H. R. 1585—32 
Subtitle A—Authorization of 
Appropriations 
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
2008 for the use of the Department of Defense for research, develop-
ment, test, and evaluation as follows: 
(1) For the Army, $10,840,392,000. 
(2) For the Navy, $16,980,732,000. 
(3) For the Air Force, $25,692,521,000. 
(4) For Defense-wide activities, $20,213,900,000, of which 
$180,264,000 is authorized for the Director of Operational Test 
and Evaluation. 
SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 
(a) FISCAL YEAR 2008.—Of the amounts authorized to be appro-
priated by section 201, $10,913,944,000 shall be available for the 
Defense Science and Technology Program, including basic research, 
applied research, and advanced technology development projects. 
(b) BASIC RESEARCH, APPLIED RESEARCH, AND ADVANCED TECH-
NOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the 
term ‘‘basic research, applied research, and advanced technology 
development’’ means work funded in program elements for defense 
research and development under Department of Defense budget 
activity 1, 2, or 3. 
Subtitle B—Program Requirements, 
Restrictions, and Limitations 
SEC. 211. OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION OF FUTURE COMBAT 
SYSTEMS NETWORK. 
(a) OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION REQUIRED.—The Sec-
retary of the Army, in cooperation with the Director, Operational 
Test and Evaluation, shall complete an operational test and evalua-
tion (as defined in section 139(a)(2)(A) of title 10, United States 
Code), of the FCS network in a realistic environment simulating 
operational conditions. The operational test and evaluation shall— 
(1) be conducted in accordance with a Future Combat Sys-
tems Test and Evaluation Master Plan approved by the 
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation; 
(2) be conducted using prototype equipment, sensors, and 
software for the FCS network; 
(3) be conducted in a manner that simulates a full Future 
Combat Systems brigade; 
(4) be conducted, to the maximum extent possible, using 
actual communications equipment instead of computer simula-
tions; 
(5) be conducted in a realistic operational electronic warfare 
environment, including enemy electronic warfare and network 
attacks; and 
(6) include, to the maximum extent possible, all sensor 
information feeds the FCS network is designed to incorporate. 
(b) FCS NETWORK DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘FCS 
network’’ includes all sensors, information systems, computers, and
H. R. 1585—33 
communications systems necessary to support Future Combat Sys-
tems brigade operations. 
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after completing the 
operational test and evaluation required by subsection (a), the 
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation shall submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report on the outcome of the 
operational test and evaluation. The report shall include, at a 
minimum— 
(1) an evaluation of the overall operational effectiveness 
of the FCS network, including— 
(A) an evaluation of the FCS network’s capability to 
transmit the volume and classes of data required by Future 
Combat Systems approved requirements; and 
(B) an evaluation of the FCS network’s performance 
in a degraded condition due to enemy network attack, 
sophisticated enemy electronic warfare, adverse weather 
conditions, and terrain variability; 
(2) an evaluation of the FCS network’s ability to improve 
friendly force knowledge of the location and capability of enemy 
forces and combat systems; and 
(3) an evaluation of the overall operational suitability of 
the FCS network. 
(d) LIMITATION PENDING SUBMISSION OF REPORT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds, with the exception of funds 
for advanced procurement, appropriated pursuant to an 
authorization of appropriations or otherwise made available 
to the Department of the Army for any fiscal year may be 
obligated for low-rate initial production or full-rate production 
of Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles until 60 
days after the date on which the report is submitted under 
subsection (c). 
(2) WAIVER
AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may 
waive the limitation in paragraph (1) if the Secretary deter-
mines that such a waiver is critical for national security. Such 
a waiver shall not become effective until 45 days after the 
date on which the Secretary submits to the congressional 
defense committees a written notice of the waiver. 
(3) INAPPLICABILITY TO THE NON LINE OF SIGHT CANNON 
VEHICLE.—The limitation in paragraph (1) does not apply to 
the Non Line of Sight Cannon vehicle. 
SEC. 212. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 
AND 
DEMONSTRATION 
OF 
JOINT 
LIGHT 
TACTICAL 
VEHICLE PROGRAM. 
Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to an authorization 
of appropriations or otherwise made available for the Joint Light 
Tactical Vehicle Program for the acquisition program phase of sys-
tems development and demonstration for fiscal year 2008 or any 
fiscal year thereafter, no more than 50 percent of those amounts 
may be obligated or expended until after— 
(1) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Tech-
nology, and Logistics, or the appropriate milestone decision 
authority, makes the certification required by section 2366a 
of title 10, United States Code, with respect to the Joint Light 
Tactical Vehicle Program; and 
(2) the certification has been received by the congressional 
defense committees.
H. R. 1585—34 
SEC. 213. REQUIREMENT TO OBLIGATE AND EXPEND FUNDS FOR 
DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT OF A COMPETITIVE 
PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER. 
