(C) a schedule of technology transition win-
dows for each technology need; 
(D) a description of discrete technology 
deliverables that specifically identifies which user 
need would be fulfilled by each deliverable; 
(E) a schedule for technology deliverables 
that aligns with user defined technology transi-
tion opportunities; and 
(F) a commitment by the prospective tech-
nology user to program for advanced develop-
ment or procurement funding, as appropriate, 
upon successful delivery of the technology, in ac-
cordance with the other terms of the agreement. 
(2) The term ‘‘prospective technology user’’ has 
the meaning given that term in section 2521(c)(6) of 
title 10, United States Code. 
Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile 
Defense 
SEC. 221. OVERSIGHT OF MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY PRO-
GRAMS BY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST 
AND EVALUATION. 
(a) MDA TO REPORT TO OT&E.—The Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency shall report promptly to the Direc-
tor of Operational Test and Evaluation the results of— 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
(1) all operational test and evaluation conducted 
by the Missile Defense Agency with respect to any 
major defense acquisition program; and 
(2) all studies conducted in connection with such 
operational test and evaluation. 
(b) OT&E OBSERVERS AT MDA TESTS.—The Director 
of Operational Test and Evaluation may require that such 
observers as the Director of Operational Test and Evalua-
tion may designate are present during the preparation for, 
and the conduct of, the test part of any test and evaluation 
conducted by the Missile Defense Agency with respect to any 
major defense acquisition program. 
(c) OT&E ACCESS TO INFORMATION.—The Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation shall have access to all 
information of the Department of Defense (including infor-
mation of the Missile Defense Agency) that the Director con-
siders necessary to review in order to carry out this section. 
SEC. 222. FIELDING OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE CAPA-
BILITIES AND FUTURE ROLES AND MISSIONS 
OF MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY. 
(a) AVAILABILITY OF RDT&E FUNDS FOR FISCAL 
2009.—Upon approval by the Secretary of Defense, funds 
appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropria-
tions or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2009 for 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Missile 
Defense Agency— 
(1) may be used for the development and fielding 
of ballistic missile defense capabilities; and 
(2) may not be used for operations and support 
activities. 
(b) BUDGETING FOR OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT FOR 
FISCAL 2009.—For fiscal year 2009, any amount in the 
budget submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 
31, United States Code, for operations and support activi-
ties for the Missile Defense Agency shall be set forth under 
the account of the Department of Defense for operation and 
maintenance, Defense-wide, and, within that account, 
under the subaccount (or other budget activity level) for the 
Missile Defense Agency. 
(c) 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 Representa-
tives a plan for transitioning the Missile Defense Agency 
from using research, development, test, and evaluation 
funds for missile defense fielding activities to using procure-
ment funds for those activities where practicable. 
(d) STUDY REQUIRED.— 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall 
enter into an agreement with one of the Federally 
Funded Research and Development Centers under 
which the Center will carry out a study to examine, 
and make recommendations with respect to, the long- 
term structure, roles, and missions of the Missile De-
fense Agency. 
(2) MATTERS INCLUDED.— 
(A) REVIEW.—The study shall include a 
full review of the structure, roles, and missions 
of the Missile Defense Agency. 
(B) ASSESSMENTS.—The study shall in-
clude an examination and assessment of the cur-
rent and future— 
(i) structure, roles, and missions of the 
Missile Defense Agency; and 
(ii) relationship of the Missile Defense 
Agency with— 
(I) the Office of the Under Sec-
retary of Defense for Acquisition, Tech-
nology, and Logistics; 
(II) the Office of the Under Sec-
retary of Defense for Policy; 
(III) the Director of Operational 
Test and Evaluation; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
(IV) the Commander of the United 
States Strategic Command and other 
combatant commanders; and 
(V) the military departments. 
(C) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The study shall 
include recommendations as to how the Missile 
Defense Agency can be made more effective to 
support the needs of the warfighter. The rec-
ommendations 
shall 
include 
specific 
rec-
ommendations as to whether— 
(i) the Missile Defense Agency should 
be maintained in its current configuration; 
(ii) the scope and nature of the Missile 
Defense Agency should be changed from an 
organization focused on research and devel-
opment to an organization focused on com-
bat support; and 
(iii) the Missile Defense Agency should 
be abolished and its responsibilities trans-
ferred to the United States Strategic Com-
mand and the military departments. 
(3) COOPERATION FROM GOVERNMENT.—In car-
rying out the study, the Federally Funded Research 
and Development Center shall receive the full and 
timely cooperation of the Secretary of Defense and 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
any other United States Government official in pro-
viding the Center with analyses, briefings, and other 
information necessary for the fulfillment of its respon-
sibilities. 
