†
HR 1585 EAS
retired under the John Warner National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), to
the Government of Iraq.
SEC. 145. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATIONS ON RETIREMENT
OF B–52 BOMBER AIRCRAFT.
(a) MAINTENANCE OF PRIMARY AND BACKUP INVEN-
TORY OF AIRCRAFT.—Subsection (a)(1) of section 131 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 2111) is
amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at
the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period
at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sub-
paragraph (C):
‘‘(C) shall maintain in a common configu-
ration a primary aircraft inventory of not less
than 63 such aircraft and a backup aircraft in-
ventory of not less than 11 such aircraft.’’.
(b) NOTICE OF RETIREMENT.—Subsection (b)(1) of
such section is amended by striking ‘‘45 days’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘60 days’’.
†
HR 1585 EAS
SEC. 146. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE AIR FORCE STRAT-
EGY FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE AERIAL
REFUELING TANKER AIRCRAFT FLEET.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A properly executed comprehensive strategy
to replace Air Force tankers will allow the United
States military to continue to project combat capa-
bility anywhere in the world on short notice without
relying on intermediate bases for refueling.
(2) With an average age of 45 years, it is esti-
mated that it will take over 30 years to replace the
KC–135 aircraft fleet with the funding currently in
place.
(3) In addition to the KC–X program of record,
which supports the tanker replacement strategy, the
Air Force should immediately pursue that part of the
tanker replacement strategy that would support, aug-
ment, or enhance the Air Force air refueling mission,
such as Fee-for-Service support or modifications and
upgrades to maintain the viability of the KC–135
aircraft force structure as the Air Force recapitalizes
the tanker fleet.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress
that—
†
HR 1585 EAS
(1) the timely modernization of the Air Force
aerial refueling tanker fleet is a vital national secu-
rity priority; and
(2) in furtherance of meeting this priority, the
Secretary of the Air Force has initiated, and Congress
approves of, a comprehensive strategy for replacing
the aerial refueling tanker aircraft fleet, which in-
cludes the following elements:
(A) Replacement of the aging tanker air-
craft fleet with newer and improved capabilities
under the KC–X program of record which sup-
ports the tanker replacement strategy, through
the purchase of new commercial derivative air-
craft.
(B) Sustainment and extension of the legacy
tanker aircraft fleet until replacement through
depot-type modifications and upgrades of KC–
135 aircraft and KC–10 aircraft.
(C) Augmentation of the aerial refueling ca-
pability through aerial refueling Fee-for-Service.
SEC. 147. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RAPID FIELDING OF AS-
SOCIATE INTERMODAL PLATFORM SYSTEM
AND OTHER INNOVATIVE LOGISTICS SYS-
TEMS.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
†
HR 1585 EAS
(1) Use of the Associate Intermodal Platform
(AIP) pallet system, developed two years ago by the
United States Transportation Command, could save
the United States as much as $1,300,000 for every
1,000 pallets deployed.
(2) The benefits of the usage of the Associate
Intermodal Platform pallet system include the fol-
lowing:
(A) The Associate Intermodal Platform pal-
let system can be used to transport cargo alone
within current International Standard of Orga-
nization containers and thereby provide further
savings in costs of transportation of cargo.
(B) The Associate Intermodal Platform pal-
let system has successfully passed rigorous testing
by the United States Transportation Command
at various military installations in the United
States, at a Navy testing lab, and in the field in
Iraq, Kuwait, and Antarctica.
(C) By all accounts the Associate Inter-
modal Platform pallet system has performed well
beyond expectations and is ready for immediate
production and deployment.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress
that the Department of Defense should—
†
HR 1585 EAS
(1) rapidly field innovative logistic systems such
as the Associated Intermodal Platform pallet system;
and
(2) seek to fully procure innovative logistic sys-
tems such as the Associate Intermodal Platform pallet
system in future budgets.
TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOP-
MENT, TEST, AND EVALUA-
TION
Subtitle A—Authorization of
Appropriations
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fis-
cal year 2008 for the use of the Department of Defense for
research, development, test, and evaluation as follows:
(1) For the Army, $11,268,904,000.
(2) For the Navy, $16,296,395,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $25,581,989,000.
(4) For Defense-wide activities, $21,511,739,000,
of which $180,264,000 is authorized for the Director
of Operational Test and Evaluation.
SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECH-
NOLOGY.
(a) FISCAL YEAR 2008.—Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated by section 201, $11,204,784,000 shall be
†
HR 1585 EAS
available for the Defense Science and Technology Program,
including basic research, applied research, and advanced
technology development projects.
(b) BASIC RESEARCH, APPLIED RESEARCH, AND AD-
VANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DEFINED.—For pur-
poses of this section, the term ‘‘basic research, applied re-
search, and advanced technology development’’ means work
funded in program elements for defense research and devel-
opment under Department of Defense budget activity 1, 2,
or 3.
Subtitle B—Program Requirements,
Restrictions, and Limitations
SEC. 211. ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM.
(a) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Of the amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 201(4) for research, develop-
ment, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide activities, and
made available for the Foreign Material Acquisition and
Exploitation Program and for activities of the Office of
Special Technology, an aggregate of $20,000,000 shall be
transferred to the Advanced Sensor Applications Program
not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) REASSIGNMENT
OF PROGRAM.—Beginning not
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Advanced Sensor Applications Program shall be
†
HR 1585 EAS
a program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, man-
aged by the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agen-
cy, and shall be executed by the Program Executive Officer
for Aviation for the Navy working for the Director of the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
SEC. 212. ACTIVE PROTECTION SYSTEMS.
(a) COMPARATIVE TESTS REQUIRED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall
undertake comparative tests, including live-fire tests,
of appropriate foreign and domestic active protection
systems in order—
(A) to determine the effectiveness of such
systems; and
(B) to develop information useful in the
consideration of the adoption of such systems in
defense acquisition programs.
(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 re-
sults of the tests undertaken under paragraph (1) as
of the date of such report.
(b) COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall undertake
a comprehensive assessment of active protection sys-
tems in order to develop information useful in the de-
†
HR 1585 EAS
velopment of joint active protection systems and other
defense programs.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The assessment under para-
graph (1) shall include—
(A) an identification of the potential merits
and operational costs of the use of active protec-
tion systems by United States military forces;
(B) a characterization of the threats that
use of active protection systems by potential ad-
versaries would pose to United States military
forces and weapons;
(C) an identification and assessment of
countermeasures to active protection systems;
(D) an analysis of collateral damage poten-
tial of active protection systems;
(E) an identification and assessment of
emerging direct-fire and top-attack threats to de-
fense systems that could potentially deploy active
protection systems; and
(F) an identification and assessment of crit-
ical technology elements of active protection sys-
tems.
(3) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2008,
the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
†
HR 1585 EAS
committees a report on the assessment under para-
graph (1).
SEC. 213. OBLIGATION AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF PROPUL-
SION SYSTEM FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHT-
ER.
Within amount authorized to be appropriated for fis-
cal years after fiscal year 2007 for procurement, and for
research, development, test, and evaluation, for the Joint
Strike Fighter Program, the Secretary of Defense shall en-
sure the obligation and expenditure of sufficient amounts
each such fiscal year for the continued development and
procurement of two options for the propulsion system for
the Joint Strike Fighter in order to assure the competitive
development and eventual production for the propulsion
system for a Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, thereby giving
a choice of engine to the growing number of nations express-
ing interest in procuring such aircraft.
SEC. 214. GULF WAR ILLNESSES RESEARCH.
(a) FUNDING.—
(1) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.—Of the amount au-
thorized to be appropriated by section 201(1) for re-
search, development, test, and evaluation, Army
$15,000,000, may be allocated to Medical Advanced
Technology (PE #0603002A) for the Army to carry
†
HR 1585 EAS
out, as part of its Congressionally Directed Medical
Research Programs, a program for Gulf War Illnesses
Research.
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the program may be
to develop diagnostic markers and treatments for the com-
plex of symptoms commonly known as ‘‘Gulf War Illnesses
(GWI)’’, including widespread pain, cognitive impairment,
and persistent fatigue in conjunction with diverse other
symptoms and abnormalities, that are associated with serv-
ice in the Southwest Asia theater of operations in the early
1990s during the Persian Gulf War.
(c) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—
(1) Highest priority under the program shall be
afforded to pilot and observational studies of treat-
ments for the complex of symptoms described in sub-
section (b) and comprehensive clinical trials of such
treatments that have demonstrated effectiveness in
previous past pilot and observational studies.
(2) Secondary priority under the program may
be afforded to studies that identify objective markers
for such complex of symptoms and biological mecha-
nisms underlying such complex of symptoms that can
lead to the identification and development of such
markers and treatments.