Of the funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of 
appropriations or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2008 
or any year thereafter, for research, development, test, and evalua-
tion and procurement for the Joint Strike Fighter Program, the 
Secretary of Defense shall ensure the obligation and expenditure 
in each such fiscal year of sufficient annual amounts for the contin-
ued development and procurement of 2 options for the propulsion 
system for the Joint Strike Fighter in order to ensure the develop-
ment and competitive production for the propulsion system for 
the Joint Strike Fighter. 
SEC. 214. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR DEFENSE-WIDE MANU-
FACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. 
No funds available to the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
for any fiscal year may be obligated or expended for the defense- 
wide manufacturing science and technology program unless the 
Director, Defense Research and Engineering, ensures each of the 
following: 
(1) A component of the Department of Defense has 
requested and evaluated— 
(A) competitive proposals, for each project under the 
program that is not a project covered by subparagraph 
(B); and 
(B) proposals from as many sources as is practicable 
under the circumstances, for a project under the program 
if the disclosure of the needs of the Department of Defense 
with respect to that project would compromise the national 
security. 
(2) Each project under the program is carried out— 
(A) in accordance with the statutory requirements of 
the Manufacturing Technology Program established by sec-
tion 2521 of title 10, United States Code; and 
(B) in compliance with all requirements of any directive 
that applies to manufacturing technology. 
(3) An implementation plan has been developed. 
SEC. 215. ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM. 
(a) TRANSFER
OF FUNDS.—(1) Of the amount authorized to 
be appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development, test, 
and evaluation, Air Force activities, and made available for the 
activities of the Intelligence Systems Support Office, an aggregate 
of $13,000,000 shall be transferred to the Advanced Sensor Applica-
tions Program not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act. 
(2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
301(2) for operation and maintenance, Navy activities, and made 
available for the activities of the Office of Naval Intelligence, an 
aggregate of $5,000,000 shall be transferred to the Advanced Sensor 
Applications Program not later than 60 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act. 
(b) ASSIGNMENT OF PROGRAM.—Management of the program 
shall reside within the office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Intelligence until certain conditions specified in the classified 
annex to the statement of managers accompanying this Act are
H. R. 1585—35 
met. The program shall be executed by the Commander, Naval 
Air Systems Command in consultation with the Program Executive 
Officer for Aviation for the Navy. 
SEC. 216. ACTIVE PROTECTION SYSTEMS. 
(a) LIVE-FIRE TESTS REQUIRED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall undertake 
live-fire tests, of appropriate foreign and domestic active protec-
tion systems with size, weight, and power characteristics suit-
able for protecting wheeled tactical vehicles, especially light 
wheeled tactical vehicles, in order— 
(A) to determine the effectiveness of such systems for 
protecting wheeled tactical vehicles; and 
(B) to develop information useful in the consideration 
of the adoption of such systems in defense acquisition pro-
grams. 
(2) REPORTS.—Not later than March 1 of each of 2008 
and 2009, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report on the results of the tests under-
taken under paragraph (1) as of the date of such report. 
(3) FUNDING.—The live-fire tests required by paragraph 
(1) shall be conducted using funds authorized and appropriated 
for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. 
(b) COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall undertake a com-
prehensive assessment of active protection systems in order 
to develop information useful in the development of joint active 
protection systems and other defense programs. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The assessment under paragraph (1) shall 
include— 
(A) an identification of the potential merits and oper-
ational costs of the use of active protection systems by 
United States military forces; 
(B) a characterization of the threats that use of active 
protection systems by potential adversaries would pose to 
United States military forces and weapons; 
(C) an identification and assessment of counter-
measures to active protection systems; 
(D) an analysis of collateral damage potential of active 
protection systems; 
(E) an identification and assessment of emerging 
direct-fire and top-attack threats to defense systems that 
could potentially deploy active protection systems; and 
(F) an identification and assessment of critical tech-
nology elements of active protection systems. 
(3) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2008, the Sec-
retary shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
a report on the assessment under paragraph (1). 
Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense 
SEC. 221. PARTICIPATION OF DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND 
EVALUATION, IN MISSILE DEFENSE TEST AND EVALUA-
TION ACTIVITIES. 
Section 139 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
H. R. 1585—36 
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) through (j) as sub-
sections (g) through (k), respectively; and 
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new sub-
section (f): 
‘‘(f)(1) The Director of the Missile Defense Agency shall make 
available to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation the 
results of all tests and evaluations conducted by the Missile Defense 
Agency and of all studies conducted by the Missile Defense Agency 
in connection with tests and evaluations in the Missile Defense 
Agency. 
‘‘(2) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation may 
require that such observers as the Director designates be present 
during the preparation for and the conducting of any test and 
evaluation conducted by the Missile Defense Agency. 
‘‘(3) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall 
have access to all records and data in the Department of Defense 
(including the records and data of the Missile Defense Agency) 
that the Director considers necessary to review in order to carry 
out his duties under this subsection.’’. 
SEC. 222. STUDY ON FUTURE ROLES AND MISSIONS OF THE MISSILE 
DEFENSE AGENCY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall enter into 
an agreement with 1 of the Federally Funded Research and Develop-
ment Centers under which the Center shall carry out an inde-
pendent study to examine, and make recommendations with respect 
to, the long-term structure, roles, and missions of the Missile 
Defense Agency. 
(b) MATTERS INCLUDED.— 
(1) REVIEW.—The study shall include a full review of the 
structure, roles, and missions of the Missile Defense Agency. 
(2) ASSESSMENTS.—The study shall include an examination 
and assessment of the current and future— 
(A) structure, roles, and missions of the Missile Defense 
Agency; 
(B) relationship of the Missile Defense Agency with— 
(i) the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; 
(ii) the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy; 
(iii) the Director of Operational Test and Evalua-
tion; 
(iv) the Commander of the United States Strategic 
Command and other combatant commanders; 
(v) the Joint Requirements Oversight Council; and 
(vi) the military departments; 
(C) operations and sustainment of missile defenses; 
(D) acquisition process for missile defense; 
(E) requirements process for missile defense; and 
(F) transition and transfer of missile defense capabili-
ties to the military departments. 
(3) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The study shall include rec-
ommendations as to how the Missile Defense Agency can be 
made more effective to support the needs of the warfighter, 
especially with regard to near-term missile defense capabilities. 
The study shall also examine the full range of options for
H. R. 1585—37 
the future of the Missile Defense Agency and shall include, 
but not be limited to, specific recommendations as to whether— 
(A) the Missile Defense Agency should be maintained 
in its current configuration; 
(B) the scope and nature of the Missile Defense Agency 
should be changed from an organization focused on research 
and development to an organization focused on combat 
support; 
(C) any functions and responsibilities should be added 
to the Missile Defense Agency, in part or in whole, from 
other entities such as the United States Strategic Com-
mand and the military departments; and 
(D) any functions and responsibilities of the Missile 
Defense Agency should be transferred, in part or in whole, 
to other entities such as the United States Strategic Com-
mand and the military departments. 
(c) COOPERATION FROM GOVERNMENT.—In carrying out the 
study, the Federally Funded Research and Development Center 
shall receive the full and timely cooperation of the Secretary of 
Defense and any other United States Government official in pro-
viding the Center with analyses, briefings, and other information 
necessary for the fulfillment of its responsibilities. 
(d) REPORT.—Not later than September 1, 2008, the Federally 
Funded Research and Development Center shall submit to the 
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee 
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report on 
its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 
(e) FUNDING.—Funds for the study shall be provided from 
amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense. 
SEC. 223. BUDGET AND ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS FOR MISSILE 
DEFENSE AGENCY ACTIVITIES. 
(a) REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE.—The budget justification 
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department 
of Defense budget for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2009 (as 
submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) 
of title 31, United States Code) shall set forth separately amounts 
requested for the Missile Defense Agency for each of the following: 
(1) Research, development, test, and evaluation. 
(2) Procurement. 
(3) Operation and maintenance. 
(4) Military construction. 
(b) REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009.—The 
budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support 
of the Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2009 (as sub-
mitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) 
of title 31, United States Code) shall— 
(1) identify all known and estimated operation and support 
costs; and 
(2) set forth separately amounts requested for the Missile 
Defense Agency for each of the following: 
(A) Research, development, test, and evaluation. 
(B) Procurement or advance procurement of long lead 
items, including for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 
firing units 3 and 4, and for Standard Missile-3 Block 
1A interceptors. 
(C) Military construction.
H. R. 1585—38 
(c) AVAILABILITY OF RDT&E FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009.— 
Upon approval by the Secretary of Defense, and consistent with 
the plan submitted under subsection (f), funds appropriated pursu-
ant to an authorization of appropriations or otherwise made avail-
able for fiscal year 2009 for research, development, test, and evalua-
tion for the Missile Defense Agency— 
(1) may be used for the fielding of ballistic missile defense 
capabilities approved previously by Congress; and 
(2) may not be used for— 
(A) military construction activities; or 
(B) procurement or advance procurement of long lead 
items, including for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 
firing units 3 and 4, and for Standard Missile-3 Block 
1A interceptors. 
(d) FULL FUNDING REQUIREMENT NOT APPLICABLE TO USE OF 
PROCUREMENT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2009 AND 2010.—In any 
case in which funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization 
of appropriations or otherwise made available for procurement for 
the Missile Defense Agency for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 are 
used for the fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities, the 
funds may be used for the fielding of those capabilities on an 
‘‘incremental’’ basis, notwithstanding any law or policy of the 
Department of Defense that would otherwise require a ‘‘full funding’’ 
basis. 
(e) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.—Nothing in this provision 
shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect in any way the 
applicability of the requirements and other provisions of section 
234(a) through (d) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375; 118 
Stat. 1837; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note). 