(4) REPORT.—Not later than September 1, 2008, 
the Federally Funded Research and Development Cen-
ter shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 
on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 
(5) FUNDING.—Funds for the study shall be pro-
vided from amounts appropriated for the Department 
of Defense. 
SEC. 223. 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 uni-
tary warhead on the SM-3 Block IIA missile with the Mul-
tiple Kill Vehicle until after the Secretary of Defense cer-
tifies to Congress that— 
(1) the United States and Japan have reached 
an agreement 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 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
not delay the expected deployment date of 2014-2015 
for that missile. 
SEC. 224. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF COMPTROLLER GEN-
ERAL 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 amend-
ed— 
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘through 
2008’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2010’’; and 
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘through 
2009’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2011’’. 
SEC. 225. INDEPENDENT STUDY ON DEPLOYING MISSILE 
DEFENSE SYSTEM IN EUROPE. 
(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall 
enter into an agreement with one of the Federally Funded 
Research and Development Centers under which the Center 
will carry out a study on the political, technical, oper-
ational, force structure, and budgetary implications of de-
ploying a long-range missile defense system in Europe. 
(b) ANALYSIS OF ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL.—The 
study shall provide a full analysis of the Administration’s 
proposal to protect forward-deployed radars, Europe, and 
the United States by deploying, in Europe, interceptors and 
radars of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) sys-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
tem. In providing the analysis, the study shall examine each 
of the following: 
(1) The technical capabilities of the GMD sys-
tem, as so deployed, to effectively protect forward-de-
ployed radars, Europe, and the United States. 
(2) The political implications of such a deploy-
ment on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, and other interested parties. 
(3) The operational issues associated with such a 
deployment. 
(4) The force structure implications of such a de-
ployment. 
(5) The budgetary implications of such a deploy-
ment. 
(c) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.—The study shall also 
provide a full analysis of alternative systems that could be 
deployed to fulfill, in whole or in part, the protective pur-
poses of the Administration’s proposal. The alternative sys-
tems shall include a range of feasible combinations of other 
missile defense systems that are available or are expected 
to be available as of 2020. In providing the analysis, the 
study shall examine, for each alternative system included, 
the following: 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
(1) The technical capabilities of the alternative 
system, as so deployed, to effectively protect forward- 
deployed radars, Europe, and the United States. 
(2) The political implications of such a deploy-
ment on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, and other interested parties. 
(3) The operational issues associated with such a 
deployment. 
(4) The force structure implications of such a de-
ployment. 
(5) The budgetary implications of such a deploy-
ment. 
(d) COOPERATION REQUIRED.—In carrying out the 
study, the Federally Funded Research and Development 
Center shall receive the cooperation of the Secretary of De-
fense, the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intel-
ligence, and any other United States Government official 
in providing the Center with analyses, briefings, and other 
information necessary for the fulfillment of its responsibil-
ities. 
(e) 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 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
on the results of the study. The report shall be in unclassi-
fied form, but may include a classified annex. 
(f) FUNDING.—Of the amounts appropriated or other-
wise made available pursuant to the authorization of ap-
propriations in section 201(4), $1,000,000 is available to 
carry out the study required by this section. 
SEC. 226. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING FULL SUP-
PORT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND FIELDING OF 
A LAYERED BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE. 
It is the sense of Congress that— 
(1) the development and proliferation of ballistic 
missile and nuclear capabilities by rogue nations con-
tinues to grow, posing a serious threat to the national 
security of the United States, United States military 
forces deployed, and United States national security 
interests more broadly, as demonstrated by— 
(A) the July 2006 test by North Korea of 
six short-range missiles and one longer-range 
Taepo Dong-2 missile, and the October 2006 test 
by North Korea of a nuclear device; 
(B) the November 2006 and January 2007 
test by Iran of nearly a dozen missiles and an 
ongoing effort by Iran to enrich uranium; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
(C) the reported proliferation of BM-25 in-
termediate range ballistic missiles from North 
Korea to Iran; and 
(D) the reported January 2007 test by 
Syria of Scud-D short-range ballistic missiles; 
(2) the United States must have the capability to 
defend its homeland and forward-deployed military 
forces against the threats highlighted in paragraph 
(1); 
(3) the United States is committed to working 
with its allies to obtain the capability to defend our 
broader national security interests against ballistic 
missile threats highlighted in paragraph (1); 
(4) as specified in the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, ‘‘It 
is the policy of the United States that the Department 
of Defense accord priority within the missile defense 
program to the development, testing, fielding, and im-
provement of effective near-term missile defense capa-
bilities, including the ground-based midcourse defense 
system, the Aegis ballistic missile defense system, the 
Patriot PAC-3 system, the Terminal High Altitude 
Area Defense system, and the sensors necessary to 
support such systems.’’; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
03:14 May 12, 2007
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1585.RH
H1585
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS