 

and submarines. 

Office of the Administrator 

The committee recommends $404.1 million for program direction 

for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the 

amount of the budget request. This account provides program direction funding for all elements of the NNSA, except for the naval 

reactors program and the secure transportation asset. 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $5.3 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal year 2009 

for defense environmental cleanup, the amount of the budget request. The provision would authorize $501.2 million in additional 

environmental projects offset by $501.2 million in prior year balances. The committee recommends the additional authorization authority in the event funds become available to address a variety of 

projects at DOE defense sites to address budget shortfalls. Without 

additional funds, much of the ongoing cleanup would be disrupted, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
516 

causing the DOE to miss many enforceable milestones, require significant layoffs, and increase the overall cost of the cleanup. The 

specific projects are listed in the DOE budget tables for the defense 

cleanup program in this committee report. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$826.5 million for other defense activities, a decrease of $487.0 million from the amount of the budget request. The committee recommends: $446.9 million for health, safety, and security, the 

amount of the budget request; $186.0 million for legacy management, the amount of the request; $6.6 million for the office of hearings and appeals; and $78.8 million for nuclear energy, a decrease 

of $487.0 million. The committee recommends that the $487.0 million included in the budget request for other defense activities for 

the mixed oxide fuel fabrication be transferred to the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$197.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease of 

$50.0 million below the budget request due to uncertainties in the 

program. The committee remains supportive of the effort to establish a geologic repository as delays in the repository delay the ability of the Defense Environmental Management program to complete its work with respect to high level waste and spent nuclear 

fuel, and increase the overall cost of cleanup. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Modifications of functions of Administrator for Nuclear Security to include elimination of surplus fissile materials 

usable for nuclear weapons (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2402(b)(1) of title 50, United States Code, by adding a new 

paragraph assigning responsibility for elimination of surplus fissile 

materials usable for nuclear weapons to the Administrator for Nuclear Security. This provision would restate that the responsibility 

for this activity is assigned to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

Report on compliance with Design Basis Threat issued by 

the Department of Energy in 2005 (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Energy to submit a report on the progress made by the 

Department of Energy (DOE) to achieve compliance with the requirements of the 2005 design basis threat (DBT) for each DOE 

site with Category I nuclear materials. The DBT establishes the 

physical security requirements for each DOE site. This report 

would be a follow-on report to the 2006 DBT report, which laid out 

a plan for each site to either be compliant by 2008 or obtain a 

waiver. The provision would also direct the Secretary to conduct an 

assessment of the 2005 DBT and to identify any necessary modiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00538 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
517 

fications, updates, or revisions to the 2005 DBT. The committee is 

concerned that several sites may not be in compliance with the 

2005 DBT by the end of 2008. 

Modification of submittal of reports on inadvertent releases 

of restricted data (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2672 of title 50, United States Code, to make the annual report on inadvertent releases of restricted data due every other year 

rather than annually. This report deals with inadvertent releases 

of restricted data that might occur during the process of declassifying historical documents. When the current process for declassification was established approximately 10 years ago, there were 

a series of inadvertent releases. Since that time the process has become much more rigorous and an annual report is no longer needed. 

The provision would further amend section 2672 to change the 

frequency of the report that the Secretary of Energy submits to 

Congress to identify the plans of various federal agencies to prevent the inadvertent release of restricted data. Each agency that 

has or may have restricted data in its historical documents slated 

for release must prepare a plan to ensure that such data is not inadvertently released. The Department of Energy (DOE) must review the plans, determine that they are sufficient, and determine 

if the agency is in compliance with its plan. This amendment would 

modify the frequency of the DOE review of the agencies’ plans from 

periodic, which has been treated by the Secretary as an annual requirement, to once every 2 years. The agencies have made considerable progress in establishing effective plans. 

Nonproliferation scholarship and fellowship program (sec. 

3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to establish a nonproliferation scholarship program. The 

committee is concerned that certain technical areas of expertise 

critical to nonproliferation programs, such as radio-chemistry, are 

increasingly difficult for the NNSA and the Department of Energy 

laboratories to attract and retain. The scholarship program would 

be available to both undergraduate and graduate students in disciplines to be determined by the Administrator. A student would be 

required to work as a Federal Government employee or as a laboratory employee for 1 year for each year that the student received 

support under the program. 

Review of and reports on Global Initiatives for Proliferation 

Prevention program (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to conduct a review of the Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention 

(GIPP) program and submit a report on the review to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2009. 