(f) PLAN REQUIRED.—Not later than March 1, 2008, the Director 
of the Missile Defense Agency shall submit to the Committee on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services 
of the House of Representatives a plan for transitioning the Missile 
Defense Agency from using exclusively research, development, test, 
and evaluation funds to using procurement, military construction, 
operations and maintenance, and research, development, test, and 
evaluation funds for the appropriate budget activities, and for 
transitioning from incremental funding to full funding for fiscal 
years after fiscal year 2010. 
(g) OBJECTIVES FOR ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Commencing as soon as practicable, but 
not later than the submittal to Congress of the budget for 
the President for fiscal year 2009 under section 1105(a) of 
title 31, United States Code, the Missile Defense Agency shall 
take appropriate actions to achieve the following objectives 
in its acquisition activities: 
(A) Improved transparency. 
(B) Improved accountability. 
(C) Enhanced oversight. 
(2) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—In order to achieve the objectives 
specified in paragraph (1), the Missile Defense Agency shall, 
at a minimum, take actions as follows: 
(A) Establish acquisition cost, schedule, and perform-
ance baselines for each ballistic missile defense system 
element that—
H. R. 1585—39 
(i) has entered the equivalent of the systems 
development and demonstration phase of acquisition; 
or 
(ii) is being produced and acquired for operational 
fielding. 
(B) Provide unit cost reporting data for each ballistic 
missile defense system element covered by subparagraph 
(A), and secure independent estimation and verification 
of such cost reporting data. 
(C) Include, in the budget justification materials 
described in subsection (a), a description of actions being 
taken in the fiscal year in which such materials are sub-
mitted, and the actions to be taken in the fiscal year 
covered by such materials, to achieve such objectives. 
(3) SPECIFICATION OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM 
ELEMENTS.—The ballistic missile defense system elements that, 
as of October 2007, are ballistic missile defense system elements 
covered by paragraph (2)(A) are the following elements: 
(A) Ground-based Midcourse Defense. 
(B) Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. 
(C) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. 
(D) Forward-Based X-band radar-Transportable (AN/ 
TPY–2). 
(E) Command, Control, Battle Management, and 
Communications. 
(F) Sea-Based X-band radar. 
(G) Upgraded Early Warning radars. 
SEC. 224. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR REPLACING WARHEAD 
ON SM–3 BLOCK IIA MISSILE. 
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may 
be obligated or expended to replace the unitary warhead on the 
SM–3 Block IIA missile with the Multiple Kill Vehicle until after 
the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that— 
(1) the United States and Japan have reached an agree-
ment to replace the unitary warhead on the SM–3 Block IIA 
missile; and 
(2) replacing the unitary warhead on the SM–3 Block IIA 
missile with the Multiple Kill Vehicle will not delay the 
expected deployment date of 2014–2015 for that missile. 
SEC. 225. EXTENSION OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENTS OF 
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS. 
Section 232(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘through 2008’’ and 
inserting ‘‘through 2013’’; and 
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘through 2009’’ and 
inserting ‘‘through 2014’’. 
SEC. 226. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR PROCURE-
MENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILE 
DEFENSES IN EUROPE. 
(a) GENERAL LIMITATION.—No funds authorized to be appro-
priated by this Act may be obligated or expended for procurement, 
site activation, construction, preparation of equipment for, or
H. R. 1585—40 
deployment of a long-range missile defense system in Europe until 
the following conditions have been met: 
(1) The governments of the countries in which major compo-
nents of such missile defense system (including interceptors 
and associated radars) are proposed to be deployed have each 
given final approval to any missile defense agreements nego-
tiated between such governments and the United States 
Government concerning the proposed deployment of such 
components in their countries. 
(2) Forty five days have elapsed following the receipt by 
Congress of the report required under subsection (c)(6). 
(b) ADDITIONAL LIMITATION.—In addition to the limitation in 
subsection (a), no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
may be obligated or expended for the acquisition or deployment 
of operational missiles of a long-range missile defense system in 
Europe until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the views 
of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, submits to 
Congress a report certifying that the proposed interceptor to be 
deployed as part of such missile defense system has demonstrated, 
through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, a high prob-
ability of working in an operationally effective manner. 
(c) REPORT ON INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT FOR BALLISTIC MIS-
SILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE.— 
(1) INDEPENDENT
ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 30 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of Defense shall select a federally funded research and develop-
ment center to conduct an independent assessment of options 
for ballistic missile defense for forward deployed forces of the 
United States and its allies in Europe and for the United 
States homeland. 
(2) ANALYSIS
OF
ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSAL.—The study 
shall provide a full analysis of the Administration’s proposal 
to protect forward-deployed forces of the United States and 
its allies in Europe, forward-deployed radars in Europe, and 
the United States by deploying, in Europe, interceptors and 
radars of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. 
In providing the analysis, the study shall examine each of 
the following matters: 
(A) The threat to Europe and the United States of 
ballistic missiles (including short-range, medium-range, 
intermediate-range, and long-range ballistic missiles) from 
Iran, including the likelihood and timing of such threats. 