†
HR 1585 EAS
(3) No study shall be funded under the program
that is based on psychiatric illness and psychological
stress as the central cause of such complex of symp-
toms (as is consistent with current research findings).
(d) COMPETITIVE SELECTION AND PEER REVIEW.—
The program shall be conducted using competitive selection
and peer review for the identification of activities having
the most substantial scientific merit, utilizing individuals
with recognized expertise in Gulf War illnesses in the design
of the solicitation and in the scientific and programmatic
review processes.
Subtitle C—Missile Defense
Programs
SEC. 231. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR
PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND DE-
PLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSES IN EU-
ROPE.
(a) GENERAL LIMITATION.—No funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended for
procurement, site activation, construction, preparation of
equipment for, or deployment of a long-range missile de-
fense system in Europe until the following conditions have
been met:
(1) The governments of the countries in which
major components of such missile defense system (in-
†
HR 1585 EAS
cluding interceptors and associated radars) are pro-
posed to be deployed have each given final approval
to any missile defense agreements negotiated between
such governments and the United States Government
concerning the proposed deployment of such compo-
nents in their countries.
(2) 45 days have elapsed following the receipt by
Congress of the report required under subsection
(c)(6).
(b) ADDITIONAL LIMITATION.—In addition to the limi-
tation in subsection (a), no funds authorized to be appro-
priated 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 Oper-
ational 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 probability of working in an operationally effective
manner.
(c) REPORT ON INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT FOR BAL-
LISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE.—
(1) INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT.—Not later than
30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
†
HR 1585 EAS
the Secretary of Defense shall select a federally funded
research and development center to conduct an inde-
pendent assessment of options for ballistic missile de-
fense for forward deployed forces of the United States
and its allies in Europe.
(2) ISSUES TO BE ASSESSED.—In carrying out
the assessment described in paragraph (1), the feder-
ally funded research and development center selected
under that paragraph shall consider the following in
connection with options for missile defense in Europe:
(A) The threat to Europe of ballistic mis-
siles (including short-range, medium-range, in-
termediate-range, and long-range ballistic mis-
siles) from Iran and from other nations (except
Russia), including the likelihood and timing of
such threats.
(B) The missile defense capabilities appro-
priate to meet current, near-term, and mid-term
ballistic missile threats facing Europe during the
period from 2008 through 2015.
(C) Alternative options for defending the
European territory of members of the North At-
lantic Treaty Organization against the threats
described in subparagraph (B).
†
HR 1585 EAS
(D) The utility and cost-effectiveness of pro-
viding ballistic missile defense of the United
States with a system located in Europe, if war-
ranted by the threat, when compared with the
provision of such defense through the deployment
of additional ballistic missile defense in the
United States.
(E) The views of European members of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization on the desir-
ability of ballistic missile defenses for the Euro-
pean territory of such nations.
(F) Potential opportunities for participa-
tion by the Government of Russia in a European
missile defense system.
(3) TECHNOLOGIES
TO
BE
CONSIDERED.—In
conducting the assessment described in paragraph (1),
the federally funded research and development center
selected under that paragraph shall consider, but not
be limited to, the following missile defense technology
options:
(A) The Patriot PAC–3 system.
(B) The Medium Extended Air Defense Sys-
tem.
†
HR 1585 EAS
(C) The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense sys-
tem, with all variants of the Standard Missile-
3 interceptor.
(D) The Terminal High Altitude Area De-
fense (THAAD) system.
(E) The proposed deployment of Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system elements
in Europe, consisting of the proposed 2-stage Or-
bital Boost Vehicle interceptor, and the proposed
European Midcourse X-band radar.
(F) Forward-Based X-band Transportable
(FBX–T) radars.
(G) Other non-United States, North Atlan-
tic Treaty Organization missile defense systems.
(4) FACTORS
TO
BE
CONSIDERED.—In con-
ducting the assessment described in paragraph (1),
the federally funded research and development center
selected under that paragraph shall consider the fol-
lowing factors with respect to potential ballistic mis-
sile defense options:
(A) The missile defense needs of the Euro-
pean members of the North Atlantic Treaty Or-
ganization, including forward deployed United
States forces, with respect to current, near-term,
and mid-term ballistic missile threats.
†
HR 1585 EAS
(B) Operational effectiveness.
(C) Command and control arrangements.
(D) Integration and interoperability with
North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile de-
fenses.
(E) Cost and affordability, including pos-
sible allied cost-sharing.
(F) Cost-effectiveness.
(G) The degree of coverage of the European
territory of members of the North Atlantic Trea-
ty Organization.
(5) COOPERATION
OF
OTHER
AGENCIES.—The
Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intel-
ligence, and the heads of other departments and agen-
cies of the United States Government shall provide the
federally funded research and development center se-
lected under paragraph (1) such data, analyses, brief-
ings, and other information as the center considers
necessary to carry out the assessment described in
that paragraph.
(6) REPORT
REQUIRED.—Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
federally funded research and development center se-
lected under paragraph (1) shall submit to the Sec-
retary of Defense and the congressional defense com-
†
HR 1585 EAS
mittees a report on the results of the assessment de-
scribed in that paragraph, including any findings
and recommendations of the center as a result of the
assessment.
(7) FORM.—The report under paragraph (6)
shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may in-
clude a classified annex.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit continuing obligation and expenditure
of funds for missile defense, including for research and de-
velopment and for other activities not otherwise limited by
subsection (a) or (b).
SEC. 232. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DE-
PLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSE INTERCEP-
TORS 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 Direc-
tor of Operational Test and Evaluation, submits to Con-
gress a certification that the Block 2006 Ground-based Mid-
course Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense Sys-
tem has demonstrated, through operationally realistic end-
to-end flight testing, that it has a high probability of work-
ing in an operationally effective manner.
†
HR 1585 EAS
SEC. 233. BUDGET AND ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS FOR
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ACTIVITIES.
(a) REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE.—The budget jus-
tification materials submitted to Congress in support of the
Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year after fiscal
year 2008 (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 De-
fense Agency for each of the following:
(1) Research, development, test, and evaluation.
(2) Procurement.
(3) Operation and maintenance.
(4) Military construction.
(b) OBJECTIVES FOR ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Commencing as soon as prac-
ticable, 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 ac-
tions to achieve the following objectives in its acquisi-
tion 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 De-
†
HR 1585 EAS
fense Agency shall, at a minimum, take actions as fol-
lows:
(A) Establish acquisition cost, schedule, and
performance baselines for each Ballistic Missile
Defense System element that—
(i) has entered the equivalent of the
System 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 inde-
pendent estimation and verification of such cost
reporting data.
(C) Include each year in the budget jus-
tification materials described in subsection (a) a
description of actions being taken in the fiscal
year in which such materials are submitted, and
the actions to be taken in the fiscal year covered
by such materials, to achieve such objectives.
(3) SPECIFICATION OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DE-
FENSE SYSTEM ELEMENTS.—The Ballistic Missile De-
fense System elements that, as of May 2007, are Bal-
†
HR 1585 EAS
listic 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-Trans-
portable (AN/TPY–2).
(E) Command, Control, Battle Manage-
ment, and Communications.
(F) Sea-Based X-band radar.
(G) Upgraded Early Warning radars.
SEC. 234. PARTICIPATION OF DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL
TEST AND EVALUATION, IN MISSILE DEFENSE
TEST AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES.
Section 139 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) through (j)
as subsections (g) through (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following
new subsection (f):
‘‘(f)(1) The Director of the Missile Defense Agency shall
report promptly 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
†
HR 1585 EAS
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 conduct 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 re-
view in order to carry out his duties under this subsection.’’.
SEC. 235. EXTENSION OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESS-
MENTS OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PRO-
GRAMS.
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’’.
†
HR 1585 EAS
Subtitle D—Other Matters
SEC. 251. MODIFICATION OF NOTICE AND WAIT REQUIRE-
MENT FOR OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR FOR-
EIGN 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 Engineer-
ing 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 obli-
gated.’’.
SEC. 252. MODIFICATION OF COST SHARING REQUIREMENT
FOR TECHNOLOGY 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 Agen-
cy 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. 253. 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:
†
HR 1585 EAS
‘‘(e) STRATEGIC PLAN.—(1) The Secretary shall de-
velop a plan for the program which includes the following:
‘‘(A) The overall manufacturing technology goals,
milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the
program during the 5-fiscal year period beginning
with the first fiscal year commencing after the devel-
opment of the plan.
‘‘(B) For each of the fiscal years under the pe-
riod of the plan, the objectives of, and funding for, the
program for each military department and each De-
fense Agency that shall participate in the program
during the period of the plan.
‘‘(2) The Secretary shall include in the plan mecha-
nisms for assessing the effectiveness of the program under
the plan.
‘‘(3) The Secretary shall update the plan on a biennial
basis.
‘‘(4) The Secretary shall include the plan, and any up-
date of the plan under paragraph (3), in the budget jus-
tification documents submitted in support of the budget of
the Department of Defense for the applicable fiscal year (as
included in the budget of the President submitted to Con-
gress under section 1105 of title 31).’’.
(b) INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN.—The Secretary
of Defense shall develop the strategic plan required by sub-
†
HR 1585 EAS
section (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.
SEC. 254. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON COORDINA-
TION OF DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
TO 
STIMULATE 
COMPETITIVE 
RESEARCH
WITH SIMILAR FEDERAL PROGRAMS.
Section 257(e)(2) of the National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (10 U.S.C. 2358 note) is
amended by striking ‘‘shall’’ each place it appears and in-
serting ‘‘may’’.
SEC. 255. 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 Na-
tional Nanotechnology Initiative and with the Na-
tional Nanotechnology Coordination Office under sec-
tion 3 of the 21st 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 engineer-
†
HR 1585 EAS
ing research initiatives’’ and inserting ‘‘portfolio of
nanotechnology research and development initiatives’’.
(b) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.—
(1) ADMINISTRATION
THROUGH
UNDER
SEC-
RETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY,
AND
LOGISTICS.—Subsection (c) of such section is
amended—
(A) by striking ‘‘the Director of Defense Re-
search and Engineering’’ and inserting ‘‘the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘The Director’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘The Under Secretary’’.
(2) OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS.—Such
subsection is further amended—
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘the De-
partment’s 
increased 
investment 
in
nanotechnology 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 re-
search and development;’’;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period
at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
†
HR 1585 EAS
(C) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
‘‘(4) oversee interagency coordination of the pro-
gram with other departments and agencies partici-
pating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, in-
cluding providing appropriate funds to support the
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.’’.
(c) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—Such section is further
amended—
(1) by striking subsection (d); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
section (d):
‘‘(d) ACTIVITIES.—Activities under the program shall
include the following:
‘‘(1) The development of a strategic plan for de-
fense nanotechnology research and development that is
integrated with the strategic plan for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative.
‘‘(2) The issuance on an annual basis of policy
guidance to the military departments and the Defense
Agencies that—
‘‘(A) establishes research priorities under
the program;
†
HR 1585 EAS
‘‘(B) provides for the determination and
documentation of the benefits to the Department
of Defense of research under the program; and
‘‘(C) sets 
forth 
a 
clear 
strategy 
for
transitioning the research into products needed
by the Department.
‘‘(3) 
Advocating 
for 
the 
transition 
of
nanotechnologies in defense acquisition programs, in-
cluding the development of nanomanufacturing capa-
bilities and a nanotechnology defense industrial
base.’’.
(d) REPORTS.—Such section is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(e) REPORTS.—(1) 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 pro-
gram.
‘‘(2) 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
‘‘(ii) the progress made toward meeting
such challenges and achieving such goals.
†
HR 1585 EAS
‘‘(B) An assessment of current and proposed
funding levels for the program, including an assess-
ment of the adequacy of such funding levels to support
program activities.
‘‘(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 Initia-
tive.
‘‘(D) A review and analysis of the findings and
recommendations relating to the Department of De-
fense of the most recent triennial external review of
the National Nanotechnology Program under section
5 of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act (15 U.S.C. 1704), and a description
of initiatives of the Department 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
Manufacturing Technology program, and an identi-
†
HR 1585 EAS
fication of acquisition programs and deployed defense
systems that are incorporating nanotechnologies.
‘‘(F) An assessment of global nanotechnology re-
search and development in areas of interest to the De-
partment, 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 re-
quirements of the Department.
‘‘(H) Such recommendations for additional ac-
tivities under the program to meet emerging national
security requirements as the Under Secretary con-
siders appropriate.
‘‘(3) Each report under paragraph (1) shall be sub-
mitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.’’.
(e) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON PROGRAM.—
Not later than March 31, 2010, the Comptroller General
of the United States shall submit to the congressional de-
fense committees a report setting forth the assessment of the
Comptroller General of the progress made by the Depart-
ment of Defense in achieving the purposes of the defense
nanotechnology research and development program required
by section 246 of the Bob Stump National Defense Author-