The report would include a description of the goals for the GIPP 

program and the criteria for partnership projects together with recVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:34 May 14, 2008 Jkt 042224 PO 00000 Frm 00539 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR335.XXX SR335

ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
518 

ommendations regarding the future of projects in Russia and the 

other countries of the former Soviet Union as well as plans for 

projects in countries other than the former Soviet Union. In addition, the report would include a plan for completing all projects in 

the countries of the former Soviet Union by 2012. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(519) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$29.0 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(DNFSB). This is an increase of $3.0 million above the budget request. The DNFSB has the responsibility to ensure that the health 

and safety of the public surrounding, and workers at Department 

of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities are adequately protected. The DNFSB is responsible not only for operational nuclear 

safety of existing facilities and activities, but also ensures that the 

design and construction of new defense nuclear projects and decommissioning of old facilities meets applicable DOE orders. 

The DOE is in the process of designing and constructing many 

new facilities, including major new nuclear facilities, and decommissioning the older facilities that are no longer needed. The committee believes that additional funds are needed to enable the 

DNFSB to hire additional technical staff to ensure that the DNFSB 

fully reviews and provides the results of those reviews to DOE. 

Timely interaction with DOE is particularly important in the design and construction process. The work of the DNFSB is growing 

substantially as DOE is undertaking 26 new nuclear construction 

projects. The budget request funds only two thirds of the DNFSB 

statutory staffing levels. 

The committee continues to find the quarterly reports useful by 

highlighting issues as they emerge, and commends the DNFSB for 

submitting reports that are succinct, clearly written, and timely. 

The committee is concerned that if the DOE pursues third party 

financing of facilities in which nuclear operations are conducted, 

the DNFSB will either not be able to carry out its statutory responsibilities or that it will be more difficult or costly to do so. The committee reminds the DOE that if it is conducting nuclear operations 

at a defense nuclear facility, the DNFSB has jurisdiction over the 

facility and the operations. 

Recently the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) asked the DNFSB to provide technical assistance for the 

Mixed Oxide Fuel facility, a facility not within the jurisdiction of 

the DNFSB. The committee supports the use of the DNFSB in this 

capacity, but notes that the DNFSB does not have funds authorized 

and appropriated for this purpose. The committee directs the 

DNFSB and the NNSA to enter into an agreement that provides 

for full cost recovery by the DNFSB for work for others. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
520 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 619 SR335.228
521 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 SR335.229
522 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 SR335.230
523 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 622 SR335.231
524 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 623 SR335.232
525 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 624 SR335.233
526 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 625 SR335.234
527 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 626 SR335.235
528 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 627 SR335.236
529 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 628 SR335.237
530 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 629 SR335.238
531 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 630 SR335.239
532 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 631 SR335.240
533 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 632 SR335.241
534 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 633 SR335.242
535 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 634 SR335.243
536 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 635 SR335.244
537 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 636 SR335.245
538 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 637 SR335.246
539 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 638 SR335.247
540 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 639 SR335.248
541 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 640 SR335.249
542 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 641 SR335.250
543 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 642 SR335.251
544 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 643 SR335.252
545 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 644 SR335.253
546 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 645 SR335.254
547 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 646 SR335.255
548 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 647 SR335.256
549 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 648 SR335.257
550 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 649 SR335.258
551 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 650 SR335.259
552 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 651 SR335.260
553 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 652 SR335.261
554 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 653 SR335.262
555 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 654 SR335.263
556 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 655 SR335.264
557 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 656 SR335.265
558 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 657 SR335.266
559 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 658 SR335.267
560 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 659 SR335.268
561 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

By letter dated February 5, 2008, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed legislation ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 

for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 

military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.’’ The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 5192 to the Committee 

on Armed Services on February 26, 2008. 

Executive Communication 5192 is available for review at the 

committee. 

Committee Action 

The committee ordered reported a comprehensive original bill 

and a series of original bills for the Department of Defense, military construction and Department of Energy authorizations by 

voice vote. 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 passed by roll call vote, 24–0, as follows: 

In favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, 

Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Pryor, Webb, 

McCaskill, McCain, Warner, Inhofe, Sessions, Collins, Chambliss, 

Graham, Dole, Cornyn, Thune, Martinez and Wicker. Opposed: 

None. 

The roll call votes on motions and amendments to the bill which 

were considered during the course of the markup have been made 

public and are available at the committee. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2009. 

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
562 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 

Æ 


ebenthall on PROD1PC71 with HEARING