(B) The technical capabilities of the system, as so 
deployed, to effectively protect forward-deployed forces of 
the United States and its allies in Europe, forward-deployed 
radars in Europe, and the United States against the threat 
specified in subparagraph (A). 
(C) The degree of coverage of the European territory 
of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 
(D) The political implications of such a deployment 
on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion, and other interested parties. 
(E) Integration and interoperability with North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization missile defenses. 
(F) The operational issues associated with such a 
deployment, including operational effectiveness.
H. R. 1585—41 
(G) The force structure implications of such a deploy-
ment, including a comparative analysis of alternative 
deployment options. 
(H) The budgetary implications of such a deployment, 
including possible allied cost sharing, and the cost-effective-
ness of such a deployment. 
(I) Command and control arrangements, including any 
command and control roles for the United States European 
Command and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 
(J) Potential opportunities for participation by the 
Government of Russia. 
(3) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.—The study shall also pro-
vide a full analysis of alternative systems that could be deployed 
to fulfill, in whole or in part, the protective purposes of the 
Administration’s proposal. The alternative systems shall 
include a range of feasible combinations of other missile defense 
systems that are available or are expected to be available 
as of 2015 and 2020. These should include, but not be limited 
to, the following: 
(A) The Patriot PAC–3 system. 
(B) The Medium Extended Air Defense System. 
(C) The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, with 
all variants of the Standard Missile–3 interceptor. 
(D) The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 
(THAAD) system. 
(E) Forward-Based X-band Transportable (FBX-T) 
radars. 
(F) The Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). 
(G) Other non-United States, North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization missile defense systems or components. 
(4) MATTERS
EXAMINED.—In providing the analysis, the 
study shall examine, for each alternative system included, each 
of the matters specified in paragraph (2). 
(5) COOPERATION OF OTHER AGENCIES.—The Secretary of 
Defense shall provide the federally funded research and 
development center selected under paragraph (1) data, anal-
yses, briefings, and other information as the center considers 
necessary to carry out the assessment described in that para-
graph. Furthermore, the Director of National Intelligence and 
the heads of other departments and agencies of the United 
States Government shall also provide the center the appropriate 
data, analyses, briefings, and other information necessary for 
the purpose of carrying out the assessment described in that 
paragraph. 
(6) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the federally funded research and 
development center shall submit to the congressional defense 
committees and the Secretary of Defense a report on the results 
of the study. The report shall be in unclassified form, but 
may include a classified annex. 
(7) FUNDING.—Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise 
made available pursuant to the authorization of appropriations 
in section 201(4), $1,000,000 is available to carry out the study 
required by this subsection. 
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed 
to limit continuing obligation and expenditure of funds for missile
H. R. 1585—42 
defense, including for research and development and for other activi-
ties not otherwise limited by subsection (a) or (b), including, but 
not limited to, site surveys, studies, analysis, and planning and 
design for the proposed missile defense deployment in Europe. 
SEC. 227. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION 
WITH ISRAEL. 
(a) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that 
the United States should have an active program of ballistic missile 
defense cooperation with Israel, and should take steps to improve 
the coordination, interoperability, and integration of United States 
and Israeli missile defense capabilities, and to enhance the capa-
bility of both nations to defend against ballistic missile threats 
present in the Middle East region. 
(b) REPORT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on 
the status of missile defense cooperation between the United 
States and Israel. 
(2) CONTENT.—The report submitted under this subsection 
shall include each of the following: 
(A) A description of the current program of ballistic 
missile defense cooperation between the United States and 
Israel, including its objectives and results to date. 
(B) A description of steps taken within the previous 
five years to improve the interoperability and coordination 
of the missile defense capabilities of the United States 
and Israel. 
(C) A description of steps planned to be taken by 
the governments of the United States and Israel in the 
future to improve the coordination, interoperability, and 
integration of their missile defense capabilities. 
(D) A description of joint efforts of the United States 
and Israel to develop ballistic missile defense technologies. 
(E) A description of joint missile defense exercises and 
training that have been conducted by the United States 
and Israel, and the lessons learned from those exercises. 
(F) A description of the joint missile defense testing 
activities of the United States and Israel, past and planned, 
and the benefits of such joint testing activities. 
(G) A description of how the United States and Israel 
share threat assessments regarding the ballistic missile 
threat. 
(H) Any other matters that the Secretary considers 
appropriate. 
SEC. 228. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPLOYMENT 
OF MISSILE DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS IN ALASKA. 
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
may be obligated or expended to deploy more than 40 Ground- 
Based Interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, until the Secretary of 
Defense, after receiving the views of the Director of Operational 
Test and Evaluation, submits to Congress a certification that the 
Block 2006 Ground-based Midcourse Defense element of the Bal-
listic Missile Defense System has demonstrated, through operation-
ally realistic end-to-end flight testing, that it has a high probability 
of working in an operationally effective manner.
H. R. 1585—43 
SEC. 229. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES ON PROTECTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES AND ITS ALLIES AGAINST IRANIAN BAL-
LISTIC MISSILES. 
(a) FINDING.—Congress finds that Iran maintains a nuclear 
program in continued defiance of the international community while 
developing ballistic missiles of increasing sophistication and range 
that— 
(1) pose a threat to— 
(A) the forward-deployed forces of the United States; 
(B) North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies 
in Europe; and 
(C) other allies and friendly foreign countries in the 
region; and 
(2) eventually could pose a threat to the United States 
homeland. 
(b) POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.—It is the policy of the 
United States— 
(1) to develop, test, and deploy, as soon as technologically 
feasible, in conjunction with allies and friendly foreign countries 
whenever possible, an effective defense against the threat from 
Iran described in subsection (a) that will provide protection— 
(A) for the forward-deployed forces of the United 
States, NATO allies, and other allies and friendly foreign 
countries in the region; and 
(B) for the United States homeland; 
(2) to encourage the NATO alliance to accelerate its efforts 
to— 
(A) protect NATO territory in Europe against the 
existing threat of Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles; and 
(B) facilitate the ability of NATO allies to acquire 
the missile defense systems needed to provide a wide- 
area defense capability against short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles; and 
(3) to proceed with the activities specified in paragraphs 
(1) and (2) in a manner such that any missile defense systems 
fielded by the United States in Europe are integrated with 
or complementary to missile defense systems fielded by NATO 
in Europe. 
Subtitle D—Other Matters 
SEC. 231. COORDINATION OF HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ACTIVI-
TIES RELATED TO ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, shall coordinate and manage human systems integration 
activities throughout the acquisition programs of the Department 
of Defense. 
(b) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Sec-
retary shall designate a senior official to be responsible for the 
effort. 
(c) RESPONSIBILITIES.—In carrying out this section, the senior 
official designated in subsection (b) shall— 
(1) coordinate the planning, management, and execution 
of such activities; and
H. R. 1585—44 
(2) identify and recommend, as appropriate, resource 
requirements for human systems integration activities. 
(d) DESIGNATION.—The designation required by subsection (b) 
shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act. 
SEC. 232. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY FOR PROVISION OF LABORATORY 
FACILITIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT. 
Section 2539b of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)— 
(A) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 
(B) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the 
end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(4) make available to any person or entity, through leases, 
contracts, or other appropriate arrangements, facilities, serv-
ices, and equipment of any government laboratory, research 
center, or range, if the facilities, services, and equipment pro-
vided will not be in direct competition with the domestic private 
sector.’’; 
(2) in subsection (c)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘for services’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘subsection (a)(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘sub-
sections (a)(3) and (a)(4)’’; and 
(3) in subsection (d)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘for services made available’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘subsection (a)(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘sub-
sections (a)(3) and (a)(4)’’. 
SEC. 233. MODIFICATION OF COST SHARING REQUIREMENT FOR TECH-
NOLOGY TRANSITION INITIATIVE. 
Paragraph (2) of section 2359a(f) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(2) The amount of funds provided to a project under paragraph 
(1) by the military department or Defense Agency concerned shall 
be the appropriate share of the military department or Defense 
Agency, as the case may be, of the cost of the project, as determined 
by the Manager.’’. 
SEC. 234. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MANUFACTURING TECH-
NOLOGY PROGRAM. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than September 1, 2008, the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of 
the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of 
the technologies and processes developed under the Manufacturing 
Technology Program required by section 2521 of title 10, United 
States Code. 
(b) ELEMENTS.—The report shall identify each technology or 
process implemented and, for each such technology or process, 
shall identify— 
(1) the project of the Manufacturing Technology Program 
through which the technology or process was developed, the 
Federal and non-Federal participants in that project, and the 
duration of the project; 
(2) the organization or program implementing the tech-
nology or process, and a description of the implementation;
H. R. 1585—45 
(3) the funding required to implement the technology or 
process, including— 
(A) funds provided by military departments and 
Defense Agencies under the Manufacturing Technology Pro-
gram; 
(B) funds provided by the Department of Defense, or 
any element of the Department, to co-develop the tech-
nology or process; 
(C) to the maximum extent practicable, funds provided 
by the Department of Defense, or any element of the 
Department, to— 
(i) mature the technology or process prior to transi-
tion to the Manufacturing Technology Program; and 
(ii) provide for the implementation of the tech-
nology or process; 
(4) the total value of industry cost share, if applicable; 
(5) if applicable, the total value of cost avoidance or cost 
savings directly attributable to the implementation of the tech-
nology or process; and 
(6) a description of any system performance enhancements, 
technology performance enhancements, or improvements in a 
manufacturing readiness level of a system or a technology. 
(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term 
‘‘implementation’’ refers to— 
(1) the use of a technology or process in the manufacture 
of defense materiel; 
(2) the inclusion of a technology or process in the systems 
engineering plan for a program of record; or 
(3) the use of a technology or process for the manufacture 
of commercial items. 
(d) SCOPE.—The report shall include technologies or processes 
developed with funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
for the Manufacturing Technology programs of the military depart-
ments and Defense Agencies for fiscal years 2003 through 2005. 
SEC. 235. ASSESSMENT OF SUFFICIENCY OF TEST AND EVALUATION 
PERSONNEL. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Director of Operational Test 
and Evaluation shall assess whether the Director’s professional 
staff meets the requirement of section 139(j) of title 10, United 
States Code, that the staff be sufficient to carry out the Director’s 
duties and responsibilities. 
(b) INCLUSION
IN REPORT.—The Director shall include the 
results of the assessment in the report, required by section 139(g) 
of title 10, United States Code, summarizing the operational test 
and evaluation activities during fiscal year 2007. 
SEC. 236. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE REPORTS ON 
TECHNOLOGY AREA REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT SUM-
MARIES. 
Subsection (c) of section 253 of the National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163; 119 Stat. 3179; 
10 U.S.C. 2501 note) is repealed.
H. R. 1585—46 
SEC. 237. MODIFICATION OF NOTICE AND WAIT REQUIREMENT FOR 
OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TEST 
PROGRAM. 
Paragraph (3) of section 2350a(g) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(3) The Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall 
notify the congressional defense committees of the intent to obligate 
funds made available to carry out this subsection not less than 
7 days before such funds are obligated.’’. 
SEC. 238. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 
PROGRAM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2521 of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 
‘‘(e) FIVE-YEAR
STRATEGIC
PLAN.—(1) The Secretary shall 
develop a plan for the program that includes the following: 
‘‘(A) The overall manufacturing technology goals, mile-
stones, priorities, and investment strategy for the program. 
‘‘(B) The objectives of, and funding for, the program for 
each military department and each Defense Agency that shall 
participate in the program during the period of the plan. 
‘‘(2) The Secretary shall include in the plan mechanisms for 
assessing the effectiveness of the program under the plan. 
‘‘(3) The Secretary shall update the plan on a biennial basis. 
‘‘(4) Each plan, and each update to the plan, shall cover a 
period of five fiscal years.’’. 
(b) INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMISSION OF PLAN.— 
(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall develop 
the strategic plan required by subsection (e) of section 2521 
of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a) 
of this section), so that the plan goes into effect at the beginning 
of fiscal year 2009. 
(2) SUBMISSION.—Not later than the date on which the 
budget of the President for fiscal year 2010 is submitted to 
Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, 
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the 
House of Representatives the plan specified in paragraph (1). 
SEC. 239. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON COORDINATION OF 
DEFENSE 
EXPERIMENTAL 
PROGRAM 
TO 
STIMULATE 
COMPETITIVE RESEARCH WITH SIMILAR FEDERAL PRO-
GRAMS. 
Section 257(e)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1995 (10 U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended by striking 
‘‘shall’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘may’’. 
SEC. 240. ENHANCEMENT OF DEFENSE NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 
AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 
(a) PROGRAM PURPOSES.—Subsection (b) of section 246 of the 
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003 (Public Law 107–314; 116 Stat. 2500; 10 U.S.C. 2358 note) 
is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘in nanoscale research 
and 
development’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘in 
the 
National 
Nanotechnology 
Initiative 
and 
with 
the 
National 
Nanotechnology Coordination Office under section 3 of the 21st
H. R. 1585—47 
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 
U.S.C. 7502)’’; and 
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘portfolio of fundamental 
and applied nanoscience and engineering research initiatives’’ 
and inserting ‘‘portfolio of nanotechnology research and develop-
ment initiatives’’. 
(b) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.— 
(1) ADMINISTRATION
THROUGH
UNDER
SECRETARY
OF 
DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS.—Sub-
section (c) of such section is amended— 
(A) by striking ‘‘the Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering’’ and inserting ‘‘the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘The Director’’ and inserting ‘‘The Under 
Secretary’’. 
(2) OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.—Such subsection is 
further amended— 
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘the Department’s 
increased investment in nanotechnology research and 
development and the National Nanotechnology Initiative; 
and’’ and inserting ‘‘investments by the Department and 
other departments and agencies participating in the 
National Nanotechnology Initiative in nanotechnology 
research and development;’’; 
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the 
end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
‘‘(4) oversee Department of Defense participation in inter-
agency coordination of the program with other departments 
and agencies participating in the National Nanotechnology Ini-
tiative.’’. 
(c) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—Such section is further amended— 
(1) by striking subsection (d); and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection 
(d): 
‘‘(d) STRATEGIC PLAN.—The Under Secretary shall develop and 
maintain a strategic plan for defense nanotechnology research and 
development that— 
‘‘(1) is integrated with the strategic plan for the National 
Nanotechnology Initiative and the strategic plans of the 
Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the military 
departments, and the Defense Agencies; and 
‘‘(2) includes a clear strategy for transitioning the research 
into products needed by the Department.’’. 
(d) REPORTS.—Such section is further amended by adding at 
the end the following new subsection: 
‘‘(e) REPORTS.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 1 of each of 2009, 
2011, and 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics shall submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report on the program. 
‘‘(2) MATTERS INCLUDED.—Each report under paragraph (1) 
shall include the following: 
‘‘(A) A review of— 
‘‘(i) the long-term challenges and specific technical 
goals of the program; and
H. R. 1585—48 
‘‘(ii) the progress made toward meeting such chal-
lenges and achieving such goals. 
‘‘(B) An assessment of current and proposed funding 
levels for the program, including an assessment of the 
adequacy of such funding levels to support program activi-
ties. 
‘‘(C) A review of the coordination of activities under 
the program within the Department of Defense, with other 
departments and agencies of the United States, and with 
the National Nanotechnology Initiative. 
‘‘(D) A review and analysis of the findings and rec-
ommendations relating to the Department of Defense of 
the most recent triennial external review of the National 
Nanotechnology Program under section 5 of the 21st Cen-
tury Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 
U.S.C. 1704), and a description of initiatives of the Depart-
ment to implement such recommendations. 
‘‘(E) An assessment of technology transition from 
nanotechnology research and development to enhanced 
warfighting capabilities, including contributions from the 
Department 
of 
Defense 
Small 
Business 
Innovative 
Research 
and 
Small 
Business 
Technology 
Transfer 
Research programs, and the Department of Defense Manu-
facturing Technology program, and an identification of 
acquisition programs and deployed defense systems that 
are incorporating nanotechnologies. 
‘‘(F) An assessment of global nanotechnology research 
and development in areas of interest to the Department, 
including an identification of the use of nanotechnologies 
in any foreign defense systems. 
‘‘(G) An assessment of the defense nanotechnology 
manufacturing and industrial base and its capability to 
meet the near and far term requirements of the Depart-
ment. 
‘‘(H) Such recommendations for additional activities 
under the program to meet emerging national security 
requirements as the Under Secretary considers appropriate. 
‘‘(3) CLASSIFICATION.—Each report under paragraph (1) 
shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a 
classified annex.’’. 
SEC. 241. FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
CENTER ASSESSMENT OF THE DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL 
PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall— 
(1) utilize a defense federally funded research and develop-
ment center to carry out an assessment of the effectiveness 
of the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research; and 
(2) not later than nine months after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 
that assessment. 
(b) MATTERS ASSESSED.—The report under subsection (a) shall 
include the following: 
(1) A description and assessment of the tangible results 
and progress toward the objectives of the program, including—
H. R. 1585—49 
(A) an identification of any past program activities 
that led to, or were fundamental to, applications used 
by, or supportive of, operational users; and 
(B) an assessment of whether the program has 
expanded the national research infrastructure. 
(2) An assessment whether the activities undertaken under 
the program are consistent with the statute authorizing the 
program. 
(3) An assessment whether the various elements of the 
program, such as structure, funding, staffing, project solicitation 
and selection, and administration, are working effectively and 
efficiently to support the effective execution of the program. 
(4) A description and assessment of past and ongoing activi-
ties of State planning committees under the program in sup-
porting the achievement of the objectives of the program. 
(5) An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of 
having an institution-based formula for qualification to partici-
pate in the program when compared with the advantages and 
disadvantages of having a State-based formula for qualification 
to participate in supporting defense missions and the objective 
of expanding the Nation’s defense research infrastructure. 
(6) An identification of mechanisms for improving the 
management and implementation of the program, including 
modification of the statute authorizing the program, Depart-
ment regulations, program structure, funding levels, funding 
strategy, or the activities of the State committees. 
(7) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate. 
SEC. 242. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FUNDING REDUC-
TION FOR HIGH ENERGY LASER SYSTEMS TEST FACILITY. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 90 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees a report containing a cost- 
benefit analysis of the proposed reduction in Army research, 
development, test, and evaluation funding for the High Energy 
Laser Systems Test Facility. 
(b) EVALUATION
OF IMPACT
ON OTHER MILITARY DEPART-
MENTS.—The report required under subsection (a) shall include 
an evaluation of the impact of the proposed reduction in funding 
on each Department of Defense organization or activity that utilizes 
the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility. 
SEC. 243. PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE. 
(a) RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING PLAN.—The Sec-
retary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense commit-
tees a research, development, and testing plan for prompt global 
strike program objectives for fiscal years 2008 through 2013. 
(b) PLAN FOR OBLIGATION AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall submit to the 
congressional defense committees a plan for obligation and 
expenditure of funds available for prompt global strike for 
fiscal year 2008. The plan shall include correlations between 
each technology application being developed in fiscal year 2008 
and the prompt global strike alternative or alternatives toward 
which the technology application applies.